4ENCLAVE

A new home for the 4th Edition of the Worlds Oldest Roleplaying Game
 
HomeHome  CalendarCalendar  GalleryGallery  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
AuthorMessage
Chris24601
Epic Adventurer
Epic Adventurer


Posts : 453
Join date : 2013-05-17
Age : 43
Location : Fort Wayne, IN

Character sheet
Name:
Class:
Race:

PostSubject: Re: I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)   Wed Mar 25, 2015 6:30 am

First, yeah... that's a copy-paste error on the background skills. When designing each background I started with a full list and then deleted down to eight because it saved typing. I obviously forgot on the last three I did.

You gleaned the intent of the divine sanctions, but I a definitive example certainly wouldn't hurt. The intention is that you can mix and match when selecting your dictum (the trigger) and your sanction (the effect). So you could select 'moves towards' and 'frightened' as one divine sanction and 'inflicts a harmful condition' and 'dazed' as another at first level (plus a third if you're the Interdictor build). The net result of 6 dictums and 6 sanctions is 36 possible combinations to fill 5-6 available slots that the theurge has available to it.

And while it is a 4E term for a paladin marking effect, it also seemed the most straightforward name for the term, fitting even better than it did for the 4E Paladin. I had toyed with other names such as 'Divine Dictum' or 'Words of Power', but neither had the ring to it that Divine Sanction does (the alliteration of Divine Dictum is what does it in for me and Words of Power is just clunky). I think it'll be okay largely because the term is self-evident (a restriction laid down by a divine agent) and it is presented in a completely different way than the 4E version.

ETA: I updated the artisan, commoner and entertainer background skill lists and added two example sanctions to that section just to make it a little clearer that you aren't limited to the same line and to clarify that the immobilization effect occurs AFTER the target who violates the trigger completes its action (i.e. if you connect it to a movement based trigger, the creature is not immobilized until it finishes its current move).
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Honorbound
Heroic Adventurer
Heroic Adventurer


Posts : 108
Join date : 2013-11-12

Character sheet
Name:
Class:
Race:

PostSubject: Re: I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)   Thu Mar 26, 2015 1:31 am

You're probably getting sick of me nagging you about the names of stuff. It has to be particularly annoying in this case, since divine sanction really is the best option here. Speaking of the sanctions, I had thought they weren't customizable; I was really only fielding the other interpretation to make sure. Your clarification on the sanctions makes them much more interesting.

Back to the backgrounds, I noticed that the artisan and religious backgrounds still had nine skills versus everyone else's eight - it's piddly stuff at this stage, and the religious background's skills all fit so well, but I had to say it.

I'm glad to see a formal weapons table, especially the new stuff you added. The stout property and the shield bash weapons were things I never knew I wanted in a 4e game.

A question on the elf's changeling feature: I take its fluff to mean actual shapeshifting a la the 4e changeling, but with a possibility of failure (and a better base form than a washed-out, pastel David Bowie).

Finally, your character sheet is a work of art. It's so damn concise, with absolutely no page space wasted. The other abilities section is more than enough, given that a good portion of the utilities feed directly into the ability scores section.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Chris24601
Epic Adventurer
Epic Adventurer


Posts : 453
Join date : 2013-05-17
Age : 43
Location : Fort Wayne, IN

Character sheet
Name:
Class:
Race:

PostSubject: Re: I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)   Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:02 am

Nah, I appreciate all input, even on things like names. Odds are I WILL have to change some of them eventually... both to steer clear of potential WotC issues and to help establish my own brand identity... but despite how complete-ish this looks, its still actually in the NOTE stage of development (each of those one line attack power options will be getting its own stat block... or at least a clear paragraph more akin to the wording for the weapon and implement properties for example).

Regarding Sanctions... wow, my wording initially must have been REALLY bad. I'm glad you said something. My goal is to give every class enough options for things like the sanctions and other powers that you can make at least three complete characters of the same class or background with no overlap of the selectable features (which is why backgrounds have 24 options, plus the universal utilities, since players will end up with 9-10 total options).

Speaking of backgrounds, eight each was the goal, so I'll probably drop Endurance from the Artisan (they can still pick it up via their 1 of choice at level one or via Skill Mastery if they REALLY want it) and Streetwise from the Religious background (none of its utilities reference it and they can still take it as their 1 of choice if its necessary to the concept.

Also relevant to backgrounds, we leveled everyone in one of my playtest groups up to level four and while the level four military background is great for non-weapon using classes, its near worthless for the weapon using classes that generally already have the right stats to make weapon attacks. So it's going to need an alternate feature for those who already have the ideal stats (and it won't be an extra bonus to hit or damage because that throws off my math... there's a reason superior weapons just have more properties and not better damage).

By the same token, we leveled up to five after the first first fight and the guardian fighter got their reactive shield to spend focus to reduce damage by half. The skald got to target two allies at once with their buffs. The striker fighter got the ability to stow and draw weapons as a free action 1/round... wow, does that feel like a letdown compared to what the others got.

The fact that the Fighter was literally the first class I put to paper and that I haven't really done much to review it since then is really starting to show in the testing phase (especially with two fighters and a rogue... both of my earliest designs... in the same party). Its not that the option is BAD. For some builds it could be quite useful. But its BORING as all get out.

Glad you like the weapon lists. I tried to keep the weapons as generic as possible because that's actually how weapons were referred to at the time (ex. Halberd is just the German word for 'Pole Axe', Claymore is just the Gaelic word for 'Great Sword' and Katana just means 'Big Knife') and really only got super specific with the exotic weapons.

The changeling feature is pretty much the same as the 4E one. The prospect of failure is if you're trying to disguise yourself as someone specific (just as the changeling feature in 4E gave a +5 bonus to Bluff checks when disguising yourself as someone). And yeah, in their natural state they resemble an ordinary elf and not something pale and featureless.

And thanks for the praise on the character sheet. I spent a good day and a half working and reworking the thing. My goal was to be able to squeeze pretty much an entire character, even one that was level 15, onto a single page (that could then be folded in half like a flip card to minimize table space). The most interesting thing about the character sheets during the playtest was that I did my first test without them and everyone was confused by all the things on the pages for their race/class/background, but with the second group where I had character sheets ready to go, creation just flew by with minimal confusion. Its also been a joy to see players able to go over their options at a glance and not have to shuffle through cards or read the minutia of conditional effects they've been saddled with.

