The Campaign Builder's Guild

I have a new roommate right now who is very much into game design chatting. I've been bouncing ideas off him, but more opinions are always great.

For a while, I was working on my Xev20 system as a retooling of D&D3.5E/Pathfinder, based on the idea that I can utilize the SRD. As D&D Next begins to shape up more and more, it's starting to look like something I might create (minus the lack of balance at this stage in the playtests). But, I cannot lay still and not fiddle with something.

My current project is playing with the 3E system and molding it to the 4E chassis. Monster design, for instance, will be done with a simple table and options. But I do want to explore different concepts for balance and character generation.

Here are my driving principles:

1) All classes should be "balanced" in combat. The system will work towards removing "bad" and "trap" options, so that new or "less skilled" players can't accidentally create a weak character. D&D is fundamentally a combat game, so everyone should be able to play.
2) Many "roleplay" aspects of characters will be kept separate from their combat skills. No one should have to choose between an option that makes their character stronger and an option that makes them play their character closer to their vision.
3) Speed up combat without simplifying it. Additionally, I am entertaining the concept of allowing combat to be harder but less fatal; death should be more narrative, and loss of combat, while a possibility, doesn't derail the game.
4) Characters should grow out at least as much as they grow up. This may be done with slower scaling of d20 roll related bonuses (attacks, AC, saving throws ...).
5) Keep the system clean and bloat free. My growing anal retentiveness leads me to work off grids as a way of reigning things in.

I have some ideas I am having to support each of these principals. Some of these ideas are only half-formed, but that's why I'm putting them up on the board.

Combat balance
One of my first ideas to help achieve combat balance is to establish ability score "minimums" for certain classes (hold on, trust me, it makes sense). Long ago, my group abandoned rolling for ability scores and has stuck with point buy. Early in 3E, we found a point buy array that worked the best for us (yeah, the 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 worked best for us when using a non-human race; we typically went with 16, 14, 13, 10, 10, 8 for humans). In 4E, we continued to operate with a typical array (16, 14, 14, 13, 10, 8, so after racials you usually had 18, 16, 14, 13, 10, 8).

Especially in 4E, the game is balanced around assuming a certain number for player attack bonuses; a 4E character didn't really operate with less than a 16 in their class's offensive ability score. So, why not "require" characters of a certain class to have a certain minimum in an ability score?

Heck, why not re-order the presentation of character creation? Put class first. Yeah, sounds crazy, right? But in a class-based system, your class is the most important character choice you'll ever make. So you choose class first, and that sets some minimums for your ability scores. Then your point buy is added on top of that.

Other ideas for achieving combat balance are smaller changes. The easiest is ensuring no feats, or whatever other option fills that design space, makes a character "more powerful". Feats will be for options. Feats grow your character out. Just like wizards can traditionally learn new spells, but not gain new spell slots without leveling up, feats will grant options. There won't be a feat for +1 to attack, but there may be a feat for "instead of X, do Y". Power attack is an option. Weapon Focus isn't.

Separation of Roleplay and Combat
This is a harder concept to realize. The first part of the thought is to not have the skill system influence combat. Sure, there will be combat abilities that are associated with skills (like a "tumble" ability you can learn that requires training in acrobatics). This could even allow NPCs to "level up" skills without leveling up their combat ability; the best black smith in the world doesn't have to be the toughest person to back it up (though it could; that would create a very different world than what most would envision as realistic).

Combat Changes
One idea I've had for changing combat would be to simplify, yet expand, character's options. Imagine if everyone had 2 actions each round: a standard and a reaction. The addition of regular and class-based reactions for each and every character could create more involvement at the table.

The other idea is to make combat harder. This isn't about speeding it up, but about making it more meaningful. 3E was balanced around a standard combat taxing player's resources by 20%; this means that it wouldn't be risky until the 5th encounter in a day. Why would we even want to play a combat that's a foregone conclusion? Additionally, more and more I am wanting combats to be balanced from encounter to encounter, not daily; I don't like the concept of the game dictating how long players can adventure each day (what story has characters resting after exploring for 1 hour?). Now, if a typical combat had a 20% chance of failure, not a 20% resource cost, then combat would mean more. It may be less likely to be boring. And if "loss" doesn't mean "death", and the story can go on after a loss ... the combat aspect of the game shapes out to be more interesting.

Character Growth
One idea I am looking at taking from D&D Next is the concept of slower character growth. 4E characters grew at +1/level for Attack, AC, and Defenses; monsters grew by +1 damage too (players grew in damage slowly without really gaming the system for all the best options). If Attack and Defenses grow slower, monsters can be used for longer, and low level creatures can face higher level creatures. More creatures become appropriate challenges too.

My worry, based off the thoughts of one of my regular players, is that players won't feel like they're improving as much. This is a worry of mine too.

The other idea I may steal from another system would be to stagger level benefits across the level, rather than having them come all at once.

Clean System
Without going into too much detail, here's how I'm looking at cleaning up the system, starting with the classes. I want to boil the classes down to a "small" 12 classes:

Fighter (str)	Barbarian (STR)	Bard (int)	"Channeler" (con)	Paladin (cha)	Ranger (wis)
Rogue (DEX)	Monk (dex)	Wizard (INT)	Sorcerer (CON)	Cleric (CHA)	Druid (WIS)

The Psion and Psychic Warrior are going to be rolled into the Sorcerer and the "Channeler" (class in quotes because I am not sold on the name). Here's the breakdown of what all the classes mean (as well as their "classification").

