|
D&D 4E
Dec 2, 2010 15:16:25 GMT -5
Post by Adam on Dec 2, 2010 15:16:25 GMT -5
So, who feels up to summing up pros and cons of this system from our massive string of emails?
|
|
|
D&D 4E
Dec 4, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Post by anarkeith on Dec 4, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Looking at the core complaints, my take is that mechanically we're trying to play the game too literally. I think most of us using 4e rules are trying to build games to suit the rules, rather than applying the rules to situations in the game, where appropriate. It's the "where appropriate" part that gets us in trouble. Early versions of D&D that were more exploration-based, left swaths of play-territory unruled, so we had to wing it. 3e tried to rule too much (IMO), and 4e tried to make the rule-heavy approach more streamlined (which it did successfully IMO), but it ended up being like playing wrapped in a mattress. Disconnected mechanics.
Based on that, I think it might be possible to make the 4e core work by adapting some 1e design principles and editing out some of the existing healing, powers, and magic-item rules.
|
|
|
D&D 4E
Dec 4, 2010 17:27:55 GMT -5
Post by anarkeith on Dec 4, 2010 17:27:55 GMT -5
Further attempts at trying to identify what the problem is with 4e led me to this thought:
At our gaming table you have a range of play styles. One player type wants to hear the DM say, "You notice a groove in the floor." Whereupon that player will respond, "I'll examine it to see if it's a trap." Which leads to the DM saying, "Looking into the groove you notice some mechanical bits." Finally the player will say, "Looks like a trap. I'll disarm it using my thieving tools." The DM responds by asking for a skill check roll.
The second player type wants to hear the DM say, "You notice a trap in the floor." Whereupon the player will respond, "I got a 27 on my attempt to disarm it." The DM responds, "You disarm the trap and can pass through the corridor safely."
These are two different stylistic approaches to the game using the same game mechanics. Depending on the player, they could be equally immersive. Apply this logic to other aspects of the game (e.g., combat, spellcasting, healing, etc.) and I'd argue that our problems with 4e D&D stem as much from how we're playing as from what rules we're playing with.
|
|
|
D&D 4E
Dec 9, 2010 13:42:06 GMT -5
Post by anarkeith on Dec 9, 2010 13:42:06 GMT -5
When I first started playing D&D (AD&D 1e), there were a bunch of things that became house rules almost immediately, without a lot of deep thought. Racial level limits were out, critical hits were in, clerics casting spontaneously were in. That sort of thing. House rules were part of the game. I still have a few house rules I use in 4e, but they're subtler, mostly because the game is so tuned, it feels like screwing with it too much will cause it to misfire badly. That said, some players are unhappy with it, so I've been taking a look under the hood.
My point-buy system is something I'm still looking at, but it's rough around the edges. Instead, I'm going to test some of the following ideas myself, and then enlist my Friday play group to test them out in more detail.
1) There are too many conditions, and tracking them is no fun for anyone. I'd like to boil 'em down to no move, no attack, no perception, forced move, and possibly forced attack. Players could flavor these based on their attacks. I'm still considering duration limits.
2) Most at-will powers use the 1dX + ability modifier, or 1[W] + ability modifier model. Most encounter powers use 2dX or 2[W], with an effect. Most dailies use 3dX or 3[W] with an effect. I'd like to give players the option to swap the effect for another die of damage. This could help speed up combat by reducing condition tracking and killing monsters quicker. Yes, it reduces the tactical nature of the game, but I think there are other ways to help with that, and it may be too tactical now as is (at least for my players).
3) I'm working on a revised healing structure. In a nutshell:
* Another character can give you first aid with a Heal check as a standard action, as described on page 185 of the PHB, with the following change made to the “Use Second Wind” option: Make a DC 12 Heal check to allow an adjacent character to regain his or her healing surge value (25% of your original hit point total, rounded down) in hit points without the character having to spend an action. You can only benefit from a first aid action once per encounter.
* You can take a breather after a combat encounter. This is a 5-minute short rest that lets you catch your breath, tend to minor cuts and abrasions, drink some water, and so on. After a short rest, you regain your healing surge value (25% of your original hit point total) in hit points. You can only take one short rest after an encounter.
* You can get some sleep in the form of an extended rest. If you can get at least 6 hours of restful sleep, you regain your bloodied value (50% of your original hit point total, rounded down) in hit points.
