D&D 4E 4E Retroclone

[Rogo77]

Hi all,

I am trying to convert the 4e system into a dungeon crawler board game engine. I'd like to translate the feel of 4e to a board game as much as possible, knowing that it is not an easy matter.
This requires to simplify all non-combat stuff and make combat faster.
My main concern about combat is to reduce the length of encounters and increase the amount of combats a player can endure before dying or resting. Reducing monster hit points seems to be the solution, but I am quite unsure the way it could affect the balance of the game. Does anybody know if somebody has made an attempt before me?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Don’t know if anyone has done that.

One thing I would change to improve flow is ditch as many of the short-term combat boosts as possible. In my experience, they were simultaneously so short that you were constantly rechecking your combat modifiers AND so weak that they didn’t speed combat much when they took effect.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I am trying to convert the 4e system into a dungeon crawler board game engine. I'd like to translate the feel of 4e to a board game as much as possible, knowing that it is not an easy matter.
This requires to simplify all non-combat stuff and make combat faster.
My main concern about combat is to reduce the length of encounters and increase the amount of combats a player can endure before dying or resting. Reducing monster hit points seems to be the solution, but I am quite unsure the way it could affect the balance of the game. Does anybody know if somebody has made an attempt before me?

Start by looking at dungeon crawl board games. Lots of them. See what makes them work, what you like, what you don't like, etc. The best ones, IMO, have efficient mechanics that are able to have more than one purpose. I recommend Journeys in Middle Earth to see how exploration and combat are handled, as well as the unique mechanics designed to give player decisions and strategies more weight.

Hit points are a real sticking point here. 4th edition used very high amounts, arguably too high. So either the hit points should be reduced overall, or the damage outputs need to be increased, or a combination of both. Damage alone is not the only factor, however. If you use d20 for attack rolls, there's always a higher probability of missing attacks and failing to cause damage on a turn.

In my own project, I have been leaning towards a different mechanic using a bell curve roll (3d6). The idea is that attacks are more consistent to hit the mark, but normal damage is still minor. The real trick is rolling criticals for extra damage and activating effects. This is done by rolling high doubles (i.e. two 4s, 5s, or 6s). There is also a critical fumble aspect rolling double 3s, 2s, or 1s, but that's another deal altogether.

Thing is, my approach will change a lot of the built-in mechanics of the system. I can't explain everything in brief without raising a lot of questions and doubts. That's also why a lot of clones and projects by others don't work for me. But I firmly believe that 4e has always had a great framework for a game system buried beneath the bulging layers of predetermined expectations fueled by an entrenched fan base. Take away the D&D name and you could make it whatever you want, and it would be better for it.

So, not any real advice to give here, but I hope you see this as encouragement. Otherwise someone else should be along with something you can use. Good luck.

 

[Rogo77]

Start by looking at dungeon crawl board games. Lots of them. See what makes them work, what you like, what you don't like, etc. The best ones, IMO, have efficient mechanics that are able to have more than one purpose. I recommend Journeys in Middle Earth to see how exploration and combat are handled, as well as the unique mechanics designed to give player decisions and strategies more weight.

Hit points are a real sticking point here. 4th edition used very high amounts, arguably too high. So either the hit points should be reduced overall, or the damage outputs need to be increased, or a combination of both. Damage alone is not the only factor, however. If you use d20 for attack rolls, there's always a higher probability of missing attacks and failing to cause damage on a turn.

In my own project, I have been leaning towards a different mechanic using a bell curve roll (3d6). The idea is that attacks are more consistent to hit the mark, but normal damage is still minor. The real trick is rolling criticals for extra damage and activating effects. This is done by rolling high doubles (i.e. two 4s, 5s, or 6s). There is also a critical fumble aspect rolling double 3s, 2s, or 1s, but that's another deal altogether.

Thing is, my approach will change a lot of the built-in mechanics of the system. I can't explain everything in brief without raising a lot of questions and doubts. That's also why a lot of clones and projects by others don't work for me. But I firmly believe that 4e has always had a great framework for a game system buried beneath the bulging layers of predetermined expectations fueled by an entrenched fan base. Take away the D&D name and you could make it whatever you want, and it would be better for it.

So, not any real advice to give here, but I hope you see this as encouragement. Otherwise someone else should be along with something you can use. Good luck.

