I actually like this as it keeps the players on their toes. Especially with the recharge powers since no longer do I have players going "ok, the behir can shoot lightning once every 4 rounds, it shot off last round so we have 3 rounds to wail on it"
hypathetical 5e from YOU...Forked Thread: Academic Studies Recent Edition Wars
- Thread starter GMforPowergamers
- Start date
I actually like this as it keeps the players on their toes. Especially with the recharge powers since no longer do I have players going "ok, the behir can shoot lightning once every 4 rounds, it shot off last round so we have 3 rounds to wail on it"
I don't mind when a power is a recharge power and the PCs figure it out. My problem is mostly with encounter abilities where the players assume that the attack can happen a second time (ie, they assume its a recharge ability), prepare for it, wait for it, and it's completely incapable of happening.
avin
First Post
Last edited:
Daniel D. Fox
Explorer
Dump AC, impliment DR.
Dump stats, impliment passive and active Fortitude/Reflex/Will stats to govern to hit/defenses.
Expand the skill list, governed by trained and active Fortitude/Reflex/Will "active" stats
Standardize weapon damage by simple, military and superior (one handed, two handed, thrown ranged, missile ranged) with different properties amongst weapons, instead of different damage die.
Viola!
Dump stats, impliment passive and active Fortitude/Reflex/Will stats to govern to hit/defenses.
Expand the skill list, governed by trained and active Fortitude/Reflex/Will "active" stats
Standardize weapon damage by simple, military and superior (one handed, two handed, thrown ranged, missile ranged) with different properties amongst weapons, instead of different damage die.
Viola!
I wonder how much this would really change the game.
In my games, INT and CHA frequently ended up being "dump stats", with the exception of classes like the wizard, sorcerer, bard, etc ... INT and CHA were mainly used for various skill checks outside of combat (ie. knowledge, bluff, etc ...), for the non-arcane classes.
For many players I know who play classes which do a lot of melee fighting (ie. fighter, ranger, barbarian, paladin, etc ...), STR and CON were almost always made relatively high. Very few ever made a character with high STR and low CON, nor the other way around of high CON and low STR.
With the exception of the Cleric, Druid, Shaman, etc ... in 4E, WIS frequently also ends up as a "dump stat".
Hmmm .... INT, CHA, and WIS as frequent "dump stats".
Last edited:
Let's see.
I would use 4E as the basic template, but be a lot stricter about making the "fluff" and "crunch" (I hate those terms, but whatever) line up. Every power should have a clear "fluff hook" so a player can grasp, without thinking about the mechanics, what it's doing. If unique fluff cannot be devised that lines up neatly with the crunch, the crunch must change.
(Oddly, this would probably have the least impact on martial classes - aside from a couple of outliers like Come and Get It, most martial powers are quite clean and clear. The arcane classes would take a bit of work. The primal and especially divine classes would get a massive overhaul.)
I would also beef up the stunt system and work it into the core of the game. Right now, stunts are confined to the legendary Page 42 of the DMG. They should be in the Player's Handbook. The system should be open-ended but with clear guidelines. Furthermore, PCs get X number of stunt points per day, to encourage them to think about and attempt stunts. Try a stunt, spend a stunt point. You can try a stunt without spending stunt points, but you get a -5 penalty on the d20 roll when you do.
To limit the impact on player headspace, remove daily powers and replace them with the aforementioned stunt system. Give out a small number of "stunt powers" that can be used in place of free-form stunts. All stunt powers with non-combat utility must have a penalty for failure, so you can't just suck up the -5 and try them repeatedly until they work. (Another solution would be a rule that you can't use the no-stunt-point option with stunt powers, but that's the sort of "gotcha" rule I'd prefer to avoid.)
Divvy up powers by tier instead of level: Heroic powers, Paragon powers, and Epic powers. Each time you get a new power, you can choose any power appropriate to your tier. This would reduce the need for a zillion copies of the same power with slightly higher numbers. (See below for how damage will scale with level.)
Scrap +X items... or at least get rid of the system that applies the +X to every single attack and damage roll and every defense; if we must have +X, confine it to giving bonus dice on crits, or increasing the likelihood of a crit. Instead of magic item daily powers, have magic item stunt powers, which you activate by spending your own stunt points. This allows us to junk the current system for magic item dailies, which is ridiculously convoluted.
