The state of Post-OSR content

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
The thing I always found most egregious of new classes, and you saw this in D20 a lot, is that they would gradually come to replace the existing ones and render those obsolete by virtue of being much better. The fighter class in D20 is a prime example of this, and costless multiclassing in 5e is slowly rendering everything into the same amorphous mess, devoid of specification or identity. At least in AD&D Dual-classing was a serious commitment that you could not off-handedly reverse. The freedom to multi-class without any sort of drawback just renders the commitment to a class a light and trivial thing, like switching from mountainbiking to jogging.
Funny thing about 4e, the original classes almost universally were the strongest. The simplified classes they came out with later to make them run more like earlier editions were almost invariably sub-par, even after they nerfed the original classes. Fighter, paladin, ranger, warlord and wizard are easily the top classes. Honourable mention to rogues.

4e multiclassing and hybrid classes also had serious tradeoffs. Multiclassing in 4e is more like dual classing, and it is expensive and gives few of the benefits of the second class; you still continue primarily in the original class, and have to make an investment (at the expense of other options) for each feature you take from the new class. Hybrid classes (which is more similar to 1e multiclassing) also only give partial benefits from each class. Neither should be done lightly.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
@Malrex: There is a huge difference between saying:

"In one campaign, we found a monastery above the dungeon and I was transformed into a monk (or better yet a Magical Girl).

...versus saying,

"I always pick a Dragonborn Paladin/Bard/Elementalist because they kick ass."
...to which this complete stranger (who you just met at the con) replies:

"Of course! Me too!"

In the former case, you are talking one-off gonzo adventure hi-jinks. In the latter case, the system "baseline" has gone completely off the rails and nothing is "normal" anymore. One is (presumably) earned through risk and reward...the other is just BS cheat-codes.

Honestly, I keep saying the same thing over and over (and over!)---how is it that you still act surprised?
(I know...my posts are just too long---you probably never finish reading them. Truth is, my attention span is short too---sometimes I hire a Ghost Writer to polish them off.)
 
Last edited:

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
In the former case, you are talking one-off gonzo adventure hi-jinks. In the latter case, the system "baseline" has gone completely off the rails and nothing is "normal" anymore.
Hey, remember when you were talking about how demihumans are available in 1e, but the DM has the option to exclude them? Same thing applies in other editions. You can exclude dragonborn and/or paladins and/or bards if you want, or only transform someone into a dragonborn because they drank from a magical fountain, or only allow fighters to become paladins if they find and study with an obscure militant religious order. This is in fact how I run my game; the "cool" options arise as opportunities through play, not as "picks" someone makes because they happen to go up a level.

So, yeah, I can see how after a couple of years of reading you consistently slagging editions that even have options available, someone might be surprised that you suddenly have a few caveats about when it might be okay to use them.
 

PrinceofNothing

High Executarch
Staff member
Funny thing about 4e, the original classes almost universally were the strongest. The simplified classes they came out with later to make them run more like earlier editions were almost invariably sub-par, even after they nerfed the original classes. Fighter, paladin, ranger, warlord and wizard are easily the top classes. Honourable mention to rogues.
Oh jesus I am getting splintering boar strike flash-backs all over again :p

Much as I dislike 4e (and I have played it), I don't think it is poorly balanced the way it was set up, I think the problem is more one of its core philosophy not aligning with what I liked about DnD. I think if they had started a parallel line with 3.5 and called it DnD - Tactics and ditched the obnoxious marketing, it probably would have been more fondly remembered. I did notice that combat in 4e is very gradual compared to 1e, which is swingy. 4e is to Napoleonic Era infantry regiments plinking away at eachother across 200 yards, pausing to occasionally let the smoke dissipate, reload and sing the national anthem. Its very gradual, even misses have some effect, its much harder to disable someone permanently etc. etc. 1e feels like two street gangs with double uzis and handgrenades having a shootout in someone's kitchen by comparison.

