4E Muscles, BD&D Bones

[SSquirrel]

Set Aside - racial classes and racial level limits. Why, these are mechanics mainly to give the human/demi-human mixes a certain default flavor. You can encourage that flavor without hard limits and get most of the bang.

Set Aside - highly tactical game widgets. This is counter to the spirt of the "strategic" aspect of RC play, at least in practice. And besides, we haven't had a D&D version that really went after strategic play since 1E.

Level and class limits in early editions are crap. I was very glad when D&D finally let that die. I do wonder what game you have been playing if there hasn't been strategic play since 1E. Maybe we aren't using the same meaning here, but there was a heckuva lotta strategy and tactics in my 3E group and in the Dark Sun 4E game I was playing in recently.

Ah. So your 4-3-2 could actually cast 9-0-0 in a day if it wanted, then? This isn't something I do - you can't change slot levels like that.

I would say the easiest route is just a simple spell point system. Each spell per day gives you one spell point per level of spell. So 4/3/2 for L1/2/3 spells would mean (4*1)+(3*2)+(2*3)=16. If you want to cast 16 magic missles go for it. 5 fireballs will do a lot of damage and probably save your butt, but then you only have 1 1st level spell left. This method also would mean you know all the spells in your personal spellbook and there is no fire and forget. This may slide away from the original intention, but it makes things easier for the players.

Also, another gem from 1e: x.p. for a successfully avoided encounter are to be given as if the encounter was defeated (the risk must be known and steps must be taken to avoid it; getting past an opponent you never know about doesn't count). Here's where your Thieves and sneaks can shine!

Isn't that rule back again in 4E? can't remember if it was a part of 3E, but I'm fairly sure that is standard in 4E now.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I do wonder what game you have been playing if there hasn't been strategic play since 1E. Maybe we aren't using the same meaning here, but there was a heckuva lotta strategy and tactics in my 3E group and in the Dark Sun 4E game I was playing in recently.

"Operational" play would be a better word for what was played up in 1E and earlier, but not so much since. But people often mean that when they talk about "strategic" play in D&D. It isn't building your character. It isn't tactics, or such choices in an encounter. Rather, it is the whole business of conserving resources, avoiding encounters that don't pay off well versus what it takes to overcome them, a bag of holding being important for what you take into the dungeon (N vials of oil, a 10' pole, etc.)

 

[Lanefan]

I would say the easiest route is just a simple spell point system. Each spell per day gives you one spell point per level of spell. So 4/3/2 for L1/2/3 spells would mean (4*1)+(3*2)+(2*3)=16. If you want to cast 16 magic missles go for it. 5 fireballs will do a lot of damage and probably save your butt, but then you only have 1 1st level spell left. This method also would mean you know all the spells in your personal spellbook and there is no fire and forget. This may slide away from the original intention, but it makes things easier for the players.

I had that system - well, something very similar; yours is even more generous - for about 25 years. It's exactly what I'm trying to get away from, as at higher levels (about 7th-plus) it breaks the game.


Lan-"if it ain't broke I can't fix it"-efan

 

[Dausuul]

So, on the subject of giving the other classes "better than normal" versions of things normal people can do:

For fighters, this sounds like a great resolution to a problem I'd been mulling over, which is that most of my ideas for weapon maneuvers sounded pretty dull--basically, "You do damage just like you always do, but now you do more of it." So, I'm thinking of replacing the fighter maneuvers with a parallel to thief talents, something like this:

• Open Doors: You are an expert at breaking down doors, lifting portcullises, and bending bars. In 2d6 minutes, you can reliably break down a wooden door, snap wooden bars, or lift a small (5-foot) portcullis. This is not a quiet process. Advanced: Stone door, iron bars, 10-foot portcullis, magical barrier (requires an attack roll versus AC 20 + spell level; no re-try). Expert: Iron door, 20-foot portcullis.
• Improvised Siegecraft: You and your allies can improvise fortifications in the field. Under your direction, when building fortifications, each laborer (including you) counts as two trained workers, and the crudest tools and raw materials (trees, rubble, and the like) are considered quality supplies. Improvised construction collapses or falls apart after a few weeks and is not suitable for long-term use. [Details on fortifications will be in the equipment chapter, or possibly a section on siege warfare.] Advanced: You can build siege equipment and machinery, and each laborer counts as three. Expert: Each laborer counts as four. Furthermore, when building non-improvised fortifications and siege equipment, each laborer counts as two.
• Skirmishing: You have learned to fight effectively in light armor. You get +2 to your AC when wearing leather or no armor, +1 when wearing chain, and +1 when your off hand is empty or holding a weapon. Advanced: +2 when your off hand is holding a weapon, or +3 when wearing leather or no armor. Expert: +2 when your off hand is holding a weapon, and +3 when wearing leather or no armor.
• Swift March: You are skilled at picking the best route across country, keeping mounts in peak condition, and stretching supplies to the limit. Under your direction, a group traveling overland moves 50% faster than it otherwise would, and its supplies last 50% longer. Advanced: Double speed, and supplies last twice as long. Expert: Triple speed, and supplies last three times as long.
• Runner: You are a natural sprinter, very dangerous over short distances. Your base speed increases by 5 feet. Advanced: 10 feet. Expert: 20 feet.
• Swift Healing: You heal at twice the normal speed, and effects that restore your life points grant twice as many. Advanced: Three times. Expert: Four times.
• Improved Grab: [Specifics will depend on how the grab rules end up working, but the basic idea is that you can grab onto enemies and be very hard to dislodge. I base this talent on having more than once observed a PC fighter try to jump onto a flying dragon, hold on with one hand, and stab it with the other. I feel that this move is awesome enough to justify explicit rules support. Of course, it can lead to problems when the dragon dies and its wings stop moving, but such are the risks of being an adventurer.]

As for normal people having some spellcasting ability... how about a couple of talents for both fighters and thieves that look like this?

• Arcane Training: You have learned the basics of arcane spellcasting. You have a spellbook containing 2 cantrips, and you are able to cast them as a 1st-level magic-user. Advanced: Your spellbook can now contain 3 cantrips and 1 1st-level spell. You have one 1st-level spell slot. Expert: Your spellbook can now contain 4 cantrips, 2 1st-level spells, and 1 2nd-level spell*. You have two 1st-level spell slots and one 2nd-level spell slot.
• Divine Training: You have learned the basics of divine spellcasting. (Same basic idea.)

This would let fighters and thieves dabble in magic a bit, without threatening the M-U's dominance in the arcane or the cleric's dominance in the divine.

[size=-2]*Since Expert is not available until level 12+, you don't get access to 2nd-level spells until the party wizard is casting 5th-level ones.[/size]

 

[pemerton]

Dausuul, of your fighter ideas there I like Runner and Open Door (although I'd replace the phrase "you are an expert at . . ." with something more like "you are bollockingly strong and can . . ."). Improved Grab looks like it could be good to.

Improvised Siegecraft and Swift March I'm less sure about, as they tap into elements of the game (expenditure, large scale movement and combat) which are often a bit handwave-y anyway - how useful is it to be able to finesse a handwave in a certain fashion? If you're planning for these parts of the game to be less handwave-y and mechanically more tightly defined, then they would be better, although I'd be cautious of abilities that are essentially resource-multipliers (gps, in the case of these feats).

The same worry about resource multiplication applies to Swift Healing. It might be an auto-take (for example, it seems to be a multiplier for three or four possible resources: gps used to buy healing; magic items that heal; spells that heal; time used to heal).

Skirmisher seems OK in principle, but I'm not sure on its particular logic here - what is the rationale for making a fighter pay PC build resources to be able to approximate Chain or Plate AC +shield while wearing lighter armour? Is there a speed/skill penalty for wearing armour?

I feel a bit bad being so critical of some of these ideas, given the work you're putting in, but I think the resource multiplication thing in particular can be a potential game breaker (or at least a pretty proud nail). Ideas for other abilities that might not have the problem: some sort of jumping; some sort of animal handling/riding; some sort of ability that improves morale of retainers and hirelings (this also affects resources, but maybe in a less game-y fashion that is closer to the core idea of a D&D fighter).

 

[Dausuul]

Improvised Siegecraft and Swift March I'm less sure about, as they tap into elements of the game (expenditure, large scale movement and combat) which are often a bit handwave-y anyway - how useful is it to be able to finesse a handwave in a certain fashion?

