D&D 4E Looking for thoughts on my kitbashed 4E

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeh that would be it...



Nods - RuneQuest yeh that old game had distinctive support for differing forms because of a wierd non-abstraction ie located hit points and a random location chart.

What if a winged character had a chance of having their flight lost when they were hit and similar things a scorpion tailed hero might lose a power associated with that tail if hit just right/wrong and similar things.



Sure in so doing it becomes the overwhelming element of a character... is that avoidable? hmmmmm

There are certainly a few problems with 'odd-shaped' characters. If you're very large that definitely causes some issues in combat, but it can create issues in other aspects of play as well. The tiny pixie creates a few, but less, of the same sort of issues (can go where others cannot follow for example). I mean, depending on the sort of style of play, this isn't a terrible thing, but then 4e set out to provide a very consistent play experience for all sorts of builds, and a tactically-centered game. It was a challenge for the designers.

Your 'RQ Solution' is of course fraught. It is a case of the general design pattern of 'balance an advantage with a disadvantage', which time and experience have pretty much shown to be of questionable value.

This is one reason for somewhat de-emphasizing the super detailed tactical level of play that exists in 4e. If you instead emphasize things like surprise, terrain, cover, morale, etc. then you can play a highly tactical game, but on a slightly different plane where its not so utterly critical if you occupy 4 squares of space instead of 1. Then you can relax your restrictions on the 'fit' of characters to the system a bit. So for instance a Centaur might work a lot better in that kind of a game, where its bulk might be not so advantageous, though its speed might be quite handy.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Then you can relax your restrictions on the 'fit' of characters to the system a bit. So for instance a Centaur might work a lot better in that kind of a game, where its bulk might be not so advantageous, though its speed might be quite handy.

Y'know, if the 4e mounted combat rules had been just a bit better, a Centaur might have been pretty easy to work in.
(Though the easiest way would probably be to give it some cheesy magical power - like they gave the pixie the shrink-your-weapon-but-it-still-does-full-damage trick - to turn into a more humanoid form when being L was inconvenient. At that point, they'd be no more problematic than a mounted-combat-specialized character able to conjure/dismiss his mount.)

I just don't see where "the power of yourself" which is Ki is different from Martial, which likewise arises out of skill, training, and discipline. There's a FLAVOR difference in the sense that Chinese/Japanese legends attribute a bit different effects to evoking this power.

The problem with Ki specifically as a power source though is, its just a place to dump a bunch of classes because they're Asian versions of archetypes. I don't think that's a good reason to do so. I think we can argue about if Samurai should be a class or a theme, but that's a different argument.

In the context of 4e, Samurai could be a Background (it's partially hereditary, no?), a Theme, a set of Style Feats, and/or a Paragon Path. Probably mostly 'and' to really do it in elaborate/faithful detail. But you'd load all that up on a fighter, possibly a Slayer, TWF Ranger, or Warlord. As a class it could only have been justified with an 'orientalist' take on the Ki source, then it'd've been an Oriental Abominations type: Fighter-but-better. Because Asian. There was a lot of that in RPGs in the 80s.

And, frankly, there's not as much less of that in RPGs as there should be 30 years later.

I mean, really, you could just pick up the properly styled arms and armor, fight in the right style, and act appropriately, you're a Samurai, class hardly matters there (though presumably fighter is probably what you'd pick for that in most cases).

One player I knew did that for like 10 years, from 3.0 through 4e. Fighter. Heavy Armor. Greatsword. Long(composite)Bow. O-Yori, No-Dachi, Dai-kyu. 3e officially letting players describe gear how they wanted was about all that was ever needed.

 

[Garthanos]

Your 'RQ Solution' is of course fraught. It is a case of the general design pattern of 'balance an advantage with a disadvantage', which time and experience have pretty much shown to be of questionable value. .

Oh sure the losable power can ofcourse be used as an advantage alah you expend your fight temporarily in order to take the attack on a wing instead of somewhere more vital

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In the context of 4e, Samurai could be a Background (it's partially hereditary, no?), a Theme, a set of Style Feats, and/or a Paragon Path. Probably mostly 'and' to really do it in elaborate/faithful detail. But you'd load all that up on a fighter, possibly a Slayer, TWF Ranger, or Warlord. As a class it could only have been justified with an 'orientalist' take on the Ki source, then it'd've been an Oriental Abominations type: Fighter-but-better. Because Asian. There was a lot of that in RPGs in the 80s.

And, frankly, there's not as much less of that in RPGs as there should be 30 years later.

One player I knew did that for like 10 years, from 3.0 through 4e. Fighter. Heavy Armor. Greatsword. Long(composite)Bow. O-Yori, No-Dachi, Dai-kyu. 3e officially letting players describe gear how they wanted was about all that was ever needed.

