D&D 4E Dissociating what I (we?) like from the mechanics

[FitzTheRuke]

Another thing I'd do (if we wanna get more specific) is pull "Basic Attack"(s) out of the powers and make powers (that use basic attacks, not the other ones) always be modifiers to basic attacks. So rather than having a basic attack that's 1[W]+STR MOD and a power that does 2[W]+STR MOD (as an encounter) (that needs info filling in) is have the power say "Your BA does 2x[W] this attack" (and needs no more info). That way, power cards do not need information they don't have (your BA would be on your character sheet).

I don't know if I did a good job of explaining what I mean.

 

[Blue]

Come to think of it... what if we were to ditch the +X on items and have your +X simply based on how many magical items you are attuned with? The more magic item, the stronger your magical aura? With a few rare magical weapons boosting it further too. Just a thought

This means that if you give oen character more than their share of items (for whatever reason), they get exponentionally more powerful - both having the items and having the higher +X with them.

Maybe do it the other way around - bring in a 5e level attunement but that grows with tier or level, and the +X is the number of non-used attunement slots. Your aura isn't tied up in other things. Also works well as a balancing mechanism between characters.

 

[Undrave]

This means that if you give oen character more than their share of items (for whatever reason), they get exponentionally more powerful - both having the items and having the higher +X with them.

Which might seem like a problem, but it could also be used strategically by the party to buff a team member for a specific purpose.

Maybe do it the other way around - bring in a 5e level attunement but that grows with tier or level, and the +X is the number of non-used attunement slots. Your aura isn't tied up in other things. Also works well as a balancing mechanism between characters.

But this one is a neat concept as well for the +Xs.

Another thing I'd do (if we wanna get more specific) is pull "Basic Attack"(s) out of the powers and make powers (that use basic attacks, not the other ones) always be modifiers to basic attacks. So rather than having a basic attack that's 1[W]+STR MOD and a power that does 2[W]+STR MOD (as an encounter) (that needs info filling in) is have the power say "Your BA does 2x[W] this attack" (and needs no more info). That way, power cards do not need information they don't have (your BA would be on your character sheet).

I don't know if I did a good job of explaining what I mean.

It's a thing to consider, but at this point we're getting into too fine a mechanical detail. It's not like we have already have a system or anything anyway. But it's worth brainstorming.

 

[Kannik]

The hybrid rules were a kludgy as hell attempt to create traditional multiclassing. If you weren't experienced with the system, it was all too easy to create an unworkable mess, or in a few cases something that broke the game's power curve (the dreaded paladin|warlock, for instance).

I much prefer 4E's feat-based multiclassing, which lives on in PF2E in the form of dedications and archetypes, over the 3E/5E "level of this, level of that" multiclassing.

I'm more sanguine about the hybrid rules. There were some great and fun characters that wouldn't have worked as well without them, such as our Cleric/Monk from the Monastery of the Yellow Rose, or our Fighter/Ranger arena master. I liked having both options (multiclass feat dip as well as hybrid), though the multiclass power swapping feats I think were unnecessary.

(Also, hybrid was very different than the level dipping of 3e or 5e, and in that way managed to avoid some of the more egregious power plays.)

 

[JiffyPopTart]

That's a great way to put it!

d20's just a familiar frame that makes it easy to convert other players, and 'roll high = good, roll low = bad' is pretty intuitive, but I'm curious what you got in mind? If you want to just give us the outline.

I'd like to see a basically d20 style system but tweaked to use 2d10 instead. The much flattened curve would help a lot to smooth over the fickleness of small modifiers tacked onto a straight random 1-20 roll.

 

[Undrave]

I'd like to see a basically d20 style system but tweaked to use 2d10 instead. The much flattened curve would help a lot to smooth over the fickleness of small modifiers tacked onto a straight random 1-20 roll.

That's not a bad idea either.

 

[Blue]

I'd like to see a basically d20 style system but tweaked to use 2d10 instead. The much flattened curve would help a lot to smooth over the fickleness of small modifiers tacked onto a straight random 1-20 roll.

That will have the exact opposite effect you want.

A +1 with a d20 is a flat 5%, but when you are looking at a curve it matters where it falls. D&D aims in the 50-60% chance of success. In that range, a +1 is worth an additional 7-10% bonus.

In order for a +1 to be worth less than the 5% of a d20, you would need to either only fail on a 5 or less (5 -> 6 is a 4% increase), or only succeed on a 16 or higher (16 -> 17 is also only 4% increase) on a regular basis.

In other words, small modifiers will have a much larger effect on success/failure with 2d10 than with 1d20.

 

[Undrave]

That will have the exact opposite effect you want.

A +1 with a d20 is a flat 5%, but when you are looking at a curve it matters where it falls. D&D aims in the 50-60% chance of success. In that range, a +1 is worth an additional 7-10% bonus.

In order for a +1 to be worth less than the 5% of a d20, you would need to either only fail on a 5 or less (5 -> 6 is a 4% increase), or only succeed on a 16 or higher (16 -> 17 is also only 4% increase) on a regular basis.

In other words, small modifiers will have a much larger effect on success/failure with 2d10 than with 1d20.

Ooh... thanks for the math!

 

[JiffyPopTart]

That will have the exact opposite effect you want.

A +1 with a d20 is a flat 5%, but when you are looking at a curve it matters where it falls. D&D aims in the 50-60% chance of success. In that range, a +1 is worth an additional 7-10% bonus.

In order for a +1 to be worth less than the 5% of a d20, you would need to either only fail on a 5 or less (5 -> 6 is a 4% increase), or only succeed on a 16 or higher (16 -> 17 is also only 4% increase) on a regular basis.

In other words, small modifiers will have a much larger effect on success/failure with 2d10 than with 1d20.

Yes, but that IS what I'm going for. When you have small bonuses you can employ the flattened curve of 2d10 to make things less swingly but still have a functional system. If you were to try to apply the 2d10 system to a game with big bonuses (3.5 for example) then the bonuses eventually make the randomized portion moot as it's such a small portion of the overall numbers.

Saying "you are almost always going to get a 7-14 added to your bonus" hits different when the bonus is +5 versus +50.

 

[Blue]

Yes, but that IS what I'm going for. When you have small bonuses you can employ the flattened curve of 2d10 to make things less swingly but still have a functional system. If you were to try to apply the 2d10 system to a game with big bonuses (3.5 for example) then the bonuses eventually make the randomized portion moot as it's such a small portion of the overall numbers.

Saying "you are almost always going to get a 7-14 added to your bonus" hits different when the bonus is +5 versus +50.

I think we're talking about "swingy" or "fickleness" in different ways. Let me be explicit about what the math means.

Your original post talked about: "smooth over the fickleness of small modifiers". But 2d10, when aiming for the mid range of it, increases the impact of all bonuses (big or small), not decreases them.

It makes min-maxing much more rewarding - every bonus has a larger impact in determining success/failure than it would with a d20.