D&D 4E Simplifying 4E

[AbdulAlhazred]

If the game had continued to advance from 4e, it'd've had out-of-combat Roles, maybe even Roles for each pillar, instead of falling back to the AD&D non-solution of DM-mediated situational balance-of-imbalances.

I never bought the non-combat roles thing. I certainly never saw a convincing implementation of the concept, or even proposed implementation. The supposed 'roles' always felt pretty artificial. Certainly in the real world people simply cannot be binned into such simple niches. 4e's skill system, that effectively designates a few areas where each PC can likely excel seemed to me to model things better. Most characters still tend to have one or two niches, but they're more organic and less forced.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

My cleric might end up being a lightly armored caster, more like a white mace; I'm not sure. But either way, a cleric is a spellcaster and will be using spells primarily, while a paladin is a weapon user and uses weapons primarily. I actually dislike the overlap between cleric and paladin, and will be attempting to avoid it if possible.

I agree with you on this one. In my hack the Paladin is the strong warlike fighty one that bashes enemies with his weapons. He can inspire and fortify, but his 'casting' is pretty limited, more like the OD&D paladin concept where he's just going to have a few specific abilities. The cleric is more like the 4e 'laser cleric' kind of builds, or pure healer builds. He might wear some heavier armor, or not, but he's not going usually wield a weapon much, and his primary function is heal/bolster/buff/debuff leader stuff.

That's why my goal is 12 classes. 2 per role, 1 primary and one Gish for the casters, then there's the barbarian, fighter, monk, and rogue. The Fey Wild Berserker is kind of what got me thinking on role switching. A fighter could switch roles by switching their weapons (Great Weapon is striker, shield is defender, bow is controller, two weapons is striker or defender depending).

Well, I found that there was really NO reason for the 4e division into GW and Sword-n-Board that they had in the PHB (or really the later division into two-weapon etc variations). The reason being that a player is MUCH more likely to build around one or another of these techniques anyway. Its not likely that you'll haul around a shield and a longsword to switch in and out with your greatsword in the middle of a combat, or even an adventure. So basically using mechanics to enforce that doesn't really add to the game. In my hack fighters get specific benefits with different weapon styles, but every fighter gets ALL of them. You can pick further boons later on that build on a particular style, or on a weapon that favors one style, but you can also build up more than one if you have some specific reason to want to.

This works well for instance in removing the need for special builds just to create a throw and charge type Ranger (or fighter for that matter, though 4e never provided that option). A fighter can simply use his two-weapon capability, chuck his hand axe at someone, and then grasp his waraxe in both hands and start lopping off heads, without any real disadvantage accruing there since his two-weapon bonus will help with one, and his two-handed fighting bonus with the other.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, it feels like a cool idea. Weapon-swapping (like the Dragon mag weapon master is meant to do) is neat, but enhancement bonus expectations screw with it, unless you use a Dynamic weapon or Inherent bonuses... probably other things you could do, too... or add.

Well, as a follow-on to my previous post... Enhancement exists in my hack, but there are only 4 categories of bonuses and they are all non-stacking. So you can get a weapon that grants up to a +3 'Permanent Bonus' but there are other ways to get that up to +3, and +4 is simply unheard of. So, while a given character COULD be pretty incentivised use his +3 weapon, if he drops it he's probably got a +2 Permanent Bonus from something else that will still apply. He's not really incredibly gimped. Certainly nothing like the situation of a high level 4e PC that might drop by 7 or 8 points of to-hit if he has to pick up a chair leg and start hammering on people with it. (actually I do still have a proficiency bonus, so I guess its possible you could be boned pretty much, but at least you can fight without your prized magic weapon).

 

[Manbearcat]

Oh and you’re wrong about 4e. Classes were never balanced outside of combat. The skill-heavy classes and ritual casters got all the spot-light. The Fighter’s skills were a joke. Trying to raise 4e as anything near an out-of-combat balance is just not right.

I often see this brought up as a point against 4e, but I think it overlooks several key components of the edition's noncombat conflict resolution engine (1-4) among others:

1) The first component simply being the machinery of the resolution mechanics themselves. 4e's scene-based resolution framework means that (rather than singular, spell-based power plays reframing or outright solving the scene) multiple decision-points will face the heroes before the scene is resolved and the story's trajectory cemented.

2) Following from the first is the frequency in which the heroes will face a complication and the decision-point tree includes Athletics as a reasonable, if not the right, solution to the micro-problem (within the macro framework of the scene) faced.