The point of Improvised Siegecraft is to enable a party of player characters to bang together some crude fortifications, and eventually even siege equipment, while adventuring. For example, a party on an expedition to a dungeon in a dangerous wilderness could quickly throw up a fortified camp; and any party that can't think up a clever use for a catapult ought to be shot out of one. Perhaps I should make that clearer in the description--and specify that there is no gold piece cost. Originally I had a list of stuff you could build, but the list was getting overly long, so I decided to put it in the equipment section and add a reference.

The usefulness of Swift March is campaign-specific, true, but there are enough times when a party needs to Get Somewhere Fast that it seems worth having to me. (The extension of the party's supplies is probably excessive.)

The same worry about resource multiplication applies to Swift Healing. It might be an auto-take (for example, it seems to be a multiplier for three or four possible resources: gps used to buy healing; magic items that heal; spells that heal; time used to heal).

Yeah, you're likely right on this one; the concern that Swift Healing might become a must-pick (talent tax?) is probably well-founded. I had a talent that let you sleep in armor without penalty and got rid of it for the same reason; every fighter would take that one as a matter of course.

Skirmisher seems OK in principle, but I'm not sure on its particular logic here - what is the rationale for making a fighter pay PC build resources to be able to approximate Chain or Plate AC +shield while wearing lighter armour? Is there a speed/skill penalty for wearing armour?

Speed penalties for armor are traditional. For a skill penalty, I'm not sure but am inclined that way, since it's also traditional to have guys in heavy armor have trouble sneaking. Finally, there's the sheer encumbrance of all that metal to consider.

Ideas for other abilities that might not have the problem: some sort of jumping; some sort of animal handling/riding; some sort of ability that improves morale of retainers and hirelings (this also affects resources, but maybe in a less game-y fashion that is closer to the core idea of a D&D fighter).

Good ideas, definitely.

 

[Dausuul]

Working on clerics, I decided I needed to tackle alignment first. *dons fireproof underwear*

Alignment is one of the thornier issues to plague D&D. On the one hand, it's a common theme in fantasy that cosmic forces are associated with an ethos, and that this ethos has a direct manifestation in the world. I would like to capture some of that. On the other hand, translating this concept into game mechanics leads to a lot of headaches. You get DMs "policing" PC behavior, PCs trying to fit their behavior to an alignment instead of a personality, confusion as to what constitutes a given alignment, et cetera.

So, my thinking was that alignment ought to be what it says (and what I'm told it originally was)--an indication of which side you're aligned with, saying nothing about how you personally behave.

Alignment: A creature's alignment indicates whether it is strongly associated with the forces of Law or Chaos. Beings aligned with Law are called "Lawful," and those aligned with Chaos are "Chaotic." All others are "Neutral." (Alignment has nothing to do with the creature's behavior, only its origins or beliefs.)

• Lawful Creatures: Clerics and other devoted followers of Lawful deities; archons; metallic dragons*.
• Chaotic Creatures: Clerics and other strong adherents of Chaotic deities; daimons; chromatic dragons*; undead.
• Neutral Creatures: Everything else.

Thus, PCs will be Neutral by default. Clerics and those with strong religious convictions will be Lawful or Chaotic as appropriate.

Lawful Deities: Lawful deities seek to build and strengthen communities. As the name implies, they create codes of law and expect their followers to obey them. Some such codes are benevolent and fair, while others are cruelly oppressive. Lawful deities also place great importance on the natural order of the world, and punish those who violate it. Undead, for instance, are anathema to almost all Lawful temples. Clerics of Lawful deities are charged with carrying out their gods' laws and opposing the powers of Chaos, and can call on their fellow believers for support.

Chaotic Deities: Chaotic deities seek to empower individuals. They have little respect for community, and reward the bold and cunning; to them, the laws of mortals and nature are not rules to live by, but challenges to overcome. Some raise up heroes who stand alone against the might of empires. Others create villains who lay waste to nations in pursuit of glory. Clerics of Chaotic deities are given power to use as they see fit, but are then expected to make their own way. To fail is to lose favor in the eyes of one's god.

Neutral Deities: Most Neutral deities have little interest in mortals and their struggles. They are busy with other concerns, such as the weaving of fate or the bringing of death. For the most part, they have no clerics. The few who do, grant powers for their own enigmatic purposes.