Thanks for you answer. I contains some interesting points. I guess using only a die for attacking gives a fair possibility of fail, but attack modifiers tend to be high, so hit chances can be controlled. What it worries me is that 4e monsters and players have a lot of hp, so combats have many rounds. Many rounds mean many dice throws, so extreme dice results effects are attenuated in a pool of average results. If I reduce hit points, or increase damage and as a result combat rounds are reduced, extreme dice results will have more weight, and the combat system might become quite unpredictable. I imagine the system is beautifully crafted as it is, and escalate down some stats could ruin the balance.
I observed that most of dungeon crawler board games have monsters and players with few hp, and low numbers for damage. To convert 4e to this territory seems quite difficult, it would imply a lot of work and I even doubt if it is doable.
So I will try only to halve monster hps and leave the rest as it is. I will see if combats last less and PCs are able to fight more combats, and specially if balance is preserved (by doubling combat encounters). But I have to see how to manage encounter powers and short/long rests.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I guess using only a die for attacking gives a fair possibility of fail, but attack modifiers tend to be high, so hit chances can be controlled. What it worries me is that 4e monsters and players have a lot of hp, so combats have many rounds. Many rounds mean many dice throws, so extreme dice results effects are attenuated in a pool of average results.

When you use the d20 as your primary mechanic, all bets are off. Attenuation requires a much larger pool to attain that median average. You're basically giving the game over to chance and lucky rolls. A night of "bad dice" can greatly undermine player (or DM) strategies and choices. Not saying you can't use it, just be aware of how it affects the game.

If I reduce hit points, or increase damage and as a result combat rounds are reduced, extreme dice results will have more weight, and the combat system might become quite unpredictable.

Again, its the d20 that keeps things unpredictable. It's a feature for some, and a flaw for others.

I imagine the system is beautifully crafted as it is, and escalate down some stats could ruin the balance.

But there are ways to do it. Remove the half-level bonus, for example. That should bring everything down evenly, but you'll want to test it out for all 30 levels to make sure.

I observed that most of dungeon crawler board games have monsters and players with few hp, and low numbers for damage. To convert 4e to this territory seems quite difficult, it would imply a lot of work and I even doubt if it is doable.

Anything worth doing right is going to require a lot of work. There are simple fixes that work, but these are just adjustments rather than revisions or major changes.

So I will try only to halve monster hps and leave the rest as it is. I will see if combats last less and PCs are able to fight more combats, and specially if balance is preserved (by doubling combat encounters). But I have to see how to manage encounter powers and short/long rests.

That's a very common fix, and many are happy with it. You can always add more monsters to an encounter if its too easy, or double the damage dealt if its still too long. You can also adjust the encounter building guides so that normal encounters are Party Level +1 or +2, and scale from there. The beauty of 4e is that it is very easy to scale. But if this is the only thing you're going to do, then you're only making an adjustment and not much is changed.

 

[Rogo77]

When you use the d20 as your primary mechanic, all bets are off. Attenuation requires a much larger pool to attain that median average. You're basically giving the game over to chance and lucky rolls. A night of "bad dice" can greatly undermine player (or DM) strategies and choices. Not saying you can't use it, just be aware of how it affects the game.

Again, its the d20 that keeps things unpredictable. It's a feature for some, and a flaw for others.

But there are ways to do it. Remove the half-level bonus, for example. That should bring everything down evenly, but you'll want to test it out for all 30 levels to make sure.

Anything worth doing right is going to require a lot of work. There are simple fixes that work, but these are just adjustments rather than revisions or major changes.

That's a very common fix, and many are happy with it. You can always add more monsters to an encounter if its too easy, or double the damage dealt if its still too long. You can also adjust the encounter building guides so that normal encounters are Party Level +1 or +2, and scale from there. The beauty of 4e is that it is very easy to scale. But if this is the only thing you're going to do, then you're only making an adjustment and not much is changed.

3d6 as an alternative to 1d20? I will think about it. Middle results are more probable, I guess it is more difficult to fail and attack, then, for both monsters and players. We are reducing the fail chance and focusing the luck factor on damage rolls.
In any case, I am trying to build a combat statistical model in Excel, but I am not an expert in statistics at all. I am calculating the damage amount a creature can deliver per round (hit chance*average damage) and Hit points. Hit chance depends on die result, CA and attack modifier. I don't know if this way to represent a combat is comprehensive enough. I think it is useful for looooong combats, but short combats might be unpredictable for this model. In addition, there are some powers and abilities that are hard to reflect in "hit chance" or "average damage" variables.

 

[overgeeked]

Hi all,

I am trying to convert the 4e system into a dungeon crawler board game engine. I'd like to translate the feel of 4e to a board game as much as possible, knowing that it is not an easy matter.
This requires to simplify all non-combat stuff and make combat faster.
My main concern about combat is to reduce the length of encounters and increase the amount of combats a player can endure before dying or resting. Reducing monster hit points seems to be the solution, but I am quite unsure the way it could affect the balance of the game. Does anybody know if somebody has made an attempt before me?

Thanks in advance.

