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

[steeldragons]

Reported

 

[Hassassin]

I'm sorry, if I bust a baseball bat or a big log over your head, you could very easily die. Broken ribs puncture the lung, etc. Damage types is just complicating things. Damage type only matters if you are going to do things like X weapon type doesn't deal full damage to Y monster or you want to say things like edged weapons aren't as good against Plate armor as Piercing weapons, etc. I thought we were moving away from complication tho.

IRL you can easily die from unarmed strikes, especially kicks, but that hasn't stopped the designers from making unarmed default to nonlethal in 3e. Maybe the whole damage type thing could be an extension, but I think having clubs as nonlethal - meaning "you can use this to deal either lethal or nonlethal damage" would work.

Welcome to 4E

As I think I wrote before unified defenses are one of the things 4e improved.

If damage will happen a lot, people need a lot more health. Add their Strength to their starting hit points. There will need to be some pretty significant healing in the game too unless you are aiming for a very gritty game where people die a lot. It seems reasonable that the guy who is wearing that much armor is only hit 1/4 of the time, but I think you could make this simpler by making class starting ACs either +4 or +2.

Personally, I prefer low hp and less hits, because 1) numbers are smaller and 2) hitting is more interesting.

I think 50% average chance to get hit - across all characters in a party - would be a nice target. E.g. 2/3 chance to hit the mage, 50% chance to hit the cleric and 1/3 chance to hit the fighter. This implies an AC of N for cleric, +4 for fighter and -4 for mage. Fits the theme nicely.

(I think the thief should have about the same AC as the fighter, but less hp.)

I kind of tried to arrive at such numbers in the longish post I made before, but accidentally made attack bonuses four smaller than I meant to.

Agreed. Double damage should only apply to the base damage, so before they add in their various bonuses. So if a dagger does 1d4, a crit from the dagger would deal 2d4 plus whatever not (1d4+a bunch)x2. I'm assuming you were already planning for it to work this way as that is how the game has worked for awhile now, but just clarifying

That's not how it works in 3e or IIRC in 4e. In 3e all damage modifiers except additional dice (e.g. sneak attack or a flaming sword) are multiplied on a critical. That includes strength bonuses and magical enhancement bonuses.

I'm not sure which is better, but I've had no problems with the 3e way.

That 2nd line is proof you didn't play 3E heh. They sure as heck tried to have a rule for everything, altho they did stop short of some of the excess of Rolemaster heh.

This is the main reason I'd like to have a similar level progression (and CR charts) for all abilities, including skills, attacks and defenses. That way the DM can just pick the most relevant ability, a difficulty (or opposed ability) and make a simple ruling. You get rid of the need for all those rules.

The most D&D-like progression is probably (10 + or 1d20 +) level + ability modifier. I'd like something slower for my games (level / 2 maybe), but if the core mechanics are simple it's easy to substitute a slower progression.

 

[Hassassin]

I kind of tried to arrive at such numbers in the longish post I made before, but accidentally made attack bonuses four smaller than I meant to.

Easily remedied. Class bonuses to trained attack types:
[sblock]Cleric: +4 melee weapon attacks and spell attacks*
Fighter: +4 melee and ranged weapon attacks
Mage: +4 spell attacks
Thief: +4 melee and** ranged weapon attacks

*Spell attacks use Int so Mages will generally have better spell attacks than Clerics. Clerics will also usually have lower Str than fighters, making their melee attacks also worse. They lose absolute ability but gain versatility.

**Maybe melee or ranged and make them choose?[/sblock]
This means all classes start at +4 with their main attacks. For attacks against Phy (AC) this means approximately 1/3 chance (7/20) to hit a fully equipped fighter (Phy 18), a 50% chance to hit a cleric (Phy 14) and a 2/3 chance to hit a mage (Phy 10).

The above assumes the attacker and defender have equal ability modifiers in relevant abilities. Worst case is +0 attack (ability score 3) against Phy 22 (fighter with Dex 18), where only a natural 20 hits. Best case is +8 attack (ability score 18) against Phy 6 (mage with Dex 3), where only a natural 1 misses.

I think there's a quite nice balance between effects of armor, class and abilities. Multiclass thieves should probably be restricted to light armor (leather) to get their +4 Phy and Ref bonuses.

Leveling up

The level-up ideas I had previously weren't well thought through. I think it would be easiest to have +1 to all attacks and defenses every level after the first. Then add some major class ability every fourth level, plus feats or whatever.

