D&D 4E Using 4e as the basis of something familiar?

[MerricB]

One of my chief problems with 3e has been the wonky mathematics (especially in regards to AC and Saves) at high levels. 4e purports to fix this problem.

I wonder if it would be possible to use the mathematical basis of 4e to create a form of the game that is more similar to earlier editions - that is, doesn't use the daily/at will/encounter structure - whilst maintaining the consistency of 4e.

Cheers!

 

[small pumpkin man]

You completely could, what it would look like would depend on what specific problems you have with both systems.

The biggest problem I see is remaking monsters, if you completely change the numbers, I can't see how to do it properly without throwing the 3.x monster creation system out the window.

 

[Irda Ranger]

I wonder if it would be possible to use the mathematical basis of 4e to create a form of the game that is more similar to earlier editions - that is, doesn't use the daily/at will/encounter structure - whilst maintaining the consistency of 4e.

What would you replace it with? Vancian magic?

I think the core mechanic will prove to be very adaptable, just as 3.x was adapted in many ways Monte and SKR never foresaw.

 

[small pumpkin man]

Oh, okay, you meant take 4e and make it more 3.x, not take 3.x and make it more 4e.

The big problem I can see with that is that Vancian casting is one of the largest problems with 3.x math. The way Spellcasters get more spells known and per day as they level up is a large part of what makes 3.x so wonky at high and low levels.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I'm not sure how well you can do this. I mean, anything CAN be done if you try hard enough. But the point of having a very accurate math model is that you can fairly accurately predict a number of things.

The problem with that is that it allows VERY little changes without breaking the math behind it.

 

[MerricB]

Oh, okay, you meant take 4e and make it more 3.x, not take 3.x and make it more 4e.

The big problem I can see with that is that Vancian casting is one of the largest problems with 3.x math. The way Spellcasters get more spells known and per day as they level up is a large part of what makes 3.x so wonky at high and low levels.

Although there is some element of truth in this, I actually believe the wonkiness of high 3.5e combat has little to do with Vancian magic, and a lot more to do with the power levels of the spells, and, even more importantly, the horrible scaling of DCs, AC, saves and attack bonuses.

In fact, I think 3.5e damage magic is pretty well balanced at most levels. Where things go badly awry is with the large number of buffing magics. When a monster can't hit a PC, there's a problem. Ditto when the monster uses a stun attack and the PCs need 20 to save...

Where 3e falls down is in the steepness of the power curve: two levels off CR and suddenly a lot of monsters are greatly reduced in power. So, with a reduced power curve in 4e (albeit from a slightly higher starting point), you gain the ability to do interesting reworkings of things.

One reason to attempt this can be seen in the 4e 1st level fighter: that character sheet is somewhat confusing compared to (say) the AD&D fighter... who may be too simple, but we'll use as a starting point. If you delete everything from the sheet bar the basic attacks, what compensations need to be made to make up for the loss of the daily and encounter powers?

I'm not saying that we need to make these changes, but I'm considering the possibility of doing them.

Cheers!

 

[Henry]

I could see it... 1e AD&D was oddly enough closer to the power curve of 4e than 3e was, for sure! Think about it: Most ACs were around the equivalent of 17 to 24, and not much higher unless you were busting out the +5 armors and 23 DEX scores; to hit charts ranged from the equivalent of a +17 attack bonus for a 20th level fighter, to a +8 bonus for a 20th level wizard. Plus, beyond magic weapons, they weren't curved very much above that. So I could see it with feats that just did not add bonuses to hit and damage, but more "special effects" like the pushing/sliding, or rerolls, etc.

Plus, far enough back, and even fighters and magic-users had the same hit dice (d6's), which kept hit point disparities lower than today.

So, go the basic route for 4e: +1/2 attack bonuses per level, and use feats of all sorts and magic weapons to make up the difference.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I'm experimenting with a hybrid system between 3.5 and SAGA that seems to fix the math at least partially though it needs tweaking. The full package has been in sporatic development ever since a bit before SAGA came out.

Like Saga I start with all characters getting a 1/2 level base in pretty much everything.

BAB/Grapple(it's own attack)/MAB(magic attack bonus/flipped saving throw)/Def(AC)/Ref/Fort/Will

then there are poor, medium, and good modifiers added based on race and class
Poor=+1
Med=+2
Good=+4

When multiclassing you meet in the middle or step up 1 if neither are poor. Brings the spread at any single level down to a reasonable level yet allows a large enough discrepency across levels that you can still get the progression of low-level foes being powerless against high-level ones that has always been a feature of D&D.

 

[MerricB]

I could see it... 1e AD&D was oddly enough closer to the power curve of 4e than 3e was, for sure!

Indeed. It's one reason I'm very interested in 4e, because it may actually be easier to convert 1e adventures to 4e than it was in 3e. (1e often assumes multiple lower-level opponents, which 3e rarely did well).

As opposed to Paizo's 3.75 - if it tries to maintain compatability with 3.5e, it's keeping the part of the system I had the most trouble with.

Plus, far enough back, and even fighters and magic-users had the same hit dice (d6's), which kept hit point disparities lower than today.

As I recall, in oD&D they had different numbers of HD depending on level...

Cheers!

 

[Melfast]

Of Course All Weapons Used to Do the Same Damage, Too!

I was so happy when Greyhawk came out and suddenly we had different damage values for weapons.

OD&D also used to cap out your HD at 9, and after that you got a set number of hit points per level based on class with no Con bonus added in. This kept the power level of characters vs. high HD monsters quite a bit. The new hit point curve seems to be taking us back towards that to a certain extent.

Oddly enough, I'm with the folks who say that 4E, despite its wonky power names, has much more of a 1E/2E feel to me. Back then, I could stat out a character and create a creature on the fly. I used to use a set of d6's to generate class and level. It was cool when I was able to buy a set of alignment dice at Dundracon. (Of course, I also was excited to buy two 30-sided dice that I still have, but have practically never used so go figure).

I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same. Old dogs don't have to learn new tricks, we just have to wait for things to come back around so our tricks work again.

-- Melfast

Edit -- actually, I think you're right. Different classes may have had different hit dice points before they hit their max "Lord" level and capped out.