# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 4e >  Introducing Orcus: a Fourth Edition retro-clone

## Sanglorian

I was sad that there's still no 4th Edition retro-clone. There's plenty of games and SRDs that seek to take 4E's ideas and improve upon them, but none that seek to clone the game as it is.

Orcus is my attempt to cobble together the 4E ruleset from existing System Reference Documents: 3.5, 5E, 13th Age and Pathfinder (1 and 2). 

You can now view all the files as a website on Github Pages.

----------


## Jaeda

I only took a really fast pass, but it looks like the mechanics are the same with a couple terms renamed.  It was a really fast pass, so if there were more substantive changes, I haven't had time to catch them.

What kind of product are you hoping to make?
4e, minimal changes4e, but a different set of customization options (races, classes, etc)Fixes major problems of 4e4e with some major changesSomething clearly inspired by 4e, but different enough to really be its own gameSomewhere in between

Knowing what kinds of changes are acceptable will affect the kind of feedback you'll get.  I think you're shooting for (2), but I thought it would be best to check.  I had started a (3) a while back, but then the solutions started lending themself more towards a (4), so this also affect which parts I can offer to you to cannibalize.

----------


## Powerdork

I've reviewed the document, and my thoughts (approaching this from the perspective of a 4e clone) are below. I do think that 4e is a good game with some presentation issues, and I've been working on my own hack to make it more palatable, so thoughts from that might be mixed in. It's up to you whether or not you want them.

*Spoiler: Nitpicks.*
Show

Can you make the terminology more friendly to hex and other sorts of play by referring to spaces, or is there some reason you chose to make it squares instead of spaces?

Range doesn't account for the very real possibility that you'd need to touch someone without a weapon to use a power on them; _lay on hands_ and other similar effects. 4e's monk powers are Melee touch for a reason.

If I were writing 4e today, and making a starter set, I'd have a rule that your attack bonus is whatever modifier a power states; then, I'd have a general rule of gaining levels: You always add half your character level to a check or attack. (If this is a 4e clone, I'm curious what it means that you add ability modifiers to saving throws, at the beginning when describing what you use ability modifiers on.)
I'd also do something not unlike Magic: The Gathering for hit points; every character has a 'toughness', and if they have more damage accumulated than half their toughness, they're staggered, and if they have damage equal to or greater than their toughness marked, they begin dying. It's more intuitive in how healing works, since healing can only remove damage it can't give you more hit points than you could reasonably hold.

Initiative is a Dexterity check, so it's not worth calling out separately from ability checks, except maybe as: "Ability checks, such as initiative checks."

I see the Surprise section is written as if you're doing the 5e thing of "movement isn't an action".

Your Help action is interesting because it makes it so at a certain point everyone is guaranteed able to help, and it is never a hindrance for a low-attack-bonus character to spend an action trying to boost the attack of a higher-level creature with more damaging actions.
4e's errata implemented a change to how aid works from the release PHB. I think I have a similar rule here: When you try to help someone, you make a roll as if you were going to perform an action, but the DC is 10 + half their level (so it's harder to help more competent characters than you, especially characters with a full tier on you; the errata rule bases it on your own level, making it so you're always effectively level 1 for the purposes of helping others, which can be dissatisfying). If you succeed, you give them +2 on their next roll of the same type. If you fail, you give -1 instead.
To limit how much attack bonus and penalty can be inflicted, only four creatures can help at a time (so from -4 to +8 on a roll from help). I think that's a reasonable limit to put on it.


I'd love to give this a copy edit pass when it's approaching completion, to catch unreplaced instances of Close, for instance. We could discuss rates then, I suppose.

*Spoiler: In response to class concerns in thread*
Show

When designing a class, you must consider its role (what it does: heal and support, damage and debilitate widely, damage and debilitate in a focused manner, or draw aggro) and its power source (how it goes about the role). Both of these are expressed primarily in the powers (the keywords they tend to have, the types of attacks they make, the shapes of those attacks), and secondarily in the chassis (offensive statistics, measured in weapon proficiency and shield proficiency, or implement proficiency; defensive statistics, measured in hit point progression, healing surges, and armour proficiency) and class features (every defender has its own take on a mark, every leader can use a minor action to heal an ally or themself twice in a fight, every striker has bonus damage and except for the sorcerer needs to meet a condition to use it, and I'm sure you can find the thing controllers do).

Power source considerations (breaks from which are notable): No martial class has worse than leather armour proficiency and 5 hit points per level and all of them use weapons instead of focuses, every divine class has two Channel Divinity prayers and holy symbol proficiency (invoker is a black mage sort, so uses rods), every psionic class has power points (monk is exceptional), every primal character uses weapons or a totem.

Every class but two or three has a class feature selection, which influences the powers they prefer and the ability scores they depend on. Bards champion virtues, sorcerers' essences are touched by magical beings, swordmages know an aegis spell that influences how they engage with someone in battles, and wizards have arcane implement mastery.

Further, class identity is expressed chiefly in power options, because it's what you can do. Paladin encounter attacks are smites, clerics have _cure wounds_ utility prayers, every barbarian daily attack is a rage, and so on.



I hope this helps in any way, however limited.

----------


## Sanglorian

> What kind of product are you hoping to make?
> 4e, minimal changes4e, but a different set of customization options (races, classes, etc)Fixes major problems of 4e4e with some major changesSomething clearly inspired by 4e, but different enough to really be its own gameSomewhere in between
> 
> Knowing what kinds of changes are acceptable will affect the kind of feedback you'll get.  I think you're shooting for (2), but I thought it would be best to check.  I had started a (3) a while back, but then the solutions started lending themself more towards a (4), so this also affect which parts I can offer to you to cannibalize.


That's a great breakdown. I'm shooting for somewhere between 1 and 2. I want the game system to be compatible with 4E stuff, and present a mix of customisation options - replicating the 4e stuff where necessary (e.g. core races and basic feats).




> I've reviewed the document, and my thoughts (approaching this from the perspective of a 4e clone) are below. I do think that 4e is a good game with some presentation issues, and I've been working on my own hack to make it more palatable, so thoughts from that might be mixed in. It's up to you whether or not you want them.


Thank you, it certainly helps!

I've kept square to distinguish from "space" as the number of squares that a creature or zone occupies. 

Hmm, interesting point on range. I'll take a look at how the monk handles cases like that.

My bad, that reference to ability modifiers affecting saves is just baggage from the 5E SRD. Same with Surprise not accounting for move actions. I'll also clean up the Initiative discussion at that point too. 

Those are great class writing tips!

----------


## Jaeda

Some commentary

*Spoiler: Commentary*
Show


Personalization
	Do you want the simplified 5-point alignment or the 3x3 grid from the other versions?
	I'm pretty sure that Aboleths are considered IP.

Targetting
	Prefer Blast to Arc, Close to Near.
	I do like Far though.
	Dislike the "closest ally in the area" thing (and how 4e did healing powers), would prefer something like close 5 or ranged with a [Safe] tag.

Power Effects
	4e uses [W] instead of dW.

Summon
	It isn't clear what the condition is that causes the summoner to lose a recovery.  That sentence is not connected to the previous one.

I agree with Powerdork that Hex rules would be nice.

Your Turn
	Swift Actions and Free Actions should be subsections.
	The sample actions sections seem kind of out of place without samples for Standard and Move actions.

Outside of Your Turn
	Is there a difference between immediate interrupts and reactions?
	In 4e opportunity attacks are separate from immediate actions
	Not clear that ranged attacks should proke opportunity attacks

Rolling a 1 or a 20
	In 4e, only 20s that would hit anyway are crits.  If you would normally miss on a 20, you still hit, but it isn't a critical.

Movement and position
	Change description of five-foot step to shift instead of move.
	I do like that you differentiate the action from the result; there was too much confusion on shift the action vs shift the movement.

Healing
	4e had negative hit points, but I think moving to the 5e model is correct given that healing brings you to 0hp before applying the normal healing since this removes bookkeeping with the only real change being that it takes a massive blow to instakill you rather than accumulated damage.
	Agree with Powerdork that it might be better to track positive damage rather than lost hp.
	In that case, it might be better to rename temporary hit points to shield points or barrier points or something.



Given that your goal is to be basically an open-source version of 4e I have called out spots where you have different behavior, even if I think the new version is better.  I generally don't call out terminology changes unless I think the new version is more confusing than the original term since I presume those were a conscious decision for reasons (I assume generally for copyright fears).

This might be a good time to rethink some of the classes, such as possibly splitting ranger into separate two-weapon fighter and ranged weapon specialists or having separate classes for different wizard schools.  An abjurer (leader), conjurer (pet defender or single-target striker), enchanter/illusionist (controller), and evoker (area striker) could cover very different niches while serving to strengthen the identity of the Arcane power source (either through the spellbook power exchange, ritual casting, or cantrip utility powers).

----------


## Sanglorian

Thanks Jaeda! I've updated based on your and Powerdork's feedback. 

1. Five-point alignment is my preference
2. Aboleths are safe, I think - they show up in the 3.5 SRD at least: d20srd.org/srd/monsters/aboleth.htm
3. I picked up "arc" off another clone, Forerunner. I prefer blast too - I'll think about whether I can justify using it.
4. I'll add some explanation to the section on targeting to explain that these are just some options for power writers. 
5. I picked up the dW notation from Forerunner again - I quite like it as an immediately familiar notation to anyone who's played other d20 System games. It also allows for options like TdW (tier weapon dice, i.e., 1[W] at level 1, 2[W] at level 11, 3[W] at level 21).
6. Good point on the Summon text - have cleaned up. 
7. I would like to keep the difference between interrupts and reactions, but I couldn't find that language anywhere other than 4e. Maybe "counter actions" for immediate interrupts and "reactions" for immediate reactions?
8. My understanding was that ranged attacks provoke opportunity attacks - is that not the case in 4e?
9. I'll fix critical hits so they need to have hit anyway to be crits, and fix the wording around Five-Foot Step.
10. Good catch on the negative hit points thing. I like the 5e model, but I do want this SRD to be totally faithful so I've fixed that. But I have kept the 5e model in as a variant.




> This might be a good time to rethink some of the classes, such as possibly splitting ranger into separate two-weapon fighter and ranged weapon specialists or having separate classes for different wizard schools.  An abjurer (leader), conjurer (pet defender or single-target striker), enchanter/illusionist (controller), and evoker (area striker) could cover very different niches while serving to strengthen the identity of the Arcane power source (either through the spellbook power exchange, ritual casting, or cantrip utility powers).


Definitely a good opportunity for a re-think. I've been doing some thinking of my own, particularly about how characters could gain powers since I don't want to write hundreds of them! Would welcome any thoughts people had.

