D&D 4.0 - What the?

[A'koss]

Originally posted by Orius:

I suppose it comes down to how well they know the market. Do they do enough research on D&D players, or are they essentially as clueless as Lorraine and the Blumes? I think it's a legitimate point to be a little worried about.

Before 3e was even designed they did indeed do (at least one) broad market research survey. I remember taking the survey myself...

As far as when some 4th edition will come out... some idle chatter I've heard leads me to believe it will be sooner than later. My guess is for 2006. Unearthed Arcana will be a testing ground of sorts for new ideas they're toying with. If some rules prove to be very popular, they will be included. I also believe there will be another UA-style book in 2005 if this one proves popular enough. Then I believe we'll see "4e" in the late summer of the following year.

A'koss.

 

[RangerWickett]

Okay, spellcasting. Let's propose some radical solutions.

The Mage class offers a +1 caster level per level advancement, and some advanced classes (and prestige classes) will offer either full or partial advancement

Every spellcaster has Magic Points (MP), determined by his total caster level, and every spell has an MP Cost. At any given time, a spellcaster can have a number of Signature Spells equal to his caster level. Casting a signature spell takes just a standard action. The spellcaster can know far more than just these signature spells, but casting one of those spells takes longer, or possibly costs more MP. We'll have to balance spells with longer casting times somehow, probably by making them expensive, but putting in ritual casting rules (or feats) to let you spend longer but reduce the cost.

You can only have a limited number of signature spells, but you can also prepare spells that you don't actually know. If you prepare a spell, you pre-spend the MP, but can cast it as a standard action instead of the longer casting time. This lets us work sorcerer-esque and wizard-esque magic into the same system. Am I making any sense?

 

[AeroDm]

I'd like to see 4e never come in so defined an edition as 3e did. The leaps made from 2e to 3e were pretty impressive and large. I think they pretty much hit the system up perfectly, but it could be tweaked endlessly. As many have suggested, I'd like to see dnd be tested with rules suppliments like AU coming out later, pushing the envelope further and more varied to see what works and what is accepted. In essence, these could be the beta spoken of earlier. Then make 4e a compilation of what works the best.

I'd actually like to see a number of the sacred cows remain because it DND! When I explain to my kids how hilarious it was to see my friend roll a 1 on his saving throw, I don't want them to ask what a Saving Throw is, nor what a Roll is. I still want it to be DND.

My main wish, however, is in the DMG. When I read the storyteller section of Vampire I want to run a game in the worst way. When I read the GM section of any game it fills my imagination and makes me want to play because it is chaulked full of flavor, style, and ideas. The DMG for DND does nothing for me. It is a tool that rarely is needed because the ideas within are either too complex to bring to the table regularly or too simple not to memorize. I'd like to see the DMG section (the rules, tables, etc) put into the PHB as it is with most other systems. Then publish a DMG that isn't needed at all, but really teaches you how to GM, gives you ideas, and expresses how to create flavor.

 

[Humanophile]

Yeah, I'd like to have 4e be a perfectly balanced, flexible point-based system with spontaneous, skill based magic. And in the words of Susie Derkins, while I'm at it, I'd like a pony.

Realistically speaking in terms of what designers and playtesters can handle, I'd like to see the following changes:

• Alignment will probably have to stay, but make it easier for those of us who don't like it to ignore it, and give a little more definition to each term. I don't care if that last step ends up being designer rants on the webpage, I just want the system cleaned up and easier to cut out for those of us who don't like it.
• No core class is to have less than a d6 for hit points, or 4 skill points per level. Yes, the classes as-is are balanced, but I'd like to see some more staying power and flexibility built in.
• A point-based stat system shown in the PHB, right by the rolling system (which I think should stay the same). Make it more of an "official option".
• Keep the Vancian casters, but shuffle them off to a corner. All official spellcaster examples should use Hennet instead of Mialee, for example. Just try to subtly encourage the more "realistic" (well, popular in fantasy, anyways) sorcerous standard.
• A simple VP/WP system, both to cut down on healer-reliance, and to make first level characters less fragile (think Hackmaster's 20 hitpoint kicker). I don't think "this is your kind of banged up hit points, this is your hurtin' badly hit points" is that hard to keep in mind, either.
• Acknowledge that different levels of play can vary immensely in genre. Have at least a small segment in the DMG devoted to that fact, as well as sustaining power level/character level/genre if everyone at the table sees fit
• At the same time, encourage people to start at higher than first level. First level is for newbies and to give characters a prologue. If all you want is to kick ass and take names, starting at first level does nobody any good.
• Three "base" classes; the Fighter, the Rogue, and the Sorcerer. These should be your flexible gold standards, and the first classes worked on. (Your typical fighting guy, skill guy, magic guy split.) The PHB should come with some minor variations on the theme, filling out your Rangers, Barbarians, Wizards, Bards, etc. However, try to make sure that any concept you can think of, short of the real wierdos, can be reached by some combination of the three bases.
• Some form of hero/fate/whatever point system to encourage feats of daring-do and give players a little meta-game control over what happens after that twenty-sided hits the table.

