herrozerro
First Post
I can understand the duplication of the RC, because it's supposed to be a compendium.
D&D 4.5E (Not Essentials)
I can understand the duplication of the RC, because it's supposed to be a compendium.
Nemesis Destiny
Adventurer
The rules compendium is great. It's become my main reference at the table besides my DM screen. I felt that the DM book was pretty terrible overall (and the binding quality is also very sketchy).
I loved the addition of the E classes and what they did for the game; variety is the spice of life, and all that, and while the duplication was annoying, I mostly ignored all the fluff anyway.
Post-HotF*, I found the material to be hit or miss; Heroes of Shadow was a giant disappointment, but I loved Heroes of the Feywild. Mordenkainen's was good as well, and probably how things should have been from the start. The Monster Vault books were both excellent as well. The adventures published during this time were some of the best the edition has seen as well, IMO (Reavers of Harkenwold and Madness at Gardmore Abbey come to mind).
To tie this in with the main theme of the thread, if there were a hypothetical 4.5, I'd like to see the presentation take a blend of the two approaches. The small-format Rules Compendium is great, and the fact that it's portable is a definite plus. I realize that packaging things into a format that deviates from the PHB/DMG/MM prardigm will be a hard sell to some, but I think it's a change worth making. The PHB is fine and should contain all the basics, but I'd leave the magical items and whatnot for the DM side. The DMG should contain mostly advice, and perhaps optional rules to use at the campaign level, but the RC would contain everything you need to have to run the game *mechanically* - all the "operative" crunch of how the game works; leave the player stuff in the PHB, and the DM-stuff (like treasure) in the DMG, though perhaps treasure tables and XP awards are fine.
That was a little more run-on than I intended.
I loved the addition of the E classes and what they did for the game; variety is the spice of life, and all that, and while the duplication was annoying, I mostly ignored all the fluff anyway.
Post-HotF*, I found the material to be hit or miss; Heroes of Shadow was a giant disappointment, but I loved Heroes of the Feywild. Mordenkainen's was good as well, and probably how things should have been from the start. The Monster Vault books were both excellent as well. The adventures published during this time were some of the best the edition has seen as well, IMO (Reavers of Harkenwold and Madness at Gardmore Abbey come to mind).
To tie this in with the main theme of the thread, if there were a hypothetical 4.5, I'd like to see the presentation take a blend of the two approaches. The small-format Rules Compendium is great, and the fact that it's portable is a definite plus. I realize that packaging things into a format that deviates from the PHB/DMG/MM prardigm will be a hard sell to some, but I think it's a change worth making. The PHB is fine and should contain all the basics, but I'd leave the magical items and whatnot for the DM side. The DMG should contain mostly advice, and perhaps optional rules to use at the campaign level, but the RC would contain everything you need to have to run the game *mechanically* - all the "operative" crunch of how the game works; leave the player stuff in the PHB, and the DM-stuff (like treasure) in the DMG, though perhaps treasure tables and XP awards are fine.
That was a little more run-on than I intended.
Nemesis Destiny
Adventurer
While I was typing that last one, it occurred to me that in 4.5 I would likely take a different approach to magic items.
I think with the way that the math works, Inherent bonuses should be assumed, and magic items should combine with them; not on the attack side, because that would screw things up too much, but rather, at least with weapons, on damage.
A weapon's plus would add to damage, such that no matter how high in level a character is, a magic attack item always makes you better than a mundane one, even if only slightly. This has the added benefit of making them less problematic to hand out at lower level as well. A little more damage won't throw things off like wildly out of control attack bonuses. Further, I'd have more items with interesting properties, such as built in access to certain rituals, unique ritual-like effects, and things like that. Even abilities similar to the boons, which I find generally more interesting than the boring Plus-X items.
As for armour, it's a little trickier. Perhaps the plus could be damage reduction or some other property, like a bonus to another defence, certain saving throws, etc. It too should come with a host of interesting properties.