----------


## Kurald Galain

Thoughts from my side,
Your stacking rule starts with "in most cases". It would be clearer to explicitly list the exceptions (I'm assuming there aren't many). You should perhaps qualify whether (e.g.) _my_ bless spell and _my ally's_ bless spell count as two separate "sources".Your section on ability scores is unclear on the difference between ability checks and skill checks. For instance, why is "hold your breath" not an Endure check, and why is checking for undeath not a Heal check. It seems to me that all common usages for ability scores _should_ be skills, because it throws the math off otherwise (e.g. if riding a horse is a skill but riding a wagon is a straight dexterity check, then you suddenly need separate DC tables for both).Under strength, the javelin is given as a sample melee weapon. Javelins are ranged.Under intelligence, I am unclear why communicating without words and disguise are considered int checks instead of cha checks.I've never heard anyone liking 4E's alignment system; I suggest either reverting to the 3x3 grid, or dropping it entirely.Targeting appears to make no distinction between close blast (cone) and close burst (aura).To make gameplay more consistent, it would help if you have _all_ powers last until the end of someone's turn; not interchangeably use the start or the end depending on which power.It would help to have all "companion characters" (summons, animal companions, figurines of wondrous, and so forth) follow the same set of rules.It would also help to have "damage type" and "tag" be the exact same thing. In 4E you can sometimes end up with a fire power that doesn't deal fire damage (or a non-fire power that does deal fire damage) and this distinction doesn't help gameplay.You should clarify if teleportation can make you stop being prone.You should clarify the interaction between dashing (move your speed +2) and being slowed (your speed is 2). Or for that matter, between powers that let you "move 6 squares" instead of "move your speed", and the slowed condition.I think it's redundant to have both an immobilized and a restrained condition; and I think petrification is rare enough that it doesn't need to be in the condition list (considering e.g. sleeping isn't in the list, either).

HTH.

----------


## Jaeda

Ranged attacks do grant attacks of opportunity, but you didn't say that in the AoO section.  In 5e only movement causes AoO.

I think that you are going to be stuck rewriting some parts because they are sufficiently different from how both 3e and 5e does it and immediate actions is one of those things.  My recommendation is keep the terms and then rewrite the sections about them from scratch without looking at the original definition.

I feel like you are probably best served making some minor changes to clean up some things, like the dying rules or the alignment grid.  The most important thing is that it _feels_ like you are playing 4e even if the rules differ slightly.

One possibility to reduce the number of powers that need to be written is to have some shared powers for each power source and then a couple specific powers for each class (especially ones that interact with their particular class features).  This way, instead of having four powers of each level for each class you can have 4 powers for each source and then 2 powers for each class which will save you work as long as you have 3 or more classes for a given power source.  This could also help reinforce the shared identity of a given power source.  It would probably dilute the role of each class somewhat.  You would also need to make sure that the class powers aren't strictly better or else it defeats the point of the shared pool.

@Kurald: Actually, Javelins _are_ melee weapons with the thrown property.  This allows them to be used by Barbarians who aren't proficient with any ranged weapons.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> @Kurald: Actually, Javelins _are_ melee weapons with the thrown property.


Looks like I'm confusing my editions  :Small Amused:   I had forgotten that they count as melee weapons in 4E. I suggest, then, that they _shouldn't_ count as melee weapons in Orcus, based on what a javelin actually is. If barbarians need to be able to throw something, well, fix that in the barbarian class.

----------


## Sanglorian

Thanks Kurald and Jaena! I'll get to your latest comments over the next few days, but in the meantime I wanted to share the next section:

I've updated the first post with a link to the latest section - and likely the biggest one: Player Options. You can also get the PDF here: github.com/Sanglorian/orcus/raw/main/Orcus%20Player%20Options%20-%20current.pdf

It contains:

* 12 races
* 2 prestige classes
* 1 epic class
* All skills
* A bunch of feats
* Lots of basic equipment
* Some magic items

I would welcome your feedback! A lot of the content is cloned from the original game or brought in from other OGL 4e-based games, but there's also some original material there - particularly prestige classes and magic items. I'd love any feedback on those elements in particular, but also on layout, approach, whether I've got a representative sample of the content, etc.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> I would welcome your feedback! A lot of the content is cloned from the original game or brought in from other OGL 4e-based games, but there's also some original material there - particularly prestige classes and magic items.


Could you list what, specifically, you're changing? This is a pretty long document and at first glance it looks pretty much the same as 4E's PHB; I'd rather not manually compare 60 pages with the equivalent PHB1 content to figure out what's new or different.

Also, what exactly is the difference between dragonborn and lizardfolk? Since you've combined elf and eladrin, why separate these? And as written, the new lizardfolk aren't an interesting race (they get an MBA as racial power; so what? Everybody has an MBA).
I've never heard of "whoms" before, I take it that's from your personal campaign world? I'd expect lots of "whom's on first" jokes from that.
Finally, bear in mind that the human "+4" power is much stronger than most other racial powers, and pretty similar in flavor and effect as the elven reroll and the 1000 lifetimes power. I suggest toning that down or removing it; the only reason it exists is because of E-classes (and you don't seem to have those so far).

----------


## Powerdork

On the wood elf racial power: You're establishing firstly that conditional triggers are listed alongside range, secondly that powers with triggers are universally and without fail optional to use (or else elves automatically reroll the first attack roll they make after a rest, every time; or powers that are mandatory when their triggers are met must specify this every time), and thirdly that elves are so renowned in archery that they can reroll their melee attacks. Do I have the right of it?

On halflings and other small races: I've found that the effect small size has on weapon use is, in effect, having only one hand. I'm not convinced that needs to be a thing, or that it needs to be expressed the way you'd first think. What are your thoughts on it?

Tieflings: Something that I've run into is the in-elegance of templating that arises from adding half a character's level to things that aren't d20 rolls. Something I've considered, and you might consider too, is to replace "+ (level/2)" with something like ("level-adjusted"), and possibly including that in attack lines (like) so when it's excluded (I can think of things that aren't especially level-adjusted, like holy water attacks) it doesn't have players questioning what the deal is.

Dragon breath: Is this meant to be a physical ability modifier + 2, or a physical ability modifier (instead +2 if you've got bad physical abilities)? 

On races generally: I'm not one for imposing genre on games that don't need it, but with d20-pattern stuff, this is a game that really, really needs it. 4e did the smoothest job of being clear what it means to be a Dungeons & Dragons character, by laying out suggestions on how the world is. There are long histories, with fallen empires and dungeons to loot; there are hazards the world over, and survival is a miracle to be celebrated; there are dark forces that wish ill upon the people of the realm, and your PC is supposed to go fight it. Attempts to run D&D crumble when player characters don't have sufficient buy-in, stakes that matter to them and push them to do an adventure, which is really limiting in the kind of threats that can be fielded. The tone of the game needs to be supported by the mechanics, and the mechanics need a setting to be cast against.

Orcs. This is where I hope you've done your reading in light of developments surrounding D&D and other fantasy games, but if you haven't, it's worth remembering that no art fails to inform the audience of the creator's politics (though the audience might fail to take notice). But if there's going to be a discussion, it's probably best held very carefully in the parent Roleplaying Games subforum, after a skim of other threads that may have come up.



The class table seems to include bonus powers from prestige classes and epic classes. Should it? The overwhelming thing about the Page Twenty-Nine Table is that it presents absolutely everything all at once in a very dense space.

If replacement is a thing, it's worth talking about the mechanisms of replacement. A token line like "When you reach a level that allows you to replace a power, you choose a class attack power you know of that kind and give it up, exchanging it for a power of the level you're gaining." would leave no doubt about what happens, but also leaves players to fend for themselves in regards to organizing the mess of powers they can pick when creating high-level characters. Reminder text of what levels of powers a character should have from their class (specifically, before prestige classes and whatnot) would be nice.

One-Two Punch: Since you're not specifying targets, is it safe to assume the secondary attack can be against anyone?
Fast Learner: What's the silliest feat you can think of to gain temporary access to? Limited uses of abilities are a concern with abilities like this, see how wordy Pathfinder's brawler is. Also, this is a Hit effect but there's no attack.

Trusty Action: I like this sort of design.

Immortality: Even knowing how epic destinies work in 4e, it still threw me when I glimpsed this part of Agent Retriever.
Interplanar Contingencies: Gear matters (the fact you wrote Appropriation says as much), and this ability should account for it in some way, especially given gear might grant access to non-attack powers. Does the new body count as having access to gear?

Skills: I stopped reading here about eight or ten words into Aid Another. I like fan efforts, and helping them be better, which is why some things feel all the more bitter when I keep coming across them, and my enthusiasm and vigour vanishes.
You aren't beholden to the whims of an editor, or a project lead, or a style manual. There are more than two types of existence, and the language you use should reflect that.

----------


## Duff

> One possibility to reduce the number of powers that need to be written is to have some shared powers for each power source and then a couple specific powers for each class (especially ones that interact with their particular class features).  This way, instead of having four powers of each level for each class you can have 4 powers for each source and then 2 powers for each class which will save you work as long as you have 3 or more classes for a given power source.  This could also help reinforce the shared identity of a given power source.  It would probably dilute the role of each class somewhat.  You would also need to make sure that the class powers aren't strictly better or else it defeats the point of the shared pool.


This will save you a heap of work.  Powers can also be shared across roles.  At it's simplest, a battlemind, a fighter, a swordmage and a warden can happily share "I hit it with my weapon and mark it"

Or controller power "Conjure wall" define the shape, size duration etc.
When wizards take the power they choose what damage it does - fire, electricity, cold etc
Druids may have it be thorny plants which do damage to anyone passing through or stone which can't be passed
Involkers walls are made of positive or negative energy and do the appropriate damage
And psions do psychic damage

And there's nothing wrong with a sorcerer and a warlock sharing "I shoot it with magic fire".  Even a Cleric and a wizard could get in on this if you have controllers using class features to get at least some of their job done rather than rely on their powers

In fact, the more you can make class features do the heavy lifting the less work you have to do

An if you have "Power features" and "Role features" you'd be starting to have classes defined by where they sit.  8 features partially describing 16 classes (4 roles times 4 sources)

----------


## Sanglorian

> Could you list what, specifically, you're changing? This is a pretty long document and at first glance it looks pretty much the same as 4E's PHB; I'd rather not manually compare 60 pages with the equivalent PHB1 content to figure out what's new or different.
> 
> Also, what exactly is the difference between dragonborn and lizardfolk? Since you've combined elf and eladrin, why separate these? And as written, the new lizardfolk aren't an interesting race (they get an MBA as racial power; so what? Everybody has an MBA).
> I've never heard of "whoms" before, I take it that's from your personal campaign world? I'd expect lots of "whom's on first" jokes from that.
> Finally, bear in mind that the human "+4" power is much stronger than most other racial powers, and pretty similar in flavor and effect as the elven reroll and the 1000 lifetimes power. I suggest toning that down or removing it; the only reason it exists is because of E-classes (and you don't seem to have those so far).


Sure thing! The changed stuff is effectively the new content: the whom and lizardfolk races, the weapon master and prince of shadows prestige paths, the agent retriever epic path, and the magic items. 