I thought the class differentiation in 4e was pretty good, all classes had recognizable roles, but it was very noticeably focused around tactical combat beyond even 3.5, with the exploration and fantastic elements becoming more of a backdrop then in other editions. I understand you don't have to play it that way, but that's my takeaway.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
So, yeah, I can see how after a couple of years of reading you consistently slagging editions that even have options available, someone might be surprised that you suddenly have a few caveats about when it might be okay to use them.
I strongly doubt I've ever slammed anyone for excluding classes. I'd be more likely to send you a birthday cake. :)

What I've criticized is the decision of the idiot publisher to proliferate even more candy-classes in the core books, and the culture in which playing these rare and unique classes (or abilities) seems to be have become the norm rather than the exception. The reasons I feel this way is because, ____[fill in the blank because you already know the answer]____.

And I know, that I've said many times over the (years?!?) that if your character went into a Wizard's Tower and was turned into a Magical Girl Dragonborn, I'd be totally on-board with that. (again...y'all probably skipped reading that...too long...as Bryce reminds us, you just get 3 sentences before eyes-glaze-over...)
 
Last edited:

The Heretic

Should be playing D&D instead
Is Manic Pixie Dream Girl a choosable paragon path for the Magical Girl? If it is I'm rolling one up!
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
Oh jesus I am getting splintering boar strike flash-backs all over again :p

Much as I dislike 4e (and I have played it), I don't think it is poorly balanced the way it was set up, I think the problem is more one of its core philosophy not aligning with what I liked about DnD. I think if they had started a parallel line with 3.5 and called it DnD - Tactics and ditched the obnoxious marketing, it probably would have been more fondly remembered. I did notice that combat in 4e is very gradual compared to 1e, which is swingy. 4e is to Napoleonic Era infantry regiments plinking away at eachother across 200 yards, pausing to occasionally let the smoke dissipate, reload and sing the national anthem. Its very gradual, even misses have some effect, its much harder to disable someone permanently etc. etc. 1e feels like two street gangs with double uzis and handgrenades having a shootout in someone's kitchen by comparison.

I thought the class differentiation in 4e was pretty good, all classes had recognizable roles, but it was very noticeably focused around tactical combat beyond even 3.5, with the exploration and fantastic elements becoming more of a backdrop then in other editions. I understand you don't have to play it that way, but that's my takeaway.
Yeah it's not everybody's thing. Although I will point out that once they figured out some mistakes with the math, the combat ceased to be a war of attrition; a bog-standard fight rarely goes over three rounds now. And while it is harder to permanently disable someone short of killing them, it is easy to temporarily disable them for a round or two, which has a similar effect in a three round combat; "action denial" of various sorts is one of the most common and effective tactics in combat. It's less like a Napoleonic infantry regiment and more like a (pop culture portrayal of a) modern infantry squad.

Also, the reason 4e isn't that swingy is that the common monsters were written in "easy" mode. For example, 4e orcs are weaker than 1e orcs, in comparison to the PCs, and the disparity is even worse with bugbears, hobgoblins and goblins (kobolds are mostly the same, sometimes a bit tougher), AND you encounter fewer of them. Bump the power level and the number appearing (which is exactly what I do) and it is just as dangerous.

There actually was a fair amount of development of out-of-combat mechanics, but that did not include any express exploration elements. But then the adventure writers had no idea how to use those elements in an adventure, and completely squandered the opportunity. There was a lot of potential for the part of the game that occurs away from the battlemat. The mechanics are well tailored to supporting dealing with long term issues, curses and other disabilities, quests, mass combat, and especially the domain game (there are things you could do with the domain game that I haven't seen anywhere else, especially if you had the time and resources to experiment with the existing mechanics). But the writers (and presumably WotC) weren't interested in those types of adventures, so those mechanics just sat there, virtually unused. It's such a waste.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
Any examples of Domain game innovations?
One example is the very broad definition of a "magic item" and the way it interacts with the skill system. One could, for instance, define a title of nobility as an "alternative reward", a type of nonmagical ability that behaves as though it was a magic item. A title of nobility could then provide advantages, primarily as a bonus to certain skill checks (although a creative DM could build in other abilities), to help you navigate at court, or in your dealings with NPCs. Or you could establish a "spy network" which increases your odds of receiving certain types of rumors or other information, or a "merchant fleet" which could generate income. The possibilities are only limited by the imagination, and the amount of the bonus you receive scales with the resources you put into them.

Not only that, but you can build "item sets", where if you have certain combinations of items (say, noble title, a palace in the country, and rich lands) you could gain additional benefits, or improve the benefits granted by one or more of the items alone.