A couple of other observations from last night's playtest... Last time I mentioned that it was really cool to see the hero burn through their encounter limit of heroic surges in a single turn to burn down the ogre that was mopping the floor with them. Tonight I really regretted that because finding the toughest foe (the necromancer in this case) and then burning him down on the first round before he had a chance to do ANYTHING was kinda lame (four hits for 2d12+14 each will do that to an elite with 96 hit points).

And the Champion Ember Demon went down like a punk to a tactic of dazing it (so it only gets one action and was slowed and then keeping out of melee range with it... the archer doing so got lucky and hit it every round). It lasted three rounds, no one was affected by its aura and they spread out sufficiently that it could only hit about 1.5 PC's with its 'hurl embers' and their defenses were high enough that he was missed half of those attacks (which is intended, but becomes really noticeable when a monster meant to be as dangerous as four only feels like its as dangerous as a single standard monster).

In short, it was a big bag of hit points that could barely do anything because the players in what I'm calling my Tactical Group found the perfect strategy to beat it (hinder its speed and keep out of melee with it). To be fair, I think my other group will probably have significant problems because their ideal tactic is to run up and melee things, but this has highlighted that the Champions (which are intended to be worth four monsters) are going to need more than what I gave them if they're going to survive against anyone with a modicum of tactics.

The biggest thing was the slowed condition... it kept the champion from being able to close to melee so its aura and minor action melee attacks (not it got to make any because it was dazed the whole time). Especially for the Ember Demon (being basically a sapient cloud of burning embers) giving it an immunity to slowed (which dazed imparts) and treating immobilized as slowed would have at least let it close to melee range during the last round (the party was basically retreating back through the dungeon after each attack).

The other thing that became painfully obvious was that knocking out one of its actions cut the Ember Demon's offensive ability in HALF (more than when coupled with its ability only use its ranged attack). Right now I'm looking at two potential options for this. The first is to increase the potency of the remaining action by giving champions a bonus to attack rolls (possibly as much as +4) when they can only take one action so that the action they do take stands a much stronger chance of landing. The other, which I like less well because it 'breaks' the rules more overtly (having really potent powers is one thing... having a monster get extra actions is another) is to just give them an extra action rather like the 4E MV solos get.

Hmmm... an idea just struck me as it relates to staging of effects and something to the effect of all effects on champions stage down to the next lower effect... so a daze would instead dazzle and you'd need to two dazes to actually daze a champion. Dunno if this will be practical, but I'm going to play with a couple of options in reworking the elites and champions (except the ogre... it worked scarily well as is).
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Chris24601
Epic Adventurer
Epic Adventurer


Posts : 453
Join date : 2013-05-17
Age : 43
Location : Fort Wayne, IN

Character sheet
Name:
Class:
Race:

PostSubject: Re: I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)   Tue Apr 14, 2015 9:01 am

Okay, Its been a couple of weeks, but I've been busy with some major updates.

So you don't have to page back; the link is HERE.

Here is a list of the main updates;

- A number of races had their ability score options updated to give them more options and beast-men gained a 'small' option for those who want to play things like kobolds (I'll admit the inspiration came from how crazyawesome a couple of kobold monsters I statted up turned out to be).

- The Classes section has been completely re-organized with the specializations and attack powers fully laid out (vs. the one-line open to interpretation notes they were before).

- The slayer fighters got some better options and the mage and spellblade each picked up a couple of new builds.

- Stats have been added for all the background companions.

- A currency system has been implemented based on the historical precedent of the value of a pound of silver (and 1/100th of a pound as a cent coin... about the size and weight of a US Nickel) with different realms using different sizes and weights of currency... but their value in trade being the weight of the precious metals used to make the coin.

- A page on Encounter Building has been added.

- The previous monsters have been completely reworked and assembled into five sample encounters suitable for 2-7 PC of any level. In addition, another 17 monsters have been added and will eventually be arranged into another 6 encounters. I even slipped a few pieces of magical treasure into the encounters as some examples of what magic items are going to look like for the system.

Sadly, I have not gotten the Egyptian Gnolls statted up, but they and their affiliated monsters should add up to another 19 monsters across six encounters.

So, take a look and let me know what you think.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Honorbound
Heroic Adventurer
Heroic Adventurer


Posts : 108
Join date : 2013-11-12

Character sheet
Name:
Class:
Race:

PostSubject: Re: I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)   Fri Apr 17, 2015 3:23 am

You weren't kidding about the new racial ability score options: they are going to break open a huge number of class combinations.

The slayer fighter's Reactive Retaliation is a useful feature for a slayer, piling on the damage.

The mage and spellblade's new builds are neat as heck, and they fill stat/role combinations that were previously left unfilled (Int/Cha defenders, Int/Con strikers, Int/Wis strikers, Int/Cha controllers). Just a simple swap of implement proficiencies really set them apart. Nice job.

Side Note: I wonder of the avenger should get improved mobility the way that the inquisitor does.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Chris24601
Epic Adventurer
Epic Adventurer


Posts : 453
Join date : 2013-05-17
Age : 43
Location : Fort Wayne, IN

Character sheet
Name:
Class:
Race:

PostSubject: Re: I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)   Fri Apr 17, 2015 7:25 am

Actually, now that I read it they should. The intention was to give it to both Dex primary builds but instead its given to a STR and a DEX build because I stuck it under Slayer benefits without thinking.

THIS is why I like having people review the material. They catch things that should be stunningly obvious, but because I spend so much time working on it, presume that things are already laid out the way they are in my head.

As to the racial ability scores... yeah, while I was doing the rework I made a list of every class stat combination and then went through each race and started ranking their suitability for each class; if it could match the primary score it got a *, if it could match the primary score and one of the secondaries it got ** and if it could match the primary and both secondaries it got ***. I also made a note of which roles (controller, enabler, guardian and slayer) each race could fill where its racial stats gave it strong primary and secondaries.

Long story short... some of the races got *** in wide swaths of classes (Beast-Men, Elves, Humans and Mutants most particularly) and easily covered every role. Other races only had a few ** classes at best and some couldn't even manage to cover all the roles by my criteria above. The tiefling was probably the worst offender in that regard... it racial stats only lined with the primary and secondary stats for the Blade Warder Spellblade and Maledictor Theurge at the time I did my review. The giant wasn't much better and its Str+Con or Wis array only gave them shifter and fighter guardians and fighter and summoner slayers as best fit options.