Well, pick up a few of the D&D dungeon crawl board games based on 4E and see what they did. Off the top of my head, not much.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

3d6 as an alternative to 1d20? I will think about it. Middle results are more probable, I guess it is more difficult to fail and attack, then, for both monsters and players. We are reducing the fail chance and focusing the luck factor on damage rolls.

I've actually playtested it. The combat rounds were significantly reduced, and the players generally enjoyed having good tactics rewarded. But it still requires more work, however, as there are things in the system that will need to be adjusted. So that is just a first step.

2d20 could also work, but there's some differences that would need to be addressed. For instance, rolling 'doubles' would be a lot harder to hit and thus less frequent. Any other variations of dice pools just gets too far away from the base line and creates more issues.

In any case, I am trying to build a combat statistical model in Excel, but I am not an expert in statistics at all. I am calculating the damage amount a creature can deliver per round (hit chance*average damage) and Hit points. Hit chance depends on die result, CA and attack modifier. I don't know if this way to represent a combat is comprehensive enough. I think it is useful for looooong combats, but short combats might be unpredictable for this model. In addition, there are some powers and abilities that are hard to reflect in "hit chance" or "average damage" variables.

Try not to focus too much on probabilities (unless you're really good at it). I'd look at more general guideline for expectations.

For example, a party of five level one characters should be able to land hit every round for about 10 points of damage, or 50 total. (I'm just making these up for easier illustration). Also, you should account for encounter powers, which typically do twice the damage. So at first level, every character has at least one of these to account for 20 extra damage each in an encounter, or 100 total.

If your average encounter is five level 1 monsters, how long do you think an average encounter should last? Let's say 5 rounds if the party uses only basic and at-wills only. So the party should be able to drop 1 monster each round. So the average (standard) monster should have about 50 hps. But we expect players to use encounter powers, which will make things go quicker and reduce combat to about 3-4 rounds. Maybe even 2. These are good numbers IMO.

The thing to remember is this is just a base line projection of an average encounter. Harder ones will take a little longer, and easier ones will be even quicker. If you use the math and follow the guidelines as written, everything should theoretically fall into place. The math works. Don't exert more pressure to control everything. Let it flow.

 

[Zardnaar]

Not a 4E fan but game theory is somewhat interesting.

I would do a list of universal powers and build the system around basic attacks.

The classes then modify those basic attacks. Some things can be restricted by class or what have you.

Kind of like star wars saga force powers.

Focus on 3 or 5 levels, 4 classes get something playable produced. Use 5E terminology. Encounter powers refresh after 1 minute.

Classes are fairly simple. Striker add extra damage to whatever effect, leaders get riders etc.

Feats get overhauled use 5E as a baseline. Eliminate most +1 bonuses.

Healing surges probably less of them and make it a hit dice roll kinda like 5E fighter ability but everyone gets them. Some classes get more than others obviously. Add an extra dice to them each point of proficiency bonus.

Eg a fighter gets 1d10+level. At 5th level 2d10, 9th level 3d10.+9. Or fixed rate with rolling as optional ability eg fighter 6+level with additional 6 at levels 5, 9 etc.

Reduced the classes down to two- 3 pages and powers in powers chapter. Class section includes what power each class can select.

Once you get that foundation down you can expand it. More classes, more levels.

 

[Rogo77]

Very interesting, these are useful ideas. I agree with you about 3-5 levels as much.
My idea however is to take advantage of 4e classes, powers, monsters, etc., which is a fantastic work, and make some tweaks to convert it into a board game.
But maybe it is better to build the game from scratch inspiring in D&D.
I think D&D adventure series are not so close to D&D, in my opinion these games are too much simple and I expected something different. I understand that in marketing terms to release a pure D&D in board game form maybe it didn't make sense for WotC.
It is possible I have to accept that the game has to be built from scratch, and there is a lot of (nice) work in front of me.

 

[Kariotis]

It's always said that 4e had good maths, but has someone ever tried to reverse engineer it? In the end they must've been using some kind of algorithm to come up with monster defenses, hit points and the damage powers do at a given level. Looking at that math in concrete formulas would be extremely interesting.

 

[Composer99]

I can't speak to PC-side math, but IIRC 4e monster math, as of MM3, can be just about reduced to a business card. Literally: Monster Manual 3 on a business card.

 

[darkbard]

Here's a good thread on the topic: Benchmarks

 

[Undrave]

-Related to the last bullet, some options were just bad for no reason. This could extend to entire classes. Where older classes (especially Wizards) kept getting great support, you couldn't say the same for Wardens, Seekers, Assassins, Sorcerers, Swordmages, etc..

Of the latter day classes I think the Warden was INCREDIBLY good and pretty darn cool. It was a living black hole on the battlefield, nothing could escape it. And the Swordmage was fairly popular. I dunno if the expensions in the various power books were on the same level, mind you.