There will be a standard list of Lawful powers, which tend to have a "light" theme, and Chaotic powers, which have a "dark" theme. If your DM does not provide a specific list of deities, you pick your cleric's granted powers from the list matching your alignment. Individual deities can have their own power lists, mixing and matching as appropriate. The powers are not generally mirror images--for example, punishing people for being a different alignment is a Lawful thing, so there would be a Smite Chaos but no corresponding Smite Law.

[size=-2]*Not yet decided on whether to have color-coded dragons, but it is customary.[/size]

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I like the spellcasting options for non-casters, though I think the main thing is that they be able to use low-level items normally requiring casting ability. If a character with those options can use a wand of cure light wounds, it's all good.

...Skirmisher seems OK in principle, but I'm not sure on its particular logic here - what is the rationale for making a fighter pay PC build resources to be able to approximate Chain or Plate AC +shield while wearing lighter armour? Is there a speed/skill penalty for wearing armour?

I feel a bit bad being so critical of some of these ideas, given the work you're putting in, but I think the resource multiplication thing in particular can be a potential game breaker (or at least a pretty proud nail). Ideas for other abilities that might not have the problem: some sort of jumping; some sort of animal handling/riding; some sort of ability that improves morale of retainers and hirelings (this also affects resources, but maybe in a less game-y fashion that is closer to the core idea of a D&D fighter).

I agree that you are on the right track, and that Pemerton is directing you down that road. The conversation so far as led me to believe that myth is where you look for these abilities for fighters (and probably for casters as well). Skimirsher is too narrow for what the name suggests, and it violates the principle that it provides abilities that normal people can't do. Anyone can wear amor, and getting a bit of a boost out of leather is not the heart of a real-world skimirsher, much less a mythical one.

So I think this ties back into the main system, again. Make default rules that are a little gritty, a little realistic, when it comes to trying to move around in a melee. This will make wizards loathe to get into melee, and thieves avoiding dogpiles. Then a skirmisher gets to violate those rules. And maybe skirmisher is something that thieves can take, too.

Likewise, "jumping" is too narrow. "Athletic" is a better fit. Conan would take this. This guy can swim better, jump better, etc. Normal people can't swim in armor. Heroic athletes can.

Animal Handling/Riding could be rolled into "Beast Master", but here I think Pemerton's original has the scale about right. Plus, those two concepts are sufficiently broad and robust to have some mythic resonance all by themselves. Anyone can train a horse or dog. A heroic animal handler trains griffens. Anyone can learn to ride, even in combat. A heroic rider stands on a galloping horse and fights. If a character really needed both, they could take both.

The "Leader of Men" idea is perfect, and might be a (later level) option for clerics, too.

An opposite of the "Leader of Men" is something in the intimidation sphere. This guy doesn't inspire people to follow exactly, but he does "encourage" them to get out of his way. Many Clint Eastwood characters have this trait. A guy with both makes an interesting twist.

"Noble" in the character sense, not just for landed gentry, is another variation. King Arthur is a "Leader of Men" and "Noble", but Galahad is "Noble" by itself.

Rather than "Swift Healing", I'd maybe look at something like "Berserk" or "Steadfast". These are characters that just won't go down easy, when they should by all rights. Boromir has something like this (though neither of those labels really fits him--so something is off a bit). If this kind of character doesn't get healing, and swiftly, when they've pushed the ability hard, they may be dead in short order. Just not easily while they go after the immediate goal they have.

 

[Dausuul]

So I think this ties back into the main system, again. Make default rules that are a little gritty, a little realistic, when it comes to trying to move around in a melee. This will make wizards loathe to get into melee, and thieves avoiding dogpiles. Then a skirmisher gets to violate those rules. And maybe skirmisher is something that thieves can take, too.

Urk. I'm very, very, very reluctant to add rules that substantially restrict PC mobility in melee. First, it makes for static combats, and static combats are boring. A PC who wants to move to a new location, changing the dynamic of the battle, should be able--nay, encouraged--to do so.

Second, making it hard to retreat when the battle turns against you is Bad. Part of the core of old-school D&D is "Know when to walk away, and know when to run." In my experience, PCs are by nature reluctant to run, even without the rules punishing them for it. They don't need more incentives to stand and fight to the death.

