Gods & Heroes (4e Clone)

Felorn Gloryaxe wrote:

Well I'll go out on a limb here since it was already brought up... What are you doing about alignment?

*Hides in bomb shelter*  

I got into roleplaying games back in 2002. I got into D&D back in 2008. For me alignment is a hindrance and gets in the way of roleplaying. I was happily able to ignore it in 4th ed thanks to the unaligned alignment. I'd pick it and then roleplay without consideration for alignment (allowing my character's actions to determine alignment). In 3.5e I had to pick an alignment but (with the exception of Paladins) was happy to roleplay the character and have the DM shift my alignment as necessary. Some were a bit uncomfortable about this, but mostly they said we'll give it a try and away we went. In practice I had no problems with this.

In 4th ed what does alignment actually effect? Anything? I don't recall anything that actually hinges off it or interacts with it. I'd definitely keep 4th ed's unaligned option and then detail the classic 9 alignments with a paragraph at the option saying some campaigns may run a smaller subset of the alignments such as LG - Good - Evil - Chaotic Evil + unaligned. I'm also strongly inclined to remove alignment from monster entries and instead put it in the flavour text with an "usually" prefix. This way we don't have "CE" orcs hard coded into the statblock entry so that it's easier for settings to have LG orcs if they so desire.

Felorn Gloryaxe wrote:

or just left out as an optional thing (this would be my preferred one)?

Given that alignment has been in every single edition of D&D (and it's one of the few things that have been) and D&D spin-offs, I'll be including it. At this point only as a couple of paragraphs in the character creation section and then promptly ignored for the rest of the rules. Unless anyone can think of mechanics in 4th ed that utilised alignment?

Felorn Gloryaxe wrote:

Also I feel like every class (or character, maybe not limited to class) should have something similar in spirit to the "vows". I personally like a few RP/non-combat options mixed in with character creation beyond the skills, and the typically combat centered themes.

I know many people do not like rules for out of combat experiences but I feel like there is room for some in 4e. Perhaps a more complete ruleset on Rituals and Ritual Research. Some cool new skill utility powers that aren't combat centered.

I'm definitely keen on more mechanics to help expand on roleplay opportunities. Feel free to suggest them. If they don't get in this document they can get added to future ones down the road.

Felorn Gloryaxe wrote:

Expanded backgrounds and themes. Properly fleshed out backgrounds and themes could fix this problem easily without even having to change the classes features around.

Doing backgrounds and themes properly is definitely something I want to do. At the moment my take on backgrounds/themes is to combine them and have them offer:

1. The ability to make certain skills class skills,
   
2. grant access to different types of powers.
   

So this would mean that if you take the Gladiator Background, you gain intimidate, sense motive, athletics and endurance as class skills and gain access to powers and feats that have gladiator as a pre-requisite.

This way it's purely optional and completely additive. So Player A can be a Gladiator Fighter who takes the improvised weapon mastery feat while Player B can just be a straight great-axe wielding barbarian and both of them are balanced against each other.

Felorn Gloryaxe wrote:

Though if your adding more class features you could add things that could make classes a little more interesting outside of combat and make them standout from one another a tad bit better.

You could even look at 13th Age's class features and talents for example if you're down for creating a few more to stand beside the classic 4e ones.

Any specific examples?

Garthanos wrote:

There are vows that I think of as "Honorable Fighter"  vows... for instance you have a vow against using ranged weaponry. A vow against striking the fallen, A vow against the use of poison.

Ooh I like those. How about....

Vow of Fair Warning: You vow to never strike an enemy from behind or ambush them. You do not grant combat advantage for flanking and can never act in a surprise round. In return you gain a +2 bonus to AC against enemies who attempt to flank you and a +2 feat bonus to initiative.

Vow of the Honourable Fight: You vow never to use poison, trip an enemy or strike a fallen combatant. Once per challenge you may spend a heroic surge to roll a saving throw against falling prone or taking ongoing poison damage. On a success the attack still hits, but you remain on your feet and do not take any ongoing poison damage.

Vow of the Sword: You vow to never use a ranged weapon so that yours enemies can always see you. When holding a shield you may use an immediate action to intercept a ranged attack against an adjacent creature. You grant that creature a +2 bonus to AC for that attack with the attack missing if it doesn't beat this new value.

---
What do you think? I particularly like the Fair Warning one myself (although not too keen on any of those names if anyone has better suggestions).

Garthanos wrote:

Some vows might be related to Totems call em Geasa if you want a different word ... so I vow against the eating of Cat and can there after land on my feat after any fall.

I like that. I'd definitely see this being added to the reflavouring magic items section. I'm a bit unsure about feats as this might be a bit too powerful for them (I've attempted to keep the vows so far with a tangible disadvantage being compensated by a tangible advantage. Not being able to use the bluff skill? Definitely has a disadvantage. Not eating a type of animal? Flavourful, but only in rare cases would it significantly impair a character).

JohnLynch wrote:

Not eating a type of animal? Flavourful, but only in rare cases would it significantly impair a character).