Fighters are warriors who fight using straight forward technique.
Rogues are experts who fight with trickery, guile, and other skill.
Barbarians are warriors who tap the power of their rage.
Monks are experts who use the power of their mind over their body.
Bards are experts who use magic to aid in their performances and influence of emotions.
Wizards are casters who use magic learned through intense study and dedication.
"Channelers" are warriors who wield their innate magic as a weapon.
Sorcerers are casters who become one with their innate magic.
Paladins are warriors who use divine power to smite the enemies of their faith.
Clerics are casters who wield divine power and act as the mouthpieces of their gods.
Rangers are experts who emulate the hunters of the wild.
Druids are casters who wield nature's might, acting as protectors and avengers of nature.

Barbarians, Fighters, Monks, and Rogues are collected together as "martial" characters.
Bards, "Channelers", Sorcerers, and Wizards are collected together as "arcane" characters.
Clerics, Druids, Paladins, and Rangers are collected together as "divine" characters.

Ability scores are listed in the above chart as my ideas of primary/secondary stats for each class. All caps would be primary stats (if the default array uses a 16 and a 14 as the top two stats, then primaries would be 16, secondaries would be 14 base). I like the regularity of it. I also feel that these classes are broad enough to cover all the low-level concepts within D&D.

Alternately, I have thought of having a Warlord/Marshal instead of the channeler, and have the Sorcerer rebranded as the "warrior mage" gish class (a class that I feel is sorely lacking in 3E until we got the weird Hexblade). The barbarian is then considered primal and the monk is considered divine, and we have a solid 4 by 3 grid. But I think the role of the warlord/marshal can be covered by the Fighter well enough.

------

I'll be posting more ideas and concrete things as they come.

[Reserved]

Quote from: XeviatMy current project is playing with the 3E system and molding it to the 4E chassis. Monster design, for instance, will be done with a simple table and options.

I really don't like 4e's approach of generally acting like "monsters" and "player characters" are two completely separate groups that don't overlap at all. I feel like it would actually make monster design simpler if it worked based on the same principles as character design in general, rather than... whatever 4e did.

Quote from: XeviatHere are my driving principles:

1) All classes should be "balanced" in combat. The system will work towards removing "bad" and "trap" options, so that new or "less skilled" players can't accidentally create a weak character. D&D is fundamentally a combat game, so everyone should be able to play.
2) Many "roleplay" aspects of characters will be kept separate from their combat skills. No one should have to choose between an option that makes their character stronger and an option that makes them play their character closer to their vision.
3) Speed up combat without simplifying it. Additionally, I am entertaining the concept of allowing combat to be harder but less fatal; death should be more narrative, and loss of combat, while a possibility, doesn't derail the game.
4) Characters should grow out at least as much as they grow up. This may be done with slower scaling of d20 roll related bonuses (attacks, AC, saving throws ...).
5) Keep the system clean and bloat free. My growing anal retentiveness leads me to work off grids as a way of reigning things in.

I quite like and support all of these driving principles. (For my own Asura system, I have tried to incorporate all of them, if in a different form because it's based far more heavily on FATE rather than any variant of D&D)

I feel like some aspects of 4e are fundamentally incompatible with #3 and #5, especially, though.

Quote from: XeviatThe easiest is ensuring no feats, or whatever other option fills that design space, makes a character "more powerful". Feats will be for options. Feats grow your character out. Just like wizards can traditionally learn new spells, but not gain new spell slots without leveling up, feats will grant options. There won't be a feat for +1 to attack, but there may be a feat for "instead of X, do Y". Power attack is an option. Weapon Focus isn't.

This is a good idea. 4e's Weapon Expertise is basically there because they screwed up the math in a system that is supposed to be based on very tight math, so they didn't want to actually errata a bunch of stuff, as far as I can tell. Feats like that are just obnoxious.

I'm curious where you'd put something like Weapon Finesse or any other "substitute one stat for another" feat. It adds flexibility, but in practice it ends up being a straight power upgrade because you're usually swapping out a bad stat for a good one. I personally like these kinds of feats because they allow flexibility in building a character, but overuse can lead to one uberstat, of course.

Quote from: XeviatThis is a harder concept to realize. The first part of the thought is to not have the skill system influence combat. Sure, there will be combat abilities that are associated with skills (like a "tumble" ability you can learn that requires training in acrobatics). This could even allow NPCs to "level up" skills without leveling up their combat ability; the best black smith in the world doesn't have to be the toughest person to back it up (though it could; that would create a very different world than what most would envision as realistic).

An alternative would be to make sure that every skill has combat usefulness. The system of combat maneuvers in D&D is, in my opinion, kind of weak. Martial characters are often better off simply attacking rather than trying to do anything too fancy, unless they're specifically built for grappling or tripping or something-- and then that is what they do all the time. By tying various combat maneuvers to skills and making them something that is worth doing, you could give everything some flexibility, which would make skills useful in both combat and out of combat.

Quote from: XeviatNow, if a typical combat had a 20% chance of failure, not a 20% resource cost, then combat would mean more. It may be less likely to be boring. And if "loss" doesn't mean "death", and the story can go on after a loss ... the combat aspect of the game shapes out to be more interesting.

