D&D 4E Class-free 4E

[Ambush Bug]

QR

Rogue Weapon Talent is cheap at 1 point, Suggest Rogue Weapon Talent 2, Sneak attack 4
Combat Challenge is powerful, and Fighter Weapon Talent is equal to Rogue Weapon talent, CC 6 , FWT 2. This leaves all the +1 to hit skills at 2 points.

Very interesting ideas. Do you think that Sneak Attack is, overall, around 20% less good than Hunter's Quarry and Warlock's Curse? Do you think Rogue Weapon Talent is that useful? I priced it cheap because it only works with li'l bitty weapons that few characters will want to specialize in, and because it doesn't give them much of a bonus. But I could certainly be persuaded otherwise.

You could also justify getting rid of the power sources, and require characters to purchase a role. This offers a solution to the Wizard problem in that you just price the Controller role higher than the rest. Ex. Striker 2, Defender 2, Leader 3, Controller 4.

See, I'd like to eliminate roles from the game entirely. That was the single biggest driving force behind trying to create something more flexible. I'd like to see if roles can be surgically removed from D&D without killing the patient. But you do point out one of the big weird balance issues - some types of characters seem more valuable, but it's hard to nail down exactly how. It's a cumulative thing. If I get around to breaking down the math behind powers, maybe we'll find a solution there...

 

[DogBackward]

I think having access to multiple power sources is something that should be paid for. I'd say that you choose one power source, and access to extra power sources should cost 1p each. This won't mess up your "recreate the classes" deal, since none of the classes use multiple sources as is.

Then, say that anyone who chooses the Divine power source gains the ability to use a Holy Symbol as an implement, since that is a specific class feature. Using a divine power doesn't give you the ability to use Holy Symbols automatically, and the same goes for arcane powers and arcane implements. And anyone taking the Arcane power source gains the ability to use one arcane implement; Wand, Rod, Staff or Orb. Allow the ability to use other implements at the cost of 1p per implement.

This allows you to take 2p off the cost of the Wizard, since it will cost 2p to get all three implements that the Wizard can use. You can remove Wizard Training, since you have the power source seperation above. And you can reduce the Cantrips to cost 1p each, instead of 5p for all of them, so you can take individual cantrips if you want.

As for the Warlock, you should reduce the cost of the Pact Boon to 2p. For one, this puts the cost of the Warlock back to normal, since you now have to pay 1p to get both Wands and Rods like a normal Warlock. Second, you need Warlock's Curse just to have any use for Pact Boon, which should reduce the cost a bit anyway.

I still don't think Ritual Casting and Spellbook should cost that much; they're not really that useful. I understand why you did it, but is exact replication of the classes, cost-wise, more important, or is balancing things by how useful they actually are more important? I personally think it's the latter, but it's your system, after all...

 

[Cang]

How did you come up with the costs? Did you go through the class and try to get as close to 18 as you could or does certain abilities and such have a fix score in your calculations? Just wondering.

 

[Ambush Bug]

I still don't think Ritual Casting and Spellbook should cost that much; they're not really that useful. I understand why you did it, but is exact replication of the classes, cost-wise, more important, or is balancing things by how useful they actually are more important? I personally think it's the latter, but it's your system, after all...

Again, for my personal satisfaction, I'd rather balance things by how useful they are. But that gets into some swampy design areas - I think 4E is designed with a much different play experience in mind than the kind I generally enjoy. So what's "useful" in my games won't necessarily match up with the design assumptions of D&D. So I started with the assumption that 4E classes were designed to balance each other, at least in the minds of its designers, and reverse-engineered ways for them to balance. Replicating the classes isn't important to me for personal use, since I don't like using them, but it's a paradigm that people can understand.

In the near future, I'm hoping to take another pass at this idea, and see if I can construct it more along the lines you're interested in. Stay tuned...

 

[Ambush Bug]

How did you come up with the costs? Did you go through the class and try to get as close to 18 as you could or does certain abilities and such have a fix score in your calculations? Just wondering.

I used arbitrary math, the game designer's secret weapon! Some abilities were obviously more useful in-game than others, even considering the various ways people play. And some abilities seemed roughly equal in terms of usefulness. So I just decided that Ability X was worth, say, 3 points and saw how it balanced from there. It took several drafts before I got a version that held together. That version happened to have values that equalled 18, and I liked the symbolism of it.

 

[Cang]

why is the range style cheaper then 2 hand fighting?

 

[Cang]

swordmage points...
sword aegis: 5
sword bond: 3
warding: 3

 

[DogBackward]

why is the range style cheaper then 2 hand fighting?

Probably because Archery Style gives you a weak feat and nothing else, while Two Blade Style gives you a decent feat in addition to a powerful special ability. Which makes them not actually equivalent in overall power level.

 

[Turtlejay]

I love the idea, and i find it odd that most comments are pressing for more restriction, when I think that less restriction should be the way to go. Specifically, don't worry about chosing multiple power sources or what have you, just don't be a dick and build some rule breaking multicharacter just because you can. Also, the economy of actions will keep most builds from being too out of hand, as long as the rest of the party is smart and builds at least somewhat useful characters.

What about balancing this with opponents? This seems to create more powerful characters, that will change encounter levels.

Jay

 

[Ambush Bug]

What about balancing this with opponents? This seems to create more powerful characters, that will change encounter levels.

The opponents and obstacles in a 4E game are much more flexible than in previous editions. If a GM is finding that v4.18 PCs are overwhelming everything, it should be easy to increase the threats to match. But I don't think that will be necessary with most groups. Given how carefully the PC powers seem to be balanced, I don't think feature choices will throw the system out of whack. If there's a design possibility that's more unbalanced than (for example) the out-of-the-book paladin, let me know.

Also, DogBackward answered Cang's question exactly the way I would have. The two ranger fighting styles don't quite balance as written.