Redbadge
Explorer
What do you mean by keywords?
I suppose you don't mean origin or type. And I guess you probably don't mean 4e mechanical keywords that certain types of creatures share (such as ooze, mount, etc.). Could you clarify?
Salvageable Innovations from 4e for Nonenthusiasts
- Thread starter Redbadge
- Start date
What do you mean by keywords?
I suppose you don't mean origin or type. And I guess you probably don't mean 4e mechanical keywords that certain types of creatures share (such as ooze, mount, etc.). Could you clarify?
pawsplay
Hero
Well, my complaint is not that they are combat abilities. Magic is supposed to be hard. "I am a gushing font of barely controlled wild magic" is a great character concept, but should not be the default caster.
pawsplay
Hero
I mean that in being designed differently than PC abilities, they don't have as much information. Something like the 3e Spellthief is essentially impossible to implement in 4e.
Redbadge
Explorer
I'm not trying to prove you wrong in this instance, but wouldn't the "Darkcloaked Spellthief"s
signature power be something like this:Steal Spell (Free Action, Recharge 4+):
Trigger: The spellthief hits a creature granting combat advantage.
Target: Close burst 6 (the creature in the burst that was hit)
Effect: The spell thief can forgo its sneak attack damage. If it does so, the spellthief may choose one unexpended at-will, encounter, or daily power with the arcane, divine, shadow, or primal keywords that is possessed by the creature. The target can no longer use that power until it has taken an extended rest. In addition, the spellthief can choose to either gain an action point, recharge one of its expended powers, or gain the stolen power. If it gains the stolen power, once before the end of the encounter, it may use the power as if it were the original target, including the target's ability score and other static modifiers, but using the spellthief's own temporary modifiers, such as combat advantage and power bonuses.
pawsplay
Hero
I'm not trying to prove you wrong in this instance, but wouldn't the "Darkcloaked Spellthief"s
Steal Spell (Free Action, Recharge 4+):
Trigger: The spellthief hits a creature granting combat advantage.
Target: Close burst 6 (the creature in the burst that was hit)
Effect: The spell thief can forgo its sneak attack damage. If it does so, the spellthief may choose one unexpended at-will, encounter, or daily power with the arcane, divine, shadow, or primal keywords that is possessed by the creature. The target can no longer use that power until it has taken an extended rest. In addition, the spellthief can choose to either gain an action point, recharge one of its expended powers, or gain the stolen power. If it gains the stolen power, once before the end of the encounter, it may use the power as if it were the original target, including the target's ability score and other static modifiers, but using the spellthief's own temporary modifiers, such as combat advantage and power bonuses.
I don't think that would work on an NPC, though, would it?
Redbadge
Explorer
It would if the NPC had any unexpended at-will, encounter (includes recharge), or daily powers with the listed keywords.
Also, this was just an example and needs some clean-up. But thank-you very much for the idea. My group is opposing a powerful defiler in our Dark Sun campaign, and I was having a tough time coming up with something suitably defiled that my players would absolutely loathe (they include a preserver, a primal shaman, and a primal warden/defender of the land).
I think this power will capture the feel of really stealing there essence/power and using it against them once I reflavor it a bit.
pawsplay
Hero
Admittedly, I'm not a 4e player, but I don't think any NPCs have those keywords. Can you show me an example of a monster with an arcane keyword?
Redbadge
Explorer
I typed "arcane" into the compendium and grabbed the first creature (of hundreds). Sorry about the formatting. As you can see, each power has keywords.
Human Street Entertainer
Medium natural humanoid , human
Level 1 Skirmisher XP 100
Initiative +3 Senses Perception +0
HP 29; Bloodied 14
AC 15; Fortitude 12, Reflex 14, Will 13
Speed 6
+6 vs AC; 1d8+4 damage.
Ranged 5; +4 vs Will; 1d6+5 damage and the entertainer slides the target 2 squares.
Ranged 10; +4 vs Will; 1d6+5 psychic damage, and the target takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls until the end of the entertainer’s next turn.
Ranged 10; +4 vs Will; 2d8+5 psychic damage, and the target is dazed until the end of the entertainer’s next turn.