Right  you have to distinguish ones you have with significant impairment (honorable fighter ones mostly do) and those that dont so as to make those with disadvantage have a little more bump... however the main idea is all of them to be flavor. Most - Disadvantages in actual play end up being things people work around. I liked playing lawful good for me it has never been an actual restriction so the 1e Paladin was all boon no disadvantage.... see what I mean... ie be careful most of the time you are safer if you balance it by not thinking of the disadvantages too much ;-p -- > although kind of hard with very significant ones I guess.

for instance - The Swordsman Vow ie the ranged limit is a fairly big one for characters you need to be sheltered strongly from ranged attack if you willingly forego it... Damage Resistance 5 per tier comes to mind.

Calling the Vow of the Sword ... Oath of Abeyance probably too vague... (referring to the gap)

Fair warning is definitely interesting....

Vows against using poison could relate to the "purifying touch" - which removes poison and diseases.

But I like how you combined them.

I have a concept called Karma points that I relate to all this basically they are like a gold award for quests which themselves may not award actual gold but they are primarily applied to the acquisition of Boons and Blessings and GMT and maybe some Martial Practices. Titheing a portion of your income or performing annonymous gifts of charity is one way of gaining Karma points. And classically GMT is gained following 1 a challenge of worthiness followed by short period of what nominally seems to be mundane servitude (but which fate usually transforms in to heroic quest).  Already acquired Karma points may reduce the amount of proof needed etc.

Garthanos wrote:

Calling the Vow of the Sword ... Oath of Abeyance probably too vague... (referring to the gap)

When has that ever stopped anyone in D&D? Good enough for now until someone thinks of a better name.

Garthanos wrote:

Most - Disadvantages in actual play end up being things people work around. I liked playing lawful good for me it has never been an actual restriction so the 1e Paladin was all boon no disadvantage.... see what I mean... ie be careful most of the time you are safer if you balance it by not thinking of the disadvantages too much ;-p

That's been the goal. Less creative players will potentially be more significantly disadvantaged by a vow. But no character ever has to take a vow (unless a GM houserules it).

Garthanos wrote:

although kind of hard with very significant ones I guess

Yup.

Garthanos wrote:

for instance - The Swordsman Vow ie the ranged limit is a fairly big one for characters you need to be sheltered strongly from ranged attack if you willingly forego it... Damage Resistance 5 per tier comes to mind.

I wait until level 16 when I gain a permanent fly speed from my paragon path and then take Vow of Abeyance. My impairment has dropped dramatically to either very minimal or non-existant. Unfortunately munchkins can get around anything (which is a big reason the more powerful vows also require a heroic surge to be spent). How about this for the Vow of Abeyance...

Vow of Abeyance: You vow to never use a ranged weapon so that yours enemies can always see you. When there are no enemies within 10 ft of you and you are holding a shield, you may spend a standard action to grant all allies a +2 bonus to AC when they're adjacent to you.

----
The logic here is if you foreswear the use of ranged weapons and can't think of a way around it so you can attack your enemy, you have a standard action you can't really use. Therefore you can grant everyone a boost to AC (capturing the same design space as a boost to DR would grant. Actual boost to AC could be increased or decreased as necessary at the end of designing the rest of the rules).

Garthanos wrote:

I have a concept called Karma points that I relate to all this basically they are like a gold award for quests which themselves may not award actual gold but they are primarily applied to the acquisition of Boons and Blessings and GMT and maybe some Martial Practices. Titheing a portion of your income or performing annonymous gifts of charity is one way of gaining Karma points. And classically GMT is gained following 1 a challenge of worthiness followed by short period of what nominally seems to be mundane servitude (but which fate usually transforms in to heroic quest).  Already acquired Karma points may reduce the amount of proof needed etc.

I saw this in one of your blog entries on the WotC forums. I'd definitely be keen to put a condensed version of them in the reflavouring magic items section as a way to acquire boons/GMT if you're interested.

Good point of how Oath of Abeyance could would be combined with flight ... and likely will be in epic no munchkin mentality required that said it doesnt prevent an enemy keeping distance and pelting them with ranged attacks or similar things if your enemy is also flying not sure it even makes it more difficult... the lack of shooting back is still a definite thing you are giving up.   The ranged combatant without room to run can also take there shots sometimes multiple times before there non-ranged one has opportunity to attack.(you are giving up that benefit even if you are flying and you are giving up being able to affect one enemy over here and one over there similarly fast within a round or two that could be a lot of control/reach loss.).

We could exploit the knowledge of when flight becomes duJour ie If a balancing benefit is associated with it could be made to not scale much past level 16 - but I am not sure its absolutely necessary.  

I definitely dont think binding benefits to shield use is particularly valuable*.  

Admittedly folk will dump ranged attack ie... or apply to base class without much effective ranged ability in the first place.

So a bit of flavor I like to picture paladins being warded by fate from the nameless/faceless death of the ranged attack - ie when they ride through the rain of arrows the arrows seem to fall harmlessly by shear luck. I like to picture melee weapon masters able to parry missile attacks with the sword or staff or itself - GMT version - is talent that only works when not ranged attacking. GMTs generally see as using regimen instead of oaths anyway, hmmm that introduces potential stacking too (without the level factor) ... What if you gained a greater benefit which only occurs if you were hit by a ranged attack? So if you fly up in their face or if you are deflect all ranged attacks this is undermined.