For example, healing surges could be more useful as a player resource if it did more than just recharge hit points. As written, players only needed to decide how many to burn before the next rest based on their character's health (i.e. remaining hit points). In my experience, it was rare for any of my players to actually run out of healing surges before their next long rest. They would typically often run out of daily powers first, which forced them to look for that long rest opportunity instead, and consequently recharge their surges in the process.

Now imagine if they had the option to spend some of those surges to recharge one of their powers. Or if surges were required to use your strongest abilities. Players will need to make more tactical decisions regarding how they manage their resource as a group. Do they save their last surges to stay in the fight? Or expend them on a powerful attack which could be the difference between victory and defeat?

I always thought it would be interesting to have a game with a Stamina system, where stamina could be spent on all sorts of things, such as powerful attacks (wether they be mundane OR magical, I'm personally a big fan of caster types expending their own body's energy as they use magic) or expended to buff your defenses. In such a system, I'd see HP as being pretty low, because you could spend your stamina turning hits into misses.

I guess the first decision will be if this will be a retroclone or not? I would be hesitant to make a number of mechanical changes if the idea is to revive the 4e ecosystem. The "4e but better" things can probably wait until that's established. I don't even really think a "fixed 4e" would be viable without establishing a baseline clone that brings everything into line under the OGL and you start seeing interest in the space.

Another thing that was brought up in the thread was the character builder. Here there is a conundrum. By not making mechanical changes you make character creation a bit onerous and perhaps overwhelming without also having some sort of character builder utility available.

Every attempt to make a minimalistic 4e clone I've seen over the past 9-10 years has generally bogged down because a) the core system has a lot of crunch and b) the urge to tweak it to fix those obvious issues means the project becomes an evolution, not a clone.

I've been thinking about it myself, and rather than recrete 4e as it was I would really like to just zero-in on the pure elements of 4e that I really enjoyed, and see about streamlining them mechanically while keeping the rough feel of it. I don't, for exemple, really need my characters to have a boatload of different powers. Just enough for customization, with less levels where you pick stuff, maybe handing out some passive buffs instead to pad out the progression. I'd probably cut class-based utility powers and just have everybody pick Skill Powers instead so there's a smaller pool of those. They also wouldn't be level-gated so it would just be up to preference what you want to pick when.

I know I'd lean more into the identity of each power sources, each having it own unique 'Thing', and try to develop a proper Controller basic power to give the role more bite.

 

[GreyLord]

Hi all,

I am trying to convert the 4e system into a dungeon crawler board game engine. I'd like to translate the feel of 4e to a board game as much as possible, knowing that it is not an easy matter.
This requires to simplify all non-combat stuff and make combat faster.
My main concern about combat is to reduce the length of encounters and increase the amount of combats a player can endure before dying or resting. Reducing monster hit points seems to be the solution, but I am quite unsure the way it could affect the balance of the game. Does anybody know if somebody has made an attempt before me?

Thanks in advance.

Look at the D&D adventure Board Game system (Wrath of Ashardalon, etc...especially Dungeon of the Mad Mage as it goes up to level 4) for inspiration on how it could be done.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Look at the D&D adventure Board Game system (Wrath of Ashardalon, etc...especially Dungeon of the Mad Mage as it goes up to level 4) for inspiration on how it could be done.

Didn't they sort of "un-4e" the later ones? Like, when they got rid of the 4e trade dress and tied them into 5e APs? I remember playing the Tomb of Annihilation one and it was notably different in rules and terminology then the earlier ones I had played like Wrath of Ashardolon and the Drizzt one.

 

[GreyLord]

Didn't they sort of "un-4e" the later ones? Like, when they got rid of the 4e trade dress and tied them into 5e APs? I remember playing the Tomb of Annihilation one and it was notably different in rules and terminology then the earlier ones I had played like Wrath of Ashardolon and the Drizzt one.

Tomb of Annihilation (and Ghosts of Saltmarsh) were ones I didn't get, so I don't know on those. Dungeon of the Mad Mage seems basically like the older ones though and goes up to level 4. You have your character, you select your powers, and you go.

 

[Undrave]

So a random thought came to me... one of the biggest problem of 4e is the stacking of effects, positive and negatives. I think everything should be classified as either a buff, a debuff or a condition and a character/monster could only ever have 1 of each ('Marked' would go into the debuff category instead of condition). Conditions would be arranged in a sort of hierarchy (with maybe positive conditions being a thing?) and so the worst one would always be the one applied. You could keep conditions et al. on cards to make it easier to keep track.

And, I think all of them should just be 'save end', including the positive ones! I'd probably modify the save number of positive ones so they're skewed to last longer (If I didn't want to simplify things I would make it so Leader can make buffs more difficult to lose and Controllers inflict penalty to shake off their conditions). No counting of turns.