How would you prefer D&D class abilities to be handled?

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Do you (or anyone else reading the thread for that matter) see an alternative way to give characters class based customizing choices and a selection of powers that are not stuck on the at-will, per encounter, per day model of 4e but still gives you tactical choices not effected by the time balance issues previous editions of D&D had?

There are always drawbacks and limitations (it's not like 4E model is free of that!)

Iron Heroes had one approach with its Token mechanic. Basically, you take actions to gain tokens, and if you have enough tokens, you can spend them to fuel a special ability. It's drawback might be that it's basically an "encounter" based ability and so you lose long-term resource management considerations. But maybe one could add something for that, too.
And of course, a token mechanic is still easily "gameable". You can probably calculate the damage you inflict (or avoid or heal) for the various options (using low token cost powers or using high token cost powers) and figure out the "best" tactic for token gains. This could be made to a feature in differentiating classes. Wizards might get stronger high token powers then Fighters, for example, meaning they spend a lot of time gathering their Mana while the Fighter are constantly dodging, parrying and striking at their enemy. Rogues might have a "medium" token cost as top power.
There is a lot of design space yet unexplored, I guess.

One could also use some of the ideas of the token system and create a "set-up"/"follow-up" system. Stronger powers have prerequisites you have to fulfill in previous rounds (you could create something simple like 3-power sets with increasing effectiveness, or build complex trees, with either the easiest power at the bottom giving you a lot of options where to go, or the strongest power at the bottom giving you a lot of options to get there). This creates a lot of tactical options. The biggest problem might be the need to "forecast" what will happen to ensure you can use your follow-up options. And of course, does the DM have to do the same for monsters?

A further option might be something Herreman the Wise has suggested - using hit points (or at least a subset of them) to gain mechanical benefits in combat.


Creating tactical variety can be taken care of with all of the above, the next question is: What's your strategic resource?
- Just Hit Points (or Healing Surges)?
- Action Points?
- Daily Powers (spells?) again?
- Magical Items (Consumable, Daily Item Uses?)
- Something unknown?
- Who cares about operation play? Go away!

 

[I'm A Banana]

But I don't want easier!
Damn, I suppose I have reached the same point I already have with Raven Crowking. Sure, I get what you're aiming at and what your goals are... I just don't share your goals

Heh heh. That's fine. My solution is in response to the problems I discovered with the 4e system, and the problems with that system are grounded in the fact that there are just too many friggin' powers. There's a REASON I don't like playing Wizards in any edition.

For example, lets say the Rogue has the feat that lets you knock people prone with his Damage power. The Fighter has the feat that lets him push an enemy back with his debuff attack. Suddenly you have a character combo that can easily disable a melee opponent. If these two powers are only "once per encounter", the problem is not as serious. So what, if the Rogue and Fighter time well and hit, they have negated one round worth of attacks from their enemy. Better time this to a moment where it's important - maybe when the Wizard needs some space (or at least less getting hammered to death).

I'll agree that it's difficult, but I don't think it's impossible, as long as you keep it quick and dirty. Like, the prone status in 4e isn't that big of a deal (spend a move action, everything is better!). That would work to this system's advantage: each effect might be able to snowball, but even a potent effect would only last for a round or two before something (a save, a shift, a minor, move, or standard action) stopped it.

For instance, I'm a big fan of "special effects on a crit." Or "special effects at a cost." So, say, the rogue's Sneak Attack only knocks you prone on a critical hit, or they can take a penalty to damage in order to give you a temporary "prone" effect. You could also have a "decreasing returns" system where after a creature negates their condition, they gain a bonus against it the next time around (an anti-spamming mechanism).

That's the kind of thing you can pay attention to when designing the specific powers, though. It's not a systemic problem per se.

I recently had an interesting experience, from which I am not sure I can see if it's something universal. The last session had 2 Defenders, 1 Striker and 1 Healer. The Healer was barely needed, and while one of the Defenders was a Fighter multiclassed with Wizard, it didn't appear we needed that, either. There are certainly different strengths for different composed parties, but it didn't feel as if covering the roles was as mandatory as I thought it was. Well, so much for anecdotal nothings.

The thing with this is that it's pretty dependent on the DM -- a DM who uses a lot of minions is going to almost require a controller. A DM who uses a lot of solos is almost going to require a striker. A DM who uses a lot of brutes will pretty much require a defender.

If you have a character that's capable of all of these at once, there's less pressure on the DM to balance the encounter for their party (and more freedom with what kinds of parties you can have).

Careful with that, you're close to have 12 powers now

True, it's risky. I'm thinking along the lines of uses for the four powers, though. Like, you could choose to turn Sneak Attack into a daily ability called Death Attack that deals horrible amounts of damage, but then you couldn't use Sneak Attack for the rest of the day (you'd have to rely on your basic attacks).

Less a new power, more a new use for an old power.

And if people want more variety, well, in my vision, that's what feats are for.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I voted other. The following is what I'm working on - good for those that like building character concepts.

