Creating an Open 4e

[OldSalt]

The thought struck me, with the discussion of a Pathfinder D&D4, that there is a legal way you could create an open version of 4e.

Nethack is probably one of the best non-Hasbro/WoTC/TSR open license versions of D&D, which survived TSR's extensive campaign of copyright legal action (before WoTC bought it) unscathed.

If you never heard of this ASCII classic you may have heard of the Roguelike genre. It is a hack and slay version of D&D, enriched with decades of geek humour. Within the game is pretty much a complete role-playing game that you can play around a table.

The way to make a 4e version would be to extract the game and derive this game from Nethack as D&D4 was derived from D&D.

We already know the hole of 4e would either have to be bought or rewritten. This suggests using a base version of D&D, which is probably proven to be litigation proof, could be a wiser and cheaper option.

The drawback is that any derivation wouod need to comply with the Nethack license, which is not too onerous for a free RPG.

I'd propose the names "HackRole" for the project but people seeking to preserve the distinctive nature of 4e can probably summarise the project better in a single name.

[ScrivenerofDoom]

All you need is the OGL and you could clone 4E legally.

But why would you do it?

It's not a particularly popular edition and cloning it would require a lot of work. I would rather spend that time actually running the game than trying to create a rewrite of something I already have.

I don't say this to be cynical or negative but I spent too much time in the 80s trying to fix the mess that was Gygaxian D&D. Eventually I decided it was just better to play the game and have a life as well. :)

[oxybe]

And yet someone did clean up the eighties' D&D and that's how we got retro clones.

I also don't know what kind of market there is for such a thing but RPGs in the style of 4th Ed aren't common and scratches an itch few games currently out do.

4th Ed had issues but it's a heck of a lot better at the pulp-action genre without going the rules light route, and seeing what we can do to put the game back in roleplaying games would be a movement I could get behind.

[ScrivenerofDoom]

And yet someone did clean up the eighties' D&D and that's how we got retro clones.

I also don't know what kind of market there is for such a thing but RPGs in the style of 4th Ed aren't common and scratches an itch few games currently out do.

4th Ed had issues but it's a heck of a lot better at the pulp-action genre without going the rules light route, and seeing what we can do to put the game back in roleplaying games would be a movement I could get behind.

Yes, but Gygaxian D&D was an unplayable mess as written so a big attraction of the clones was actually getting a properly-written ruleset.

By contrast, 4E works. Also, when the retroclones first started getting circulation, the idea of buying earlier editions as PDFs hadn't yet hit. Now, you can buy a PDF version of 4E, or most other games except 5E (legally), which removes another key motive for spending your limited time designing a clone.

In short, if you like 4E keep playing it. The books are still available both in hard copy and online, and there are offline versions of all the tools so that side of 4E is covered as well.

Of course, if your time isn't valuable, my comments don't make as much sense.

[oxybe]

Yes, but Gygaxian D&D was an unplayable mess as written so a big attraction of the clones was actually getting a properly-written ruleset.

By contrast, 4E works. Also, when the retroclones first started getting circulation, the idea of buying earlier editions as PDFs hadn't yet hit. Now, you can buy a PDF version of 4E, or most other games except 5E (legally), which removes another key motive for spending your limited time designing a clone.

In short, if you like 4E keep playing it. The books are still available both in hard copy and online, and there are offline versions of all the tools so that side of 4E is covered as well.

So?

Just because something works we shouldn't try to improve upon it via iterations? That's a pretty sad outlook.

I want to see where people can take our functional framework and try to make it better.

Of course, if your time isn't valuable, my comments don't make as much sense.

If your time was valuable, you probably wouldn't be spending it on gaming forums telling us we're wasting our time on personal projects, so please cut the condescending tone if you want me to not just block you entirely because the denseness of the hypocrisy in what you're saying is why your comments don't make much sense to me.

TTRPGs are in themselves an exercise in wasting time that could be spent doing many other more productive things. There little productivity or worth in sitting around pretending to be a magical elf outside of just having fun.

[Yakk]

My issue with this is simple.

Do we fix design issues with 4e or not?

Spoiler

Show

Gear becomes ridiculously required at high levels (remove +12 AC, +6 to hit, +6 to non-AC defences, and your charcter becomes helpless against level-appropriate threats).

Muliti-tap dominance over hard hits (caused by loss of control of static bonuses to damage rolls, and poorly scaling large hits).