Something from FATE (that I also use in Asura) you might want to look into is the idea of "Concession." Essentially, when the players realize they're not going to win a fight, they work out with the GM how they are going to withdraw/get captured/whatever, and, essentially, they're guaranteed to not be completely obliterated in exchange for suffering a (hopefully interesting to the plot) setback. It works really well.

Quote from: XeviatThe other idea I may steal from another system would be to stagger level benefits across the level, rather than having them come all at once.

I don't really like this idea. I feel like a level up should be something special. The thing is, compared to some of the epic craziness that happens at high level 3e, it feels like 4e doesn't really improve as much. So, my thought is, stick with the 4e paradigm of having 30 level classes, but make level up a small thing that happens almost every session. So, 30 of these short levels offer small improvements at each level, and level up happens often.

Thanks for the reply Sparkle. I'm actually very eager to discuss the nature of D&D4E; in my group of players, they're pretty evenly split between liking it and being ambivalent (or outright hating it). Pinning down the actual reasons that aren't just legacy issues has been a pastime of mine.

Quote from: sparkletwistI really don't like 4e's approach of generally acting like "monsters" and "player characters" are two completely separate groups that don't overlap at all. I feel like it would actually make monster design simpler if it worked based on the same principles as character design in general, rather than... whatever 4e did.

The issue with having monsters designed like players is that players have many, many options. By being able to build a monster in 5 minutes, or so, rather than the hours a 4E Dragon could take to fine tune, things are easier to handle.

When digging into the math, Monsters didn't really develop that much differently than players. The flaw was that players had to spend 5 to 7 of their feats on just keeping their numbers on par with players. Otherwise, NPC style monsters could be built to access the same powers as players, and if feats are designed to be "options" (which would be very similar to powers when all things are considered), you get the same principles. The chart really just makes it easier to put monsters together.

The only real solid difference between PCs and Monsters is that Monsters have more hp than players. This is because Monsters don't typically have access to healing, like players do. Monsters have nearly 50% more HP than players, which is equivalent to using 2 healing surges per fight.

Quote from: sparkletwistI feel like some aspects of 4e are fundamentally incompatible with #3 and #5, especially, though.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. It wasn't a driving principle, so I didn't talk about it, but one of the other things I'm going to do is abandon the concept of different power lists for each class. I want to go back to a master spell list that is partially used by all of the casters. I want to have a master maneuver list that's used by the warriors, and also a master trick list for the experts. This will reduce bloat. Simplifying combat will be tougher, but I think that can largely be done by making "simple builds" possible for the players who don't want to deal with managing a giant spell list like my wizard players do.

Quote from: sparkletwistThis is a good idea. 4e's Weapon Expertise is basically there because they screwed up the math in a system that is supposed to be based on very tight math, so they didn't want to actually errata a bunch of stuff, as far as I can tell. Feats like that are just obnoxious.

I'm curious where you'd put something like Weapon Finesse or any other "substitute one stat for another" feat. It adds flexibility, but in practice it ends up being a straight power upgrade because you're usually swapping out a bad stat for a good one. I personally like these kinds of feats because they allow flexibility in building a character, but overuse can lead to one uberstat, of course.

I don't feel Weapon Finesse and it's ilk are necessary. Unless the system is tweaked considerably, it already assumes the players have their highest stat in their offensive stat. Weapon Finesse would be built into the Rogue, and Monk if my current direction pans out.

Alternately, I'll just go with having a "Finesse Weapons" category. With melee having a choice between Str and Dex, I'm looking into giving ranged a choice between stats, maybe Dex or Wis for projectile weapons and Str or Dex for thrown weapons.

I don't think, though, that the offensive uses of a stat should be considered when rebalancing the stats; it doesn't matter to a Fighter that Int is used for Wizard spells, Wis for Cleric/Druid spells, and Cha for Sorcerer spells.

Quote from: sparkletwistAn alternative would be to make sure that every skill has combat usefulness. The system of combat maneuvers in D&D is, in my opinion, kind of weak. Martial characters are often better off simply attacking rather than trying to do anything too fancy, unless they're specifically built for grappling or tripping or something-- and then that is what they do all the time. By tying various combat maneuvers to skills and making them something that is worth doing, you could give everything some flexibility, which would make skills useful in both combat and out of combat.

That would be a great alternative too. Diplomacy can "daze", by making an opponent take a second thought; that's the toughest example I can come up with off the cuff. If these were "encounter" abilities, and everyone got the same number of skills ... then Expert classes pick up expanded versions and uses ... hmmm ...

The reason I am thinking about decoupling skills from combat directly (though they could be used as prereqs) is that I don't want to require the best blacksmith in the world to also be a monster in combat. This is something that pops up in level-based systems constantly, but at least 3E had the NPC classes. I'm not opposed to having NPCs built on a different system, but I know a lot of people really like simulationism.

Quote from: sparkletwistSomething from FATE (that I also use in Asura) you might want to look into is the idea of "Concession." Essentially, when the players realize they're not going to win a fight, they work out with the GM how they are going to withdraw/get captured/whatever, and, essentially, they're guaranteed to not be completely obliterated in exchange for suffering a (hopefully interesting to the plot) setback. It works really well.

Yes, I like that.

