Banishing "Sacred Cows"

saersan said:
I think the major quibbles most seem to have are (or the ones I have :D ):

- Armour makes you harder to hit rather than reducing damage

If you think about the way the iterative attacks and reducing damage works, it effectively already does so. Subtracting would be just one more step to combat... and we have some players right now who spend ENOUGH time adding up their attack rolls.


- Masses of hit points for high level characters. I'd like to see higher level characters dodge and avoid getting hit in the first place.

Which would add yet another layer of complication to acheive the same thing.

I could see adapting to the VP/WP system (though seeings how it has fallen out of favor at WotC, probably not). But really, what you want to do only stands to complicate a system that works in the name of mimicing other games on the market. If you want this sort of game, you should look around... they are out there. As it stand, you are just wishing a pox on my favorite game and trying to cut out some of the qualities that make it the easy to play game that it is.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Redesign the magic system. Eliminate Divine vs Arcane magic distinction. Let players choose whether their caster uses Vancian (as existing system), Spell Point (as 3E Psionics) or Skill/Feat based (as Star Wars). The spell lists would have to be redone big time and you'd have to address the armor issue. And everything would have to balance out. No easy task, for sure.

Don't go classless. However, I wouldn't mind seeing the class list reduced to 3 or 4 base classes. Many of the existing classes are too narrowly focused and/or based on a nongeneral fantasy archetype. Turn those classes' abilities into feats, and give templates for what feats you'd have to take to be a "Paladin". Or make them prestige classes.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head. The point is the D&D is ever changing. The current version is damn good - the best so far. It's not perfect. Rest assured the game will keep evolving and there will be a 4th, 5th and 87th edition in time.
 
Last edited:

I'd like to see HP advancement tied to race as well as class. if dwarves are supposed to be tough, they should be getting more hp per level as an elf does for equal classes. I don't think con bonuses do it justice. Here is what i am thinking:

dwarves/half-orcs: d10 per level
humans: d8 per level
halflings/elves/gnomes: d6 per level

if you prefer more robust "hobbit-style" halflings, give them d8 as well.

Now for each class, you should get a bonus per level as well:

fighter/barbarian/paladin: +4
ranger/monk: +3
cleric/druid/rogue: +2
bard/wizard/sorcerer: +1

(These are just off the top of my head, and could be changed quite a bit and playtested for balance.)

Now toss in your con bonus on top of that.
 


Dispater said:
that's a whole lot of hit points, mr.

And I think you need 'em! It could easily be scaled back a die: d8, d6, d4 instead. Playtesting, playtesting, playtesting!!!! That's the only way to know for sure.
 


First off, if any readers haven't read Monty Cook's essay on the sacred cows of D&D (or D&D-isms, as he calls them), please do. I think it should get the thoughts flushing. If the link doesn't work, its archived under "Line of Sight".

My 2 cents is that Levels, Classes, Spells and Races bring a little order to the completely freeform games of "lets pretend". They make the game manageable, and also manage expectations so that players are more likely to get along.

Now, I think there are plenty of other ways to handle Hit Points and Armor Class, but the way it is now is just plain fun. If the number of HPs never increased too much, you could never walk up to a Hill Giant, unarmed and unarmored (except for maybe a plaid kilt and your trusty pen-knife), and spit in his eye.

(If you have to, go read that last sentence one more time. Make sure you have that visual well established.)

That's why I like D&D. The sheer chutzpah that massive HPs give you is a glory to behold, and darn fun to play, IMHO. My Uber Fighter can take more punishment in a ratty t-shirt than your lil' punk in the best armor his daddies money can buy him, and that's the way I like it. Its a flava' thang.

Ken Hood put together an awesome rules set for that Grim & Gritty feel, but it engenders a level of paranoia I am not interested in for my games.

...

As for my 4th Ed., I would make sure that the base classes are truly unique and cannot be recreated (or bettered) with combos of the others. Right off the bat, this means the Ranger and the Paladin should go. Don't go to four classes though, because the Monk, Druid and Barbarian cannot be created with combos of the "iconic four". Same said for the Psion.

I think I would replace the Cleric with the Priest, who gets lots of Divine magic, but no weapons and armor. If you want to be a Holy Crusader, take some levels of Fighter or Barbarian.

Oh, and for the love of God, put Psionics in the PHB. Its been around for so long that everyone has made their mind up about whether or not they want it in their campaign. They can continue to make the choice to exclude them if they want (just like I exclude the Ranger), and the rest of us have all the rules we need in once place.

I think that's about it. I would love to see a more free-form Magic System (like Ars Magica or Mage: The Ascension), but I know that will never happen, so lets focus on the probable and improbable, not the impossible. Maybe we could make it a little more flexible. Metamagic is a good step in the right direction.

Irda Ranger


PS - Psion, pennywiz deserved that to some extent, but you're one of our community leaders. Don't stoop to his level.
 

Lord Vangarel said:
How about armour absorbs damage rather than deflects hits. For this to work hit points can't increase at such a rapid rate if at all. Also if you take the basic 1 point of AC = 1 point of absorption then weapons don't do enough damage. Characters and creatures also need a defense rating allowing them to avoid attacks.

Hitting higher levels and bonuses becoming more important than the d20 roll. This happens for all rolls. I don't know what the solution is other than remove the d20 and replace it with an increasing die range. Bonuses are then small modifiers to the actual roll. There should be no need for different rules just because characters reach 20th level.

Making the spell system more mystical. At times the spells just seem to be too easy to predict.

On the spell system, i'm working on that... i've got some good ideas for a number of spell systems and their unification into a magical-effect-framework.

On the hitpoint scene... I'd like to see it possible to 'spend' hitpoints (10hp) to improve your natural AC by 1 point. So a 100hp fighter, could have 50hp, gaining an extra +5 bonus to his AC.

There is still the 'hit and be killed' problem. You could rather have it, spend 10hp and gain a +1 soak, +1 AC. That would make it quite an advantage.

The problem comes in with eg: fireball. So a 50hp soak 5, AC somthingawful, takes X-5 damage? or should it be -5 off each die? (with the die dealing a minimum of 1 damage)... what about half damage for saving throws. Maybe u shouldnt get saving throws and instead players should expend their HP into damage soaking abilities. Or you get saving throws, but you can expend HP to improve your savingthrow in an area. (Potentially quite usefull for fighters n stuff. Get that
Ring of +100hp, and then distribute those gained HP to focus on improving specific savingthrows.)

I also enjoy rule-0 stackable effects whereby stackable buffs beyond the first adjust by at most +1. Two rings of protection +2 and a cloak of protection+2 provides +4 (+2+1+1). 2 rings +2 and a cloak +3 would stack as +5 (3+1+1).

It helps prevent the min-max issues with multiple spell buffing. Doesnt detract from min-maxing, but brings them into reasonable focus.

-Tim
 


Remove ads

Top