D&D 4.0 - What the?

[RangerWickett]

RangerWickett,
I have to say I think you're going too far. A ability point at every other level? I think every 4th is fine.

Saving throws all increasing at the same rate? That's too boring, and not true to the fact that some classes should be better at others at some things. Sure, reduce the differences between the rates of advancement for save bonuses, but still make there be a difference. I'm not opposed to a choose one (or two) good saves like they do in d20CoC (I think). That way a swashbuckling fighter could take good Reflex instead of Fortitude, as a tank would.

Most importantly, while I'd like to see the number of core classes reduced, I think the magic number is 4, not 3. Clerics are one sacred cow that should stay, as should a distinction between arcane and divine magic.

Okay, first of all, we won't be having magic statboosting items as default. Now, you have a 20th level Fighter with a 20 Strength and a +6 Str item. In 4e, we'll have a 20th level Fighter with a 26 Strength.

Second, everyone has a basic saving throw bonus based on their total level (that way, multiclassing doesn't screw you up as much). The feats Great Fortitude, Iron Will, and Lightning Reflexes can be taken more than once. Since you'll be getting more feats and talents than you do now, you'll want to spend some on saving throws. These would probably be automatic bonus feats. In addition to the normal ones you get by leveling up, you'd get a bonus feat every even level in any given core class, which must be chosen from a list of okay, but kinda weak feats.

Actually, we'd probably have Great Fortitude (+2 Fort saves), Mighty Fortitude (another +2 Fort saves, prereq. Great Fort and base Fort +3), and Supreme Fortitude (another +2, total of +6, prereq Great and Mighty Fort, base Fort +5).

And finally, for the classes, the core classes are really core concepts. Fighting, skills, and magic. Now, certain options will be limited, so you can't make a character with full damage spells and full healing spells, but the underlying rules for spellcasting are exactly the same. Let's make the spellcasting class unified too. (Advanced classes can make up the difference)

 

[Orius]

Keep animals and vermin in the main alphabetical listing instead of their own separate chapter at the end.

In the case of the animals, why? All that's really important is the stats. People know what real-world animals look like and so on. You don't need detailed descriptions of them.

 

[Staffan]

My theory is that years of playing CRPGs, which usually use mana for spellcasters rather than preparing spells in advance, has caused many people to see vancian magic as an "outdated" concept.

Not CRPGs, other PnP RPGs. The first RPG I ever played (Swedish game called Drakar och Demoner, at the time a somewhat mutated variant of Runequest/BRP) used power points. I think the only RPGs I've played that used Vancian magic (aka Fire and Forget) are various flavors of D&D. All others have limited spellcasters in some other way (fatigue a la Ars Magica or GURPS, power points a la BRP, very limited tactical selection a la Earthdawn, damage a la TORG...)

 

[William Ronald]

I would hope that 4.0 is not released for several years. (I started a poll on that topic sometime back, but I can't find the link.)

The suggestion to have a fair amount of feedback from players is a good idea. I think 3.0 benefitted from extensive playtesting, and it made it easier for some people I know to make the leap from 2nd edition to 3rd edition.

I am fairly comfortable with the Vancian magic system, but I am open to other systems. To me, I think a good magic system should be fairly easy for new players to learn, requires the players to make some choices, and actually allows a character to do something more advanced than lighting a candle after 20 years of study.

Perhaps a good question to ask is what would make the game more enjoyable and proceed from that question to the rules. There are some alternate magic systems that I enjoyed. I thought that the magic system in Mage was fairly flexible, if a little unusual. A magic system should also have a sense of wonder to it, and perhaps some suggestions on how to bring that to a game would be useful. (Also, some more suggestions on creating spells might be a good section for the DMG.)

There have been times when I think the current rules cause characters to rely too heavily on their equipment, whcih can always be stripped from them, than their abilities and skills.

Someone on this thread said that the cleric seemed a little too good to be true. A good alternative to the core rules cleric is the Levite priest from Testament, which has a d6 for hit points and somewhat greater access to different spells. There is perhaps room in a new rules system for warrior priests and "temple priests" for lack of a better term.

I would also like to see a fighter that works well as a swashbuckler or an archer than the default tank of the core rules. Different cultures can have very different fighting styles, and can use weapons differently. (For example, many schools of fighting that uses two weapons uses the smaller weapon to help parry blows. This has rarely happened in many of the games that I have seen.)

Any suggestions on who would be the best writers to work on a 4th Edition game? Also, how would you like to see a new edition introduced?

 

[MerricB]

I am fairly comfortable with the Vancian magic system, but I am open to other systems. To me, I think a good magic system should be fairly easy for new players to learn, requires the players to make some choices, and actually allows a character to do something more advanced than lighting a candle after 20 years of study.

The biggest requirements for a D&D magic system would be that it is easy to adjudicate, and consistent in its adjudication.

When you cast magic missile, you know what is going to happen. There are a few magic systems out there (Amber Diceless Roleplaying), where such does not apply. I'm not sure about Mage - I have the feeling that the Paradox rules are little too DM-reliant for use in D&D. But this is from someone who doesn't know Mage well at all.

Cheers!

 

[William Ronald]

Okay, MerricB, one more post before I succumb to my own Sleep spell.

I agree that having a consistent system that is easy to adjudicate and consistent is important. Players and DMs should not go from game to game or campaign to campaign and have a great deal of uncertainty over the effect of using a spell or the effects of a magic item.