Quote from: sparkletwistI don't really like this idea (staggered level benefits). I feel like a level up should be something special. The thing is, compared to some of the epic craziness that happens at high level 3e, it feels like 4e doesn't really improve as much. So, my thought is, stick with the 4e paradigm of having 30 level classes, but make level up a small thing that happens almost every session. So, 30 of these short levels offer small improvements at each level, and level up happens often.

Either would do the same thing.

Quote from: XeviatPinning down the actual reasons that aren't just legacy issues has been a pastime of mine.

I can tell you why I don't like 4th edition, but that's sort of irrelevant to your group. :grin:

Quote from: XeviatThe issue with having monsters designed like players is that players have many, many options. By being able to build a monster in 5 minutes, or so, rather than the hours a 4E Dragon could take to fine tune, things are easier to handle.

I understand that, but the problem is that 4e monsters seem like each individual one is designed in a vacuum without any sane system driving it, and it's difficult or impossible to infer or derive anything from the numbers presented. I'm all for a streamlined mechanic, but one that actually makes sense and is consistent.

For example, I'm looking right now at the "Goblin" section of the DM's book for D&D Essentials. The Goblin Cutthroat has a Strength bonus of +1 and a power called "Short Sword" that gives an attack bonus of +8. So he's getting +7 from somewhere else. Maybe it's "being a goblin" or maybe it's "being level 1" or maybe it's "being a skirmisher" or maybe it's "having a short sword" or maybe it's some combination of all these-- I have no idea. Later in the book, a Kobold Quickblade also has a "Short Sword" power; he has a Strength bonus of -1 and this sword attacks at +6, so it seems like a "Short Sword" gives you Strength+7 regardless of whether you're a goblin or not.  However, it doesn't actually say that, nor does it say what part (if any) of that comes from "being level 1" or "being a Skirmisher" or whatever-- it might also just be that "being a kobold" gives you the same bonus as "being a goblin"-- I seriously don't want to go through every power and induce this all myself. Never mind figuring out what I'd change if I was GMing this and wanted to arm a Goblin Cutthroat with an axe or a knife or something other than the short sword he's apparently hardcoded as having.

Even within a power with the same name, it's not consistent. Damage for the Goblin Cutthroat's "Short Sword" is 1d6+5, and the Kobold Quickblade's is 1d6+3. So it's 1d6+Strength+4, right? Well, a couple of pages back, a Doppelganger Sneak has "Short Sword" that inflicts 1d6+6 damage. The Doppelganger Sneak is a level 3 Skirmisher with a Dexterity bonus of +4. So is the greater damage because of having a higher dexterity, being a higher level, being a Doppelganger, or just because the designers of 4e were throwing out completely arbitrary numbers? I have no idea, and that's the problem.

If there were some reasonable mathematical principles that could be readily induced (or just stated somewhere) then monster building would still be fast. Even faster, I'd venture to say.

Quote from: XeviatWhen digging into the math, Monsters didn't really develop that much differently than players. The flaw was that players had to spend 5 to 7 of their feats on just keeping their numbers on par with [monsters].

(I fixed what I believe to be a typo in your post. Let me know if I got your meaning wrong.)

If I'm interpreting it right, this seems like a rather silly bit of circular logic. Monsters can't be designed like players because players need certain feats and other complexity to keep up with monsters-- monsters that aren't designed like players. If the monsters were designed like players, then wouldn't players and monsters have more parity because, you know, they're designed along the same lines? Like, basically, the problem could be resolved simply by saying "everyone follows the same set of rules."

Quote from: XeviatThe only real solid difference between PCs and Monsters is that Monsters have more hp than players. This is because Monsters don't typically have access to healing, like players do. Monsters have nearly 50% more HP than players, which is equivalent to using 2 healing surges per fight.

I understand this. It seems like this could be "patched" very simply by including a monster-only feat (and stating so very clearly in the rulebook, to prevent powergamer arguments) that says you sacrifice the ability to have healing surges in order to get a huge HP bonus.

Quote from: Xeviat

Quote from: sparkletwistI feel like some aspects of 4e are fundamentally incompatible with #3 and #5, especially, though.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.

I am not sure how to "speed up combat without simplifying it," in the case of 4e. It's really designed to be more of a "tactical combat game," and that requires a certain amount of time to fiddle with everything and move everyone around on the board and plan your tactics and such. It's fairly efficient at that, as efficient as it can be, anyway, when you're having to keep track of all everyone's positions and powers and who gets a +2 bonus here and there because of this tactical factor and blah blah. I'd personally advocate speeding up and simplifying it, but that's because I don't really enjoy the "tactical combat game" aspect of 4e.

As for "Keep the system clean and bloat free," well, I think that 4e is full of all kinds of bloat and inelegant things. Inconsistent monster design and the clunky tactical combat game, for two big examples that I've already described!

Quote from: XeviatIt wasn't a driving principle, so I didn't talk about it, but one of the other things I'm going to do is abandon the concept of different power lists for each class. I want to go back to a master spell list that is partially used by all of the casters. I want to have a master maneuver list that's used by the warriors, and also a master trick list for the experts. This will reduce bloat.

It'll also reduce the "uniqueness" of each class, unless you allow players a lot of latitude in how they fluff their powers. That's of course part of the fun, and a good idea, but the nature of 4e sometimes kind of interferes with a lot of creative fluff. It's really not possible to be too creative in describing what something does because everyone's position and the tactical state of the game are known to exacting detail at all times.

Quote from: XeviatThe reason I am thinking about decoupling skills from combat directly (though they could be used as prereqs) is that I don't want to require the best blacksmith in the world to also be a monster in combat. This is something that pops up in level-based systems constantly, but at least 3E had the NPC classes. I'm not opposed to having NPCs built on a different system, but I know a lot of people really like simulationism.

The reason that the best blacksmith in the world would end up being a combat monster has nothing to do with "simulationism." It's just a simple artifact of the rules of D&D, being primarily a combat-oriented game (descended however long ago from a wargame) that say everyone of every class gets a combat bonus and an increase in HP at every level.

If you just abolished BAB and had "Combat Bonus" as a skill (maybe broken down into melee and ranged for balance reasons, I don't know offhand what would work better), then "full BAB" characters would put full ranks into them, "half BAB" characters wouldn't bother putting much at all into them, and the blacksmith might not have any. "Hit dice" or whatever could also be a skill along the same lines to stop the growth of HP. Just a crazy idea.

Quote from: XeviatEither would do the same thing.

You're right. However, I feel like it keeps things more psychologically consistent and helps players feel a good sense of advancement if "level up" stays "the time when you get good stuff."

Quote from: sparkletwistI can tell you why I don't like 4th edition, but that's sort of irrelevant to your group. :grin:

It will still give me incites into why some persons didn't like it; you're a person, right? :grin:

Quote from: sparkletwistI understand that, but the problem is that 4e monsters seem like each individual one is designed in a vacuum without any sane system driving it, and it's difficult or impossible to infer or derive anything from the numbers presented. I'm all for a streamlined mechanic, but one that actually makes sense and is consistent.

...

If there were some reasonable mathematical principles that could be readily induced (or just stated somewhere) then monster building would still be fast. Even faster, I'd venture to say.

There are some reasonable mathematical principles that exist, making monster building intensely fast. Here's the chart:

[table=Monster Statistics by Role]

Role	Skirmisher	Brute	Soldier	Lurker	Controller	Artillery
Initiative	+2	-	+2	+4	-	-
Hit Points	8+Con+ (levelx8)	10+Con+ (levelx10)	8+Con+ (levelx8)	6+Con+ (levelx6)	8+Con+ (levelx8)	6+Con+ (levelx6)
AC	Level+14	Level+12	Level+16	Level+14	Level+14	Level+12
Other Defenses1	Level+12	Level+12	Level+12	Level+12	Level+12	Level+12
Attack vs AC	Level+5	Level+5	Level+5	Level+5	Level+5	Level+52
Attack vs Defs	Level+3	Level+3	Level+3	Level+3	Level+3	Level+32
Damage3	Level+8	(Level+8) x1.25	Level+8	(Level+8) x1.54	Level+8	Level+8

1) All monsters get +1 to the defense tied to their primary stat. May subtract from one defense to add to another; -1 AC is +2 to another; -2 to a non-AC defense is +1 AC.
2) Increase Artillery accuracy by +1 or +2 for ranged and area attacks.
3) Damage is +25% for recharge attacks, +50% for encounter attacks, and -25% for multi-target attacks. Round up.
4) High damage lurker attacks require set ups, and can generally not be performed every round.
5) Monster attributes start at 10. The high stat of each defense pair (Str/Con, Dex/Int, Wis/Cha) grows at +1 per 2 levels. Their primary stat starts with +6; their secondary 2 stats start with +3. This can be fudged, but keep numbers near this.

So, most monster stuff is gained from levels and role. Their attributes are an after thought, and they generally only affect skills, some hp, and initiative. Perhaps this hurts some of the simulationism of the system, and it could afford to be more hard-coded. It means you aren't going to have a Str 24 CR 1 ...

Quote from: sparkletwist(I fixed what I believe to be a typo in your post. Let me know if I got your meaning wrong.)

Nah, you got it right.

Quote from: sparkletwistIf I'm interpreting it right, this seems like a rather silly bit of circular logic. Monsters can't be designed like players because players need certain feats and other complexity to keep up with monsters-- monsters that aren't designed like players. If the monsters were designed like players, then wouldn't players and monsters have more parity because, you know, they're designed along the same lines? Like, basically, the problem could be resolved simply by saying "everyone follows the same set of rules."

Monsters don't get feats. Feats that the players are "assumed to take" (which is terrible design, and which I will be writing out by just removing those feats and dropping the number of feats the players get down) are baked into monster stats.

Monsters aren't designed like players because it takes too long. There are NPC and Companion design guidelines that can be used to make more player-like enemies, but even those follow numbers similar to those above.

Quote from: sparkletwistI understand this. It seems like this could be "patched" very simply by including a monster-only feat (and stating so very clearly in the rulebook, to prevent powergamer arguments) that says you sacrifice the ability to have healing surges in order to get a huge HP bonus.

If you really needed it, sure. But I don't think it's needed. Heck, monsters could use surges; they just don't because players don't like seeing monsters heal. Heck, when I was setting out to do a 2E d20 Modern following 4E design ideas, I was going to use monster HP as the player bases, since healing wouldn't be as common.

Quote from: sparkletwistI am not sure how to "speed up combat without simplifying it," in the case of 4e. It's really designed to be more of a "tactical combat game," and that requires a certain amount of time to fiddle with everything and move everyone around on the board and plan your tactics and such. It's fairly efficient at that, as efficient as it can be, anyway, when you're having to keep track of all everyone's positions and powers and who gets a +2 bonus here and there because of this tactical factor and blah blah. I'd personally advocate speeding up and simplifying it, but that's because I don't really enjoy the "tactical combat game" aspect of 4e.

Okay, there's one of the big sticking points then. I like the tactical combat game aspect of 4E; heck, it's how we ran 3E too. We used facing and lots of other things from Unearthed Arcana too. I'm also thinking about reducing the size of "spaces/squares" to 1 yard/meter each, and introducing more varied reach rules ... but that's for another post.

One of the ways I want to speed up the game is speeding up turns. I don't think a combat that takes 10 rounds is out of the question, but only if the player side of rounds is reduced down to 30 seconds; if each player takes 30 seconds for their round, and the DM takes 1 to 2 minutes, we're still looking at a 45 minute fight. But, combat is what we expect out of the system; as long as it's fun the whole time. Paring down on situational bonuses would be a great start.

Quote from: sparkletwistAs for "Keep the system clean and bloat free," well, I think that 4e is full of all kinds of bloat and inelegant things. Inconsistent monster design and the clunky tactical combat game, for two big examples that I've already described!

:grin:

Quote from: sparkletwistIt'll also reduce the "uniqueness" of each class, unless you allow players a lot of latitude in how they fluff their powers. That's of course part of the fun, and a good idea, but the nature of 4e sometimes kind of interferes with a lot of creative fluff. It's really not possible to be too creative in describing what something does because everyone's position and the tactical state of the game are known to exacting detail at all times.

Definitely will allow latitude on fluffing powers. In fact, I think the evocative names some of the 4E powers had hurt creativity; they made people feel locked into what the power was. 3E didn't necessarily have that feeling, even though all warriors had access to the same maneuvers (disarm, trip, sunder, bullrush, grapple, overrun, charge) and the same ways to improve them (feats). If the system provides for smooth and swift adjudication of improvisation, I think a lot can be achieved.

And of course, each class will still have unique things. Paladins have smite, Barbarians have rage, Rangers have some kind of monster hunting things ...

Quote from: sparkletwistThe reason that the best blacksmith in the world would end up being a combat monster has nothing to do with "simulationism." It's just a simple artifact of the rules of D&D, being primarily a combat-oriented game (descended however long ago from a wargame) that say everyone of every class gets a combat bonus and an increase in HP at every level.

If you just abolished BAB and had "Combat Bonus" as a skill (maybe broken down into melee and ranged for balance reasons, I don't know offhand what would work better), then "full BAB" characters would put full ranks into them, "half BAB" characters wouldn't bother putting much at all into them, and the blacksmith might not have any. "Hit dice" or whatever could also be a skill along the same lines to stop the growth of HP. Just a crazy idea.

That would be taking the system on its way to a skill-based system, which have proven to be deeply difficult to balance. My idea would create a hybrid skill and level-based system, where skills could level up independently of level, and combative things drawn from skills would be bought by feats or something within the combat side. A blacksmith could learn "improved sunder", which could have a prerequisite of craft (blacksmithing) ranks, but those blacksmithing ranks could grow on their own (maybe like Fate's +1 rank every time you roll a crit success or crit failure).

Quote from: sparkletwistYou're right. However, I feel like it keeps things more psychologically consistent and helps players feel a good sense of advancement if "level up" stays "the time when you get good stuff."

Fair enough, point taken. No spreading out levels.

Quote from: XeviatIt will still give me incites into why some persons didn't like it; you're a person, right?

Ok, here goes.

[ooc=The official "list of things about 4e sparkletwist doesn't like."]
- The combat game is hugely emphasized. I know that D&D has always been about combat, but still... 4e is a hack n' slash fest. For non-combat, all 4e offers are skill challenges, which, as written, are completely mathematically broken. Most of 4e's powers don't even include any explanation for how you'd use them out of combat, or acknowledge that you would even want to.

- The "tactical combat grid" isn't the kind of game I want to play, even in a combat-oriented game, but, for 4e, it's required. Any sort of freeform positioning, which was pretty doable in 3e, isn't going to be an option because so much of the game is based around moving around squares, blocking other guys from moving into squares, controlling certain squares, shoving enemies from one square into another, and so on.

- Relatedly, there are a bunch of annoying MMORPG-type mechanics like grinding and marks and tons of fiddly +1 bonuses here and there. Your brain space is basically being taken up by this crap instead of being able to roleplay.

- Vancian everything. Instead of getting rid of Vancian casting, instead, everyone basically gets it because everyone has daily powers.

- Irritating dissociated mechanics. I don't mind dissociated mechanics by themselves-- FATE points are awesome-- but I do mind them when they pretend to not be dissociated and just wreck immersion. In 4e, examples include daily martial powers, and high-level powers that are fluffed as being awesome and apocalyptic and then do piddly damage.

- Players and monsters exist in completely different conceptual spaces that just makes character design broken. I'll talk about this below.
[/ooc]

I probably forgot a couple, but that's good for now...  :grin:

Quote from: XeviatThere are some reasonable mathematical principles that exist, making monster building intensely fast.

