D&D 4E 4e Tiers & Classes - a different take

[xechnao]

Adventurer levels: gain levels in adventuring classes (think "dungeon" tactical skirmishes).

Social(races) levels: gain levels in power regarding social centers (think "mass combat" strategic rules).

Sage levels: gain levels in ritual powers. (magic rituals rules that have to do with cosmology -rules regarding cosmic powers and adventures).

What do you think?

Would you like a balanced mix of the above tiers all levels (1 to 30) across, just rising from one level to the next in relative power and scope -instead of jumping from one tier to the next in a more distinct gameplay?

Perhaps will this be the a 4e C&C?

 

[xechnao]

A PC group could be something like:

Adventurer Fighter level 9- Social lord with craftsman training (blacksmith) level 2
Adventurer Thief level 5- Social member of secret society level 7
Adventurer Warlock level 7- Sage level 5 - Social priest level 3
Adventurer Monk level 4 - Social Waterdeep family guy level 7

 

[Lackhand]

Adventurer levels: gain levels in adventuring classes (think "dungeon" tactical skirmishes).

Social(races) levels: gain levels in power regarding social centers (think "mass combat" strategic rules).

Sage levels: gain levels in ritual powers. (magic rituals rules that have to do with cosmology -rules regarding cosmic powers and adventures).

What do you think?

Would you like a balanced mix of the above tiers all levels (1 to 30) across, just rising from one level to the next in relative power and scope -instead of jumping from one tier to the next in a more distinct gameplay?

Perhaps will this be the a 4e C&C?

Something similar to this was sort of my hope, too -- class levels, balanced against each other in combat, and profession levels, balanced against each other out of combat. Because if your bard is actually a carpenter, or your ranger a sailor, the rules aren't helping

It'd be too big a change for the system as she is now, I fear.

 

[xechnao]

class levels, balanced against each other in combat.

They needn't care to be the way they are. For example while the fighter melee's the dungeon brute, the sage could try to interact with the mystic glyphs and engage the spirits that haunt them so he can activate their power and control it inside the cave they are inside in a tactical way.

OTOH, while the sage performs a ritual and engages with the summoned demon, the fighter-social lord could be trying to convince curious people out of the tower that gathers red clouds around its top.

 

[Lackhand]

They needn't care to be the way they are. For example while the fighter melee's the dungeon brute, the sage could try to interact with the mystic glyphs and engage the spirits that haunt them so he can activate their power and control it inside the cave they are inside in a tactical way.

OTOH, while the sage performs a ritual and engages with the summoned demon, the fighter-social lord could be trying to convince curious people out of the tower that gathers red clouds around its top.

Read the whole post, it's good for you

Class levels, as a term of art, balanced against each other in combat.
Profession levels, as a term of art, balanced against each other out of combat.

You could use schticks from each in either situation, but I've no objection to a potter wizard or an all-singing, all-dancing fighter.

Oh -- and I'm not sure I'd want a third class of classes (type of classes? Hierarchy of class?) for rituals. It defeats the entire design principle of making world-shaping out-of-combat game-breaking effects be divorced from what-you-can-do-in-a-six-second-combat-round if you can build a character around them and nothing but them.

It'd be far better, I think, to make rituals broadly available and to tie the prerequisites for rituals to character level, access to class features, et cetera.

 

[Jack99]

A PC group could be something like:

Adventurer Fighter level 9- Social lord with craftsman training (blacksmith) level 2
Adventurer Thief level 5- Social member of secret society level 7
Adventurer Warlock level 7- Sage level 5 - Social priest level 3
Adventurer Monk level 4 - Social Waterdeep family guy level 7

Smells like an EQ2 model, or what?

 

[Noinarap]

Adventurer levels: gain levels in adventuring classes (think "dungeon" tactical skirmishes).

Social(races) levels: gain levels in power regarding social centers (think "mass combat" strategic rules).

Sage levels: gain levels in ritual powers. (magic rituals rules that have to do with cosmology -rules regarding cosmic powers and adventures).

What do you think?

Would you like a balanced mix of the above tiers all levels (1 to 30) across, just rising from one level to the next in relative power and scope -instead of jumping from one tier to the next in a more distinct gameplay?