A related problem for a few of the races was simply that they didn't allow for some particularly intuitive builds. The sprite wasn't top tier Rogue for example and none of the classes used the combination of Dex and Int which was one of its only two options. Similarly the tiefling couldn't even match the primary of any of the rogue builds despite their stereotypical guileful nature.

So I opened them up a bit and may even need to go a step further with some of them down the line truthfully.

ETA: My project for the past two days has actually been working on magic items. As with things like the Beast-Men I'm currently going with a wide array of generic options instead of very specific items. As it stands, I'm currently breaking up items into minor, moderate and major items with the a minor item having one property, a moderate item having two properties (certain properties count as more than one property) and a major item having three properties.

So, for example, a minor frost blade would likely just have the elemental damage (cold) property. A moderate frost blade might also pick up the immobilizing or fatiguing property while a major frost blade would have all three properties (immobilizing and fatiguing requiring focus to activate).

My big debate is... how purchasable should magic items be. Since all they provide are properties and options (most of which are balanced by having a focus or even surge cost to use) rather than needed for the mechanics to work (no +1 swords for the sake of +1 swords) being able to purchase all the types of items isn't strictly required and it would be nice to not have to worry about 'wealth per level' and let the story dictate the wealth a character can acquire.

But at the same time you've got Gadgeteers running around and a PC one should certain be able to eventually achieve legendary stature which theoretically involves crafting new major items. The trick is going to be where and how to draw the line.

At the very least I expect a tier-based crafting limit (ex. only consumables can be crafted at level 1 with the ability to craft minor items coming at level 5, moderate items at level 10 and only those who reach level 15 being able to craft new major items themselves), but I'm also mucking about with a chakra-ish system where you can only gain the benefits of X number of permanent items at a time which would make wealth past the value of X items of the tier you can craft useful only for things that don't involve improving your combat abilities.

Honestly, coming up with the magic items themselves and balancing them for the combat system is a lot easier than trying to balance out their availability and potential cost.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Honorbound
Heroic Adventurer
Heroic Adventurer


Posts : 108
Join date : 2013-11-12

Character sheet
Name:
Class:
Race:

PostSubject: Re: I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)   Fri Apr 17, 2015 1:48 pm

Yeah, the magic item thing sounds like it's going to need lots of playtesting to firmly nail down the availability/cost issue. The actual mechanics of the items sound intuitive, though. Having minor, moderate, and major versions of the same item will not only save you on time, it provides a sense of continuity between them, if that's the right word.

The tier-based system is looking to be a good foundation for it, since you don't want people crafting legendary items before they become legends themselves. I would bolt your chakra-ish sytem onto this foundation once you have the specific numbers worked out. If it were me, I would have one or two magic items at levels 1-5, two to three at levels 6-10, and three to four at levels 11-15, but I tend to err on the conservative side when it comes to magic items.

As for the PC races, the dwarf, giant, and halfling could probably use a format like the one you used for the golem, gnome, and tiefling.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Chris24601
Epic Adventurer
Epic Adventurer


Posts : 453
Join date : 2013-05-17
Age : 43
Location : Fort Wayne, IN

Character sheet
Name:
Class:
Race:

PostSubject: Re: I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)   Sat Apr 18, 2015 8:13 am

So, I had a thought regarding how to handle item creation. Instead of giving a price to purchase them directly... instead each magic item has its own ritual to create it. You can buy the ritual just like any other, but to actually enchant the item you need to acquire a certain number of rare items that you must adventure for (because ordinary people can't survive the effort of acquiring fresh basilisk eyeteeth or the heart of a mummy lord).

Minor items (including consumables) probably don't actually require such things and can just be bought for the right price (the value of 20 pounds of silver or more), but my thinking is that acquiring the materials for a moderate item would be the subject of an entire adventure while getting the materials to create a major item would be the subject of an entire quest/series of adventures.

This would be in addition to the tier-based requirements for crafting and chakras. Your numbers are slightly lower than my initial thoughts, but only slightly. My gut instinct was for the 3/4/5 (by tier) items. I considered putting a limiter on the number of moderate and major items when you reach the higher tiers, but at the same time the drive of trying to fill each limited slot with a major item to maximize your potential is a definite way to drive some types of players.

Alternately, I could set the chakras up a bit more linearly... start with 1 chakra at first level and then gain an additional one every 3rd level (at 4th, 7th, 10th and 13th levels) with the ability to use moderate and major items kicking in at 6th and 11th level.

Sidebar: I really don't like the term 'moderate magic item'. It just feels so unnatural. I may need to change the headings a bit... I'm thinking perhaps minor, major and legendary items as terms would fit better.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Honorbound
Heroic Adventurer
Heroic Adventurer


Posts : 108
Join date : 2013-11-12

Character sheet
Name:
Class:
Race:

PostSubject: Re: I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)   Sat Apr 18, 2015 9:52 pm

The Minor, Major, and Legendary Item set-up does sound better.

Your linear set-up for chakras/magic items is a little better than just a straight 3/4/5, since it allows for a more even increase as the PCs level up, and it allows the DM to weave the items into the story at a more organic pace.

The idea of each magic item needing a ritual to craft is a lot more intuitive in terms of fluff and economics than just going down to the magic item shop. Minor items would be cheap enough for shop-owners to produce that the PCs could reasonably expect them in specialty locations, or as the high-priced versions of regular items, while the major items would be too cost-prohibitive. I would personally hold off on the crafting of Legendary items altogether and reserve that category for, well, legendary artifacts and relics of power. Perhaps they could be explained as major magic items that have gained power over the centuries to become legendary.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Chris24601
Epic Adventurer
Epic Adventurer


Posts : 453
Join date : 2013-05-17
Age : 43
Location : Fort Wayne, IN

Character sheet
Name:
Class:
Race:

PostSubject: Re: I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)   Sun Apr 19, 2015 10:45 am

Okay, I have to say that the seed of the legendary items you just presented is BRILLIANT! The only thing I think I might elaborate on with that is that its the USE of the item over centuries that transforms a major item (or a minor item as I'm a huge fan of the lowly becoming the greatest) into a legendary one.

