4th Edition D&D

[jmucchiello]

I want D&D with those options, not D&D + 3rd party....

(Not that I'm saying Buy the Numbers isn't a good book & shouldn't be purchased; quite the contrary..however, I would like it as a base option of the D&D, as opposed to "D&D-like d20" game...)

I don't understand. Elaborate. What does the "Official Dungeons And Dragons" logo on the cover of the book do that would improve Buy The Numbers? If it makes the game exactly what you asked for why not use it? What is the impediment?

 

[Nyaricus]

So, my version of 4e would be 3.5 errata'd

I'd like this, with some polishing around the edges - in particular what Whydirt was saying with "many of the changes in 4th Edition will come from popular house rules (including variant d20 rules on the market [snip]" Personally, I think hes almost on the dot with his suggestions - indeed TSR states in their AD&D 2e Players Handbook:

"In the past two years, I've talked to interesting players many times, hearing their concerns and sharing my ideas. It was at the end of one of these talks (at a convention in Missoula, Montana), just as I described some rules change, that one of the listeners smiled and said, "You know, we've been doing that for years." And that is what AD&D 2nd Edition is all about - collecting and Organizing all those things that we, as players, have been doing for years.

-Davide "Zeb" Cook
January, 1989

With the advent of the internet, information is exchanged at such a pace as to completely outdistance whatever those before it could have ever imagined. My hope is that this careful, optimistic, benevolent outlook is being upkept at D&D HQ now that WotC is running the show, and that we can see some reasonable revisions that won't change D&D in such a way as to not be what D&D is: Dungeons and Dragons, the first and greatest roleplaying game ever.

Here's hoping

 

[boredgremlin]

As far as I am concerned 4E needs somethings so radically novel that they make us all go "Ah ha! Why didn't we think of this sooner." 3E had, among other things positive is good notions in both AC and BAB (as opposed to THAC0) and a freeform multiclass option. If you don't have these Ah ha notions you only get 3.75E

One thing I think 4E would need is a reunification and simplification of class/template options. Right now we have PC, NPC, PRC and a semi official Template Levels option. (Actually we have multiple ones from WOTC and non WOTC sources.) Why, for example are NPC classes so lame? (If you really want weaker NPCs why not ust give them lower levels; level equality was supposed to be the Ah ha of 3E, especially from the 1E days when one really could argue that a level X wizard was the equivalent of a level Y monk, but a level X+5 wizard was not the equivalent of a level Y+5 monk.

Reversing attack bonus and AC didnt make me go "ah, ha". It was really simple and most gamers i knew had allready been doing it in thier games for years.

Personally i really dont think the multiclass system is that different either. If you take out the favored classes with regards to XP penalties then its pretty much the same.

If they just fixed a few holes i would buy it. I mean really, i almost bought the PHB 2. And whats the difference? 35$ to try something new (even slightly) or 35$ to buy yet another book of skill x+2 and skill y+2 feats and a few prestige classes no one will ever get a chance to touch?

If they paid some attention to the boards and posters complaints and made a few changes they could easily sell us another 70$ or 100$ worth of books. Hell ditching alignment and half the prestige classes alone would sell alot of books.

 

[Nyaricus]

One more thing.... it seems there's been a progression with a certains mechanics naming schema throughout the years...

To Hit Armour Class Zero ("THAC0") > Armour Class ("AC") > Defense ("Def")

I'd love to see that. "AC" makes noobs go "huh?!?"

 

[Hussar]

Personally i really dont think the multiclass system is that different either. If you take out the favored classes with regards to XP penalties then its pretty much the same.

I know I'm going to regret this, but, I just gotta say, "buh?"

Umm, let's take it by the numbers shall we? In AD&D (either 1e or 2e) multiclassing was done at 1st level, could only be done by non-humans, had very specific limitations on what combinations could be played and to what level. Multiclass characters, by and large, were 1 or at most 2 levels behind the rest of the party until double digit levels where the xp tables stopped progressing and flatlined. Abilities were as the level of the given class, with some restrictions. Couldn't wear armor and cast MU spells for instance. Hit points were averaged between the classes. Everything else was pick the best of either class - THAC0, Saves, exceptional strength for fighters, etc.

Multiclassing in 3e can be done by any character with almost any class (some alignment restictions apply - although, you can still be a barbarian paladin, you just have to give up some stuff ), and the total character level will never exceed the rest of the party. Hit points are cumulative, there are no level limits, BAB stacks and there are still some restrictions for wearing armor.

So, instead of having a 7th/7th Fighter/MU in an 8th level 2e party, you have a 3/4 (or some version thereof) Fighter/Wizard.

How is that even remotely similar? Other than the fact that both characters have two classes?

 

[librarius_arcana]

It seems a popular belief that 4th ed is going to be alot like 3.5,

but if they are going to make it closed content (as is said by some) then wouldn't they want to brake away from parts of that (3.5) system, it will no doubt be d20, but still have to be diffrent enough to be justified as a new Ed

 

[Psion]

It seems a popular belief that 4th ed is going to be alot like 3.5,

but if they are going to make it closed content (as is said by some) then wouldn't they want to brake away from parts of that (3.5) system, it will no doubt be d20, but still have to be diffrent enough to be justified as a new Ed

That would be the tail wagging the dog, IMO. Not that I don't think some companies take this attitude (Games Workshop, I am looking at you...). But from this customer's persepective, lack of compatability with previous editions is a negative quality, not a positive one. The changes 3e wrought were pretty painful, but worth it, because they repaired some underlying inelegancies in the system. In short, the big changes in 3e were worth it.

I am having a real hard time seeing big changes in 4e that would be worth it. And I think that if WotC wrought big changes in the system which could only be perceived as "change for change's sake" (or worse "catering to a minority audience"), they would resent it and D&D would lose customers.

 

[JustaPlayer]

Not a change. I have heard that it is going to be a closed system. No more d20. I just want it to remain an open system is all.

 

[librarius_arcana]

That would be the tail wagging the dog, IMO. Not that I don't think some companies take this attitude (Games Workshop, I am looking at you...). But from this customer's persepective, lack of compatability with previous editions is a negative quality, not a positive one. The changes 3e wrought were pretty painful, but worth it, because they repaired some underlying inelegancies in the system. In short, the big changes in 3e were worth it.

I am having a real hard time seeing big changes in 4e that would be worth it. And I think that if WotC wrought big changes in the system which could only be perceived as "change for change's sake" (or worse "catering to a minority audience"), they would resent it and D&D would lose customers.

But by the same token, you are not going to want to buy the same system twice (as in 3.0 to 3.5) I don't think they will be making that mistake again

 

[Hussar]

But by the same token, you are not going to want to buy the same system twice (as in 3.0 to 3.5) I don't think they will be making that mistake again

However, that's a mistaken assumption. The changes between 3.0 and 3.5 are as extensive as the changes between 1e and 2e. Every class, many feats, many spells, and a fair chunk of the DMG and Monster Manual were reworked. I know, at first glance, there doesn't seem to be so many changes, but, after playing 3.5 for the past couple of years, I realize how extensive those changes really are.

An updated 3.5, call it 3.5 Revised, or whatever, would be a fairly extensive change as well.