The way I work it in my home game is different and more math-heavy, but I could present that as an alternative. I have inherent bonuses and still give out items, and I have the plus of the item add to character level to determine the character's effective level. This is also very robust for handing out powerful items at lower level; generally, at worst the character will be a +1 bonus ahead of the curve, which is not all that game-breaking. A +6 item would be two points ahead of the curve.
I think with the way that the math works, Inherent bonuses should be assumed, and magic items should combine with them; not on the attack side, because that would screw things up too much, but rather, at least with weapons, on damage.
A weapon's plus would add to damage, such that no matter how high in level a character is, a magic attack item always makes you better than a mundane one, even if only slightly. This has the added benefit of making them less problematic to hand out at lower level as well. A little more damage won't throw things off like wildly out of control attack bonuses. Further, I'd have more items with interesting properties, such as built in access to certain rituals, unique ritual-like effects, and things like that. Even abilities similar to the boons, which I find generally more interesting than the boring Plus-X items.
As for armour, it's a little trickier. Perhaps the plus could be damage reduction or some other property, like a bonus to another defence, certain saving throws, etc. It too should come with a host of interesting properties.
The way I work it in my home game is different and more math-heavy, but I could present that as an alternative. I have inherent bonuses and still give out items, and I have the plus of the item add to character level to determine the character's effective level. This is also very robust for handing out powerful items at lower level; generally, at worst the character will be a +1 bonus ahead of the curve, which is not all that game-breaking. A +6 item would be two points ahead of the curve.
Quickleaf
Legend
[MENTION=98255]Nemesis Destiny[/MENTION] I agree with you about inherent bonuses and adjusting the magic items to suit (and to make them more interesting!). With armor you could use ideas from the "specialty" armors from MME as a replacement for the AC enhancement bonus; for example full plate provided durable - ignore the first critical hit against you each encounter. So maybe plate armor +3 means "ignore the first 3 critical hits against you in an encounter"? Maybe too powerful...or maybe armor shouldn't have a number bonus affixed to it at all?
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Ooh like this stuff a lot... I have commented before one of the inheritance of 4e is being
willing to take the next step and follow through, I want a child of 4e not a clone.
Quickleaf
Legend
I have a divergent view - I think just doing a 4.5e version is ok, but it could go a lot further.
I'm going to basically brainstorm a new d20 game inspired a lot by 4e but some other games as well (BD&D, True20, Star Wars SAGA, DungeonWorld)...it's interesting, but it is long, so you've been warned!
Instead I would design a ruleset that focuses on improvisation and player creativity, using lessons learned from 4e (hell, it could even be compatible with 4e, so you could use 4e monsters!) without seeking to replicate 4e. While a good DM and highly invested players *can* do an improv style game in 4e, the system really isn't encouraging, challenging, and rewarding creativity. Instead it encourages knowing the rules and building a strong character with those rules...I mean you have so so many powers that often have very subtle to no differences.
What I would do is make a streamlined version of the system with zone-based combat (like Old School Hack) and minis both supported...
First off, initiative would be simultaneous for three main reasons:
I would incorporate a system of upshots & complications. Any success, whether on a skill check, ability check, attack roll, initiative check, or something else...any success by 5+ would earn you an upshot (kind of like True20's challenges) while any failure by 5+ would earn you a complication (hard coding the "fail by 5+" of some skills into the entire system. Every skill and many abilities would provide example upshots/complications to inspire you.
A missed attack would never mean "you miss, next." Instead a player would choose from several missed attack options:
Conditions and powers with durations would have a bit less game-speak in them (e.g. Until the end of the target's next turn, or Save ends) and would lean more toward narrative-based durations. For example, a barbarian's rage could last "until the barbarian spends a round without attacking anything." This makes rage more interesting. The player is going to be constantly seeking out enemies to maximize their rage time, and at the same time the player will dislike enemies that impose conditions which would hamper the barbarian from their murder spree. And it makes sense, and might even lead to some fun roleplaying: "Cleegor, the fights over! Don't hit me!" "Grr! Cleegor sense more goblins coming...must smash!"
