Combat tweaks I would like to see.

What do you think?

  • Love it

    Votes: 3 7.9%
  • like the idea but not for me

    Votes: 3 7.9%
  • dont like it but wouldnt be a deal breaker

    Votes: 1 2.6%
  • gack this sucks, trash it now!!!!

    Votes: 29 76.3%
  • Just as good as HP, no big deal either way.

    Votes: 2 5.3%

Secondly, designing a game with the sole goal of appealing to new gamers is one that has already proven a failure. That was one of the primary goals of the current edition. One that was so successful it will be the edition with the shortest period of publication and support of all D&D editions ever.

:erm:

Actually that's not accurate.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I think the "whose the target audience of D&D next" thread was monday through wednesday with pretty mixed opinion.

Mine is that they have to appeal primarily to 3e guys but that could just be me hoping they are going to kiss my butt and not someone elses.

The reason I think appealing to everyone is probably just fluff is because its hard for me to imagine people who are still playing 1e and prefer a very quick simple game with lots of player/dm fiat to move things along and solve problems sitting down with much more structured and complex 4e players and having an equally enjoyable session.

Maybe they'll find a way but the play styles are just so drastically different that I dont see it happening.
 



There's no reasonable way to objectively argue that.



Sure there is.

Meanwhile, how long did OD&D last before AD&D and Basic D&D came along?

Was it less than the 5 year (expected) run of 4e?

(Answer: Yes.)

3e and 3.5 were NOT separate editions. Your just reaching to a level thats kind of sad with that. All they did was incorporate some errata into a print run and call it 3 and a half to let people know they had done so.

OD&D came out in 1974. and AD&D came out in 77. 3 years isnt great but considering it was the very begginings of the game and there were significant legal situations to deal with its understandable.

After that theres no meaningful change to the game until AD&D 2nd edition in 1987. 10 years later.

Then 3e came out in 2000 13 years after that.

4e was announced in august of 2007. 7 years after 3e. So 3X lasted for 7 years. 4e was actually released in June of 08.

4e died in january of 2012 lasting 3 and a half years in print.

The exact same amount of time between OD&D and AD&D. And the shortest amount of time in the last 35 years.

Or put another way, the last time an edition died this fast most of the people who knew that the name D&D meant a game thought it was a form of satan worship and a very large percentage of people on this forum, myself included were no where near being born yet.

Although i suppose if you really want to go back 35 years you can find an edition that died this fast.
 

I like the healing suggestion, its one I've used to good effect in 3e era games. The rest...well, if you like it....it doesn't really trip my trigger.
 

Boredgremlin, your ideas seem perfectly workable to me and would probably form a cool core system, but my only question is why not simply play a game that does this already? There are good games out there with things like opposes attack rolls and DR for armor.
 

I also have 0 respect for sacred cows and I dont think a huge percentage care that much about them either, and new players dont even know what they are much less care about them. So they arent part of my consideration.
While I'm not a fan of sacred cows for beef's sake, I'm not that quick to dispose of them. D&D is an unique game and has to stay unique. If you kill all sacred cows, you risk killing the identity, the spirit of the game. This is unacceptable. It's worth suffering the presence of some sacred cows to preserve D&D's identity.

HP

Inspired by the HP debates what i would like to see is starting HP equals size + con modifier. Giants should be able to take the sort of punishment that would squash any man flat. That just seems logical no matter how you look at HP.
I disagree with this, but I do because I prefer HP to represent minor damage, stamina loss, etc. to the character. For serious damage and critical hits I want a wound system.

Healing magic/

Heals a number of HP set by the recipient, not the caster. Cure light might heal 1pt per target level while cure serious heals 4pts per target level for instance.

That way the fact that 1 HP means something different to a 1st level fighter and a 10th level fighter is modeled better.
Don't like that because it still allows cleric to spam heals at someone to heal him. To me, if someone is seriously hurt, you need serious measure to heal him. To compare this with real life, if someone takes a shallow cut, you bandage it. If it's a deep cut however, you can't simply put twice that many bandages over it - you will need sutures.
I already proposed a solution in another thread. In short, different types of healing can only raise your HP up to a certain limit. For example, combat healing spells (spells that take a round to cast or less) will only heal a character up to his 1/3rd or perhaps 1/2nd total HP. Short rest will heal few HP, but only up to 1/3rd of total HP. etc.

HP per level optional module
I give 1-4. Those numbers could be doubled or tripled to reduce lethality. Curative magic should be increased at the same rate. More heroic campaign? double HP and healing. Supers campaign? 3X them.
A sizeable amount of HP per level is a sacred cow I'd like to keep.