You can then attempt various types of moves as part of the domain game (on your "domain turn", or adopt a turn of phrase from Necropraxis), to expand your political influence, for example, or improve your estate, or gather damaging information about a rival, or defend against actions taken by a rival, and there is a baked in resolution system to resolve it based on your skill set and the advantages provided by the resources you have invested in. Or if you don't want to be stuck in the castle all the time, you can hire a chamberlain, or a steward, or a spymaster to manage things (and substitute their skills for your own on the checks).

And the mechanics are already there, this kind of use is already "legal", and there are precedents for the types of costs and benefits involved with the "items" and "item sets" I am contemplating, and how long such things last without upkeep, and how you can upgrade them. Also for long term effects, like bad weather, or famine, or disease in the village. And it scales; you could run a lesser domain game at lower level, as a vassal knight rather than a lord, with an unfortified manor house and a single village. For that matter, you could use it if one of the low level PCs inherits a tavern.

And since it is part of the magic item system, you can receive these things as a reward. So you aren't buying a spy network, you have an adventure to establish a spy network, and at the end of the adventure you get a spy network. Or you reach lord level and the lord gives you the title of marquis and the right to establish a castle and clear lands in the borderlands, but you have to pay for the construction of the castle (which gives you a bonus to intimidate your neighbors, making it more unlikely that your peasants will be raided), and you don't get the benefits of the land until the castle is built and you have cleared the area (clearing the area gives you a bonus to know terrain features, good places to hide or set up ambushes, etc., within your lands). Your land will support a certain number of knights or men at arms, depending on how much you invest into improving it, and how you go about doing so. So you can get more armies by getting more land or improving the land you have.

So the fighter has his title, and his castle, and his lands, and has probably hired some men at arms, and maybe granted land to vassal knights. Because he guards a border he is exempt from military service (unless the realm is under threat). He has only attracted a few peasants, and not much of his land is developed yet. He can hire someone to manage the estate for him, and go adventuring, or he can try to manage it himself.

But one of his neighbours has an eye on his lands and starts spreading rumors at court. This would be a bluff check (of either the neighbour or his agent) against the fighter's passive diplomacy to see if it succeeds that turn, but since the fighter has no presence at court yet the neighbour gets a substantial bonus. Pretty soon the fighter receives a summons from the king and has to go deal with the rumors. Since nobody ever wants to split the party, all the PCs go with him, and he leaves one of his followers in charge of the garrison. While he is gone, the neighbour tries to convince the humanoids on the frontier to raid the fighter's lands (diplomacy vs. follower's intimidate). If he succeeds, and the raids succeed, the fighter could receive a loss of reputation (penalty to social checks), or his land could be downgraded. Hmm, maybe it's time to invest in a better seneschal.

Fighter has dealt with the rumors and wants to return to his estate, but the party rogue wants help setting up/taking over a thieves' guild. It's only fair, he helped the fighter clear the land to establish his estate, but fighter doesn't want to be away from his land. How to they resolve this? Hire a seneschal, or hire henchmen to help the rogue? Or appoint the cleric as seneschal, since he isn't crazy about helping to establish a thieves' guild. Thieves' guild is established, tasks his followers to set up an intelligence network (cue proxy low level adventure with followers, or just let them make a skill check if you don't want to play it out). Meanwhile, the party tries to figure out who is spreading these rumors (the latest is that the fighter is consorting with criminals and supporting organized crime), and how do to that while there are still humanoid raids going on at the fighter's estate. Cleric comes back to the city to help the party, and the fighter hires a senechal who is better at managing the estate and rebuffing the humanoids than his follower - but unlike the follower he is not fanatically loyal, and the neighbour starts working to try to subvert or compromise him...

Basically you get this constant tension regarding what the PCs are going to deal with themselves, and what they are going to delegate to proxies, and which proxies to trust, and an action resolution system to determine the success of the various "off-screen" activities.

And the things the PCs get in the domain game - titles, strongholds, lands - have a concrete, mechanical benefit associated with them, so the party doesn't miss out on treasure by choosing not to go adventuring, they just get a different kind of treasure. So you are not relying upon the domain game to be its own reward, it is actually supported by the mechanics of the game.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
Is all that in the 4e DMG or DMG 2?
The math fixes were errata to DMG1.

