|
|
Post by vito on Jun 22, 2010 22:24:44 GMT -6
Wait Essentials is getting supplements? that's awesome! Yep. Specifically: Red Box Rules Compendium Dungeon Master's Kit Player Essentials: Heroes of the Fallen Lands Player Essentials: Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms Player's Option: Heroes of Shadow Monster Vault |
|
|
|
Post by machfront on Jun 23, 2010 17:37:40 GMT -6
Hm. Basically, the Essentials Rules Compendium is your core rulebook, but at 320 pages, I can't see it being all that 'lite'.
Then add at very least the DM's Kit and Monster Vault to that: 192 + 192 + 320 = 704 pages.
To be fair the books will apparently be a bit bigger than digest-sized I believe. Still, it comes out to roughly two thirds the page count were it in 8.5x11, and that's around almost 500 pages.
Wow.
That's about 410 pages longer than it should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 23, 2010 19:51:31 GMT -6
Argh. That's huge. :-(
I'd still like to see something roughly the size of Holmes Basic with the main classes (FTR, CLE, MU, TH) and races (Human, Elf, Dwarf, Hobbit) and levels through 5 (or 8 or some single-digit number).
Remove all of the funky stuff like "tagging" (whatever that is) and make a simple list of powers. Structure the levels so there are a few key options for each level, more like OD&D or AD&D or B/X or any of the pre-3E versions of the game. Have a simple rules mechanic for skill checks instead of having huge lists, or maybe do things kind of like C&C with certain "skills" a function of class. Allow for reasonable numbers of healing surges.
I would buy this.
|
|
|
|
Post by tavis on Jun 23, 2010 23:46:37 GMT -6
I think I'm going to wind up making something like this for the afterschool D&D class I'm doing with third through fifth graders in the fall. Some of them have already gotten enough into 4E to want things like encounter and daily powers, quick-regain hit points, etc. - but in my experience so far they're nowhere near the level of rules mastery they'd need to actually engage with 4E as written, nor do they have the level of impulse control or player skill necessary to play in a deadly old-school system. (In our last game I ran some of "Borshak's Lair" from the Dungeoneer compendium. There's an unnaturally dark pit. A clever kid summoned a monster and sent it down there, so they *knew* it teleported you into a solid crystal cube, full of skeletons of previous adventurers who died there. Yet five kids sent their PCs down the pit, one after another. I think some of them thought the skeletons would animate, so they were just thinking "where's the monster?"; others might have picked up on there being treasures on the bodies; and others might have had the video-game reflex of saying "here's the puzzle, I must rush forth and solve it ASAP.")
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 24, 2010 5:07:09 GMT -6
 I fogot about "Borshak's Lair" from the Compendium. That's a fun dungeon! |
|
|
|
Post by tavis on Jun 24, 2010 11:45:07 GMT -6
I've had some great times running Borshak's Lair for a mixed group of adults and kids, but the all-kid-and-one-non-D&D-experienced-parent group would likely have died in that crystal cube. |
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jun 24, 2010 14:32:25 GMT -6
The day I start looking at WotC products again is the day they start reprinting the classics! Until then, I am off the rollercoaster. Publishing “something like Holmes” seems to me to be a no-brainer business move for them. But unless it actually is Holmes, I have no reason to think I will like it as much as Holmes. ;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by vito on Jul 30, 2010 14:45:24 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jul 30, 2010 15:05:58 GMT -6
Wow, that really isn't even recognizable as D&D to me. Games like RuneQuest and Rolemaster have more similarity to Gygaxian D&D than this stuff does.
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Jul 30, 2010 15:39:30 GMT -6
Wow, that really isn't even recognizable as D&D to me. Games like RuneQuest and Rolemaster have more similarity to Gygaxian D&D than this stuff does. They have a more direct line of descent. This stuff is the bastard offspring of D&D and Magic: The Collectible-to-the-point-of-Bankruptcy. (Seriously, they've gone from Collectible Card Games to Collectible Miniatures Games to Collectible Book Games (What, you don't have Player's Handbook 27? How do you ever play??!!??!)) |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 17, 2011 10:09:48 GMT -6
It's been a year since the last post on this thread. Anyone still tinkering with a "4E lite" rules set?
I've had some chances to run 4E and overall my players like it. I still find it heavy to GM, mostly because of the number of options and heft of NPC/monster stat blocks, but once I got rid of the board and "winged it" I found the game flowed a lot smoother for me.
I'd still like something that had a limited number of power options, more like AD&D where you would gain a pre-determined something each level instead of picking options from a list. At least, I think I would like that. Maybe it would lose the part of 4E that my players like best...
|
|
|
|
Post by rabindranath72 on Sept 17, 2011 13:23:50 GMT -6
The lighter version of the game I got, was to use the NPC rules in the DMG for PCs, too. That limits the number of powers they get, and makes the game much more manageable.
Overall, the greatest obstacle I have found with 4e is the strong dependence on the grid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Sept 17, 2011 14:37:44 GMT -6
That's a good idea, using the NPC charts. Now that you mention it, I think someone else told me about those, too. (Still a good idea.  ) |
|
|
|
Post by darkling on Sept 17, 2011 16:44:55 GMT -6
I'd still like something that had a limited number of power options, more like AD&D where you would gain a pre-determined something each level instead of picking options from a list. At least, I think I would like that. Maybe it would lose the part of 4E that my players like best... It's really hard to toe that line between ease of play and options. I was in my FLGS the other day talking to one of my friends and she's of the opinion that at least the D&D franchise is scraping the upper limit of what the playerbase will tolerate. When I went to level up my character for our 4e campaign using WOTC's character buildter software and realized that I had literally 200+ feat choices (and that was just for my race/class combo) I had to agree with her. While I tend on the side of OD&D minimalism I get that some players can't just play a fighting man however they want and need some mechanical validation for labeling themselves a rogue. It seems that the happy medium is somewhere in between. Using the 4e NPC generation would probably be a good place to start. Or maybe just make your own power progression that is a little more parsimonious than the official one. If I ever get the time I will toss together a basic 4e lite, but it is behind a number of other projects and I am currently scrambling to get my life in order. Off the top of my head: I would also advise doing away with 'utility' powers and folding them into the standard at will/encounter/daily lists, getting rid of or heavily modifying the feat system, and cutting HP across the board. Oh, and the character themes (if that is what they were called?) in the Dark Sun book provide an interesting sort of sub-class system. It might be nice to just have a Cleric, Fighting Man, Magic User base and then introduce these short little lists of powers and abilities to spice up characters rather than making entirely new classes. |
|
Azafuse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 245
|
Post by Azafuse on Sept 17, 2011 17:35:44 GMT -6
I've played a Slim 4E with my group in the recent past, using the following rules. Ability Scores: We used White Box's Universal Attribute Bonus Table, extending it for scores greater than 18 with a +1 every 4 points (mainly for monsters). Racial Ability Score Adjustment: player chooses only a single Ability Score (among the listed ones) to increase by +1. Racial Features: any race has a generic +2 to apply when performing "racial things" (basically the same +2 granted by Skill Bonuses), like Dwarves checking for stone anomalies (moving walls, stone traps/pits etc.) in a Dungeon; if you know Risus, it works like a cliché. Classes Availability: up to DM's choice. Class Features: any class has a generic +2 to apply when performing "class things" (a Fighter applies it on Attacks or when trying to smash a closed door, a Wizard on Spells or when trying to decipher runes, a Thief on Sneak Attacks or when trying to move silently). Dice Resolution: d20 + 1/2 level + Ability Adjustment (if any) + Class/Race Features Bonus (if appliable) against Difficulty Class (or Defense). Skills: no skill list at all, but only Attribute Checks to roll against the Difficulty Class by Level Table from Essentials (if a player wants to move silently, he just rolls against the Easy/Moderate/Hard value according to his level, adding Dex modifier); Race/Class Features Bonus appliable. Defenses/Saving Throws: same as 4E. Level Progression: same as 4E. Character's HP Progression: same as Class. Monster's HP Progression: Dragons/Undead/Constructs/Giants/Outsiders use the Fighter Progression, everybody else the Ranger Progression; minions unchanged. Powers: they work as usual, but "ungridded" (no squares, but a proper distance) Feats/Generic Rules: same as Essentials. Oh, and the character themes (if that is what they were called?) in the Dark Sun book provide an interesting sort of sub-class system. It might be nice to just have a Cleric, Fighting Man, Magic User base and then introduce these short little lists of powers and abilities to spice up characters rather than making entirely new classes. CTs in 4E do somehow what Kits did in AD&D. I agree BTW: used in the proper way, they allow you to use just the 3+1 original classes as root classes. |
|
|
|
Post by rabindranath72 on Sept 18, 2011 2:07:34 GMT -6
Another thing: to reduce the length of combats, I used an automatic morale fail rule: all monsters which don't have bloodied abilities try to flee when they reach the bloodied mark. Bloodied monsters fight to the death unless they are beaten by an Intidimidate skill check vs. Will. Optionally an Intimidate skill check can be attempted on all monsters which are of a lower level than the PCs.
Also, I run initiative in blocks, each block being the size of the PC party. Possibly collecting the same monsters in each block, so that all of them use the same encounter abilities at the same time. This saves A LOT of rolls and bookkeeping.
|
|
|
|
Post by pessimisthalfling on Jan 7, 2012 10:45:42 GMT -6
Hello everybody!
How about using Gamma World 4e as the base for a oD&D 4e?
|
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jan 7, 2012 14:07:33 GMT -6
Tell me more, Tony!
I've glanced at the rules, and I've heard some anecdotal reports that somehow the mechanics are less fiddly; is this true?
|
|
|
|
Post by vito on Jan 7, 2012 17:18:15 GMT -6
If you want to get rid of the grid, you could try replacing it with fate zones and using elements of the recent D&D board games like Wrath of Ashardalon to fill in the blanks. Fred Hicks had some cool ideas there: www.deadlyfredly.com/2011/02/hack-use-fates-zones-with-4e/Here's my take on it: The battlefield is divided up into a number of 'zones' each equivalent to a 4x4 dungeon tile in size, but dungeon tiles are not needed here. A list or flowchart will do just fine. You can use melee or touch attacks against creatures that are in the same zone as you. You can use thrown or short ranged attacks against creatures that are in an adjacent zone. You can use long ranged attacks against creatures two zones away as long as you have line of sight. Blasts, bursts, and auras affect all creatures within a zone. Wall effects can affect the borders between zones or bisect one zone into two. A single move action moves you to an adjacent zone, though you may provoke opportunity attacks for doing so. Difficult terrain requires two move actions to enter and exit. Elves are exempt from this rule. |
|
|
|
Post by pessimisthalfling on Jan 8, 2012 8:37:35 GMT -6
Tell me more, Tony! I've glanced at the rules, and I've heard some anecdotal reports that somehow the mechanics are less fiddly; is this true? Hey Kesher! I haven't played the new Gamma World yet, but I read the rules a couple of times when it was first released. Gamma World is an extremely simple set of rules. Back when I read it, it felt more like a very streamlined 3.5 than the 4e presented in the Essentials book. I don't know enough of about either game to be able to tell if porting 4e DnD over to the gamma world 4e would be easy or hard. But at first glance, it seems like an easy, but very time consuming task. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 8, 2012 11:20:33 GMT -6
Gamma World is an extremely simple set of rules. Back when I read it, it felt more like a very streamlined 3.5 than the 4e presented in the Essentials book. Interesting. I wonder if there is a Word doc with the new GW rules in it. That would allow me to have a starting point and tweak from there. |
|
|
|
Post by Professor P on Jan 8, 2012 14:13:14 GMT -6
If you want to get rid of the grid, you could try replacing it with fate zones and using elements of the recent D&D board games like Wrath of Ashardalon to fill in the blanks. Fred Hicks had some cool ideas there: www.deadlyfredly.com/2011/02/hack-use-fates-zones-with-4e/Here's my take on it: The battlefield is divided up into a number of 'zones' each equivalent to a 4x4 dungeon tile in size, but dungeon tiles are not needed here. A list or flowchart will do just fine. You can use melee or touch attacks against creatures that are in the same zone as you. You can use thrown or short ranged attacks against creatures that are in an adjacent zone. You can use long ranged attacks against creatures two zones away as long as you have line of sight. Blasts, bursts, and auras affect all creatures within a zone. Wall effects can affect the borders between zones or bisect one zone into two. A single move action moves you to an adjacent zone, though you may provoke opportunity attacks for doing so. Difficult terrain requires two move actions to enter and exit. Elves are exempt from this rule. Skimming through the linked article, this seems like a more convoluted version of combat than the normal gridless combat (OD&D, AD&D, BD&D). It seems to me if you want any kind of gridded combat, you should go all out (3e or 4e), or not at all. The FATE grid just seems (to me) to use the worst aspects of the two systems - the handwaving of the abstract method with the bookkeeping of the grid method. I guess I just don't see the advantage. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2012 8:30:56 GMT -6
I'd give 4E a try if it was simpler. I know, everyone says that the mechanics are easy, but I see too many player options and throw my hands up in disgust. Gone are the days of a simple spell-list, but welcome to the days where you have pages and pages of details on how to use every power. Someone needs to revise this again before 5E comes out. |
|
|
|
Post by sulldawga on Mar 11, 2012 20:02:48 GMT -6
I'd give 4E a try if it was simpler. I know, everyone says that the mechanics are easy, but I see too many player options and throw my hands up in disgust. It's as simple or as complex as you make it. It's not like everyone bought the PH back when it first came out and said "Too bad we can't play until the PH2 and PH3 come out." Play a PH-only game and then tell me you had too many options. |
|
rleduc
Level 3 Conjurer
Posts: 75
|
Post by rleduc on Mar 11, 2012 21:54:19 GMT -6
Did it. Too complicated. The combat rules are straightforward enough, although managing them seems to take a fair bit of time. But all the character feats, skills and powers drive me batty.
But then, I never played card games like Magic, and was never much for video games. Folks who did are probably used to this sort of thing.
And I'm not keen on how powerful the characters are right away. "Fun at any level" seems to mean eliminating levels 1-5 or so and renumbering.
All personal preference, but I'm not in to building characters by optimizing selections from a myriad of choices that consist of fine tuning powers and combinations of powers that buff up other powers.
I just want to go on an adventure.
Again, just my personal preference. Them that likes that sort of thing should carry on.
|
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Mar 13, 2012 15:07:13 GMT -6
Nalfeshnee Hack MonstersThis is brilliant, and is some of the first solid work I've seen on how to ODD Type IV without changing the player interface. The rest of the Hack (linked on the blog) is well worth reading, too. This makes me itch to run Essentials...
|
|
|
|
Post by legopaidi on Dec 3, 2013 9:44:56 GMT -6
Hah! I just read Azafuse 's post about his Slim 4E rules and I think it comes really close to what I am thinking of doing! I had written a small rant earlier but it's now irrelevant  |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Dec 3, 2013 13:57:09 GMT -6
If you are looking at "4E lite" you might look at 13th Age. It has a lot of elements in common with 4E but it doesn't make my brain hurt so bad. I've run a few games with it and played in some more, and it's a really fun rules set. I wish 13th Age had been around when I first tried to grok 4E. |
|
|
|
Post by legopaidi on Dec 3, 2013 14:20:41 GMT -6
Thanks Fin, I already know about 13th Age. It's very interesting for sure. I don't really like the Icons though. That's strange, since I like the Fate system and its Aspects. No big deal though, I guess you can always remove them without breaking the system.
|
|
I fogot about "Borshak's Lair" from the Compendium. That's a fun dungeon!
)