* You can receive magical or alchemical healing. This is most commonly in the form of a cure wounds spell, or via a potion.
More research to come on using powers outside of formal combat. One option that I'm tentatively considering is some kind of tracking for total "dice-per-day" of damage, with an option to voluntarily and temporarily reduce that number in order to generate magical effects or stunts (special movement or other power-based effects) outside of combat.
For example, a 5th-level PC has 2 encounters (3 dice each, for a total of 6), 2 dailies (4 dice each, for a total of 8), and 1 utility (2 dice). That might equal 16 dice per combat (before the character has used any dailies). Using a spell effect outside of combat, might reduce available dice for the next combat. Throughout the session, the player would keep track of the number of dice like they do HP. Use a daily power? -4 dice (to 12, until the next extended rest). Use a utility power? -2 dice for the next encounter. In the encounter, the player could still use their powers, but they might have reduced effects depending on the available dice pool. Non-daily dice used between encounters would refresh after the following encounter (rather like milestones work now.)
|
|
|
D&D 4E
Dec 9, 2010 14:19:27 GMT -5
Post by djkester on Dec 9, 2010 14:19:27 GMT -5
1) There are too many conditions, and tracking them is no fun for anyone. I'd like to boil 'em down to no move, no attack, no perception, forced move, and possibly forced attack. Players could flavor these based on their attacks. I'm still considering duration limits. Conditions should have a very real physicallity IMO. Prone, Blinded, Deafened, etc... They should only limit the player and not stack. So a prone, blinded person is the same as blinded. Three conditions seem to fit all of the bills I can think of. Stunned, Blinded, Prone 2) Most at-will powers use the 1dX + ability modifier, or 1[W] + ability modifier model. Most encounter powers use 2dX or 2[W], with an effect. Most dailies use 3dX or 3[W] with an effect. I'd like to give players the option to swap the effect for another die of damage. This could help speed up combat by reducing condition tracking and killing monsters quicker. Yes, it reduces the tactical nature of the game, but I think there are other ways to help with that, and it may be too tactical now as is (at least for my players). I'm totally for this. The way 4e seems to handle this with published powers is a little different then you describe (I think) Encounter 2[w] + effect single target, 1[w] + effect vs multiple target So AEO has an impact on the damage. IMO you could really simplify this an lose very little from the tactical: 1. Encouter 2[w] Mod + AOE, 2[w] + mod + effect, 3[W] + mod 2. Daily 2[w] + Mod + effect + AOE, etc... Another way to state it: Encounter: Basic + 1[w], AOE, or Effect Daily: Basic + 2[w], AOE, or Effect you can trade out 1[w] from either to get both AOE and Effect. 3) I'm working on a revised healing structure. In a nutshell: * Another character can give you first aid with a Heal check as a standard action, as described on page 185 of the PHB, with the following change made to the “Use Second Wind” option: Make a DC 12 Heal check to allow an adjacent character to regain his or her healing surge value (25% of your original hit point total, rounded down) in hit points without the character having to spend an action. You can only benefit from a first aid action once per encounter. * You can take a breather after a combat encounter. This is a 5-minute short rest that lets you catch your breath, tend to minor cuts and abrasions, drink some water, and so on. After a short rest, you regain your healing surge value (25% of your original hit point total) in hit points. You can only take one short rest after an encounter. * You can get some sleep in the form of an extended rest. If you can get at least 6 hours of restful sleep, you regain your bloodied value (50% of your original hit point total, rounded down) in hit points. * You can receive magical or alchemical healing. This is most commonly in the form of a cure wounds spell, or via a potion. I like this alot. I think this system solves a lot of problems with the current healing. One note I like it when powers heal a certain amount instead of a surge value. If you do this it makes fighters consider their hit points much more carefully. More research to come on using powers outside of formal combat. One option that I'm tentatively considering is some kind of tracking for total "dice-per-day" of damage, with an option to voluntarily and temporarily reduce that number in order to generate magical effects or stunts (special movement or other power-based effects) outside of combat. For example, a 5th-level PC has 2 encounters (3 dice each, for a total of 6), 2 dailies (4 dice each, for a total of 8), and 1 utility (2 dice). That might equal 16 dice per combat (before the character has used any dailies). Using a spell effect outside of combat, might reduce available dice for the next combat. Throughout the session, the player would keep track of the number of dice like they do HP. Use a daily power? -4 dice (to 12, until the next extended rest). Use a utility power? -2 dice for the next encounter. In the encounter, the player could still use their powers, but they might have reduced effects depending on the available dice pool. Non-daily dice used between encounters would refresh after the following encounter (rather like milestones work now.)
