• NOW LIVE! -- One-Page Adventures for D&D 5th Edition on Kickstarter! A booklet of colourful one-page adventures for D&D 5th Edition ranging from levels 1-9 and designed for a single session of play.
log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 4E List of Potential New Martial Practices

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Then again, lack of a skill challenge system means there is no fixed value to 'get advantage on your next check in this challenge' or somesuch.[
There are many many youtube videos and some web pages where 4e players have imported Skill Challenges to 5e some of what they lack is the not everything you invest towards succeeding in a challenge == a skill use or application some are strategic resources.

At least 5e does have a, fairly rudimentary, system in terms of Inspiration, that could be leveraged, but it really would benefit heavily from being restructured.
Its a resource that could be leveraged indeed. But seems as unpredictable as cash.

5e already has spells with component costs. Those costs are effectively meaningless because of what you mentioned.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Again, HoML FTW (haha). Practices are simply things that allow you to substitute one skill for another in a narrative situation, so maybe running lets you make an Endurance check vs whatever other thing you might have done (IE cast some ritual to get there faster, riding, etc.). If you pay a cost (a VP would be a good one here) then you auto-succeed. The exact numerical result is simply color. At heroic it is impossible to run 200 miles in one day, at Epic this is not that difficult.

Now, tactical 'running' (lets call it sprinting) I just assume is handled by double moves. Yeah, you can tack on the 2 extra squares/move action if you want some penalties, but that's about it. Truthfully you need to not look too closely at tactical movement. I mean, an Olympic class athlete can run 100m in 10 seconds (give or take), which is 60 SQUARES per 10 second melee round. This is clearly far beyond what the tactical system of 4e can handle, so we have to squint and assume that people are only using 'bursts of speed' and/or that melee rounds are actually more of a flexible notion of time where each on is "a few seconds" or even 1 to 60 seconds, depending on the action (this is basically how AD&D handled it, in practice).
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Again, HoML FTW (haha). Practices are simply things that allow you to substitute one skill for another in a narrative situation, so maybe running lets you make an Endurance check vs whatever other thing you might have done (IE cast some ritual to get there faster, riding, etc.). If you pay a cost (a VP would be a good one here) then you auto-succeed. The exact numerical result is simply color. At heroic it is impossible to run 200 miles in one day, at Epic this is not that difficult.
HoML is a full embrace of the abstraction I see 4e as mainline of a duality... between abstracted element and explicit ones.
 

HoML is a full embrace of the abstraction I see 4e as mainline of a duality... between abstracted element and explicit ones.
Well, I still have pretty close to 4e's tactical combat. In some ways it may feel like a dichotomy, but actually I am finding it works OK. I think for the same reasons that Pemerton found that Burning Wheel works (and I have at least outlined a set of more abstract grades of combat resolution, although they feel a bit odd in terms of the results might not match up well with what you get in a full tactical scenario, its impossible to really create 2 or 3 combat systems that produce the same results at different levels of abstraction).

In any case, you could also argue for a Sprinting function to Running, or as its own 'utility power' that let you basically say something like "I want to be over here now" as long as you passed a check that was scaled by the distance and any terrain difficulties, etc.
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Now, tactical 'running' (lets call it sprinting) I just assume is handled by double moves. Yeah, you can tack on the 2 extra squares/move action if you want some penalties, but that's about it. Truthfully you need to not look too closely at tactical movement.
Oh I definitely am not going to squint too hard, I only mentioned sprinting speeds because they are an epic goal for Long distance running aka Gilgamesh.-

Boiled down
basic walking speed is speed divide by 2 in mph, and the base-line for heroic running is considered 2x (scaling in half tier increments to epic of 7x the base).

Note this ability is one of the martial practices which we can also identify as a Monk ability from 1e. The class featured daily movement that eventually outstripped mounts.

In honor of the above allowing monk to learn long distance runner at level 1 and allow discipline powers which are at-will and allow them to move+2 speed to enhance a monks personal overland travel rate.

Monks really were the inspiration for the martial source being "not magic in the traditional sense, although some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals"
 
Last edited:

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Well, I still have pretty close to 4e's tactical combat. In some ways it may feel like a dichotomy, but actually I am finding it works OK. I think for the same reasons that Pemerton found that Burning Wheel works (and I have at least outlined a set of more abstract grades of combat resolution, although they feel a bit odd in terms of the results might not match up well with what you get in a full tactical scenario, its impossible to really create 2 or 3 combat systems that produce the same results at different levels of abstraction).
Amber diceless was the first place I seen the concept of graduated detail in combat systems where here is me doing more than paraphrasing and more like expressing the concept "a combat would conceptually be given a word count based on story importance you wanted it to have".
In any case, you could also argue for a Sprinting function to Running, or as its own 'utility power' that let you basically say something like "I want to be over here now" as long as you passed a check that was scaled by the distance and any terrain difficulties, etc.
I have been suggesting utility powers associated with practices that represented short term applications.
 

Amber diceless was the first place I seen the concept of graduated detail in combat systems where here is me doing more than paraphrasing and more like expressing the concept "a combat would conceptually be given a word count based on story importance you wanted it to have".

I have been suggesting utility powers associated with practices that represented short term applications.
Amber Diceless was a very odd game...

In my design you give the PC a boon, like 'Track Star' (OK, the flavor needs work) and it includes a practice and a utility power, and maybe some other stuff (bonus to Endurance checks or something).
 

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight
Amber Diceless was a very odd game...
It was too vague for a lot of people I think it needed more coherence in its mechanics and better expression of the roshambo nature of some of the maneuvering options and could have stolen mechanics directly from Theatrix aka luck points to give it an explicit strategic layer and so on but..

The concept of variable detail is basically like skill challenges you make fights into skill challenges almost but you decide how complex they are is how important to the story the DM can just hand wave huge conflicts that do not story wise need much elaboration. And does it with a sentence.

Players might even help decide how much elaboration is needed with their questions but in general shrug. It was done too vague for people at the time even some who liked the concept a lot. It had that Gygax like read paragraphs and paragraphs of prose to try and get what the author meant.
 

Right, one thing that I've done since way back in early 4e days is to have 'combat-like challenges', or challenges that include something which is 'technically' not combat. A good example would be sneaking into the back door of the orc lair, ganking some guards along the way. The equivalent of the action movie scene where the 'spec ops guys' break into somewhere, silently ganking guards along the way. In some sense it is combat, but not really. AD&D interestingly hinted at this sort of concept, particularly 1e with the Assassin class, but it was, typical for AD&D, never made explicit.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top