Multiclass/Hybrid/PMC/HMC fuzz (a pile of mechanics to emulate being part-way between classes).

Customization optimization creep (with 30-odd "picks" (feats, gear, pp, ed, powers), even a small amount of stacking optimization on each one results in level 30 characters who are basically playing different games. If each of your 30 picks makes you 1.04x as strong as the alternative at level 30, you end up 3x as strong. If each of the picks makes you 1.1x as strong, you end up 17x as strong.)

Rituals and Martial Practices.

Skill modifier scaling, skill challenges, and divergent stats.

Non-AC defences divergence.

AC optimization failure trap.

Awkward economy of 1000s or 1000000s of gps.

Weaplement dominance.

Implement juggling.

... off the top of my head. (some bigger issues than others)

[ScrivenerofDoom]

So?

Just because something works we shouldn't try to improve upon it via iterations? That's a pretty sad outlook.

I want to see where people can take our functional framework and try to make it better. (snip)

That's not what I said nor what was being said.

The context of my comment was a discussion involving the rewriting of 4E to make it open source.

I'll leave your straw man to scare off the crows....

(snip) If your time was valuable, you probably wouldn't be spending it on gaming forums telling us we're wasting our time on personal projects, so please cut the condescending tone if you want me to not just block you entirely because the denseness of the hypocrisy in what you're saying is why your comments don't make much sense to me.

TTRPGs are in themselves an exercise in wasting time that could be spent doing many other more productive things. There little productivity or worth in sitting around pretending to be a magical elf outside of just having fun.

Do what you want. But, as you have plenty of time, perhaps you could read my comments in context? I am talking about the time that would be wasted rewriting 4E not with a goal of improving it, but purely with a goal to keeping it "alive", so to speak.

Now, can you understand what I am talking about?

[ThePurple]

Gear becomes ridiculously required at high levels (remove +12 AC, +6 to hit, +6 to non-AC defences, and your charcter becomes helpless against level-appropriate threats).

Personally, I don't really have a problem with the gear dependence all that much because part of 4e's appeal is that it's built around the classic MMO gear-acquisition model (i.e. you gotta get loot as much as you gotta get xp; level doesn't that mean much without the tools to support it).

Of course, if you want to go with a more classical feel (even classical heroes still had "their" special item), I think that you can extrapolate ki focuses to solve it effectively (my rebuilt 4e ruleset just refers to it as your "focus"). Ki focuses occupy an abstract slot and apply their enhancement bonus to any kind of attack you make but do not apply other specialized bonuses. In my rebuilt ruleset, you set a single item with a bonus as your "focus" (whether it be neck, implement, armor, or arm slot) and it provides your enhancement bonus for everything (defs, attack bonus, damage bonus, skill checks), such that you only require a single magic item to get the math right. As long as no one else claims your focus and attunes to it, you keep that enh bonus even if the item is taken from you (it's more of an abstract thing so allow players to keep their enh bonus even when they're divested of their gear temporarily; the item has to be taken for an extended period of time for them to actually "lose" it).

There's still advantages in having a full kit of magic items (derived from the non-enh bonuses) but it's not as crippling to not have it.

As to the AC requirements for armor, for me, that's solved by changing how armor contributes to AC. In my tweak, AC is governed by your key-defensive-stat (governed by class, each class gets to pick from 2-3 diff stats); the simple armors (cloth, chain) provide no further increase to AC, the "martial" armors (leather, scale) provide a +1 bonus, and the superior armors (hide, plate) provide a +2 bonus; heavy armor also provides scaling resistance to all damage (I'm not sure what value to set it at; I'm currently torn between "1 per tier" and "1 + enh"). I'm also removing the skill check penalty for heavy armor (since I'm overhauling the skill system as a whole and my general feeling is that, if you're a skill based hero proficient in using armor, you shouldn't be penalized for it) but keeping the speed penalty in place (as such, you either get improved survivability via resistance or improved mobility via no speed penalty).

Muliti-tap dominance over hard hits (caused by loss of control of static bonuses to damage rolls, and poorly scaling large hits).

This is fixed in my version by actually fixing the math so that large hits actually scale properly (standard action recharge and milestone attacks get *much* larger dice pools; non-standard attacks have much more limited dice pools) and keeping a lot more control over static bonuses.

Multiclass/Hybrid/PMC/HMC fuzz (a pile of mechanics to emulate being part-way between classes).

I've never liked hybrids so I got rid of them completely (pretty much every hybrid build I've seen is intended as a power-gaming set up not as an actual "fighter-mage" or "fill the needed gap in a party short on players" role that it was intended for). Multiclassing via feats was interesting but way too powerful for a feat slot.

My solution is pretty simple: multiclassing is now only accessible through your theme. If you want to multiclass fighter, you sacrifice your theme to get those advantages, which keeps it balanced.

Customization optimization creep (with 30-odd "picks" (feats, gear, pp, ed, powers), even a small amount of stacking optimization on each one results in level 30 characters who are basically playing different games. If each of your 30 picks makes you 1.04x as strong as the alternative at level 30, you end up 3x as strong. If each of the picks makes you 1.1x as strong, you end up 17x as strong.)

That just comes down to balancing out the choices.

Rituals and Martial Practices.

I've already gone over my solutions for this elsewhere.

Skill modifier scaling, skill challenges, and divergent stats.

Huge rebuild of this that causes skills to follow the same math and "roll to hit then roll for damage" paradigm that the rest of the 4e system uses.

Non-AC defences divergence.

I'm assuming you're referring to tertiary defenses becoming complete rubbish in paragon/epic tier. The solution to this one is actually pretty simple: provide +1 to 3 different stats instead of only 2 different stats at levels ending in 4 and 8; this allows players to improve their tertiary stat at the same rate as their primary and secondary to preserve the growth rate.

AC optimization failure trap.

Not sure what you mean by this.

Awkward economy of 1000s or 1000000s of gps.

I've shifted my games away from a value economy (e.g. carrying around a listed amount of GP) to a magic item economy with an abstracted credit rating: high cost items (like major magic items) are provided via quests/adventures and small expenditures are treated abstractly by a value depending upon level (I'm still working on the explicit mechanics, but it's basically a stat that they roll to see if they can purchase and how many they can purchase of a low cost item).

[quote]Weaplement dominance.

Implement juggling.[/spoiler]

I haven't really encountered either of these in my games so I haven't really had to address them (though it's entirely possible that I've just passively houseruled or GMed them into just not happening; I've done this with a lot of absurd optimization things).

[darkbard]

I've shifted my games away from a value economy (e.g. carrying around a listed amount of GP) to a magic item economy with an abstracted credit rating: high cost items (like major magic items) are provided via quests/adventures and small expenditures are treated abstractly by a value depending upon level (I'm still working on the explicit mechanics, but it's basically a stat that they roll to see if they can purchase and how many they can purchase of a low cost item).

I wonder if this oft-neglected table from Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium might prove useful to you in this endeavor:

Pocket Change
It’s sometimes useful to know how much money a character might typically have on hand. The table below gives minor and major purchase values (in gp) for a character of a given level. A character can make a minor purchase with the monetary treasure he or she might earn in a single combat encounter, skill challenge, or minor quest. Major purchases are those the character would have to save up for an entire level’s worth of adventuring to afford. A mage’s tower (priced at 10,000 gp) is a major purchase when you’re level 15, but a minor expense when you’re level 22.

Level Minor Major
1 10 144
2 20 208
3 30 271
4 40 336
5 50 400
6 75 720
7 100 1,040
8 125 1,360
9 150 1,680
10 200 2,000
11 350 3,600
12 500 5,200
13 650 6,800
14 800 8,400
15 1,000 10,000
16 1,800 18,000
17 2,600 26,000
18 3,400 34,000
19 4,200 42,000
20 5,000 50,000
21 9,000 90,000
22 13,000 130,000
23 17,000 170,000
24 21,000 210,000
25 25,000 250,000
26 45,000 450,000
27 65,000 650,000
28 85,000 850,000
29 105,000 1,050,000
30 125,000 1,250,000

[Yakk]

Purple, sure I get they can be fixed.

But then you end up something that isn't an open 4e clone, but rather a similar game.

---

My preferred solution to the enhancement bonus problem is to remove scaling enhancement bonuses to AC/NAD/ATK completely. A magic/superior item simply grants +1.

The d20 rolls and defences are too important to leave to gear to matter (and for that matter, to stat picks).

---

The AC trap is like the shaman without heavy armor with wis primary and con secondary. With no dex or int bump, their AC dies as they gain levels. (You can also see this with Hybrids). It is a trap in that it seems viable at low levels; but as you gain levels becomes increasingly less viable.

---

NADs both diverge and suck at high levels. They diverge because you only boost 2; they suck, because even with the stat boost you are an increasing number of points under the system-expected +1 to each NAD per level.

Even granting boosts to 3 stats doesn't fix this.

---

4e forces tight control on your attributes because they are used to modify d20 rolls. You cannot have a PC with 100 strength; it breaks the game.

If strength modified damage and not to-hit, you could have a class that got insane strength.

This is because d20 rolls are affine; a +5 at level 1 over another critter has the same impact as a +5 at level 30 over another critter.

Someone who is 4 points stronger at level 1 and someone who is 4 points stronger at level 30 have a similar compartive advantage on d20 rolls.

Damage rolls are linear with respect to (level+3) (roughly). A +5 at level 1 over another critter is the same as a +41 at level 30, roughly.

Someone who is 4 points stronger at level 1 has a much larger damage roll advantage than someone who is 4 points stronger at level 30.

I am seriously tempted to fix 4e by making an attack here.

Here is a modifier scaling with an exponential growth factor of sqrt(2):

Spoiler

Show

0-1: -6
2-3: -5
4-5: -4
6: -3
7: -2
8: -1
9-11: +0
12: +1
13: +2
14: +3
15-16: +4
17-18: +5
19-22: +6
23-26: +7
27-33: +8
34-42: +9
43-56: +10
57-74: +11
75-101: +12
102-138: +13
etc. (the width of stats that grant +4 is twice as wide as the width of stats that grant +2)

Imagine a 4e where your "modifier" is the above, and the other values used is (raw) stat/2.

Now a character with 100 strength has a +12/+50 modifier depending on what you are modifying. That won't break the game.

Or, we simply remove Stats from modifying your to hit/NAD/AC/etc completely, and just have it impact damage and equivalent...

But this goes off the reservation a bit.

[ChaosOS]

I've recently decided to re-open my "Fix 4e" files, and here are some key points from my latest attempt (WIP):

First off, the usual math fixes and inherent bonuses.

Feats are the biggest rework. Instead of getting them every 2 levels, at levels 4/14/24 you get a feat from a pool based on your source, and at 8/18/28 you get a feat from a pool based on your class. The theory here is that 5e had a really good idea of condensing feats down to a smaller number of more meaningful choices than the huge number that 3.pf and 4e provide.

Items are the other key piece. Instead of the huge bloat of powers and passives, I'm going to severely cut down on the number of items available to 1/2/3 "Major Items" you can attune to per tier (Have an active and significant combat contribution) and the rest of your slots are minor items (Tentatively at 3/5/7) that focus on out of combat utility and small benefits.

[darkbard]

Why not just implement inherent bonuses and use wondrous items etc. for non-combat utility?

[ChaosOS]

I think that the other half of the issue in 4e wasn't just the treadmill of bonuses; It wasn't hard to hand out appropriate +1/2/3 weapon/armor/necks, the issue on my end was just how many other magic items the players were getting in addition to that. Plus the power level spread of different items was huge.

[neonchameleon]

My issue with this is simple.

Do we fix design issues with 4e or not?

Gear becomes ridiculously required at high levels (remove +12 AC, +6 to hit, +6 to non-AC defences, and your charcter becomes helpless against level-appropriate threats).

We absolutely make inherent bonuses as the default rather than a very commonly used optional rule. This one was fixed within the run of 4e (and makes magic items so much cooler) - I don't see it as terribly different from using MM3 math or the final iteration of skill challenges.

And this also has the impact of deflating the economy (which has the knock-on effect of making the ritual system not so egregious).

[darkbard]

And this also has the impact of deflating the economy (which has the knock-on effect of making the ritual system not so egregious).

Do you simply mean by removing the 2 (magic item) parcels from the 10 parcels/level structure of the DMG (as suggested when implementing the fixed enhancement bonus system) or something different? Like divorcing magic items from the economy entirely? Regardless, how has this affected the ritual system in your game?

I don't know if you've seen it yet (though I have noticed you've begun posting on ENWorld again recently), but some of us have been discussing there how one might establish a rewards system for 4E that is separate from the, essentially, character combat-effectiveness building system that is the edition's default.

If you're interested: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthr...&prefixid=wotc

[Beoric]

We absolutely make inherent bonuses as the default rather than a very commonly used optional rule.

Yes. Although it might be worth tweaking it to allow magic items to still have some impact. Maybe remove inherent crit damage, and make inherent bonuses one point less than you would expect to achieve with level-appropriate magic items.

So at level 7 you get a +1 attack/damage bonus, and at level 9 you get a +1 defence bonus, where with the current system you would have +2 for both.

[ScrivenerofDoom]

For rewards, I give boring treasure if you choose the boring bits of the campaign and I give rare items if you act like heroic adventurers and pursue the hooks. The players seem to have worked this out now.

[UrielAwakened]

We absolutely make inherent bonuses as the default rather than a very commonly used optional rule. This one was fixed within the run of 4e (and makes magic items so much cooler) - I don't see it as terribly different from using MM3 math or the final iteration of skill challenges.

And this also has the impact of deflating the economy (which has the knock-on effect of making the ritual system not so egregious).

I'll always disagree with this.

Gear is fun. Bigger numbers are fun.

Taking away the scaling +1/+6 bonus fixes a problem that doesn't exist.

The problems with math are with the stats and the scaling bonuses to hit, rather than the necessity of three item slots be filled.

[Yakk]

The problem with stat bonuses is a few fold.

The first is that it requires that you give out items/cash at a particular rate. Fall behind, and your characters do to. This isn't a huge problem.

The second problem is that you have to give out *particular types of items* to match what players need, or *plenty of time and resources to customize items*. This is a larger problem.

The third problem is that being "disarmed" gets exponentially worse at high levels.

A level 5 party who loses their stuff and has to use improvised gear is weakened by a fair amount, but can muddle through against level appropriate foes.

A level 25 party who loses their stuff and has to use improvised gear is utterly incompetent against level-appropriate foes.

The level 5 party suffers a -1-4 to hit (and an extra -1-2 with weapons). The level 25 party suffers a -9-10 to hit, and an extra -1-2 with weapons.

A -5 to hit is *really painful*. A -12 to hit means *you never hit*.

Similar stuff happens with defence.

Your heros becoming more gear dependent is a side effet of the 4e system.

---

Attribute bonuses only cause a massive problem if people don't pick their attack stat and bump it, or if they are light armor and don't bump their AC boosting stat.

---

The half-level bonus only causes a massive problem in that it forces a steep power curve on the game. Creatures a few levels below/above are mainly weak/strong because of the ATK/DEF differences.

In short, it mandates the power curve.

---

A scaling factor that modifies an affine check (like a d20+mods vs DC) either has to be kept in check, or it quickly domiantes all other factors.

The overall +1/level mod means that foes far away in level ... are dominated by the fact that you always hit, and they always miss, or vice versa.

Enchantment bonuses to hit/defend are similar, in that once they scale far enough, all your other choices stop mattering. If you cannot connect, and they always do, you lose. Or you build your character around not making attack rolls, and defend through something different than defences.

[Duff]

I'd like to make a suggestion if you're rebuilding a 4e style game:
Try to share around Base stats and roles more. For example, there should be a wisdom based defender, and a few controllers based off the physical stats. And why no intelligent strikers? Each PC race (or at least each of the main ones) should be viable in each role. If here isn't going to be a class for each stat in each role, then there should be some other support. Maybe feats for half orc controllers?

[ThePurple]

Try to share around Base stats and roles more.

One of the things I've done in my homebrew version is build every class with multiple roles, similar to how the berserker barbarian from HotF works. I've got a "Warrior" (intended to embody the traditional knight) that starts off defender but, as soon as it uses "Inspiring Word", it becomes a leader (losing the marking aura and retributive attack, but becoming able to apply the bonuses of its at-will attacks to any ally within 5 instead of only themself). Rogue is a controller/striker. I completely redesigned Wizards so that they gain mastery over schools of magic (start with 2 at level 1 but gain additional schools as they level up) but can only cast spells from one school at a time (and they have to spend a standard action or a limited resource mid-combat in order to change their current school); schools have different roles (Abjuration is leader, Evocation is artillery, Illusion is controller, Alteration is striker, etc.). Bards are similar to Wizards but their role depends upon what they're performing (dirges are controller, ballads are leader, etc).

Furthermore, I try to design each class so that it will allow every conceivable reasonable set up for the class. Warrior is designed so that it works with 2W, 2H, and S&B equally well (2W provides versatility, 2H is highest damage, S&B is highest defense). Fighter has both heavy and light armor rules as well as rules that work for 2H, 2W versions, and S&B (similar to how I did it with Warrior).

[UrielAwakened]

The problem with stat bonuses is a few fold.

The first is that it requires that you give out items/cash at a particular rate. Fall behind, and your characters do to. This isn't a huge problem.

The second problem is that you have to give out *particular types of items* to match what players need, or *plenty of time and resources to customize items*. This is a larger problem.

The third problem is that being "disarmed" gets exponentially worse at high levels.

A level 5 party who loses their stuff and has to use improvised gear is weakened by a fair amount, but can muddle through against level appropriate foes.

A level 25 party who loses their stuff and has to use improvised gear is utterly incompetent against level-appropriate foes.

The level 5 party suffers a -1-4 to hit (and an extra -1-2 with weapons). The level 25 party suffers a -9-10 to hit, and an extra -1-2 with weapons.

A -5 to hit is *really painful*. A -12 to hit means *you never hit*.

Similar stuff happens with defence.

Your heros becoming more gear dependent is a side effet of the 4e system.

---

Attribute bonuses only cause a massive problem if people don't pick their attack stat and bump it, or if they are light armor and don't bump their AC boosting stat.

---

The half-level bonus only causes a massive problem in that it forces a steep power curve on the game. Creatures a few levels below/above are mainly weak/strong because of the ATK/DEF differences.

In short, it mandates the power curve.

---

A scaling factor that modifies an affine check (like a d20+mods vs DC) either has to be kept in check, or it quickly domiantes all other factors.

The overall +1/level mod means that foes far away in level ... are dominated by the fact that you always hit, and they always miss, or vice versa.

Enchantment bonuses to hit/defend are similar, in that once they scale far enough, all your other choices stop mattering. If you cannot connect, and they always do, you lose. Or you build your character around not making attack rolls, and defend through something different than defences.

Really the problem that exists is the d20 itself.

It's terrible for gaming. It's incredibly random with no curve or center that is more likely than any other result.

[Yakk]

No, roll under/over basically erases to undetectible any reasonable bellcurve.

Integration smooths all hills.

Worrying about bell curves in roll under/over is like audiophiles worrying about purity of the copper in their wires. 3d6 roll-over differs from 1d20 roll-over mainly in the standard deviation; the shape of the bell curve other than that only matters in extreme 5% of cases really.

Compare the graphs of P( 3d6 > X ) vs P( 1d20 > (X-10.5)*sqrt(2)-10.5 ). While "(X-10.5)*sqrt(2)-10.5" may look fancy, it basically says "modifiers are 30% smaller in scale in a d20 based system than in a 3d6 based system". Or graph P(3d6 > X) vs P(1d10+5 > X) if you want to be really simple about it.

[ThePurple]

Worrying about bell curves in roll under/over is like audiophiles worrying about purity of the copper in their wires. 3d6 roll-over differs from 1d20 roll-over mainly in the standard deviation; the shape of the bell curve other than that only matters in extreme 5% of cases really.

One thing I do like about 3d6 instead of d20 is that it allows you to create much more interesting modifiers for rolls such as straights (1-2-3, 2-3-4, etc), 3-of-a-kind (1-1-1, 2-2-2, etc), and other multi-dice variants (e.g. explosive 6s; if a specific die is the lowest/highest, special effect occurs) that tweak the probability curves in a much more interesting way than a straight d20 allows.

Of course, the *problem* with 3d6 is that it dramatically reduces the likelihood of succeeding in edge case scenarios (+10 attack bonus hitting an AC 25 is reduced from a 25% chance with a d20 to a 10% chance) so you have to manage and maintain your bonuses/penalties *a lot more*: a -2 penalty or +2 bonus to hit is going to be a lot more powerful on a 3d6 than on a d20 (from a probability standpoint). Of course, the solution here, as I see it, is to simply reduce those conditional bonuses to +/-1. Also, I'd tweak CA to allow you to roll 4d6 and take 3 instead of just applying the flat +2, though, statistically, that's *really* powerful so it might need to be modified a bit.

[Yakk]

Yes, sub-dice games (if sufficiently interesting) can justify multi-die rolls. But if they are just "more ways to add variance", you can easily just end up with "this is basically d20 with a variant critical hit system and a different modifier scale".

The cost of having to add up 3 numbers each and every roll shouldn't be ignored, however.

And yes, ad/dis as an extra die and drop lowest/highest is an option (like 5e ad/dis). In theory this can scale to more (as it is weaker than 5e ad/dis).

I've looked at stealing ORE's "matches matter", but while in theory ORE has a two-dimensional resolution mechanic it doesn't work in practice (pairs are ridiculously more common than triples).

You do have to scale up or down the size of modifiers depending on variance of your base RNG.

---

I'd argue that unless your dice mechanics are generating interesting story that impacts the imaginary world, and not just "success/failure", making complex systems is a bad idea. A bunch of complex mechanics to determine "I hit" or "I missed" may seem fun to start, but eventually becomes a drudge. Then again, you could argue that most of the D&D combat engine is a bunch of complex mechanics to determine when you can say "I slay the foe", and when you have to say "I scratched the foe".

[ThePurple]

I'd argue that unless your dice mechanics are generating interesting story that impacts the imaginary world, and not just "success/failure", making complex systems is a bad idea.

I recently got my copy of the Planet Mercenary RPG (been looking forward to it for a *long* time) which uses 3d6 as well as sub-dice constructs (straights, 2-or-3-of-a-kinds, lowest/highest die are all used), but the really cool/fancy thing is the Mayhem die: it's a marked die (either last die if rolling on a machine or a different color die irl) that, if it's the highest (not tied for highest, but actually highest) of your dice rolled on a *successful* roll causes you to draw from the Mayhem deck, which has all kinds of interesting and amusing effects (sometimes it makes it a crit, sometimes your weapon fails, etc; it's 100+ cards). I really look forward to using it and am seriously considering something similar in my rebuild of 4e (even if it's just a suggestion) since it adds a nice bit of chaos to things.

[Inyssius Tor]

The thought struck me, with the discussion of a Pathfinder D&D4, that there is a legal way you could create an open version of 4e.

Sure. The legal problem isn't that there's no legal way to do the thing; there are potentially plenty. The legal problem is that lawyers don't need the law to be on their side in order to cost you more money than you have.

I could get into that in more detail, but the thing is, none of that even matters, because the legal problem isn't the actual problem. The actual problem is this: what attracted people to D&D 4e was that D&D 4e was not a blind continuation of D&D's traditions, but was instead a hard look at D&D's problems and an attempt to solve them, even when that required really drastic changes, in order to make a very good game that was geared toward a very specific style; 4e took a long-overdue step into the 21st century by understanding that specific games call for specific rules, that each rule in a game should be crafted to encourage the specific, cohesive mode of play envisioned by its designers, and that game elements which do not encourage the desired mode of play should be ruthlessly cut or rewritten.

4e's fans have by and large taken this design philosophy to heart -- if we hadn't, we wouldn't have been attracted to the game in the first place! As such, a blind continuation of D&D 4e is unlikely to garner a large share of D&D 4e's fans, who have by and large taken the lessons realized by D&D 4e and applied them to D&D 4e, creating games which are decidedly not D&D 4e, like Strike!, Radiance, 4th Trifold, and a number of others, including a couple of incomplete systems I personally have a hand in that don't have names yet. We are not content to blindly rip off 4e's ruleset when the problems of the system are numerous and well-known -- but at the same time, specific games call for specific rules, so while we're all working to solve the same problems, our solutions are each very different, each aimed toward best cultivating our own specific desired modes of play.

For example, I and a friend of mine both feel that the weapon selection part of 4e is lackluster and generally bad; but where in my project I solve this problem by tearing the subsystem out entirely, refocusing complexity in areas that more suit my desired mode of play and leaving weaponry to the realm of narrative description, my friend in his project solves the problem by refocusing the system's complexity toward equipment selection, moving some of a given character's moveset and featlike properties from their inherent build to the class and variety of weapon they're wielding. Either approach is cool and good! There's no single optimal way to solve this problem. I want to make a game that's more like FATE, and he wants to make a game that's more like Dark Souls, and we even agree that FATE and Dark Souls are equally good games. We're both looking forward to playing each other's projects and enjoying the mode of play that the other is trying to cultivate!

What we would not be looking forward to is a copy of regular D&D 4e again with the serial numbers filed off, because why would you do that when you could instead be taking 4e's best aspects and making something new with them?

[Yakk]

Random retro4e musing...

I like HD. 5e did some interesting things with it, but didn't go far enough.

I like damage/HP scaling more than accuracy scaling. It feels more organic.

So...

Level 1: 1 Racial HD, 1 Background HD, 1 Class HD, 1 Subclass HD.
Level 2-3: 1 Class HD, 1 Subclass HD
Level 4-6: 1 Class HD, 1 Subclass HD, 2 Paragon HD
Level 7-9: 1 Class HD, 1 Subclass HD, 1 Paragon HD, 3 Epic HD
Level 10 (+?): 1 Class HD, 1 Subclass HD, 1 Paragon HD, 1 Epic HD

Your HD curve from level 1 to 10 is:
4,6,8
12,16,20,
26,32,38,
42

At level 3 you have 1 Racial HD, 1 Background HD, and 3 Class/Subclass HD.
At level 6 you have 1R/1B, and 6 Class/Subclass/Paragon HD.
At level 9 you have 1R/1B and 9 Class/Subclass/Paragon/Epic HD.

Level 9 becomes "name level". After that progression slows down. Possibly the game caps at level 10 or even 9.

To handle multiclassing, we permit you to take *another class as a subclass*. You can take a subclass or class as a paragon path. You can take a paragon path, subclass or class as an epic destiny.

So you can be a Fighter/Champion, *or* a Fighter/Rogue, at level 1. The Fighter/Champion has the Fighter class and Champion subclass features.

Possibly some races or backgrounds offer additional HD, which you can buy with subclass (or better) HD.

Each "tier" ends up with roughly twice the HP (and hence damage, as both will scale) of the tier before it. Your "bump" from a level remains significant in terms of raw HP.

If HD grant an average of 4 HP, we get 16 HP at level 1, 32 at level 3, 80 at level 6, 152 at level 9 and 168 at level 10. Which seems to be reasonably in control.

If there is little ATK/DEF scaling, then HD would also roughly measure encounter difficulty. Add up HD on both sides to see how hard the encounter will be. Use smaller HD for creatures that have nastier abilities (per HD).

[LtPowers]

No, roll under/over basically erases to undetectible any reasonable bellcurve.

Sure. But that's not really what people mean when they discuss the statistical differences between 1d20 and multi-dice mechanics.

The difference occurs when you move the target number. With a D20, moving the target number increases or decreases the chance of success at a flat rate for all characters. If some players roll more dice for a particular check than other players, though, then moving the target number has a different effect on each of them. The players with more dice are less affected by changes to the target number, which is an additional advantage of having a high skill. That is a distinct mechanical difference between the two systems.


Powers &8^]

[Yakk]

Sure. But that's not really what people mean when they discuss the statistical differences between 1d20 and multi-dice mechanics.

The difference occurs when you move the target number. With a D20, moving the target number increases or decreases the chance of success at a flat rate for all characters. If some players roll more dice for a particular check than other players, though, then moving the target number has a different effect on each of them. The players with more dice are less affected by changes to the target number, which is an additional advantage of having a high skill. That is a distinct mechanical difference between the two systems.

Yes, but that is mostly an illusion. It isn't very distinct, because detecting it experimentally requires 100s or 1000s of rolls.

What you observe is "did the roll succeed or fail" in the game fiction. At the size of a modifier big enough to experience a reliable difference at the table, the difference is smeared away.

Almost all of the difference people report can be explained by the fact that modifiers become larger due to SD shrink (in a uniform way). This effect is much larger than any bell curve effect, beyond the equivalent of critical hit mechanics.

I understand the intuitive idea. But graph the probability of 3d6 vs 10.5+mod and 1d20 vs 10.5+sqrt(2)*mod and 1d10+5 vs 10.5+mod.

Var(3d6) is 105/12, Var(1d20) is 199/12 and Var(1d10) is 99/12. As standard deviation is sqrt(Variance), and 199 is roughly twice 105, scaling the difference between the target number and 10.5 by the ratio of the standard deviation accounts for that change.

The "bell curve" effect must exist in the difference between these curves. And there isn't much room for it.

Here is a google shreadsheet that takes 1d10+5 as our baseline roll under system, then emulates it using 3d6 and 1d20.

The emulation consists of nothing besides a scale of the average, then a scale of modifiers away from the average.

If you look at the Delta column of 3d6, you'll see that the emulation is really, really good. At a few points 1/25 rolls differ in result.

If you want to play with it, the light orange fields are intended to be modified. The leftmost is your baseline dice that the other columns are compared against. The changes in average and standard deviation are automatically applied to the target numbers.