The idea being that the more something magical is used the more easily magic flows through it and the greater effects it can achieve. The use also means the item will certainly become known and told of in legends (and hence truly BE legendary).

I like that idea. A. LOT!
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Honorbound
Heroic Adventurer
Heroic Adventurer


Posts : 108
Join date : 2013-11-12

Character sheet
Name:
Class:
Race:

PostSubject: Re: I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)   Sun Apr 19, 2015 5:35 pm

Thank you very much.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Chris24601
Epic Adventurer
Epic Adventurer


Posts : 453
Join date : 2013-05-17
Age : 43
Location : Fort Wayne, IN

Character sheet
Name:
Class:
Race:

PostSubject: Re: I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)   Sat May 09, 2015 10:08 am

Update time again; The old links still work, but to make it easy, its found HERE.

Still pushing through magic items (they'll be in the next update), but a few more monsters have been added (including my first actual monstrous dragon), a lot of cleanup has been done (particularly to the Shifter class). The main additions this time are a major expansions of the equipment section including rules for item quality, mounts and vehicles and writing out and clarifying a bunch of stuff in the Character Basics section into something resembling a reasonable form. This includes rules for long mentioned Allegiances and Languages (which are a bit different than in third or fourth edition).

Basically, my current goal is to get the core of the player-side systems into a playable form because I've run across a local group that meets twice a week for the express purpose of testing game systems (a few of whom have even written regionally popular game systems themselves) and getting things sufficiently clear to be used as a system reference document for more rigorous testing will make that a lot easier.

I especially want to do such testing because so far I've been the one to GM everything so I already know how to accomplish various unwritten things (like counting diagonal squares for movement/range for example) that a new GM would just have to guess about. As such, I can't be 100% sure that the speed and flow of various combats isn't because I'm the one running it versus the actual useability of the system.

As always, feedback is welcomed and encouraged.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Honorbound
Heroic Adventurer
Heroic Adventurer


Posts : 108
Join date : 2013-11-12

Character sheet
Name:
Class:
Race:

PostSubject: Re: I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)   Mon May 11, 2015 3:33 am

Languages & Allegiances:

The language system you've set up is beautiful in its simplicity – instead of just Common and the various racial languages, you've developed language families, which is so much better for verisimilitude. The Imperial language family in particular is the best part – it carries more than the usual “Common is the language of the human race” crap, and it's generic enough that the DM can expand or contract it as needed, from a continental version to the dialects of a country, or even across multiple continents.

The allegiance system retains all the benefits of an alignment system while throwing out the nonsense and rooting the characters in the world around them.

Equipment Rules:

The item quality rules are a neat little mechanical wrinkle that further tie the mechanics of the game to the world's setting. My only question is whether or not the fine and legendary item qualities are cumulative or not. Common sense (and the legendary armor/shield section's explanation) would dictate yes, but it doesn't hurt to ask.

Other Stuff

I like the way you cleaned up the shifter, making Dex/Wis and Str/Wis viable as both guardians and slayers. Moving the beast form and hybrid form crunch into the general benefits while reclassifying the role-based benefits under the Warden and Predator and having the distinction be whether the character chooses the Swift or Potent build is a good idea, one that the class sorely needed.

Question Regarding the Focus:

I noticed that some attacks' focus expenditures activate when you make the attack, others are on a “you hit with the attack” trigger. Have you decided to just split the difference on when character's trigger focus, applying the “before the attack roll” and “after the attack roll” versions on a case-by-case basis? The focus effects that trigger on a miss aren't a problem, but I had to ask about the others.

All in all, I like what I see. I wish that 4e had looked like this.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Chris24601
Epic Adventurer
Epic Adventurer


Posts : 453
Join date : 2013-05-17
Age : 43
Location : Fort Wayne, IN

Character sheet
Name:
Class:
Race:

PostSubject: Re: I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)   Mon May 11, 2015 10:29 am

Thanks for the praise on the languages. I've been trying to get something that worked there for awhile now. One of the big hang-ups I was having was that my setting really didn't encourage extensive racial languages. Beast-Men, Dwarves, Golems, Mutants and Tieflings were all either once Human or were created by them so if you went with just racial languages they'd all have the same one. Likewise, 'Giants and Sprites' and 'Elves and Gnomes' each came from the Primal and Astral realms so it made sense for them to share a language. So that basically reduced the list to Common, Primal, Elven, Shadow (halflings and goblins/orcs/ogres) and Draconic... which was barely enough to avoid having the courtier just automatically speak all languages.

At that point my options were either go the 13th Age method of just saying that languages are unimportant to the narrative or come up with a more real-world list. The thing that pushed me in the direction I did was that in doing some reading on languages, particularly the commonalities of the Romance languages I hit on the idea that if some languages shared enough roots that some level of communication would be possible despite the language gap (ex. "how much for this item?" "where is the bathroom?") although with greater difficulty the further apart you get (at a certain point... Central to Elven would increase the DC by 25 for example... you're just making gestures and sounds at each other and hoping the tone of voice will help convey some information).

Incidentally, if you're looking for the best diplomat character possible taking Imperial or Astral are probably your best choices as their is no more than one step between either of those languages and every other language except abyssal and arcanos (which are two steps). Primal alone is runner up, since nothing is more than two steps from it, but all the common languages fall into that two step range... which is enough to wipe out the bonus from both a high Charisma and skill proficiency.

*****

The rule on equipment quality is that it's cumulative unless superseded by a higher quality effect. So a legendary weapon would get both the damage bonus and an extra quality, but a suit of armor's weight would only be halved and not have its weight reduced by 5 lb. (the fine benefit) and then halved (the legendary benefit).

The initial seed for item quality came from trying to make plate armor (which some classes need to reach their target AC) affordable when the cost of raw materials alone would be almost as large as the default starting wealth if purchased new (it would take about 35 lb. of iron at 10 cents a pound plus the cost of labor). So I needed a way to justify a cheaper suit of armor... an ill-fitted hand-me-down for example. So the poor quality was born and the fine and legendary just sort of naturally followed.