Jedi Swordmage at your service...

You mentioned the flavor of being face to face with the enemy which is even more appropriate for a two hand weapon (shield use can almost hiding behind the shield anyway - dang turtles    )

Avoiding the use of poison is also largely about FACING ones enemy and taking both credit and responsibility for your own aggression/acts.

*unless one is reflavoring a shield specific enchantment item.

AN oath is also ummm kind of meaningless if you CANNOT do the thing you are oath bound from doing... so that is another reason to take the disads part with a grain of salt ie focus on flavoring of something which is an expected part of ones power instead of something to be balanced against.

I have started thinking in terms of things in 5e terms as Items being attuned or un-attuned ie a lesser benefit and a greater benefit ... wonder if the same could be applied to boons and blessing.

Hmmm speaking of GMT and attunement there is probably a limit on how many regimen one can maintain... perhaps related to CON the way in NEXT attunement is potentially related to CHA.

I like to see my ideas spread so if they affect what others develop and integrate well... very cool.

There has been mentioned skills and skill use.... one of the arenas that I think is missing in 4e we have really cool ways through roles of aiding each other towards an end in combat.

The skill aide other is pretty bland and while we do have skill challenges that doesnt create much flavor around how one aides within an arena = in areas of team projects you have people who make high end results possible ... you have people that prevent low end results people that make the project hum along faster more reliably ... people who make the higher results more likely (seems might be different than just making them possible).

Some of this is something I remember discussing heavily with Wrecan on the WOTC boards I would like to see actual advancement

Wrecan even mentioned using Roles outside of combat as a possible route.... though he was reticent about having "the face" and its buddies enter the picture.

Garthanos wrote:

Fair warning is definitely interesting....  

I was understating this..Love the name
i was trying to figure out one for not attacking first? that hits very well.

One thought on it is the classic- retaliatory riposte or boosted vengeance response benefit... ie I dont attack first but I will attack last.

I think Vows as somewhat flavor functionality might support more than one boon/blessing or at least be appropriate for more than one.

Felorn Gloryaxe wrote:

Garthanos wrote:

JohnLynch wrote:

 This is part of the reason for wanting utility powers and feats to occupy the same resource cost. It's easier to come up with utility powers rather than feats.

Felorn Gloryaxe wrote:

Perhaps extreme strength feats where you can lift so much weight you could be considered super-human. Like lifting... ummm... cows.

I'd see this as a utility power rather than a feat (although again, potentially the same thing).

When I first heard of 3e use of the term feats it had me scratching my head.
The term "Feat" should be closer in meaning to Stunt or how the word power is used in 4e. The passive adjustment feats I think of as features.

Basically its a more in genre term for what 4e powers do. You could have Feats of Magic, Feats of Martial prowess...Athletic Feats (there is your utility power) and so on.  Most magic in mythic/legendary inspirational material are not fast worked effects but rather rituals ... working magic fast is a feat of magic.

Much more comments coming later.

In that case I suppose the meta-magic feats of the 3e days made sense.

I always thought back in 1e that magic being so passive about how it worked made it seem like the spell casters didnt have a clue what they were doing.

In the Elric Novels during the First book the protagonist discovers that ritual is a replacement for "true need" basically when he is hard pressed at very low hit points he was able to do an 8 hour ritual with nothing more than the basic rhyme running through his head and a few moments of time.

John Wondering if you had looked in to this?

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5k1Bo0pV5ilWFQ2dVZhb0dUdUE/edit?pli=1

A 4e Clone needs ummm skill challenges working out of the box

Garthanos wrote:

the lack of shooting back is still a definite thing you are giving up.   The ranged combatant without room to run can also take there shots sometimes multiple times before there non-ranged one has opportunity to attack.(you are giving up that benefit even if you are flying and you are giving up being able to affect one enemy over here and one over there similarly fast within a round or two that could be a lot of control/reach loss.).

Huh. I hadn't thought of it like that. What about a bonus to AC against ranged attacks for giving up ranged weapons?

Garthanos wrote:

We could exploit the knowledge of when flight becomes duJour ie If a balancing benefit is associated with it could be made to not scale much past level 16 - but I am not sure its absolutely necessary.

I also don't think this is necessary. Also it wouldn't work as future races (such as half-elemental kin or a sprite race) may gain flight earlier then level 16.

Garthanos wrote:

I definitely dont think binding benefits to shield use is particularly valuable*.

That was me attempting to keep the vow out of supernatural territory and firmly in martial territory. I see a shield as a completely valid choices for most melee classes (I had a Warden in 4th ed who used a longsword and shield). However I do like your point

Garthanos wrote:

You mentioned the flavor of being face to face with the enemy which is even more appropriate for a two hand weapon (shield use can almost hiding behind the shield anyway - dang turtles    )

The question becomes how balanced is it? Do you keep the standard action to grant AC boost to all adjacent allies?

Garthanos wrote:

The skill aide other is pretty bland and while we do have skill challenges that doesnt create much flavor around how one aides within an arena = in areas of team projects you have people who make high end results possible ... you have people that prevent low end results people that make the project hum along faster more reliably ... people who make the higher results more likely (seems might be different than just making them possible).

Some of this is something I remember discussing heavily with Wrecan on the WOTC boards I would like to see actual advancement

Wrecan even mentioned using Roles outside of combat as a possible route.... though he was reticent about having "the face" and its buddies enter the picture.

I definitely like the way you're thinking. I do find the whole mechanic behind aiding boring and bland. However what benefit beyond a +2 can you offer? Some ideas:
* Roll 2d20 and take the highest.
* Reroll any result less then 5

How do you offer these abilities? Feats? Utility Powers? Class features?

Garthanos wrote:

John Wondering if you had looked in to this?

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5k1Bo0pV5ilWFQ2dVZhb0dUdUE/edit?pli=1

A 4e Clone needs ummm skill challenges working out of the box

No I hadn't seen that. I'll have to have a look tonight when I get home. I hated skill challenges until I started writing my own. I think the idea itself is solid (and was even present in 3.5e) it's just WotC got the execution wrong.

Garthanos wrote:

i was trying to figure out one for not attacking first? that hits very well.

Thanks

Garthanos wrote:

One thought on it is the classic- retaliatory riposte or boosted vengeance response benefit... ie I dont attack first but I will attack last.

Vow of Last Resorts: You vow never to initiate combat and to attempt to find a peaceful solution whenever possible. You have a flat -10 modifier to intiative and only add your level to the roll. However if you attack someone who attacked you first in this challenge, you gain a +5 feat bonus to damage (this increases to +10 at level 11 and +15 at level 21).

----
What do you think? Too powerful? Would lowering the damage boost help with this? Does this vow become a "well duh" take for pretty much anyone interested in damage?

Garthanos wrote:

I think Vows as somewhat flavor functionality  might support more than one boon/blessing or at least be appropriate for more than one.

Definitely. The vow of poverty is a good example of one.

JohnLynch wrote:

Garthanos wrote:

the lack of shooting back is still a definite thing you are giving up.   The ranged combatant without room to run can also take there shots sometimes multiple times before there non-ranged one has opportunity to attack.(you are giving up that benefit even if you are flying and you are giving up being able to affect one enemy over here and one over there similarly fast within a round or two that could be a lot of control/reach loss.).

Huh. I hadn't thought of it like that. What about a bonus to AC against ranged attacks for giving up ranged weapons?

At minimum Reflex and AC but other defenses potentially as "ranged" attack includes the spell casters. One can flavor it as given a moment to note an incoming attack from a distance beyond 10 squares they are better at marshalling their defenses in response to it. - How about this idea - Damage resistances in the form of Temporary hit points kind of inverse Battlerager style you gain Temp hit points when attacked by ranged weapons... allah righteous indignation over someone daring to attack in such a cowardly fashion - might even be better.

Ranged weaponry won the day big time in real life - fantasy however has plenty of non-ranged combatants The Paladin who though a fully trained knight (hence trained in hunting and archery and similar things)... is one of them.
The Duellist or Swordmaster (or Japanese Kensai)  or Jedi Knight might be seen as using a GMT to enhance defense or even reflect an attack back. They are sometimes even incompetant with a bow less due to naitive ability than disdain or similar quirk of personality. D'Artagnan with his weapon specific talent is often presented as both a bit of a klutz and incompetent with even hurled weaponry

The Strongman...  when he gets truly strong can throw as far as others using a bow. Berserks are generally so significantly less competent unless they can smell blood that they qualify as non-ranged combatants. (the old Battlerager flavor actually works better maybe)

Regardless of how exactly I think the archetypes need to be supported in some real fashion.

JohnLynch wrote:

Garthanos wrote:

I definitely dont think binding benefits to shield use is particularly valuable*.

That was me attempting to keep the vow out of supernatural territory and firmly in martial territory. I see a shield as a completely valid choices for most melee classes (I had a Warden in 4th ed who used a longsword and shield). However I do like your point

Vows were significantly mystical and magical phenomena most of the Boons/Blessings are exactly that (failing to follow ones vow and you lose it thats pretty supernatural itself) - however == Grand Master Trainings ought to have some possible non-supernatural flavor for them but its potentially extreme so I could show you a you tube of a guy cutting a Beebee with a katana fired from a pellet gun that is grand master training. As long as the numbers are balanced it ought to be alright - somebody who doesnt want the almost supernatural flavor wont pick it is my assumption. I can personally parry thrown weaponry pretty darn well. (and Im not uber awesome)

Oh Hello Shield fan ( some of the fighter shield moves are sweet) - I am a spear fan for the flavor of it but trained with Shinai (aka bamboo Katana) /Bow and Shotokan Karate.

JohnLynch wrote:

Garthanos wrote:

The skill aide other is pretty bland and while we do have skill challenges that doesnt create much flavor around how one aides within an arena = in areas of team projects you have people who make high end results possible ... you have people that prevent low end results people that make the project hum along faster more reliably ... people who make the higher results more likely (seems might be different than just making them possible).

Some of this is something I remember discussing heavily with Wrecan on the WOTC boards I would like to see actual advancement

Wrecan even mentioned using Roles outside of combat as a possible route.... though he was reticent about having "the face" and its buddies enter the picture.

I definitely like the way you're thinking. I do find the whole mechanic behind aiding boring and bland. However what benefit beyond a +2 can you offer? Some ideas:
* Roll 2d20 and take the highest.
* Reroll any result less then 5

How do you offer these abilities? Feats? Utility Powers? Class features?

There is a Warlord feat that enhances your aide other to +3, Feats are certainly a possibility. but I like the idea of allowing one to pick 1 aid other option independently which affects all skills you are trained in. And some might be Martial Practices specific to an activity ie they are skill enhancements. Utility Powers could also be a route. Or to get the flavor right they might only affect a specific set of skills.(remember the Face?)
Not sure this idea is pretty fresh I am the Spark when it comes to ideas ... that reminds me there is some recent studies that involves Team Roles and how people classify in them...
http://www.belbin.com/content/page/5596/BELBIN(uk)-2013-A%20Comprehensive%20Review.pdf

I use the term spark instead of plant. (plant is wierd and implies artificiality or ulterior motive) yuck.

interestingly they have associated disadvantages... you might like

"As well as the strength or contribution they provide, each Team Role also has an associated allowable weakness: a flipside of the behavioural characteristics, which is allowable in the team because of the strength which goes with it.

For example:

Plants Sparks could be unorthodox or forgetful
Resource Investigators might forget to follow up on a lead
Monitor Evaluators could be overly critical and slow moving
Co-ordinators might over delegate leaving themselves little work to do
Implementers might be slow to relinquish their plans in favour of positive changes
Completer Finishers could be accused of taking their perfectionism to the extremes
Teamworkers might become indecisive when unpopular decisions need to be made
Shapers could risk becoming aggressive and bad-humoured in their attempts to get things done
Specialist may have a tendency to focus narrowly on their own subject of choice"

JohnLynch wrote:

Garthanos wrote:

One thought on it is the classic- retaliatory riposte or boosted vengeance response benefit... ie I dont attack first but I will attack last.

Vow of Last Resorts: You vow never to initiate combat and to attempt to find a peaceful solution whenever possible. You have a flat -10 modifier to intiative and only add your level to the roll. However if you attack someone who attacked you first in this challenge, you gain a +5 feat bonus to damage (this increases to +10 at level 11 and +15 at level 21).

----
What do you think? Too powerful? Would lowering the damage boost help with this? Does this vow become a "well duh" take for pretty much anyone interested in damage?

I am one of those that has to get out slide rules or actually hunt through the system looking for comparable concepts (unless one jumps to mind) and compare there numbers. Having   an optimizer dude to look at some of it so the development is solid could be handy. If you wanted it limited you could make it only if they attack you during the round before. So you are only benefited when its immediately retaliatory. (people leave openings in the moment they attack in real life especially on a miss which is where the ripostes from the rogue cme from)

My gut response was feels like a daily.

Thanks Garthanos. I'll have to look at how to integrate that.

In the meantime, I've finally copied over all of the updated powers from my backup and put them into the new document, so I think that warrants a new version number. Here it is.

You can see what I'm going for with the class powers which is essentially providing the same powers as in 4th ed but in a much more consolidated list and then allowing other classes to get them when necessary. It's intended to create the flexibility of Pathfinder under the structure of 4th ed. I've also also updated power traits and added in a Weapon trait which means you get the weapon proficiency bonus. It seems redundant for weapon powers, but may prove necessary for implement powers (I discovered some oddities in the wording when creating magical implements).

In addition we've got the rest of the racial powers detailed and the vow feats incorporated. I've expanded considerably on the magical items section. They're ALL in there now except for holy symbols (which would go under implements). I'm waiting until the cleric and paladin finish having their divine invocations detailed. I've mined PHB1 and 2, Adventurers Vault 1 and 2, Pathfinder Core Rulebook, Advanced Player's Guide and Ultimate Equipment to come up with this list.

The Cleric and Paladin have been completely restructured. This was entirely due to the Holy Knight archetype and giving the Paladin a mount from level 1 without costing a feat. For the Paladin the archetype by deity didn't make sense as there wasn't a significant difference between archetypes. Unfortunately the Cleric Archetype by Deity archetypes did have some differentiation. Probably not enough to sustain 33 archetypes. But they did have some.

So the Cleric archetypes are currently Divine Leader and Divine Necromancer. The latter archetype will probably get removed at a later point until rules for summoned creatures are implemented. But for now it stays. Now technically there's no restrictions on which god you worship for which archetype. This is because the gods aren't defined as that's a setting decision not a rule decision. Instead I'm keeping the domain concept from 3.5e/4th ed (each domain grants access to a divine invocation) and the deity you worship determines the domains you qualify for. That said, it's very rules light and the rules could equally allow for the worship of philosophies or even nothing. The cleric could just into a natural wellspring of power. It isn't even defined how many domains a deity gets. It's very setting neutral.

The domains are from the 3.5e OGL with some of the more esoteric ones replaced. The domain of repose has been removed. Instead we have an undeath domain. This was due to Pharasma in Pathfinder getting the death domain when she abhores undead. So the death domain is split into two with death (typically the enemy of undead) and undeath. The moon domain has also been introduced (why have a sun domain but not a moon domain?) and a couple of others replaced.

Animal Companions have been moved to the druid now. The Ranger class talent entry simply references the druid (this is because D comes before R in the alphabet). There's a philosophical decision to make at this point. If a concept can be fulfilled with multiclassing, is there a point to creating an archetype for it? On the one hand less archetypes means more space. On the other hand, more archetypes means you're not paying a feat tax for getting to play your concept. For now I'm going with "where there's a strong enough tradition" then I create an archetype for it. So Druids with animal companions have been a tradition since there were druids and continued in 3.5e. As has the Paladin horse (which will be getting a Paragon Class to make it a celestial horse). The Cavalier also has a strong tradition (originally a base-class with the paladin as a subclass in 1st edition. Then a kit in 2nd edition. Then a Prestige Class in 3.5e, then a build of the Paladin in 4th ed and finally a non-magical base class in Pathfinder). This archetype riffs quite strongly from the Pathfinder version where it's essentially an alternate fighter class.

Another strong archetype is the Eldritch Knight which is a spellcaster whose equally good at casting spells as fighting with a weapon. It dates back to the Elf in basic and continues through to the 3.5e prestige class. I've got this renamed as Battle Mage and made this an archetype of the Wizard. Originally this was a feat called Arcane Duelist. I've kept the feat but it's now a multiclass feat.

I've also moved Familiar's to the Wizards class talent list. This is because I wanted to include a "simple" wizard option. Some people complained that the Wizard Spellbook class talent was annoying as many players never bothered swapping the powers they had. As such the school archetypes get the spellbook class talent while the generalised Mage archetype gets a familiar instead. There's still a "Gain Familiar" feat. Technically it should probably require the wizard class as a pre-requisite. But I don't see why a sorcerer or bard can't get a familiar. There's also a feat called "Wizard's Spellbook" that the Mage archetype can get if you do want the Vancian-lite class talent.

It's important to note that the Battle Mage archetype is different to the Swordmage/Magus tradition and that the Swordmage will be handled later in a different way (either as it's own class or a fighter archetype).

A couple of other Wizard archetypes have been included as well that work off the 2nd ed/3.5e schools. Ultimately these might be cut for space. But for now there's no harm in keeping them.

I've also done some minor bookkeeping:

• Barbarian HP boost: Without the AC class feature boost from 3.5e/4th ed the barbarian needs more HP. To me a HP boost is preferable as it's thematic and traditional and doesn't enforce one flavour or another onto the Barbarian. At this point the barbarian is looking very martial.
  
  Future archetypes will introduce totem barbarians from 3.5e's Unearthed Arcana which will be more in line with the 3.5e/4th ed supernatural/primeval barbarian. It's a bit of a cheat on my part not to introduce those elements immediately as a martial barbarian has a fair amount of overlap with the fighter in regards to powers. So the martial barbarian class requires less powers to implement. At this stage it's all about saving space/work.
  
• Proficiency Boosts: 4th ed's built around hitting 50% of the time. I'm looking to boost that to 70% with a flank because hitting more often is more fun (and it helps discourage min/maxed characters). Now I'm keeping standard 4th ed level 1 ability score range (20's technically possible. But most people will be happy with a top score of 18). I'm keeping the same AC range (help with backwards compatibility). So the only other solution was a boost in the proficiency bonus. Hence the boost.
  
• +2 Heroic Surges: As discussed I've replaced the "1 daily power per milestone" rule with "1 daily power per challenge and it costs a heroic surge". Assuming 4 standard battles a day, that's two heroic surges a day. Hence the boost in heroic surges.

That's it for the changes. I'd be interested to hear what people think.

JohnLynch wrote:

I've also moved Familiar's to the Wizards class talent list. This is because I wanted to include a "simple" wizard option. Some people complained that the Wizard Spellbook class talent was annoying as many players never bothered swapping the powers they had. As such the school archetypes get the spellbook class talent while the generalised Mage archetype gets a familiar instead. There's still a "Gain Familiar" feat. Technically it should probably require the wizard class as a pre-requisite. But I don't see why a sorcerer or bard can't get a familiar. There's also a feat called "Wizard's Spellbook" that the Mage archetype can get if you do want the Vancian-lite class talent.

In the Disney flick Mulan we have examples of two fairly martial characters with lesser companion beasts which I would build as familiars in 4e - a falcon for one and a dragonling for the other (look at some of the familiars in 4e they actually do work for a martial hero). In 4e I built the guy from Ladyhawke as having a familiar hawk (or reflavored another flier as a hawk)...and the Gal as a LazyLord Ranger hybrid (aka a Mogli build)... Fun.

OK the Dragon may seem too significant as a familiar but if you see the things he accomplished they were often very minor and familiar like.

Mulan in 4e might have bard in there ;-P

Thought I would mention I like the concept of Upgrade or Retrain *(often when I retrained I tried to find something that I could flavor as upgrading)

I might be inclined to Call the Dragonmen - Dragonblooded but thats because I like to think in terms of heros being of different bloodlines less about alien like races. (ie Game world specific fluff)

Your "warning shout" reminded me of a Princess Build Warlord ... her scream of fear warns her allies and the jolt of adrenaline gives them all an initiative boost. If a warning shout was an everyman* ability (generally like the Bullrush or Charge in 4e) and you could take a feat to have it affect more allies that might be interesting.

Its a bit like the aid other thing

Lots and lots of heros do warning shouts in the movies anyone with good perception is likely to do it in fact you choose to do it after you roll initiative you sacrifice some of it to improve an allies initiative ...but...

That interpretation isnt actually the results we see such a targeted warning shout in the movies is almost as always immediately followed by your ally getting in a preemptive attack or making a big active defense aka... its often an outright "Direct the strike" from the lazylords repertoire..

"point of recovery"

In 4e Anyone can spend an action (via a heal check to give an adjacent allie an extra saving throw to recover from a condition ended by a save).

I personally think allowing one to do that for oneself only makes sense ... ie you are devoting your attention to shrugging off the affect.

Powers/Feats are cool for customization but sometimes hey they are heros lets make sure they all are able to do what the heros in the movies normally do - so I like versatile everyman abilities.

JohnLynch wrote:

[*]Proficiency Boosts: 4th ed's built around hitting 50% of the time. I'm looking to boost that to 70% with a flank because hitting more often is more fun (and it helps discourage min/maxed characters). Now I'm keeping standard 4th ed level 1 ability score range (20's technically possible. But most people will be happy with a top score of 18). I'm keeping the same AC range (help with backwards compatibility). So the only other solution was a boost in the proficiency bonus. Hence the boost.

Two out of three aint bad...is the underlying assumption I make.

When I first seen body slots for magic items. I thought what an in your face gemey tacky element I have since taken to thinking of them as items being bound to ones Chakra (7 seats of power within the body) alternatively I like how attunement works in 5e and may pull  that in to every game I play in some form. To tell the truth though limits may not really be necessary especially with inherent bonuses being digested in to the games default math. Just some thoughts.

JohnLynch wrote:

Thanks Garthanos. I'll have to look at how to integrate that.

Reflect on bounce back what you can... hopefully seeds can find growth.

You really dived in with the Vow ideas heheh.

Garthanos wrote:

In the Disney flick Mulan we have examples of two fairly martial characters with lesser companion beasts which I would build as familiars in 4e - a falcon for one and a dragonling for the other (look at some of the familiars in 4e they actually do work for a martial hero). In 4e I built the guy from Ladyhawke as having a familiar hawk (or reflavored another flier as a hawk)...and the Gal as a LazyLord Ranger hybrid (aka a Mogli build)... Fun.

For the hawk I'd go Beastmaster Ranger with a Bird animal companion. For the dragonling... Well I'd argue you could have a drake/dragonling. Some might argue a dragonling would be an arcane familiar. I counter that with if you have a PC dragonmen race, then dragonlings shouldn't be inherently off limits to martial characters.

Garthanos wrote:

OK the Dragon may seem too significant as a familiar but if you see the things he accomplished they were often very minor and familiar like.

It would have to be a minor dragonspawn type of creature.

Garthanos wrote:

Mulan in 4e might have bard in there ;-P

That would work too

Garthanos wrote:

Thought I would mention I like the concept of Upgrade or Retrain *(often when I retrained I tried to find something that I could flavor as upgrading)

Once all the powers have been put in I'll be going back and making upgradeable versions of all the powers.

Garthanos wrote:

I might be inclined to Call the Dragonmen - Dragonblooded but thats because I like to think in terms of heros being of different bloodlines less about alien like races. (ie Game world specific fluff)

I'm disinclined to do this for a couple of reasons. One is that it pokes a bit of fun at 4th ed and the silly concept of dragonboobs that seemed to so enrage 3.5ers. It also gives it a bit of a retro feel (dragonfolk would be the more politically correct version of Dragonmen). It also keeps the concept of bloodlines outside of race. That way we can explore bloodlines in either a class, feat or both. Personally I'd preferably not make half-orcs and half-elves their own race but instead explored as feats or racial powers. But tradition won out

Garthanos wrote:

If a warning shout was an everyman* ability (generally like the Bullrush or Charge in 4e) and you could take a feat to have it affect more allies that might be interesting.

Its a bit like the aid other thing

Good point. It's now called Improved Warning Shout

Garthanos wrote:

Lots and lots of heros do warning shouts in the movies anyone with good perception is likely to do it in fact you choose to do it after you roll initiative you sacrifice some of it to improve an allies initiative ...but...

That interpretation isnt actually the results we see such a targeted warning shout in the movies is almost as always immediately followed by your ally getting in a preemptive attack or making a big active defense aka... its often an outright "Direct the strike" from the lazylords repertoire..

I've thought about making the "someone else gets an action" a universal ability. But I was worried about abuse and I'd rather not butcher the Tactician class as I rather liked it from 4th ed. I'll leave that to other games

Garthanos wrote:

"point of recovery"

In 4e Anyone can spend an action (via a heal check to give an adjacent allie an extra saving throw to recover from a condition ended by a save).

Dang. I played 4th ed for 5 years and didn't know that. Good catch Garthanos!

Garthanos wrote:

I personally think allowing one to do that for oneself only makes sense ... ie you are devoting your attention to shrugging off the affect.

Powers/Feats are cool for customization but sometimes hey they are heros lets make sure they all are able to do what the heros in the movies normally do - so I like versatile everyman abilities.

I'd definitely like this game to encourage "everyman" abilities (or general powers). That said I don't want to make them equal to an at-will power as otherwise there's no point using an at-will power and ultimately martial powers will be available to everyone while arcane and divine at-will powers remain the domain of arcane/divine characters only.

Thanks for really digging into the rules Garthanos. It'll definitely help them shape up to be better overall

Garthanos wrote:

When I first seen body slots for magic items. I thought what an in your face gemey tacky element

To me it's more about logic. You can't have two helmets on your head. One player could very well argue that you could wear two sets of gloves. To me having a rule that says "you can't wear two things over the top of each other" is just common sense and helps forestall arguments. Some magic items that could logically be put in the same location as another item are thus unslotted to allow them to be put in the same location (e.g. a scabbard would technically be in the waist slot. However the idea that a belt and scabbard can't be in the same spot doesn't make sense. So the scabbard item becomes unslotted). It's also why "shoulders" is a location as a cloak and amulet should be able to be warn at the same time.

Garthanos wrote:

I have since taken to thinking of them as items being bound to ones Chakra (7 seats of power within the body)

I saw that in 13th Age. Personally that feels more gamey to me then a "common sense" rule on 1 item in 1 slot.

Garthanos wrote:

alternatively I like how attunement works in 5e and may pull  that in to every game I play in some form. To tell the truth though limits may not really be necessary especially with inherent bonuses being digested in to the games default math. Just some thoughts.

I'd considered attunement, but like you concluded that with heroic surges it's probably not necessary.

Maybe I've just played with people who are too argumentative or abusive of game mechanics. But I'd want a "one magic item per slot" rule just to stop someone from trying to wear five different vests at the same time (yes I've played with people who would argue this).

Are there any items you see where you think they should be wearable in the same slot?

Garthanos wrote:

JohnLynch wrote:

Thanks Garthanos. I'll have to look at how to integrate that.

Reflect on bounce back what you can... hopefully seeds can find growth.

I've been thinking about skills and I'm going to skip on working on them until I've looked at PHB3's skill powers. Once I've incorporated those and rituals into utility powers I'll have a look at skills because I think it will help define how skills work in Gods & Heroes and should provide some structure on what's possible for everyman abilities and we can then work in what's possible without specialised training.

I've moved onto working on the "Paragon Classes". I was initially going to call them Champion Classes, but then I saw the concept of Racial Paragon Classes from Unearthed Arcana. The introduction to Paragon classes is as follows:

Paragon classes are, as their name suggests, classes that exemplify the strengths and abilities of a particular race, class or fighting style. The player characters take a significant step up in their position in the world. Where they once might have been a warrior, troubadour or priest they now become champions of their tribe, angelic servants of their god or muses who inspire others to greatness.

(copy pasted from Unearthed Arcana and then modified slightly). I've tweaked them a bit. I've removed the powers from the Paragon class and they're now just part of the standard progression of characters. I'm also moving towards making Paragon Classes less class specific and more based on logical pre-requisites. Here's a not so good example.

Strongheart Champion
Your enemies have a habit of underestimating you. When everything looks hopeless, you manage to somehow pull of an amazing recovery, delivering hard blows against your foes.
Pre-requisites: Fighter or Barbarian
Benefit: At level 11 you gain Last Grasp and Resurging Strike. At level 16 you gain Vicious Stomp.

Last Grasp (Action Point)
Benefit: As an immediate action when you're reduced to 0 or less HP you can spend an action point (if you have one). If you still have 0 or less HP after spending your action point you fall unconscious and start dying.

Resurging Strike
Benefit: When you drop an enemy to 0 or less HP you regain 1d8 HP.

Vicious Stomp
Benefit: When you knock someone prone you deal 1d8 bonus damage.
----
Another example would be holy knight which requires a mount animal companion and divine initiate training (so could easily be done by a cleric multiclassed druid/ranger).

At this point I'm inclined to let the level 11 and 20 powers available to anyone of appropriate classes. This helps make the characters more customisable. What do people think? Would this dilute the Paragon Class concept too much? Would it be preferable to have "Suggested" powers to help enforce the flavour?

At this point character progression is looking like:
Level 1: Base Class and archetype
Level 11: Paragon Class to let the character either specialise in a class, race or fighting style
Level 16: Additional Paragon Class ability.
Level 21: Epic Class to let a character become greater than a worldly hero.
Level 24: Additional Epic Class ability
Level 30: Capstone ability

I'm moving away from the "Tier" concept of 4th ed from a PC-facing structure. Beyond the classes there isn't too much emphasise on the tiers. However for me developing the game and GMs the tiers are kept in tact and are integral in helping decide what level powers should be and for GMs to structure campaigns and adventures.