Banishing "Sacred Cows"

[Avatar_V]

I have been very seriously thinking about switching to the grim-n-gritty combat system because the realism really appeals to me, but then I realized that in my setting, there's a famous battle in which one of the iconics takes massive ammounts of damage and then does some very heroic things. Likewise, there's a guy who rides a dragon in my setting. The fact of the matter is, my setting is not realistic and that's what makes it exciting. I think that the grim-n-gritty system is great, I love the realism, but it's just not D&D anymore. By there system, the dragon would eat its owner for lunch, even if the owner is epic level. In the end, I realized that sure, the hp system is fantasy, but that's what my whole world is! So, just had to toss in my 2cents that I like the hp/to hit/AC system how it is. I wouldn't mind seeing players weaker after losing a fraction of their hps, but I don't want to see the whole system change except maybe as an option, but that's almost too huge to be an option, so I'd like to see it unchanged.

Now magic on the other hand... IMC they already use a version of the psionics point system, but again having both systems to choose from is kind of a nice option, I'm sure there are people who think that the traditional magic system is better

 

[Saeviomagy]

Things that in my mind are big problems with the system as-is
1) One-hit-kill spells

At high levels, these rule the game. Full stop. They're almost single-handedly the reason that spellcasters are the top-of-the line classes to be at high levels. They also have a nasty habit of turning what should be an epic combat into one-action "whoever-gets-to-go-first" fiascos. I'd like to see some form of system where a spell which is saved against still has an effect, while failing the save doesn't necessarily mean it has full effect. Say something like temporary ability damage? So if I charm you, it reduces your wisdom for the purpose of detecting any bluff attempts I make, and when your wisdom is effectively zero, the spell takes full effect. This would go for any spell which has a large difference in effect depending on the saving throw of the target, all the way from hold person (which would target dex or str) to disintegrate (con).

2) The huge difference between clerics and other casters

Look through the classes. Pay special attention to all the primary casters. What is the difference between them and primary fighters? Casters tend to have low hps, bad BAB, bad fort saves and a restriction on weapons, and all bar the cleric have restricted armour. I don't think that a cleric's spell selection is bad enough to justify this. I'd suggest that a cleric should be a wizard/sorceror with a different spell list (of comparable power), a different spell preparation routine (the daily prayer) and undead turning instead of a familiar. If you want hps, BAB, fort saves and armour and weapon proficiencies, then take some levels of fighter, or buy them with feats. No amount of giving the cleric boosts will convince players that he's cool or interesting, so give up on that tack.

3) Problems in the spell list
Look at contagion. It condemns an individual to a slow, painful death. Now look at animate dead. It makes skeletons move around (specifically note any absence of the spell having an effect upon the souls of the dead individuals etc). Now justify the [evil] tag on animate dead when it is conspicuously absent on contagion.

 

[Ace]

This thread AGAIN?

'Struth


The problem is that half of the changes people talk about implementing would make D&D not well D&D

There is a reason these cows are Sacred

OTOH Nothing stops you from writing a cool set of D&D compatible "D20" rules and playing that if you want change

 

[Replicant]

Sacred Cows must be preserved

As has been stated eloquently in so many posts, D&D needs its sacred cows -- levels, AC and hit points -- to remain the game so many have come to know and love. Take these out in favor of a more realistic, grim-and-gritty system, and you may as well toss out every module you've ever bought. They don't mesh with a realistic system.

For example, try playing Against the Giants using characters with 20 hit points. One hill giant would mash the best fighter in the land with a single blow. 20 of them would decimate a party, easy.

If you want such a system, fine. I myself love these kinds of systems for occasional changes of pace. The point is, they're out there already. Try BRP (Basic Role playing). Everything that's been described -- fixed HP, armor that absorbs damage, increased defense bonuses (parry and dodge rolls) -- is part of BRP. It makes for a wonderful grim and gritty, realistic system. I recommend it highly for anyone wanting such a system. Stormbringer has BRP for its mechanic, and its currently in print.