Modifiers would happen away from the table during character creation/monster building, and would be very very rare in play. Instead an advantage/disadvantage system could be used. This could either be a non-stacking +5/-5 or it could steal from D&D Next (or really from 4e where the idea began...or perhaps 3e but I can't recall).
Player defined character keywords would be part of character creation. When leveraged they can gain you advantage, but GM may call upon them to impose disadvantage, all depending on the situation. Keywords overall would play a more prominent role than in 4e.
Streamlined action economy: Eliminating minor actions & reintroducing full-round actions & consolidating opportunities & immediate actions/interrupts into reactions. Also reduce the number of reaction-granting powers.
For creating a condition track (to consolidate several of 4e's conditions) it would look to Star Wars SAGA and True20.
Social skills would use a Rich Burlew Diplomacy approach, where the difficulty range is set by the GM but the actual DC is determined by the Player's creative approach to negotiating with the NPC. So it's not mainly about being a great thespian, it's not mainly about having Diplomacy +30, it IS mainly about thinking about your approach and being creative.
Investigative skills would use a Dungeon World-esque "list of pointed/leading questions" you can ask. Maybe the check DC you meet determines how many questions you get.
Speaking of skills, I think every skill should also have a trained only use (like detect magic for Arcana). For example, any PC can use Streetwise to check the tavern for rumors, but a PC trained in Streetwise can actually seed new rumors. Or any PC can use Heal to perform first aid (which would be a full-round action), but a PC trained in Heal can perform (magical medieval/renaissance-era) Surgery & Forensics.
Action points and healing surges would be merged into hero points. Every PC would start with 6, though that might increase at each tier. Like True20 provided a list of uses for "Conviction", each of the three main class archetypes (Expert, Warrior, Spellcaster) would have their own stunt lists for using hero points. There would be some overlap (Extra Action and Second Wind for example). Second Wind, btw, would be a free action and limited only by your remaining hero points. However, you wouldn't be able to use it when "bloodied" unless you were a Warrior.
Recovery of powers, hit points, and hero points would be slow unless the PCs were at a sanctuary. Differ sanctuaries could provide different recovery options/levels.
Thed be a unified progression table like in 4e. Every class would have sub-classes with clear identity, as well as paragons paths with strong narrative identity. Attack powers would be grouped by tier and when you have the option of gaining a new attack power you could instead folllow the upgrade track of an attack power you already know. Thus, there'd be less attack powers needed.
For basic attacks, I know the martial classes would all be: "Make a basic attack and...(insert something awesome)." Eliminating the need for a lot of power details. I'm thinking choose 2 basic attacks from a list of 5-6 should be sufficient. Could make the fewer basic attacks more versatile and perhaps introduce more combat maneuvers like Hamper, Lock Blades, Trip, etc.
For utility powers, they would instead include more passive features and less powers (especially for non-spellcasters), and would also be grouped by tier. So you'd have... ROGUE HEROIC FEATURES: choose one at 2nd level, 6th level, and 10th level. Then ROGUE PARAGON FEATURES...and so on. Also, the utility powers would be mostly non-combat abilities with some kind of meaning to the narrative (e.g. my barbarian / ranger knows how to make Animal Calls that allow him to relay simple messages to allies while hidden and scouting without giving away his position! Awesome!).
Races would also get what 4e never quite delivered on...a list of racial features you choose from as you advance...I'm thinking once per tier is about right. These would be classic identifying characteristics/traits, so for humans you might choose from: Ambition (exploiting the upshot/complication system), Dual-Classing, Heroism (bundling all those human action point feats), Adaptive Learning (letting you pick a new power/featu in the field), Perseverance (some combo of when you have no hero points/ when an ally goes down/ whe. You fail a death save/ when you fail by 5+ effects), Shrewdness (ask extra questions on a History/Insight check that have to do with power & risk), Versatility (take an extra Basic Attack from your class or a feat...this would basically be a repeat of a core human race feature).
