All Fours: the Rule of Fours? the Game of Fours?

[steeldragons]

Reminds me of the rule of seven and especially this blog post.

I've also sometimes thought about reducing abilities from 4 to 6. I'd make charisma/persona also be force of will and have Will saves depend on that. Maybe you could come up with something else for Mental(ity). You could also consider having that affect Cleric spellcasting - then each class would have their "own" ability.

An alternative strategy for coming up with four "saves" is unify them with AC. You'd have four defenses: e.g. Physical (normal AC), Dodge (touch AC/reflex save*), Endurance (fortitude save/constitution) and Mental (will save).

*This distinction never did make much sense to me.

I do like that idea. Wasn't really thrilled with meshing Int. and Wis. together. Incorporating "sense of Will" into Persona (which does work) and making that the Cleric-based magic ability works great for me.

Didn't love the term "Mental" either, so let's make that "Smarts." This works as the ability for Magic-users magic ability, "book smarts" and the acquisition of skills (important for everyone, but especially Thieves), as "street smarts."

And thank you for reading my mind and breaking down the 4 Defenses/Saves for me! "Endurance", of course, will have to be linked to Persona (force of will to keep going?), since we don't have a "constitution score", whereas "Mental" would, somewhat clumsily, be linked to "Smarts".

So, Abilities: Strength, Agility, Smarts, Persona

and Defenses (as opposed to "saves"):
Physical (AC): your defense against physical attack. I'm gonna propose your armor and Agility modifier (if any)
Reflex (agility +smarts based): your defense against falling, for dodging attacks and avoiding (or, at least, lessening) area-effects
Mental (smarts + persona based): your defense against mind-effecting magics, "seeing through" illusions, fear and confusion effects
Endurance (strength + persona based): your defense against poisons, physical-effecting magics (polymorph, slow/haste, "death magic" etc.), exhaustion and environmental hazards

As has always been the way, from Basic on through, these are by no means exhaustive in their coverage and DM "best/closest option" adjudications are expected to be made in play. An area effect "mass charm" spell, for example...is it Reflex or is it Mental? DM decides or, if being kind, player uses their best option.

 

[steeldragons]

So, back to PC creation.

"Choose Your Weapons"
To review, weapons presented for starting set/players:

4 Weapon Categories
Swords: Two-handed (d12), Longsword (d8), Scimitar (d8), Short sword (d6)
Bludgeoning: War Hammer (2-handed, d10), Mace (d8), Morningstar (d8), Staff (d6)
Missile (all except sling are 2-handed): Crossbow (d8), Longbow (d6), Shortbow (d6), Sling (d4)
Miscellaneous/Other: Battle Axe (2-handed, d12), Hand Axe or Hammer (d8), Spear (2-handed, d6), Dagger (d4)

You may not wield a shield (add it to your AC) and a 2-handed weapon at the same time.

There's a standard -4 to hit roll if using a weapon in which you are not proficient.

Ok, so:
Fighter: 4 Weapon Proficiencies to start. Gain 1/level.

• Fighters may be proficient with weapons from any Weapon Category.
• Fighters may take 2 slots to "specialize" (+1 to hit and damage) with a melee weapon. They may expend addition slots to increase these bonuses +1/slot to either "to hit" OR "damage" a maximum of +3 in each. (These bonuses apply in addition to the PC's Strength bonus, if any.)

Thief: 3 Weapon Proficiencies. Gain 1 every other level (3rd, 5th, etc.).

• Thieves may be proficient in any Missile Weapon and any single-handed weapons.
• Thieves may take 2 slots to specialize in any Missile Weapon (+1 to hit and damage). This bonus cannot be increased beyond 1 but is added to any Agility modifiers (to hit with missile weapons)

Cleric: 2 Weapon Proficiencies. Gain 1 every other level.

• Clerics may only use weapons from the Bludgeoning List or single-handed Hammers (from the Misc. List).

Magic-user: 1 Weapon Proficiency to start. Gain 1 every 3 levels (4th, 7th, etc.)
MUs have no interest in the use of arms and may only become proficient with the simplest following weapons: Staff, Dagger, Sling

Conversely, I'm thinking for (Non-Weapon) Skills will be gathered as follows:
Magic-user: 4 to start +1 every level
Cleric: 3 to start +1 every other level
Thief: 2 to start +1 every level
Fighter: 1 to start +1 every other level

I'll start outlining my 4-blocks for "Skills" (which I'm basically thinking of as a big ole mish-mash of old Non-Weapon Proficiencies, Skills and Feats) in the next post.

 

[steeldragons]

All Fours Skills

For the purposes of this thread and the presentation of this fictional "new D&D" design, "Skills" refers to non-weapon abilities that overlap several previous edition concepts from "Secondary Skills" to "Feats".

They will be categorized and broken up, naturally, in blocks of 4. For their introduction to the game, a new player (or PC) does not need to be presented with more than that. I am also, at the moment, leaning away from the idea of "building" Skills (i.e. you must have this or that skill FIRST before you can take/be trained in this other one). But considering we are talking about PCs levels 1-4 here, that isn't much of a problem.