Would it be too weird to have mages and clerics only gain new spell levels every fourth level? That, together with four tiers, would mean four levels of magic only, available at 1st, 5th, 9th and 13th level.

 

[steeldragons]

Let's see how much I can condense all of this...so as not to lose track with some thing already decided.

Happy holidays, whatever they may be, to one and all!

CLASSES

The Cleric
Clerics are the faithful servants of the deities of the game world. They are the priests/priestesses of "organized religion", serving, protecting and furthering the tenets of their gods/goddesses, acting as the clergy for their temples, shrines and teaching the philosophical beliefs of their order. Through their connection with the divine, they gain spell abilities, power over the undead (and eventually other extra-planar beings, such as demons, and devils). Clerics are "warriors of their faith/temple." As such, they are permitted the use of armor and shields and well as "non-bladed" weapons (due to the mistaken original belief that a priest should/would/could not "shed blood").

Primary Ability: Presence-a combination of one's wisdom and force of personality that serves to increase the cleric's potential spell ability and offering them a degree of resistance to mind-effecting magics and effeects.

Starting HP: 8 (+Strength bonus if applicable, +d8 per level)
Base AC: 2

Weapon Proficiencies: 2 (+1 per 3 levels)
Starting Skill Points: 3 (+ Intellect modifier if applicable, +1 per 2 levels)

Class Abilities/Skills: Spell Use (see chart t.b.d. +additional spells due to high Presence bonuses, if applicable).

Power over the Undead- "Turning/Destroying" or "Cowering/Controlling" dependent on the Cleric's Alignment and/or general belief system. (see chart...t.b.d.)

Religious Knowledge- All clerics are assumed to be schooled in the current religions and various practices of the existing temples. For their own religion/temple, this includes knowledge of such things as "holy days", iconography, mythology/history of the religion and its various sects (if any), mortal/divine enemies of the religion, conducting of rite/ritual, etc... For other temples/religions in the world, a recognition of things like iconography/symbols, some history or mythology (as it relates to their own), what deities/temples are on good (or bad) terms with others.

This Skill offers an automatic Skill point bonus of "1" for the Cleric and requires no Skill Points to be used. A cleric may add to their Religious Knowledge by expending Skill points to a maximum of 4.

To roll against a "Religion" check, the cleric must roll below their Presence score +1 (or higher if the cleric expends skill points to increase their knowledge.) on a d20. The extent and details of the information known/remembered is up to the DM.

Note: this Skill applies to matters existing/pertinent to the current "present" or "recent past" game world religions. For knowledge in lost/forgotten religions, gods, iconography, etc. a Cleric must expend skill points in the "Ancient Religion" General Skill.

The Fighter
The warrior, the mercenary, the swordsman, the knight, a fighter can be any number of these things and many more. The point is, the Fighter fights. He/she is (or strives to be) a master-of-arms, knowledgeable in the maintenance and use of all/any manner of weaponry and armor. Whether they are "holding the line" for their allies, charging into battle to lay low their enemies or laying down "cover fire" from afar, the fighter is the one with the strength and skill to excel when combat arises.

Prime Ability: Strength-increases chances to hit with melee weapons and offers a bonus to resist physical attacks and effects that wrack the body.

Starting HP: 10 (+Strength bonus if applicable, +d10 per level)
Base AC: 4

Weapon Proficiencies: 4 (+1 per level)
Starting Skill Points: 1 (+Intellect modifier if applicable, +1 per 4 levels.)

Class Abilities/Skills: Alternate Proficiency- A fighter is the only class which may apply their additional Weapon Proficiencies to their Skill points, if they so desire. So a 2nd level Fighter could be proficient in 4 weapons and use his 2nd level additional Weapon Proficiency to increase his Skill points to 2, instead of having 5 Weapon Proficiencies.

Weapon Mastery- The Fighter receives +1 "To Hit" every 2 levels (+1 at 3rd level, +2 at 5th, to a maximum of +4 at 9th level). This bonus applies to any weapon with which the Fighter is proficient, including missile weapons. This bonus reflects the Fighter's increasing skill and eventual mastery of the use of his/her chosen weapons and applies in addition to (and regardless of) other "to hit" bonuses due to Strength, Skills or Specialization. Note: This Class Ability does not increase/effect Damage as other Skills, Strength or Specialization does. It simply applies To Hit rolls.

"Average Guy/Gal"- The Fighter may begin play with an additional Skill from the "General" list (of those Skills up to a max cost of 2 Skill points). This General Skill is the player's choice without expending any Skill Points. The Class Ability reflects some aspect of training or knowledge from the Fighter's past (and/or current area of interest).

