4th Edition D&D

What's my ideal 4th Edition like?

Well, I have it on good authority that the design of 3e was heavily influenced by one man's idea of what D&D fantasy ought to be like (Monte Cook's, if anybody's curious). Slightly modified, Monte's "vision" of fantasy is the one that permeates D&D and sets the system. I'd like to see that change.

Fourth Edition should be set up so that the fantasy is "dial-a-style." Is your preference Monte's over the top Ptolus-style system? You're covered. Fahfrd and the Grey Mouser style sword & sorcery? Covered. Lord of the Rings style high fantasy? Covered. Old-school Gygaxian Greyhawk? Still covered.

It's been said before. D&D 3e does one type of fantasy well - D&D. We, as DMs, shouldn't have to reinvent the mechanics in our rules cuz we don't like magic shops. There's something horrendously wrong with that.

Fix that, and I'll be happy.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

whydirt said:
I think as with the changes brought by 3rd Edition, many of the changes in 4th Edition will come from popular house rules (including variant d20 rules on the market:

  • Reduced/combined skills (Hide+Move Silently -> Sneak, etc.), with some type of revision to the way class/cross-class skills work
  • Non-random hit points as the default
  • No multiclass restrictions for Paladins and Monks
  • Summon Familiar will be a feat instead of a set class ability
  • Free Eschew Material Components for Sorcerers
  • Bonus 0th-Level Spells for high ability scores
  • Faster feat progression for characters
  • Better high-level combat feats for Fighters included in core rules
  • One or two new core classes based on the most popular non-core base classes from the 3E supplements (warlock and artificer would be my guesses for 1st pick and 2nd pick, possibly in place of the sorcerer)
  • Revised Wild Shape ability and Polymorph spells
  • More rule exceptions (skill syngergies are the first thing that comes to mind) will be changed or removed to streamline the rules

These are just off the top of my head - I'm sure I could think of some other things given more time.

except for the "one or two new core classes..." i agree with all of this.

messy :cool:
 

I would definitely like to see more of this, and make it really usable. Reading several of these threads together comparing the different editions, along with this has provided me with this idea for a possible fourth edition:

Start with a very, very basic game. Rules simple, DM-driven, lightning fast character creation that focuses on character concept and not min/max opportunity. There would be only five or six character types, total. The "basic" game is setting 'generic', runs an EXTREMELY simple and scalable rules system, that could be used for five levels or fifty. Combat is simple and stream-lined, focused primarily on "description" and "action" with a few simple dice rolls determining most combat outcomes. No complex math, no multiplication, a few well placed hits would end most fights. No skills, no feats, no maps. The basic game came with everything you needed to get started: character development, combat, monsters, npc generation, and how to DM. Most of the focus of the game is on STORYTELLING, ADVENTURE CREATION, SOCIALIZATION SKILLS, and MAKING A GAME FUN. What would make this work? Backwards compatible to any D&D game. A truly "simpler" version of the game, but the foundation for building the rest of the game.

The game should then 'expand' (perhaps almost immediately) to include the advanced rules expansion which focuses on the expansion of combat and tactics. This expansion would present an elegant, scalable, challenging, and tactical approach to combat. The introduction of a 5' square map will incorporate all the elements of the environment, and place an unusual amount of emphasis on the decision making that considers TEAMWORK, OPPORTUNITY, ENVIRONMENT, and MOMENTUM to achieve victory. Very few combats would end quickly, unless by design. Instead, they would often resolve around the debate of available options, tactics, and will be TIME SENSITIVE to turn-based actions and resolution. This expansion will evolve character development from basic archetypes required to explain the story-telling aspects of sword and sorcery fiction to a wide variety of "tacically balanced" options that could easily be mixed and matched to radically alter character design. The introduction of things such as hit points, armor class, saving throws, feats, and abilities and a scalable magic item system that would allow for significantly more options and a wider range of variables to manage in combats. This version of the game could be played on a stand-alone basis, like a miniatures game. No story would be necessary outside this, or you could choose to use the basic game to build out the story-telling components of your game between combats. This game should be setting specific to one of the primary worlds: Greyhawk. A sword and sorcery world who's foundation is dungeon exploration. Releases for this game would be throwbacks to all the old classic 1st edition dungeon crawls. The world would work very much like a MMORPG in that this core world would present certain "character options" and "abilities" and "items" that would detail specific locations with increasing levels of challenge, where the greatest "rewards" would be available to those capable of achieving victory against the greatest "challenges". The release of the expansion would include a complete Adventure Path. Every creature, magic item, feat, and ability would have a specific place. The greatest feats, abilities, and items would be guarded by the most challenging encounters and the greatest big bad evil guys. If you play with someone who bears the Axe of Dwarvish Lords, you would know what he had to accomplish, with what resources, and what tactics were probably required. Character development would indeed include and be driven by the locations and villians, and victories achieved.