I don't see dragonborn and lizardfolk as particularly similar - one being an elemental, draconic race and the other animalfolk. They haven't been combined in other editions, whereas 4e is the only edition that spun out high elves into their own thing. But I'd absolutely like to make lizardfolk more interesting if you had any suggestions, or to cut them if they're not pulling their weight. 

I do want to keep compatibility with e-classes, but I'll change the human racial power to make it an alternative rule rather than a default option to indicate that it's not preferable. 




> On the wood elf racial power: You're establishing firstly that conditional triggers are listed alongside range, secondly that powers with triggers are universally and without fail optional to use (or else elves automatically reroll the first attack roll they make after a rest, every time; or powers that are mandatory when their triggers are met must specify this every time), and thirdly that elves are so renowned in archery that they can reroll their melee attacks. Do I have the right of it?


Trigger appearing on the same line as range was just a problem with power formatting, which I think I've fixed now.

I've clarified the Trigger entry in the rulebook to make it clear that it is optional to use the power. 

Elfshot is a reference to the arrowhead or spearhead shaped stones that are found from time to time. 




> On halflings and other small races: I've found that the effect small size has on weapon use is, in effect, having only one hand. I'm not convinced that needs to be a thing, or that it needs to be expressed the way you'd first think. What are your thoughts on it?


I'm reluctant to change the core rules, but I'll update the guide to add a section saying GMs might want to remove the Small weapon rules if they like. 




> Tieflings: Something that I've run into is the in-elegance of templating that arises from adding half a character's level to things that aren't d20 rolls. Something I've considered, and you might consider too, is to replace "+ (level/2)" with something like ("level-adjusted"), and possibly including that in attack lines (like) so when it's excluded (I can think of things that aren't especially level-adjusted, like holy water attacks) it doesn't have players questioning what the deal is.


If I understand you correctly, I think the problem with having a separate term for it is that sometimes level-adjusted will mean +level, and sometimes it'll mean +half-level. But I do find "(level/2)" clumsy ... I've changed it to "+ half your level" for now as I think that flows better. 




> Dragon breath: Is this meant to be a physical ability modifier + 2, or a physical ability modifier (instead +2 if you've got bad physical abilities)?


Good point - I've rephrased to "(Highest of Strength, Constitution, Dexterity) +2 vs Reflex" for now. 




> Orcs. This is where I hope you've done your reading in light of developments surrounding D&D and other fantasy games, but if you haven't, it's worth remembering that no art fails to inform the audience of the creator's politics (though the audience might fail to take notice). But if there's going to be a discussion, it's probably best held very carefully in the parent Roleplaying Games subforum, after a skim of other threads that may have come up.


Yes, good point. The half-orc text is copy-pasted from the 5e SRD, so I've just deleted any description of half-orc alignment from the text altogether at this point. Would be good to include a sensitive discussion of this topic at some point, but in the meantime at least I can leave it out. 




> The class table seems to include bonus powers from prestige classes and epic classes. Should it? The overwhelming thing about the Page Twenty-Nine Table is that it presents absolutely everything all at once in a very dense space.
> 
> If replacement is a thing, it's worth talking about the mechanisms of replacement. A token line like "When you reach a level that allows you to replace a power, you choose a class attack power you know of that kind and give it up, exchanging it for a power of the level you're gaining." would leave no doubt about what happens, but also leaves players to fend for themselves in regards to organizing the mess of powers they can pick when creating high-level characters. Reminder text of what levels of powers a character should have from their class (specifically, before prestige classes and whatnot) would be nice.


Great point about the table. I've made an alternative version, which I've put in an appendix, that shows powers by level that characters of a particular level are entitled to. I've also called out powers from paragon and epic paths. 

And that's helpful replacement text too - I've put that straight in. 




> One-Two Punch: Since you're not specifying targets, is it safe to assume the secondary attack can be against anyone?
> Fast Learner: What's the silliest feat you can think of to gain temporary access to? Limited uses of abilities are a concern with abilities like this, see how wordy Pathfinder's brawler is. Also, this is a Hit effect but there's no attack.


One-Two Punch: Good catch - have clarified it's against the same target.
Fast Learner: Well worth considering. I think it's okay, but I'll keep an eye on it. And good eye on "Hit" too -- I've fixed that to Effect. 




> Immortality: Even knowing how epic destinies work in 4e, it still threw me when I glimpsed this part of Agent Retriever.


I've added a bit more text around it which hopefully makes it less forceful and out of place. 




> Interplanar Contingencies: Gear matters (the fact you wrote Appropriation says as much), and this ability should account for it in some way, especially given gear might grant access to non-attack powers. Does the new body count as having access to gear?


I didn't even think of that! I've clarified that yes, it does.




> Skills: I stopped reading here about eight or ten words into Aid Another. I like fan efforts, and helping them be better, which is why some things feel all the more bitter when I keep coming across them, and my enthusiasm and vigour vanishes.
> You aren't beholden to the whims of an editor, or a project lead, or a style manual. There are more than two types of existence, and the language you use should reflect that.


Thank you for pointing that out - I've gone through and I think I've caught all of those, and changed them to "they, their, them". I'll keep an eye out as I go through to see if there's any others.

And I'm sorry that cost you your enthusiasm and vigour - I'm very grateful for the feedback you provided. 




> This will save you a heap of work.  Powers can also be shared across roles.  At it's simplest, a battlemind, a fighter, a swordmage and a warden can happily share "I hit it with my weapon and mark it"
> 
> Or controller power "Conjure wall" define the shape, size duration etc.
> When wizards take the power they choose what damage it does - fire, electricity, cold etc
> Druids may have it be thorny plants which do damage to anyone passing through or stone which can't be passed
> Involkers walls are made of positive or negative energy and do the appropriate damage
> And psions do psychic damage
> 
> And there's nothing wrong with a sorcerer and a warlock sharing "I shoot it with magic fire".  Even a Cleric and a wizard could get in on this if you have controllers using class features to get at least some of their job done rather than rely on their powers
> ...


Yes, all good points - thank you! I'm definitely thinking about how to make pools of powers available between classes - whether they're shared by role or power source or both or something else entirely I haven't figured out yet! 

One thing that worries me is that some classes seem to take their role from their powers, and others seem to mostly take their role from their features. Would wizards and sorcerers sharing arcane attacks mean they both end up controllery, for example?

---

EDIT: Sorry Kurald, I forgot about your earlier post! Will work through it tonight and post a reply tomorrow.

----------


## Kurald Galain

> I do want to keep compatibility with e-classes, but I'll change the human racial power to make it an alternative rule rather than a default option to indicate that it's not preferable.


Thinking about it, maybe it should be that a human character gains an extra at-will (as in the PHB1) but only if your class doesn't _have_ at-wills then instead you gain heroic effort. Because for O-classes, the PHB1 human was already a plenty strong and desirable option _before_ HOFL gave it the single best racial power.

----------


## Duff

> One thing that worries me is that some classes seem to take their role from their powers, and others seem to mostly take their role from their features. Would wizards and sorcerers sharing arcane attacks mean they both end up controllery, for example?


I think the answer is "It depends"
*Spoiler: Example shared power*
Show


EG "Icebolt" would be a ranged ice damage spell.  Available to Arcane classes , Druids and Clerics

Sorcerer's and Warlocks class features turns it into striker damage

Clerics have their perks through features and (probably) don't need any extra.  Ditto Sword Mages

Wizards either:
 - accept that it's a weaker power in their hands, but it gives them the single target they might want.  Probably not ideal
- Have a class feature that makes it controllery - EG,  "Once per turn, a single target hit by a ranged attack suffers an effect based on the damage type. Ice causes Slow until end of target's next turn".  This is that whole "More work in the feature = less work on powers"
- Have a rider in the power "Wizards can push the target of this spell 1 square+ Int modifier

And Druids would be like wizards but maybe
 - Rider - If a druid hits an enemy with this power, their animal companion can consider the target flanked until the end of the next round

----------


## Kurald Galain

> One thing that worries me is that some classes seem to take their role from their powers, and others seem to mostly take their role from their features. Would wizards and sorcerers sharing arcane attacks mean they both end up controllery, for example?


That just means that the controllery wizard spells shouldn't be shared.

The idea is that in 3E games, you can shout "Fireball" and the players immediately know how to react, what save to roll, and so forth. That is _fun_. In 4E that doesn't work; if a character or monster does a burst of fire, then people basically don't react and you'll have to look up what _this particular_ burst of fire does. Is it ref or fort? Low damage or high? Does it target allies? Cause a status effect? Nobody knows.

_That_ is why it's good to share a couple of iconic spells. Not a lot of spells, certainly not all spells for a class.

----------


## Jaeda

Reading through has been slow going and I've been busy with exams and projects (grading them, not taking them).  I have at least gotten through the races though.

*Spoiler: Races*
Show

General: Given the current cultural environment, you might want to pick a different name for this section, like Ancestry.  This also opens you up to have other settings where this part is filled more by culture than by genetics (so for example a human from Rohan and one from Gondor could be different).General: Dwarves and Elves is actually a non-standard plural (started by Tolkien and copied in D&D).  The correct English plural is dwarfs and elfs (as can be seen in Narnia and Discworld).  Given that you are renaming stuff, I thought you should know.In 4e Dwarves don't actually have a racial power; theirs is a modification on Second Wind instead.  4e Dwarves also get a defense boost.I concur that Elfshot is a weird name for an ability that affects melee attacks.Lightning Hide has an alternate reading of having electric skin.  I strongly recommend picking a different name.Spirited Away isn't really a good name either; it suggests teleporting or plane shifting.Whoms
I presume this is supposed to be pronounced like wombats.  It still beats out Inspired as the worst race name.I haven't seen any published races with a burrow speed.  I can imagine a bunch of ways to use this for dungeon bypass purposes.I'll admit I misread it as Lightning Quip instead of Lightening Quip.  I have no idea why a race of anthro wombats have an ability to cheer.  It's also a pretty powerful ability.  None of the other races have a daily power as a racial.I feel like with your stated goal of having a 4e clone that original content like this should be a separate supplement rather than being mixed in with the traditional content.Lizardfolk
I'm not sure why they can whistle.Poisonous nip is both really weak, and again I'm not sure that I've seen any races with at-will powers.  It also doesn't really match with how lizardfolk have generally been portrayed in D&D.




As before, I'm calling out where you deviate from 4e without passing judgement on whether it is the correct move or not.

----------


## Duff

> That just means that the controllery wizard spells shouldn't be shared.
> 
> The idea is that in 3E games, you can shout "Fireball" and the players immediately know how to react, what save to roll, and so forth. That is _fun_. In 4E that doesn't work; if a character or monster does a burst of fire, then people basically don't react and you'll have to look up what _this particular_ burst of fire does. Is it ref or fort? Low damage or high? Does it target allies? Cause a status effect? Nobody knows.
> 
> _That_ is why it's good to share a couple of iconic spells. Not a lot of spells, certainly not all spells for a class.