Classes would be divided into 3 Archetypes, each archetype would share common hero point Stunt List, have access to common feats, and choose from same pool of Paragon Paths (though some might be class-restricted). Multi-classing under this system would be much easier too. As far as which classes and sub-classes, I would go with this layout:
EXPERTS
Assassin - Holy Slayer, Poisoner, Shadow
Bard - Minstrel, Skald, Trickster
Monk - Iron Fist, something, Good Friar (because a Western "Friar Tuck" staff wielded option is needed for games lacking Asian awesomeness)
Rogue - Investigator, Scoundrel, Spy, Swashbuckler, Thief, Treasure Hunter (that should cover a good spread of rogue concepts, though it could go on forever!)
WARRIORS
Barbarian - Berserker, Horsemasher, and kill the Warden and take his stuff to inspire a 3rd build
Fighter - Archer, Defender, Duelist Man-at-Arms, Slayer, and the Warlord
Paladin - Cavalier, Blackguard, and the Avenger (see, more killing classes and taking their stuff!)
Ranger - Beastmaster, Hunter, Scout
SPELLCASTERS
Cleric - (using D&DNext god names as placeholders) Lifegiver, Lightbringer, Protector, Reaper, Stormcaller, Warbringer
Druid - Ritualistic, Shapeshifter, Summoner
Warlock - Cthulu Pact, Fey Pact, Infernal Pact, Grimdark Pact
Wizard - Arcanist, Evoker, Enchanter, Illusionist, Necromancer, Wild Mage
Notice that the Big 4 classes get more sub-class options since they've got the most history and thus the most diversity in D&D books. I chose to cut Sorcerer because there are strong improvisation options for all spellcasters that sort of make that class as conceived in 3e superfluous, and the Evoker sub-class basically gets similar features to the 4e Sorcerer.
Now, something like an Artificer or the 4e Vampire class is missing from this list, but those were later options that aren't critical to the game.
Feats -overhauled! Feats would be fewer in number, you'd get less of them, and they'd get a big power up. However, I'd aggressively strip out feats which just inflate numbers - those sorts of things would be core class features or just cut out entirely.
Skill Challenges -overhauled! Skill challengrs would get a complete overhaul inspired by Star Wars SAGA and, well, a blend of my experience, lots of Internet advice, and borrowed ideas from indie games like Fiasco, Dungeon World, and Gumshoe. They would be about interesting choices testing creativity instead of skill checks. The would be similar rules basis and then templates to make The Heist, The Chase, The Investiation, The Infiltration, The Travel Montage, etc.
Magic Items would be optional and wondrous without inflating core math.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-
That would be the starting point I'd work from, something rules-lighter, with fun character building options, yet firmly all about encouraging, challenging, and rewarding player creativity (as opposed to player skill or character skill). I'm still debating if I'd go the flat math route, though that would of course make it completely incompatible with 4e. But something like that I could see working under the d20 SRD. I don't know how popular it would ever be, but it certainly hints at a game I'd love to play!
I'm going to basically brainstorm a new d20 game inspired a lot by 4e but some other games as well (BD&D, True20, Star Wars SAGA, DungeonWorld)...it's interesting, but it is long, so you've been warned!
Instead I would design a ruleset that focuses on improvisation and player creativity, using lessons learned from 4e (hell, it could even be compatible with 4e, so you could use 4e monsters!) without seeking to replicate 4e. While a good DM and highly invested players *can* do an improv style game in 4e, the system really isn't encouraging, challenging, and rewarding creativity. Instead it encourages knowing the rules and building a strong character with those rules...I mean you have so so many powers that often have very subtle to no differences.
What I would do is make a streamlined version of the system with zone-based combat (like Old School Hack) and minis both supported...
First off, initiative would be simultaneous for three main reasons:
- First, it encourages players to talk ahead of time about creative strategies/tactics especially since they matter a bit more (since the dying Orc can still stab you!), and since players can coordinate and take turns amongst themselves as they please without worrying about where a Held Action puts them in the initiative count. It also makes ranged attacks a bigger part of gameplay compared to 4e which often is melee-focused.