That chart doesn't even work for the examples I cited. According to that chart, both the Goblin Cutthroat (a level 1 Skirmisher) and the Kobold Quickblade (also a level 1 Skirmisher) should attack at +6 vs AC. As it turns out, the Kobold Skirmisher does just that, but the Goblin Cutthroat attacks at +8. It's already been disproved so I'm not going to bother finding more examples, but I'm fairly confident they're there.

Even if the chart did hold, that's boring. It means every monster of a given role and level is going to have the same numbers, regardless of what kind of monster it is and what kinds of powers it has.

It also doesn't tell me (as a hypothetical 4e DM) what to do if I want to substitute weapons or powers. If I want to get rid of a Goblin's "Short Sword" and replace it with something else, what does that do? Do I just change the damage die and wing it? Saying "Level+8" damage doesn't make a whole lot of sense considering most non-minions roll their damage. (And if that's supposed to be the average, once again, the chart stops being accurate)

Quote from: XeviatTheir attributes are an after thought, and they generally only affect skills, some hp, and initiative. Perhaps this hurts some of the simulationism of the system, and it could afford to be more hard-coded.

I don't care about "simulationism." I contend that it's a good thing because it would make the system make more sense.

Quote from: XeviatMonsters aren't designed like players because it takes too long.

It really feels like this is the problem that should've been addressed, rather than coming up with a bunch of arbitrary monster design guidelines completely different from how players are designed.

For example, something like:
- Pick the monster's level and role.
- Pick some stats for the monster.
- Determine its attack bonus based on these things.
- Toss in some powers or choose a weapon or something.

I don't know much about 4e monster design, so this is rough. But I feel like there's got to be some "quick and dirty" way to throw a bunch of numbers together and get a viable monster that doesn't involve consulting weird charts and tables that don't even hold true for what's already published.

Quote from: XeviatI don't think a combat that takes 10 rounds is out of the question

I think the question is if there's something interesting to everyone to do for all 10 of those rounds. Grinding away the HP of a gigantic solo is not interesting, at least to me.

If monster design is:

QuoteFor example, something like:
- Pick the monster's level and role.
- Pick some stats for the monster.
- Determine its attack bonus based on these things.
- Toss in some powers or choose a weapon or something.

You get numbers all over the place, because things were just picked in a vacuum as they seemed best.

As for the monsters you pulled out that didn't follow the chart, there are two reasons; First, the chart was refined over the years (errated 3 separate times actually), so early monsters are off compared to late monsters; Second, they can be adjusted within that range (as long as they aren't adjusted too much, things will be close to fine).

And yes, the Level+8 damage is average. Whether that's 1d8+4 at first, or 2d4+3, or 2d8, or 3d4+1 ...

Aside from Damage and HP, monster end stats end up very close to players (counting all of those annoying "feat taxes" and the weird scale which players grow, since they gain bonuses from level, abilities, feats, and items, where monsters just get it from level). I don't want to sound like a cheerleader; the system has mathematical flaws, which I am trying to iron out.

As for your dislike of the tactical combat aspect of the game ... that's going to be a space we won't be able to find a middle ground between. I liked that, and we always played 3E that way. We never played without our grid (the one DM in my group who did didn't keep my interest for too long because things felt arbitrary when placing my wizard's AoEs). Other complaints I can fully respect and understand, and I want to assure you that those are things I want to deal with.

Fiddly bonuses are going to go to the wayside. Rather than a leader character giving an ally +2 on attacks for X rounds, which has to be tracked, I think the character should be able to give out a reactionary bonus after the other character already rolled and found out whether they hit or not. This just seems easier on the math and more involving at the table.

For Vancian, it's a holdover from D&D. It would feel less like D&D without it. There are ways to get around it, and I'm exploring them. I'll talk about it more in a later thread, or a later part of the thread.

Dissassociative things in the game should be dealt with. They do wreck emersion. Granted, never printed in a book but stated in designer blogs, Martial daily powers are supposed to be "narrative control". Rather than being able to do the trick once per day, it's the player saying they want the opportunity to use the trick to come up. Goku doesn't kamehameha every single fight (until late in the series, when it becomes an Encounter I guess). Rocky doesn't throw a haymaker punch every round in the ring.

Sure, these could be modeled differently, such as an attack penalty when the time isn't right for something ...

And I still don't think players and monsters are too separate. Here's monster design, as following the NPC guidelines (which give suggestions on powers):
1) Choose the monster's level and role (and a class similar in concept)
2) Determine attack bonus, damage, and defenses based on these things.
3) Choose primary ability score; determine ability scores (16 for primary, 13 for 2 secondaries; these stats grow at +1 per 2 monster levels). Determine HP.
4) Choose powers; Heroic tier gets 1 encounter, 1 utility, and 1 daily drawn from the class (and then reflavored and refluffed); Paragon gets 1 more encounter and utility; Epic gets 1 more daily and utility.
5) Fine tune (which is where late generation monsters will be different).

It's very similar to your suggestion; same number of steps, plus the fine tune.

Aaaaaand ... as something interesting to do for 10 rounds (which combat shouldn't actually take; more in the next post), very yes. While I want characters to fall back on their standard attacks from time to time, even these should be fun.

So I did some math with D&D 4E, looking at player and monster growth, trying to figure out the designer's baseline assumptions. Luckily, there are the rules for monster design, NPC design, companion character design, and player characters to analyze. Without going into detail (yeah, I'm not going to show my work :grin:), here's what I discovered.

