Speculation about "the feelz" of D&D 4th Edition

[Garthanos]

That doesn't sound complicated, at all.

I'm really thinking hidden compatibility would've been the thing. A couple of 'attack powers' that are defined by weapon choice, not chargen or declared, that can be used in place of a basic attack, blah blah, but don't bother /saying/ all that crap in the class write-up.

Oh yes i agree on weapon based

"simple sword blow"

"simple spear thrust"

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think a lot of regular powers could just as easily be presented as class features, but I don't think either is a better format for all options. Some "read" better, and grok more easily, as one or the other, IMO.

Like Lethal, from the executioner, could be a power, but I definitely think it feels more right written as a passive ability.

OTOH, things like stances just don't work unless you make them an at will power, but that just feels needlessly more complicated than presenting them as they are presented. A passive bonus that applies any time you do the thing. Same with Wilderness Knacks.

I think in 4e THE reason for making something a class feature is to wed it irrevocably to the class it is part of and make sure everyone (at least with the corresponding build) has that option. Its a reasonable approach, what makes a ranger a ranger is his fighting style, or beast companion.

I have this issue in my game, pretty much everything is a 'boon', so why not just make all your characters fighters for the various weapon proficiencies and damage die, and then acquire nothing but boons that make you a spell caster? There's little in the rules as it stands now that really stops you and since wizards have no unique class feature that is unpoachable there's no real compelling reason to start out as that class. Classes don't have power lists, they don't have MUCH!

So, this is an area I've been considering. I mean, I could just say that 'class boons' are off limits to anyone else, or make up some class features you can't get any other way (until of course someone has a good reason to want them, and then what? 4e had this issue too).

There's always a tension between wanting to be able to combine options in various ways and wanting to have class be a strong and meaningful concept with some mechanical heft. D&D has steadily moved away from exclusive class features, though 4e and, more so, 5e have stepped back some from 3e where your base class is ALMOST meaningless.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Oh yes i agree on weapon based

"simple sword blow"

"simple spear thrust"

What if Basic Attack read something like "Hit: [W]+Ability damage and inflict your weapon's default condition UEONT" or something like that. Now 'Ability' would be whatever is the key ability for that weapon, and each weapon could specify some sort of condition/effect that it is associated with by default.

Now, if you were to assume that all powers were scalable using an augment system as we have discussed before in one or two of the threads on MPs IIRC then you'd basically have a complete weapon style built into each weapon. Heck, a character wouldn't really even need to know any powers. This would be nice in the sense that it would allow every character to be reasonably proficient with one, fairly modest but usable, 'style' of fighting. Furthermore, given there may be weapons suitable to at least most ability scores, they'd be actually effective with it.

This would open up some other design space, as it removes the absolute need to have every character have some at-will they can always use. Not that I think wizards should all be falling back to dagger fighting, but its not a BAD thing if you can create a wizard that is actually pretty good in a knife fight if you want!

 

[MwaO]

I'd do the following things to fix Slayer:
Make a power called "Fighter's Strike" - it is a basic attack, usable with either Str or Dex. Dex only with specific weapons. Melee or Ranged. Fighter's Combat Challenge is modified to only work with Fighter's Strike. It is a 1w+stat.

Slayers only gain Utility powers and Fighter's Strike. They do not gain other powers. Ever, even if they take Paragon Paths other than the Slayer's Paragon Path.

They may spend a feat to gain either an encounter power or daily power. With specific weapons, they may use Dex for melee powers.

They get Double Fighter's Strike as a class feature. They may make two Fighter's Strikes instead of one. It does not count as a basic attack when they do this.

Paragon Path gives a 'Weapon Specialization' option. Use a particular weapon, gain kensai-like benefits.

Done. Basically, they're similar to Rangers with Twin Strike, except they don't get the Daily or Encounter powers that Rangers do. They do get +stat twice to damage(ooh!) and can use a big weapon(double ooh!), but Quarry+encounter+daily powers is roughly equivalent. They're straightforward to run, they're optimizable with magic items, but limited in extent of optimization.

They've basically got the complexity of a Champion Fighter in 5e.

 

[Garthanos]

What if Basic Attack read something like "Hit: [W]+Ability damage and inflict your weapon's default condition UEONT" or something like that. Now 'Ability' would be whatever is the key ability for that weapon, and each weapon could specify some sort of condition/effect that it is associated with by default.

Now, if you were to assume that all powers were scalable using an augment system as we have discussed before in one or two of the threads on MPs IIRC then you'd basically have a complete weapon style built into each weapon. Heck, a character wouldn't really even need to know any powers. This would be nice in the sense that it would allow every character to be reasonably proficient with one, fairly modest but usable, 'style' of fighting. Furthermore, given there may be weapons suitable to at least most ability scores, they'd be actually effective with it.

This would open up some other design space, as it removes the absolute need to have every character have some at-will they can always use. Not that I think wizards should all be falling back to dagger fighting, but its not a BAD thing if you can create a wizard that is actually pretty good in a knife fight if you want!

I was thinking in terms of fixing the essentials stuff so it wasnt breaking the core game , but branching off for more advanced design ideas isnt terrible either...

 

[cavalier973]

...the sword and sorcery, survival-focused, indifferent world, highly exploratory game I generally crave when I want to play/run D&D!

Does Fourthcore do any of that?

 

[Nagol]

Does Fourthcore do any of that?

I haven't followed a lot of the fan-based spinoffs of 4e. From what I remember seeing in some original discussions on enworld, I think it was aiming for something reasonably close.

 

[Garthanos]

What if Basic Attack read something like "Hit: [W]+Ability damage and inflict your weapon's default condition UEONT" or something like that. Now 'Ability' would be whatever is the key ability for that weapon, and each weapon could specify some sort of condition/effect that it is associated with by default.

Now, if you were to assume that all powers were scalable using an augment system as we have discussed before in one or two of the threads on MPs IIRC then you'd basically have a complete weapon style built into each weapon. Heck, a character wouldn't really even need to know any powers. This would be nice in the sense that it would allow every character to be reasonably proficient with one, fairly modest but usable, 'style' of fighting. Furthermore, given there may be weapons suitable to at least most ability scores, they'd be actually effective with it.

This would open up some other design space, as it removes the absolute need to have every character have some at-will they can always use. Not that I think wizards should all be falling back to dagger fighting, but its not a BAD thing if you can create a wizard that is actually pretty good in a knife fight if you want!

My offhand whip use distracts the enemy like a fighters mark and is defendery and joes basic offhand whip use is controllerish and entangles their legs (slowing them save ends but is an encounter use because its price sacrifices the weapon). Or I can do both.

 

[cavalier973]

...fan-based spinoffs of 4e.

Is that what FourthCore was? I only heard about it after they closed the website. I thought it was just upping the difficulty of the encounters (combat and non-combat).

 

[Nagol]

Is that what FourthCore was? I only heard about it after they closed the website. I thought it was just upping the difficulty of the encounters (combat and non-combat).

It was about a more than upping difficulty though that was definitely a major thing.

Here's a link to the wayback machine with a intro page. I didn't know it was dead.