I am going to be a PRPG player, for sure. I may play 4e too but for this thread I would be interested ONLY in the things that people have seen in 4e that they like and think could be adapted to PRPG. Remember PRPG is still in development for a year - people should be playtesting all sorts of games (including 4e) and posting what they like about those other games that could be included in PRPG.
I have scanned a bit of the 4e phb and I like the way they have done skills, specifically:
-less skills
-lock step progression for everyone
-if you are trained you get a flat bonus
--this could work in PRPG by saying you get 1/2 your level in every skill, +5 it is a class skill. (but maybe only say +2 if it is your non-primary class to stop mutliclass abuse).
anyone else?
Was done in Alpha 1.0 and people didn't like it. I liked it because I like how it works in Star Wars Saga.
I thought alpha didnt give you a lock step progression in a skill unless you chose it, then when you chose it you gained it at your level.
Which I like less than 4e's method.
All 10th level characters can do everything a bit. If it's a class skill they can do it as well as a non class skill character 10 levels higher than them. Fine for me.
But you may be right, I am just throwing it out there.
|
I think the main problem with 4e skills is one of back compatibility, converting the skills of 3/3.5 characters and NPCs would take a little work, not major work, but enough that I think it offsets what benefit switching would have.
Skill challenges could go in as that wouldn't affect too much, I personally wouldn't use them, I like skill use in my games a little more fluid, using the situation to draw all the players into suggesting ideas and making rolls and deciding when success/failure would be appropriate based on what they do, rather than a rigid number-of-successes mechanic (also the idea of using them for disabling traps makes me twitch, no one wants to sit around whilst the rogue rolls repeatedly). I don't think they're necessarily a bad thing, they're just not my style so I'm throwing my 'against' vote out there :).
I'll have to have another skim through the 4e books when I get home, I can't think of anything offhand I would particularly want.
I'm opposed to cherry picking from 4E as it amounts to looting their IP (let's set aside the fact I'm opposed to IP for the moment), and it amounts to laziness, when we could be thinking up better ideas for PRPG.
I'm opposed to cherry picking from 4E as it amounts to looting their IP (let's set aside the fact I'm opposed to IP for the moment), and it amounts to laziness, when we could be thinking up better ideas for PRPG.
I am not talking about copying but being inspired by. My intention is to be positive about the best things from 4e, say what you appreciate about the new edition and if it (or something similar) would or could work to improve PRPG. I guess my intent was to steer away from the negativity that seems to exist about an 'opposing game' and focus on what positives can be taken out of the new game.
The only thing that really intrigues me right now about 4th is the bloodied mechanic.
I may institute something like this in my own game, but it will be based on 25% HP most likely. I will have it effect most creatures, and it will give a -5 to 10' movement (depending on size), -2 morale penalty to intimidate and fear based effects, and add the fatigued condition (or exahusted if fatigued).
Constructs and undead will still be hampered by the movement but will be immune to the fatigue...creatured immune to mind effecting will also be immune to the morale penalty.
I like the way to choose between 2 abilities for each Defense (Saving Throw), which ever is higher:
FORT: STR or CON
REF: DEX or INT
WILL: WIS or CHA
The skill merging was too much if you ask me, but Pathfinder could do some more I think.
From what I've seen and read, somehow there's not really much in 4th Ed. that I would want to see in my games.
Skill chalanges sound fun at first, but as described I really don't like them. That's stuff I would have the players play out over a long time, and I wouldn't want to simply give them a +2 bonus to their rolls when they have a good Idea and leave everything else to the dice.
Calling for a diplomacy roll during negotiations from time to time is nice, but I don't want any well thought of atempt of the players fail because they rolled low (or at least have them beliving that it could be that way).
The minion concept does has some merrit, but I guess I would use the "one hit kills" rule for any creature with a CR 6 or more lower than the party level, instead of assigning it to certain creatures.
Something similar to bloodied would probably a good idea, but it has been around probably since 3rd Ed. was released.
About the only thing I really like from 4.0 as it has been presented is the "more monsters per fight" approach. The 3.x CR system really was based more around 1 opponent and 4 PCs, and the more monsters you have, the less dangerous they become to the PCs, which can be frustrating. I've run plenty of encounters with multiple monsters, and Gestalt is actually a great way to really do this without making it too impossible/cake-walk-ish for the players, but I'd love something built into the rules for this. The Minions set-up of 4.0 is a pretty interesting idea that I may just test out once or twice. If anything else, it's a good way to up the number of creatures without appreciably increasing the time the combat will take.
I'm intrigued by 4e's turn undead mechanic. Seems pretty stream lined and not as clunky compared to previous turning rules.
About the only thing I've heard about 4E that I think would actually improve the game is the new challenge rating/experiance reward system, or as I call it "The XP Bucket System".
The way I understand it works is kinda a hybrid of 2E and 3E in that each monster is worth a set number of experiance points, while an encounter is rated a certain level much like it is under 3E. Basically what you do is "pour" monsters into an encounters "bucket" until the combined XP total of monsters equals that of the encounter level, thus filling the "bucket". It's the same idea as needing 3 goblins to equal a level 1 encounter in 3E, but with this system you can mix-and-match a bit more freely.
|
Absolutely nothing.
We would be better off cherry picking from OGL sources that actually base themselves off the 3.5 mechanics.
NO to minion rules
NO to not having skill points
NO to everything having tons more HP
NO to getting rid of Sunder, item hardness, etc.
NO NO NO to defenses instead of saving throws
etc.
|
|
Here is my list of things I like about 4th ed:
1. Minion rules. I really like the concept.
2. Wizards having a magic attack that they can use every round instead of using a crossbow. I hate the idea of a Wizard running out of spells and then being reduced to a crossbow sniper.
3. Simplified monster write ups.
4. The concept of being "bloodied."
Absolutely nothing.
We would be better off cherry picking from OGL sources that actually base themselves off the 3.5 mechanics.
NO to minion rules
NO to not having skill points
NO to everything having tons more HP
NO to getting rid of Sunder, item hardness, etc.
NO NO NO to defenses instead of saving throwsetc.
what he said
|
The only thing I'm cherry-picking is stating the opponent is "bloodied" at half-hp. Been doing it all these years anyways ("The Dracolich is looking pretty rough ...") but never at a set point. I like giving the players a little feedback on where they stand in regards to their opponents.
Other than that, I think if I were to delve much deeper I'd just be better off running the game as 4E.
I don't want any of 4E in my 3P
I have to agree with the above posters that don't want any 4E in 3P. They're different enough for it not to work - remember the goal is backwards compatibility. If there are 'good bits' then they should be house ruled in. I think if Paizo did something like this they would lose a lot of the people who are switching to 3P to get away from 4E.
They could also lose some respect, regarding their design skills and goals.Not a good move.
Peace,
tfad
BTW, while I like the bloodied mechanic, I'm not sure I like the way 4th handles it.
That's why I said I'd change it to 25%. At 50%, this means the bloodied mechanic would come into play in the majority of fights for a fair period of time. I would rather it come into play with tough enemies, or maybe for a single round with enemies who have less HP...hence the reason I like the idea of 25% better. Also, I'm not sure how much I want it to effect the creature, or effect what the players do.
I think -5' movement and the fatigued condition are a good idea...or a better idea than giving the player too many special attacks because of a bloodied creature. One thing I'm considering going with also (or instead) is a +1 to the critical threat range and +2 to confirm.
Also, I have no problem admitting there are some things in 4th that are neat ideas...you guys shouldn't either. It's the SUM of changes, plus some very bad ones that are keeping me away from 4th. The good changes aren't enough to overcome those.
I borrowed the Static Defenses idea for my own 3.5 game back when SW Saga Edition came out. The idea of either rolling a d20 or effectively "taking 10" on the combat/spellcasting rolls is nothing new so this wasn't a difficult change to make.
When it was my players attacking the enemy, this change really sped up gameplay and the players really liked getting to make attack rolls for their spells (rather than waiting for me to roll a dozen saving throws). However, when the party would come under attack, they really disliked having static saves and felt like they were being cheated.
That being the case, I adopted the same rule that I apply to the Critical Hit Deck — named creatures (and only named creatures) roll their own saving throws (i.e. Casters take 10 on their DCs, etc. vs. named NPCs/PCs).
This provided the best of both worlds. The players felt more in control, gameplay was accelerated for the majority of encounters and the "Big Bads" came out looking like real badasses when they resisted attacks that felled lesser minions.
I liked the Potion of Resurection.
Picture it:
They killed him. He's dead Jim.
Well, use that damn magic item you made me buy.
I can't- he has to drink it.
WTF!! Do something!
OK- I'll hold his mouth open- You pour it in. Then we'll rub his throat- I saw it done with a cat on 'Discovery'.
For me...
De-emphasize alignment - I'd like the ability to play a Lawful Evil paladin as something in the printed rules, if such were my inclination.
Alternatives to spells per day.
Pretty tall orders...
Can't think of anything else from 4E that was something I'd consider an improvement.
Honestly, the Static Defense scores from SAGA and 4.0 aren't even new. They're in Unearthed Arcana, under "Players Roll All the Dice." Players roll their saving throws, and they roll their DC against a static target save for their opponent. It's something I've considered doing for my games, but I like rolling dice too, y'know?
A few of the monsters also have intriguing abilities; ...
Each monster seems to have a schtick. I got the Jack of Irons Ettin miniature the other day. It has a 'swat' ability that it can use when you take a five foot step (shift). Basically it is a AoO if you shift. I think it will be fun to spring new monster abilites on players. Just fun little abilites to keep everyone on their toes.
Modified At-Will, Encounter and Daily abilities. So as not to copy, use Shadow Mage spell progression from Tome of Magic. Basically as you progess your low level spells become 3 times per day (Encounter). Then your mid-level spells become 3 times per day and low level spells are At-Will. Your 'highest' level spells always require the most resource management (analogous to Daily powers). The PRPG wizard specialization schools have a similar effect. I like resource management but I like always having something to do.
I wish we could make combat more fluid. Not with people teleporting promiscuously but something that keeps people interested in other peoples actions. Maybe give up one of your iterative attacks for an exta 5' step between blows. Or attacks that cause people to retreat, shift position, etc. Or a successful attack helping an adjacent ally or intefering with an adjacent enemy. I don't like the 'charge' than stand still with full attack actions I always see in my games.
I also want iterative attacks to go but Over Hand chop might be the solution to that.
I like the way to choose between 2 abilities for each Defense (Saving Throw), which ever is higher:
FORT: STR or CON
REF: DEX or INT
WILL: WIS or CHAThe skill merging was too much if you ask me, but Pathfinder could do some more I think.
Yeah I like this one as well. Too bad Paizo won't have that function as well.
From reading the leaked docs, I'd say that I'd really like the Skill Challenge system, first off. I'd also like the 4 Defenses added and the "idea" of Fighter maneuvers/abilities. Fighters are just too weak at higher level and end up being retired if they don't just multiclass. Encounter powers would fix that, but I don't think they could call it the same thing. The XP Bucket that one poster mentioned is also great.
|
|
what he saidAbsolutely nothing.
We would be better off cherry picking from OGL sources that actually base themselves off the 3.5 mechanics.
NO to minion rules
NO to not having skill points
NO to everything having tons more HP
NO to getting rid of Sunder, item hardness, etc.
NO NO NO to defenses instead of saving throwsetc.
What they said...
I decided to give up on D&D with 4e, and moved to HARP (I was an old RM guy). Friends kept mentioning the fledgling Pathfinder RPG to me, and I finally looked. I'll take Jason, Monte and the rest of the PFRPG folk's ideas over anything that 4e is proposing, since it all just looks like WoW with dice anyways. I am against homogeny of characters into 'Blaster', 'Commander' or any other retarded archetypes. Where is there (In 4e) room for an all Role-Play oriented non combat rogue, or a Diviner Wizard who doesn't have any offensive spells or a pacifist Cleric...?
I don't mean to sound negative towards the poster, but trying to cherrypick anything from it doesn't feel proper, since this rules set is precisely to keep the current game viable, as opposed to going down the Dumbed-Down path that WotC has chosen for their game.
As far as folks loving 4e's 'Bloodied' rule... It just sounds like a rehash of some VERY old Rolemaster rules on being wounded. Simplified, obviously, but hardly original.
-Uriel
|
I liked the Rituals idea (if not its implementation) and the Artifacts section. Those are the aspects of 4E I'd probably borrow for my Pathfinder games.
The rest of 4E... It's not bad, I even like many of its ideas, but it's simply a very different game to the one I expect Pathfinder RPG to be. There's no point in having 2 different RPGs if they're going to play the same way, is it?
How significant does the "bloodied" condition become? I've read that healing is far more available than in 3.5. so how often does a character stay bloodied?
-Guru, asking in spite of himself.
As far as folks loving 4e's 'Bloodied' rule... It just sounds like a rehash of some VERY old Rolemaster rules on being wounded. Simplified, obviously, but hardly original.
-Uriel
To be fair, no one said it was original. It's just a condition in 4E that appeals to many. I don't think being original has anything to do with it.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16
|
To be fair, no one said it was original. It's just a condition in 4E that appeals to many. I don't think being original has anything to do with it.
True if this all needed to be original . . . it wouldn't be a discussion about cherry picking. *grin*
I've been using a variant of the reduced daily rest time in my games for some time so I may tweak my house rules based on the 4e rules.
Absolutely nothing.
We would be better off cherry picking from OGL sources that actually base themselves off the 3.5 mechanics.
NO to minion rules
NO to not having skill points
NO to everything having tons more HP
NO to getting rid of Sunder, item hardness, etc.
NO NO NO to defenses instead of saving throwsetc.
I wholeheartedly agree.
Also, if we're looking for additional sources of inspiration, I'd much rather see mechanics for skill uses/challenges such as those found in Iron Heroes rather than from 4e.
I'm continually amazed at the body of 3rd-party products that already addressed many of the problems that 4e was supposed to fix. Many are flat-out ignored just b/c they weren't put out by WotC even though many of the authors worked for WotC on 3.x at one time or another.
I like Bloodied, and I have always used a variation of that anyway.
As far as simulating 'one hit kills' like what is possible in 4e, I like that as well, and use a simple fix borrowed from Rolemaster - When you go to confirm your crit, if you role another 20 (or a number within the weapons threat range), you get to add the first crit and roll again for a second one. If you get anohter 20, you do it again, and so on and so forth...
That makes the 'Amazing Shot' from the Hobbit possible, but highly inprobable. Also, to avoid any impossible weirdness (like a 2-year-old punching a Dragon to death), this should only be possible if the maximum damage the weapon used can deal is greater then ½ the target's Con. (using ONLY the weapon's own damage, and no modofiers from the PC). So a dagger may be able to kill a baby dragon, but not a venerable worm.
I like a re-usable utility spell, but I wouldn't want to see 4e's "per encounter" rules in PRPG. Perhaps the abilty (Feat?) for MU's to pick a spell that they can use their (lev.+ Int Mod) x per day. Then a mage can choose Magic Missle and go to town. To keep from getting over-powerd at higher levels, the spells level could be used to determine how many 'daily useages' that particular spell uses it. That way, a 9th lev Wizard doesn't get to use his Firball nine times, but rather three times. Just a thought - it would bring back the idea of 'signiture spells'. It could be a class ability or a Feat.
And as long as we are discussing magic variants - I like the idea of a spell system based on level. I never like that a caster gets to use spells ½ his level - I think a level 18 wizard should be casting level 18 spells. This would also be fairly simple to add to the game - just take the existing spells and and divide each level of spells into two categories - so some level five spels become level 9, and others become level 10. It wouldn't make that much difference in the game - its more of a 'flavor thing'. It would also help to get rid of the confusing aspect of certain things being based on 'caster level' vs other things that are based on 'max spell level' - they would be the same thing.
I don't want to see 4e in PRPG, but adapting a few similar concepts to the 3e rules wouldn't be all that bad.
|
|
To be fair, no one said it was original. It's just a condition in 4E that appeals to many. I don't think being original has anything to do with it.
As far as folks loving 4e's 'Bloodied' rule... It just sounds like a rehash of some VERY old Rolemaster rules on being wounded. Simplified, obviously, but hardly original.
-Uriel
Apologies for any misdirection of the conversation (Towards a side-tangent on originality or what-not...).
What I should have said was that there have been rules for wounded characters out for decades in other RPGs, so the (As perceived by myself) excitement on bloodied seemed odd. I sometimes forget (Yes, I'm an old guy...39 next week) that quite a lot of folks playing RPGs these days are younger, or never switched from D&D to grittier systems (Like RoleMaster).Realism did go way too far, sometimes. One of the later supplements had Sunburn Critical tables...Er. OK, they proved pretty funny when some dark elves became stranded above ground, but still.
Dammit, I was off on a tangent again. Sorry.
-Uriel
Here is my list of things I like about 4th ed:
3. Simplified monster write ups.
By simplifying monster writeups, WotC has taken the monster concept in the exact *opposite* direction I would have liked to see it from 3.5. Yes, this is more toward the OD&D vein of a monster entry, but it was something I considered a shortcoming before 3E was even on the drawing board.
I created a campaign world back in the 1st edition days, that featured Orcs and their other goblinoid kin as a dominant race, on equal par with other humanoid races as far as their ability to class, level, and etc. Doing this meant retrofitting the monster entries with a lot more effort than 3E would have allowed, and even more than what I would think a monster should be.
I want monster entries that mirror a character entry. I believe every creature should be held to the same rules, whether it's NPC, PC, or monster. I want the ability to take a race's entry from the Monster Manual and easily adapt it to a NPC, or even a PC if I approve such an app from a player. It should use Base Attack at the same penalties, progression of number of attacks, etc as a character, so there's less bookkeeping in combat. The monster's racial "levels", or hit dice, should determine how big, and how many its special abilities are, so that you don't end up with players dumpster diving for their next polymorph or summon monster spell for something that packs the most oomph for the hit dice. In the end, a "monster" is a race. Races should be bound to the same ruleset that the protagonists of the adventure are.
Amen. I have no desire to return to the days of DM fiat and hand-waving of design and statistics. Especially not for "simplicity's sake", and I'm the GM 95% of the time. My experience of 20+ years of gaming is that the time saved in prep is lost in disputes, arguments, and loss of suspension of disbelief at the gaming table.
I'm 38 with as many time constraints as the next person but I want the rules to be consistent. I can always handwave-them away to save time IF I CHOOSE TO DO SO. I don't want to be FORCED to do so.
|
|
Minions of 4th intrigues me. As a frequent DM who prefers "more combatants" during combats, it was always a tough balance to make sure that the number of creatures wouldn't overwhelm the PCs by sticking around too long before being able to be dropped, and making them powerful enough to at least be taken seriously and be a thorn to the PCs while meat-shielding for the BBEG.
I saw a few people on this thread indicate that they too were intrigued by this - and some concern about backwards compatibility and concern of only 1 hit point does sound hokey.
There was aready a good conversation about this idea here .
For the purpose of backwards compatibility - I created a monster template (common for 3.5) that can be added to many creatures.
Aspects of the template include: AC, Skills, Saves, HD same as base creature (after levels applied). Hit points equals MINIMUM hit points for creature. Attacks: Same as creature - but only one attack allowed. Damage: set a finite amount of fixed damage. Either "Half-Maximum" (avg). OR 2 x the CR of the base creature (I lean more towards this). So a 10th level fighter minion would do 20 points of damage with a successful hit - but can only make one attack a round. As for being recipients of spells: takes half damage from all spells. (Save for half spells do 1/4 w/ successful saves).
As a template - we can suspend disbelief since most templates do break the normal rules of a creatures that we come to rely on. (such as a vampiric dragon, a ghost beholder, a Tauric Salamandar, a Half-Fiend Pegasus)
As for the numbers for Giant minions:
Hill Giant: CR7 minion; Hit Points: 60, Damage (shown with ideas: half Max: 13 or 2x CR: 14) One attack per round at +16
Stone Giant: CR8 minion; HP: 70, Damage 14 or 16, one attack per round at +17
Frost Giant: CR9 minion; HP: 84, Damage 16 or 18, one attack per round at +18
Fire Giant: CR10 minion; HP: 90, Damage 17 or 20, one attack per round at +20
Cloud Giant: CR11 minion; HP: 119, Damage 21 or 22, one attack per round at +22
Now the hit point seem high for a 'minion' but that is minimum and for a party to fight 10 of these as minions, they're going to be pretty bad-ass party and I'll bet most of the time a fighter or barbarian of equal level could dispatch one such minion in one full-attack round.
For more standard minion - imagine a 10th level Orc Fighter w/ Greataxe and weapon specialization: 22STR, 14 CON. CR10 minion; HP 30; Damage 12 or 20 one attack per round at +19
Here the damage dealt by minion is the most diparity between the examples - which is why i favor the 2xCR as 12 points to a party that will be fighting 10th fighters as a minion would barely feel 12 points of damage. Either way 30 points of damage from a PC commensurate of a level to be fighting said minions is not that hard to attain - killing a minion in one round - possibly one single attack.
All in all, I think it has merit and certainly a practical and fun application to the game.
Soon, I'm going to be playtesting my template for my game using Stone Giant minions.
Robert