ATTACKING
Attack rolls should be opposed. [...]
On that line allow players to either parry or dodge based on whats best for them for average attacks. Parry being an opposed att roll and dodge being a reflex type of save.
Make some attacks only dodge-able. Titans greatsword, fireball, flying boulder? Dodge only.
STR adds to damage only. Not to hit rolls.
Agreed on all counts.

DAMAGE/CRITS

Get rid of critical hits as they are. Every 2 pts an attacker beats the defender by ads 1 pt of damage to the attack.
I like critical hits so I want them in my game. Plus there are many ways to implement them. Critical hits could cause: extra hp loss, wounds, loss of actions, debuff conditions.

Armor/
Should be DR. Shields should add to parry rolls. Base armor DR is the same as the Armor bonuses in 3e. 1-9, add magical bonuses. Shields can add 1-4 plus magical bonus.
I say armor should be both. The material armor is made of should determine its DR. The coverage of body should determine its AC bonus.


Size/
To make large monsters scarier you could add a size mod to damage.
Seems unnecessary. Size already affects strength which affects damage.
 

Actually that's not accurate.


Okay. Let's take a look...
  • Original Dungeons & Dragons 1974-1981 - Total = 8 years.
    • Dungeons & Dragons (1E) 1974-1977
    • Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set (Holmes) 1977-1981 (First Revision - essentially OD&D 1.5E - a reorgainisation and clean-up of the original 1974 rules.)
  • Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set (Essentially OD&D 2E) 1981-2000 (A Reimagining, not a Revision, of the original OD&D rules - A new edition of OD&D including Moldvay, Mentzer, Rules Cyclopedia, and Starter Sets) - Total = 19 years.
    • Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set (Moldvay) and Dungeons & Dragons Expert Set (Cook) 1981-1983
    • Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set (Mentzer) (Including Expert, Companion, Master, and Immortal rules, and the Rules Cyclopedia, and Starter Sets) - Essentially OD&D 2.5E (a revision of the Moldvay/Cook Set.) 1983-2000
  • Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1978-2000 (A new game distinct from Basic D&D) - Total 22 years.
    • AD&D 1E 1978-1987
    • AD&D 2E (though more accurately AD&D 1.5E) - (Includes reprints with errata and Skills & Powers) 1987-2000
  • Dungeons & Dragons 3E (A new, distinct D&D game using the D20 System Rules.) 2000-2007 - Total = 7 years.
    • Dungeons & Dragons 3E 2000-2003
    • Dungeons & Dragons 3.5E 2003-2007
  • Dungeons & Dragons 4E (A new, distinct D&D game using a new D20 System rules.) - (Including D&D Essentials Line) 2007-2012/2013 - Total = 5-6 years.
So, ranked by longevity:
  1. AD&D (Advanced D&D) = 22 years*
  2. BD&D (Basic D&D) = 19 years
  3. OD&D (Original D&D) = 8 years
  4. D&D 3E (D20 3E) = 7 years
  5. D&D 4E (D20 4E) = 5-6 years
*(Even considering AD&D 1E and 2E seperately, it's still 9 years and 13 years respectively - both significantly longer than 4E.)


When 5E comes out, D&D 4E will be the shortest published edition of D&D ever.


If you'd like to discuss this further or in more depth, I'd suggest forking to a new thread.:)
 

I think the "whose the target audience of D&D next" thread was monday through wednesday with pretty mixed opinion.

Mine is that they have to appeal primarily to 3e guys but that could just be me hoping they are going to kiss my butt and not someone elses.

The reason I think appealing to everyone is probably just fluff is because its hard for me to imagine people who are still playing 1e and prefer a very quick simple game with lots of player/dm fiat to move things along and solve problems sitting down with much more structured and complex 4e players and having an equally enjoyable session.

Maybe they'll find a way but the play styles are just so drastically different that I dont see it happening.

Maybe...Maybe Not. Honestly we won't really know until the finished product comes out. But some optimistic signs of this not only being possible, but having actually occured already, happened at the original unveiling and play. The specifics are all under NDA's yet, but many have already said they had OD&D, AD&D, 3E, and 4E players all mixed together at their tables, and it worked smashingly.

I understand pessimism, especially in light of what's happened in recent years. But I also hope that real evidence to the contrary isn't outright ignored. I think it would be sad to miss out on a possibly very cool thing, solely due to pessimism.

Not saying you're doing that. I'm just saying, have faith my friend.:D
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top