3) Following from the second is the fact that Athletics will pretty much 100 % be the forte of a Fighter character; (a) nearly always trained, (b) synergizing with their primary ability score, (c) easy to get secondary build components to augment it (Fighter Utility Powers, Theme, Background, Items). Fighters will be auto-passing Medium DCs (the very large majority in SCs) in Athletics and nearing (and meeting with 1/Enc Utility Powers) auto-success at the Hard DC if it comes to that.

4) Following from none of 1-3, but nonetheless pervasive/important in 4e noncombat resolution is the Group Check. The overwhelming majority of these will be Athletics or Endurance (with the others being a stray Acrobatics, Perception, and Stealth), both Fighter commodities in Skills and Ability Scores. The Fighter PC in a group will inevitably serve as "the anchor" for the group's chance at success due to this.

5) Unrelated to any of 1-4 (and noncombat), but related to the potency of the Fighter's Skill portfolio is how the Athletics skill interfaces with the Terrain Stunting and Hazard/Trap system. The heavy, heavy bulk of Terrain Powers and Countermeasures against the wilderness Hazard and Trap system will entail deployment of Athletics. Many of the Hazard/Trap Countermeasures that don't involve Athletics will involve Endurance!

6) Unrelated to any 1-5 (but noncombat) is the Disease (Condition) Track. Nearly all effects will require Endurance to move up the track/escape from the debilitating effects of the condition/disease imposed upon the PC.


A few years ago, I did a study on this (some here may recall this) over the course of about 8 sessions of play. These sessions spanned all manner of play from ruin delving, to wilderness survival, to parlay, to infil/exfil, to combat with hazards. I collated the data and posted the results. Out of all of the deployed Skills (including Passive Perception even though it is merely tested), Athletics was by far the highest frequency Skill deployed, with several in the Rogue portfolio (despite having a Rogue player of the 3 PCs) seeing a comparatively much smaller number of deployments. So while the Rogue had a large number of Skills, the decision-points that will emerge naturally through play that will call/allow for them (unless specifically tailoring play heavily toward Rogue infil/exfil, espionage-based, or dungeon w/ many mechanized traps scenarios), is much lower frequency due to their more narrow application.


All that being said, if folks are still unconvinced or they (as GMs) or their GMs don't much (or at all) use Group Checks, the Disease Track, the Terrain Stunting system, the Hazard system (I highly, highly recommend against such a 4e-experience-narrowing practice), then they might consider just going the Torchbearer route (which uses Health generally to test most all physical stuff) and roll Endurance and Acrobatics into Athletics (but still use Con and Dex) exclusively for the Fighter.

 

[pemerton]

Let's assume we have the usual argument about "my fun is enhanced by a rule system that plays more lip service to suspension of disbelief" and proceed.

I assume that "more lip service" should read "mere lip service" - in which case, I don't know what rule system you have in mind.

A high level fighter ought to be way better than any possible real-world fighter.

<snip>

If a fighter-type gains agency by being able to perform, say, three tricks once each in a fight (trick A, trick B, trick C). Surely they gain more agency by being able to perform three tricks from a choice of three (two As and a C, one of each, or whatever other combination they can manage).

<snip>

The main problem is it's a major change to the base rules assumptions so would require some heavy rewriting and rebalancing.

A high-level 4e fighter is way better than any possible real-world fighter. Eg the 30th level fighter/cleric in my game was able to solo the tarrasque for multiple rounds.

The issue of whether or not multple use of encounter powers should be allowed has nothing to do with the agency of fighter players (or the players of any other class), nor with whether or not high level fighters are powerful. It's about the balance/integrity of the system.

A huge strength of 4e is that a single overpowered ability genrally doesn't break the game, because it can't be spammed. This is why power-point based psionics has been such an issue in the game.

pervasive/important in 4e noncombat resolution is the Group Check. The overwhelming majority of these will be Athletics or Endurance (with the others being a stray Acrobatics, Perception, and Stealth)

Just as a data-point: in my 1st level Dark Sun game yesterday we had a group check to escape across roof-tops (players could choose either Acro or Aths); a group Endurance check while staking out a safe-house in the daytime sun; and a group Streetwise check to remain inconspicuous during that stake out.