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

First off, I have really enjoyed this thread...

However I think I misread the OP and was tracking on something completely different. .. so you can ignore the rest of this post explaining my misunderstanding if you want. {neatly sblocked for your ease of ignoring }

[sblock]
I was thinking along the lines of a completely re-imagined game system that would be generic, allowing for the players to fill in the fluff and expand on the game options as they gained more system mastery. Which, IMHO, is a very needed capability in role playing games.

I think that the current iterations have too much of a learning curve and discourage some play styles. The ability to sit down with a group of friends and dash together a game session from scratch just doesn't exist anymore.

However, what is being discussed here is a stripped down version of 2e/3e/4e.. taking some of the better options from each. Regretfully that use of the bones of AD&D comes with alot of baggage.. as represented by the various discussions over odd ability scores, damage types, and increasing defenses/to hit as the characters level {among other things}

This makes me think that the end result will basically be a house ruled version of your favored edition, complete with racial bloat, rules bloat, and steep learning curve.
You already have an example of this in the Cleric class listed today with the Religion check needing to be under your presence score while attacks need to be over the enemies defenses.
[/sblock]

So, all that being said, thanks for the thread and the thoughts it has provoked. I am heading back into lurking status.

 

[steeldragons]

First off, I have really enjoyed this thread...

Cool. Thanks. Enjoy away!

However I think I misread the OP and was tracking on something completely different. .. so you can ignore the rest of this post explaining my misunderstanding if you want. {neatly sblocked for your ease of ignoring }

Hmm. Ok. (I read it anyway )

I was thinking along the lines of a completely re-imagined game system that would be generic, allowing for the players to fill in the fluff and expand on the game options as they gained more system mastery. Which, IMHO, is a very needed capability in role playing games.

Ok. Well, it is, I suppose, re-imagined insofar as material presentation (paring down player options into blocks of 4). I don't think anything we've done/discussed here has been too fluff-defining thus far...maybe it has been more than is necessary?

I think that the current iterations have too much of a learning curve and discourage some play styles.

Interesting. In what way is there "too much learning curve"?

The ability to sit down with a group of friends and dash together a game session from scratch just doesn't exist anymore.

I am/was hoping that this would be simple enough to do just that. Pick a race and a class, roll your abilities, choose your starting skills...a weapon(s)...and off you go.

However, what is being discussed here is a stripped down version of 2e/3e/4e.. taking some of the better options from each.

That was the idea....though if adding in too many elements of 3e or 4e play is generating "learning curve", then I would say we have to re-think some stuff.

Regretfully that use of the bones of AD&D comes with alot of baggage.. as represented by the various discussions over odd ability scores, damage types, and increasing defenses/to hit as the characters level {among other things}

This is true...and it is a fine line between including certain things many/most players/playstyles would enjoy and shaving off things (while 3e or 4e rules afficianado's may deem certain things preferable or even "necessary") to keep everyone interested.

I have no delusions that this might be something every gamer would like...that's a unicorn, if you would...but just shooting for "most" people.

This makes me think that the end result will basically be a house ruled version of your favored edition, complete with racial bloat, rules bloat, and steep learning curve.

Well, speaking for myself, personally, I despise racial bloat and rules bloat...again, need a bit of clarification on what thus far (or even in general) constitutes "steep learning curve"...because I wouldn't say anything we've presented here requires a "steep learning curve."

You already have an example of this in the Cleric class listed today with the Religion check needing to be under your presence score while attacks need to be over the enemies defenses.

That creates "learning curve"? I don't really see how. If we are working off of a general "d20" mechanic, you really only have the two options-namely, here's the target number you want to roll....you can only roll higher or roll lower than that target number...There is no real way (that makes sense to me) to make everything have to be "roll higher all the time".

Knowledge skills are a specific case in point of this. If the object is to "increase one's knowledge (accumulate skill points)" in a certain area...then rolling over the target number is detrimental/becomes slimmer and slimmer. Doing somethnig like "You start with 10 or 20 points and detract points for the target number so you want a lower number to roll over" doesn't make much sense to me.

So, all that being said, thanks for the thread and the thoughts it has provoked. I am heading back into lurking status.

Aww. Come back! Or lurk away, whatever you prefer. But thanks for the thoughts/posting.

--SD

 

[Hassassin]

Interesting. In what way is there "too much learning curve"?

