Basic 4e style. Thoughts?

[Papercut]

Well, I have looked at the starter rules in Keep on the Shadowfell and they seem rather complete for what needs to be done. A good way to get a grasp of the system is just to run the little adventure in the starter set by yourself. The logic of the system will be evident that way. After you tool around with how it all works you can jump into the "reference" document of the PHB. As the game is exception based, much of the rules don't really matter until they come up and they are rather painless when they do.

I normally run a verbal C&C game, but I have messed around with the quickstart 4e rules and paper minis and the set seems pretty fun.

As far as a red box concept, perhaps a DM could make the 2 or 3 builds for each class and then let the players match a race with class build along with the standard attribute spread. The PHB already has some paths set for each class. As characters level many of the correct new skills seem rather self evident. I guess each of the classes would thus have 2 subclasses- kinda like the knight and paladin in the RC, so about 16 classes. You could pare that down as you see fit.

 

[Baumi]

You could make the powers much easier. Just give every class an encounter, daily and utility feature and let him use that more often at higher level (the same progression as in the PHB).

Example:
Fighter level 1: can do 2W damage once per Encounter and 2W+healing surge once per day
level 2: Once per day you gain Regeneration 3+Con for an encounter if you are bloodied
level 3: you can use the Encounter Power twice
...

 

[ExploderWizard]

The thing about the old basic sets that made them so great was that you got the whole game. Sure it only included things from levels 1-3 but the expert version didn't come along and suddenly introduce all new concepts that altered level 1-3 play.

I say include everything from levels 1-3 if you want a basic set experience.

 

[Henry]

Any particular reason why? I wouldn't be against it, just curious. Since I was looking for a way to introduce someone, (especially me ) to 4e, this would work too.

I think he's saying this because at level 4, you've attained enough abilities to make it interesting, without complicating things too much for a first-timer.

Level 1: your two basic at-wills, one encounter power, and one daily power.
Level 2: a feat, and a utility.
Level 3: one more encounter.
Level 4: another feat and an ability score boost.

Past that, it's a cycle of more dailies, encounters, utilities, etc. That could get a little daunting. You get a pretty full experience doing just those four levels.

Your four classes and the human only race would be more than fine. Those four cover the most iconic roles as they always have, of support, firepower, and skill. The big thing though is that "mass whoop-assery" is toned down on the wizard and the rogue is more of a "sniper" consistently than he used to be.

If you made the races into classes of their own, I think it would work if you took the four remaining classes, and decided which race fit that class.

Elf? I'd say warlock, but swap out some of the powers from ranger to give them that bow skill, and make them ranged only.

Halfling and Dwarf? I dunno -- in Basic D&D, the dwarf overlapped the fighter's role too much, to me, just with better poison and magic defenses. Same with Halflings and thieves.

I'd give the dwarf some of the warlord's schtick, and the halfling some of the rogue's schtick. Maybe take all the "trickstery" powers (like blinding barrage, etc.) away from the rogues and give them to the halfling - but we've going outside the scope of an easy fix, here.

The good news is that the powers seem to be roughly equivalent across classes and levels; you could make a custom 1st level encounter power list with powers from rogues, warlocks, and fighters, and the only real worry about them would be worrying about mixing roles too much (like you'd worry about mixing the ability to wear all armor with the ability to cast mage spells and heal in Basic D&D - you don't want to dilute what makes a class special.)

 

[TerraDave]

Agree with the races, classes, and elf-eladrin blend.

Hit points and Surges: reduce starting hit points, maybe fix the amount surges heal (though I would keep them), say to 5 points.
Powers: just a couple per level, basically this is how you do the "one build" per class. Drop or simplify ones that seem to fiddly or involve you move one square, your ally moves two squares...
Skills: keep but streamline!
Feats: you may be able to just drop these.
Action Points: drop
Equipment: already pretty "basic", maybe just drop a few things. And the magic items could be really cut back.
Monsters and NPCs: already pretty simple. Focus on the classics, reduce variety of each, and cut hp in half.