Perhaps will this be the a 4e C&C?

Not to be mean, but how does writing this sort of a system not lead to a 1,000 page PH released in 2015? I'll take a functional, combat-focused system this year instead.

I think if we actually tried to come up with the rules to cover diverse social and crafting situations, we would realize that there were not very many. Also, a robust sailing simulation (for example) just isn't going to be as interesting for the overwhelming majority of D&D players as a robust combat system.

 

[Lackhand]

Smells like an EQ2 model, or what?

It's true, it does. That doesn't make it wrong, though -- and it might convince me to run gestalt for once in my life.

It would also let you definitively balance like-against-like, saying that each party needs (or rather, benefits from having) a Defender, Leader, Striker, and Controller...
... and (campaign dependent) a Crafter, Expert (profession rules; sailors, woodsmen), Sage, Entertainer (perform rules; bards, jesters), Aristocrat, or so on.

And, Noinarap: Yup. That's why I eventually discarded my notion. It'd be neat, because the rules don't need to be nearly as robust as those for Classes, so you could use them as a sort of surrogate Profession/NWP system, but they definitely hurt customizability, and add focus to a very secondary area.

Might make a nice splatbook, but I doubt the interest in it would be very high.

 

[xechnao]

Smells like an EQ2 model, or what?

Haven't ever played EQ.

Not to be mean, but how does writing this sort of a system not lead to a 1,000 page PH released in 2015? I'll take a functional, combat-focused system this year instead.

I think if we actually tried to come up with the rules to cover diverse social and crafting situations, we would realize that there were not very many. Also, a robust sailing simulation (for example) just isn't going to be as interesting for the overwhelming majority of D&D players as a robust combat system.

Focus on the most traditionally basic rpg concepts and add content with supplements.

Tactical combat handbook (instead of PHB).
Cosmic powers-cosmology manual (instead of MM).
Society guide (instead of DMG).

 

[Irda Ranger]

They needn't care to be the way they are. For example while the fighter melee's the dungeon brute, the sage could try to interact with the mystic glyphs and engage the spirits that haunt them so he can activate their power and control it inside the cave they are inside in a tactical way.

OTOH, while the sage performs a ritual and engages with the summoned demon, the fighter-social lord could be trying to convince curious people out of the tower that gathers red clouds around its top.

The 4E devs have a phrase for this: "Taking turns having fun." They think this is bad, and I agree. What ends up happening is Mystic Glyph's player takes a nap on the couch while Fighters are at the table battling orcs; and vice versa when it's "interact with the magic portal" time. Group cohesion breaks down, and you end up going from having a "group" to having individuals who take turns monopolizing the DM's attention.

The Combat Roles also need to be relatively balanced against each other so that what's "challenging" for one PC isn't "death on all sides" for any of the others. Badass Heroes and Scrubs don't mix; the Scrubs die. What I mean by that is that if the Fighter is Level 7, the Wizard and Rogue should be within ~2 levels of that (the actual number may change depending on 4E's power curve).

I would not mind at all a sub-system for handling more advanced social encounters or non-combat skills than what I expect the PHB to provide for. In particular I'd like to see a nice system on mass combat and mass combat-related Skills (Generalship; Grand Strategy; Formation Tactics; Siege Engines; Logistics; Morale; etc.). But whatever your preferred expansion, it has to be transparent to the Classes and Roles presented in the PHB and not interfere with their advancement, or take a character's resources away from their class powers, screwing up the intra-party game balance. If you do that you can't go back to "playing D&D."

Tactical combat handbook (instead of PHB).
Cosmic powers-cosmology manual (instead of M&M).
Society guide (instead of DMG).

This however I can say without reservation is the worst idea I've seen on these boards in the last couple weeks. You need the MM and DMG to play D&D. You do not need a Manual of the Planes or Political Strategy Splatbook to play D&D. They might be really nice supplements for the people who want to run campaigns that focus on this, but you have wandered far from the Core. If the D&D books were published in the order you suggest sales would tank until the MM and DMG deficiencies were remedied (and even then repuational and cash flow issues might mean that 4E simply never recovers).