I've been playing and running and blogging about 4e for several years now, and I recently used my experience with the system to start a class-wide analysis for the purpose of converting massive amounts of 3.x material over to 4e.

It's been an interesting journey thus far, and more than a little eye-opening. Every day over the last week, I've built a new class for 4e that was either based on a concept from my current campaign (set in mythical Greece), or inspired by something drawn from 3.x. Most of the classes are 1st-level only, but I recently took a stab at a 3-tier spread for my "scourge" class (martial controller, uses a flail for area control).

If you follow my blog (which you probably don't), you can find the 1st-level versions of my lurker (monk), captain (warlord), and jester (bard), plus of course, the 30-level version of the scourge (rogue - technically missing a capstone feature).

These classes aren't perfect of course, but they serve as a proof-of-concept. These are "Essentials" versions of existing classes, and if you know anything about Essentials, you'll know that it's not only an effective 4.5, but that it's actually, functionally reverse-compatible with 4.0 like the Playstation and PS2.

1st-level only
Lurker (monk) v.01 (based on 3.5 Lurk)
Captain (warlord) v.01 (original class)
Jester (bard) v.01 (original class)

30-level class
Scourge (rogue) v.01

Anyone who's interested in learning more about the components of a 4e character class, and how to build one that's not only effective at performing its role in the party, but also "harmonizing" with other classes in its role and power source, feel free to drop me a line. I've built up a lot of esoteric 4e knowledge that I'm more than happy to share.

I'll give you this one for free -- if you thought classes in 3.x were front-loaded, what you might not realize about 4e is that every class is front-loaded, and that's one of the main reasons multiclassing fails so hard. It's literally easier to make a new character class than it is to combine two existing classes.

Next on the menu: some conversions from Magic of Incarnum and some other original classes.

--Dither

I have a question that I'd like to pose to the community. I don't think I can create a poll that adequately expresses the possibilities when it comes to preparation and counter-preparation for engaging other characters in... counteraction.

Here's the question in its rawest form:
"What are the most plausible countermeasures for having the tables turned on your character?"

Let's say you have a fighting game. You can make an attack against a character, and they may counter it with another move, interrupting your attack and harming your character. For example, you lunge forward with your sword, and the other guy takes it in the gut so he can stab your through the heart. What's a plausible, effective countermeasure for this type of situation?

Next, say you have a fantasy game with a rich and complex magic system. You cast a spell and one of your opponents has a counterspell prepared, which he uses to great effect. What sort of contingencies seem most reasonable from the perspective of both the players, and a godlike wizard?

Those were the two examples that came to mind first: your fighting game with its hierarchy of quick / fierce / guard / throw attacks, and Magic: the Gathering, with its rich (forgive the pun) "counter culture." Magic has an entire color practically devoted to the concept of fizzling an opponent's efforts.

But the problem sort of comes from the ease with which some things are "countered" and how they might well break willing suspension of disbelief. What's plausible? What's likely? What seems reasonable, and how does it stand against a fantasy setting? What qualifies as Badass, what's considered a "Batman-level of preparation," and what crosses over into the realm of virtual omniscience?

When I discussed this with my wife, the subject of timing and priority came up. "When" does the counteraction occur? Is it the result of actual preparation, is it blind, deaf, and dumb luck that both of you acted simultaneously, or is it a reaction? I think what I'm looking for falls primarily in the realm of reasonable preparation for having your own plans thwarted. In other words, let's say you're thinking one or two steps ahead of your opponent.

Back when I started playing Arkham Horror, it was usually with one of my roleplaying groups. I was surprised how much more easily some of the players took to roleplaying their AH characters than they did their own from our DnD campaign. But that isn't what I want to talk about in THIS thread, oh no. What I want to talk about is using the basic structure of AH to run adventures!

One of the things I really like about Arkham Horror is the sense of inevitability that it brings to the table. It seems to me that players are compelled to act because they see the effects the gates and monsters have on the board, and they feel like they can/should do something to stop it. They have a sense of purpose to motivate them to action. It might just be within the groups I've played in, but there have been a lot of gaming groups I've noticed this in.

It's my thought that a game master can translate effects from Arkham Horror into an adventure that motivates the players to action, and compels them to seek answers to an unraveling plot -- and without the use of extensive boards and tokens and cards and all the garbage that comes with the game.

First, if you want to use the actual Arkham Horror board and stuff, I'd recommend ignoring most of the information, and just take the thematic elements, rather than the system or the numbers from the game. For instance, if the game calls for a weapon, give the player a weapon appropriate to whatever roleplaying system you're using. If there's some money, give them gold or silver pieces, credits or whatever. If it were me, I'd use DnD 4e/Essentials, but that's me.

As the game master, you'll mostly be moving things "behind the scenes," and one of the things I want to explore is how to convey certain kinds of information to the players, while you have this board you're referring to, and all they "see" is what you tell them they see.

...
edit 1 - Mar. 29th
The identity of the Ancient One is the first thing you conceal from the players. They won't know who or what they're up against when the adventure begins. I'm of the opinion that until the Doom track reaches the halfway point or so, the players simply shouldn't have enough information to even begin guessing who they might be up against. All they know is who the agents are, extensions of the Ancient One's will.

Second, I think it's probably a good idea to conceal the location of any open gates until the players begin investigating the actual area. This way you can circumvent the normal problem of players feeling like they can't do anything by suggesting they can "always poke around to find something."

One thing you shouldn't conceal from your players is the nature of the stable/unstable locations. Compare this to the noir / mystery conventions that "weird stuff happens in weird places." Whenever there's something going on, the characters' first instincts should be to "bring in the usual suspects."

Another thing you shouldn't conceal from the players is the significant clue to be found in the Mythos card. In my games, I would assume that a Mythos card represented the "weirdness of the week," from an episodic storytelling perspective, and would provide the major lead for the newest revelation in the mystery. Whatever it is, it should point to the location where the new clue appears, particularly if there's now two or more clues at the location.