The second expansion would be another incremental, scalable, resource building and development game that could be played alone (as an RTS game), played as a build on to the basic game, or played as an addition to the basic and combat games. This game would introduce the concepts of skills, magic item creation, spell creation, cohorts, companions, wealth, prestige, reputation, allies, and affiliations. This game is played as a resource building game, that could be played individually or as a team. This game would introduce the concept of regional maps, and the valuable resources that they represent. The early game would represent developing very specific local resources such as contacts, allies, and establishing affiliations. The rewards for this game will be strictly represented in wealth, prestige, and reputation. These rewards can be cashed in during game play to advance your strategy in an effort to meet one of the "conditions of victory". This game would flourish with intrigue, uncovering secrets, resolving mysteries, recruiting allies, establishing alliances, and building resources. This game would be set in the world of Eberron, where the focus is upon the story and role that development plays. Detailed maps would come with the game. A complete Adventure Path would be released with this edition as well, that would combine with the core game to lead a party from humble beginnings as investigators in a small town, to become local leaders, then regents, then perhaps holders of land and rulers of a kingdom of their own. This expansion will evolve character development from basic archetypes required to explain the story-telling aspects of sword and sorcery fiction to a wide variety of "resource balanced" options that could easily be mixed and matched to radically alter character design. No matter which form of resource development you should choose, each style would provide a part of this interchangeable system, that fully fleshes out options for any type of crime-solving, magic-creating, knowledge-knowing, kingdom-building combination you wish to develop to meet the victory conditions of the game.

Finally, there would be one game that combines each of these games and expansions. It would use a known world, such as the Forgotten Realms as the backdrop. It would be released in conjunction with it's own adventure path. This would detail the ways and means to achieve victory through a delicate balance of victories in and out of combat. Character creation would be an intertwining of all the skills and abilities of both expansions. A "knight" would receive the "combat" tactics provided from the combat game as well as the "diplomacy/alliance" tactics provided from the resource-building game.

Future expansions would build upon each of hese games, but would easily be able to be adapted "backwads" into the other editions of the game, as the DM would desire. Independent product could expand these concepts by exploring each realm, providing new adventure paths, character designs, resources, and alliances.

Knowing the design elements, or even better, having a clear understanding of the cost of each ability, resource, feat, skill, and alliance would provide a terrific opportunity for DM's to tinker with each adventure, campaign setting, and combat option to their heart's content.
 

Hussar said:
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?


Its extremely similar if you realize that in 3e your arent really multi-classing. Your dual-classing. Multiclass characters advanced in both classes at once, dual classed ones went one at a time, just like all "multi-classing" in 3e. There were a few dumb rules about dual classing but almost no one really used them anyway. Virtually everyone played AD&D dual classing the way multi-classing works now. All 3.0 really did was put a very common houserule into official print.
 

4e should be a massive change to warrant the name "4e" so here's what I would change:

1) The skills system. In my opinion, this is the weakest part of 3e. It is very tedious, a lot of bookeeping is required, a nightmare for dms in npc creation, in short, I think it should go.

2) The feat system. In general I like the feat system, but I agree with another poster that scaling feats I think would help. They could scale based on BAB or caster level, allowing high level characters to get more out of their feats and giving them more personal power.

3) Reliance on magic items. I agree with many by mid to high levels your no longer playing a character your playing a meatsack for a bunch of magic loot. I think the change to the feat system (see 2) could help that.

4) Take out the algorithmic class system. A fighter gets a feat every other level, a BAB every level, so forth. Barbs get rage every X levels. The problem with this is the scaling doesnt' work as levels get higher. Rage 1/day is great, 2/day is wonderful, who cares about rage 6/day? The linear scale of abilities makes high level characters more reliant on magic than needs to be. What's wrong with saying Fighters start getting +2 BAB starting at 10th every level, Paladin's start getting 2 extra smites per day every 6 levles starting at 12, etc. I think the system could balance classes much easier if it didn't slave itself to the linear method.

5) Combat Options. I love combat options, they make combat much more fun for me as a player and dm. But the options needed to be faster and easier to use. AOOs were a great idea and solved a lot of problems, but they created a few themselves. New players have a lot of trouble with them, it slows the game down, and it enforces the "mini" mentality. In addition, I think the addition of stunts like in IH and other games is a wonderful idea, they should be made standard.

6) Mechanical rebalance of stats. I feel that in general, every stat should matter to a player in a mechanical way no matter what class they are playing. Now I'm not saying that every stat needs to be critical to every character, but there should be some mechanical benefit to having a high stat, and mechanical penalty for a low one. Charisma is the major player here. In general, the DM has to take up the responsibility to make charisma worthwhile. For every other stat, I can put to some rules and say, this is why you want to have this stat whether we are playing a social game or a combat game. For charisma, many characters will never need it. Which brings to my next point.