That's actually raises a really good point.  The more powers are shared, the quicker turns can be because everyone knows what's going on.  That applies to iconic spells like fireball, but also to any *new* iconic powers.  
If every defender has the power "Thump" which hits for [W] and marks.  
Your new battlemeind says "I Thump it".  Immediately, everyone at the table knows what's going on even if they never played (with) a battlemind before.  
The rogue is checking how battlemind enforcement of marks work to look at moving to flank
The wizard knows that if Thump hits, they are wanting to leave the battlemind and the target together, so that wall will need to go somewhere else
The Warlord knows they can move in close to do that healing with less chance of getting hit.

Or the new iconic "Icebolt" from above (and assuming riders get added to the spell by class feature)

Swordmage - "I'm going to Icebolt the blue one" - everyone knows there's nothing to see here, they keep planning their move because its just damage
Wizard - "I'm going to Icebolt the blue one again."  At first, people will need to be reminded or look up how wizard's ice spells work.  

But it's easier to remember "Wizards cold-type spells slow for a round" and apply that to Icebolt, Ice ball, Frosty's Cheesy Snowstorm and wall of ice, rather than "Ice bolt slows for a round, Ice ball immobilises for 1 turn, Snowstorm causes blindness and wall of ice just does damage"

----------


## BettaGeorge

This is a very cool project!

I agree that consolidating powers and enforcing a correlation between tags and effect types would have been an improvement in 4e.

I know that you want to emulate the rules as closely as possible, but as a DM, my biggest bookkeeping nightmare in 4e was having both powers that end on the _target's_ turn and powers that end on the _caster's_ turn. (Also, beginning of turn versus end of turn.) Simply settling on one of the two would have streamlined our combats extremely. (And yes, I also play 3.5, which is essentially the tax return form of combat systems, but one of the great things about 4e is that it does combat _intuitively_.)

----------


## BettaGeorge

Double-posting because I have now taken the time to look over some of the material.

Multiclassing

Once thing that always bugs me about 4e is the multiclassing system. Not because of how it plays, but because of how it is presented. I do not feel it is necessary to have a separate feat for each class you could take, necessitating the inclusion of a new feat for each new class one introduces; a feat which reproduces much of the text of the other umpteen multiclass feats.

A possible streamlining with no functional difference is as follows:

Each class has in its description a primary ability. If I recall correctly, that is already the case anyway.Each class has a "multiclass" entry that specifies what one gains by multiclassing _into_ that class.There is a single feat, described below, instead of a thousand different ones.

*New feat: Multiclass [Class]*
As you take this feat, choose a class of which you are not already a member.
*Prerequisite:* 13 in the chosen class's primary ability.
*Benefit:* You count as the chosen class in addition to any classes of which you are already a member. In addition, you gain the benefits described in the chosen class's "multiclass" section.
*Special:* You can take this feat multiple times, choosing a new class each time.

Healing Surges
I think the name "recovery" is too clunky for a term that you use a _lot_ at the table. Maybe something snappier like "boost"?

I also notice that your basic rules make no mention of minions. Is that something you want to reserve for the MM?

----------


## Kurald Galain

> prestige classes and epic classes.


So, regarding your homebrew paragon and epic paths,

One-two punch is essentially twin strike (by paragon tier your damage modifiers will be much bigger than your damage dice). The point of the L11 paragon powers is that they're _noticeable_, and getting twin strike at L11 is just not impressive. Other martial classes tend to also have doubletap encounter powers at a lower level. Speaking of Twin Strike, it probably works a bit too well with whirling dervish. Finally, a L20 daily that just hits a single creature is rather underpowered.

For prince of shadows, trusty action probably shouldn't work with area effects; otherwise, people will combo it with e.g. an area effect stun. Also, you should clarify what a "sting in the tail" is. The path's L11 encounter power has the same problem as the weapon master. The L20 power is good but not level-20-good, so I'd suggest moving that to L11 instead. An immediate teleport that doesn't work when anybody sees you, that's so situational that it'll probably never come up. And the L16 power basically means half damage from opportunity attacks, which is fairly underwhelming.

Agent retriever is decent, but the force bubble should be a daily given how strong it is; a tactical player will use it to lock half of the enemy forces out of combat, no roll required. Compare this to the various (pretty high level) wall powers wizards get.

----------


## Sanglorian

Before I respond to you all, I wanted to share the latest update: 

Classes and Powers (PDF, Markdown)

The prestige path and epic path sections you've seen before, so what's new is kits (my take on themes), classes and disciplines. 

Disciplines are sets of powers; when you have access to a discipline, you can choose from its powers when you level up. Since classes - and kits - give access to disciplines, it avoids having to write redundant powers for each class. 

Kits work similarly to themes, offering features at level 1 and usually later levels too, and by giving access to a discipline they give you more powers to choose from - just like a theme would. GMs can give every player character a kit, or require them to give up feats to do so - which would remove a fiddly part of character building for those who don't like picking feats every couple of levels. 

As always I'm interested in feedback on balance, but mostly at this point I'd like to know what you think of the concept and execution. 

--

*Responses*

Thanks all for your feedback! I've posted Orcus a few places, and so far this is the forum where I get the most detailed, particular feedback - which I need.




> So, regarding your homebrew paragon and epic paths,


*Spoiler*
Show

One-two punch is essentially twin strike (by paragon tier your damage modifiers will be much bigger than your damage dice). The point of the L11 paragon powers is that they're noticeable, and getting twin strike at L11 is just not impressive. Other martial classes tend to also have doubletap encounter powers at a lower level. Speaking of Twin Strike, it probably works a bit too well with whirling dervish. Finally, a L20 daily that just hits a single creature is rather underpowered.

For prince of shadows, trusty action probably shouldn't work with area effects; otherwise, people will combo it with e.g. an area effect stun. Also, you should clarify what a "sting in the tail" is. The path's L11 encounter power has the same problem as the weapon master. The L20 power is good but not level-20-good, so I'd suggest moving that to L11 instead. An immediate teleport that doesn't work when anybody sees you, that's so situational that it'll probably never come up. And the L16 power basically means half damage from opportunity attacks, which is fairly underwhelming.

Agent retriever is decent, but the force bubble should be a daily given how strong it is; a tactical player will use it to lock half of the enemy forces out of combat, no roll required. Compare this to the various (pretty high level) wall powers wizards get. 


Good points. I'm not good at balance, so I appreciate your experience. 

1. I've strengthened _one-two punch_, giving it two attacks, and the following Hit: 2dW + Strength modifier damage and the target is dazed until the end of their next turn. If both attacks hit, the target is stunned until the end of their next turn.  

2. I've changed _first blood_ to "Near burst 1, all enemies".

3. I've changed Trusty Action to only apply to one attack in an area attack, and given some examples for the sting in the tail.  

4. I've made _just desserts_ an immediate (react) action - do you think that lifts it up to L11 power? Similarly I've made the damage each turn for the L20 power, and added a miss effect. I've kind of merged the incorporeal effect into the L16 _out of mind_ teleport, and removed the requirement that no one can see you. The L16 feature now means flanking you does not grant combat advantage. 

5. I've made _force bubble_ a daily power. 




> Double-posting because I have now taken the time to look over some of the material.


*Spoiler*
Show

Multiclassing

Once thing that always bugs me about 4e is the multiclassing system. Not because of how it plays, but because of how it is presented. I do not feel it is necessary to have a separate feat for each class you could take, necessitating the inclusion of a new feat for each new class one introduces; a feat which reproduces much of the text of the other umpteen multiclass feats.

A possible streamlining with no functional difference is as follows:

Each class has in its description a primary ability. If I recall correctly, that is already the case anyway.Each class has a "multiclass" entry that specifies what one gains by multiclassing _into_ that class.There is a single feat, described below, instead of a thousand different ones.

*New feat: Multiclass [Class]*
As you take this feat, choose a class of which you are not already a member.
*Prerequisite:* 13 in the chosen class's primary ability.
*Benefit:* You count as the chosen class in addition to any classes of which you are already a member. In addition, you gain the benefits described in the chosen class's "multiclass" section.
*Special:* You can take this feat multiple times, choosing a new class each time.

Healing Surges
I think the name "recovery" is too clunky for a term that you use a _lot_ at the table. Maybe something snappier like "boost"?

I also notice that your basic rules make no mention of minions. Is that something you want to reserve for the MM?


1. Great idea for multiclassing (which I'm calling dualclassing, at least for now). I've lifted that feat wholesale and added it in. 

2. I'll make a note of "boost" and see how I feel about it! I got recoveries from _13th Age_ - I like keeping the terminology consistent where possible. 

3. There'll definitely be "mooks", elites and "bosses" in the monster section! 




> This is a very cool project!


*Spoiler*
Show

I agree that consolidating powers and enforcing a correlation between tags and effect types would have been an improvement in 4e.

I know that you want to emulate the rules as closely as possible, but as a DM, my biggest bookkeeping nightmare in 4e was having both powers that end on the _target's_ turn and powers that end on the _caster's_ turn. (Also, beginning of turn versus end of turn.) Simply settling on one of the two would have streamlined our combats extremely. (And yes, I also play 3.5, which is essentially the tax return form of combat systems, but one of the great things about 4e is that it does combat _intuitively_.)


Thanks! A few people have mentioned it being tricky to keep track of power durations. I'll keep a range of options in the rules, but in the powers that I write I'll try to stick to "end of your next turn". 




> Reading through has been slow going and I've been busy with exams and projects (grading them, not taking them).  I have at least gotten through the races though.


*Spoiler: Races*
Show

General: Given the current cultural environment, you might want to pick a different name for this section, like Ancestry.  This also opens you up to have other settings where this part is filled more by culture than by genetics (so for example a human from Rohan and one from Gondor could be different).General: Dwarves and Elves is actually a non-standard plural (started by Tolkien and copied in D&D).  The correct English plural is dwarfs and elfs (as can be seen in Narnia and Discworld).  Given that you are renaming stuff, I thought you should know.In 4e Dwarves don't actually have a racial power; theirs is a modification on Second Wind instead.  4e Dwarves also get a defense boost.I concur that Elfshot is a weird name for an ability that affects melee attacks.Lightning Hide has an alternate reading of having electric skin.  I strongly recommend picking a different name.Spirited Away isn't really a good name either; it suggests teleporting or plane shifting.Whoms
I presume this is supposed to be pronounced like wombats.  It still beats out Inspired as the worst race name.I haven't seen any published races with a burrow speed.  I can imagine a bunch of ways to use this for dungeon bypass purposes.I'll admit I misread it as Lightning Quip instead of Lightening Quip.  I have no idea why a race of anthro wombats have an ability to cheer.  It's also a pretty powerful ability.  None of the other races have a daily power as a racial.I feel like with your stated goal of having a 4e clone that original content like this should be a separate supplement rather than being mixed in with the traditional content.Lizardfolk
I'm not sure why they can whistle.Poisonous nip is both really weak, and again I'm not sure that I've seen any races with at-will powers.  It also doesn't really match with how lizardfolk have generally been portrayed in D&D.