Monster damage scales very well with player HP (comparing against Clerics and Rogues, who have the midpoint hp). On average, assuming monsters are designed with the NPC guidelines (or close to), it takes 6 rounds for a monster to drop a PC. Players have healing, and player healing is worth a little more than a monster hit, so it could extend the player's time standing by 2 rounds. This number stays very flat across all levels (it starts at 5 rounds at first level, stays 6 for most of the time, and jumps up to 7 at a few spots).

Very flat; so flat, it seems deliberate. Okay, I can live with an 7 to 9 round combat. At the highest point, players have 4 encounter powers each fight and enough dailies to use 1 in each encounter. This means players will use at-wills half the time, and limited use abilities the other half (now, remember, I'm going to reevaluate how powers work; I'm just looking at the baseline for now).

So, how do the players fare against the monsters? I built a typical Fighter, using a shield and a one-handed weapon. I chose powers that dealt the most damage at each opportunity, ignoring more effect oriented powers that deal less damage. I didn't go overboard on selecting feats or magic items to boost damage beyond the things that the system seems to assume (as comparing PCs to Companions via the rules). Assuming that the player used 1 daily and all their encounters against the monster, this is what I saw:

The monster survived 4 rounds at first level. That's fast. Real fast. Granted, that's only 1 fight a day, since the fighter only has the one daily; I should have probably added all daily power damage together and divided by 4 to get a daily average, but whatever.

The monster survives an additional round every round or so very quickly, reaching 10 rounds at 7th level, and 14 at level 17. It flattens out here, staying between 12 and 14 rounds the rest of the epic levels, ending at 14; it remains flatter here because PCs get jump in damage at level 21 in their at-wills.

Now, remember, I picked powers oriented for damage. Growing from 4 round monster survivability to 14 is ridiculous, especially when player survivability remains very flat. Sure, players have team work and all that, but so do the monsters; most fights in 4E aren't players vs. one monster (and even when they are, that monster has a lot of options and can survive being ganged up on).

So, what have I found out? Player damage is horrendously low. Have my years playing the edition shown this? Yes. Players do have a slight edge on monsters, having a bit more attack and defense than the monsters, but that doesn't forgive how quickly player damage falls behind the baseline. This is something I need to address.

And yes, I'm focusing on combat a lot. Almost entirely, in fact. That's because that's the part of the game that needs to be balanced. The parts of the game that support roleplaying are far more forgiving. I'll deal with those once combat is balanced.

Quote from: XeviatYou get numbers all over the place, because things were just picked in a vacuum as they seemed best.

No, the current way is more or less picking things from a vacuum. The official way gives us a chart that has been errated 3 times so you have monsters from old revisions that are all over the place, and still has monsters that aren't consistent because some have been "adjusted as long as they are aren't adjusted too much."

The current method causes us to end up with stuff like how a Skeleton's "Longsword" power marks the target, while a Decrepit Skeleton's "Longsword" does not, but instead allows it to shift one square before the attack. (It seems there's still no help for the DM who wants a skeleton armed with something other than a longsword... but I digress) Is there another chart or table that explains what version of "Longsword" applies to which monster, and presumably the fact that none of actually has anything to do with actually having a longsword or being a skeleton? Don't even get me started on crap like "Evil Eye." Is there a way a DM can go about deriving any of this? Even if there is, why should anyone have to bother with this insanity?

I'm not sure what exactly is so bad about basing monsters' attack bonus on their actual stats-- you can decide the stats based on what is level-appropriate opposition for the players at that point, so it's not like they're completely random. As an added bonus, if things were based on a sane model, you could give them actual weapons and powers that are consistent with other things in the book.

Quote from: XeviatAs for your dislike of the tactical combat aspect of the game ... that's going to be a space we won't be able to find a middle ground between.

Yes, you're right. Some of that list was subjective. I think some of it was more objective, though, like anything based on bad math or annoying mechanics.

Quote from: XeviatI still don't think players and monsters are too separate. Here's monster design, as following the NPC guidelines (which give suggestions on powers):
1) Choose the monster's level and role (and a class similar in concept)
2) Determine attack bonus, damage, and defenses based on these things.
3) Choose primary ability score; determine ability scores (16 for primary, 13 for 2 secondaries; these stats grow at +1 per 2 monster levels). Determine HP.
4) Choose powers; Heroic tier gets 1 encounter, 1 utility, and 1 daily drawn from the class (and then reflavored and refluffed); Paragon gets 1 more encounter and utility; Epic gets 1 more daily and utility.
5) Fine tune (which is where late generation monsters will be different).

I agree with step 1.
Steps 2 and 3 could be simplified and the whole system could be made more consistent by determining the bonuses from the ability scores, like players.
Step 4 seems to be trouble. As I observed above, the powers seem to be created especially for each monster, rather than being drawn from any consistent list.
Step 5 is essentially saying "and arbitrarily change whatever you want," which seems to be how most 4e monsters are designed anyway. :grin:

Quote from: XeviatAnd yes, I'm focusing on combat a lot. Almost entirely, in fact. That's because that's the
part of the game that needs to be balanced. The parts of the game that support roleplaying are far more forgiving. I'll deal with those once combat is balanced.

That's fair, but please don't go too far. I think this was one of the problems of 4e, as well; making non-combat too much of an afterthought is how we ended up with nonfunctional skill challenges and powers that don't even bother to define how they might be used out of combat.