One thing that you can probably see coming from the prices that some of these things (a legendary suit of heavy armor is literally worth its weight in gold) and the bit on magic items I'm running with that anything beyond minor items requires materials that can only be gained by skilled adventurers and so can't readily be bought is that I'm planning on dumping the concept of wealth by level entirely. All the wealth in the world won't buy you an artifact or even a major magic item, but I needed some outlet for vast wealth and paying 60,000+ for a legendary quality war horse, heavy barding, plate armor, heavy shield, and longsword is a great way to do so.

*****

The Shifter changes were a continuation of my general option expansion that started with having implement and elemental variations on the Mage and Spellblade. It doesn't make sense to have those splits in every case (there's not enough of a thematic break between the enabler and controller shaman to warrant two sets of secondary stats for each role for example), but where it does I'm trying to add them.

*****

I'm not so much splitting the difference on triggering as letting certain powers 'break' the rules.

The lengths of my combats so far showed me that the current focus pool is sufficiently large that unless I wanted every fight to end with the PC's having more than half their focus left over, I needed to go with spending focus when you make the attack so they could have a chance of burning through it all.

Combat so far is averaging about 3-4 rounds for a balanced fight and PC's start with 3-4 focus and have 6-7 by the time they can spend 2 per attack at 6th level and have 8-9 by the time they can spend 3 focus per attack.

Unless they've got a minor action that can also benefit from focus they've got enough that they can basically unload with 4E encounter strength powers every round even if they have to spend it on attacks they aren't certain will hit.

So spending focus 'when you make the attack' is the default for probably 90% of the powers. The exceptions are ones where it just didn't make sense to spend them before hand or where it would be clunky mechanically to do so.

Another big consideration was whether the effect was a self/ally buff or whether it harmed an enemy. I've generally tried to make self-buffs reliable so you aren't wasting resources on trying to heal (most of the attacks which let you regain hit points have a horrible hit point per focus ratio relative to an enabler's main healing power) or make a recovery check or get some other personal buff.

That probably accounts for most of the discrepancies from 'when you make the attack' in the various attack powers. About the only way I could really shift towards a 'when you hit' economy would be greatly curtain the amount of focus gained (to probably about half the current values) and then increase the potency of the focus effects a bit as you leveled (ex. keep the focus cost at 1, but allow the current effects that cost 2 focus to occur for 1 focus at level 2+).

I'm way too deep into the design to do much more than tweak the focus values at this point.

I'm actually a bit tempted to test what it'd look like with say STAT + 1 at 6 and 11 focus during the mid and late tiers where spending 2/3 focus per action becomes an option, but you only have 4-6 focus to actually spend. Do you spend it on a couple of big attacks or on multiple weaker ones? Or do you burn some heroic surges to gain additional focus for the fight?

So long as the monsters are balanced to match, it shouldn't be unbalanced. Actually, optional rules for varying the amount of focus/surges based on the desires for the campaign (gritty vs. heroic) probably wouldn't be a bad thing (side-bar: speaking of gritty options, the next update is going to include rules for 0-level characters for those who want to start out as more of an everyman instead of more the more heroic 4E default and I'm also thinking of putting the 3E diagonal movement rules into place as another optional rule for those who want it).
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Honorbound
Heroic Adventurer
Heroic Adventurer


Posts : 108
Join date : 2013-11-12

Character sheet
Name:
Class:
Race:

PostSubject: Re: I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)   Mon May 11, 2015 2:08 pm

When you think about it, racial languages don't make sense for any setting - language isn't a product of biology, it's a product of culture. Tolkien pulled it off because he built cultures around the languages and had them develop. It just so happened that the specific cultures corresponded to the different races, and - Tolkien being a professional linguistics nerd - I'm sure that each racial language had variations on it.

Your reasoning on the focus expenditure makes sense - focus unspent in an encounter is focus wasted, and a little uncertainty never killed anyone. I do like having the exception for the self-buffing ones - it makes them a little more tempting than they would be otherwise.

What originally brought it to my attention was looking over the spellblade again (battlemage nut here) and realizing that every one of the spellblade's blade spells save Foresight Strike has its focus effect trigger on a hit.

On the subject of option expansion, I think you've hit the ceiling there for class attribute combinations, because the ones with just two builds left don't really lean towards extra builds: as you pointed out, the Shaman doesn't have enough of a thematic break, and the same goes for the Theurge. The summoner's fluff separation is too tied into its mechanics (the ranged spirit-caller versus the punch-you-in-the-face version). The same goes for the gadgeteer.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Chris24601
Epic Adventurer
Epic Adventurer


Posts : 453
Join date : 2013-05-17
Age : 43
Location : Fort Wayne, IN

Character sheet
Name:
Class:
Race:

PostSubject: Re: I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)   Mon May 11, 2015 11:15 pm

Yeah, about the only way to squeeze in more builds at this point would be actually add classes... Shadow is on my extreme stretch goal list (Necromancer as a summoning-based controller/slayer, Death Knight as an undead guardian/slayer and Life Stealer as an enabler/striker that buffs himself or his allies by stealing life force from his enemies), but I've got a lot more critical things to work on first (magic items and then monsters are my top priority... then finishing out fleshing out the default setting).

And yeah, the spellblade ended up a bit different than the others and realistically they probably could have been "when you make an attack with this blade spell active" but thematically because they're channeling magic through a weapon they kind of have the trigger of the weapon connecting that worked for me, some of their focus effects felt weak enough that triggering only on a hit for more efficiency made for an interesting trade-off and I sorta like the fact that it does things a bit differently than the other guardian themed classes. I think part of it too was that I wanted the spellblade to be bit more efficient in using focus due to its main 'guardian feature' working in reverse and the reactive ward feature requiring focus to use.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Chris24601
Epic Adventurer
Epic Adventurer


Posts : 453
Join date : 2013-05-17
Age : 43
Location : Fort Wayne, IN

Character sheet
Name:
Class:
Race:

PostSubject: Re: I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)   Fri May 29, 2015 11:15 am

100 PAGES!!! That's how many pages the latest update has reached (the previous iteration released three weeks back was 86).

Along with the new content; expanding the opening rules section to cover character creation, conflict/combat rules, rules for leveling up, structures and MAGIC ITEMS (8 pages of them); there have also been some rather extensive revisions to a couple of key systems...