Alignment Unaligned Languages Common, Elven
Skills Acrobatics +6, Arcana +7, Athletics +6
Str 10 (0) Dex 12 (+1) Wis 11 (0)
Con 13 (+1) Int 14 (+2) Cha 18 (+4)
Equipment: leather armor , quarterstaff .
Edit: I'm not sure why Surprising Shout has the healing keyword, since it doesn't heal hitpoints, grant temporary HP, or otherwise actually heal.
Last edited:
Gryph
First Post
I'm pretty neutral about them. But I've never loved any editions death mechanics.
Very much actually, I also like the strict action economy of a turn.
In the broader context of the action economy I think a minor action is the best place for them.
I'm still old school enough that I want a class to be a class with less variation between characters of the same class not more. So no, I don't much care for themes or even feats. When I want high customization in character creation I play HERO.
Last edited:
Celebrim
Legend
I have my own D20 variant which most closely resembles vanilla 3.0 D&D, plus a little bit of Arcana Unearthed and so forth. It works for me, but I'm always fiddling with it.
I found very very little in 4e that provoked serious thought in me and from which I got a salvagable idea or mechanic. Personal preference only, but I think it is just about the most boring rules set with the most boring write up I've ever seen in my years of gaming. It may play pretty well, but its painful to read through and offers fewer moments where I thought, "That's pretty creative" than just about anything I've read. I'd rather use HERO, GURPS, BRP, Tri-D, D6, Savage Worlds, True 20 or just about anything over 4e. YMMV. It's just a largely uninformed opinion. If you love 4e, don't hate me for not loving it.
I look at pawsplays blog and while some of that may be good advice, it's not stuff I learned from 4e but things that I'd brought to my 3e game from 1e. So maybe 3e is guilty of not teaching DM's how to play or of teaching DM's to use the tools it brought to the game well. I don't know, because a lot of the sterotypes about the 3e game I hear just seemed to describe a game that was virtually unrecognizable to me. Maybe I just didn't play at enough 3e tables.
Just for example, let's look at the implications of his advice:
1) Monsters are Simple: Are there really DM's who were afraid to just cut down a monster to what they immediately need to know? At times in 3e I've ran monsters and NPC's knowing little more than thier attack bonus and hit points, either because I need stats on the fly or else that's all I'd written was (F3) and I'd needed a generic fighter on the fly that was close enough to accurate for our purposes. Surely not every DM out there was stopping the game for an hour to elaborately stat an impromtu monster? Besides, I reject the notion that 4e monsters are simple. 4e monsters have a lot of subtleties in their design that you have to pay attention to really take advantage of the system.
2) Some Monsters Just Need Killing: Are there really a lot of DM's that needed this advice? If you are running any kind of simulationist world (something 4e supposedly gets away from) you know that most things out there are mooks.
3) Solo Critters: I read this entry as "The CR/EL system is broken." plus some useful advice for accounting for this fact. I didn't need 4e to tell me that, nor is 4e less broken in this regard. I do imagine however that a lot of DMs got stuck in CR formalism and got into minor difficulties with challenges being stronger or weaker than they expected them to be. It's an interesting topic, and 4e does - if properly examined - show good understanding of the issues in challenging PC's, but those same features are what makes 4e monsters so complex.
4) Scenery: Yes, this is good advice. I didn't learn it from 4e though. And while the pre-release talk of things like this gave me hope for the 4e DMG as an excellent general DMing resource, that hope didn't pan out.
5) The Best Magic Item is a Found Magic Item: Yes, good advice, but I didn't learn it from 4e. For that matter, 4e didn't learn it from 4e.
6) Make It Visual: Also good advice. I didn't learn it from 4e though, nor for that matter did 4e learn it from 4e.
7) Don't Be Afraid to Change Stuff: How many DM's in the history of D&D have been afraid to change stuff. D&D is notorious as a game system where every DM has his own house rules. Did 3e come out and say, "Be afraid to change things?" or was D20 known for its lack of variation?
More importantly, few if any of those things are directly tied to 4e's rules innovations.
Off the top of my head the only thing the 4e rules really challenged my thinking on was the notion that your hit points had to be tied closely to your HD. In 4e they have this idea that even if you are a 1st level character, you don't need to have 1 HD. In fact, you might have hitpoints corresponding to 3 HD while having the powers associated with a single HD.