Change the way ability scores influence things like attack rolls and skill modifiers. Instead of having the modifier apply to every roll, limit it to use with stunts and possibly skills. For basic attacks and defenses, your bonus should be strictly a function of level and class/proficiency. It's easier for players to understand and it simplifies the design math something fierce.
On a similar note, have damage scale directly as a function of level. You get a "level bonus" to all your damage rolls. (For AoE attacks, you get half of your level bonus or so.)
Build up the skill challenge system. Revamp it to be better balanced and more robust.
Tweak some of the terminology to be more intuitive. For instance, replace "healing surge" with "heroic surge."
(More in a bit...)
I would use 4E as the basic template, but be a lot stricter about making the "fluff" and "crunch" (I hate those terms, but whatever) line up. Every power should have a clear "fluff hook" so a player can grasp, without thinking about the mechanics, what it's doing. If unique fluff cannot be devised that lines up neatly with the crunch, the crunch must change.
(Oddly, this would probably have the least impact on martial classes - aside from a couple of outliers like Come and Get It, most martial powers are quite clean and clear. The arcane classes would take a bit of work. The primal and especially divine classes would get a massive overhaul.)
I would also beef up the stunt system and work it into the core of the game. Right now, stunts are confined to the legendary Page 42 of the DMG. They should be in the Player's Handbook. The system should be open-ended but with clear guidelines. Furthermore, PCs get X number of stunt points per day, to encourage them to think about and attempt stunts. Try a stunt, spend a stunt point. You can try a stunt without spending stunt points, but you get a -5 penalty on the d20 roll when you do.
To limit the impact on player headspace, remove daily powers and replace them with the aforementioned stunt system. Give out a small number of "stunt powers" that can be used in place of free-form stunts. All stunt powers with non-combat utility must have a penalty for failure, so you can't just suck up the -5 and try them repeatedly until they work. (Another solution would be a rule that you can't use the no-stunt-point option with stunt powers, but that's the sort of "gotcha" rule I'd prefer to avoid.)
Divvy up powers by tier instead of level: Heroic powers, Paragon powers, and Epic powers. Each time you get a new power, you can choose any power appropriate to your tier. This would reduce the need for a zillion copies of the same power with slightly higher numbers. (See below for how damage will scale with level.)
Scrap +X items... or at least get rid of the system that applies the +X to every single attack and damage roll and every defense; if we must have +X, confine it to giving bonus dice on crits, or increasing the likelihood of a crit. Instead of magic item daily powers, have magic item stunt powers, which you activate by spending your own stunt points. This allows us to junk the current system for magic item dailies, which is ridiculously convoluted.
Change the way ability scores influence things like attack rolls and skill modifiers. Instead of having the modifier apply to every roll, limit it to use with stunts and possibly skills. For basic attacks and defenses, your bonus should be strictly a function of level and class/proficiency. It's easier for players to understand and it simplifies the design math something fierce.
On a similar note, have damage scale directly as a function of level. You get a "level bonus" to all your damage rolls. (For AoE attacks, you get half of your level bonus or so.)
Build up the skill challenge system. Revamp it to be better balanced and more robust.
Tweak some of the terminology to be more intuitive. For instance, replace "healing surge" with "heroic surge."
(More in a bit...)
Last edited:
Fallen Seraph
First Post
Jack99
Adventurer
You forgot the wizard (orb-cheese), the fighter (marking cheese?) and the ranger (secondary stat). Since I figure the Invoker is part of the "etc", along with the paladin, that makes at least 8 classes of the top of my head who can benefit quite a lot from a decent to great wisdom. That's about half of the released classes. If WIS is often ending up as a dump stat, it seems more coincidence than anything else.
Cheers
In a system where Fort/Ref/Will is used for both defense and offense stats and replacing the traditional six stats (STR, CON, DEX, INT, WIS, CHA), I suppose there's roughly the correspondence:
Fort - STR, CON
Reflex - DEX
Will - WIS
AC could be Fort + armor bonus + reflex bonus
Is it plausible for Reflex to be based on INT in some form or another?
Is it plausible for Will to be based on CHA in some form or another?
I suppose what use to be INT and CHA, could possibly end up being only in the skills section.
With respect to spell caster classes, should their primary stat be Will?