Armor: After some discussions, I've decided to drop specific armor types for general classes (think halfway between 4E and 13th Age) of Light, Medium, Heavy and Full based on the degree of coverage with hard armor. This allows for a wider range of styles while still keeping the crunch factor of 4E's armor system.

One change that comes along with this revision is a slight tweak to the guardian/slayer classes. Because the improved hit points and surges let them survive about an an extra hit per battle, the AC's of the Slayer builds are now about 1 less than those of classes without a guardian option (the one exception to this is the Shifter because they largely lack ANY ranged ability and need to be up in the thick of things pretty much full time).

Focus: Continued testing has shown that even with the starting levels of Focus, players were nearly always ending combats with Focus left over and the rate of increase was such that, by the time they can spend two per action, they can already do so with every attack during the combat. So I've reduced the rate of Focus gain from +1/2 level to +1 at 4, 7, 10 and 13. This means that players will now have to choose between fewer big effects or more less big effects, which is the point of having a focus pool to begin with.

Normalizing Beast Traits: I went through and consolidated the various traits from the Beast-Man, Ranger Beast Companion, Shifter Form Abilities and then made them as consistent as possible (ex. Shifters do not need natural armor or weapon options since they get those from elsewhere in the class) before putting them back into their respective areas. This also led to a superior re-work of the Skinchanger utility (and the near duplicate mechanics for the Animal Metamorphosis ritual).

Miscellaneous Updates: I also added a couple of new options for Tieflings (it didn't seem right that the other elemental races had a "plant/life" option and them not to and added a Cross-Training Universal Utility to allow the limited selection of utilities from other backgrounds (once after 6th level and once after 11th)... there's been a Multi-classing Universal utility for awhile now, but this expands the options for customizing your character a bit more.

With the above elements complete, I'm pretty satisfied with the Player-Side options (barring game-breakers people might uncover). For the foreseeable future, additions to this will be in the form of rounding out the monster section, adding traps, diseases and other GM-side options to the game.

You can check it out with the usual links... which I'm repeating Here to save time for those who don't already have it saved elsewhere.

As always, comments are not just welcome, but actively encouraged.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Chris24601
Epic Adventurer
Epic Adventurer


Posts : 453
Join date : 2013-05-17
Age : 43
Location : Fort Wayne, IN

Character sheet
Name:
Class:
Race:

PostSubject: Re: I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)   Sat May 30, 2015 7:38 am

Minor update to the PDF this morning. Its basically just typos (the sorcerous bolt typo that I think has been nagging this project for months, I just kept overlooking it and the fact that my beast ability lists all had aquatic, water-breathing and swimming ability on them and swimming ability granted both aquatic and water-breathing), a slight rework to the dragon's breath weapon so that it works more like the tiefling's projection ability (thereby making it more useful with more class combinations) and clarifying that the dragon's fearsome roar option uses the dragon's highest ability score for its attack roll.

All of the above actually came up in the playtest last night as we reworked the characters (a golem spellblade and dragon shifter) so I'm CERTAIN there are other similar errors riddled throughout the project. But hopefully further testing will stamp those out.

ETA: Here's a couple of optional rules, that I just didn't have space for in the current PDF, but which will be appearing somewhere in the finished product;

0-LEVEL CHARACTERS (OPTIONAL RULE)
The default rules presume that player characters are already a bit larger than life when they begin their careers. For those who want a more mundane beginning, you can start your characters at level 0 instead of at level 1.
In addition to all level based modifiers (hit points, attack, defense and skill bonuses) using a value of zero (ex. 16+8/level hit points would mean only 16 hit points), a zero level character receives one less attack power, one less background utility power and if a class or background benefit grants more than one option, halve (rounding up instead of down in this case) the number that they receive (ex. a rogue normally gains two tricks at first level and so would gain only one if they were to begin at 0th level). Finally, the character has a starting wealth of only 250¢ (instead of 500¢).
The character starts with –400 XP and attains 1st level (along with all the usual benefits except for starting wealth) when they reach 0 XP.

MORE ACCURATE DIAGONAL MOVEMENT (OPTIONAL RULE)
The above system is designed to slightly favor speed over accuracy when moving or measuring diagonally. For more realistic distances count every odd-numbered diagonal move (1st, 3rd, etc.) during a turn as 1 square and every even-numbered diagonal move (2nd, 4th, etc.) during a turn as 2 squares.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Chris24601
Epic Adventurer
Epic Adventurer


Posts : 453
Join date : 2013-05-17
Age : 43
Location : Fort Wayne, IN

Character sheet
Name:
Class:
Race:

PostSubject: Re: I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)   Mon Jun 01, 2015 1:22 pm

Non-PDF update update today regarding monster design. Testing has been ongoing but two things have become rather apparently.

The first is that the 'striker' damage of 9+3 per level is way too swingy... a crit (which I've been playing as double damage when its static) will literally drop any non-guardian class in one hit at first level or if its taken any other damage first at later levels. I had two lucky natural twenties in a row from a couple of striker monsters drop a spellblade from full to needing a death save in one turn.

The second is that level agnostic monsters are feeling way too 'samey' in their defenses if you're not varying their relative levels a bit. A hill giant and an orc blocker are essentially feeling equally tough. Also even Blockers are dropping REALLY fast... mostly due to attacks on their NAD's.

So to fix the above I've been working this weekend on shoring up the monster roles/types and wanted to share the new categories. Here's what I've come up with;

First, the base hit points for all monsters has been changed to 20+10/level (but see below).

Monster Roles
- Ambusher: these guys do an 3+level damage, but only if the target is already off guard or weakened.
- Blocker: these get a +3 to AC and a +2 to their NAD's and get a +1/2 level bonus to their reactive strikes. They tend to have hindering melee attacks.
- Blaster: have At-Will AoE attacks even as standard monsters.
- Controller: their attacks inflict 2nd stage (immobilize, daze, darken, etc.) at-will.
- Scrapper: These guys are multi-attackers whose average damage adds up to about 9+3/level damage (most commonly 2 attacks with one at 6+2/level and one at 3+level damage or three attacks that do 3/+level each). While they do more damage, the odds of multiple crits reduces the spike damage that could take a PC out before they can do anything.
- Striker: Instead of upping the damage, these guys now get a +3 bonus to their primary attack roll, so that they hit much more often... increasing the average damage over time, but reducing the swingy spikes a bit.