While the particular implementation of this seemed arbitrary and gamist to me, the gamist idea it was trying to solve was an important one (how to make 1st level more fun and less random) and it seemed also to address a serious simulationist issue that's been famous in D&D from its early days - the House Cat Problem.
My ultimate implementation was to give bonus hit points to a creature based on its size class, which is nothing like 4e, but was inspired by the 4e rules innovations.
The only other one that I might adopt is the notion of trained and untrained uses of a skill. But, that might actually not be a 4e innovation either.
I found very very little in 4e that provoked serious thought in me and from which I got a salvagable idea or mechanic. Personal preference only, but I think it is just about the most boring rules set with the most boring write up I've ever seen in my years of gaming. It may play pretty well, but its painful to read through and offers fewer moments where I thought, "That's pretty creative" than just about anything I've read. I'd rather use HERO, GURPS, BRP, Tri-D, D6, Savage Worlds, True 20 or just about anything over 4e. YMMV. It's just a largely uninformed opinion. If you love 4e, don't hate me for not loving it.
I look at pawsplays blog and while some of that may be good advice, it's not stuff I learned from 4e but things that I'd brought to my 3e game from 1e. So maybe 3e is guilty of not teaching DM's how to play or of teaching DM's to use the tools it brought to the game well. I don't know, because a lot of the sterotypes about the 3e game I hear just seemed to describe a game that was virtually unrecognizable to me. Maybe I just didn't play at enough 3e tables.
Just for example, let's look at the implications of his advice:
1) Monsters are Simple: Are there really DM's who were afraid to just cut down a monster to what they immediately need to know? At times in 3e I've ran monsters and NPC's knowing little more than thier attack bonus and hit points, either because I need stats on the fly or else that's all I'd written was (F3) and I'd needed a generic fighter on the fly that was close enough to accurate for our purposes. Surely not every DM out there was stopping the game for an hour to elaborately stat an impromtu monster? Besides, I reject the notion that 4e monsters are simple. 4e monsters have a lot of subtleties in their design that you have to pay attention to really take advantage of the system.
2) Some Monsters Just Need Killing: Are there really a lot of DM's that needed this advice? If you are running any kind of simulationist world (something 4e supposedly gets away from) you know that most things out there are mooks.
3) Solo Critters: I read this entry as "The CR/EL system is broken." plus some useful advice for accounting for this fact. I didn't need 4e to tell me that, nor is 4e less broken in this regard. I do imagine however that a lot of DMs got stuck in CR formalism and got into minor difficulties with challenges being stronger or weaker than they expected them to be. It's an interesting topic, and 4e does - if properly examined - show good understanding of the issues in challenging PC's, but those same features are what makes 4e monsters so complex.
4) Scenery: Yes, this is good advice. I didn't learn it from 4e though. And while the pre-release talk of things like this gave me hope for the 4e DMG as an excellent general DMing resource, that hope didn't pan out.
5) The Best Magic Item is a Found Magic Item: Yes, good advice, but I didn't learn it from 4e. For that matter, 4e didn't learn it from 4e.
6) Make It Visual: Also good advice. I didn't learn it from 4e though, nor for that matter did 4e learn it from 4e.
7) Don't Be Afraid to Change Stuff: How many DM's in the history of D&D have been afraid to change stuff. D&D is notorious as a game system where every DM has his own house rules. Did 3e come out and say, "Be afraid to change things?" or was D20 known for its lack of variation?
More importantly, few if any of those things are directly tied to 4e's rules innovations.
Off the top of my head the only thing the 4e rules really challenged my thinking on was the notion that your hit points had to be tied closely to your HD. In 4e they have this idea that even if you are a 1st level character, you don't need to have 1 HD. In fact, you might have hitpoints corresponding to 3 HD while having the powers associated with a single HD.
While the particular implementation of this seemed arbitrary and gamist to me, the gamist idea it was trying to solve was an important one (how to make 1st level more fun and less random) and it seemed also to address a serious simulationist issue that's been famous in D&D from its early days - the House Cat Problem.
My ultimate implementation was to give bonus hit points to a creature based on its size class, which is nothing like 4e, but was inspired by the 4e rules innovations.
The only other one that I might adopt is the notion of trained and untrained uses of a skill. But, that might actually not be a 4e innovation either.
Last edited:
