|
P.d0t posted:The way the "MM3 on a card" expresses monster "average damage" is like 8+level (if I recall correctly.) So all that means is they take the average of a die roll (say, 3.5 on 1d6) round it off, add a number to it til it becomes "8" and then add the monster level to it. That's how much damage a monster will do on like, an at-will. If it was meant to replace it for monsters than I fundamentally misunderstood what you meant and my question is moot. I thought that was a way to break down a player-character's damage into a single always-scaling-correctly number the way [1d20+1d8+level] can be a player's attack roll replacing ability modifier, inherent bonus, proficiency, weapon enhancement, etc.
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:58 |
|
|
Yeah if you wanna use the Powers in 4e, just stick with the normal [W]s. If I'm not mistaken, though, the PC damage expectations come out about the same as monsters, so if you wanted to build something from the ground-up using those expressions, it could conceivably work in a 4e-like framework.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
In the core book the "expected damage expressions" are basically meant to be used both for improvised stunt damage and traps and such, so yeah, it's one bit of the mechanics that is actually kinda symmetrical.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:With the Duellist powers mostly written up I'm thinking about the first class that'll be totally original, the Gunner. You could also just have powers that make "debris fields": 3x3 or 5x5 areas of difficult terrain. Another could be explosive powers that create a "giant crater": same as debris field, but grants full cover to prone characters in it against nonfliers/enemies at the same or lower elevation. (Does prone give a shooting bonus? I never played a shooty mans in 4e.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
So, with the Gunner written up, I come to the psychic classes. The one I have the strongest idea of is the Seeker. Which I know is a name that has negative connotations among 4e fans since that class ended up not being so good or whatever, but this is another area where I'm trying to avoid copyright violation- see, these are basically Scanners.  For those who haven't seen the movie, the idea behind "scanning" is that it's not just mind reading, but actually interfacing and connecting with another central nervous system. If you have enough control you can do anything, stop someone's heart, boil their blood, make their head explode, as well as more subtle mind control effects. You can even do this with computer systems. So the Seeker is a ranged Striker who works by eye contact- they pick their target and start inflicting damage and status conditions, mostly against Will and Fort saves. So off the bat one of their features is like the Warlock's Curse or other striker extra damage abilities, you "link" with someone (still not sure what to call this) and get a bonus. Not sure about other features, but I see a potential for a build that focuses on domination and mind control effects, so I'll have to see how 4e handles them in a way that's not stupid OP. The psionic classes in 4e, of course, all work from a different structure than the others with no Encounter powers, but augmentable At-Wills. I think people will want to have this system available (since part of the purpose of this whole thing is to smuggle out the 4e system and make all its neat things OGL) so I'm going to dig in and crunch the numbers. Since I only have two power sources I'm working with this may lead to a kind of fighter/caster divide but the game is balanced enough that it can handle asymmetrical design- I like that AEDU classes are easy to balance with each other but I think the system is strong enough to handle other types (the complaints about the Essential classes are more that they're dull than that they're over or underpowered.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
I used a power-point sort of system in the first RPG I wrote up. I stuck with d6s and d10s for everything, so when you scaled up damage, it went from 1d6->1d10->2d6->1d6+1d10, and then just increased it by one of each die as you went up in tiers. Might be a handy tool for you, just for damage expressions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:I used a power-point sort of system in the first RPG I wrote up. I stuck with d6s and d10s for everything, so when you scaled up damage, it went from 1d6->1d10->2d6->1d6+1d10, and then just increased it by one of each die as you went up in tiers. Might be a handy tool for you, just for damage expressions. What I'm seeing from 4e so far is that Augment 1 adds a small perk, Augment 2 basically makes it even with an Encounter power of that level. Again that's just at a glance.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Dunno if this is the best place to post it, but, I'm sorta pondering the merits of doing class-based uses of ability scores for utilization in some kind of heartbreaker. The best 4e example that comes to mind is the Warden; everyone can use INT or DEX for their AC, but this class can use CON or WIS, depending on their build. What if you expanded that out, to include basic attacks? "Wizards can use INT for their ranged basic attacks; Swordmages can use INT for their melee basic attacks." We saw some of this in the Essentials and post-essentials books (Thieves and Scouts using DEX for MBAs, Skalds using CHA) I also kind of like the idea of using it for defenses, such as Paladins using luck in the form of CHA in place of DEX for Reflex, for example. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 01:24
|
|
|
Not specific to 4e, but I've done that insofar as "yes Bob, you as a Wizard can roll d20+INT to shoot an arcane bolt for 1d6 damage" when we were really supposed to be playing B/X but I didn't want to deal with Vancian casting
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Dunno if this is the best place to post it, but, I'm sorta pondering the merits of doing class-based uses of ability scores for utilization in some kind of heartbreaker. At that point, wouldn't it be easier to blow up ability scores altogether? If the ability scores are so abstracted that any can be applied to any roll, just junk them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
Sanglorian posted:At that point, wouldn't it be easier to blow up ability scores altogether? If the ability scores are so abstracted that any can be applied to any roll, just junk them. Well, I think you could make the case that ability scores as they currently exist are useless without a system that allows for lego-brick multiclassing. I mean, aside from pigeonholing classes into only being good a certain skills and/or making sure they're lovely at at least one defence, that is. But let's just say for the sake of tradition, you wanted to utilize ability scores. The other thing with standard ability scores, is they work really well with "d20, roll under" resolution, which I'm giving some consideration.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
My general thought with scores is either 'kill them entirely for combat stats, use a fixed progression for attacks and defences' or 'all attacks use highest ability score to hit, second highest for secondary effects' then keep them for skills. The problem with that being you're still heavily pushed to have at least two high scores.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 09:22
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:'kill them entirely for combat stats, use a fixed progression for attacks and defences' The Next Project leans this way, without having actual ability scores; the attack math is fixed for everyone, but skills and defence are done by class. Another thing it does is give skills 2 descriptors: an ability, and a skillset. So you know how every fightymans class in 4e gets Athletics, Endurance, Heal and Intimidate as class skills (but good luck being good at all of them, because they each use a different ability score)? In TNP, those skills all fall under the same ability, just different skillsets, so if your class gets a bonus to that ability, you're good at all those skills. Anyway, I'm thinking of going the other direction, for this idea I'm mulling, i.e: thespaceinvader posted:'all attacks use highest ability score to hit, second highest for secondary effects' then keep them for skills Essentially, you pick the set of skills you want a particular class to be good at, then you make the ability score that is tied to those skills be the same one they use for their attacks and their main defence, for example. Or, you could do it the other way around, like, "Paladins can use CHA for attacks and Reflex, as well as Insight and Religion checks." Sort of cherry-pick the skills you think the class should be good at fluff-wise, and tie them to the ability score that's meant to be their highest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:My general thought with scores is either 'kill them entirely for combat stats, use a fixed progression for attacks and defences' or 'all attacks use highest ability score to hit, second highest for secondary effects' then keep them for skills. The problem with that being you're still heavily pushed to have at least two high scores. I think two high scores is doable, though- Gamma World worked like that. You're strong in two main areas, okay at a few other things, weak in one place. It's a good spread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
In some places, 4e struggles with dual-primaries, albeit almost exclusively in Essentials/post-Essentials. 5e is goddamn awful for it, as in 'don't even go there.' E: VVV well yeah, that goes without saying. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Sep 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Two high stats works OK if you do the 16/16 pre-racial stat spread and then are lucky enough to have a race that gets +2s in both of the stats you dropped the 16s in. But it's ability to work well really depends on getting your initial 2 +2s into the right spots.
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Looking at psionic powers. Dailies are dailies, as before- no big change there. Instead it's all about the augmentable at-wills. Formula seems to be- start with 1W+some perk, Augment 1: Perk gets slightly better, often conditional to reign it in, Augment 2/4/6 (it goes up by tier)- either 2/3/4W (again by tier, with some exceptions) + a much improved perk or a multi-enemy attack. Also, the Ardent is pretty close to being the Jedi class already.
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 07:19
|
|
|
Further to my musing about ability scores, how does this sound for a form of point buy (assuming you won't be adding racial modifiers after the fact) with the aim of coming out with 4e-ish arrays/spreads?
combine any way you wish, but: P.d0t fucked around with this message at 10:50 on Sep 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2015 10:27
|
|
|
Lately I've been playing a lot of final fantasy games, and I've been enamored with the job system in FFV, FFT and FF Dimensions, wherein you master one job (i.e. Warrior, White Mage, Dragoon) and then transfer the abilities onto your next job. I've been pondering ways to represent this in a tabletop game. Sure, the ala' carte multi-classing of D&D 3 and 5 are similar in concept, but switching from one class to another in D&D means losing out in one or the other. I want something where you can finish out one class, gaining all abilities therein, and then another and then another. I started looking at WotC's Gamma World (7E) and the structure of origins as a model for short term classes that have maybe 3-5 levels each. I'm thinking of simplifying the classic six ability scores down to Strength, Agility, Intellect, and Will each with a corresponding defense (Fortitude, Reflex, Perception, Resolve) which equals STAT + 10. Bonus progression is either by level, or by Job. If the latter, balance the game math toward the middle so that mid-range bonuses hit high targets at least 50% of the time. Things like your Cure, Cura, Esuna, Fira and such are encounter powers, while limit breaks take the place of dailies. Utilities are there too. I think I might use something like 13A's combat maneuvers for martial powers, instead of the AEDU format of 4E just to shake it up a little. Not sure what to do about races. Maybe just a cosmetic consideration, our they get Job entries of their own. The part I'm stuck on is deciding how many levels I want the game to be. I like the idea of a relatively short game, about 10-12 levels, but I could see extending it to 20 just because people like round numbers better. The other part I'm stuck on is how powers should scale. I could scale it by overall character level, so the Thunder spell you took at heroic tier automatically becomes more powerful by epic tier and characters don't lose anything by swinging from magic to martial and back. Or I could do it by class, so White Mage gives you Cure at heroic, White Wizard gives you Cura at paragon and Seer gives you Curaga at Epic. Sorry for all the Final Fantasy terminology for those unfamiliar with the games.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
Gizmoduck_5000 posted:Lately I've been playing a lot of final fantasy games, and I've been enamored with the job system in FFV, FFT and FF Dimensions, wherein you master one job (i.e. Warrior, White Mage, Dragoon) and then transfer the abilities onto your next job. You're probably better off with Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 3E, since that actually used something like the job system. You have careers, and if you finish them, you get one ability from it permanently that you carry over into the next career. A small number of careers are restricted to certain races.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
homullus posted:You're probably better off with Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 3E, since that actually used something like the job system. You have careers, and if you finish them, you get one ability from it permanently that you carry over into the next career. A small number of careers are restricted to certain races. I can't handle the dice. Also, I'm not sure about 3E but I played a good bit of 2E and it does not capture the Final Fantasy vibe very well.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
Gizmoduck_5000 posted:FF3 is cool. Have perks for each class? Like casters can maximise spell dice x times per day and martials get studies on their Melee attacks? Therefore spells don't become obsolete, but focused mages are better at Magic then martials are, and vice versa.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Moriatti posted:Have perks for each class? Like casters can maximise spell dice x times per day and martials get studies on their Melee attacks? Therefore spells don't become obsolete, but focused mages are better at Magic then martials are, and vice versa. That's a good idea. Ultimately I want to find a way to reward both diversification AND specialization in a meaningful way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:Further to my musing about ability scores, how does this sound for a form of point buy (assuming you won't be adding racial modifiers after the fact) with the aim of coming out with 4e-ish arrays/spreads? That seems to leave you with only three possible ability sets 18 16 16 10 10 6 18 16 12 10 10 10 18 18 10 10 10 10
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Your scores can equal 20, they just can't exceed 20. I came up with: 20-20-12-12-6-6 20-16-16-12-6-6 18-16-16-10-10-6 18-18-10-10-10-10 20-12-12-12-10-10 20-18-12-10-10-6 20-18-16-10-6-6 20-20-18-6-6-6 e: Speleothing posted:18 16 12 10 10 10 Missed that one, somehow, but that should work too. P.d0t fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Sep 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