On top of this there are two major sub-types (along with untyped that uses the basic rules above;
- Brittle: The creature's hp are reduced by 4+2/level, but they gain a +2 bonus to AC and a +1 bonus to NAD's.
- Brute: The creature's hp are increased by 4+2/level, but they take a -2 penalty to AC and a -1 penalty to NAD's.

Thus...
- A Normal Non-Blocker (the default) has 15+ AC, 13+ average NADs and 20+10/level hit points.
- A Normal Blocker has 18+ AC and 15+ NAD's and 20+10/level hit points.

- A Brute Non-Blocker has a 13+ AC, average 12+ NADs and 24+12/level hit points.
- A Brute Blocker has 16+ AC and 14+ NAD's and 24+12/level hit points.

- A Brittle Non-Blocker has 17+ AC, average 14+ NAD's and 16+8/level hit points.
- A Brittle Blocker has a 20+ AC and 16+ NAD's and 16+8/level hit points.

Thus, for 1st level critters a typical goblin might be a brittle scrapper with AC 18 and 24 hit points who makes 3 dagger attacks at +7 to hit for 4 damage each, an Orc would be a normal striker with AC 16 and 30 hp with a +10 to hit for 8 damage and an Ogre would be a brute blaster with AC 14 and 36 hit points with a mighty swing that's a melee blast 3 at +7 to hit for 8 damage to each target hit.

All of those under my old rules would have been normal strikers with AC 16, 24 hit points and an attack that was +7 to hit for 12 damage under my old monster definitions.

The above numbers are still up for tweeking, but I'm liking that this configuration will provide a lot more variation in stats amongst critters of the same level which makes a huge difference when they've not been assigned specific levels unto themselves (whereas if I assigned specific levels... like goblins are level 1, orcs are level 3, ogres are level 5 and giants are level 7... I wouldn't need such nuanced distinctions to classify monsters with).
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Garthanos
Moderator
Moderator
avatar

Posts : 935
Join date : 2013-05-25
Location : Nebraska

Character sheet
Name: Garthanos
Class: Arcadian Knight
Race: Auld Worlder

PostSubject: Re: I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)   Wed Jun 10, 2015 3:31 pm

Not dead... is a good thing

_________________
Born To Be Kings and Heros -- From the Ashes Phoenix
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.” - Lazarus Long via Robert Heinlein.

One suspects Lugh Long-hand Samildánach (a wright/carpenter, a sailor, a smith/bronze craftsman, a healer, a champion, a harpist, a poet/historian, a sorcerer, cupbearer) would agree.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://www.dyasdesigns.com/kingsmagic.html
Chris24601
Epic Adventurer
Epic Adventurer


Posts : 453
Join date : 2013-05-17
Age : 43
Location : Fort Wayne, IN

Character sheet
Name:
Class:
Race:

PostSubject: Re: I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)   Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:15 pm

Indeed it is. And I should be updating the PDF again soon, this time with a slew of new monsters...

Here's the list of the new one's I've done so far...

HUMAN CONSCRIPT
HUMAN GUARDSMAN
HUMAN KNIGHT
HUMAN QUICKSHOT
HUMAN SOLDIER
HUMAN WARLORD
HUMAN WAR MAGE
GOBLIN KNIFER
GOBLIN SHADOWBLADE
GOBLIN SHADOWCASTER
ORC BOWMAN
ORC CHAINGUARD
OGRE ARTILLERY
OGRE BRUTE
GHOST
SPECTRAL ECHO
SPECTRE
SKELETAL HORDE
WRAITH
WIGHT
AZERI
EFREET
BA’ALOR
EMBERLING SWARM
GARGOYLE
GORGON
GALLU
DUSTLING SWARM
LABASU
LILIN
SHEDIM
STINGING SWARM
ICHTHYRI
ABOLETH
LEVIATHAN
BLIGHT PIXIE SWARM
BLUE DRAGON
GOLD DRAGON

This does not include reworks of the existing monsters which brings the running total to 72 monsters as of the point I type this.

There have also been a few minor updates to the character portion of the PDF, mostly correcting spelling and clarifying elements, but a few new bits... adding oversized and burrowing to the beast options along with some example beast-men (centaur, gnoll, kobold, minotaur and werewolf)... updating the dragon's breath weapon so more classes will have use of it... added a note about Dark Elves (elves who reject their caste) and replaced half-elves low-light vision with a bonus to initiative (since my elves don't have low-light vision, but do get to roll twice for initiative).

Next up is finishing out the dragons and then probably the giants (since I have two stone giants and a treant already designed), my Egyptian gnolls and the devils (because a few of them are needed for my gnoll encounters). That said, I'll probably roll out a PDF update Friday afternoon up through at least the dragons and put the rest in my update after that.

In terms of further player-side developments, I've been a little concerned about the healing numbers. With most monsters doing roughly a third (at low levels) to a quarter (at high levels) of a non-guardian's hit points per hit, the 'spend a surge to regain 1/4 of your HP' holdover just doesn't feel worth it and the Stat+level extra healing that an enabler spending a focus on it only brings it up to the point where its cancelling about one hit worth of damage.

Given the scale back on the focus pool, I'm leaning towards increasing the amount of healing per surge from a quarter to a third or even half your full hit points and rejiggering or replacing the focus-based healing into more of an an emergency heal for those who've already used their surge limit for the encounter. Maybe something that instead of costing focus inflicts a cumulative penalty on the target if they can't spend a surge to heal (penalties to attacks/checks or even conditions like flat-footed, fatigued, exhausted).

I dunno about the second part, but an increase to the amount of healing per surge is definitely being looked at closely.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Chris24601
Epic Adventurer
Epic Adventurer


Posts : 453
Join date : 2013-05-17
Age : 43
Location : Fort Wayne, IN

Character sheet
Name:
Class:
Race:

PostSubject: Re: I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)   Fri Jun 12, 2015 12:32 pm

And the new version is up at the usual address. Comments and corrections both good and bad are most appreciated as always.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
C4
Heroic Adventurer
Heroic Adventurer
avatar

Posts : 98
Join date : 2013-09-13

PostSubject: Re: I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)   Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:28 pm

Hi Chris, I finally took a look at T&T, and it looks promising. I like your attention to fluff, which has been a secondary concern for my project.