The "alternative rewards" were in DMG2 and the Dark Sun Campaign Setting. They were originally designed for Dark Sun because it is a low magic world, and they needed an alternative to magic items.

Magic item (and by extension alternative reward) design was never published, but I cracked their system - it was so consistent I assume they must have had a magic item "bible" that they used internally for many types of items.

The long term effect mechanic was from the original DMG1. It was originally just for diseases, but was later applied to curses and other long term effects. I very easily converted it to an injury mechanic mostly by changing the name of it (if you get particularly beat up in a skirmish you could end up with anything from a limp to a coma, or even death if you aren't treated).

I was going to say that the idea of having a "domain turn" for actions taken in domain play was an innovation, but I realized that the actions triggering a skill check could actually take days or weeks (for example in certain skill challenges). So that isn't really outside of official use, either.

Of course the mechanics aren't used the way I use them anywhere in the official materials. This is why I say the designers never really understood what they had. There is so much more to 4e than combat.
 

PrinceofNothing

High Executarch
Staff member
I was going to say that the idea of having a "domain turn" for actions taken in domain play was an innovation, but I realized that the actions triggering a skill check could actually take days or weeks (for example in certain skill challenges). So that isn't really outside of official use, either.
I recall BECMI and Rules Cyclopedia had rules for domain management that served as a supplemental source of experience points, complete with a fairly robust single diceroll combat resolution and siege system, income per captia, retainer and stronghold construction, costs of visiting dignitaries that was very extensive but I must admit severe skepticism about its implementation and I have never met anyone who has played at that level. As the rate of income was always per month, a month would effectively constitute a domain "turn".

It sounds like 4e is probably less complex but has done something which Cyclopedia neglects to do, which is to implement additional structure in order to abstract concerted player efforts towards clear goals into single moves that can be arbitrated relatively easily. Good.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
It sounds like 4e is probably less complex but has done something which Cyclopedia neglects to do, which is to implement additional structure in order to abstract concerted player efforts towards clear goals into single moves that can be arbitrated relatively easily. Good.
Well, it allows you do to it that way, but as presented in official materials, they would instead replace that single die roll with a godawful skill challenge requiring 4-12 dies rolls in a format that makes choices regarding approach nearly irrelevant. I am pretty sure I never saw a WotC 4e adventure that didn't include a skill challenge, even in the entire run of Dungeon magazine; given how many of them appeared to be bolted on as an afterthought, I am pretty sure they were an editorial requirement.

So yet another example of having a solid mechanic, and then choosing not to use it because it doesn't fit with the house style.
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
Of course the mechanics aren't used the way I use them anywhere in the official materials. This is why I say the designers never really understood what they had. There is so much more to 4e than combat.
So did you have this postulated domain system down in writing somewhere? Can it easily be ripped out of the 4e framework and used elsewhere?

We've hit 18th level in our current 3.5 campaign and trying to open mining operations, trade routes and various civic mega-projects and the DM is getting bogged down in the nettlesome issue of regular income disrupting the campaign balance. Usually my argument would be to look at all the "I'm gettin' too old for this shit" come-from-retirement stories where destiny cares not a fig for the hero's well earned rest and prosperity. However, in this case, my character is a very accomplished crafter and a steady income would probably let me build some world-breaking items at this point. He's been keeping the downtime short so far to curb major projects. Eventually we're going to get frustrated. You set goals for your character, you want to achieve them before, not after, the campaign's end.
 

Pseudoephedrine

Should be playing D&D instead
I recall BECMI and Rules Cyclopedia had rules for domain management that served as a supplemental source of experience points, complete with a fairly robust single diceroll combat resolution and siege system, income per captia, retainer and stronghold construction, costs of visiting dignitaries that was very extensive but I must admit severe skepticism about its implementation and I have never met anyone who has played at that level. As the rate of income was always per month, a month would effectively constitute a domain "turn".
I used the Rules Cyclopedia version of this for some solo side play as part of a campaign another kid was running when I was 9 and didn't like it. It was a lot of complexity for little pay off. When I picked up Dark Dungeons in something like 2013 (21-ish years later), I gave it another solo go, and still didn't like it. Given the choice, I'd much rather use An Echo Resounding's system.
 