Thanks for the feedback! 

1. I'd been toying with "ancestry" instead of "race" after seeing Pathfinder 2 uses it, and this prompted me to make the switch. Agree it's more versatile - could even cover Numenera style "descriptors". 

2. I don't think dwarves get a defence bonus, just a bonus to saves against poison. "Rally" is just Orcus' equivalent of second wind. 

3. I'll change Elfshot to Careful Focus, Lightning Hide to Hide in a Flash and Spirited Away to Disappearing Act to avoid confusion. 

4. I'm keen to keep the homebrew ancestries in for a couple of reasons - firstly, while the rules are cloned faithfully the races/ancestries are the only game components that I expect to get the same treatment. Classes, powers, etc., are not going to necessarily have direct analogues with 4E originals. Secondly I want to invite other people's contributions, and I think having some existing homebrews in there will help with that.

That said, I want what's there to be balanced and useful. I've changed the Lizardfolk to Vishyas (name adapted from an OGL race from Pathfinder) since the traits weren't particularly lizardfolky, and tried to strengthen their bite by making it a minor action usable once an encounter. Similarly I've limited the whom's burrow and given them a different power inspired by how wombats can get aggressive. 




> Thoughts from my side,


*Spoiler*
Show


Your stacking rule starts with "in most cases". It would be clearer to explicitly list the exceptions (I'm assuming there aren't many). You should perhaps qualify whether (e.g.) _my_ bless spell and _my ally's_ bless spell count as two separate "sources".Your section on ability scores is unclear on the difference between ability checks and skill checks. For instance, why is "hold your breath" not an Endure check, and why is checking for undeath not a Heal check. It seems to me that all common usages for ability scores _should_ be skills, because it throws the math off otherwise (e.g. if riding a horse is a skill but riding a wagon is a straight dexterity check, then you suddenly need separate DC tables for both).Under strength, the javelin is given as a sample melee weapon. Javelins are ranged.Under intelligence, I am unclear why communicating without words and disguise are considered int checks instead of cha checks.I've never heard anyone liking 4E's alignment system; I suggest either reverting to the 3x3 grid, or dropping it entirely.Targeting appears to make no distinction between close blast (cone) and close burst (aura).To make gameplay more consistent, it would help if you have _all_ powers last until the end of someone's turn; not interchangeably use the start or the end depending on which power.It would help to have all "companion characters" (summons, animal companions, figurines of wondrous, and so forth) follow the same set of rules.It would also help to have "damage type" and "tag" be the exact same thing. In 4E you can sometimes end up with a fire power that doesn't deal fire damage (or a non-fire power that does deal fire damage) and this distinction doesn't help gameplay.You should clarify if teleportation can make you stop being prone.You should clarify the interaction between dashing (move your speed +2) and being slowed (your speed is 2). Or for that matter, between powers that let you "move 6 squares" instead of "move your speed", and the slowed condition.I think it's redundant to have both an immobilized and a restrained condition; and I think petrification is rare enough that it doesn't need to be in the condition list (considering e.g. sleeping isn't in the list, either).

HTH.


1. Good point about stacking, I've made it unambiguous: they stack unless they have the same modifier. 

2. I think ability checks should really be limited to the times when there's no suitable skill. I agree quite a few of the examples could easily come under skills - so I've changed the wording and cut most of the examples.

3. I actually quite like the five-point alignment system! But I'll add in a variant rule for the nine-point alignment system. 

4. Re "Targeting appears to make no distinction between close blast (cone) and close burst (aura).", "Arc" is the new term for blast - but perhaps I'm not describing it well or "arc" isn't descriptive enough? 

5. I'll clarify that teleportation does not stop you being prone. 

6. I've clarified how the slowed condition interacts with speed bonuses and penalties. 

7. I'll keep restrained for now - I like having conditions that are like other conditions (immobile in this case) but worse.

----------


## Sanglorian

I've updated Classes and Powers (PDF, Markdown). It now has:

*Three classes*

* The Swashbuckler, a Martial Striker (disciplines: Blades in the Dark, Rapier's Point)
* The Commander, a Martial Leader (disciplines: Golden Lion, Angel's Trumpet)
* The Mageblade, an Arcane Defender (disciplines: Veiled Moon, Elemental Flux)

*Four kits*

* Binds Familiar, giving you a familiar companion and access to the Strong Bidding discipline
* Three multiclass kits, for the Swashbuckler, Commander and Mageblade

*Seven disciplines*

* Blades in the Dark, for tricky and cruel martial powers
* Rapier's Point, for deft dueling martial powers
* Strong Bidding, for arcane powers that work with familiars, summoned monsters and animal companions
* Elemental Flux, for arcane powers that use the five energies of cold, lightning, thunder, acid and fire
* Veiled Moon, for arcane powers that use force energy or teleportation
* Golden Lion, for martial powers involving tactics or teamwork
* Angel's Trumpet, for martial powers involving healing and inspiration

As well as the two prestige paths and one epic path that were previously in the Player Options section.

I think distributing powers based on disciplines, which can be shared between classes or picked up by other means, is a good solution to some of the problems discussed around writing hundreds of powers - but would be interested what others think!

----------


## Shimeran

Nice.  Good to see another 4e clone in the works.  I'll comment more after I'm caught up.  I do find it amusing you're ending up with disciplines as I ended up with a similar approach myself.  I ended up calling them power sets, but I can see the appeal in reusing the Path of War term.  I've been aiming for fairly tightly themed set myself, such as Celerity (chained / combo actions) and Command (give allies actions).  I'd be curious on how you were thinking of handling skill powers.  I've been trying to leave the door open for them myself as they're already pretty tightly themed.

I did find myself leaning toward a certain division between the thematic parts of a class and the role specific parts.  You can see something like that in 4e with the slayer / knight divide, but I can definitely see the appeal in say being able to build something like an earlier edition abjurer with wizardly elements like a spellbook but a more defensive / protective focus.  For that matter, a trickster style rogue focused to foiling enemies plans is also amusing.  I'd be interested in seeing how you handle that.  It looks like there are groups in there, though I don't know if those carry any mechnical benefits on their own yet.

I also found myself looking for a common term for some of the more zoomed out character divisions, such as player character, minion, and solo.  They kind of supercede class in that you could give a standard monster as class to make it  elite but in doing go the monster would get a different set of traits from the class than a player character would.  I figure you could loosen things up a bit more and make it easier to create say rogue minions.  I ended up calling those character roles as I figured it would give me more legal leeway, but I'll be interested in seeing how you handle that.

I will say I was a bit suprised to see the more stylistic / build options called subclasses.  I figured you'd want to keep that term open for more mechanical distinctions like the above option of fitting multiple role options into a shared base class.  I'd been leaning on calling those fighting styles myself.

On a side note, glad to see you've been getting use out of Forerunner.  I dug into that a bit myself and found it pretty useful.

----------


## Duff

Thinking about how to make the arcane power source work (Because I think it's the easiest one to fluff having the class features do the work)

At each level, there's a number of "spells", some are daily, some encounter and some at-will.
Each class can choose freely from the spell list.
But also have some features

*Artificers* - Probably most of the class features from 4e.  maybe that's all or maybe they can put a spell they know into an item to allow an ally to cast it.
*Swordmage* -  mark and enforcement.  maybe as in 4e, but could be as different as you want.  Same for the defences.  Give them an encounter power "when you cast a spell with a burst effect, mark all targets in the burst"
Expect them to go long on weapon spells because they have the best weapons but pick up some area effects, and some ranged effects as well
*Warlock* - Curse.  When a cursed target is hit by one of your spells, they take damage of a type based on your patron.  Boon based on patron.  Get a skill based on patron.  Encounter power to assert a control effect when you hit a cursed target.  Maybe have the specific control effect also be based on patron, but could be a choice when the character is created.  Maybe give a few options
*Sourcerer* - Additional damage to all targets hit by a spell.  may be either lower damage for multiple targets or more damage for singles.  Damage type based on bloodline.  Extra damage if the spell already uses that element
*Wizard* - Rider based on the type of damage - Fire does "Blast damage" into the surrounding squares.  Amount of damage based on level.  Cold causes a slow on the target until end of next turn.  Poison is ongoing, save ends.  Electricity causes the target to be easier to hit until end of next turn.  

etc - I'm out of time but might come back into this if it's helpful

----------


## Sanglorian

Hi folks,

A new section: Monsters. PDF and Markdown, as usual. 

This section boasts over 100 monsters, all thanks to the Open Game Content in Ultramodern4 and (some of) Goodman Games' 4E-compatible adventures. I'm very grateful for their generosity in putting their work under the Open Game License. 

It also includes a handful of templates, and limited rules for making your own monsters.

--




> Thinking about how to make the arcane power source work (Because I think it's the easiest one to fluff having the class features do the work)
> 
> At each level, there's a number of "spells", some are daily, some encounter and some at-will.
> Each class can choose freely from the spell list.
> But also have some features
> 
> *Artificers* - Probably most of the class features from 4e.  maybe that's all or maybe they can put a spell they know into an item to allow an ally to cast it.
> *Swordmage* -  mark and enforcement.  maybe as in 4e, but could be as different as you want.  Same for the defences.  Give them an encounter power "when you cast a spell with a burst effect, mark all targets in the burst"
> Expect them to go long on weapon spells because they have the best weapons but pick up some area effects, and some ranged effects as well
> ...


Thank you - it is helpful! Would love to hear more ideas as you have them.

----------


## Sanglorian

Hi folks --

Another big release -- a big update to
Classes and Powers (PDF, Markdown)

It consists of six new base classes:

Sylvan, a Spirit StrikerReaper, a Spirit ControllerJester, a Martial ControllerCrusader, a Divine LeaderSpecialist Wizard, an Arcane Controller

(As well as the three existing ones: Commander, Swashbuckler and Mageblade).

There are now 21 disciplines, most with a full complement of powers level 1 to 29, 16 prestige paths and 6 epic paths.

As with the Monsters section, I owe a big debt here to Ultramodern4 - one of the few 4E-compatible products under the Open Game License. I drew on it heavily for the new powers, prestige paths, epic paths and some new classes.

--

With this, I feel like the project is coming to the end of the beginning. I have one last section to go, Advanced Rules, with things like incantations, poisons, backgrounds, etc. I am also going to be making some changes to the ancestries section. After that, the game will be complete and stable enough for playtesting, reviewing, etc -- possibly even the creation of online compendiums and character builders and so on.

----------


## Duff

> Thank you - it is helpful! Would love to hear more ideas as you have them.


No worries!

If I've understood correctly each class has a limited range of disciplines.  
Maybe if each class was able to pick one discipline based on their source and one on their role that would allow the smallest amount of duplication?