7) Add more detailed social mechanics to the game. For the most part combat is strictly rules governed and social engagements are entirely dm providence. I think dnd can incoporate some social mechanics just as other systems have done. Put more concrete rules on bluff and diplomacy, so a dm knows when a player rolls a 20 diplomacy vs a 21 diplomacy, what that really means. Explain how bluff is supposed to work, give some examples on how a character is supposed to lie and get away with it, explain what a person really gets when they role a sense motive, etc.

8) Create new "types" of spells. I personally think vancian magic is part of what makes dnd the system it is so I wouldn't want to see it go. However, that doesn't mean it can't be reworked. Metamagic can be cleaned up, it has a lot of problems as written. Lately, we've started seeing new kinds of spells. Swift and immediate actions spells are opening up new avenues to players. The channeling spells in the PHB2 add a whole new way to do magic, even going as far to opening up the possibility of ritual magic. You take a standard action to cast this spell, you get X. You take a week with 5 other people, you get Y. I think ideas like these will greatly increase the variety and fun magic can offer in dnd.
 

painandgreed said:
Ya, if you don't like the sacred cows, then you should just go someplace other than India.

We're actually making the same point. :D

I like D&D. It's just not my particular system of first choice, fantasy or otherwise.

I don't think D&D is bad,, and I enjoy a D&D game here and there, I just prefer other games if given a choice.

And the original question was what I'd like to see in 4e, and no level system (for "better or worse") is one of those things I'd like to see as an official non-third party part of D&D/d20.
 

fendrin said:
Given this, here is what I would like to see:
A classless (but not level-less) 'advanced' system that allows for total player control over the character. You start with a basic framework (i.e. d4 hit dice, 2+ int skill points, 1/2 BAB, etc.) and you get a certain number of 'points' or 'power-ups' to increase these abilities, as well as buy skills, feats, and what are currently class abilities.
As a side note, this sounds a lot like Anime d20
 

VoP was the prototype for real scaling feats, and that caught my eye, and I thought "why can't ALL feats be like that?" The answer: they haven't thought of universalizing the concept.

I basically thought that they should scale when you took levels in the appropriate class, so a Feat like Power Attack would scale up with each "warrior" class level, and a magic-oriented Feat would only scale up when you leveled in a spellcasting class...when the class actually gets spells (so such a feat wouldn't scale up with the first level of bard, for instance).

It works nicely for the magic related Feats, but he problem with other Feats is defining what class counts for purposes of such a Feat...especially since WotC won't stop printing classes.

So something simple like the suggested Combat Feats scale up per +1BAB makes sense.

I'm pretty sure that some wouldn't be too scaleable. Armor Proficiency? That would mean warriors would either have a feat that is already scaled to the maximum at 1st level, or they'd be seriously nerfed at low levels...and other PCs with lesser armor proficiencies would get more benefit than they need. Ditto Feats that grant skill bonuses. If you scale those, game balance goes whacko.
 

4e changes

librarius_arcana said:
what would you change?
In order of preference:
1) I'd change the magic system. Rebalance it, make it have less overlap with other parts of the game mechanics (skills, movement modes, etc...). I don't care if it Vanacian or not, or if it uses levels, points, mana, tokens, auras, or something else.
2) I'd re-balance the classes. Any class, in the majority of situations, should be no more than 1/2 -2x as powerful than any other class at the same level, given roughly equivalently optimal choices for the respective classes.
3) Do more so that the skillful classes can capitalize on their skills past early levels. #1 can help a lot here.
4) Fully support the entire level range in the initial book. Taking a 3E example, the Fighter should not have no reasonable options for their LV 20 feat, particuarly in comparison to the feat they took around LV 4 or so.
 

boredgremlin said:
Its extremely similar if you realize that in 3e your arent really multi-classing. Your dual-classing. Multiclass characters advanced in both classes at once, dual classed ones went one at a time, just like all "multi-classing" in 3e. There were a few dumb rules about dual classing but almost no one really used them anyway. Virtually everyone played AD&D dual classing the way multi-classing works now. All 3.0 really did was put a very common houserule into official print.

Well, actually there are some significant differences between dual classing in earlier editions and multiclassing in 3rd. The stat requirements were massive, you could no longer advance in your original class and only humans could do it. None of that is true in 3e. As far as some people's homebrew goes, I never assume that the rules I cooked up in my basement bear any resemblance to what other people played. IME, no one EVER dual classed because it was far too difficult and no one wanted to gibble their character for x levels until their second class surpassed the first. YMMV obviously.

As far as 3e to 3.5 being a minor change, well, that's your opinion. Having played and DM'd both quite a lot, I can honestly say that the changes from 3 to 3.5 were as extensive as the changes from 1e to 2e. There is almost no element of the game from 3e to 3.5 that isn't changed.
 

Remove ads

Top