It's interesting to see where we arrived at similar conclusions -- ability mods only, splittable movement, simplification of immediate actions, etc. -- and where we went our separate ways. It looks like you're going for lots of options per level, lots of flexibility (focus, build options within build options, level-nonspecific NPCs and monsters), and a rulebook meant to be printed.

I love your scenario-specific encounter templates! I've been thinking about something similar, where I'll design and present monsters meant to appear in the same region, and I might have to yoink your idea for specific encounter templates. Wink

What led you to increase PC hit points, btw? I've done the inverse -- deflating monster hit points -- but I still go back and forth in my head about going in your direction on this.
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://complete4th.wordpress.com
Chris24601
Epic Adventurer
Epic Adventurer


Posts : 453
Join date : 2013-05-17
Age : 43
Location : Fort Wayne, IN

Character sheet
Name:
Class:
Race:

PostSubject: Re: I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)   Mon Jul 06, 2015 12:07 am

PC and monster hit points are where they're at because that's what's needed to make the math work and get the most fun results. The basic rule of thumb was that standard monsters go down in about 3 hits while PC's go down in 3-4 hits at low levels and 4-5 hits at higher ones.

I decided to go with static damage for monsters like 13th Age because it made level agnostic monsters easier to give monsters a simple formula for their damage instead of something clunky with extra dice added in at certain points.

Further, the monsters needed a very low, low, medium and high damage value depending on the type of critter/attack. To make the math easy I went with a simple +1/2 level for very low damage (usually used for reactive strikes and other auto-hit effects), +1/level for low damage (grunts and many minor action attacks), +2/level for medium damage (the normal damage for most attacks) and +3/level for high damage (sneak attacks and similar).

By the same token, the player-side damage math was working out to about +2/level damage as well; +1/level from the level bump and another +1/level for the extra dice of damage (because just rolling one die for damage was registering as not all that fun to the people who were testing it; particularly when it was only a d6 being rolled).

Once you knew the damage being inflicted it was a simple task to work out how many hit points would be needed to take between 3 and 5 hits before dropping and then develop a simple formula that could be used to derive that number.

16+8/level and 20+10/level just happened to be the formulas that most simply gave me the results I wanted relative to the damage dealt by PC's and monsters.

So far in testing, most balanced battles with 4-5 PC's are lasting about 3-5 rounds and take about 20-25 minutes of playtime to resolve. This is almost precisely what I want the battles to be; a sweet spot of enough rounds to make tactically interesting choices and burn through your focus, but not so long that you can't several battles and a decent amount of roleplaying into a 2-3 hour session.

ETA (now that I've had some sleep): In terms of design, I definitely went with 4E's "you get at least one choice to make about your character every single level"
and, as what will very likely be a 'one and done' project I did try to cover as many build options as was practical. My specific and stated goal for each class and background element was to provide sufficient options at each point that you could create at least three characters with the same class and/or background and not have any overlap in the options (backgrounds are currently slightly violating this rule because I increased the number of background utilities from one to two at first level, but there are enough universal backgrounds that its still true in a general sense).

The net result is that just taking each species as one option (ignoring beast-men and all the subspecies options) and only counting the different roles each class can fill (instead of each possible build) you're looking at 3,456 different combinations of species, background and class/role. Count each specific subspecies (i.e. only counting the centaur, gnoll, kobold, minotaur and werewolf for the beast-men) and each class build separately and the number of unique combinations of subspecies, background and class build jumps to 20.172 which should be more than enough for a lifetime of play.

And yeah, I'm definitely shooting for a printed rulebook (probably PoD, but still designed to be printed). My plan is to get the written portion done, then launch a kickstarter to pay for interior artwork and a print run. Those who contribute X or more, get an immediate PDF of the ruleset (minus the art) and will get a full version of the PDF with art once that's complete. Those who contribute Y or more will get both of those plus an actual print copy of the book, with additional levels beyond that to be determined once I get closer to that stage (mechanics are nearly done, but some more monsters need to be designed and a LOT of fluff needs to be added for the setting... I have my own equivalent to the 'Nentir Vale' that I plan on including to give those who want to adventure in the setting a place to start). I even have some design stretch goals in mind; Shadow Classes (Necromancer, Death Knight and Life-Stealer) and a Domain Management/Mass Combat add-on for those who like to roll that way.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
C4
Heroic Adventurer
Heroic Adventurer
avatar

Posts : 98
Join date : 2013-09-13

PostSubject: Re: I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)   Mon Jul 06, 2015 11:40 pm

Chris24601 wrote:
PC and monster hit points are where they're at because that's what's needed to make the math work and get the most fun results. The basic rule of thumb was that standard monsters go down in about 3 hits while PC's go down in 3-4 hits at low levels and 4-5 hits at higher ones.

I decided to go with static damage for monsters like 13th Age because it made level agnostic monsters easier to give monsters a simple formula for their damage instead of something clunky with extra dice added in at certain points.

Further, the monsters needed a very low, low, medium and high damage value depending on the type of critter/attack. To make the math easy I went with a simple +1/2 level for very low damage (usually used for reactive strikes and other auto-hit effects), +1/level for low damage (grunts and many minor action attacks), +2/level for medium damage (the normal damage for most attacks) and +3/level for high damage (sneak attacks and similar).

By the same token, the player-side damage math was working out to about +2/level damage as well; +1/level from the level bump and another +1/level for the extra dice of damage (because just rolling one die for damage was registering as not all that fun to the people who were testing it; particularly when it was only a d6 being rolled).

Ah, I see. My player-side damage is about +1/1.5/2 (A/E/D) per level, which resulted in fewer hit points to reach a similar encounter duration. I'm happy with the result, except that relatively few HPs mean that certain things (like striker dice) scale very slowly. No slower than they do in 4e, but when I've got 20 levels instead of 30 and 5-level tiers instead of 10-level tiers...well like I said, I'm still going back and forth with it in my head.

(Even though I've spent countless hours using this paradigm, and I'd have to spend countless more to edit if I were to change it... Mad)

What made you decide to go with next-turn durations over save-ends, out of curiosity?
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://complete4th.wordpress.com
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)   

Back to top Go down
 
I'm not actually dead (4E legacy project update)
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 4 of 5Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
4ENCLAVE :: 4th Edition :: 4e General Discussion-
Jump to: