4th CE: We Can Rebuild It, We Have the Technology

[Shimeran]

Alright, here's a first attempt at movement rules, drawing on earlier discussion as well as d20 and 13th age srds for formatting. This is the player facing part. Things like climb difficulty would be in the GM section.

Hurried Move
Common Movement Ability
Cost: 1 minor action
Effect: You gain 6 movement points to spend on any other movement abilities used as part of this action.

Walk
Common Movement Ability
Requirement: You must be standing on a surface that can support you.
Cost: 1 movement point.
Effect: Move into an open space adjacent to both you and the surface you're standing on.

Climb
Common Movement Ability
Cost: 2 movement points.
Target: An adjacent vertical surface you can grip with both hands.
Check: Strength or Dexterity

• Success: Move into an open space adjacent to both you and the target surface.
• Failure: If you're not standing on a surface that can support you, repeat the check. If the second check fails, you begin falling.

And here are the notes.

Spoiler: Design Notes

Show

Hurried Move: I ended up just making this a separate ability that converts an action into a movement pool. This gets around the awkwardness of calling everything part of a move. This also open the door for a "guarded move" later to take the role of a shift.

Cost Line: That's standing in for the "action" line as we can package this like healing surge use and expending the ability in there. It also happens to work well for the movement point set up.

Check Line: Writing "vs Difficulty" was getting repetitive so for now I'm excluding that part unless the difficulty is set by a known trait, such as an opponents defenses.

Surface Adjacency: The "adjacent to both you and the surface" phrasing started in climb, but is a useful way to handle walking as it lets you walk off of things or up slopes, but not into the air.

Edit: I just noticed ThePurple's post. I'll get to the rest of that later but wanted to rewrite the Climb check quick as I was already tempted to make it Str or Dex while I was writing it and seeing agreement there I wanted to switch it over.

[Tegu8788]

I'm liking that skill stat spread, not hundred percent sold but it's a solid start. I agree that a fair amount of acrobatics and athletics can be rolled into one, but I do think that endurance needs to be separate. Because Endurance: Con or Cha, force of personality let's you handle torture or let you push yourself further than normal for pride.


Sell me on movement points. Because it seems more complex than movement speed, with no clear advantage. Did we lose the Major-Move-Minor somewhere? I liked the Ms.

[ThePurple]

I'm liking that skill stat spread, not hundred percent sold but it's a solid start. I agree that a fair amount of acrobatics and athletics can be rolled into one, but I do think that endurance needs to be separate. Because Endurance: Con or Cha, force of personality let's you handle torture or let you push yourself further than normal for pride.

As I stated before, my personal preference for skills would be to just completely separate them from ability scores. Knowledge of obscure sports should, in my mind, be Athletics + INT rather than a History check because it's INT based (or an Athletics check that uses STR, since I don't see STR helping you remember stuff more effectively). In this sense, skills would represent areas of knowledge or expertise and ability modifier would represent the method that you're attempting to apply that area of knowledge or expertise.

Proselytization, evangelizing, or preaching a sermon would be Religion + CHA whereas prayer would be Religion + WIS and specifically citing areas of religion dogma or law would be Religion + INT.

Endurance is always a *really* weird stat since there's so many ways you can explain your character pushing themselves further than they would otherwise think possible. If I had to pick 2 stats for it, I would actually err on the side of CON and WIS, using WIS as a kind of meditative ability to ignore pain and unpleasantness.

It's this reason why I actually think that it might work to get rid of Endurance as a skill and just replace those checks with attacks against Fortitude.

Sell me on movement points. Because it seems more complex than movement speed, with no clear advantage. Did we lose the Major-Move-Minor somewhere? I liked the Ms.

I agree with this point a lot. "Movement points" seems like it's overly complicated. "Move a number of squares equal to your move speed" is perfectly simple, in my opinion, and certain terrain explicitly stating that it is "treated as twice as many squares of movement to enter" works just fine for restricting movement. Creating "points" just seems kind of arbitrary to me and complicates what should be simple.

[Shimeran]

Sell me on movement points. Because it seems more complex than movement speed, with no clear advantage.

That's a bit of a false comparison. Movement speed by itself is really just a stat that's primarily linked to the walk action. Movement points are more of a terminology shift for "squares of movement".

For a better idea of what I mean, 4e rules text I'm looking at phrases climbing as "using squares of movement from the action". So climbing isn't really treated as it's own action. Instead you have to generate "squares of movement" with a different action (such as walking or running) so you've got them to spend on climbing.

Sound familiar? 4e already has you creating a movement resource that lets you move 1 space per unit spent. It's just calling them "squares of movement".

So apply our hex friendly terminology swap and you've got "spaces of movement". It works, though it sounds a bit clunky. At one point in the writing, I just referred to them as "moves", but that seemed a bit broad. In the end I settled on "movement points", but I'm open to other terms that might do the job better.

So maybe the bigger question is why is Hurried Move it's own ability? Earlier on it was closer to the "spend an action, move 6 spaces" model. There was some weirdness there though. It effectively made every type of movement modified walking. Climbing, jumping, and swimming were all fueled by the "walking" action. The set up I posted holds a similar dynamic. It mostly makes "Walk" the handler for movement along the ground and Hurried Move the generator for using those per-space movements.

Hopefully that's a bit clearer. The brain's getting a bit muzzy, so it's off to bed for me. If you've got an alternate rules write up don't hesitate to post it. Part of the push here is just to get actual rules written and more hands on deck for that are welcome.

Did we lose the Major-Move-Minor somewhere? I liked the Ms.

That discussion also included dropping move and letting it be covered by minor actions, making it a major-minor split. I was simply using that as I recalled it being where things settled. I have no problem bringing move actions back in or leaving them as minors, so it down to what the rest of the group wants.

[Shimeran]

Alright, I went to check the Rules Compendium on movement for a better comparison. The rules are a bit of tangle and I get they impression they were kind of layered up rather than planned out in advance. In any case, I'm putting what I've pieced out here.

First off, the common move actions are walk, run, shift, crawl, and stand up. Sound alright so far.

Then I went into the walk action. The bullet points look fine. Then I run into this: "Despite the action’s name, a creature isn’t always literally walking when it takes this action. The walk action can use special movement modes such as climbing, flying, and swimming." The same kind of phrasing show up for the run action.

Climbing and swimming both have mechanics for hijacking squares of movement from another action. However they do share references to their own special speeds (climb speed, swim speed, and fly speed.)

A bit more digging led me to this: "If a creature can use a special movement mode, it can take the walk or the run
action using its speed (or simply stand still) with that movement mode instead of
its walking speed." That got me wondering what happened if you mixed movement modes. Fortunately, they answer that further down. The main points are you can use the highest applicable speed, but your maximum movement in any mode is capped at that mode's speed.

I'm seeing a solid framework in those last points. I thinking we can probably clean things up a bit by making walking it's own movement mode. I'll see if I can rig up something along those in a bit unless someone wants to take a crack at it first.

In the meanwhile, a couple questions for the group:

• Should "move" be an action type?
• Are powers more like abilities or actions?

Move Actions
Con: "Move" is more an indicator of what kind of thing you're doing rather than how impactful it is as with minor and major actions, making it a bit of a mismatch.
Pro: Having it as it's own type let us put mobility in a protected bin so it can be spent on more valuable attacks, nor the character double move without giving up said attack.
Alternatives: Restricting the user to a single minor movement a round gives the perks of the above, but avoiding clunky phrasing will be difficult. Adding similar keyword like verbal or manipulation actions makes the phrasing easier but potentially adds complexity.

Actions vs Abilities
Actions: If a power is something you do, then the action type determines what kind of action the power is.
Abilities: If a power is a capability, then the action types are just part of what you must expend to use that power.

[Tegu8788]

I think we should keep the Move. It'll make translation easier, and allow for bonuses for minor action movement.

And I'll vote powers be abilities. Some abilities take longer to use than others, or are exclusive to others.


Should we default to letting a character split their movement? It makes the game even more tactical, but it can make ranged character immune to ranged attacks if not for triggered actions. Because more debate is what we need.

[Shimeran]

Alright, here's another pass at movement. First off, let's establish movement modes for how characters move.

Movement Modes: Movement modes determine how a creature is being moved. Whenever a creature moves itself, it must use one of the movement modes available to it to do so. If not stated, assume the creature is walking if standing on something or swimming if in the water.

Walk
Common Ability, Movement Mode
Requirement: You must be standing on a surface that can support you.
Cost: 1 movement space
Effect: Move into an open space adjacent to both you and the surface you're standing on.

Climb
Common Ability, Movement Mode
Cost: 2 movement spaces
Target: An adjacent vertical surface you can grip with both hands.
Check: Strength or Dexterity

• Success: Move into an open space adjacent to both you and the target surface. You may use the check result for all other climb attempts you make this turn.
• Failure: Lose all remaining movement spaces. If you're not standing on a surface that can support you, repeat the check. If the second check fails, you begin falling.

That leaves movement abilities themselves. Here's what a basic version without speed taken into account would look like.

Movement Abilities: Any ability with the movement descriptor lets the user move something, usually themselves.

Hustle
Common Movement Ability
Cost: 1 move action
Effects: Move 6 spaces.

We can add speed back in, but I'm not sure how much we gain from the added complexity. The above effect line basically becomes:

Effect: Move a number of spaces equal to the highest applicable move speed.

We'd also have to add something like "If you have a movement speed, you need not make a check to use that movement mode, but the maximum number of spaces you can move with that mode in an action is capped at that speed."

This gets a bit simpler if we just drop different movement speed and have single speed trait. Then we're back to "Move a number of spaces equal to your speed." Still a bit wordier than the fixed movement version, but better. I'd still question how useful speed is though as a lot of power don't use it, meaning it's mostly just used with the stock movement actions, which could just as easily use fixed values.

Speed modifiers aren't much of an argument either as they could just as easily be written as "you move 1 less/more space", likely linked to a certain minimum, such as "when you would move 5 or more spaces". It's a bit more verbose, but it means things like armor penalties to speed aren't so easily ignored by just moving through powers.

On another note, there's still the run and shift equivalents. Shift will likely need to be renamed unless we can find an SRD that uses it as pathfinder and the like still use awkward 5 foot step. So far "Sidle" (as in sidle up to or sidle around) is the closest I've got for guarded movement (outside of just calling it "Guarded Move"), with "ease" as a possible second.

Run also has some writing oddities. The combat advantage bit isn't too hard. I was thinking of renaming it to "edge" as in having an edge. However, maybe making it a bonus type would well. The situational bonus is the closest equivalent at the moment. "Opportunity bonus" sound appropriate, though I'd be concerned about confusion with opportunity attacks.

In any case, the other odd bit with run is the attack penalty. I get the desire to add a cost, but it's strange that you can run and pick a lock but not run and swing a sword, even though you can move further (via charge) without such penalties. It almost seems like running should be more of a "if you spend your standard action moving, get this extra perk" thing. On a side note, anyone see run show up in play outside chase scenes? I can recall maybe 1 time I actually saw it used. I've considered it more often, but those penalties tended to kill it's actual use.

Edit: I just realized that you can just use "hustle distance" for movement speed and get really similar effects without making it a separate stat. So armor penalties to move would be "-1 hustle distance". You'd still want to keep an eye on those high movement powers though. Maybe just let them trigger a hustle instead.

[Shimeran]

Seeing as interest seems to be lagging, I think I'll take 5. If someone does spearhead a new push I'll certainly step in to help with that.

What I may do in the meanwhile is cobble together a light weight game with a 4e playstyle, likely borrowing heavily from open gaming sources. It would be built for my own table so I can actually get it up an running that much sooner. However, once it's fairly fleshed out I can definitely help adapt or expand it if there's community interest. Hopefully there will be some usable bits for this project in there, but I'm going to focus on getting a system up over trying to get consensus on that one.

I'm honestly half tempted to put that out as friendly challenge to some of the other more prolific posters in the thread. I'd be interested to see some other 4e like attempts, especially if that gives the community good raw materials for projects like this one.

[dying0d]

Has everyone given up on this? or...

[Dacia Brabant]

I ended up working on another project, one that's inspired by 4e and some of the concepts that were discussed here, but going in a different direction.

[Ursus Spelaeus]

My project has been on hiatus, but I'm looking to jump back into it again.
I've shifted focus though.
I'm using the basic design philosophy from 4E, but I'm substituting the d20 mechanic for a card-based one (a hand management mechanic, to encourage more skill-based play over randomness) and focusing on more of a dark fantasy default setting inspired by Berserk, Dark Souls, and Kingdom Death: Monster.

[Morphic tide]

A post I typed out(the whole thing) for the Project Force class concepts thread, before I realized that the thread was dead:

So, some basic ideas I have about 4e class design philosophy, more about overhauling it than anything else:

Power Sources should either not describe fixed mechanics niches(in the sense of the mechanics the class uses) or their mechanics niches should be a bit more broad and coherent. Not every Psionic class should need to use PP, the concept can function for classes that don't use PP or use them in such a different way that it's hardly the same mechanic.

For instance, Psionic classes can have PP as their mechanic, or they can have mental power as a theme. If you have it as a requirement for Psionic classes to use PP, then you can do odd things with PP, such as having a class that uses PP to add various effects to their basic weapon attacks(IB4 "20 types of Cleave, each with a different save-based-effect/damage type/weird AoE pattern") rather than to augment/use pre-defined abilities.

If you don't have them keep the central PP mechanic, their class mechanics can all center on control over their own minds and the minds of others. A berserker that enters a rage through near-absolute mastery of their own mind is a perfectly valid concept for a Psionic class, in this case.

To extend the idea of "power sources as mechanics/thematics that you mess with", Primal can be all about taking on aspects of spirits, being about versatility by setting your "mode" according to a thematic set of choices, possibly with limited choices for each character. A Totemist(Totem Barbarian based) could be primarily a Defender, but they might have a Totem for each combination of class roles. A Shaman might focus on being a Controller, but can summon/channel Spirits that grant Striker or Leader powers.

One thing that might help for making duel role classes is to clearly define some class types as mixtures of other class types. For instance, an Artillery class role can be rather accurately defined as a mix of Controller and Striker, as you are dealing damage to groups of enemies and some mechanics that do so provoke enemies to take particular actions, like making areas that cause damage to things inside the area allowing you to set up the field. Similarly, a Leader class's mechanics can be a mix of Defender and Controller, driving enemies away from attacking allies or mitigating the effects of them doing so. Brute seems a good thing to call a Defender/Striker mechanic category, with a general idea of tying enemies down by inflicting damage or conditions that demand enemy attention.

Some ideas on overhauling what mechanics the power sources use:

Divine: You know the 3.5 Divine and Wild feats? Where you can expend uses of Turn Undead or Wildshape for various effects? Let's use that sort of thing for the Divine mechanic, possibly mixing it with the God-specific variation in the power that the current ones use. A class-specific uses-per-day or uses-per-encounter ability that is used by other daily and/or encounter powers and is interacted with by some of the at-wills is something that has a lot of possibilities. For instance, the "core" Striker obviously has Smite as uses-per-encounter. Daily and Encounter abilities can focus heavily on interacting with it, like a Daily ability that refreshes your uses, or an Encounter ability that lets you use multiple Smites at once.

Martial: You know the meme of 4e powers being "20 ways to sword a guy"? Yeah, I think the best mechanic for Martials is to have abilities that alter normal actions or categories of actions. Instead of having a melee-burst Cleave ability, the ability adds the burst to your basic attack, thus stacking with effects that alter basic attacks. Instead of having a Charge-with-bonus, it's a modifier to the actual, normal Charge and similar abilities(does 4e even have actual normal Charges? I'm not nearly familiar enough with 4e mechanics beyond general terms to actually tell). But yeah, basically make Martials the king of Hybrid/Multi-Classing by giving them abilities that stack with lots of stuff.

Primal: You know the old Bear Druid meme of "A Bear that's casting Bear-themed spells with a beefy Bear minion summoning 1d3 Bears per turn"? That's going too far(largely because it's a good three class concepts at once), but the sort of thing Primal should focus on. Lots of animal/spirit motifs, with bonuses/abilities based on the animal/spirit in use. Permanent animal companions are something I don't want to see, because justifying quick swapping of them gets silly. Generally, you have passive bonuses, granted powers and "expending" effects. Yes, effects based on getting rid of the thing could be present. Like the one Primal class that imbues spirits into it's attacks.

Arcane: You know Vancian magic? There's ways to simplify Vancian magic that could be used to make it work in a 4e derived system. Like 5e's upcasting mechanics, and 3.5 metamagic. Basically, Arcane can be Vancian as it's mechanic, with limited daily uses of the abilities by level/potency-based-category rather than by ability and piles of stuff changing the level. Prepared spellcasting can die in a fire, though. From there, you can have quite a bit of fun with how spells are constructed, perhaps some classes getting no ability to construct their spells and instead having a fixed list of stronger-than-average but narrower-than-usual spells.

Psionic: You know 3.5 Psionics? Yeah, that'll be the core of things here, with the split-personality stuff being a subclass or highly general mode type of thing, treated as sets of passive bonuses. Like, you have these Psionic powers. Almost all are at-wills of various sorts. Encounters and Dailies are inflexible, but significant, changes to these at-wills, with a small number of them being proper Psionic powers of their own that can be altered by the altering Encounter and Daily powers. Then you have the Power Points. You use them to fuel the enhancement of various parameters of the Psionic powers, like range, damage and AoE, but you can't add new parameters with them. That's what Encounter and Daily powers do.

Ki: You know the utter bull**** of Naruto-type ninja and Dragonball? Those are the best place to start for getting lots of class concepts of what to use Ki for. Separated from Psionics largely by using Ki to enhance general parameters, the stuff your abilities scale from normally, rather than using Ki to enhance the abilities directly. You don't use Ki to increase the range of your pseudo-teleport Charge, you use it to increase your Dexterity, which is what the range scales from. This makes them much better suited to Striking, because they are buffing their basic scores that dictate what basic attacks do, and they Nova better by having everything they do be buffed by the expenditure instead of one attack.

---

My project has been on hiatus, but I'm looking to jump back into it again.
I've shifted focus though.
I'm using the basic design philosophy from 4E, but I'm substituting the d20 mechanic for a card-based one (a hand management mechanic, to encourage more skill-based play over randomness) and focusing on more of a dark fantasy default setting inspired by Berserk, Dark Souls, and Kingdom Death: Monster.

So, I can see two ways to do this: One is to make it a straight mix of deck building and RPG, with your staple abilities being in the character and more advanced ones being in the cards. The other I can think of is to have the cards be simple numbers and general ability modifiers, along with needed deck-manipulation stuff, to have them more directly replace the dice mechanics. Either way, one could have some cards be locked to characters of certain classes/class types and certain levels, to keep the characters coherent.

[Ursus Spelaeus]

So, I can see two ways to do this: One is to make it a straight mix of deck building and RPG, with your staple abilities being in the character and more advanced ones being in the cards. The other I can think of is to have the cards be simple numbers and general ability modifiers, along with needed deck-manipulation stuff, to have them more directly replace the dice mechanics.

I'm doing a sort of hybrid approach using a tarot deck with minor arcana and major arcana cards.