If I was going to write "OA for 4e" I'd probably stick with the themes provided in Dragon, they weren't bad. As far as background goes, you could use that to determine things like if you were born to nobility or not (Samurai could be poor for sure, though such tended to eventually lose their status, much like European knights). So, make up some backgrounds that are a bit more specific to oriental settings perhaps, just to create color, but you could simply pick the existing 4e 'birth' element of 'noble' (I think there are several variations of that which were published here and there).

Beyond that I'd detail the various culturally-specific weapons, though I wouldn't try to mechanically distinguish them from western equivalents, so a katana would be a bastard sword, an odachi would be two-handed, a naginata is a glaive, etc. There could be an equivalency table for any crossover situations.

There could be many Chinese or Japanese (etc. not to neglect others) themed PP and ED choices. Truthfully it might be just as well to simply note common reflavorings of existing ones, but for color sake it probably makes sense to put out some new variations that would give players a sense of playing something a bit different.

Beyond that I'd spend a chunk of time and energy on cultural stuff. Really explain the way one's bearing and who you're connected with matters, the various kinds of values, and all the rest of it. Recast a bunch of items, feats, etc. into an evocative form. I don't think you need a 'Ki' source, but some powers and features that characters can get which lets them emulate some of the unique types of action in these stories.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Oh sure the losable power can ofcourse be used as an advantage alah you expend your fight temporarily in order to to ake the attack on a wing instead of somewhere more vital

That would be interesting.

Honestly, I always felt like it would be OK to have some slightly better racial advantages. I mean, sure, maybe a bird-man would be at an advantage by having flight even at a low level, but is it REALLY that big a deal? Truthfully, the way the 4e flight rules work, a low level PC flying high in the sky is probably certifiably insane anyway!

Obviously there's a wide variety of cases, but I always thought that they should have simply allowed a bit more heft to race in order to allow for this kind of thing. If Eladrin could shape change or befuddle an enemy in addition to fey step, if a dwarf could call up the stone to bolster his defenses and impede his enemies, etc. then maybe a little flyin' or being large wouldn't actually be any big deal.

 

[Xeviat]

I do like the idea of sub-power sources. Ki would be a sub-source of Martial. Primal would be a sub-source of Divine. “Blood” (Sorcerer and Warlock) would be a sub-source of Arcane.

On the subject of Ki, I wouldn’t lump all of the “oriental” classes into it. A lot of the classes are just different takes on the classes already in D&D.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Garthanos]

That would be interesting.

Honestly, I always felt like it would be OK to have some slightly better racial advantages. I mean, sure, maybe a bird-man would be at an advantage by having flight even at a low level, but is it REALLY that big a deal? Truthfully, the way the 4e flight rules work, a low level PC flying high in the sky is probably certifiably insane anyway!

Obviously there's a wide variety of cases, but I always thought that they should have simply allowed a bit more heft to race in order to allow for this kind of thing. If Eladrin could shape change or befuddle an enemy in addition to fey step, if a dwarf could call up the stone to bolster his defenses and impede his enemies, etc. then maybe a little flyin' or being large wouldn't actually be any big deal.

Not having enough heft to race might be exactly the issue.

Tolkeins hobbits could virtually vanish to escape the big folk and that wasnt even the heroic ones bearing magic rings.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Not having enough heft to race might be exactly the issue.

Tolkeins hobbits could virtually vanish to escape the big folk and that wasnt even the heroic ones bearing magic rings.

Races could be more like themes, where you get some stuff and you can swap in some other stuff later, and then you get a little more stuff around paragon, etc. I think it should mostly be a heroic tier kind of thing, you can pick a racial PP at 11 if you really want to go whole hog. Racial feats could also be a bit more interesting in some cases.

I do think that, in the quest to 'nail things down' 4e sometimes put them a bit too much in a box. You can do all this fantastical stuff in 4e, but its almost all so very small-scale tactical. I feel like the whole game is just one notch too far in that direction.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I do think that, in the quest to 'nail things down' 4e sometimes put them a bit too much in a box. You can do all this fantastical stuff in 4e, but its almost all so very small-scale tactical..

Yep, the rest is Skill Challenges & Rituals...

 

[Garthanos]

I do think that, in the quest to 'nail things down' 4e sometimes put them a bit too much in a box. You can do all this fantastical stuff in 4e, but its almost all so very small-scale tactical. I feel like the whole game is just one notch too far in that direction.

And broadening things up as well as filling in holes like where do things referenced in rituals (like afflictions) come from other than the DMs little red car would have been an interesting path forward instead of going backwards.