|
|
|
D&D 4E
Dec 9, 2010 17:04:12 GMT -5
Post by anarkeith on Dec 9, 2010 17:04:12 GMT -5
Dave, thanks for your detailed reply, especially the analysis of how the powers are built. You've delved deeper than I did into the structure of the different powers, and I'll use that info in refining this idea.
|
|
|
D&D 4E
Dec 9, 2010 19:49:15 GMT -5
Post by djkester on Dec 9, 2010 19:49:15 GMT -5
Keith,
I think you are onto a great idea here.
Dave
|
|
|
D&D 4E
Dec 15, 2010 13:57:32 GMT -5
Post by anarkeith on Dec 15, 2010 13:57:32 GMT -5
Fritz has complained mightily about identifying magic items in 4e. I share his dissatisfaction with simply knowing what the item is and all its properties. That's why I'm looking at the following house rule:
Identifying a magic item:
DCs are based, in part, on the item’s level. In the following example, the Ring of Wizardry is a 21st level item. DCs to identify its specialized functions and esoteric information about it are Easy 19, Moderate 26, Hard 35 (per the modified table of DCs that WotC published most recently.)
Example: Ring of Wizardry Level 21 This silver band is engraved with powerful arcane symbols. Item Slot: Ring 225,000 gp Property: Gain a +3 item bonus to Arcana checks. Power (Daily): Minor Action. Regain the use of an arcane encounter utility power that you’ve already used (as if you hadn’t used it this encounter). If you’ve reached at least one milestone today, you can instead regain the use of an arcane encounter attack power.
Arcana Check DC 10 (Common Knowledge: This includes the kind of general information that is commonly known about a given topic, or can be discerned by simple experimentation.) This item is magical. Property: Gain an item bonus to Arcana checks.
Arcana Check DC 19 (Expert Knowledge: This includes the kind of specialized information that only an expert in the field of study could possibly know.) Property: Gain a +3 item bonus to Arcana checks. This item has a Power (Daily): Minor Action.
Arcana Check DC 26 (Master Knowledge: This includes the kind of esoteric information that only a master in the field of study could possibly know.) Property: Gain a +3 item bonus to Arcana checks. This item has a Power (Daily): Minor Action. Regain the use of an arcane encounter utility power that you’ve already used (as if you hadn’t used it this encounter). If you’ve reached at least one milestone today, you can instead regain the use of an arcane encounter attack power.
Arcana Check DC 35 (Full Knowledge: Only a highly-capable master in the field of study, and related fields, could possibly have full knowledge of an item.) Full stats, including name of item, from example above. This may include information about the maker and/or wielder of the item.
|
|
|
D&D 4E
Dec 18, 2010 18:08:47 GMT -5
Post by anarkeith on Dec 18, 2010 18:08:47 GMT -5
First play session with the new house rules last night. The players were sweating bullets for a bit, and one fell unconscious, got some first aid, and was promptly knocked out again. It was towards the end of the combat, but it brought to light that, if you fall unconscious a second time in a fight, you're not getting back in it without a potion or a spell available. So, the jury is still out on the healing options. But I intend to continue the experiment.
A few players chose to add damage to their attacks instead of using the tactical effects/conditions, so I know this mechanic is somewhat viable. (In a couple of cases, players recognized that the condition was an important option and so stuck with it. Nice tactical thinking! I hope that means they felt engaged.)
|
|
|
D&D 4E
Jan 23, 2011 15:42:32 GMT -5
Post by anarkeith on Jan 23, 2011 15:42:32 GMT -5
Last night, playing 4e with players of a wide variety of ages and RPG experience levels, I was struck by how often players resorted to expressing their actions in terms of numerical results. Confronted by a problem, they'd say (for example), "I roll a 19 on dungeoneering, what happens?"
Essentially, they're asking the DM to narrate the game. I liken it to spamming the "X" button in a video game, and looking to the game to show the result of their action.