P.d0t posted:So you know how every fightymans class in 4e gets Athletics, Endurance, Heal and Intimidate as class skills (but good luck being good at all of them, because they each use a different ability score)? In TNP, those skills all fall under the same ability, just different skillsets, so if your class gets a bonus to that ability, you're good at all those skills. Further to this post, here's something I whipped up a while ago, that sorta conveys the intentions I had (some 4e Essentials house-rules, basically) ... Primal Classes (Druids, Rangers, Barbarians) When you make a melee weapon attack, you can use STR, CON, or WIS in place of the default modifier for the attack and damage rolls. You can use your INT modifier in place of your CHA modifier for any CHA checks. Martial Classes (Assassins, Rogues, Rangers, Fighters, Bards, Barbarians) When you make a melee weapon attack with a light blade or a ranged weapon attack, you can use STR or DEX in place of the default modifier for the attack and damage rolls. You can use your STR modifier in place of your CON modifier for CON checks. Divine Classes (Paladins, Clerics) When you make a melee weapon or implement attack, you can use STR, WIS, or CHA in place of the default modifier for the attack and damage rolls. You can use your CHA modifier in place of your WIS modifier for Heal, Insight and Perception checks. Class Skills You can use a +3 in place of the default ability modifier for any untrained class skills. You can use your WIS or INT modifier in place of the default modifier for any Knowledge skills on your class skill list. Additional Skill Changes If your class grants you an automatic trained skill, you can instead train an additional skill of your choice; if your class would grant you less than 4 trained skills, including this change, increase it to 4 trained skills. Ignore any skill training requirements on powers. You can use your CON modifier in place of the default modifier for Athletics and Heal checks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Backtracking a bit in light of some 4e discussion I've had on RPG.net- The consensus is that Twin Strike is overpowered to the extent that there's no reason for a Ranger not to take it, and not taking it is sort of a newbie trap. Newbie traps are bad. At Wills are hard to tweak properly because they're at the low numerical end of the system, and in this case attacking twice is, as was pointed out before, really inherently very useful. At the same time I'm wary of just making it an Encounter power because the Duelist is doing the Ranger's thing of singling out targets and attacking a bunch (they're the closest thing to a "simple" martial class, and I see nothing wrong with having that so long as more complex options are on the table.) Also At Wills are the one type of power I want a good number of because you get up to three to start. Thoughts on how to render "attack twice at will" in a way that makes it more reasonable?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Thoughts on how to render "attack twice at will" in a way that makes it more reasonable? "Roll twice to hit; if both attack rolls succeed, this attack does 2[W]"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Iny posted:"Roll twice to hit; if both attack rolls succeed, this attack does 2[W]"? This. The problem with Twin Strike is that the static modifiers scale twice as fast as they should. Cut it to once only and there's little problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
Iny posted:"Roll twice to hit; if both attack rolls succeed, this attack does 2[W]"? Doesn't that make the power worse to gimping degree? Like, it increases your likelihood to do nothing with your attack by a lot for not a lot of reward. Unless it's just a regular hit if only one hits.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
Covok posted:Doesn't that make the power worse to gimping degree? Like, it increases your likelihood to do nothing with your attack by a lot for not a lot of reward. I think that's what they're getting at. If one attack hits, it's 1[w] Plus appropriate modifiers, but if both attacks hit you only add another weapon die. The way it works normally in 4e is it's only 1[W] per attack (no ability modifier), but each individual attack will still pick up feat bonuses, enhancement bonuses, item bonuses (I will love you forever, Iron Armbands of Power), etc., etc. This of course has a lot to do with what 4e considers an attack. So instead of "attacking" twice, it might be easier to write, "roll twice for the attack. If both hit, add 1[W] to damage," like how the Ironwrought Theme's power works. This does reduce the power's utility, though, since Twin Strike as it exists can also be used to hit two targets. Mecha Gojira fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Oct 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
Basically, the way to overall fix 4e's damage scaling had a lot of debate, but for me the most satisfying was 'only apply damage bonuses once per action' - so Twin Strike would be 2 attack rolls, one gets 1[w], one gets the damage bonuses. Then you can split them or not at your discretion. But really, if I was fixing 4e with a complete rebuild, I'd probably cull rolled damage altogether. It slows the game down and complicates the rules writing to very little benefit overall.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
