Legends and Lore: Head of the Class

I like the concept of simple classes!

Essential classes still have too many choices (at level 1):

Feats at level 1 are unnecessary. Choices of at will powers at first level too. Actually chosing race and class suffices at first level IMHO...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

What I want is a game that, at it's core, you can pick up and play as quickly and simply as BECMI, and that's a complete game at that level if you want it to be.

But, a game that also includes customization options that can go as far as 4E's level.

And I want you to be able to play characters created both ways in the same campaign.

No, you can't make such characters 100% balanced with each other, but you can make them close enough.

Similarly, I want a D&D where you can play combat as mechanically as 4E or as abstractly as (say) 2E, and the system supported both.

I also want this from my D&D, and it seems quite plausible to me (not easy - just plausible).

Start with essentials-style characters. They generally have a mixture of class abilities, at-will and encounter powers (some of which are usable more than once/encounter) and either daily powers or static modifiers. In the customized version, the at-will and encounter powers can be swapped out for powers from a list. Similarly, packages of daily powers, class abilities and static modifiers can be swapped out for other packages, much like current classes allow players to swap out certain class abilities.

Then, as a blanket design choice, make sure that none of the default abilities depend on the battlemap in order to be effective. That way, the basic characters can either play a (less tactical) battlemap game or they can play with more abstract combat. The customizable abilities can require a map for maximal effectiveness. There is nothing stopping a player from taking a slide-style power in a map-less (or mostly map-less) game, but that's an "at your own risk" decision that depends on GM discretion to make the "slide 3" power effective in an abstract combat.

You can also simply feats and skills greatly. Skills can be replaced by ability checks, and feats can be replaced by (swap-able) non-combat class abilities.

If you use ability checks as the core mechanic, than you can just give classes bonuses to certain types of ability checks. What's the difference between training in the stealth skill and giving Rogues a +5 bonus to checks for stealth (which would typically be based on Dex) or Wizards a +5 bonus to checks involving magical knowledge or analysis (typically based on Int). Classes could also have abilities like the wilderness knack powers of Essential rangers, which could potentially be swapped for generic non-combat powers. Naturally, some of these swap-able non-combat powers would include skill-style training in certain types of ability checks.

Obviously, it's a lot easier to describe a system at a high level than it is to work out all the details, but I don't think the designers of D&D have to achieve any great breakthroughs to build such a system. It seems quite doable with "existing game design technology" (as it were).

-KS
 

I think people are assuming it will be exactly like essentials versus core.

I think what he is suggesting is thus:

FIGHTER (Basic Foundation)

PART 1: PRESET 1
PART 2: PRESET 2
PART 3: PRESET 3
PART 4: PRESET 4
ETC...

FIGHTER (Advanced Customized)

PART 1: PRESET 1
PART 2: MEGA BATTLEAXE WOOPASS
PART 3: PRESET 3
PART 4: SPINNING GOD FANGLE
ETC...



What I think he means is that you have a default optioned foundation to each class. But if you aren't happy with certain parts, or if you prefer the look of some customizable options, you swap your default options for something else more complex and fussy. But the default non-hassle foundation is still playable and competitive.

This way you can turn up the dial of complexity of your character. If you want simple leave the class at foundation. If you want a bit more spice swap out a bit of stuff. If you want something really fussy and complex you could swap out everything.

This makes sense to me and should be good and make everyone happy (I know - what drugs has somebody slipped me - they'd probably moan that the whole thing isn't completely built with them in mind like they are the centre of the universe.)

What would be even better is if a learner could start with the default class and if they felt competent enough to handle the complexity they could swap out some of the default options later to customize on the fly. This way a beginner would not feel they were stuck with a simple boring class for the rest of a campaign (not that they couldn't just rebuild it later anyway.)
 

I like the idea of the article, but I would like to see it taken one step further. Have the 'core' classes, but allow for the option to switch out pieces as one progresses. This is where I think they failed with Essentials. Had they made the E-classes with interchangeable parts (a stance and an at-will for a Daily for example) I don't think it would have drawn as MUCH Ire.

