Some of these builds however would be suitable to many classes, a pirate could be a rouge, a ranger or a fighter for instance. This has made me think about a new system for prestige classes. It would be a combination of a new build and the multiclass feats. I envision it as a feat adding a number of possible powers at different levels. A pirate could be built as a prestige class adding a new at-will power and a couple of new other powers as well as a +1 bonus to Nature checks while at the sea or something along those lines. This prestige class could then be added to any allowed class (ranger, rogue and fighter in this case). This could also be used for specific, unique. I’ll probably do a more extensive write-up on these ideas on my blog polyhedral.wordpress.com one of these days.

Jens Alm´s last post: A Variant on Minions in D&D

“if you’re modding the game, you’re not playing 4E so the point is moot”

I’ve worked on Firearms and Explosives rules to use in my current 4th Edition campaign, but I wouldn’t say because I’ve modified and added rules that I’m no longer playing 4E. There’s certainly a line you may cross where you’ve modded it so much it essentially has become something other than 4th Edition, but I don’t think the tweaks discussed in The Main Event’s post are THAT drastic.

Now onto your idea of making a well playtested and well designed 4th Edition Pirates system, I’m thoroughly intrigued and inspired so we’ll see what happens!

Sure you can start writing new classes, powers, skills, and rules to handle all this but at that point you’re no longer really playing 4E. Now, I completely agree that you could build up a group of choices from the ground up and use the 4E mechanics to make a pirate game and it would work pretty well. However, that IMO would require gutting all of the existing material and starting from scratch to make all the races & classes fit the feel. So, yes, I would agree that 4E has the potential to do pirates but not using the existing material. Now if someone were to produce a set of good, playtested pirate classes, etc….that would be interesting. Unfortunately the most likely thing to happen is a 3rd party GSL producer will simply throw together a “pirate book” with little to no design testing and what will then ensure is a lot of complaints about how “broken” the system is or how bad that book was. :O(

Now, gritty middle ages knight game… not so much just yet.

It is more the rather simplistic assessment of 4E’s attempts to bring order to the chaos that preceded it

See, now it’s “kill monsters/take their stuff” WITH STYLE! and not a small amount of flash.

Donny_the_DM´s last post: A near TPK…what a ride!

4e clearly works to redefine the game away from fantasy toolbox and back towards the core, eliminating not just the options above, but other problematic concepts (characters who summon hordes of critters, wizards that outclass everything else at high level, etc).

I would go so far as to say that this near speciation from first level makes the single class party doom that was a mainstay of 3E much less of an issue in general.

My own experience so far has been two parties of 6. One three pallys and three clerics, and the other 4 fighters, a cleric and a rogue. Over specialization in one role hasn’t popped up at all really. I’m not saying it’s impossible, but the system itself if VERY forgiving with one exception – solo brutes.

Donny_the_DM´s last post: A near TPK…what a ride!

@ Bart – RIGHT ON! That sounds like a riot!

Another concept that I’ve been dying to try out is James Wyatt’s Conan universe game where you only use Martial characters (much more excited with Martial Power now) and Rituals represent the only form of spellcasting, similar to how a Cthulhu game works out but mixed with Barbaric Fantasy.

I think the root of the issue is that you are talking about running 4th Edition “as written”, but the number one rule of tabletop roleplaying is that you change things and go with what works for your group of players.

Pirates, Gumshoes and Nobles, though – I think those can be pretty much covered in the current rule sets. A rapier deceptive rogue makes a great swashbuckler pirate, a warlock or rogue with certain skills would be an effective PI, and pretty much most classes can use a noble background with a few appropriate skill picks and some role-playing.

You may elect to give such PC’s, if well-played, a +2 bonus to skill rolls that relate to their particular background. Between that and good old Rule 42, I think those characters are quite playable.

Ultimately, I think that Paragon paths will be how you can really approach this, as well as some additional feats. I’m sure we’ll see it all in one of the splatbooks.