The ranger fix I had been toying around with would have removed hunter's quarry, and changed Twin Strike into a class feature that would grant a 1/round at-will minor along the lines of "STR/DEX VS AC for [W]+STR/DEX." Had three goals there: getting rid of the trap option, give the ranger a unique striker shtick, and encourage more at-will diversity. But I suspect in the end it would be more trouble that its worth. Thespaceinvader is right about getting rid of rolled damage being the best fix.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 21:08
|
|
|
I think the way Scout handled TWF in Essentials was kind of interesting, but it was annoying because if you whiffed the first attack, the 2nd one just didn't even get triggered. 5e just straightup went with "no ability mod on offhand damage" but contextually, I don't know if that would fix the problem here. If you're doing any kind of critfishing, attacking more is still preferable most of the time. The thing with 5e though, is that crit damage is basically +1[W], so if you crit with a 1d6 TWF-enabled weapon, it's not as powerful as a crit with a 2d6 heavy two-hander kinda deal. Unless you get to stack a bunch of magical damage on a hit (5e Paladins, looking at you) in which case the [W]s are sorta immaterial and attacking more trumps all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
I mean, that fix fixes damage if you feel the damage expression is the issue, but it doesn't fix the fact that Twin Strike still allows you to make two attacks as an at-will against a single target, which still makes it the best at-will in the game and thus most other options trap choices compared to it. I like your idea, Wallawallawingwang, though, where instead of Hunter's Quarry, their class feature is basically just an at-will version of the encounter power Off-Hand Strike, though I'd probably drop the ability modifier to damage to reflect its new at-will status. Ranger's Striker niche probably still should be "gets more attacks," but you can dump Twin Strike as an at-will all together at that point and let the other options shine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Re: nuking ability scores, I'm still not gonna do that but I'm leaning towards not using them for +To Hit and replacing that with a flat +3 bonus (maybe have it go up at level 5 to replace the Expertise tax.) I'll keep it as a damage modifier because assuming a range of scores of 16-20 (where 16 is someone who doesn't choose an optimal race/class combo, which they shouldn't feel like they have to), an extra one or two to damage isn't nearly as big a deal as a one or two to accuracy. (Far as I can tell a +1 to accuracy is worth around three points of damage, at least that's what one power suggests. With that out of the way I may be able to actually do a little more with ability scores if they're not tied to such an important role.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
The only thing that might become a problem if you take away ability scores from damage is that as character's level up that +3 grows to +7 or so. I wanna say that most character's static damage improves at a rate of about 1/2 a level between ability score bumps, magic items, and feats.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
wallawallawingwang posted:The only thing that might become a problem if you take away ability scores from damage is that as character's level up that +3 grows to +7 or so. I wanna say that most character's static damage improves at a rate of about 1/2 a level between ability score bumps, magic items, and feats. I'm keeping them for damage, so you still get some benefits and there's a score associated with each class. Like, if you're a Commander, you're not necessarily using your Charisma to hit the enemy, but your sheer stylishness makes your hits all the stronger. Looking at page 138 of the DMG 2 it may be possible to flatten a lot of the "expected increases" (including Expertise) into a BAB progression chart. Still have to put in those increases to damage and defenses but it's one less "expected" thing. Hadn't thought about ability score increases, tho- charop would be to put those in your best score but is it something monster AC expects?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 02:26
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Hadn't thought about ability score increases, tho- charop would be to put those in your best score but is it something monster AC expects? Pretty sure it's accounted for in MM3 math, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 06:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 20, 2024 01:58 |
|
|
Speaking of, but goddamn, every time I go read the 4e thread, it seems like people are still debating when to give out math tax feats. Is there any consensus on how the math actually shakes out? I sort of think you could boil down the baked-in math to something resembling 5e's Proficiency bonus; if you can make the formula work perfectly, such that you can still use all the Monsters and other material from 4e, great. I'm looking at it like so: NADs Your ability mod effectively increases 1 per 8 levels for 2/3 NADs, but then we apparently need a +2/+3/+4 feat to fix it, so let's just say this goes for all 3 NADs half level goes up 1 per 2 levels  Enhancement (Magic Item or Inherent Bonus) goes up 1 per 5 levels so 1/8+1/2+1/5 = +0.825 per level but then every class also gives +1 to two, or the odd +2 to one... you can basically call it:
Attack Basically runs off all the same math, just chuck in Prof bonus, and you're done. Skills and Damage are little more involved, but I'm sure I could crunch that out, given time. Where's everyone else at, with this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 17:59
|
|