- Second, it reduces alpha-striking with an inflated initiative score and makes Surprise more important. I'd also be building several options you can choose when you gain Surprise to make it a bigger part of gameplay.
- Third, no more tracking initiative! When you need to find our who goes first or a PC and monster are clearly trying to go before each other there can be an contested initiative check between the two or three or whatever.
I would incorporate a system of upshots & complications. Any success, whether on a skill check, ability check, attack roll, initiative check, or something else...any success by 5+ would earn you an upshot (kind of like True20's challenges) while any failure by 5+ would earn you a complication (hard coding the "fail by 5+" of some skills into the entire system. Every skill and many abilities would provide example upshots/complications to inspire you.
A missed attack would never mean "you miss, next." Instead a player would choose from several missed attack options:
- study foe or situation and learn something.
- gain advantage and +1 die damage against same enemy on an attack next round as you wait for their guard to drop, keep battering their shield, or just get more determined to kill them.
- reposition within your current zone.
Conditions and powers with durations would have a bit less game-speak in them (e.g. Until the end of the target's next turn, or Save ends) and would lean more toward narrative-based durations. For example, a barbarian's rage could last "until the barbarian spends a round without attacking anything." This makes rage more interesting. The player is going to be constantly seeking out enemies to maximize their rage time, and at the same time the player will dislike enemies that impose conditions which would hamper the barbarian from their murder spree. And it makes sense, and might even lead to some fun roleplaying: "Cleegor, the fights over! Don't hit me!" "Grr! Cleegor sense more goblins coming...must smash!"
Modifiers would happen away from the table during character creation/monster building, and would be very very rare in play. Instead an advantage/disadvantage system could be used. This could either be a non-stacking +5/-5 or it could steal from D&D Next (or really from 4e where the idea began...or perhaps 3e but I can't recall).
Player defined character keywords would be part of character creation. When leveraged they can gain you advantage, but GM may call upon them to impose disadvantage, all depending on the situation. Keywords overall would play a more prominent role than in 4e.
Streamlined action economy: Eliminating minor actions & reintroducing full-round actions & consolidating opportunities & immediate actions/interrupts into reactions. Also reduce the number of reaction-granting powers.
For creating a condition track (to consolidate several of 4e's conditions) it would look to Star Wars SAGA and True20.
Social skills would use a Rich Burlew Diplomacy approach, where the difficulty range is set by the GM but the actual DC is determined by the Player's creative approach to negotiating with the NPC. So it's not mainly about being a great thespian, it's not mainly about having Diplomacy +30, it IS mainly about thinking about your approach and being creative.
Investigative skills would use a Dungeon World-esque "list of pointed/leading questions" you can ask. Maybe the check DC you meet determines how many questions you get.
Speaking of skills, I think every skill should also have a trained only use (like detect magic for Arcana). For example, any PC can use Streetwise to check the tavern for rumors, but a PC trained in Streetwise can actually seed new rumors. Or any PC can use Heal to perform first aid (which would be a full-round action), but a PC trained in Heal can perform (magical medieval/renaissance-era) Surgery & Forensics.
Action points and healing surges would be merged into hero points. Every PC would start with 6, though that might increase at each tier. Like True20 provided a list of uses for "Conviction", each of the three main class archetypes (Expert, Warrior, Spellcaster) would have their own stunt lists for using hero points. There would be some overlap (Extra Action and Second Wind for example). Second Wind, btw, would be a free action and limited only by your remaining hero points. However, you wouldn't be able to use it when "bloodied" unless you were a Warrior.
Recovery of powers, hit points, and hero points would be slow unless the PCs were at a sanctuary. Differ sanctuaries could provide different recovery options/levels.
Thed be a unified progression table like in 4e. Every class would have sub-classes with clear identity, as well as paragons paths with strong narrative identity. Attack powers would be grouped by tier and when you have the option of gaining a new attack power you could instead folllow the upgrade track of an attack power you already know. Thus, there'd be less attack powers needed.
