Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ZombieRoboNinja" data-source="post: 3999613" data-attributes="member: 54843">I disagree with the premise that 4e is more &quot;integrated&quot; in a way harmful to homebrewing. In fact, I'd guess just the opposite.Take classes as an example. In 3e, classes tended to work in vastly different ways. Spellcasters were &quot;front-loaded&quot; with abilities that could be used once a day, while rogues could keep chugging all day long. Some classes, like fighters, were kept exceedingly vague in hopes of &quot;flexibility&quot;; others, like monks, had all sorts of weird restrictions tied on for &quot;flavor&quot; reasons. Some were vastly more powerful than others. So every time a homebrewer or third party tried to make a new class, they had to grapple with all these issues. How &quot;flavorful&quot; and regimented should a class be? How should its capabilities be paced across the &quot;adventuring day&quot;? What type of stuff should it DO - is it &quot;overpowered&quot; to have a class that can, say, heal and also deal lots of melee damage? Should a new class be powerful like a cleric or wimpy like a bard?4e takes care of a LOT of this. In 4e, we know that classes should:-All be about the same power level (probably a design goal in 3e too, but hopefully done better now).-Fit into one of four &quot;roles&quot;: defender, striker, leader or controller.-Have a mix of daily, encounter, and at-will powers (probably with flexible proportions of each).-Be flexible enough for lots of different &quot;builds&quot; but unified enough to carry a strong flavor. (Wizards and fighters are getting a lot more specific &quot;flavor&quot; in 4e, while classes like paladins and rangers are getting more flexibility. I'm betting &quot;talent trees&quot;, basically class-specific feats, will help a lot here.)The same is true of monsters. Before, we had HD (which didn't tell us much), CR (which I *still* don't get), and level, all playing poorly together with a ton of math involved. Now, in 4e, monsters will be sorted by level, difficulty (elite/solo/normal/minion), and role (skirmisher/brute/mastermind/etc), making it easier for a DM to pick out a balanced and interesting encounter AND making it easier for monster designers to tell players what to do with their creations. Plus, hey, less math for DMs always makes life easier for homebrewers.Wanna make homebrew races? 4e makes it easier, by raising the power baseline, adding racial feats, and getting rid of level adjustments. And if you don't like the Feywild, the new Abyss, or the way they've remade red dragons? Change them, just like you did Mordenkainen's Whatever in 3e. Heck, modifying the dragon should be easier, because now that he's down to a handful of iconic powers, you can remove them and sub in new powers as you see fit (rather than sorting through tables and tables to modify ability scores, spell-like abilities, and so on).Really, the only thing that seems HARDER about homebrewing in 4e is changing around the underlying rules. But at that point, you're messing with the &quot;game system,&quot; not building a &quot;game&quot; on top of it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ZombieRoboNinja, post: 3999613, member: 54843"] I disagree with the premise that 4e is more "integrated" in a way harmful to homebrewing. In fact, I'd guess just the opposite. Take classes as an example. In 3e, classes tended to work in vastly different ways. Spellcasters were "front-loaded" with abilities that could be used once a day, while rogues could keep chugging all day long. Some classes, like fighters, were kept exceedingly vague in hopes of "flexibility"; others, like monks, had all sorts of weird restrictions tied on for "flavor" reasons. Some were vastly more powerful than others. So every time a homebrewer or third party tried to make a new class, they had to grapple with all these issues. How "flavorful" and regimented should a class be? How should its capabilities be paced across the "adventuring day"? What type of stuff should it DO - is it "overpowered" to have a class that can, say, heal and also deal lots of melee damage? Should a new class be powerful like a cleric or wimpy like a bard? 4e takes care of a LOT of this. In 4e, we know that classes should: -All be about the same power level (probably a design goal in 3e too, but hopefully done better now). -Fit into one of four "roles": defender, striker, leader or controller. -Have a mix of daily, encounter, and at-will powers (probably with flexible proportions of each). -Be flexible enough for lots of different "builds" but unified enough to carry a strong flavor. (Wizards and fighters are getting a lot more specific "flavor" in 4e, while classes like paladins and rangers are getting more flexibility. I'm betting "talent trees", basically class-specific feats, will help a lot here.) The same is true of monsters. Before, we had HD (which didn't tell us much), CR (which I *still* don't get), and level, all playing poorly together with a ton of math involved. Now, in 4e, monsters will be sorted by level, difficulty (elite/solo/normal/minion), and role (skirmisher/brute/mastermind/etc), making it easier for a DM to pick out a balanced and interesting encounter AND making it easier for monster designers to tell players what to do with their creations. Plus, hey, less math for DMs always makes life easier for homebrewers. Wanna make homebrew races? 4e makes it easier, by raising the power baseline, adding racial feats, and getting rid of level adjustments. And if you don't like the Feywild, the new Abyss, or the way they've remade red dragons? Change them, just like you did Mordenkainen's Whatever in 3e. Heck, modifying the dragon should be easier, because now that he's down to a handful of iconic powers, you can remove them and sub in new powers as you see fit (rather than sorting through tables and tables to modify ability scores, spell-like abilities, and so on). Really, the only thing that seems HARDER about homebrewing in 4e is changing around the underlying rules. But at that point, you're messing with the "game system," not building a "game" on top of it. [/QUOTE]

Verification