You could call your Source wide disciplines something specific - Spells, Prayers, Maneuvers and, I dunno, Channelings maybe?
And then the roles might have Stances for your defenders, commands for your leaders, controllers doing effects(?) and strikers ...  best I can do here would be to call them something else and call what they do "Strikes".  Maybe call them "Destroyers"?



Also, re commander
"The first time in an encounter that you use a power from either the Angel's Trumpet, the Golden Lion or
another discipline, you get a bonus. When you use a power from a different discipline, it changes the
bonus you get - so you always only get one bonus.

Tactician: After using a Golden Lion power, allies that are adjacent to you get a +1 bonus on attack rolls.
Healer: After using an Angel's Trumpet power, allies that are adjacent to you get resistance to all damage
2. Level 11: Resistance to all damage 4. Level 21: Resistance to all damage 6.
Shocktrooper: After using a power from a different discipline, allies that are adjacent to you get a +1
bonus on Fortitude, Reflex and Will defenses."


Can I suggest instead 
"The first time in an encounter that you use a power, you gain a bonus based on the discipline.  Once this bonus is in place, using a different discipline will change which bonus is granted.

Golden Lion:, allies that are adjacent to you get a +1 bonus on attack rolls.
Angel's Trumpet:, allies that are adjacent to you get resistance to all damage
2. Level 11: Resistance to all damage 4. Level 21: Resistance to all damage 6.
Any other discipline, allies that are adjacent to you get a +1
bonus on Fortitude, Reflex and Will defenses."


A few reasons for the suggested change - 
I think it's clearerThe titles like Shocktrooper may be keywords you want to save to use somewhere else (unless it's important later or get's reused so adds value there).  Basic principle of "Don't introduce new terms that don't add meaning"Putting the name of the discipline at the start of the line is probably making it as quick as possible for hte player scanning the rules to see what they need.  Either ""I have Angel's Trumpet, what does it do?" or "What's the difference between Golden Lion and Angel's Trumpet?"

Also, for Mageblade, I suggest renaming "Special Bond" to "Key Weapon" for consistency and because (to me) Special Bond is a less appealing name for a power.

----------


## Duff

And maybe to fill in some gaps for you

Divine striker - Inquisitor.  You could go 2 ways here - a relatively tough weapons based striker "My god protects me while I Smite their foes" or someone who brings the rains of fire and is probably a skinny ascetic looking type who might be a bit inclined to go off the rails

For your divine defender, I think "Paladin" is the title you're looing for, both from history and D&D

Your divine Controller might be a priest 

But if you want to steer clear of real world religious titles then you probably want your strikers to be "Harrier of X" where X is the god's name. Maybe "Warden of X" for the defender and "Speaker for X" as your leader and your controller would then be "Channeler of the will of X"

----------


## Tvtyrant

I would look at changing mounts if you have the energy for it. Adding in some mechanism for the mount to use your health or pokeball back would make them much more common and useful in game. A feat like:

Bounded Mount
Your mount uses stats like a summon.
You can spend a healing surge at the end of combat to return your mount to full health.

----------


## Sanglorian

Thanks folks! First up, I've added the final section of Orcus to Github: Advanced Rules. This includes: 

Advanced Combat and ObjectsBackgroundsIncantationsBonds (artifacts, group memberships, etc)TrapsPoisons and Diseases

PDF and Markdown on Github as always.




> No worries!
> 
> Also, re commander
> "The first time in an encounter that you use a power from either the Angel's Trumpet, the Golden Lion or
> another discipline, you get a bonus. When you use a power from a different discipline, it changes the
> bonus you get - so you always only get one bonus.
> 
> Tactician: After using a Golden Lion power, allies that are adjacent to you get a +1 bonus on attack rolls.
> Healer: After using an Angel's Trumpet power, allies that are adjacent to you get resistance to all damage
> ...


Thanks! I've done both of these. 




> And maybe to fill in some gaps for you
> 
> Divine striker - Inquisitor.  You could go 2 weays here - a relativly tough weapons based striker "My god protects me while I Smite their foes" or someone who brings the rains of fire and is probably a skinny ascetic looking type who might be a bit inclined to go off the rails
> 
> For your divine defender, I think "Paladin" is the title you're looing for, both from history and D&D
> 
> Your divine Controller might be a preist 
> 
> But if you want to steer clear of real world religious titles then you probably want your strikers to be "Harrier of X" where X is the god's name. Maybe "Warden of X" for the defender and "Speaker for X" as your leader and your controller would then be "Channeler of the will of X"


I like Harrier, Speaker and Channeler. I also thought Theurge could be good, but might overlap with a Binder-style class. 




> I would look at changing mounts if you have the energy for it. Adding in some mechanism for the mount to use your health or pokeball back would make them much more common and useful in game. A feat like:
> 
> Bounded Mount
> Your mount uses stats like a summon.
> You can spend a healing surge at the end of combat to return your mount to full health.


Great idea! I've made this an incantation, but same idea!

----------


## Duff

Can I encourage you try and give each power source a  Scout type character with stealth and perception.  Preferably with either use for Dex and wisdom, or some means to catch up due to lower stats.  The reason I suggest that is partly related to a campaign where we only had some power sources in play, but also, it increases the diversity of archetypes.  And its good to avoid turning all strikers into skirmishers.

I like the idea of a somewhat sneaky defender, so maybe give the Mageblade an invisibility Utility and maybe one to give darkvision and a bonus on perception?

And much the same  for a face, ideally with all power sources and all roles represented



You seem to use the word ritual a lot in your description of incantations.  Can I suggest either:
 Call them rituals
 Clarify that some incantations involve rituals but others dont (maybe some involve constructing a device or performing a quest or task or just sitting and praying/meditating?). 
Otherwise, you probably just want to say Casting an incantation involves a ritual and not use that word again.  
It will help with consistent use of terms

Sylvan.  Wild Gift.  Hunter.  Suggested wording When no ally is closer to an enemy you get +1



And some more class suggestions

Arcane leader  Enchanter.  Int based leader.  Maybe Wisdom if you dont want arcane=Int based.  Probably with some ability to magically boost their social skills or substitute spells for them.  Their spells can include protective effects and boost attacks by enchanting weapons.  Magic can do anything, but I think your Crusader is a bit defender as a leader and the commander looks very much centered on leadership, so maybe have the Enchanter be a bit controllerish?  They could also Strike as much as you want or have powers which lean each way


Arcane striker  Invoker.  No Fancy movement, no trickery, not even much in the way of lasting effects.  These are the people who walk into a room and blow stuff up. A simple class for simple people.  Base it off Con or cha easily, int or wis would be fine as well

Spirit Defender  Something a bit different.  Guide.  Wisdom based defender.   Guides are responsible for making sure their wards get to where they need to be to meet their destiny.  As part of meeting that role, they must help to protect their ward. 
Whenever an enemy theyve marked targets an ally, the Guide can slide the ally 1 square before the attack is rolled. 
Give them powers to re-target attacks, etc.  The aesthetic here is someone who has helped their friends be in the right place at the right time to be protected, rather than the normal defender approach of protecting others by putting themselves in the way or by attracting attention

Spirit leader  Guru?  Bhagwan? Shaman?  Leader who summons spirits into their allies to deliver effects.  Healing might give a bonus to AC.  Extra attacks might give a bonus to any reaction attacks.  Bonus saves might add to NADs.  When an ally has a spirit in them, it normally lasts until the start of the targets next turn.
If you want to go with a creepy aesthetic, have the summoned spirits take possession of their allies until the start of their turn.  Up to tables whether any reactions during that time are rolled by the leader or by the possessee

----------


## Sanglorian

> You seem to use the word ritual a lot in your description of incantations.  Can I suggest either:
>  Call them rituals
>  Clarify that some incantations involve rituals but others dont (maybe some involve constructing a device or performing a quest or task or just sitting and praying/meditating?). 
> Otherwise, you probably just want to say Casting an incantation involves a ritual and not use that word again.  
> It will help with consistent use of terms
> 
> Sylvan.  Wild Gift.  Hunter.  Suggested wording When no ally is closer to an enemy you get +1


Thank you! I've made these two changes.




> Can I encourage you try and give each power source a  Scout type character with stealth and perception.  Preferably with either use for Dex and wisdom, or some means to catch up due to lower stats.  The reason I suggest that is partly related to a campaign where we only had some power sources in play, but also, it increases the diversity of archetypes.  And its good to avoid turning all strikers into skirmishers.
> 
> I like the idea of a somewhat sneaky defender, so maybe give the Mageblade an invisibility Utility and maybe one to give darkvision and a bonus on perception?
> 
> And much the same  for a face, ideally with all power sources and all roles represented
> 
> ...
> 
> And some more class suggestions
> ...


These are great ideas! I'm not planning to work on any new classes myself, at least in the near future, but if others wanted to develop these I think they'd make a great addition.

----------


## Sanglorian

A few updates, the big one being that the content is now on Github Pages for easy online viewing: https://sanglorian.github.io/orcus/

There's a bit of extra content too: 

* Sculpts Their Body kit;
* Deep, Dark, Truthful Mirror discipline;
* Fiends, Ophiduans, greymalkin, and Underdeep monsters. Most of these (everything but the fiends) come from Ari Marmell's great Classics of Fantasy bestiary.

----------


## Sanglorian

I've added a large amount of content to the Github Pages site:
The Outlaw Kingdoms campaign setting, which at this point is just new ancestry rules and a list of deities (from an OGL source -- I didn't write them!)Two adventures, one for first level and one for second level. You'll see that I've been experimenting with alternatives to skill challenges, and shortening stat blocks. In _Ancestral Voices,_ the whole adventure (around five encounters) fits on one page, including stat blocks. I was inspired by OSR games where the monster stat block often only takes up a single line. I'm really interested to see what people think of this -- is it readily understandable?Five pre-generated first level characters. These may be the first characters ever created for Orcus!Tiles for use with the adventures
I've also added some phrenic (i.e. psionic) content from existing OGL sources: the Channels Godmind kit and about 40 psi-based feats. This updates the Classes & Powers and Player Options pdfs.

----------


## Nuptup

Just got caught up on the conversation and wanted to ask if anyone is actively playtesting this, or if anyone would like to? This sounds like an excellent idea and I'd love to try it out if there's people doing it. 

Also, I really think a Divine Defender could be the "Martyr" which has a Protective Aura and an opportunity action that would work like this.

Protective Aura: Aura 2, You serve as a martyr for those you believe in.

Martyrdom: Opportunity Action, Triggers when an ally in your Protective Aura is hit by an attack. Treat the attack as though it hit you instead of your ally. You suffer any additional effects from the attack as well as take any damage, however you have resistance to this damage equal to 2/5/8+Ability Modifier. 

Then their kit would be mostly about generating temp hp for themselves only so that, enemies have to either attack them at full damage, or attack their allies at resisted, which is eaten by the temp hp. 

I also really like the idea someone mentioned above about a summoning wizard being a pet-based defender. That's an archetype that I don't think has really seen much exposure in tabletop gaming.