I only played Mage for a little while several years back. The Paradox Rules, I thought, really require good judgement. However, I liked the fact that it was possible for characters to pool their abilities for added effect. Although there is such a thing as circle magic in the Forgotten Realms, there is little in the current core rules about cooperative casting of spells. In many novels, there are efforts by multiple spell casters to achieve some magical effect -- whether it is blessing a community, casting a destructive spell, or trying to undo a horrific magical effect. (There is a good example of this in the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. The Lords in the novels often cast spells cooperatively.) Perhaps a future edition can address this aspect of magic.)

Magic should also have something of a sense of wonder. Good descriptions by DMs can help in this area, but perhaps something can be done in the rules to this end.

 

[johnsemlak]

I only played Mage for a little while several years back. The Paradox Rules, I thought, really require good judgement. However, I liked the fact that it was possible for characters to pool their abilities for added effect. Although there is such a thing as circle magic in the Forgotten Realms, there is little in the current core rules about cooperative casting of spells. In many novels, there are efforts by multiple spell casters to achieve some magical effect -- whether it is blessing a community, casting a destructive spell, or trying to undo a horrific magical effect. (There is a good example of this in the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. The Lords in the novels often cast spells cooperatively.) Perhaps a future edition can address this aspect of magic.)

Not official rules, but have you seen S&SS's Ritual Magic system?

 

[Hecatæus]

1. Simplify classes, Warrior, Mage, Cleric, 'specialist' (aka rogue, thief, courtesan, scoundrel yadayada) should be the basics, all other character concepts extend from these through Skills, Feats, Talents and other character choices. ie Paladin is really militant cleric (clerics are far too militant imo) ...so is a Monk btw (in both aspects). Druids are nature clerics, Bards iirc were a lower/different form of druid (PrC?) Ranger: type of fighter. etc. Basically, D20M had the right idea.

2. Vancian system is fine, but it needs to be balanced with others. My idea (though more of a campaign idea) is that Vancian magic is a Lawful 'wizard' style, and the more on the fly 'sorceror' (point/skill based) magic is the Chaos form. In either case, a bigger distinction needs to be made between the way wizard and cleric magic is handled. A DM may wish for a Vancian style only be for Clerical spellcasters (with independent mages going skill/point) ...or not. Both Clerics may or may not use a vancian system, but there should still be a very different style of play for them.

3. Lightweight fighters, Skill based characters who don't backstab, like a truely knowledgable if 'lower number of spells' Wizard/Priest should be makeable.

4. Not too much dependence on magic items...Also I have much difficulty in figuring out how magic items get made in worlds: they are very expensive, take too much time to make, break/get stole too easily bitchbitchbitch. And while taking XP to make magic items, is not a bad idea, that XP gain strictly speaking requires going into dangerous situations most wizards simply won't do it...too risky. 3.0-.5 feels broken; better than the past, but still don't seem to make sense.

(my group likes to be on the move and can't settle down to make magic items, and having money and magic items all over the place tjsut doesn't seem to make much sense given our milieu...but the combat rules punish us because for these choices)

5. Biggest wish: Good upfront Software usable in whatever common medium exists. Would be nice if there were electronic play mats which could store maps, process encounter/combat data, etc etc this would make fights much faster and allow for a much better game.

 

[Deadguy]

Magic should also have something of a sense of wonder. Good descriptions by DMs can help in this area, but perhaps something can be done in the rules to this end.

'Sense of wonder' and 'magic' rarely go together in an adventuring-style RPG. Generally because most of the ideas bandied about to introduce a sense of wonder are really means to introduce a greater sense of uncertainty about the effects and effectiveness of magic. When your character is relying on this magic to survive it's a lot to ask of the player that his best ability is really hit-and-miss, and likley open to DM fiat.

(To put it in context, I have played Mage, both the modern day and Sorcerers Crusade varieties. This system comes the closest to potentially having wondrous magic. We make it work in the renaissance game by agreeing to always adjudicate magic in the group, and not leave it to the Storyteller alone. But even here we have settled on various paradigms that give a fairly clear indication of what can be achieved. Without it the game feels too arbitrary.)

I would say rather that what we need to strive for is a sense of the fantastical in magic. It's the keystone of a fantasy campaign, and often the major factor that colours the feeling of the setting. Yet too often the magic used feels very 'ordinary', very much analagous to technological solutions, or derived from a 'scientific' outlook. Spells that do things based on the principles of magic and the design of the world (e.g. conjuring tiny demons to infect your target with a plague) are more flavourful and interesting. In my opinion, of course!

 

[Larcen]

....(e.g. conjuring tiny demons to infect your target with a plague) are more flavourful and interesting. In my opinion, of course!

In our games if a player feels like supplying a creative description for a spell, we just let them. As long as everyone involved knows that it's only for flavor and does not affect the technical aspects of the spells, why not? For instance, almost everyones Magic Missile look differently. As long as the player doesn't get too extravagant his missiles can look like darts, smiley faces, Wizard Marks, butterflies, whatever.

Funny thing is the players really get a kick out this minor personalization. They just love to say for instance "Ok you see 3 Photon Torpedo-looking things streak from my fingertips and fly towards the troll." Imagine how creative they can get when describing where some spells come from, such spells as Stinking Cloud or Glitterdust.

As an interesting sideline personalising spell descriptions helps explain why Spellcraft is needed to identify a spell. I mean, once you see a fireball, why do you have to roll again to identify another? ...Unless it's because they ARE different for all casters, and Spellcraft just tries to find small common features of the given spell.

Another one of our players wrote a seperate poem for ALL of his Druid spells and reads them off as he casts them. It's all in good fun and I think adds to the sense of wonder people are talking about.