This, in my mind, really defeats the purpose of a role-playing game. As a DM, I expect players to describe what they would like to do, and if a roll is appropriate, I will call for it. Players can describe their action so as to encompass a skill they're good at. That's OK. It's part of playing the game. But just throwing out a number, and asking what it means is not.
Not sure how to educate these types of players to play differently, but I think that's one of the pitfalls of 4e. Powers become "buttons" that players push, and then get a programmed response.
|
|
randy
New Member
Posts: 34
|
D&D 4E
Jan 23, 2011 20:51:11 GMT -5
Post by randy on Jan 23, 2011 20:51:11 GMT -5
This is an interesting dilemma and exists in most games I am familiar with. How do you get players to think in terms of actions rather than rolling against a number? I would be interested in other thoughts on this (while keeping the actual rolling against a number part). Here is a thought that occurs to me- say that a character during a barfight wants to jump on the bar to gain an advantage. Instead of having him roll against his Athletics check, first have him describe what he is trying to do- "I use the back of the man on his hands and knees to jump to the barstool to reach the bar". There would then be a roll, but (to reward the player and encourage storytelling) the GM could modify it, giving the player a +2 on his roll for using the available props, etc. Or the GM could have considered this an "average" task, but rewards the player by making it an "easy" task. A concern with this that I have- a thief using his pick lock skill describes the same thing every time- if it is clever does he get a plus, or does it become standard? You don't want to spend a lot of time role-playing a picked lock (unless it is a special one/situation), so how do you keep it fresh?
|
|
|
D&D 4E
Jan 26, 2011 9:25:13 GMT -5
Post by djkester on Jan 26, 2011 9:25:13 GMT -5
House Rule Playtest In 4e the mechanics of skills are supposed to be simple. The idea is to eliminate much of the complexity of Real Life in favor of a good story mechanic. The problem is the skill rules in 4e, as my friend Tyke would say, suck great big green donkey balls. I'm actually thinking of adding in a house rule on skill challenges. Using Fudge Dice. The idea will be simply you get an automatic - for no training and you roll one dice for each +5 you have in the skill. Modifiers: 1. Based on clever use of environment the DM can allow for either or both of: Additional + or dice. 2. Based on difficulty the DM can give you -. But here is the great part. You have to describe what results you are hoping for and what you expect to have happen. Once you know the result the player hopes for the DM can assign a difficulty. Once they know the action they can assign any other modifiers. Result: After the role the break down goes like this: Below -3 DM discretion. 3- to 1-, minor failure. Something unexpected happens that results in the character not being successful or ass successful as desired. 1- to 1+, minor success, the effect of the goal is met but the scale of success is not what was desired. For example: I want to convince the guard to let us past with a 1+ would result in: You have convinced the guard to let you past but it requires some form of payment, or the guard likes you but instead of letting you past wants to have you over for dinner and insists you meat this uncle, right now who is just around the corner. 2+, you meet your objective. The DM and the player then work to add details of the interaction. Describing what each of them does as a result of the success. 3+, you have a great success and something unexpected that is helpful in the situation occurs. Beyond 3+ is really just DM discretion. The entire idea is based on the concept of reducing the amount the dice influence the non-combat aspects of the game. Instead moving towards a more story telling aspect. While still separating to some degree character skill from player skill. For new players this system will be very difficult since they may not have the real life experience to determine appropriate action. In this case the DM should help them. Additionally, its a challenge for the DM to not reward the more extroverted players over the others. Keeping an even playing field in a RPG situation is always a challenge though. I think getting way from the "ROLLED a 31 for my Breakwind skill" will be a good thing. Dave
|
|
|
D&D 4E
Jan 27, 2011 18:59:53 GMT -5
Post by anarkeith on Jan 27, 2011 18:59:53 GMT -5
Dave, I'm intrigued by your proposal, but it still feels focused on the dice (as in player input is geared towards getting more dice for a more favorable probability of success.
Maybe it's just the storyteller in me, but I'd like to hear players propose an environment-based solution, and then decide if it warrants a roll (and, if so, what type.)
If a player describes an effective solution that is within their capabilities, why not just grant a success? If there are circumstances the player has overlooked, or of which they are unaware, call for a roll.
Getting players out of the game-playing space, and into the role-playing space is what I'm talking about. Leave it to the DM to come up with the application of game mechanics.
|
|