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

[ThePurple]

Jokes aside, I basically agree, but I'm not sure what the fundamental difference is between artillery and striker apart from AoE vs. single target. They strike me (no pun intended) as fulfilling the same purpose--to kill things dead--albeit in different ways that are suitable for specific types of threats. Is that enough to make for distinct roles?

I don't think that artillery can really work as a truly distinct role separate from striker unless we decide to go into the "all classes get 2+ roles", so that an artillery character can swap out of that role when they're down to a single (or small number of spread out) target. Otherwise, I would probably fold the artillery role under the striker umbrella, and basically treat "striker" as any pure damage driven role.

I think design fluidity is important in this type of game where roles and party balance are essential. Creating entire classes for each role under the umbrella of a single archetype seems to me at once very broad and very narrow from a design standpoint, and restrictive from a player's perspective. If I'm in a long-running game with a character I like, but we add a player who really wants to fill the same role--or say we have duplication in my role, but we lose a player whose character was the only one filling another role--it would sure be great to "retrain" that character (via different features or power selections) to be able to fill that need rather than going back and looking for a different class.

The problem with extreme levels of retraining (e.g. going from a 2 weapon striker fighter to a polearm controller fighter) is that they break with what I consider to be a desirable level of verisimilitude. It just doesn't make sense for someone who specializes in a given fighting style to suddenly change to a completely different one (without resorting to GM fiat).

This is one of the advantages of going with a berserker-style dual role set up for each class since it allows each class to fulfill two different roles with the same selection. Sure, you might have chosen feats and gear that makes you better at one role, but you've still got the fundamental underlying functionality that lets you fulfill the other role.

I like the sound of that, but could you give an example of how that might look? Right now the only thing I can think of in the game that even approaches that is divine characters getting Channel Divinity powers. Would it be more things like that?

Earlier on in this thread, I described the method I envisage for doing this, which is comprised of 2 parts.

The first part is to do away with class based utility power lists and replace them with power source utility lists so that all martial characters draw from the same list of utility powers, all arcane characters draw from the same list of utility powers, etc.

The second part would be to come up with an overarching mechanical paradigm for all classes within a given power source to operate under. The two examples that I gave were for the martial and divine power sources. For martial classes, they would have different effects of their powers depending upon what weapon they are using (not as a selected class feature, but as a tactical choice determined during combat so that martial characters actually have a reason to carry different weapons). I would be much like baking the "XXX Strike" feats into the classes (so a flail fighter would be able to slide and knock prone, but a hammer fighter would push and daze; a mace rogue would be able to daze whereas a dagger rogue would be able to deal ongoing damage). For divine characters, we follow a similar paradigm such that the secondary effects and damage types of their powers are determined by their choice of god, much like the devoted warpriest (except we generalize the gods rather than creating separate set ups for every single different god). With this, we'd have clerics *and* paladins of storm deities dealing lightning and thunder damage, and those of deities of corruption dealing necrotic and poison damage, which makes a lot more sense than all paladins and clerics dealing radiant damage with a vast majority of their attacks.

Swordmages being skirmisher-style defenders makes a lot sense considering they're running around in light/no armor (except my Swordmage|Cleric, but that was a special case)

Swordmages always felt to me like an aberration in design that never really worked like it was supposed to. Swordmages worked best when they were running away from or out of the range of the individual they were marking, which was the exact reason why Divine Challenge was given so many restrictions (namely, that a defender shouldn't be running away from the individual they're supposed to be threatening). Swordmage also isn't really a particularly well developed archetype. Arcane knights in fantasy tend to be heavily armored, basically paladins with an arcane power source and more esoteric abilities. Swordmage is basically a class designed for Forgotten Realms much like Artificer is a class designed for Eberron, as opposed to actually fulfilling an established fantasy archetype.

whereas auras make more sense for Paladins--well, Cavaliers--due to their being faith-driven than they do for Fighters, who threaten just by how well they swing a sword around. I guess that could be an aura, too, in its own way though.

An aura doesn't have to be magical. It's just a word we use to indicate a mechanic representing an area of influence that the character has.

I don't disagree with this, but I'd kind of like to see something like the Cloistered Cleric or Archivist come back as a Cleric archetype rather than as a separate class that's still priestly. Then again, if Paladins are the soldiers of the faith and Clerics are the speakers of the faith, maybe what we need are the scholars of the faith as the third divine class, and that could very well be it.

I've played around with designing a cloistered cleric in the past, but I've always come up against the problem that a light armored ranged cleric is fundamentally at odds with a heavy armored melee cleric, since a ranged cleric should be decked out more like a wizard whereas a melee cleric should be decked out more like a fighter. It requires so many changes that you might as well just create a separate class for it.

Now, I have an idea I would like to run by you guys:

What do you think?

I'm not fond of it because I think it's too abstract. Skill Challenges are supposed to represent non-combat equivalents of conflict resolution (e.g. stuff that rewards xp and loot) and that framework is a bit too vague. It could work in a much less crunch-driven game, but I don't think it would work for 4e.

I still support my idea of making skill checks and challenges use the exact same mechanics as combat (e.g. player makes skill check to reach DC of check and then roll "damage" die to determine number of successes; skill challenge ends when players achieve required number of successes or failed to achieve enough successes before a given number of rounds).

I think we should go first designing the mechanics then reflavor it to fit. I feel that many classes have a definite "secondary" role in it (as in the Bard vs the Warlord - both are leaders, though the Bard is more controllery and the Warlord feels more strikery). I think we should use that to our favor and decide the "core" classes with that in mind.

4e already tried to do that, and it didn't work out.

We should think about what classes give the most unique identifies, and what would be most evocative of the style we're aiming for. My alternate idea, therefore, is rather than forcing classes into this design space of Main role/sub role, we instead use Main role as the class role, and then the sub role is informed by the power source.

This is largely what I was aiming to do with my previously mentioned consolidation of utility powers under the umbrella of power source. Divine utility powers would include stuff like Bless and Cure Light Wounds/Lay On Hands (leader). Martial utility powers would give plenty of mobility (striker). Arcane utility powers would include stuff like Stoneskin and Shield (defender). Primal utility powers would include stuff like Rampant Growth (controller).

How do we feel about using different Wizard "Specializations" as their class paths, rather than implement masteries? Things like Transmuter, Evoker, Illusionist, and maybe one other as the base paths?

My most recent iteration of wizard is actually built around the schools of magic as a fundamental mechanic. When they roll initiative, a wizard chooses which of their schools of magic they're going to access (they get to select 2 at level 1 and additional schools as they increase in level). Each school of magic has a class feature (that allows for the expenditure of a unique class resource for bonus effects), 2 at-wills, and 2 encounter powers that the wizard can use while accessing that school of magic. The wizard would be able to change which school of magic they are accessing by using a standard action (or expending one charge of their unique class resource to do so as a minor action). I would probably include a paragon path that allowed a wizard to access two schools of magic simultaneously and others that focused on improving a single school of magic.

Because the schools of magic would determine powers (except for daily powers) and class features for the wizard, each school of magic can also give the wizard a different role. Accessing evocation would turn the wizard into an artillery. Illusion and enchantment would be controller. Abjuration would be leader (with the requisite leader-healing accomplished by having the wizard expend their unique resource to heal allies). Transmutation would be striker (I imagine a transmuter doing stuff like changing their implement into a weapon and using Tenser's Transformation to let them beat enemies to death rather than blasting them with spells).

I would probably isolate conjuration and necromancy to their own, separate, wizard archetype since those are more pet driven classes than normal wizards (probably call it conjurer and allow the player to choose between celestial, infernal, and necromantic summoning).

[Dacia Brabant]

I don't think that artillery can really work as a truly distinct role separate from striker unless we decide to go into the "all classes get 2+ roles", so that an artillery character can swap out of that role when they're down to a single (or small number of spread out) target. Otherwise, I would probably fold the artillery role under the striker umbrella, and basically treat "striker" as any pure damage driven role.

I actually like that idea of having strikers be able to switch between single- and multi-target attack features. If your role is to deal as much damage as possible, it makes sense that you would want to have something up your sleeves for one tough mob and for a bunch of weaker ones.

The problem with extreme levels of retraining (e.g. going from a 2 weapon striker fighter to a polearm controller fighter) is that they break with what I consider to be a desirable level of verisimilitude. It just doesn't make sense for someone who specializes in a given fighting style to suddenly change to a completely different one (without resorting to GM fiat).

This is one of the advantages of going with a berserker-style dual role set up for each class since it allows each class to fulfill two different roles with the same selection. Sure, you might have chosen feats and gear that makes you better at one role, but you've still got the fundamental underlying functionality that lets you fulfill the other role.

I hear you on this, though I'm not sure I agree that it breaks verisimilitude to have a Fighter--someone who even at level 1 is beyond merely a professional man-at-arms--switch from sword-and-board to a zweihander or rapier and dagger, depending on the situation.

But I do like the design of the Berserker quite a lot, so I'm with you there.

Earlier on in this thread, I described the method I envisage for doing this, which is comprised of 2 parts.

The first part is to do away with class based utility power lists and replace them with power source utility lists so that all martial characters draw from the same list of utility powers, all arcane characters draw from the same list of utility powers, etc.

The second part would be to come up with an overarching mechanical paradigm for all classes within a given power source to operate under. The two examples that I gave were for the martial and divine power sources. For martial classes, they would have different effects of their powers depending upon what weapon they are using (not as a selected class feature, but as a tactical choice determined during combat so that martial characters actually have a reason to carry different weapons). I would be much like baking the "XXX Strike" feats into the classes (so a flail fighter would be able to slide and knock prone, but a hammer fighter would push and daze; a mace rogue would be able to daze whereas a dagger rogue would be able to deal ongoing damage). For divine characters, we follow a similar paradigm such that the secondary effects and damage types of their powers are determined by their choice of god, much like the devoted warpriest (except we generalize the gods rather than creating separate set ups for every single different god). With this, we'd have clerics *and* paladins of storm deities dealing lightning and thunder damage, and those of deities of corruption dealing necrotic and poison damage, which makes a lot more sense than all paladins and clerics dealing radiant damage with a vast majority of their attacks.

My apologies, I remember that now. We've covered so much ground in just over 7 pages, it can be hard to keep track. I like those ideas a lot, I think they would go a long way toward making the power sources actually mean something.

Arcane might be difficult to forge a common link between the classes, however, since they each have very different approaches to obtaining and using arcane power: Wizards through intense study, Warlocks through eldritch pacts, Sorcerers through blood magic and Bards through...the Power of Rockin' Out, I guess.

Swordmages always felt to me like an aberration in design that never really worked like it was supposed to. Swordmages worked best when they were running away from or out of the range of the individual they were marking, which was the exact reason why Divine Challenge was given so many restrictions (namely, that a defender shouldn't be running away from the individual they're supposed to be threatening). Swordmage also isn't really a particularly well developed archetype. Arcane knights in fantasy tend to be heavily armored, basically paladins with an arcane power source and more esoteric abilities. Swordmage is basically a class designed for Forgotten Realms much like Artificer is a class designed for Eberron, as opposed to actually fulfilling an established fantasy archetype.

That's a fair criticism of the mechanics of the class, though in my experience I've found that with healthy use of sticky attack powers (Booming Blade, Frigid Blade, etc.) I could effectively defend against mobs on different sides of the battlefield, making for some very nice melee control.

On the strength of the archetype, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I've played around with designing a cloistered cleric in the past, but I've always come up against the problem that a light armored ranged cleric is fundamentally at odds with a heavy armored melee cleric, since a ranged cleric should be decked out more like a wizard whereas a melee cleric should be decked out more like a fighter. It requires so many changes that you might as well just create a separate class for it.

I don't doubt that you're right about this, though it kind of sounds like part of the difficulty has to do with the way the system relies on gear, as well as not receiving any mechanical benefit from their class for having a high Int or Dex.

Still, a Priest does connote something very different from say a Templar, which also connotes something different from a Paladin, so I can see those as distinctive classes with their own roles.

And I like your ideas for the spell schools, though I think having players choose which schools to access on rolling initiative could potentially slow the game down, but that's something that we would have to check during playtesting.

[Shimeran]

Honestly, reading over all this, I'm starting to get the itch to try building up some "proof of concept" class frameworks. What do you folks think? Maybe we can say sketch out what we envision some classes doing at level 1. That's enough to get some ideas out there without digging in too deep. Then we can circle back around and see if any common formatting and standards are emerging.

Admittedly, that may be part of my creative urges talking. Honestly if we don't start that in the main thread it might be a good idea to start up some splinter threads so folks can vent those energies. I know I've been holding back to keep things on target.

I have a problem with having a single "druid" class for much the same reason that I have a problem with having a single "wizard" class. Druids have always had massive toolboxes that make it very problematic to design a single one that does everything without losing the flavor of what it means to be a druid. For example, druids have traditionally been able to shapeshift (which is kind of defender/striker in my eyes), throw out spells with weather (generally artillery and control) and plant/growth (generally healer and control) themes, and summon animals/have animal companions (both of which are very leader).

This actually matches with where I've noticed my own character designs going. I've found myself increasingly drawn to building the class around a single core ability and expanding out from there. Having more focused classes that are multiclass / hybrid friendly seems to have a lot of potential. I also think it encourages more descriptive class names, though that's a minor perk.

For example, on of my latest experiments is a "Wonder Wielder" class, inspired at least in part by actually rereading the Dying Earth short stories and realizing a lot of characters, even wizards, are essentially scavengers of arcane items and texts. Seeing as there's a folklore precedent for "hero who finds magic", I decided to see what happens if I run with that.

So why not have say "spellbinders" or "grimoirist" instead of the more generic wizard? Why not have a "ferals" who's animal form is their signature feature? For the calling on forces of nature aspect, setting up some mechanics for invoking a contract or pact could be interesting as well as having interesting potential for divine classes and warlocks.

On a side note, encounter and daily powers (or their equivalent) may be a nice place to put some of this cross over potential. For example, maybe all ferals fight with tooth and claw, but some have made deals that let them call the occasional gust or sacrifice some of their own vigor to call on elemental allies.

Okay, so let's break this down into its component parts.

Really solid job here overall. I might quibble on few points, but generally I agree with the points you made here.

3) Resource Management. Characters have limited resources including 'daily' and 'encounter' powers which may be spent in order to improve their positioning, apply conditions to targets, affect odds of success, and increase damage.

Honestly, the strongest resource management aspect I saw in most 4e games was with healing surges. Conversing encounter powers was rarely a good idea unless the power in question is situational. Daily powers were generally more spaced out, though I suppose that was more of a "gentleman's agreement" situation. Honestly, I could see revisiting both to firm up specifically what each is supposed to do.

Roleplaying encounters are generally used to build narrative, refresh resources spent in previous encounters, and prepare for the following encounters.

I like the idea of roleplaying based refreshes. I believe I saw something like that in The Dying Earth rpg.

I don't think that artillery can really work as a truly distinct role separate from striker unless we decide to go into the "all classes get 2+ roles", so that an artillery character can swap out of that role when they're down to a single (or small number of spread out) target. Otherwise, I would probably fold the artillery role under the striker umbrella, and basically treat "striker" as any pure damage driven role.

I'd agree that artillery does need something to fell back on when down to single targets. Striker is a solid choice, but so is controller.

As for the similarity between artillery and striker. I've argued the striker's job should be more about delivering damage where it's most needed, making them experts at focusing fire and killing blows. In contract, the artillery is more about higher total damage, caring less about focusing on the weaker target if it means snaring more targets overall. It's an easily missed difference, but one that could certainly be played up. After all, I think the heavy grouping of offense on a single role is part of why that role has seen disproportionate popularity. After all, if you're more defensively oriented, you'd got 3 roles to suit those tastes.

This is one of the advantages of going with a berserker-style dual role set up for each class since it allows each class to fulfill two different roles with the same selection. Sure, you might have chosen feats and gear that makes you better at one role, but you've still got the fundamental underlying functionality that lets you fulfill the other role.

I'd agree with this in general. There are enough jobs that could use a second option (such as medic or crowd control) that giving it to every class wouldn't hurt. Come to think of it, doing so would also make those roles potentially more modular, potentially making it easier to open up new roles to a class as future class options, which I definitely approve of.

The second part would be to come up with an overarching mechanical paradigm for all classes within a given power source to operate under.

I'd say distinctive core features with a strong mechanical identity are a definite plus. However, this does have me wondering if sources should stay as broad as they are now or if the distinctive features should be on more focused forms of those sources.

One already stated example is the arcane power source. I could see arcane powers having something distinctive like say unusual energy mixtures. Sure, a priest can call down holy fire, but few would call literally burning acid or electrified ice. However, things like say ancient pacts can and should be mechanically distinct from being a master of arcane devices.

I've played around with designing a cloistered cleric in the past, but I've always come up against the problem that a light armored ranged cleric is fundamentally at odds with a heavy armored melee cleric, since a ranged cleric should be decked out more like a wizard whereas a melee cleric should be decked out more like a fighter. It requires so many changes that you might as well just create a separate class for it.

I'd totally play a "dervish" style holy man who's a whirlwind of devastation by letting divine excellence flow through them. Granted, that's a whole other lightly armored archetype.

Come to think of it, a "preacher" type could be pretty could too. Have them command allied and rebuke foes, make at lot of their break and butter spoken actions with miracles being their big guns.

My most recent iteration of wizard is actually built around the schools of magic as a fundamental mechanic. When they roll initiative, a wizard chooses which of their schools of magic they're going to access (they get to select 2 at level 1 and additional schools as they increase in level).

This actually reminded watchtowers from Mage: The Awakening. I say go for it. If anything, I'd say unshackle yourself from the old schools and go for more evocative imagery. Maybe make them stances. Ooh, maybe call them "gates". "Gate of the Twisted Mind" for illusion / enchantment control, "Gate of the Maelstrom" for evocations, and so on. I'd actually be tempted to make abjuration a defender roll as it plays well with the "hurting my allies is a bad idea and I'm a tough nut to crack myself" theme. Divination would work pretty well as a leader school though.

In any case, I can see some definite potential here. I will say you should not try this concept to a spell book. I think it's got plenty of potential on it's own.

[ThePurple]

Arcane might be difficult to forge a common link between the classes, however, since they each have very different approaches to obtaining and using arcane power: Wizards through intense study, Warlocks through eldritch pacts, Sorcerers through blood magic and Bards through...the Power of Rockin' Out, I guess.

That's always been something of a problem with the arcane classes. Arcane has always been something of a grab-bag of abilities because they're basically been the "you can do anything but can only do it a limited number of times per day". I would probably explain them all getting to use the same powers as just using different methods to achieve the same goal. So a wizard using shield learned to do it through intense study, the warlock got it from selling his soul for power, the sorcerer is just tapping doing what comes naturally, and the bard is belting out a note that deflects the blade.

On the strength of the archetype, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Part of my problem with it is that the swordmage is explicitly a SWORDmage. When I was rebuilding a lot of the classes, I changed the name to battlemage and allowed them to use whatever melee weapon they felt like rather than forcing them to just use swords. I also built them more as melee wizards as opposed to the weird teleporting, sword throwing class swordmages are.

The idea and implementation of swordmages is cool, but I don't think it was the best choice of arcane defender concept for them to implement first.

And I like your ideas for the spell schools, though I think having players choose which schools to access on rolling initiative could potentially slow the game down, but that's something that we would have to check during playtesting.

With my design, a wizard would choose which schools it knows during creation, much like other classes select at-wills, and then select which one of those schools it is going to start combat using when it rolls initiative. It's basically the same as the stances for the Essentials fighters, except that instead of providing a global bonus to MBAs, it determines what class feature, at-will, and encounter they can use.

[Dacia Brabant]

Honestly, reading over all this, I'm starting to get the itch to try building up some "proof of concept" class frameworks. What do you folks think? Maybe we can say sketch out what we envision some classes doing at level 1. That's enough to get some ideas out there without digging in too deep. Then we can circle back around and see if any common formatting and standards are emerging.

Admittedly, that may be part of my creative urges talking. Honestly if we don't start that in the main thread it might be a good idea to start up some splinter threads so folks can vent those energies. I know I've been holding back to keep things on target.

Ask and ye shall receive!

Would anyone like me to start any other project threads?

[Ursus Spelaeus]

Ask and ye shall receive!

Would anyone like me to start any other project threads?

I started one of my own for Sword Fury, but I haven't gotten any replies yet.
(I should also post the most recent version there, but I'm already working on a huge revision so maybe I will just hold off.)

Are you guys cool with me bouncing ideas for my own game off of you guys, since we are all working on 4E clones here?

*edit*

Honestly, the strongest resource management aspect I saw in most 4e games was with healing surges. Conversing encounter powers was rarely a good idea unless the power in question is situational. Daily powers were generally more spaced out, though I suppose that was more of a "gentleman's agreement" situation. Honestly, I could see revisiting both to firm up specifically what each is supposed to do.

Alternatively, we might consider dropping encounter and daily powers altogether.

I like the idea of roleplaying based refreshes. I believe I saw something like that in The Dying Earth rpg.

Dying Earth is a really cool game. I would be all for this.

[ThePurple]

Alternatively, we might consider dropping encounter and daily powers altogether.

I like daily powers since they're a nice resource to get players to consider the usage of, but I do dislike encounter powers because, so often, they just become a resource that players dump during their first couple of turns in order to generate a massive alpha strike and then proceed to just spam at-wills for the rest of the encounter. I think it would be best if we replaced encounter powers with recharge powers, though, unlike monster recharge powers, have it so that all encounter powers consume the same "slot" that has to be recharged (and said recharge depends upon which encounter power was used). For example, a PC has 2 encounter powers, called power X and power Y; during the first round of the encounter, the PC could use power X, which has a recharge value of 5+, or power Y, which is stronger but has a recharge value of 6+; either way, if they use an encounter power, they can't use it again until they recharge (whether we have PCs recharge off of making at-will attacks or just roll at the start/end of their turns, it doesn't really matter).

One of the things I'd really like to see us do is make it so that powers themselves scale with level (so the encounter power you choose at level 1 gets increased damage die at various intervals rather than being replaced by a stronger version down the line), which allows us to get away with a comparatively smaller list of powers that can be tracked and balanced more effectively.

[Ursus Spelaeus]

I like daily powers since they're a nice resource to get players to consider the usage of, but I do dislike encounter powers because, so often, they just become a resource that players dump during their first couple of turns in order to generate a massive alpha strike and then proceed to just spam at-wills for the rest of the encounter. I think it would be best if we replaced encounter powers with recharge powers, though, unlike monster recharge powers, have it so that all encounter powers consume the same "slot" that has to be recharged (and said recharge depends upon which encounter power was used). For example, a PC has 2 encounter powers, called power X and power Y; during the first round of the encounter, the PC could use power X, which has a recharge value of 5+, or power Y, which is stronger but has a recharge value of 6+; either way, if they use an encounter power, they can't use it again until they recharge (whether we have PCs recharge off of making at-will attacks or just roll at the start/end of their turns, it doesn't really matter).

I can get behind this. We might even consider looking to 3.5's Tome of Battle for some inspiration.

We can use this design space to help differentiate the classes.
It might also be fun to explore alternative mechanics, such as:
>A class with at-will powers that can't be used if you've already used that same at-will power since the beginning of your last turn.
>The Warlord class in 4E already has a class feature that triggers when allies use action points to attack. We might expand on this.
>A martial class with special rider effects that key off of action point usage (a resource I neglected to cover in my earlier post); if you spend an action point to perform an additional action during your turn, and you use the power with that action, the power also gains an additional effect. (We might further play around with the AEDU structure by giving this same class additional action points per day instead of daily powers.)

One of the things I'd really like to see us do is make it so that powers themselves scale with level (so the encounter power you choose at level 1 gets increased damage die at various intervals rather than being replaced by a stronger version down the line), which allows us to get away with a comparatively smaller list of powers that can be tracked and balanced more effectively.

Absolutely. That's one of my biggest complaints about 4E.

[Shimeran]

Are you guys cool with me bouncing ideas for my own game off of you guys, since we are all working on 4E clones here?

I'd say that's the OP's call, but it should be workable if done in moderation, especially if being contrasted to other approaches under consideration.

Alternatively, we might consider dropping encounter and daily powers altogether.

Well each of those serves a couple purposes, so it's worth considering how what if anything should fill those roles.

Encounter powers work to vary character output and options across the course of each combat. Having "you can't use this every round" powers is nice as it can help make rounds more distinctive. I agree the current biggest weakness of encounter powers is that they run out, leaving us a slower (reduced output) and less interesting (fewer options) end to the fight. I'd say replace them with "occasional" powers that each have some limitation that keeps them from being used every round. Said limitation can then vary by class, helping make each more distinctive.

Daily powers serve a somewhat similar role over multiple fights, both boosting output for that fight and allowing for more variation between fights. As with their encounter counterparts, their somewhat wonky bit is how they recharge. At it's best, long rest recharging encourages spacing use of these power, making them act as both strategic resource and clutch power to pull out when thing go wrong. The weak point is that the availability of such rests can vary a lot with plot demands, making them less of restriction under fairly common conditions.

Maybe daily recharges can be improved by tieing them to downtime scenes, as mentioned above. Combine that with say not letting them recharge right after their used to keep the variation up. Maybe they have to wait an hour or complete another encounter before they recharge one of these.

Another option I've toyed with in the past is setting action points as a counter point to daily recharges. For example, have long rests reset action points to 0 but let them gain 1 at the end of each encounter. That makes pressing on a more meaningful choice as the encounter after they rest they will have no action points. If you wanted to emphasize this even more, make spending them an occasional power so if they've stockpiled them they can spend multiple over the course of longer fights.

One of the things I'd really like to see us do is make it so that powers themselves scale with level (so the encounter power you choose at level 1 gets increased damage die at various intervals rather than being replaced by a stronger version down the line), which allows us to get away with a comparatively smaller list of powers that can be tracked and balanced more effectively.

I'd be on board with all powers being able to be scaled up. I'm actually reminded of a "focus pool" idea I had earlier where you can spend them all on a multi-die attack or make multiple single die attacks.

[Bruno Carvalho]

If we're still doing encounter power, I'd suggest that they were transformed into recharge powers (with different recharge numbers based on power balance) and that they begin the battle spent.

[Dacia Brabant]

Are you guys cool with me bouncing ideas for my own game off of you guys, since we are all working on 4E clones here?

That's fine, as long as it's within the context of our discussion here. I'm positive that ideas from other games will continue to be referenced as well, so I don't have a problem with that.

And I agree that encounter powers definitely should be kept, but I also agree encounter powers should be on a recharge system and should scale with level. Dailies though, I've never been completely sold on. I can wrap my head around martial techniques that are difficult enough to pull off that you can't risk performing them repeatedly; ones that you can't perform again until you rest for 6 hours, eh not so much. I would be in favor of treating them as encounter powers that don't recharge.

For action points, I'm currently in a game on this board where the DM awards them to the party when we reach Experience Point thresholds: I'll have to check the math, but I think it works out to 5 action points per level, and if an encounter awards enough EXP over the course of the battle it could trigger hitting multiple thresholds and thus award multiple APs.

[UrielAwakened]

If we're still doing encounter power, I'd suggest that they were transformed into recharge powers (with different recharge numbers based on power balance) and that they begin the battle spent.

I like this, actually. But I would shy away from recharge 6 rolls. I wouldn't go lower than 5. A recharge 6 monster power is basically just an encounter power anyway, as the odds of it happening over the course of one battle is slim.

[ThePurple]

But I would shy away from recharge 6 rolls. I wouldn't go lower than 5. A recharge 6 monster power is basically just an encounter power anyway, as the odds of it happening over the course of one battle is slim.

Unless you include specific utility powers, class features, or leader benefits that allow you to provide bonuses to recharge rolls, which I think we should since it increases tactical options that we can provide to players. I wouldn't make those bonuses to recharge rolls more than +1 for at-wills or +2 for encounter/resource limited features (could also include path and destiny features and magic items), such that a very powerful encounter that merits being recharge 6+ ends up being recharged 50% of the time with the expenditure/use of a particularly powerful mechanism.

[Shimeran]

If we're still doing encounter power, I'd suggest that they were transformed into recharge powers (with different recharge numbers based on power balance) and that they begin the battle spent.

I admit I find an escalating tempo more appealing than the current alpha strike mentality. I also like breaking things up so at wills don't become largely a sign of exhaustion.

I suppose the biggest counter point I have is it makes clearing out lower level foes earlier in the fight harder. However, use of minionization rules can help counter that. On a more general note, starting low does mean the enemy team will tend to stay in full force a bit longer, so we'll need to be ready to adjust for that.

So what's the general opinion? Start strong, ramp up, something in between, vary it by class?

On a related note, I think having a separate d6 roll is unnecessary in general. Tieing it to an existing roll, such as an unmodified attack roll works well enough. In that case, I actually like it triggering of a low roll as then characters get compensation on a miss. Heck, you could have that threshold raise over the course of the battle.

All that being said, I expect triggers may vary between classes. In fact, I can see making some powers unlock when certain conditions are met, though they'd likely need extra restrictions to keep them from being spammed after that happens.

Dailies though, I've never been completely sold on. I can wrap my head around martial techniques that are difficult enough to pull off that you can't risk performing them repeatedly; ones that you can't perform again until you rest for 6 hours, eh not so much. I would be in favor of treating them as encounter powers that don't recharge.

I think it's worth breaking down what dailies give us. What I like about them is:

• Having things you can't do every fight as it makes the fight you do them in more distinctive.
• Having big guns to pull out when things look bleak is very useful.

To that, I'd add ThePurple's:

I like daily powers since they're a nice resource to get players to consider the usage of

Let me know if there are any other points, but we should be able to build a replacement that hits these points. Currently, no one has put forth the long rest requirement as something they really like, so we need not tie it to that.

The simplest swap might just be to say you can't use them again if you used them during the last encounter. However, I suspect we do want to let players recover them all when they have enough downtime as it makes narrative sense. Maybe charging action points to recover them would work, especially if we up the rate to just giving an action point after every encounter. Throw in the restriction that you can only recharge ones you just used during a long rest and I think we'd have a good start.

[Bruno Carvalho]

On a related note, I think having a separate d6 roll is unnecessary in general. Tieing it to an existing roll, such as an unmodified attack roll works well enough. In that case, I actually like it triggering of a low roll as then characters get compensation on a miss. Heck, you could have that threshold raise over the course of the battle.

All that being said, I expect triggers may vary between classes. In fact, I can see making some powers unlock when certain conditions are met, though they'd likely need extra restrictions to keep them from being spammed after that happens.

That's a very nice idea. Having recharge conditions other than "roll high no d6" means we have lots of design space to work. An encounter power designed to "recharge when you miss with a at-will" is quite nice. I like this idea very much.

Dailies

Someone (sorry if I cannot remember why) has already suggested this, but let me bring this back. At-will and encounter are "game-based" triggers. Daily is a "time-based" trigger that really don't mesh well. I'm in for removing "daily" powers and adding "session" powers or even "adventure" powers instead. We have no need to remain in this kind of simulationist heritage from older D&D editions.

[UrielAwakened]

I agree we need something Daily-esque, but it does not necessarily need to recover on a daily basis.

Do we feel like surges are enough of a daily management resource, though?

[Dacia Brabant]

I admit I find an escalating tempo more appealing than the current alpha strike mentality. I also like breaking things up so at wills don't become largely a sign of exhaustion.

I suppose the biggest counter point I have is it makes clearing out lower level foes earlier in the fight harder. However, use of minionization rules can help counter that. On a more general note, starting low does mean the enemy team will tend to stay in full force a bit longer, so we'll need to be ready to adjust for that.

So what's the general opinion? Start strong, ramp up, something in between, vary it by class?

On a related note, I think having a separate d6 roll is unnecessary in general. Tieing it to an existing roll, such as an unmodified attack roll works well enough. In that case, I actually like it triggering of a low roll as then characters get compensation on a miss. Heck, you could have that threshold raise over the course of the battle.

All that being said, I expect triggers may vary between classes. In fact, I can see making some powers unlock when certain conditions are met, though they'd likely need extra restrictions to keep them from being spammed after that happens.

This is really good, but if we do end up going with recharge an encounter on a missed at-will, even if just for one class, we'll need to have it written in the RAW that missing on purpose doesn't count for that, because otherwise that'll get abused.

I think it's worth breaking down what dailies give us. What I like about them is:

• Having things you can't do every fight as it makes the fight you do them in more distinctive.
• Having big guns to pull out when things look bleak is very useful.

To that, I'd add ThePurple's:


Let me know if there are any other points, but we should be able to build a replacement that hits these points. Currently, no one has put forth the long rest requirement as something they really like, so we need not tie it to that.

The simplest swap might just be to say you can't use them again if you used them during the last encounter. However, I suspect we do want to let players recover them all when they have enough downtime as it makes narrative sense. Maybe charging action points to recover them would work, especially if we up the rate to just giving an action point after every encounter. Throw in the restriction that you can only recharge ones you just used during a long rest and I think we'd have a good start.

These are good points, but I'm in agreement with Uriel and Bruno that having it recharge on a daily/time basis is a problem. It feels like a hold-over of Vancian Spellcasting, and that IMO is not a good thing. Running with Bruno's suggestion, we could use something similar to storyteller games and treat encounter powers as "scene" powers and daily powers as "story" powers: something that's memorable and epic (small e) but only happens once until the next adventure.

(Note: I don't think we should use "scene" and "story" as the terminology in the finished product, just using them as examples for how the mechanics might work.)

[UrielAwakened]

Can we explore the possibility of this escalation die for a minute then?

It's an intriguing concept to me.

Could it be a d20 that goes up every time something dramatic happens? Probably something like once at the start of each round, every time someone spends a healing surge, maybe one other thing?

It could be used to affect how the battle is going in some subtle ways or influence what powers are available.

[ThePurple]

I agree we need something Daily-esque, but it does not necessarily need to recover on a daily basis.

One of the house rules I use is that my players can elect to recharge one of their daily *attack* powers instead of gaining an action point whenever they reach a milestone. It works out pretty well.

Do we feel like surges are enough of a daily management resource, though?

Another one of my house rules that I feel works out much better is turning HSs into an adventure management resource by restricting extended rests to only occur when players can actually spend a long time (at least ~1 week) recuperating in a safe location (like an inn, their home, etc.). Going to sleep for the night in the middle of a monster infested dungeon and having every pop back up to full resources never made much sense to me, and it definitely doesn't encourage a playstyle where attrition is actually a danger.

Of course, in addition to this, I have another house rule that, for the purpose of determining your number of healing surges, a player is allowed to use their highest ability modifier - 1 instead of Con if they want to, which normalizes HSs a great deal and makes it so that not everyone feels compelled to crank the living **** out of their Con, which always bothered me since it's basically 4e's "most important stat".

The combination of these two elements has allowed me to create adventures where I can actually expect a all of my players to be down to just a scant few healing surges as opposed to situations I experienced before instituting these rules where, in those few cases when HS management mattered, one (low Con) character almost always ended up with 0 healing surges whereas other (high Con) characters still had half of their HSs, even though both had spent the same.

That's a very nice idea. Having recharge conditions other than "roll high no d6" means we have lots of design space to work. An encounter power designed to "recharge when you miss with a at-will" is quite nice. I like this idea very much.

I'm not quite sure I agree with having a large number of recharge conditions other than the recharge die, mainly because that creates a lot of balance fuzziness, and balance was always one of the strongest elements of 4e that we're trying to maintain. I would personally argue for the use of a recharge die (if only for simplicity's sake) and account for the desired non-roll recharges via various feats that improve recharge chance whenever you meet certain conditions (like a feat that gives you a +2 bonus to your next recharge die whenever you miss with an at-will attack).

I also think we should replace players have a number of different encounter powers that all recharge separately and replace them with a number of encounter power options (that increase with level) that all use the same recharge, so players can't just dump encounter powers all at once.

Of course, I think this should only apply to attack powers and that utility powers should definitely follow the standard design.

[Shimeran]

Do we feel like surges are enough of a daily management resource, though?

Surges are pretty good at reflecting exhaustion over a long work day. As is, dailies tend to burn out faster, so they're a bit more prone to leaving you high and dry if you underestimate how many encounters are left in the day. Whether that's a good thing or a bad one is up for debate.

This is really good, but if we do end up going with recharge an encounter on a missed at-will, even if just for one class, we'll need to have it written in the RAW that missing on purpose doesn't count for that, because otherwise that'll get abused.

Well tieing the trigger to an unmodified roll makes intentional misses harder and we'll want the "bag of rats" rule in place to avoid attack exploits anyway.

Running with Bruno's suggestion, we could use something similar to storyteller games and treat encounter powers as "scene" powers and daily powers as "story" powers: something that's memorable and epic (small e) but only happens once until the next adventure.

Can we explore the possibility of this escalation die for a minute then?

It's an intriguing concept to me.

Could it be a d20 that goes up every time something dramatic happens? Probably something like once at the start of each round, every time someone spends a healing surge, maybe one other thing?

It could be used to affect how the battle is going in some subtle ways or influence what powers are available.

This actually reminds me of a desperation mechanic I was toying with a while ago. Start the meter off low, raise it as the fight drags on, maybe give it a kicker for climactic fights. I could see doing something similar and requiring the tension reach a certain threshold before daily powers can be used, so long as you don't mind them only coming out at big fights or ones that have gone horribly wrong.

One of the house rules I use is that my players can elect to recharge one of their daily *attack* powers instead of gaining an action point whenever they reach a milestone.

That's fairly close to the "charge an action point" idea I popped out earlier, so good to see it's worked well on field tests.

Another one of my house rules that I feel works out much better is turning HSs into an adventure management resource by restricting short rests to only occur when players can actually spend a long time (at least ~1 week) recuperating in a safe location (like an inn, their home, etc.). Going to sleep for the night in the middle of a monster infested dungeon and having every pop back up to full resources never made much sense to me, and it definitely doesn't encourage a playstyle where attrition is actually a danger.

Did you mean long rests here?

I will say this did make me think of giving back a few surges for limited rest or similar chances to recoup. Sprinkle a few extra surges through the adventure to give you more leeway in stretching out those full refreshes.

I would personally argue for the use of a recharge die (if only for simplicity's sake) and account for the desired non-roll recharges via various feats that improve recharge chance whenever you meet certain conditions (like a feat that gives you a +2 bonus to your next recharge die whenever you miss with an at-will attack).

I'm not sure adding an extra die just for recharging is that much simpler than the other options being discussed.

[ThePurple]

Did you mean long rests here?

Yerp. Meant to say "extended rests" instead of short rests. I'll go edit it.

I will say this did make me think of giving back a few surges for limited rest or similar chances to recoup. Sprinkle a few extra surges through the adventure to give you more leeway in stretching out those full refreshes.

I occasionally do this, but, in general, I haven't really seen the need for it ever since I instituted the rule that allows players to use highest ability mod - 1 for HSs. I have a tendency to design a single adventure (e.g. no extended rests) to provide all of the experience for an entire level, and it works out very well: players are stressed just enough on their resources to make it matter but no so much as to have them run out of resources partway through even with good play.

[Shimeran]

Out of curiosity, how do folks feel about using glancing blows to treat the dual ability defense issues? Specifically, I was thinking of something like this: say an attack vs reflex did half damage if it beat either your int or dex defense (calculated as normal). If you invest in both, you get full protection and enemies either hit full on or miss. If you pump one over the other, you get the same chance of avoiding a full hit, you've just got a chance of taking a reduced hit based on how big you let the gap get.

[ThePurple]

Out of curiosity, how do folks feel about using glancing blows to treat the dual ability defense issues?

Too complex and reduces the elegance that 4e is famous for. Also, that's simply encouraging people to double up on one NAD, which ends up screwing them over on another. You'd have to basically provide universal increases to all ability scores (thereby eliminating ability score customization beyond character creation) in order to not have the progressions get completely screwed up (which is one of the problems with 4e's existing endgame).

[Shimeran]

I've noticed we're got a lot of ideas going in different directions. I'd hate to see that do in a solid attempt at bringing a 4e stand in to a usable state. As such, I've been thinking of setting up a kind of skeletal base game that can be easily modded and built upon. Basically start with fundamentals and build up toward a 4e like game by layering on mechanics in increments.

For the seed, I'm thinking of borrowing a page from Ursus Spelaeus's Sword Fury by defining what characters can do in formatted blocks. I'm working on the terminology and format now, but if we've still got active readers I'll post while I work. Either way, I'm aiming to make sure a framework gets out there and into open licence territory so this or future attempts have some groundwork to build on.

[Bruno Carvalho]

We do still get active readers. Bring it on!

[Shimeran]

Alright then. I've actually got a fair backlog of ideas but didn't want to monopolize the thread. For the underlying system, I'll be aiming toward simplicity with the idea that this can always be expanded later.

First, a brief not on terminology. I'm currently calling the mechanical elements attached to game world objects it's features. The most common and basic features being traits that assign number values to qualities of the character and abilities that define what characters can do. For details on that last choice of terms, dig into the spoiler.

Spoiler: Abilities and Modifiers

Show

I went with ability as it the lightest name I could think of that covers "something the character can do". Under this approach we can still call strength and it's kin ability modifiers, though honestly the names is a bit clunky. I'm actually leaning toward "talents" or "core traits" as an alternative.

Now for the ability blocks, I was thinking of using this template:

Name
Tags
Action(type): do something to target
Outcome: details
Check: trait against trait

• Success: details
• Failure: details

Trained: details
Boosted: details

For the line items..

• Action cover what the character is doing, covering action type as well as targetting embedded in an in world description of what the character is doing.
• Outcome is the guaranteed effect line.
• Check takes the roll of the attack line, generalized for non-attack use.
• Trained is an optional bit in case we want to give extra perks when an ability is trained, beyond the default check bonus.
• Boosted shows how the ability is improved when it gets a power boost. We can then provide those boost through limited use powers and character progression..

So taken all together, we might have something like this:

Strike
Combat, Offensive
Action(major): You try to hit an adjacent enemy with your own limbs or an improvised weapon.
Check: strength against armor and dexterity

• Success: The target takes 1d4 + strength bashing damage.

Boosted: On a success, the target takes an extra die of damage per boost.

Anyone wondering about the check line can look here.

Spoiler: Strike Defense

Show

I used two opposed traits instead of 1 to give the flexible coverage of dual stat defenses without the extra number to track. The basic system is set to just use traits directly as phasing them in should be easy on offshots that want to do so. Part of the design philosophy here is it's easier to add mechanics than remove them on embedded.

As for it specifically being armor vs dexterity, that lets us treat the armored quality as separate and independent from agility, potentially cutting down on the need for separate light armor rules.

Finally, I was thinking of grouping class features into "styles" for easy reference. So each class would have a "combat style" and at least 1 other style. I'm thinking exploration, persuasion, and investigation to roughly map to the physical, social, and mental skill challenge groups in the obsidion skill challenge.

[Bruno Carvalho]

First, a brief not on terminology.

Spoiler: Terminlogy

Show

I'm currently calling the mechanical elements attached to game world objects it's features. The most common and basic features being traits that assign number values to qualities of the character and abilities that define what characters can do. For details on that last choice of terms, dig into the spoiler.

Spoiler: Abilities and Modifiers

Show

I went with ability as it the lightest name I could think of that covers "something the character can do". Under this approach we can still call strength and it's kin ability modifiers, though honestly the names is a bit clunky. I'm actually leaning toward "talents" or "core traits" as an alternative.

Now for the ability blocks, I was thinking of using this template:

Name
Tags
Action(type): do something to target
Outcome: details
Check: trait against trait

• Success: details
• Failure: details

Trained: details
Boosted: details

For the line items..

• Action cover what the character is doing, covering action type as well as targetting embedded in an in world description of what the character is doing.
• Outcome is the guaranteed effect line.
• Check takes the roll of the attack line, generalized for non-attack use.
• Trained is an optional bit in case we want to give extra perks when an ability is trained, beyond the default check bonus.
• Boosted shows how the ability is improved when it gets a power boost. We can then provide those boost through limited use powers and character progression..

I'm fine with the terminology. Maybe we could use Roll20's terminology (attributes and abilities), but traits & abilities also are good.

So taken all together, we might have something like this:

Strike
Combat, Offensive
Action(major): You try to hit an adjacent enemy with your own limbs or an improvised weapon.
Check: strength against armor and dexterity

• Success: The target takes 1d4 + strength bashing damage.

Boosted: On a success, the target takes an extra die of damage per boost.

Anyone wondering about the check line can look here.

Spoiler: Strike Defense

Show

I used two opposed traits instead of 1 to give the flexible coverage of dual stat defenses without the extra number to track. The basic system is set to just use traits directly as phasing them in should be easy on offshots that want to do so. Part of the design philosophy here is it's easier to add mechanics than remove them on embedded.

As for it specifically being armor vs dexterity, that lets us treat the armored quality as separate and independent from agility, potentially cutting down on the need for separate light armor rules.

Finally, I was thinking of grouping class features into "styles" for easy reference. So each class would have a "combat style" and at least 1 other style. I'm thinking exploration, persuasion, and investigation to roughly map to the physical, social, and mental skill challenge groups in the obsidion skill challenge.

I disagree with that. I'd still go for derived values, be they AC, Ref, Surge Value or something like that. What if you got a something that add +2 to ref or +1 to surge value? It would read quite wonky. Also, what about heavy armor? "This armor does not add any other trait to any check' defense involving armor"?

[Shimeran]

I'm fine with the terminology. Maybe we could use Roll20's terminology (attributes and abilities), but traits & abilities also are good.

I can certainly see that. "Attributes" was an earlier choice. How about we split the difference and have attributes cover the standard six and leave traits as the umbrella term that includes derived values.

I disagree with that. I'd still go for derived values, be they AC, Ref, Surge Value or something like that. What if you got a something that add +2 to ref or +1 to surge value?

I've got nothing against having derived traits. It's just that defenses are one of those places where people are divided. Some folks was the standard pairings, some suggest alternate parings, others change the calculations all together, and so on.

So for this first pass, I ran attribute based defenses rather than derived ones. My thinking being that it's easy enough to write rules such as say "When you defend with dexterity, you can use intelligence instead." to stand in for the fixed pairings. I'd certainly be open to alternative, as this was meant to be a lightweight default. One a side note, dynamic pairing does allow for things like say pairing Int and Wis to avoid being tricked or Str and Dex to avoid being pinned.

It would read quite wonky. Also, what about heavy armor? "This armor does not add any other trait to any check' defense involving armor"?

As written, you'd just use the higher of armor or dexterity, so high dex characters would likely only use armor for it's enchantments. The funny thing is it's actually light armor that makes thing more complicated.

We can allow armor to add to dex defense, but them we get complications that up the complexity. For example, that lets armor + dex get higher than most defenses, which in turn means either attacks vs armor need to be higher to compensate or more defenses need to get similar item bonuses. I'd be fine to having things like "will armor", perhaps as a magic item effect. It's just something we need to plan around.

[Bruno Carvalho]

What if there were 4 defenses: Armor, Fort, Ref and Will.

Fort/Ref/Will would be only base values (usually 10 to 12 based on class for starters).

Attacks that targetted Fort/Ref/Will would be against defense+stat (like Strenght vs Fort+Con)

Armor would be equal to armor bonus.

Attacks that targetted Armor would be against only Armor (without adding any other stat)

Armor would be calculated as such: If wearing heavy armor, equal to armor value (for example 16 to Chain mail or 18 for plate mail). If wearing light armor, base + stat (For example, 12+(higher of dex or int) for leather armor or 10+(higher of dex or int) in case of cloth armor)

[ThePurple]

• Trained is an optional bit in case we want to give extra perks when an ability is trained, beyond the default check bonus.
• Boosted shows how the ability is improved when it gets a power boost. We can then provide those boost through limited use powers and character progression..

I disagree with these two, mainly because I think that augmentation of powers is more appropriate for class features as opposed to the power entry itself. The one exception to this would be level based progression of the damage/success capability of the power (e.g. encounter powers listed as doing more damage at level 7, 17, 27, etc.).

I used two opposed traits instead of 1 to give the flexible coverage of dual stat defenses without the extra number to track. The basic system is set to just use traits directly as phasing them in should be easy on offshots that want to do so. Part of the design philosophy here is it's easier to add mechanics than remove them on embedded.

I agree with Bruno here, mainly because checking against a single specific attribute forces people to, from a defensive perspective, keep all of their ability mods high. It also has problems with balancing light v. heavy armor if both are intended to apply to AC (I could see AC being purely DEX/INT based if we have heavy armor apply resistance or temp hp, but those are really wonky to balance).

Derived values allow us to have multiple sources for determining those derived values, which is a good thing. It's slightly more complicated, but the pros most definitely outweigh the cons.

Finally, I was thinking of grouping class features into "styles" for easy reference. So each class would have a "combat style" and at least 1 other style.

That gets really weird with the terminology, especially if you want to apply the same terminology to both combat and non-combat. Limiting characters to a non-combat style also ends up giving us the exact same problems that 4e has with skill challenges, where some people are basically worthless outside of the specific domain of their trained skills and feel useless in those skill challenges.

I'm thinking exploration, persuasion, and investigation to roughly map to the physical, social, and mental skill challenge groups in the obsidion skill challenge.

I really prefer physical, social, and mental mainly because there is a *lot* of overlap in the categories you mentioned. If players are trying to find a criminal, is it investigation (finding physical clues) or persuasion (finding/convincing witnesses)? Is Perception an investigation or an exploration skill?

The best way to categorize skills, as I see it, is to set them up as physical, mental, and social so that characters are all reasonably well rounded and then, for skill challenges, rather than categorizing which skills can be used for what, tell the GM to describe the skill challenge or situation and then ask players to describe their actions and then have the GM adjudicate which skill and ability mod should be used (we should include an "example script" as well as some guidelines for the adjudication). Skill challenges are, by their very nature, much more freeform than combat is since they cover *so many more* types of situations.

As for the use of skills in combat, we would definitely need explicit guidelines for those, like saying outright that jumping or climbing is Athletics + (STR or DEX) v. whatever-we-decide-DCs-are (I actually think that the "damage" die is more appropriate for those than skill checks; a skill check for a jump basically determines if you tripped and fell or screwed up your landing whereas the success roll determines how far you actually jumped; jumping is itself trivially easy to do whereas the quality of your success is actually important; conversely, a skill check for climbing would be determined by the surface you're climbing and distance would determine how far you travel so both would be appropriate) or that a check to hide is Stealth + (INT or DEX) v. 10 + target's Perception (since that's basically binary; either they see you or they don't; of course, we could always find a use for the success roll, like providing temp hp or resistance equal to the success roll while you are hidden in order to represent whatever you're hiding behind soaking up some of the hit or only exposing less vital areas).

What if there were 4 defenses: Armor, Fort, Ref and Will.

Fort/Ref/Will would be only base values (usually 10 to 12 based on class for starters).

Attacks that targetted Fort/Ref/Will would be against defense+stat (like Strenght vs Fort+Con)

Armor would be equal to armor bonus.

Attacks that targetted Armor would be against only Armor (without adding any other stat)

Armor would be calculated as such: If wearing heavy armor, equal to armor value (for example 16 to Chain mail or 18 for plate mail). If wearing light armor, base + stat (For example, 12+(higher of dex or int) for leather armor or 10+(higher of dex or int) in case of cloth armor)

That replaces character creation complexity with play complexity, which is a bad thing. A higher level of complexity during creation/between play is perfectly fine. A higher level of complexity during play is a definitely bad thing because it bogs things down in things that aren't really appropriate for combat, like math and checking multiple values. Play should be very streamlined and having explicit values for "attacks" and "defenses" with a limited number of situational modifiers is much more desirable than having to combine multiple values on the fly with a large number of situational modifiers.