The point is, D&D is something entirely different. It's epic, cinematic. Unrealistic, if you want to call it that. But the system allows characters to do things grim-and-gritty systems don't, and in my opinion those sacred cows are why D&D is universally regarded as the premiere fantasy role playing game in existence.

 

[LightPhoenix]

4th Edition? Sacred Cows? Heh. What the hell.

1) Ranger and Paladin should go. Paladin should be made a prestige class, and it should be a holy warrior. Emphasis on warrior. Also, only one of Sorcerer and Wizard should be around.

2) I'd use something akin to Alternity's damage system. It worked extremely well, and was one of the best parts of the system. The WP/VP system comes close.

3) Spellcasting would be like Wheel of Time. I think it's a very innovative, interesting way to do spellcasting.

4) I'd neuter Dexterity somewhat - as it is now, it's the strongest attribute. AC bonus, to hit for missle weapons, and Reflex saves is a lot of bonuses. You almost always want a high Dex, not so with any other stat.

5) Standardize CR and ECL. Yes, they should be different, do a search for numerous threads on this. And yes, I once thought otherwise, I was converted Either way, this should be a lot more clearly defined instead of the arbitrary system they use now.

6) Revamp Domains. They're a good idea, but they fell a bit flat. It doesn't add enough variety to Clerics.

7) Bards need to be more musical and less singing sorcerer.

8) More emphasis on using multiclassing to get character templates. Want a Ranger? Multiclass Druid/Fighter. Want a Paladin? Multiclass Cleric/Fighter. Want a Scout? Multiclass Druid/Rogue or Fighter/Rogue.

There's many more, those are the ones I can really think of that would be mechanics based. Many others would be geared toward roleplaying - chief among them I think would be a section on designing cultures. Closely tied in would be tips on adding races and throwing new spins on old races.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!


Holy Bovine is banished from the thread before he even has a chance to post

 

[Terraism]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!


Holy Bovine is banished from the thread before he even has a chance to post

I was wondering when you'd pop up here. [Laugh.]

 

[Renshai]

I agree with the problem mentioned about high level spells. After playing 3E for 2 years and playtesting it for 3 years before that I have finally quit... high level play is too unpredictable because of insta-kill spells... I want to make challenging foes, but at the same time run an in depth story. Nothing kills a story line like a group of dead characters.

In 2E I hardly ever killed characters.. even when if I tried. Since August of 2000 I've killed over 50... I've been searching for other games but nothing has appealed to me as of yet.

Ren

 

[R.X.DIEM]

I didn't mean to RANT!!

I want to make challenging foes, but at the same time run an in depth story. Nothing kills a story line like a group of dead characters.
In 2E I hardly ever killed characters.. even when if I tried. Since August of 2000 I've killed over 50...
Ren

That's the hole God like responsiblity of a DM. As a DM you can make amendments to the adventure, your die rolls, etc. You allow the adventure to continue, thru your wisdom and understanding of the adventure at hand and of the people that you DM for. If a DM is looking to make a great kill sheet, any game at any edition will be his weapon. I believe the mechanics of 3rd Ed. are great, sure there will always be room for " house rules" and rules modification to suit the individual gaming group, but honestly. D20 D&D plays great. Far better that 2nd Ed. and 1st. You can't ask for a wider arena, a great bunch of character classes, ways to enhance and advance them, feats, feats, and more feats, a mulitude of ways to make your character do the things you would want, ie multiclass, multiclass, multiclass. What else do you people want????? Someone to hold your hand while your playing!! You people complain about everything. This Edition has so much flavor and variety, you'd have to be completely bipolar to play and to still find so much wrong with it!

 

[Saeviomagy]

His point is that at the upper levels, the only spells worth using are the instant-kill spells, and they're way too good at what they do, turning high-level play into "the first guy to go wins". 2nd ed was almost the opposite - since saves got better as you went up levels, instant-kill spells became far less useful as you went up levels.

I think we'd all like a happy medium, where bad guys and players alike can have more chance to run away to fight another day.