For basic attacks, I know the martial classes would all be: "Make a basic attack and...(insert something awesome)." Eliminating the need for a lot of power details. I'm thinking choose 2 basic attacks from a list of 5-6 should be sufficient. Could make the fewer basic attacks more versatile and perhaps introduce more combat maneuvers like Hamper, Lock Blades, Trip, etc.
For utility powers, they would instead include more passive features and less powers (especially for non-spellcasters), and would also be grouped by tier. So you'd have... ROGUE HEROIC FEATURES: choose one at 2nd level, 6th level, and 10th level. Then ROGUE PARAGON FEATURES...and so on. Also, the utility powers would be mostly non-combat abilities with some kind of meaning to the narrative (e.g. my barbarian / ranger knows how to make Animal Calls that allow him to relay simple messages to allies while hidden and scouting without giving away his position! Awesome!).
Races would also get what 4e never quite delivered on...a list of racial features you choose from as you advance...I'm thinking once per tier is about right. These would be classic identifying characteristics/traits, so for humans you might choose from: Ambition (exploiting the upshot/complication system), Dual-Classing, Heroism (bundling all those human action point feats), Adaptive Learning (letting you pick a new power/featu in the field), Perseverance (some combo of when you have no hero points/ when an ally goes down/ whe. You fail a death save/ when you fail by 5+ effects), Shrewdness (ask extra questions on a History/Insight check that have to do with power & risk), Versatility (take an extra Basic Attack from your class or a feat...this would basically be a repeat of a core human race feature).
Classes would be divided into 3 Archetypes, each archetype would share common hero point Stunt List, have access to common feats, and choose from same pool of Paragon Paths (though some might be class-restricted). Multi-classing under this system would be much easier too. As far as which classes and sub-classes, I would go with this layout:
EXPERTS
Assassin - Holy Slayer, Poisoner, Shadow
Bard - Minstrel, Skald, Trickster
Monk - Iron Fist, something, Good Friar (because a Western "Friar Tuck" staff wielded option is needed for games lacking Asian awesomeness)
Rogue - Investigator, Scoundrel, Spy, Swashbuckler, Thief, Treasure Hunter (that should cover a good spread of rogue concepts, though it could go on forever!)
WARRIORS
Barbarian - Berserker, Horsemasher, and kill the Warden and take his stuff to inspire a 3rd build
Fighter - Archer, Defender, Duelist Man-at-Arms, Slayer, and the Warlord
Paladin - Cavalier, Blackguard, and the Avenger (see, more killing classes and taking their stuff!)
Ranger - Beastmaster, Hunter, Scout
SPELLCASTERS
Cleric - (using D&DNext god names as placeholders) Lifegiver, Lightbringer, Protector, Reaper, Stormcaller, Warbringer
Druid - Ritualistic, Shapeshifter, Summoner
Warlock - Cthulu Pact, Fey Pact, Infernal Pact, Grimdark Pact
Wizard - Arcanist, Evoker, Enchanter, Illusionist, Necromancer, Wild Mage
Notice that the Big 4 classes get more sub-class options since they've got the most history and thus the most diversity in D&D books. I chose to cut Sorcerer because there are strong improvisation options for all spellcasters that sort of make that class as conceived in 3e superfluous, and the Evoker sub-class basically gets similar features to the 4e Sorcerer.
Now, something like an Artificer or the 4e Vampire class is missing from this list, but those were later options that aren't critical to the game.
Feats -overhauled! Feats would be fewer in number, you'd get less of them, and they'd get a big power up. However, I'd aggressively strip out feats which just inflate numbers - those sorts of things would be core class features or just cut out entirely.
Skill Challenges -overhauled! Skill challengrs would get a complete overhaul inspired by Star Wars SAGA and, well, a blend of my experience, lots of Internet advice, and borrowed ideas from indie games like Fiasco, Dungeon World, and Gumshoe. They would be about interesting choices testing creativity instead of skill checks. The would be similar rules basis and then templates to make The Heist, The Chase, The Investiation, The Infiltration, The Travel Montage, etc.
Magic Items would be optional and wondrous without inflating core math.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-
That would be the starting point I'd work from, something rules-lighter, with fun character building options, yet firmly all about encouraging, challenging, and rewarding player creativity (as opposed to player skill or character skill). I'm still debating if I'd go the flat math route, though that would of course make it completely incompatible with 4e. But something like that I could see working under the d20 SRD. I don't know how popular it would ever be, but it certainly hints at a game I'd love to play!
Last edited:
Sanglorian
Adventurer
That sounds incredible - I'd love to see this happen. I'm hoping that with the end of support for 4E, lots of projects like this will pop up around the place, just as there are lots of retroclone-esque games that make greater changes.
sabrinathecat
Explorer
cthulhu pact might be under copy-right. I'm sure you can work around that.
Vampire should be a racial rider, just like revenant, not a class. (seems like it could be fun to play at some point though)
The problem I have with skill challenges is that the are almost always badly written, with no consequence for failure. One actually rewarded failure.
I like the consolidation of racial feats into just a few or a tier-bump. That is a lot cleaner than my work-around of giving extra racial feats.
Proper racial feat support was one of my bug-a-boos and on my list of 10 items.
Vampire should be a racial rider, just like revenant, not a class. (seems like it could be fun to play at some point though)
The problem I have with skill challenges is that the are almost always badly written, with no consequence for failure. One actually rewarded failure.
I like the consolidation of racial feats into just a few or a tier-bump. That is a lot cleaner than my work-around of giving extra racial feats.
Proper racial feat support was one of my bug-a-boos and on my list of 10 items.
Quickleaf
Legend
I see it the same. Why recreate the wheel?
When I look at 3e and 4e I see games systems that are effective at encouraging, challenging, and rewarding rules mastery and character skill.
When I look at older editions I see games systems that are effective at encouraging, challenging, and rewarding player skill (in the sense of learning the D&D lore/uniqueness makes you succeed more).
What I'm interested in is a game that still makes character skill and player skill matter without being primarily about either of those things...rather I identified a "third variable" of player creativity. What would a D&Desque game system that primarily encourages, challenges, and rewards creativity look like?
I think the ideas of 4e can be advanced / leveraged to make a game that does that.
Cthulu was just a placeholder name for the star pact / "things man was not meant to know" pact.
I actually think the only "vampire" race should be Dhampyr, just like players play half-orcs and not orcs, or shifters and not werewolves.
I agree about skill challenges. My "Four Shields" skill challenge theory is this: (1) it needs to map to the narrative because all players / GMs cannot distill abstraction to specifics, (2) it needs to have a structure that makes sense to the specific scenario so the mechanics & narrative gel, (3) it needs to have a meaningful risk of failure because all encounters do, and (4) the players need to have meaningful choices they can make because otherwise it's boring.
As for the consolidation of racial feats, it is a bit of that...it is also outright elimination of most racial feats. The 4e racial feats are mostly class-specific fiddly little bonuses that are hit-and-miss both mechanically and narratively (either due to a lack of ny narrative, or not referencing a popular characteristic of the race). Instead the racial features would be named "Race X Descriptor", so they'd have to make sense in the narrative.
So for dwarves: Dwarven Carousing, Dearven Craftsmanship, Dwarven Deepvision, Dwarven Giant-Foe, Dwarven Greed, Dwarven Magic Resistance, Dwarven Stubborness, Mountain Dwarf Lore-Warden, Surface Dwarf-About-Town.
I am thinking racial features would be selected at 6, 16, and 26 to fill empty levels in a reduced power/feat structure and to provide one feature per tier so race always feels relevant. A feat could grant you an extra racial feature, for those players who really want a certain racial feature to enforce their character concept at 1st level.
Hmm....
I do wonder if I should move my crazy proposition to another thread, since it deviates from 4e in many ways? Thoughts?
Sanglorian
Adventurer
Hmm....
I do wonder if I should move my crazy proposition to another thread, since it deviates from 4e in many ways? Thoughts?
Hmm, my vote would be to give it its own thread, but keep us updated in this thread on what you're doing in case it can feed back in to this project.
Similar Threads
