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.