Can't say what [MENTION=20805]Primitive Screwhead[/MENTION] meant, but in my opinion too many different rules is a problem. 10 similar rules are easier to learn than 9 or 8 completely different ones - maybe even easier than 5 different ones.

That creates "learning curve"? I don't really see how. If we are working off of a general "d20" mechanic, you really only have the two options-namely, here's the target number you want to roll....you can only roll higher or roll lower than that target number...There is no real way (that makes sense to me) to make everything have to be "roll higher all the time".

Knowledge skills are a specific case in point of this. If the object is to "increase one's knowledge (accumulate skill points)" in a certain area...then rolling over the target number is detrimental/becomes slimmer and slimmer. Doing somethnig like "You start with 10 or 20 points and detract points for the target number so you want a lower number to roll over" doesn't make much sense to me.

No, the d20 system used in 3e manages quite nicely to have every d20 roll be "higher is better" and I think you should definitely do the same. If some rolls succeed on over the target number and some rolls succeed on under the target number, figuring out which is which has a learning curve.

In 3e Knowledge rolls are like other skill rolls: 1d20 + ability modifier (Int for knowledge) + skill ranks + misc. bonuses vs DC depending on the task (piece of knowledge).

On your character sheet all the bonuses are already summed into one value, so in play you just roll the die, add your bonus and compare to the DC (or the DM does). Higher is always better, so the more ranks (skill points) the better your chances of rolling over (or exactly, which succeeds) the target.

(Compare to attack roll: 1d20 + ability modifier (Str for melee weapons) + attack bonus (= level for fighters) + misc. bonuses vs. AC. You learn to use one, you can already guess the other.)

I seriously think you should at least have a look at how it's done in 3.5. Basically using skills and knowledge. You can ignore most of the stuff there, but the below two quotes should cover the case of knowledge checks specifically.

Skill Checks
[...]
To make a skill check, roll 1d20 and add your character’s skill modifier for that skill. The skill modifier incorporates the character’s ranks in that skill and the ability modifier for that skill’s key ability, plus any other miscellaneous modifiers that may apply, including racial bonuses and armor check penalties. The higher the result, the better. Unlike with attack rolls and saving throws, a natural roll of 20 on the d20 is not an automatic success, and a natural roll of 1 is not an automatic failure.

Difficulty Class
Some checks are made against a Difficulty Class (DC). The DC is a number (set using the skill rules as a guideline) that you must score as a result on your skill check in order to succeed.

Table: Difficulty Class Examples
Difficulty (DC) Example (Skill Used)
Very easy (0) Notice something large in plain sight (Spot)
Easy (5) Climb a knotted rope (Climb)
Average (10) Hear an approaching guard (Listen)
Tough (15) Rig a wagon wheel to fall off (Disable Device)
Challenging (20) Swim in stormy water (Swim)
Formidable (25) Open an average lock (Open Lock)
Heroic (30) Leap across a 30-foot chasm (Jump)
Nearly impossible (40) Track a squad of orcs across hard ground after 24 hours of rainfall (Survival)

Knowledge (Int; Trained Only)
[...]
Religion (gods and goddesses, mythic history, ecclesiastic tradition, holy symbols, undead)
[...]
Answering a question within your field of study has a DC of 10 (for really easy questions), 15 (for basic questions), or 20 to 30 (for really tough questions).

In many cases, you can use this skill to identify monsters and their special powers or vulnerabilities. In general, the DC of such a check equals 10 + the monster’s HD. A successful check allows you to remember a bit of useful information about that monster.

For every 5 points by which your check result exceeds the DC, you recall another piece of useful information.

Note, skill checks in 3e are actually different from other checks, since as mentioned above, natural 1 and 20 aren't special. The reason of course is that a normal person shouldn't have a 5% chance to leap over a 100' pit, and a master climber shouldn't have a 5% chance to fail at climbing a ladder.

This is IMO unfortunate (the less exceptions the better), and could be replaced by the DM just making judgement calls about when it isn't possible to succeed/fail at something and just not calling for a skill check.

 

[Hassassin]

Can't say what [MENTION=20805]Primitive Screwhead[/MENTION] meant, but in my opinion too many different rules is a problem. 10 similar rules are easier to learn than 9 or 8 completely different ones - maybe even easier than 5 different ones.

BTW, another example of this are "weapon proficiencies" and "alternate proficiencies". Those will seem arcane to anyone who's played 3e and are yet another category of a character's abilities.