Beoric

8, 8, I forget what is for
So did you have this postulated domain system down in writing somewhere? Can it easily be ripped out of the 4e framework and used elsewhere?

We've hit 18th level in our current 3.5 campaign and trying to open mining operations, trade routes and various civic mega-projects and the DM is getting bogged down in the nettlesome issue of regular income disrupting the campaign balance. Usually my argument would be to look at all the "I'm gettin' too old for this shit" come-from-retirement stories where destiny cares not a fig for the hero's well earned rest and prosperity. However, in this case, my character is a very accomplished crafter and a steady income would probably let me build some world-breaking items at this point. He's been keeping the downtime short so far to curb major projects. Eventually we're going to get frustrated. You set goals for your character, you want to achieve them before, not after, the campaign's end.
It's mostly in my head, waiting for a character to get to an appropriate level, and a player to want to play in a domain game. That said, I would think you could adapt the 3e skill system to run this sort of campaign, but I don't know enough about the magic item system to know if that would translate. Are there magic items that primarily give bonuses to skills, and how hard is it to cost them out?
 

The1True

My my my, we just loooove to hear ourselves don't we?
Are there magic items that primarily give bonuses to skills, and how hard is it to cost them out?
There are, and it is difficult to cost them out. I usually have to look for an item that uses a similar skill/feat or look for a spell that would do the same. It's rarely clear-cut.
 

DangerousPuhson

Should be playing D&D instead
There are, and it is difficult to cost them out. I usually have to look for an item that uses a similar skill/feat or look for a spell that would do the same. It's rarely clear-cut.
Yup, comparative pricing is where it's at.

Considering that a 3e Ioun Stone that grants a +2 enhancement bonus to a trait is valued at 8,000gp in the DMG, and that a bonus to a single skill is much more restricted than one to a trait (whose bonus would apply to all the related skills attached to it), I think it's fair to assess that any magic item that gives a simple +1 or +2 enhancement bonus to a skill would be worth no more than 2,000gp (depending on the skill).

A 3e Ring of Jumping provides a +5 bonus to Jump skill checks; it is valued at 2,500gp. But we also have to consider that it's a +5 bonus to a very niche skill.

My best understanding of scaling prices to retroclone-esque levels generally means dividing that price by 10.
 

PrinceofNothing

High Executarch
Staff member
The Ioun Stone is a non-standard example because it does not take up any item slots, the more representative +2 Circlet of Intellect is about 4000 gp, but the rest of your example holds up.

Prices for retroclones are not always directly comparable. At the lower end the formula breaks down, as permanent magic items for under a 1000 are almost unthinkable and prices are fairly similar. The Rules Cyclopedia gives guidelines for the calculation of item creation costs puts the cost of a single potion of healing at 880 gp. The weight of the enchanted item is a great factor. A +1 shield can be crafted for under 1k but a hauberk of enchanted chain mail +1 costs around 5333 gp. That's raw material component cost, the presumed market price is much higher. The extreme for D20 non-epic items was somewhere around 300.000 gp I think, for a +5 intelligent sword with an additional +5 worth of extra abilities, telepathy, a special purpose etc. etc. Magical longswords in RC start at 7500 gp and will likely end up somewhere in the 50-60k range. A crystal ball is 30.000 gp. A Wand of Polymorph Others with 25 charges comes out at 14.000 gp.
 

squeen

8, 8, I forget what is for
I think only first-level characters would struggle to come up with 900gp. The characters who are high enough level to craft, I feel like the price barrier for creation needs to be VERY high (30K+++) in the AD&D GP=XP world.

Also, of course, there are the new spells required to enchant a specific magic (that's how my old DM used to do it) AND all the fetch-quest items needed for both the new spells and the item itself.

Despite those steep barriers, my higher-level magic user(s) attempted about a dozen spells and a few potions over the course of about 10 years of play (before each and every eventually demise) . Here's the thing too---in the context where many of the more powerful found magic items come with at least one or more quirks, making your own reliable magic items becomes extremely tempting. Overall, I liked it...a lot. He had a wonderful gift for game balance I try to emulate.
 
Last edited:
Top