Magic Sword: Fourth Edition Reborn

[Ialdabaoth]

Crazy idea: introduce bounded accuracy to the skill system.

Characters don't add half their level to their skill modifiers. Instead, they always act as if they are level 1. Skill Focus feats can improve them, but level does not, and DCs don't scale with level. This means that characters will notice a tangible increase in their success rate when one of their skills improves.

DC 10 = Simple. The character will most likely succeed, but there is still a risk of failure.

DC 15 = Challenging. An untrained character will succeed with a bit of luck, and a trained character will have no probolem.

DC 20 = Tricky. An untrained will be daunted, and a trained character will be
challenged.

DC 25 = Terrifying. Will turn the stomachs of even the most skilled heroes.

DC 30 = Epic. Only a fool would think about giving it a shot.

Glad to see you coming around. :)

If you ditch to only two skill feats (I use 'Training' and 'Expertise'), you also remove all the 'speedbump' and 'tax' feats.

My personal recommendation is to have the second feat (whether you call it 'Focus' or 'Expertise' or whatever) have a small increase as you level - I'm currently using +1/5 levels.

I would also recommend, based on personal experience with my own system, that you reduce the base 'training' and 'focus' bonuses, so as to make ability scores less overwhelmed by training. My system currently uses:

- Proficiency bonus: +3
- Expertise bonus: +1 at level 1; increase to +2 at level 6, +3 at level 11, +4 at level 16, +5 at level 21 and +6 at level 26.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

You know, I quite like that.

[Ialdabaoth]

You know, I quite like that.

CHOOSE AND PERISH.

No, wait, that's not right.

*checks notes*

aha! JOIN ME, AND WE SHALL RULE THE GALAXY TOGETHER.

[Zelkon]

I've proposed a lot of small changes. Maybe too many. Some are there for legal reasons, and others are there to create a more refined experience. I'm worried that these may be amounting to too much, causing Magic Sword to stray too far from its spiritual predecessor.

Because of this, I have compiled a list of the aspects of Fourth Edition that I think define it. I believe that these aspects should be preserved at all costs.

• Encounters are where you "play the game". They are what consumes resources and takes up most of the adventure.
• All characters have three types of powers. Ones that can be used at any time, ones that recharge after a short rest, and ones that recharge after a good night's sleep.
• Characters must cooperate in order to survive. Classes are divided into four roles, all of which complement eachother in unique ways.
• Everything is streamlined to keep things moving. Any mechanical detail that is not necessary is stripped out.
• The game is divided into three "tiers". Characters, as they gain experience and tap further into their full potential, move up through these tiers. In the first, they are strong, but still mortal and earthbound. In the second, they are the true pinnacle of mortal ability. In the third, they ascend from mortality and become godlike.
• Monsters are divided into roles and subroles. Roles determine what they do in combat. Subroles determine how much "space" they take up.
• Fluff is separated from crunch, and crunch can be easily adapted to represent something entirely different.
• Balance is important. More so than in any other edition of D&D. However, if absolute mathematical balance hampers fun, the rules can be bent.
• Fun is at the core of everything. If something isn't fun, it is not included.

If you disagree with any of this, or think something needs to be added, please tell me. I would be happy to hear what you have to say.

In order:
Yes. If it doesn't have risk, it doesn't give xp. Also, RP encounters should take resources.
Well... Change good nights sleep to "rest" ro something. I find resource management works better when it recharges based on story, not sleep.
A thousand times, yes. No roles, no game.
Pretty much. This doesn't take too much work, just restraint.
While I hope tiers are in this game, I don't know how necessary they are for 4e as they are designed. So good, not necessary IMO.
See above.
Yep, this is a key element.
Yes!!!!!!!!
See above.

[Gligarman2]

Do I reserve creative control and legal rights to the things I put as a google-doc?

[Zelkon]

Do I reserve creative control and legal rights to the things I put as a google-doc?

Can't see why not...
Certainly as much as photobucket...

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Do I reserve creative control and legal rights to the things I put as a google-doc?

I believe so. Its not like Facebook.

[Gligarman2]

Anyway, once I get a google account, how'll this work?

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Anyway, once I get a google account, how'll this work?

Google made instructions that explain it better than I ever could. They also put a lot of money into making the interface as intuitive and user-friendly as possible. I'm sure you can figure it out after a bit of Google-fu.

[Dark Elf Bard]

you two are on my list

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

you two are on my list

You mean nine? Unless higher numbers are better ...

[Dark Elf Bard]

Ninth favorite, CH.

Anyway, Im'ma scan in the priestess soon.

[Ialdabaoth]

ChainsawHobbit:

As someone who's been thinking about this for as long as I have, I would like to throw some ideas at you and see how they flesh out.

D&D "theory" often talks about "three domains" of play: Combat, Exploration, and Interaction. It is my personal belief, and it appears to be yours, that 4th Edition got the "combat" domain nearly perfect. However, as promising as "Skill Challenges" were as an idea, 4th Edition somewhat failed in filling out the "Exploration" and "Interaction" domains in interesting and balanced ways.

4th Edition's "utility powers" and "skill challenges" were an attempt, early on, to fill those two domains. However, the "utility powers" space wound up primarily filling up with combat-powers-that-aren't-attacks, leaving only a few classes with powers that properly interacted with "skill challenges".

My current idea is to break "class" into multiple discrete chunks:

1. Each character has a "combat class", which helps the character fulfill a particular role (striker/defender/controller/leader) in a way that 4E players are entirely familiar with. All combat-related "utility powers" from 4E simply get rolled in with the class's AED attack powers.

2. Each character has an "exploration class", which is a set of choices independent of their combat class, but allows them to choose utility powers in the same way that their combat class allows them to choose combat powers. Utility powers will have the same AED structure as combat powers, with constraints given that exploration happens on a different time-scale than combat. Exploration classes will be divided into roles in the same way that combat classes are, but the exploration roles will be different than the combat roles (right now, I am tenatively calling them 'Expert', 'Guide', 'Muscle' and 'Support').

3. Each character has an "interaction class", which is a set of choices independent of their combat class and their exploration class, which allows them to choose social powers in the same way that the other classes let them choose combat or utility powers. Same AED structure, different time-scale, etc. Interaction classes will be divided into roles in the same way that combat and exploration classes are, but the roles will again be different (right now, I haven't really defined names for the interaction roles).

Governing all three of these classes is the character's "Theme", or what 4E would call "Power Source". An Arcane hero will have different kinds of choices for social or utility powers than a Martial hero, who will have different kinds of choices than a Divine hero.

This will go a long way to solving the issues with the "Skill Challenge" system, and will allow the combat system to focus entirely on what it does - combat.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

ChainsawHobbit:

As someone who's been thinking about this for as long as I have, I would like to throw some ideas at you and see how they flesh out.

D&D "theory" often talks about "three domains" of play: Combat, Exploration, and Interaction. It is my personal belief, and it appears to be yours, that 4th Edition got the "combat" domain nearly perfect. However, as promising as "Skill Challenges" were as an idea, 4th Edition somewhat failed in filling out the "Exploration" and "Interaction" domains in interesting and balanced ways.

4th Edition's "utility powers" and "skill challenges" were an attempt, early on, to fill those two domains. However, the "utility powers" space wound up primarily filling up with combat-powers-that-aren't-attacks, leaving only a few classes with powers that properly interacted with "skill challenges".

My current idea is to break "class" into multiple discrete chunks:

1. Each character has a "combat class", which helps the character fulfill a particular role (striker/defender/controller/leader) in a way that 4E players are entirely familiar with. All combat-related "utility powers" from 4E simply get rolled in with the class's AED attack powers.

2. Each character has an "exploration class", which is a set of choices independent of their combat class, but allows them to choose utility powers in the same way that their combat class allows them to choose combat powers. Utility powers will have the same AED structure as combat powers, with constraints given that exploration happens on a different time-scale than combat. Exploration classes will be divided into roles in the same way that combat classes are, but the exploration roles will be different than the combat roles (right now, I am tenatively calling them 'Expert', 'Guide', 'Muscle' and 'Support').

3. Each character has an "interaction class", which is a set of choices independent of their combat class and their exploration class, which allows them to choose social powers in the same way that the other classes let them choose combat or utility powers. Same AED structure, different time-scale, etc. Interaction classes will be divided into roles in the same way that combat and exploration classes are, but the roles will again be different (right now, I haven't really defined names for the interaction roles).

Governing all three of these classes is the character's "Theme", or what 4E would call "Power Source". An Arcane hero will have different kinds of choices for social or utility powers than a Martial hero, who will have different kinds of choices than a Divine hero.

This will go a long way to solving the issues with the "Skill Challenge" system, and will allow the combat system to focus entirely on what it does - combat.

You know, I really, really like that.

[Ialdabaoth]

You know, I really, really like that.

Sweet. :) This is why I kept extending my hand on rpg.net.

I really have been thinking about all of this for quite awhile; I know system mechanics very, very well; what I need most are people with your level of enthusiasm, and even more importantly, people who will be critical of what I'm doing while remaining encouraging.

Also, I have a surprisingly complete wiki.

The important thing for me is that this not be "my" system. I want something that we can all use, share, and contribute to, that can form a baseline of OGL 4E going forward. This means building a system that caters to many different people's desires and assumptions, which means I *NEED* many different people to bring their desires and assumptions to the party.

You have passion and a recognizability to get people on-board with you.

I have technical expertise and a nearly fully operational base system.

What I need at this point is your trust, that I can provide a mechanical framework for you to hang your project on, rather than have you continue to reinvent the wheel. And a trust that whenever that framework proves legitimately inadequate, we can find a solution - because it needs to be our framework, not simply mine and not simply yours - or this just becomes yet another collection of heartbreakers.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Sweet. :) This is why I kept extending my hand on rpg.net.

I really have been thinking about all of this for quite awhile; I know system mechanics very, very well; what I need most are people with your level of enthusiasm, and even more importantly, people who will be critical of what I'm doing while remaining encouraging.

Also, I have a surprisingly complete wiki.

The important thing for me is that this not be "my" system. I want something that we can all use, share, and contribute to, that can form a baseline of OGL 4E going forward. This means building a system that caters to many different people's desires and assumptions, which means I *NEED* many different people to bring their desires and assumptions to the party.

You have passion and a recognizability to get people on-board with you.

I have technical expertise and a nearly fully operational base system.

What I need at this point is your trust, that I can provide a mechanical framework for you to hang your project on, rather than have you continue to reinvent the wheel. And a trust that whenever that framework proves legitimately inadequate, we can find a solution - because it needs to be our framework, not simply mine and not simply yours - or this just becomes yet another collection of heartbreakers.

Remember our agreement that Magic Sword would be a different project from yours? It would use your thing as a canvas, but unlike your thing, it would try to greatly improve the system, as well as provide lots of fluff and an implied setting. Your thing would be a toolbox, mine would be more of a full-fledged roleplaying game. I would use your system as a canvas, and modify it, giving you proper credit.

[Ialdabaoth]

Remember our agreement that Magic Sword would be a different project from yours? It would use your thing as a canvas, but unlike your thing, it would try to greatly improve the system, as well as provide lots of fluff and an implied setting. Your thing would be a toolbox, mine would be more of a full-fledged roleplaying game. I would use your system as a canvas, and modify it, giving you proper credit.

Absolutely, and that still stands. I guess what I'm asking is... would you like to spend some time working with me on the canvas? cuz I'm a little overwhelmed, here.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Absolutely, and that still stands. I guess what I'm asking is... would you like to spend some time working with me on the canvas? cuz I'm a little overwhelmed, here.

Sir, I would love to. I shall serve by your side for the good of our beloved Fourth Edition.

What would you like me to work on?

[Ialdabaoth]

Sir, I would love to. I shall serve by your side for the good of our beloved Fourth Edition.

What would you like me to work on?

Woohoo! Okay, so. First, take a look-over of my current "Martial Hero" theme, and verify that things look semi-sane from a mechanics perspective.

Right now, everything is *sort of* fleshed out up to about 6th level or so, and much of it is re-skinned stuff from the PHBs, but reconstructed to fit into a post-Essentials environment (which, conveniently, also makes it less lawsuit-attracting).

Remember that whether this eventually becomes "Martial Hero" or "Fighter" is irrelevant, and whether the name for the super-structure is "Theme" or "Power Source" or whatever is irrelevant. The point is to make sure that there's a Slayer-equivalent, a Knight/Weaponmaster-equivalent, a PHB/Ranger-equivalent, and a Warlord equivalent. (Currently, they are called "Warrior", "Guard", "Scout", and "Marshal", which I think will be suitable names going forward).

I would especially appreciate comparisons between your own Martial classes and my own, as I've noticed you did quite a bit of work on your Warlord-equivalent too.

Each page has a "talk" button; throwing commentary in there - and having the people who follow your google doc also throw commentary in there - would be amazing.

Once that's done, I would love help on fleshing them out the rest of the way to level 10. I would PREFER to keep the martial classes as AE classes instead of AED classes, to differentiate "daily" as something that spellcasters get; this has precedence from Essentials and seems more narratively consistent. This shouldn't affect the way they work too much, however - notice that for my Marshal, for example, all the dailies just do about 1dW less damage as encounter powers, and tend to not last all encounter long unless you sustain them.

(As an aside, the core system absolutely provides support for AED-structured martial classes, though, so don't fret if it feels like you're abandoning your own structure for mine - my first concern is that each and every one of the powers is workable for people who want to make a 4E setting, regardless of what classes they get used by.)

Once we 'tack in' to where we want to be vis-a-vis Martial classes, I'd like to focus on the Cunning (rogue) classes (Assassin/Acrobat/Thief/Bard), where I've really only built things up to first level. Since I've done a lot less work here, I've got a lot more room to wiggle in growing how Rogues operate as they level up.

Is that something you're willing to help with?

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Woohoo! Okay, so. First, take a look-over of my current "Martial Hero" theme, and verify that things look semi-sane from a mechanics perspective.

Right now, everything is *sort of* fleshed out up to about 6th level or so, and much of it is re-skinned stuff from the PHBs, but reconstructed to fit into a post-Essentials environment (which, conveniently, also makes it less lawsuit-attracting).

Remember that whether this eventually becomes "Martial Hero" or "Fighter" is irrelevant, and whether the name for the super-structure is "Theme" or "Power Source" or whatever is irrelevant. The point is to make sure that there's a Slayer-equivalent, a Knight/Weaponmaster-equivalent, a PHB/Ranger-equivalent, and a Warlord equivalent. (Currently, they are called "Warrior", "Guard", "Scout", and "Marshal", which I think will be suitable names going forward).

I would especially appreciate comparisons between your own Martial classes and my own, as I've noticed you did quite a bit of work on your Warlord-equivalent too.

Each page has a "talk" button; throwing commentary in there - and having the people who follow your google doc also throw commentary in there - would be amazing.

Once that's done, I would love help on fleshing them out the rest of the way to level 10. I would PREFER to keep the martial classes as AE classes instead of AED classes, to differentiate "daily" as something that spellcasters get; this has precedence from Essentials and seems more narratively consistent. This shouldn't affect the way they work too much, however - notice that for my Marshal, for example, all the dailies just do about 1dW less damage as encounter powers, and tend to not last all encounter long unless you sustain them.

(As an aside, the core system absolutely provides support for AED-structured martial classes, though, so don't fret if it feels like you're abandoning your own structure for mine - my first concern is that each and every one of the powers is workable for people who want to make a 4E setting, regardless of what classes they get used by.)

Once we 'tack in' to where we want to be vis-a-vis Martial classes, I'd like to focus on the Cunning (rogue) classes (Assassin/Acrobat/Thief/Bard), where I've really only built things up to first level. Since I've done a lot less work here, I've got a lot more room to wiggle in growing how Rogues operate as they level up.

Is that something you're willing to help with?

Its midnight where I am, and I should get some sleep before looking over this. My feedback will be better. See you in the morning!

[Gligarman2]

When should I make a character for the playtest? When is it?

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

When should I make a character for the playtest? When is it?

Make a character whenever you want (preferably soon). If you want to play a race that is not currently available, please tell me, and I will make stats and feats and options and stuff for it.

The playtest will take place whenever I can get enough people together. If I can't organize a Skype game, we will do a PBP type thing. Maybe both.

EDIT: You know what? I'm just going to go ahead with the PBP thing. We can do Skype for the second playtest.

[Gligarman2]

Where is the PBP playtest? Link please!

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Where is the PBP playtest? Link please!

I'm going to use this thread for recruitment. I'm currently writing the adventure and stuff. No 4e content will be used in the adventure. It will all be unique.

The recruitment specifics will be up within the hour.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Fort Vigil
A Magic Sword Pre-Playtest

System: A mix of 4e and Magic Sword, since Magic Sword is very incomplete.
Player Count: Four. Each person playing a different class role.
Style of Play: A combat-focused dungeon crawl with horror elements. Think Doom or Resident Evil, only with a fantasy setting. The setting is inspired by Irish, Scottish, Norse, Celtic, and Welch folklore, which can get pretty horrific.
Allowed Content:

• Magic Sword races.
• 4e classes (Slayer, Knight, PHB Fighter, Warpriest, PHB Cleric, Warlord, Thief, PHB Rogue, Mage, PHB Wizard, Skald, PHB2 Bard, Berserker, PHB2 Barbarian, Sentinel, and PHB2 Druid only).
• 4e equipment, feats, other such things. However, players can choose racial feats from Magic Sword.
  

Character Creation:

• Backstory: 300 words is plenty.
• Experience: Level 1.
• Wealth: 85 gp worth of equipment.
• Ability Scores: 16, 14, 14, 12, 10, 10. +2 to any two of the core stats of your class. For example, a Rogue could gain +2 to two of the following: Dexterity, Charisma, Strength.
• Hitpoints/Health: Standard hit points. Two fewer healing surges (now called vitality points) than you would normally have.
• Alignment: Magic Sword does not use alignment.
• Skills: Every skill is available to every class. Training now only grants a +3 bonus. A skill focus feat grants an additional +2, and can be spent up to three times on any trained skill. Skills do not scale with level.
  

Other Notes: We will be using the Magic Sword rules for flanking and combat advantage. Initiative will also be modified to better work with play-by-post. Details will be given on a need-to-know basis.


Before the land was reclaimed by vengeful Mother Nature, Fort Vigil watched over the dark forest that covers the country side, acting as the first line of defence, keeping the villages safe for the horrors of the wood. For decades, Fort Vigil has been a broken shell, and civilization has began falling into ruin.

A mysterious secret society has hired you, a band of wandering mercenaries, to scout out the now-avoided ruin of the fort, and possibly rid it of any monsters or brigands who may now call it home. They intend on eventually retaking the fort, and turning it back into the bastion of hope that it once was.

However, something ancient and horrible awaits within the broken keep. Something that even the most heroic of adventurers may not be able to deal with ...


We will be recruiting until we have four players with characters, at which point I will set up IC and OOC threads. I don't generally do PBP games because they tend to fall apart, and prefer Skype. However, I believe that this one can be made to work if we all post often and the game is somewhat brief.

If you can't participate in this playtest, fear not! Many more will be run, over both these forums and Skype. I hope for the next playtest to only use content from Magic Sword, taking nothing directly from 4e.

[Dark Elf Bard]

Is this on the boards or Skype?

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Is this on the boards or Skype?

On the boards. We will start as soon as I get four acceptable characters.

I'm sorry the adventure is so generic. At least no DM content will be recycled, so the monsters and hazards and stuff will be entirely fresh. It will be a great chance for me to try out some MS monster design ideas not seen in 4e, like limited and optional use of randomized statistics and abilities.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Woohoo! Okay, so. First, take a look-over of my current "Martial Hero" theme, and verify that things look semi-sane from a mechanics perspective.

IMO, Its TOO flexable and comprehensive. You're trying to cram too many options and too much versatility in to too little a space. I can tell you think like an engineer, which is fine. I do as well. I just think that you might need to cut it down a bit.

Also, the format is a bit cluttered. It kind of made my eyes glaze over. Maybe you should adapt it to a more Essentials-like style? I think it worked out well for me when I was building the Marshall.

The crunch seems rather intact and balanced.

I'm sorry if I sounded harsh. I don't mean to be hard on you.

[Gligarman2]

What about alignments/level of optimisation? I have a LE necromancer with delusions of grandeur in the wings.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

What about alignments/level of optimisation? I have a LE necromancer with delusions of grandeur in the wings.

You can roleplay your necromancer as Lawful Evil. Alignment is just no longer an official game mechanic or inherent creature trait. There are still various levels of morality, they just no longer - by default - all have names.

I was looking for low-to-mid optimization, since the unpolished rules are probably very easy to abuse.