Anyhow, I just wanted to say I'm excited, wanted to share some thoughts, and am super excited to do some playtesting if people want to put something together.

----------


## tiornys

I've been planning to take a thorough look through all of this.  I'm potentially interested in playtesting, depending on platform and schedule.

----------


## Nuptup

> I've been planning to take a thorough look through all of this.  I'm potentially interested in playtesting, depending on platform and schedule.


I'm free most nights at midnight CST, as well as open on weekends after 4 p.m. CST.

----------


## Nuptup

> A few updates, the big one being that the content is now on Github Pages for easy online viewing: https://sanglorian.github.io/orcus/


Could you put that link in the first post?

----------


## Mark Hall

I'm going have to take a look at this. I've gotten an appreciation for 4e, and have also been contemplating a more "generic" version... rather than tons of discreet powers and options, give people options to add to more basic stuff, depending on their role.

----------


## Sanglorian

> Anyhow, I just wanted to say I'm excited, wanted to share some thoughts, and am super excited to do some playtesting if people want to put something together.


Thanks for the suggestions! If anyone puts together homebrew material, I'm very happy to incorporate them into the main document. 




> I've been planning to take a thorough look through all of this.  I'm potentially interested in playtesting, depending on platform and schedule.


Would love to hear how this goes! I'm keenly aware that the mechanics are not well balanced, and am happy to defer to what playtesters suggest.




> Could you put that link in the first post?


Good idea -- have fixed the first post and cleaned it up. 




> I'm going have to take a look at this. I've gotten an appreciation for 4e, and have also been contemplating a more "generic" version... rather than tons of discreet powers and options, give people options to add to more basic stuff, depending on their role.


That'd be a great addition to the chassis. I find the hundreds of powers overkill, and always admired the "one-page" 4E classes that Eternity Publishing did (sadly they only got to the wizard and the fighter).

----------


## Nuptup

> That'd be a great addition to the chassis. I find the hundreds of powers overkill, and always admired the "one-page" 4E classes that Eternity Publishing did (sadly they only got to the wizard and the fighter).


Holy crap that would have been a fantastic addition to the system. It's pretty much a version of essentials, but with way more flexibility.

Do you have a link to the fighter?

----------


## Sanglorian

> Holy crap that would have been a fantastic addition to the system. It's pretty much a version of essentials, but with way more flexibility.
> 
> Do you have a link to the fighter?


Sure thing -- here: https://eternitypublishing.wordpress...ed-4e-fighter/

There's a few ideas for a cleric on the same lines in the comments.

----------


## Nuptup

> Sure thing -- here: https://eternitypublishing.wordpress...ed-4e-fighter/
> 
> There's a few ideas for a cleric on the same lines in the comments.


That's super cool. Honestly, I would love this kind of a rehash for 4e where, you're more flexible instead of choosing powers just choosing variables that you can choose from. I really like how the wizard is laid out a lot.

----------


## Sanglorian

An unusual update this time -- I've added a separate game. 

Petit 4 is an English translation of the minimalist game M4, which is only available in French. M4 is to Fourth Edition what Microlite20 is to 3.5. The game is released under the Open Game License, with some exceptions (including the name M4, hence the need for a new name for the English translation). 

There's some really interesting ideas in there: 
The players roll all the dice.Magic items that require special conditions to recharge.Abstract wealth.

All while remaining compatible with Fourth Edition. 

--

I've also added a new adventure, Death and Chaos, which is a port of the 3.5 adventure Complex of Zombies by Justin Alexander. Generously, almost all of the text is Open Game Content - so please support them by buying a copy if you can. 

There's a new short adventure called The False Necromancer added as well. 

I've also added maneuvers to the Advanced Options, and several new monsters: sand sentry, jiang-shi scholar, jiang-shi magistrate, stygira and bauble beast.

Or browse the whole game.

----------


## Yakk

First a first reaction read.

"Phrenic" -- too obscure.  Maybe rename to "Ethereal"?   Or "Ether"?  

"Mageblade" -- meh.  "Adept"?

"Power Progression" - consider doing a simplified table?  Replacement is awkward.

You could also simply qualify powers at Heroic/Paragon/Epic.  Powers can get a bump at mid-tiers.  So level 1 you get 1H encounter, level 3 2H, level 5 your encounter powers get a bump, level 7 you get 3H.

Level 13 you upgrade to 2H1P encounter, level 17 1H2P, level 23 2P1E, level 27 1P2E.

Powers can upgrade at 5, 15, and 25.  So a heroic power might do 2[W] (3[W]@5, 4[W]@15, 5[W]@25).

This can reduce your load, as you are just designing powers by tier instead of by level, and makes progression a bit simpler.  And matches late-stage 4e.




> Golden Lion: Allies that are adjacent to you get a +1 bonus on attack rolls.


I'd revisit this.  One of 4e's flaws was tiny stacking bonuses.  They reduced it from 3e, but it still got bad.  A +1 situational bonus ends up being not worth the time to track in terms of game action:mechanical resolution effort.




> React to Ill Fortune: If an ally within 5 misses with an attack, they can shift 1 as a free action. Your secondary ability is Intelligence.


As much as possible, you need to make Commander abilities (especially active ones) be ones the Commander activates.  The Commander should be saying "you can shift 1", the PC shouldn't have to know the commander's character rules.

Also, out of turn actions should both have a cost and a significant benefit, to keep the game flow in terms of "drama per second" up (DPS).



> Features
> Guard's Challenge


While the essentials system had flaws, the aura-based marking was simpler to deal with and served much the same purpose.

Note that this also opens things up to stuff like the Berzerker.



> Wrong Place - Wrong Time
> 
> You gain the wrong place-wrong time power. As a free action, you can discard any unused encounter attack power and gain a use of wrong place-wrong time. You can only use wrong place-wrong time once per turn.


This is an ability you'll never want to use.  Sort of sucks.

Also nothing about the class features boosts being a Controller.




> Level 21: Within 100 miles.


why is this range limited?

Level 1: Within 50' (10 squares).
Level 11: On the same plane.
Level 21: Anywhere.



> Shimmering Shield
> 
> If you have a spare hand (not carrying a shield, wielding a two-handed weapon, etc.), you receive a +2 shield bonus to AC.


Consider the sword-and-wand style.

----------


## Sanglorian

Thanks for the advice, Yakk! 




> "Power Progression" - consider doing a simplified table?  Replacement is awkward.


Do you mean simplify the table without simplifying the rules? Or also simplify the rules? 




> You could also simply qualify powers at Heroic/Paragon/Epic.  Powers can get a bump at mid-tiers.  So level 1 you get 1H encounter, level 3 2H, level 5 your encounter powers get a bump, level 7 you get 3H.
> 
> Level 13 you upgrade to 2H1P encounter, level 17 1H2P, level 23 2P1E, level 27 1P2E.
> 
> Powers can upgrade at 5, 15, and 25.  So a heroic power might do 2[W] (3[W]@5, 4[W]@15, 5[W]@25).
> 
> This can reduce your load, as you are just designing powers by tier instead of by level, and makes progression a bit simpler.  And matches late-stage 4e.


I really like this idea. I'm not going to change the current classes - at least not for now - but I'll definitely keep it in mind going forward. 

When you say it matches late-stage 4e, I'm assuming that means it would match some of the E-classes? Any recommendations for ones I should check out?




> I'd revisit this.  One of 4e's flaws was tiny stacking bonuses.  They reduced it from 3e, but it still got bad.  A +1 situational bonus ends up being not worth the time to track in terms of game action:mechanical resolution effort.
> 
> As much as possible, you need to make Commander abilities (especially active ones) be ones the Commander activates.  The Commander should be saying "you can shift 1", the PC shouldn't have to know the commander's character rules.


Definitely fair criticisms. 

One option would be for Stratagem to instead add a rider to powers, e.g. "All allies targeted by your encounter or daily powers heal X" "... shift 1". If powerful enough, this could merge with/replace the current "React to ..." class feature as well - and remove the problem you mention below as well. 

I do like the mechanic of the aura changing as the commander uses powers of different disciplines, but maybe that gets too fiddly! Or it would need to be the main focus of the class features, giving a substantial bonus to one of attack, defense or maneuverability. 




> Also, out of turn actions should both have a cost and a significant benefit, to keep the game flow in terms of "drama per second" up (DPS).


So perhaps "move X" instead of "shift X"? Then they'd have to weigh up opportunity attacks. 




> While the essentials system had flaws, the aura-based marking was simpler to deal with and served much the same purpose.
> 
> Note that this also opens things up to stuff like the Berzerker.


I'm not prepared to drop marking altogether - but definitely open to other classes using different mechanics to fill the defender role. 




> [Jester's wrong-place wrong-time power:] This is an ability you'll never want to use.  Sort of sucks.
> 
> Also nothing about the class features boosts being a Controller.


Yeah, the Jester is lifted from an Ultramodern 4E class, the Faceman. I'd be open to a complete re-write, but don't have any ideas just yet. 




> why is this range limited?
> 
> Level 1: Within 50' (10 squares).
> Level 11: On the same plane.
> Level 21: Anywhere.


Will change in the next update.




> Consider the sword-and-wand style.


As in, I should accommodate it and haven't yet, or should rule it out?

Thanks again!

----------


## Yakk

> Thanks for the advice, Yakk! 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you mean simplify the table without simplifying the rules? Or also simplify the rules?


A bit of Column A, Column B.

The current rules almost, but not quite, generate a table like a spell progression table.



```
            Encounter
Level    1    3    7    13    17    23    27  
1        1
3        1    1
7        1    1    1
13            1    1    1
17                 1    1     1
23                      1     1     1
27                            1     1     1
```

Saying you have encounter attack power slots which you fill when you level up, and can swap 1 power per level, under the above table generates a set of rules that are almost, but not quite, the same as baseline 4e.

In actual 4e, the rules are far quirkier, where what you did at a given level can restrict what powers you can have at later levels (and even their level) if you follow the letter of the rules.

Personally, I'd even go further.  I'd break powers into Heroic, Paragon and Epic.  At level 1  you have 1 Heroic, 3 you get 2, 7 you get 3.

At level 13 you have 2 heroic 1 paragon, 17 1 heroic 2 paragon, 23 2 paragon 1 epic, 27 1 paragon 2 epic.




> I really like this idea. I'm not going to change the current classes - at least not for now - but I'll definitely keep it in mind going forward.


Then, each power you write can have heroic/paragon/epic versions.  If you take "come and get it" as a heroic power, it does [W] with range close burst 3.  As a paragon, it does 2[W] with range close burst 5.  At epic, it is close burst 9, 3[W], and grants your allies advantage on attacking them.

This has the downside of making the Heroic-tier powers a bit more cluttered; the advantage is you don't have copy-cat powers at higher tiers.




> When you say it matches late-stage 4e, I'm assuming that means it would match some of the E-classes? Any recommendations for ones I should check out?