Firstly, I like the idea of a character having a base class - a direction in which they start the game (which may or may not change as the character develops). The 4E power sources neatly encapsulate these base classes:

• Martial - Concerned with inner power and ability
• Divine - Concerned with a/many deific relationship(s) for power
• Arcane - Concerned with magical power and its manipulation
• Primal - Concerned with the natural and spirit world for power

Secondly, I like the idea of accruing Skill Sets. A skill set is a small bundle of skills, abilities (abilities, feats or powers) that define what a character is good (or even poor) at. Skill sets come in several flavours:

• Racial/Background - Chosen at first level and describes the background of the character (eg. farmer, noble, street urchin, trade apprentice, grove attendent, deep miner, tribal, etc., human, dwarf, elf, etc.).
• Primary - Is a set of skills that embodies an aspect of the base class (martial, divine, arcane or primal) and what they can do in combat. For example a martialist may choose a skill set that allows them to power attack, cleave as well as choose amongst certain physical skills from which to become more proficient at. An arcane character may gain access to a selection of divinational "spells" or abilities as well as several particular areas of knowledge.
• Secondary - These are more generic skill sets that are more concerned with what a character can do out of combat. A master of intrigue may further their range of skills in communication while an artisan may focus on producing a certain type of object or weapon.
• Destiny - This is a primary skill set (or even occasionally a secondary skill set) that has a further advantage attached to it if chosen as a "Destiny" skill set. A destiny skill set is one that the character particular specializes in.

A starting character begins with one of each skill set:
• Racial/Background
• Primary
• Secondary
• Destiny
but then focuses with a further:
• Racial/Background II or Secondary II
and finally a:
• Racial/Background III or Secondary III or Primary II

At each level, a character acquires a further:
• Primary
• Secondary
• Destiny

Skill sets may have pre-requisites (lesser skill sets, other abilities, in game circumstances that allow a skill set to be chosen [or chosen as a destiny skill set]) or may be freely chosen.

************

As such, I suppose this is a semi-classless system where abilities are selected according to what the character aspires to be or be good at. I think this provides a more organic system of advancement allowing for a variety of ideas and concepts. However, it is very detailed and not ideal for a lot of players. It is easy enough though to construct several generic "classes" or "builds" so that the player wishing a quick start can do that instead.

At the moment though, it is a work in progress.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[RFisher]

the 30 and above crowd tend to once again prefer simpler, focused systems.

I’d say the “has kids” crowd. ^_^

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

True, it's risky. I'm thinking along the lines of uses for the four powers, though. Like, you could choose to turn Sneak Attack into a daily ability called Death Attack that deals horrible amounts of damage, but then you couldn't use Sneak Attack for the rest of the day (you'd have to rely on your basic attacks).

At least you care as much about verisimilitude in rules as I do these days!

For instance, I'm a big fan of "special effects on a crit." Or "special effects at a cost." So, say, the rogue's Sneak Attack only knocks you prone on a critical hit, or they can take a penalty to damage in order to give you a temporary "prone" effect. You could also have a "decreasing returns" system where after a creature negates their condition, they gain a bonus against it the next time around (an anti-spamming mechanism).

SFX on a critical sounds like a good way to avoid balancing issues. But it removes the tactical component.

I am not sure how well penalties actually work, but if you can "stun-lock" an opponent with some power combo even with some drawbacks, it will still be too useful to pass.
One of the problems is you want to give a penalty that makes it still worthwhile to use the power. A Trip that provokes an Opportunity Attack and can be used against you is hardly worthwile, a Trip that does not provoke and you get a chance to make a follow-up attack that deals damage if you succeed is pretty awesome.

Using penalties is something that the "Book of Iron Might" did. I think the basic ideas were sound in the 3E environment or mindset, but how much did they see use? (Not with our group, definitely, but we were pretty conservative with 3PP material...)

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I chose other because I'd prefer 1E or 2E but without the editorial commentary implied by the poll choices.

 

[Najo]

I chose other because I'd prefer 1E or 2E but without the editorial commentary implied by the poll choices.

Explain please what you like about the class structure in 1e and 2e.

 

[Lanefan]

Explain please what you like about the class structure in 1e and 2e.

(I'll answer, even though I'm not who you asked this of...)

Simplicity. The game mechanics of the character's class(es) provide some archetypes and standard in-class abilities and after that they mostly get out of the way. The character is "fleshed out" by its role-played personality and in-game actions, rather than by its mechanics, putting more focus on play after roll-up and less on "build" at roll-up.

Everything else being discussed here seems to be variants on making a too-complicated system different, but still just as complicated.

Lanefan

 

[Grazzt]

I voted talents ala Star Wars Saga, but I'd be ok with 1e/2e class abilities.

 

[Irda Ranger]

If by game unto itself, you mean looking for every synergy and broken combo to gain the highest bonus possible, I agree.

You probably disagree then, because I'm pretty sure that's not what he meant. In OD&D/1E/2E (pre- kits and players options) characters are "built" primarily through roleplaying and adventure (aka, background), not mechanics. The mechanical differences within a class are minimal or nil, but no two of them are the same person regardless.

For instance, there's a PC in my current group which I think of as "the Illinois Nazi" (I hate those guys), and I only occasionally even remember that he's a Fighter. I actually have to think about it for a second to recall what class everyone is.