Legends and Lore: Head of the Class

[erf_beto]

Fantastic article!

I think this is entirely possible, and one thing I've actually started to do when 4e was released. Basically, it's a moddable pre-gen character, with little input from race. From PHB1 alone, that's already 16 "classes" (2 builds x 8 classes), not even counting the classic multiclasses, like elf fighter/wizard. I've lost track of how many races and classes we have today, and you even add themes now! That's just in the heroic tier. That's already a lot of choices if you want a simple game.

And it surely can be done. I hate to bring up MMO's to the thread, but have you seen DDO? Character creation there is almost exactly what the article talks about: you can just choose race, class and build, and the game does the rest for you, from level 1 to 20*; unless you decide you want something different, like a feat, spells or choice of class feature, you can change that or everything else, thus creating a character like in the pnp game.

*there are other forms of customization in DDO.

I say, bring it on. And don't wait until 5e comes around.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm skeptical you can do a highly modular system for a variety of reasons. Balance between PCs and monsters being one, but just generally being able to write a module that would work well regardless of which options a given table uses.

OTOH basic characters as a concept itself doesn't seem all that hard to do. As other people have said, they don't have to be entirely balanced with 'advanced' characters. I mean 3.5 was inarguably playable and there wasn't even the faintest hint of balance between classes. Not that huge imbalances are GOOD, but they don't render the game unplayable and people certainly will play even less potent options as long as they offer something the player wants. And there really need not be a huge level of difference between one or the other. It is just more that the devs aren't married to making them exactly equivalent, as long as there's a way to make A balanced character for each concept the 'advanced' players will have options that are fair and useful to them and the 'basic' players can prioritize their other needs. If the basic type character can be easily switched over by picking advanced options later on, so much the better.

It isn't a perfect solution. Players of the less powerful options will get arm twisted to pick up the more complex powerful options, but nothing is perfect.

As far as a true 'Basic using 4e core rules'. A game like that could be designed and would no doubt be a popular game with some groups. I don't personally think I'd be interested in going back to the old 'fighters drool and wizards rule' kind of situation that using the old magic system (or something close to it) would probably entail. There's a reason 4e is progress on previous editions. Still, it really isn't a hard thing to do, kind of an easy homebrew project really...

 

[KidSnide]

I'm skeptical you can do a highly modular system for a variety of reasons. Balance between PCs and monsters being one, but just generally being able to write a module that would work well regardless of which options a given table uses.

I understand how certain, more complicated, monsters would be better suited to an advanced game. But I don't see any reason basic monsters would be unusable in an advanced game. They are just less complicated. Similarly, an advanced monster could make an appearance in a basic game, it's just that the DM would have to handwave some of the powers - pretty much like they did in 1st and 2nd ed, when some monster abilities were, shall we say, a little ambiguous.

I agree that modules are probably better if they are designed for simple or advanced play, but I don't see any reason a simple module couldn't have advanced encounters available on-line (or visa versa).

-KS

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I understand how certain, more complicated, monsters would be better suited to an advanced game. But I don't see any reason basic monsters would be unusable in an advanced game. They are just less complicated. Similarly, an advanced monster could make an appearance in a basic game, it's just that the DM would have to handwave some of the powers - pretty much like they did in 1st and 2nd ed, when some monster abilities were, shall we say, a little ambiguous.

I agree that modules are probably better if they are designed for simple or advanced play, but I don't see any reason a simple module couldn't have advanced encounters available on-line (or visa versa).

-KS

I think any monster might be usable, though yeah some might be better in one game or the other, you can always have stuff you leave off in basic. The question is, is a level 5 orc in basic also a level 5 challenge in advanced? And at a more basic level can we make an encounter, and a module full of encounters, that will work well with all the different variations of rules well? I think you could build a family of games, that was done with d20 long ago and with GW recently. But can you just go run a GW adventure in 4e? I haven't read a GW adventure and only passing familiar with the rules. I'm sure it is mechanically possible, but how much needs to be tweaked just due to different balance assumptions and such?

 

[KidSnide]

I think any monster might be usable, though yeah some might be better in one game or the other, you can always have stuff you leave off in basic. The question is, is a level 5 orc in basic also a level 5 challenge in advanced? And at a more basic level can we make an encounter, and a module full of encounters, that will work well with all the different variations of rules well? I think you could build a family of games, that was done with d20 long ago and with GW recently. But can you just go run a GW adventure in 4e? I haven't read a GW adventure and only passing familiar with the rules. I'm sure it is mechanically possible, but how much needs to be tweaked just due to different balance assumptions and such?

First of all, I'm not sure that we'll see many different variations of the rules. I imagine a simple version and a tactical version. Sure, there could be tons of optional rules, but those would be like "do you use psionics". It's hard to imagine making any balance judgments if the game has 5 different combat systems. Two, maybe.

Second, I think D&D could stand to be a good deal less balanced than 4e. I love game balance. I love the fact that 4e characters are equivalent in power in a way that no other edition ever managed. I love that monsters of the same level are approximately the same power. I also love the end of save-or-die character roulette. But that having been said, I think 4e combat is way too predictable. As much as imbalance and random swinginess is bad in excess, a future edition could be a little less carefully constrained than 4e. (Really, does every monster need roughly the same number of hit points?)

So, I tend to think that, in this hypothetical system, a combat will be balanced for one of the two combat systems (usually tactical combat, since the folks who care about tactical combat probably care about a finely balanced combat more), and the other combat will usually be fun too.

-KS