Third, it makes the combat rules that much more complicated, in order to facilitate a single fighter talent.

Skirmisher is meant to enable the archetype of the lightly armored fighter--the bare-chested barbarian or rapier-wielding duelist--while still imposing a cost, so there's a reason why most fighters wear heavy armor. The simplest way to do that is to allow the lightly armored fighter a "feat" to get an AC comparable to, if not quite equal to, the guy in plate. Maybe you lose the bonus if knocked prone or prevented from moving.

Animal Handling/Riding could be rolled into "Beast Master", but here I think Pemerton's original has the scale about right. Plus, those two concepts are sufficiently broad and robust to have some mythic resonance all by themselves. Anyone can train a horse or dog. A heroic animal handler trains griffens. Anyone can learn to ride, even in combat. A heroic rider stands on a galloping horse and fights. If a character really needed both, they could take both.

Very good stuff here. I'll certainly develop these.

The "Leader of Men" idea is perfect, and might be a (later level) option for clerics, too.

Morale booster, eh? Hmm. Morale is such a tricky business to implement... still, it does have potential. And I like the basic concept.

An opposite of the "Leader of Men" is something in the intimidation sphere. This guy doesn't inspire people to follow exactly, but he does "encourage" them to get out of his way. Many Clint Eastwood characters have this trait. A guy with both makes an interesting twist.

Well, if there are going to be morale rules, this would be another obvious application. Ding your enemies' morale rather than boosting your allies'. Although the balance concerns are substantial here--after all, it means you can potentially win an entire battle with one die roll.

Rather than "Swift Healing", I'd maybe look at something like "Berserk" or "Steadfast". These are characters that just won't go down easy, when they should by all rights. Boromir has something like this (though neither of those labels really fits him--so something is off a bit). If this kind of character doesn't get healing, and swiftly, when they've pushed the ability hard, they may be dead in short order. Just not easily while they go after the immediate goal they have.

The simplest way to do this would be to let the PC stay conscious when reduced to zero life points: say, instead of dropping as soon as you fall to zero, you don't go down until your first failed Con check, or until you're reduced to the "auto kill" threshold.

(Although it's worth noting that abilities like this crank up PC mortality considerably. Unconsciousness protects wounded PCs by removing them as targets.)

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Urk. I'm very, very, very reluctant to add rules that substantially restrict PC mobility in melee. First, it makes for static combats, and static combats are boring. A PC who wants to move to a new location, changing the dynamic of the battle, should be able--nay, encouraged--to do so.

Second, making it hard to retreat when the battle turns against you is Bad. Part of the core of old-school D&D is "Know when to walk away, and know when to run." In my experience, PCs are by nature reluctant to run, even without the rules punishing them for it. They don't need more incentives to stand and fight to the death.

Third, it makes the combat rules that much more complicated, in order to facilitate a single fighter talent.

Skirmisher is meant to enable the archetype of the lightly armored fighter--the bare-chested barbarian or rapier-wielding duelist--while still imposing a cost, so there's a reason why most fighters wear heavy armor. The simplest way to do that is to allow the lightly armored fighter a "feat" to get an AC comparable to, if not quite equal to, the guy in plate. Maybe you lose the bonus if knocked prone or prevented from moving.

Ok, if you want to go that route, then I think "Skirmisher" is the wrong label. Skirmishers are on the outskirts of the battle and moving a lot. They also pick at enemies and slow them down. Heroic ones do it in ways that are mythic. It's true that people wanting to do that often wear lighter armor, but that isn't the core of what they do.

Really, the whole special ability thing you have going here is truly worthy of the name "feat"--however much it has been drug into the mundane with 3E and 4E feats. The problem with Skirmisher as written is that it is more like the 3E or 4E versions.

But I'll grant your objections on combat are pertinent. It is a tough balance. I didn't envision something quite as nasty as maybe you did from my post. I'm trying to remember our Basic fights. Basic was pretty mean on mobility, but it wasn't that complicated. I was thinking rather than complicate it, make the simple version somewhat difficult to disengage from melee. But really, you can set the edges anywhere, and the idea will still work--whatever the baseline is, the character with this ability can heroically exceed it.

Of course, the other obvious way to go is the 4E route. Everyone moves fairly easy, but fighters have an ability to pin enemies down somewhat.