 

[WSmith]

Your four classes and the human only race would be more than fine. Those four cover the most iconic roles as they always have, of support, firepower, and skill. The big thing though is that "mass whoop-assery" is toned down on the wizard and the rogue is more of a "sniper" consistently than he used to be.

Whoop-assery! I love that term and that is exactly what I am trying to avoid.

If you made the races into classes of their own, I think it would work if you took the four remaining classes, and decided which race fit that class.

Elf? I'd say warlock, but swap out some of the powers from ranger to give them that bow skill, and make them ranged only.

I haven't even looked at the warlock (or warlord for that matter) but the good thing is if I were to make a "race as class" class, I could pick and choose pieces from all the races and classes to try to make it as close to my vision as possible. After I look at the warlock I will report back. In Basic D&D I love the racial classes. Love them. I love that an elf is a fighter / magic-user. However, I think the elf should have a more innate, inherent mystical use of magic than the standard Vancian magic that the human magic-user has to unnaturally learn. We will see. No matter how much I try to be open minded, I seem to keep thinking of the Tolkein elf as the model. So picking things from the elf and eladrin class to make an "elf" would work well.

I'd give the dwarf some of the warlord's schtick, and the halfling some of the rogue's schtick. Maybe take all the "trickstery" powers (like blinding barrage, etc.) away from the rogues and give them to the halfling - but we've going outside the scope of an easy fix, here.

Maybe I will take the easy fix by only allowing the four iconic classes as humans only at first, then tweek the race classes and introduce them slowly.

I have always liked the standard Norse - Tolkienesque dwarf. I will have to see what kinds of powers the Warlord has, (haven't read that class either.) I am all for better poison saves and mine knowledge skills like in Classic D&D. I also like the goblinoid hatred but wouldn't want to take it so far.

FWIW, I have no interest in dragonborn or tieflings. Half elves not right now. This has a lot to do with tradition, but also the concept for the world I have in my head, where demihumans are rare, and humans are the standard.

 

[WSmith]

Hit points and Surges: reduce starting hit points, maybe fix the amount surges heal (though I would keep them), say to 5 points.
Powers: just a couple per level, basically this is how you do the "one build" per class. Drop or simplify ones that seem to fiddly or involve you move one square, your ally moves two squares...

YES! I was looking at the feats and powers and I think I can almost remove the ones that tie into squares. This would help a newbie and possibly allow for mini-less play.

I am still trying to soak in the whoule healing surge and HP stuff.

Action Points: drop
Monsters and NPCs: already pretty simple. Focus on the classics, reduce variety of each, and cut hp in half.

I agree with the classics but why remove Action Points? Not that I am for having them in the first place but I think most players like this idea.

 

[TerraDave]

action points are fine for "full 4E". But they are another detail to remember and track (and tracking milestones is a small DMing anoyance)...

You could just allow a "surge" each encounter that allows for another action in the round.

 

[WSmith]

So, a question I now have is if I am going to have the racial classes, and most others are going to be human, should I do this as written:

• Level 1: 2 feats; 3 at-will powers;
  1 encounter power; 1 daily attack power; 1 one extra trained class skill, +1 to all defenses but AC, +2 to one ability score
• Level 2: 1 feat, 1 utility.
• Level 3: 1 encounter.
• Level 4: 1 feat and 1 ability score boost.

Or not use the extra benefits, (extra at will, extra feat is 1st level, etc.) that a human gets, if the majority (well, at first the only) race is are going to be human?

Instad of E6, maybe I should make E4.

 

[WSmith]

action points are fine for "full 4E". But they are another detail to remember and track (and tracking milestones is a small DMing anoyance)...

You could just allow a "surge" each encounter that allows for another action in the round.

Neat idea. I am just not that familiar with 4e yet to comment on such a rule in detail. If it makes it more simple, I would be all for it.