There are 4e powers in the later stages of the game that have stuff like _Level 13_: Increase damage to 3d6.




> Definitely fair criticisms. 
> 
> One option would be for Stratagem to instead add a rider to powers, e.g. "All allies targeted by your encounter or daily powers heal X" "... shift 1". If powerful enough, this could merge with/replace the current "React to ..." class feature as well - and remove the problem you mention below as well. 
> 
> I do like the mechanic of the aura changing as the commander uses powers of different disciplines, but maybe that gets too fiddly! Or it would need to be the main focus of the class features, giving a substantial bonus to one of attack, defense or maneuverability.


Yes, I think having fewer bigger features (especially ones that take table time) is better than many smaller features.

Stuff that gives you a static bonus (+1 bonus to weapon attack rolls) is a bit fiddly, but at least you pre calculate it and forget it.  And even there, I'd rather have a more interesting mechanic with the same power budget.

*Weapon Master*: You gain a +1 bonus to weapon attack rolls.

That is powerful but, honestly, boring.




> So perhaps "move X" instead of "shift X"? Then they'd have to weigh up opportunity attacks.


That increases analysis paralysis.

By "cost" I mean "something to prevent it from being a decision point on every single instance".  You want to reduce decision points, not make a myriad of more complex ones.




> I'm not prepared to drop marking altogether - but definitely open to other classes using different mechanics to fill the defender role.


Sure.  But merging marking and the defender auras of essentials into one mechanic, and biasing towards the aura.

*Combat Dominance*: You can choose to emit an aura 1 of combat dominance.  When you do so, creatures in this aura who are not marked by anyone else are marked by you.

This generates almost all of the tactics of 4e baseline fighter marking, but doesn't require nearly as much condition tracking, because 95% of the condition tracking is "is it adjacent to the fighter".  Which is already tracked.

(The remaining 5% is cases where the foe is already marked by someone else, and/or where there are two fighters adjacent to a creature.  But those become exceptions that require extra work, not everyday work.)



> Yeah, the Jester is lifted from an Ultramodern 4E class, the Faceman. I'd be open to a complete re-write, but don't have any ideas just yet.


The baseline 4e controllers all had a problem in that their class features *did not make them controllers*.

While I understand the elegance of "their powers make them controllers", this caused problems in other parts of the game.

Like, if a wizard had "you can sustain one sustain minor power without expending a minor action", that would be a very controller-esque feature.  Then their spells could be balanced around that assumption -- that the wizard was sustaining one effect "for free".  You could even go further, and state "you can sustain one power without expending an action on your turn", which would Sustain: Standard powers way stronger in the hands of a Wizard than other classes (this might be too much).

Ie:
*Fireball*: 10d6 damage ranged burst 5, sets the zone on fire (2d6 damage if you start your turn in it).  Sustain Minor: Fire zone grows by 1 square (to a max of burst 10) and damage grows by 1d6, to a max of 5d6.

You could imagine an Elementalist controller which wouldn't have this "free zone support", but might bend elemental zones in interesting ways "At the start of your turn, you can add 1d6 squares to a zone that matches your elemental attunement"; you are reshaping zones.




> As in, I should accommodate it and haven't yet, or should rule it out?
> 
> Thanks again!


Make it clear if a hand holding a wand is "free" or not.

The blade dancer and the sword mage treated "sword in one hand wand in the other" differently in 4e.  I'm just saying you should consider it explicitly.

The swordmage had 2 styles; sword and free hand, and two handed sword.  The dual-wielding swordmage didn't have good support, if I recall.

A spellcasting melee gish could have 5 different flavours:
Sword+Board
Sword+Free hand
Sword+Wand
Two-handed Sword
Dual Wielding
(where Sword is any weapon, really).

Them being tied to class features always seemed tempting to me.

----------


## Nuptup

> A spellcasting melee gish could have 5 different flavours:
> Sword+Board
> Sword+Free hand
> Sword+Wand
> Two-handed Sword
> Dual Wielding
> (where Sword is any weapon, really).
> 
> Them being tied to class features always seemed tempting to me.


Excellent write-up as always Yakk, I just wanted to comment on a few things. I LOVE the way you very neatly simplified marking and auras into one thing. It's simple, clean, and requires way way less to just pick it up and understand it. 

Also, I definitely also think that tying the weapon selection for a Gish to a class feature is a pretty decent way to power-gate them to keep them all somewhat comparable. Examples that I can think of off the top of my head that worked well are the Magus in Pathfinder 2e, Hexblades in 4d DnD to name a few. Both make large, impactful decisions early on that shape the way they play, based on the weapon they choose to focus their efforts with.

As always, I really think you guys are doing awesome work, and while I don't have enough mechanical standing to really feel like tossing my hat in the ring, I will gladly be the "Yes man" here and help hype you guys up!

----------


## Powerdork

> There are 4e powers in the later stages of the game that have stuff like _Level 13_: Increase damage to 3d6.


Which book would you say has the best examples of this? So I know how to spend my holiday bonus.

----------


## Yakk

> Which book would you say has the best examples of this? So I know how to spend my holiday bonus.


Off the top of my head, Themes tended to have powers like that.  T1 powers that auto-upgraded.

I believe I saw them elsewhere, but I can't tell you where.

----------


## masteraleph

Almost all (maybe all?) of the Essentials books had that somewhere on either the At Wills or Encounters for their characters, and even the original classes almost all had a boost at 21 on at-will powers.  Non-leveled theme powers also often do.

Be careful with themes on this particular issue- theme powerswaps from Dark Sun explicitly state that they don't auto upgrade- instead, you have to take the power again at the new level, but since so many people use the Compendium or Character Builder they aren't aware of that rule.  Themes from Dragon that included attack powerswaps (which are relatively rare) specifically gave new powers all the way on up instead of trying to get players to remember that the theme powers don't auto upgrade while all others do.  See Iron Wolf Warrior as an example of this, in contrast to Templar- Templar's non-leveled Encounter power auto upgrades, but its level 3 Encounter power Fearsome Command looks the same but according to the rules doesn't work the same.  Iron Wolf Warrior's E3 Wolf's Rend is always the same, but there is also Iron Wolf's Rend as an E13 which is an upgraded version, and Epic Iron Wolf's Rend which is a further upgraded version.

----------


## Sanglorian

Hi folks,

*Monster update*
A big but mostly behind the scenes update to Orcus today -- I've been through all of the monsters, making tweaks to make the language consistent, fixing the HP, attack bonuses and sometimes the damage as well to bring them in line with the "MM3 on a business card" maths. I've also caught a bunch of contradictions, inconsistencies, etc.

*Jupyter notebooks*
Also new are two "Jupyter notebooks", one for powers by @Biffmotron and another for monsters by myself (building on Biffmotron's template for powers -- I couldn't have done it without them!). These compile spreadsheets into Markdown, which means adding new monsters or powers is as simple as adding new lines to a spreadsheet and running the notebook.

*One-page monsters and hazards*
I've also made two sheets, one page for monsters and one page for hazards, so you can create monsters and threats on the fly. Interested in any feedback on whether it's useful! 



*Classes review*
My next revision is going to be to the classes, so I'd love any feedback you had on how they should be tweaked and improved. 

(Yakk, this is where I'll be thinking hard about your suggestions -- and may test out a few ideas here as I go along).

----------


## Sanglorian

Hi folks,

Another big update. This is now version 0.6 -- all of the main files have been updated. See the Pages site for all downloads and webpages.

There is now a *character sheet*, in Excel spreadsheet format. It does some calculations for you, and prints out on one page. You'd want to print power cards separately.*Shorter Section 15:* I know a pain point has been the huge Section 15 in the Open Game License. I have reworked the Rulebook section to have all the core rules, and a much shorter (though still hefty) Section 15. That way, people who are creating fresh content or spin-off games can use the shorter Rulebook Section 15. Those using the classes, monsters, powers, feats, bonds, magic items, etc., will still have to use the full Section 15.All content has been read-through and tweaked.*New content:* Includes a new discipline for the Harlequin, a new discipline for the Reaper, new poisons (consumable items), new kits (Brews Poisons and Eats Monster Hearts), rules for buying hirelings and mounts, expanding the incantation rules to include non-magical practices as well, vehicle rules and a handful of new vehicles, ancestry rules (moved from the Outlaw Kingdoms separate document into the main SRD).*Class changes:* The Jester has become the Harlequin, and gotten a total rework of its class features since they previously weren't very controllery. The Swashbuckler has become the Exemplar to represent a broader archetype (e.g. gladiators). The Guard became the Guardian because it sounded a bit grander.*Archetypes:* I'm quite proud of the examples of how you could model fantasy archetypes in Orcus. Everything from assassins who brew their own poisons, demonologists, lazylords, enchanters, mounted knights (with a horse that keeps pace with power levels), blue mages, martial artists, psionicists and archers are covered, among many others.

The next update will be two printable PDFs, the Hero's Handbook and the Game Master's Guide, which collate everything in the one place (well, two places) for easy printing and reference at the game table. That will be the "playtest edition", and mark the end of any major changes for some time.

----------


## Duff

"The Harlequin whose fiddle comes from the Devil" as an archetype.

I'm imagining a Southern accent and a very flashy instrument

----------


## Beoric

Is anybody publishing content for this?

----------


## Sanglorian

Hey folks --

I've completed the formatted/print version of Orcus, which involves two 150+ page books: the Hero's Handbook and the Game Master's Guide.

Before the big launch I wanted to get some feedback, to pick up typos or other problems. If you'd be interested in getting early PDF copies, please send an email to [email protected]\

You'd have at least a couple of weeks to read through them and come back with any thoughts you had, probably more like a month.




--




> Is anybody publishing content for this?


Not yet that I'm aware of, unfortunately!

----------


## Sanglorian

All things considered, I've decided to release the _Orcus Heroes' Handbook_ a little early. The proofreading is about 80% complete. I plan to officially launch it with more of a song and dance once that's happened -- including a print on demand option. But in the meantime I hope you enjoy! 

And since it is an advance copy, feel free to let me know any typos, inconsistencies, etc. that you find. At this point I'm reluctant to make any changes bigger than that, but of course you can always contact me and suggest them if you like. 

DOWNLOAD THE ORCUS HEROES' HANDBOOK



Thanks to all the proofreaders who helped improve _Orcus!_ 

--

_Explore the wilderness, brave dark dungeons and cross the planes in this crunchy, tactical roleplaying game based on the fourth edition of the world's most popular roleplaying game. 

The deep, flexible character creation rules for Orcus allow for a wide range of characters across the 10 character classes: from warriors that focus on the "essentials" of slaying their foes and defending their allies to magicians who control the battlefield. Over 20 kits allow for characters who break the mould, whether it's by shapeshifting, serving a deity or devouring monsters to gain their powers. 

With 30 levels of play and over 900 powers to choose from, Orcus is a complete roleplaying game all under the Open Game License so you can make your own games and supplements._

----------