In 3e weapon and armor proficiencies are "feats" like many other abilities - this pretty much corresponds with what your "skills" seem to be like. So there you can e.g. choose between learning how to wield a bastard sword and learning how to make a trip attack. Each class has some free weapon and/or armor proficiencies at first level.

(Technically, the choice is between knowing how to better fight with a bastard sword and knowing how to better make a trip attack. You can use a weapon you aren't proficient with but take a -4 penalty on attacks.)

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

[delurk]

[MENTION=6675228]Hassassin[/MENTION] has it right.. too many different rules and exceptions.

What I meant by learning curve is primarily on the current editions rule-set in which you can't just plunk a new player down with a human fighter and say 'act like conan'. You have to explain to hits, skills, feats, powers, combat advantage, combat superiority, the different action types, saves, ongoing damage, non-ecludian movement, skill checks where you go versus a DC, skill checks where you take the total and do some math to determine the result {jump checks}, etc...

I see this creeping into your discussion here with comments about specific items, like the weapons vs armor.

My thinking was more along the lines of a stripped down rule-set in which the GM does alot more interpreting while the player gets to just try things.

For instance:
Choose a character type:Strong, fast, smart, or leader {this is your stat set}
Chose a focus or role: melee combatant, ranged combatant, offensive spell caster, defensive spell caster {these give free 'talents'}
Chose a race: Human, Elf, Dwarf, halfling {these give free 'talents'}
Choose 4 talents
- fighting style {Heavy Striker, sword and board, flashing blades, Brawler}
- armor mastery
- defender
- weapon mastery
- skirmisher
- seek the soft spot
- arcane melee {sword mage}
- diplomat
- street wise
- wilderness background

Leave equipment for later levels or exclude completely.

Use a unified resolution mechanic. One possibility would be to use a D6 pool on a scale of 1 to 12...
You roll 1D6 and add the correct stat and any talent bonus. Either opposed or against a static DC.

If you have a focus talent in this area, you get an additional roll.
If you have a racial talent in this area, you get an additional roll.
if you have a general talent in this area, you get an additional roll.

scaled successes based on how many of your rolls succeed.


... and play. That is all the player needs to know. And technically its all the DM needs to know.. maybe add in a scale for DCs of 5= easy, 7 = moderate, 9 = difficult, and 11 = nigh impossible, and 13 = plaid speed

This auto-scales as the character gains experience because they get additional dice to roll, meaning they will generally succeed more often at higher DCs. It also means that the fighter will almost always be better at swinging a sword than a mage, instead of the dreaded low rolls while the mage criticals with his dagger..



This makes for a very modular system because all you need to do is add talents and talent groups {like race} and talent trees {talents that build on each other}
Instead of leveling, you have a point score for how many talents the character has.. so you can start a game with 10 talents or 50.

You don't need multi-classing as that is handled by allowing different talents. You maintain role integrity by having talents with prerequisites for a specific role. {and the 'talent' of picking up an additional role}

Half-breed would be a generic racial group that allows you to select two other races and mix/match the talents those races have, limited to 4 of course.


Basically... this post covers the majority of the rules {leaving out health and talents} That was the level of rewrite I was thinking of.

Any attempt to build on the bones of the current editions will carry forward the system assumptions and create bloat. Having 5 different kinds of elves is eliminated above by having many racial talents for elfs, but limiting the starting selection to 4. A wood elf would take 'wilderness background', 'bow mastery', 'herbal healer', and 'woodland stealth'. No need for an extra race that drives extra game mechanics later. Talent trees could build off the basic race of 'Elf' or the individual talents. A 'potion brewer' could have a prerequisite of 'herbal healer', allowing wood elfs to go that route easily as well as anyone else who spent their talent on 'herbal healer'



So, as you can see your goal of paring DnD down to clumps of 4 took me in a completely different direction....

Hence going back into lurking

 

[Stormonu]

Proposal for Ranged Weapons:

1d4 = Dart, Thrown dagger/knife
1d6 = Spear, Short Bow, Sling*
1d8 = Light Crossbow (can't move to reload), Javelin*
1d10 = Long Bow
1d12 (or 2d6) = Heavy Crossbow (1 round to reload)**

* I'm tired of the sling doing pitiful damage; it's the legendary weapon that killed Goliath after all, and one of the primary ranged weapons of most bronze-aged armies. The bow can get an edge from having better range
* giving a Javelin an edge because it can't also be used in melee
** it would be wise to give heavy x-bow the best range, or it's really only as good as a 1d6 damage weapon.