I know personally this would have helped my group out a lot when we started 4e. I'm the optimizer/rules lawyer. My roommate was an average-above average player, ie he looked for ways to be effective, but not to the degree I went. We also had the guy who showed up to play, the guy who wanted to do one thing, but due to the system wasn't happy about how it turned out, and didn't really do anything to fix it, and the theme guy, who took whatever power applied to his theme irregardless of how (in)effective it was.

So on top of learning a new system, and breaking old habits from 3.5, we were really swamped with a lot of stuff to sort out, and I really think that it detracted from the amount of fun we had. It also didn't help that the initial modules were really poor.

Of course, the hard part about the proposed system is maintaining balance. For dps, it's pretty simple to measure. Control, proactive/reactive leading, and defending on the other hand have too many variables that they can't all be accounted for.

Then there is the issue with feats. With the exception of a few generic feats, have the focus be more race/class specific.

My two cents,
 

I would love nothing more to have an edition of D&D that was basically BECMI updated with modern, unified design and better mechanics.

The advanced options can all be relegated to supplements, that way I can have a nice game of D&D that doesn't feel like a Magic card tournament with my friends and when trenchcoat katana ponytail boy shows up with his splatbook, I can laugh in his blustering, entitled face after I ban his stupid grimdark chaintrip build. Then I'd give a magic sword to the character of the player who brought me the most teeth...though trenchy would probably just pull his own out just for the numbers...god I hate gamers.
 

What I get from this article (and all those leading up to it, in retrospect) is a justification for Essentials and a sense that if Mearls had had his way (or if they had thought of it sooner), they would have done Essentials first (perhaps a more rigorous version) and then expanded on that.

I think it should certainly be possible to have the kind of modular game system that Mearls is proposing - and I would very much like to see it - but it's a long way from concept to product.
 

I'd like to see a "Basic" system with less decision points.

It would be great to introduce new players to the hobby, and IMHO that's where Essentials failed (Red Box, I'm looking at you!).

Most new players when introduced to RPG, just want to play Conan the barbarian, Gandalf the wizard, or some strong archetypes like that. Choosing feats, powers and stuff can come when they roll their second character.

This could actually have been done with builds, written down from level 1 to 30, instead of only level 1.

What I'd like to see more, would be some kind of modular approach to some areas, mostly combat. 4E tactical combat is great, but that level of detail is not everyone stuff.

A basic combat system, gridless and miniless, would be great. I don't actually care if it's not 100% balanced with the "advanced" system, since I guess it's more a gaming group choice to go for one or the other, than a single choice.
 

Feats at level 1 are unnecessary. Choices of at will powers at first level too. Actually chosing race and class suffices at first level IMHO...

Agreed. I'd be inclined to give out a feat on every even-numbered level. Also, fix the power progression at levels 1 and 2. And have fixed skill 'packages' at 1st level, too, with the option to pick skills for more advanced players.

(That way, at 1st level you pick race and class, 2nd level you start picking feats, and 3rd level you start picking powers.)

I'd also restrict multiclassing until at least 3rd level; let players get used to a single class first, before worrying about branching out to other classes. Probably expand the retaining rules to allow them to 'fix' a bad class choice early on.

Oh, but be sure to also include rules for quickly generating characters at 3rd level (and make that a fully-supported option), for players who don't want to have to play through all that "boring" stuff before they get to make real choices!
 

Oh, but be sure to also include rules for quickly generating characters at 3rd level (and make that a fully-supported option), for players who don't want to have to play through all that "boring" stuff before they get to make real choices!

This would be a really good way to implement that. Oh, and don´t forget to add a level 0. For people who really like to play commoners before adventuring!
 

I think D&D 4 is very close to making this a realistic possiblity. The designers have mostly worked out the major balance considerations. (It's certainly not perfect, but not CODzilla vs. Bard).

D&D Essentials the example, and adding multiclassing rules for Essential classes and their Core classes version gets us even further along.
 

Remove ads

Top