If anyone doubts these claims try out some “alternative” modes of play: Try running 4E, as written, with a party of 5 elven fighters or don’t let PCs rest between encounters (e.g., have the monsters in the adjacent rooms come see what all the noise is about and show up before the required duration of a short rest is over)… Or try running a paragon level adventure, but don’t allow any of the PCs any magic weapons or armor. The results generally are not pretty at all and in most cases you will TPK the party in a disturbingly short time.

This may sound like a harsh put-down of 4E but it really isn’t…. it’s just that it’s clear as to what the game is meant to do and expecting it to work well under situations that don’t involve the original design intents is asking for the system to break down. It’s no different than trying to use a jumbo jet as a submarine – after all it’s airtight and cylindrical…it ought to work. Thus, trying to build character classes, power lists, feats, etc. to handle situations outside 4E’s intended usage largely leads to very odd situations or weights the system down under rules bloat much like what happened with 3.x. In many ways 4E is a far less generic system than 3.x because of the way powers work and so trying to adapt it to “non-standard” genres is even harder.

LOTS of cool crunchy bits, but in the end, even the book said that they were a poor idea if the campaign was not primarily aquatic. While a long journey of exploration sounds like a blast (Voyage of the Princess Ark anyone?) Unless the whole group is down, it is a disaster. 3E classes and their lack of skill points come to mind.

Detectives…Whatever it says about me, I’d rather be killing things. With a BIG axe. I assume the lack of pretty much anything along that product line actually puts me in the majority

Nobles. Have to agree. A worthless NPC class is not enough. I recall hearing that the PHB II will also include an extensive list of backgrounds to use – with nobility in several flavors included.

It’s coming…just gotta keep patient.

Donny_the_DM´s last post: A near TPK…what a ride!

I can see what you are saying but its the *adventure* that makes the player feel like his character is a pirate; set it on the high seas where hes raiding coastal towns and other galleons for treasure (instead of dungeons) and fighting ships crew men, the town guard and massive krakens (instead of goblins). THAT will make your player feel like a pirate, not a seamanship dice roll made against a number on a character sheet

The Recursion King´s last post: Combining miniatures and roleplay

Perhaps you could create a nobility ‘template’ where you’d swap out certain race features for noble features. For example, a noble dragonborn might trade their intimidate bonus for diplomacy, and have some sort of noble power instead of the +1 to attack when bloodied. A noble dragonborn could take noble feats and dragonborn feats, just like a half-elf can take elf and human feats. It could get a little messy, but it’s one possible option.

As for the noble/mounted characters, I think that these clearly do fit into the typical D&D worlds. Not only as Knights and Princes, but Genghis-Khan type horsemen or more minor nobility. Its not even necessary to have full classes for these options, just a way to allow players to make the concept viable.

@TRK: “Why bother with classes for these at all?”
I don’t think you really understood the point of this article. I do not flatly suggest that any of these concepts require FULL classes to be utilized. I just have had players want to use these concepts in the past and feel like the current rules set doesn’t accommodate them. Most of my players would be disappointed if I told them to make a pirate character that was exactly like a fighter except he had an eyepatch, that wouldn’t really feel like much of a pirate. Moreover, they would not even necessarily know how to sail using current rules for fighters!

The pirate and horse warrior are just fighters. The pirate is a fighter on the high seas and the horse warrior just fights from horseback.

The nobleman is just a background trait for a character (his social standing).

The Recursion King´s last post: Combining miniatures and roleplay

My suggestion for the mounted combat issue is creating powers that are useful outside of mounted combat but that incur bonuses and advantages for being used in the correct situation. It could even boil down to a simple solution of allowing a Fighter or Paladin to use certain powers in conjunction with a mount and gaining certain benefits because of that.

Nobles can be handled through roleplaying alone. Detective types and pirates would not garner much interest in my group.