How would the bard fit into this system of Fort/Ref/Will as both defense and offense stats?
Fort - STR, CON
Reflex - DEX
Will - WIS
AC could be Fort + armor bonus + reflex bonus
Is it plausible for Reflex to be based on INT in some form or another?
Is it plausible for Will to be based on CHA in some form or another?
I suppose what use to be INT and CHA, could possibly end up being only in the skills section.
With respect to spell caster classes, should their primary stat be Will?
How would the bard fit into this system of Fort/Ref/Will as both defense and offense stats?
True, but that system is limited in scope and easy to forget, not to mention being only really useful to people with Acrobatics training. I want a stunt system that jumps up and down and yells "Hey, use me!" every time a player looks down at his/her character sheet. Hence the stunt points. (To further encourage free-form stunts, stunt powers should have moderately specialized utility; e.g., Turn Undead.)
Further thoughts:
With regard to skill challenges, redesign the skill system with them in mind. Take the example skill challenges in the DMG and build on them to create a set of challenging, mechanically interesting "encounters," while at the same time making them more generic and applicable to different situations. Design them around being referenced at the game table. Ideally, any time a noncombat situation comes up, the DM should be able to crack the DMG to the appropriate skill challenge, "fill in the blanks," and go.
Some examples:
- The Plea for Aid: Talk an NPC into helping you.
- The Infiltration: Sneak the party past guards or sentinels.
- The Interrogation: Get a prisoner to talk.
- The Journey: Travel across a stretch of wilderness.
- The Bargain: Negotiate an exchange of goods and/or services.
- The Search: Locate a hidden place or object.
- The Escape: Get away from pursuing forces.
Add a Backgrounds chapter to the PHB, in which you choose your character's background in broad strokes. This includes things like non-adventuring skills, profession, and so forth. Start with the background system in Scales of War and develop it - while at the same time reducing or eliminating the impact on adventuring mechanics; people should not be picking their backgrounds in order to optimize skill bonuses.
Reduce the number of magic items, while making each item much more interesting. Instead of thousands of three-line statblocks, the 5E Adventurer's Vault should contain a couple hundred generic items, plus 50 to 100 artifacts. Artifacts would resemble 3E items of legacy. They would grow with the character, each artifact having multiple stunt powers available at different tiers, unlockable properties, and so forth.
The idea here is that artifacts take the place of the current weapon/armor/neck slot items as the core items that everybody is expected to have. Each character is expected to have, let's say, 1 artifact per tier; so you get your first in Heroic, your second in Paragon, and your third in Epic, plus a handful of generic magic items. Generic magic items round out your character; they include "plain-vanilla" magic weapons and armor, specialized utility items, and consumables.
Yes, this means you could find and affix the Hand of Vecna in the Heroic tier. Of course, you won't learn to wield its full power until Epic. But you do get to be the guy with the Hand of Vecna... with all that that entails. (Most artifacts would be much less world-specific, of course; they would be things like the sword Flametongue, or the Staff of the Magi, or the Holy Avenger. But it wouldn't be D&D without the Hand of Vecna.)
Incorporate RP elements in the form of skill challenge modifiers. Be sure to balance them against each other, not against non-RP mechanics. For instance, if you possess the Hand of Vecna, you might get 2 automatic successes in any skill challenge dealing with the followers of Vecna, but 2 automatic failures in any skill challenge dealing with servants of Lawful Good deities.
Since +X items are going away, of course, the DM does not have to hand out that many artifacts. The game will be fairly understanding if you give out more or less; it won't throw the math off.
Recognize that some players like to play the fox and some like to play the hedgehog, and design accordingly (for those not familiar with it, I'm riffing on the saying that "the fox knows many things, the hedgehog knows one big thing"). Design some classes as fox classes, where you get a large number of powers, and other classes as hedgehog classes, where you get a small number of powers and an across-the-board bonus to compensate.
For instance:
Fighter (fox) vs. Barbarian (hedgehog)
Druid (fox) vs. Cleric (hedgehog)
Wizard (fox) vs. Sorceror (hedgehog)
Rogue (fox) vs. Ranger (hedgehog, at least in combat)
Warlord (fox) vs Paladin (hedgehog)
(I'm not wedded to that specific arrangement, incidentally. It's just showing one way the classes might be sorted out.)
Last edited:
Similar Threads