 

[Xeviat]

Heya, how do you think this would work:

All encounter powers are point based, like psionics. A multiclass character shares the same points between their powers; all powers cost endurance, basically. Reusing an ability costs more points, to penalize spamming but not disrupt the expectation of "I can try multiple times"?

Then, I'm strongly considering having said pool of points be small, small enough to only allow one use of your highest level encounter power. Then, you recover your points when you use an at-will, including an action like defend or second wind. Some builds may grant bonuses to atwills when your point pool is maxed, for at-will spammers. This makes it so long fights continue to have encounters, but also require them to be spaced out a bit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Heya, how do you think this would work:

All encounter powers are point based, like psionics. A multiclass character shares the same points between their powers; all powers cost endurance, basically. Reusing an ability costs more points, to penalize spamming but not disrupt the expectation of "I can try multiple times"?

Then, I'm strongly considering having said pool of points be small, small enough to only allow one use of your highest level encounter power. Then, you recover your points when you use an at-will, including an action like defend or second wind. Some builds may grant bonuses to atwills when your point pool is maxed, for at-will spammers. This makes it so long fights continue to have encounters, but also require them to be spaced out a bit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, currently in my hack we have intermittent powers, basically encounter powers. You can use them once per encounter for free, possibly again if you spend a vitality point. There are also vitality powers, which are basically the equivalent of daily powers, they always cost a vitality point to use. Jury is out on limits of using vitality points this way, but my starting concept was that you could only use one per encounter this way. I may amend that, we'll see. In any case vitality points are 4e's HS, but they also serve as your action points. Given the centrality of their use I simply gave all PCs 8 of them, it wouldn't really make sense to have more or less depending on class as 4e itself does, it would just be odd that a fighter would be able to action point or recharge more often than say a wizard. In fact I don't honestly see a really strong argument for one class having more hit points than another, though some variation from character to character is OK. Currently I think the numbers have fallen out in a range from about 15-20 hit points at level 1, though an exceptionally tough character might net out to 23 or something like that (I'd have to check to see exactly, but you could be say a half-orc with a +5 CON bonus, extreme but doable).

Anyway. I think allowing for up to 2 uses in a single encounter of the same power isn't going to be TOO spammy. In general the design results in a lot less powers floating around anyway. Most starting characters have 4, and that number doesn't grow a huge amount. Powers do have variable results, and of course they can potentially interact with class features and other boons, so often there's some significant variation even when you invoke the same thing twice in a fight. I'd say in general most PCs will avoid doing that more than not since actually healing is pretty much the best use of your points. OTOH if you happen to have a one fight day then it just gets to be a more interesting fight. Seems to work out pretty similarly to 4e resource management.

 

[Cleon]

Heya, how do you think this would work:

All encounter powers are point based, like psionics. A multiclass character shares the same points between their powers; all powers cost endurance, basically. Reusing an ability costs more points, to penalize spamming but not disrupt the expectation of "I can try multiple times"?

Then, I'm strongly considering having said pool of points be small, small enough to only allow one use of your highest level encounter power. Then, you recover your points when you use an at-will, including an action like defend or second wind. Some builds may grant bonuses to atwills when your point pool is maxed, for at-will spammers. This makes it so long fights continue to have encounters, but also require them to be spaced out a bit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I like that in theory.

You could have it so the pool starts out smaller than its maximum so the character has to build it up with a few at-wills before they can pull out the big guns. That would prevent the character chucking out all their most powerful encounter attacks at the start of combat.

That way you have a reason to follow the traditional martial arts cinema / sentai show habit of only breaking out the finishing moves after a few bouts of "normal level" fighting.

 

[Dalamar]

At one point, I created an excel sheet that tracked expected damage and such across all 30 levels and allowed for comparison to monster HP. It's not directly related to the topic at hand, but I'll see about digging it up if anybody would find it useful.

 

[Manbearcat]

Just as a data-point: in my 1st level Dark Sun game yesterday we had a group check to escape across roof-tops (players could choose either Acro or Aths); a group Endurance check while staking out a safe-house in the daytime sun; and a group Streetwise check to remain inconspicuous during that stake out.

That sounds about right. The first two being fairly common with the latter atypical.

I want to say I've had 3 or 4 Streetwise Group Checks ever; melt into a crowd in an urban chase, track down a reclusive fence to secure a stolen item, smuggle a PC in a basket into a manor with a series of trade-offs. And something I can't recall.

Lucky for Fighter's in 4e they can also contribute to such an effort!