Each Skill will be assigned a "cost" (the number of slots a PC needs to have to take the Skill) from 1-4.

As previously posted, PCs have the following Skill slots to begin:
Magic-user: 4 (+1 every level)
Cleric: 3 (+1 every other level)
Thief: 2 (+1 every level)
Fighter: 1 (+1 every other level)

The player may be awarded additional slots for a high "Smarts" score, which is something I have to hammer down and work out. But, right now, I'm thinking that will probably be a static +1 to (say it with me!) +4 additional skills at the start of play and not applicable in additional levels.

Note: There is no rule that says the PC must expend their slots at any given time. A player may hold on to Skill slots and accrue them as they increase in level to choose skills with a higher cost, as they wish.

Beginning Skills Available to Fighters:
Dual Wielding: cost 2. May attack with a single-handed weapon (with which the fighter is proficient!) in each hand without penalty.

Rapid Firing: cost 1. The Fighter may reload any missile weapon with which he is proficient faster. Gains extra attacks. Fire 3 arrows every 2 rounds for Long or Short Bows. 1 per round (instead of 1 every other round) with crossbows.

Shield Fighting: cost 2. Fighter is proficient with the use of a single-handed weapon and shield in unison/as a weapon. Gain an additional attack/round. A hit does d6 (+Strength bonus) of bludgeoning damage. [Note: a Fighter does not need to take Shield Fighting to simply use a shield for defense!]

True Striking: cost 1. Fighter is very skilled with her weapons and may choose, for each attack, to add +1 to their hit or damage roll (declared before the die is cast!) with any melee weapon with which she is proficient (whether specialized in the weapon or not). This bonus does "stack" with any Strength bonus and/or Specialization, expending multiple Skill slots in True Striking does not. In other words, one cannot take this Skill more than once.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

You had me until you broached proficiencies. What if my Cleric worships the God of Sharp Pointed Sticks? What about Gandalf? Those things always annoyed the heck out of me in 1E-.

Come to that, what happens if I want to play a Half-Elf Cleric/MU, but we haven't gotten to the second tier yet? Guess I'm just SOL.

Not bad for a first aproximation, but needs some work.

 

[steeldragons]

Beginning Skills available for Thieves (2 slots @ 1st level +any bonus slots for high Smarts, if applicable):

[EDIT] Note that the Thief only begins with a base 2 Skills due to beginning play with their 4 inherent Thief Abilities. [/EDIT]

"Knife" Fighting: cost 2. This is similar to the Fighter skill of Dual Wielding but, for the Thief, only applies to smaller blades, as follows: daggers, hand axes, short swords or any combination thereof (short sword and dagger, hand axe and short sword, etc.) The Thief must be proficient in the weapons wielded. This Skill allows the Thief 2 attacks/round (one with each weapon) without penalty.

Quick-striking: cost 2. The Thief is light on their feet. This combat skill allows the Thief to slip into a melee, make whatever melee attacks are allowed her (including her Sneak Attack ability), and slip out again, beyond the range of any single-handed weapon.

Skilled Tinkering: cost 1. This Skill allows the Thief +5% to their Thievery Rolls when looking for or working with any mechanical device (locks or traps, basically. DM adjudication as to whether the bonus applies should be expected with this Skill.). This skill may not be taken more than once.

Silent Stepping: cost 1. The thief is extra trained/skilled at being quiet. +5% should be applied to the Thief's Stealth roll any time the Thief is alone (more than 20 feet away from other party members) either hiding or moving. This Skill also allows the Thief to move at their normal movement rate (if I incorporate such a thing at this early stage of play) and maintain their Stealth ability. A running/rushing Thief does not receive this bonus. This Skill may not be taken more than once.

 

[steeldragons]

You had me until you broached proficiencies.

Dammit! Proficiencies always screw me...<in my best Tweety voice> I wooz more pwayers dat way.</tweety> Just seems like a topic people are very VERY set in their ways about. Myself, included.

What if my Cleric worships the God of Sharp Pointed Sticks?

If you DM/game is silly enough to have a God of Sharp Pointed Sticks, I see no reason your DM would not allow your Cleric to wield one regardless of what the book says.

What about Gandalf?

I'm going to assume he's alive and well somewhere in the Lord of the Rings universe. Why?

Those things always annoyed the heck out of me in 1E-.

Well, I understand the inconsistency from the fiction leading to frustration. But this isn't the "Lord of the Rings" game/world and there is absolutely no way ANYone ANYwhere can write in rules for contingencies for any/all deities of all things everywhere. Nor should they try in a "starter game" looking to a) bring in new players and b) simplify things.

Come to that, what happens if I want to play a Half-Elf Cleric/MU, but we haven't gotten to the second tier yet? Guess I'm just SOL.

Well, if this were 1970 and no one had ever heard of D&D or Half-elves or whatever, I'd say "Yes, you're SOL." But since you (and presumably your DM) do know about them, there's no reason whatsoever you couldn't play that character. If you're saying, no one has this "second set" and no one knows what's in it...then, yeah, I guess you wouldn't/couldn't be one.

But since pretty much anyone with any D&D experience is aware of half-elves and gnomes and illusionists etc etc...no reason you couldn't incorporate it into a game.

Just because they are added in the second set doesn't mean your character starts out at 5th level! Those are lists to expand the base races and classes! I thought that was clear/obvious, but one never knows, I guess.

Yes, someone playing straight through could play that they're a fighter. Now they got this cool new/next set, they want to move (that same character) into being a Ranger! But there's no reason/rule saying you can't be a ranger from level 1...if you have the knowledge of how they work in the game, then go for it!...I suppose that is something to be more detailed about in the presentation...and/with the optional mode of play to build from one of the original 4 base classes into a next.

But I was not planning in the third tier set to expand on classes branching off of 2nd tier classes. Any classes offered/added in any tier/set would be intended as usable from 1st level on.

Nor was I intending that a human cleric, for example, would turn into a half-elf druid (or cle/mu) at 5th level.

To your Half-elf Cle/MU example: You would know, from the basic set, how Clerics work. You know how MUs work...in a finished "Basic/First Tier set" you'd know how multi-classing works...so yeah, have at it.

I'm just presenting this in a fashion I think would be useful for those who, say, have never played D&D before. But if you need to play a half-elf, then play one...when the "second tier set" comes out, you'll have a more clear set of guidelines/abilities/skills for Half-elves.

Not bad for a first aproximation, but needs some work.

Thanks. Most things do from a first draft...particularly off the top of one's head. hahaha.

--SD

 

[steeldragons]

What about Gandalf?

Actually, an interesting note on this that I just recently noticed (these 25-30 years later) perusing my Red Box Players Handbook...or maybe it was the Expert set manual...pretty sure it was the Basic book...(and too lazy to get up and go look. lol.)

They are very clear in noting that "Magic-users are the only class that can use any magic item."

So, by that, it would not at all be "out of bounds" to say a magic-user can use/wield a magic sword (which Gandalf's, as we all know, was). They are the only class that can use any magic item.

Of course, then AD&D came out with prescribed weapons' lists. So I was never in a group that allowed MUs to have swords. But I'm pretty shocked that never, in any of my pre- (or post-) AD&D play did anyone ever notice that and try to have a wizard with a sword.

[EDIT] Scrath all of this. I know I read it. I know it was an old D&D book (they're the only ones I have!). But I checked this morning and I can't find the line anywhere. I DID find a line in the Basic PH saying "the only weapon a MU can use is a Dagger." and I found something else under the Magic Items entries saying "since a MU can not use a sling, an MU can not use a magic sling."...which lends to the "no swords for MUs" perception even before AD&D...But where was that line I read?!

S'anyway, just ignore this post.[/EDIT]

 

[Stormonu]

Armor

1) Leather
2) Chain
3) Scale
4) Plate

Shield

1) Buckler
2) Small Shield
3) Large Shield
4) Tower Shield

(Though personally, for a trimmed down version, I think just one shield might be best).

My preferred ability set would be: Prowess (Strength + Constitution), Agility, Intellect (Intelligence + Wisdom) and Presence (Charisma).

 

[GreyLord]

I don't like the second group of races...stick with something more true to it...such as

Half-Elf
Half-Orc
Gnome

And then either a Tiefling, Drow, or something more people are used to than a Satyr.

 

[steeldragons]

I don't like the second group of races...stick with something more true to it...such as

Half-Elf
Half-Orc
Gnome

And then either a Tiefling, Drow, or something more people are used to than a Satyr.

Half-orc is in the 2nd group of races, just listed under the "Shadow Champions" races.

I don't love the name for that theme...as is does make things kind of "frontloaded" that these are "Evil" races and classes. I should have been more clear and stipulated that, while most races would have a "societal norm" alignment (for/if the game/DM were going to use the "optional alignments"), there would be no rules that any of the races or classes would have to be any particular alignment.

Half-orcs, particularly, since it would be detailed that they have no "society" of their own, could easily be any alignment...

But I digress and that's not your point...

In an actual publication, "Woodland Champions" would probably be the last Themed set (going alphabetically).

The idea was to organize races and classes into themed blocks of 4 to give them some flavor from the get go. Does that mean, if you have a half-elf character they MUST be from a woodland? No, of course not.

But for the new player first coming into the game, they wouldn't have to work too hard to visualize their character as a Champion from the Woodlands...or a Devout Champion...or whatever.

Could I just do a "New Races" 4-block, as you suggest, and leave the classes grouped as "Champions"...sure. I guess we could. But, it seems to me, that detracts from complete "picture"/flavor of the theme.

What do other people think? (not that I don't take your opinion seriously, Greylord. I appreciate it and the comment, thoroughly!) Just wondering if other people think attaching the races to the themed class blocks is a fun/good/evocative way of presenting them or if it seems confusing or too..."leading", I guess would be the term?

Happy Saturday, all!
--SD