And finally, AeroDM brings up a good point, but only in a roundabout way. A game like Vampire sells mostly on its setting and plot. D&D, at least in the core books, should be your most generic, vanilla fantasy game out there, chock full of "options, not restrictions". That includes silly little things like the Monk and Paladin multiclass restrictions. However, shortly after the core book bundle comes out, you should have both a line analogous to the Complete* series come out (complete with a couple of new core classes, a handful of generic prestige classes, feats, goodies, and advice, as well as options a'la the spell-less Paladin and Ranger, as well as reccomended restrictions and changes to suit a particular flavor), as well as a campaign setting designed specifically to drip with flavor, again packed with specific monsters, PrC's, goodies, and restrictions to keep characters in-genre.

Oh, and while I'm on my own 4e wish list, I'd also like there to be some sort of "designer diary" put out, even if only via the WOTC webpage for a limited time, chock-full of "behind the curtains", cutting-room-floor leavings, and reasons why certain things were picked. Of course, I would've loved one from the 3e design team, but that's not likely at the moment. Still, it'd be a nifty collectable.

 

[Nightfall]

Still think my guidebook would do well!

 

[francisca]

I can't believe how many people here want to see the number of core classes reduced.

You can't take away my beloved barbarian class! 2e took it away from me, and I had to wait until 3e to get him back!

Frankly, I think the barbarian should be a template. Even more than that, it should a Level-based class/template, kinda like what Sean Reynolds did in the Savage progressions area on the Wizard's website.

And, I think race should be refelcted in hit-die. I think it is perfectly reasonable for a dwarven sorceror to have an equal or greater hit die than halfing fighter, for example. Maybe define the base hit die for a class just as they are now for humans and half elves, whilst elves, halflings, gnomes, get the next die size down, dwarves and half-orcs get the next size up. For example, human and half-elf clerics would get a d8 for HP, Dwarves and Half-Orcs would get a d10, elves, gnomes, halflings would get a d6.

Now I'll wait around for someone to tell me, "that's what the ability adjustments are supposed to do, dummy." But you know what? I don't think they are enough, especially at low levels. And heck, small creatures get an AC bonus, why not reflect racial differences in HP as well? (at least to a greater extent than they are now).

 

[RangerWickett]

Frankly, I think the barbarian should be a template. Even more than that, it should a Level-based class/template, kinda like what Sean Reynolds did in the Savage progressions area on the Wizard's website.

And, I think race should be refelcted in hit-die. I think it is perfectly reasonable for a dwarven sorceror to have an equal or greater hit die than halfing fighter, for example. Maybe define the base hit die for a class just as they are now for humans and half elves, whilst elves, halflings, gnomes, get the next die size down, dwarves and half-orcs get the next size up. For example, human and half-elf clerics would get a d8 for HP, Dwarves and Half-Orcs would get a d10, elves, gnomes, halflings would get a d6.

Now I'll wait around for someone to tell me, "that's what the ability adjustments are supposed to do, dummy." But you know what? I don't think they are enough, especially at low levels. And heck, small creatures get an AC bonus, why not reflect racial differences in HP as well? (at least to a greater extent than they are now).

Dude, that's what the ability adjustments are for. Dummy.

 

[Afrodyte]

And, I think race should be refelcted in hit-die. I think it is perfectly reasonable for a dwarven sorceror to have an equal or greater hit die than halfing fighter, for example. Maybe define the base hit die for a class just as they are now for humans and half elves, whilst elves, halflings, gnomes, get the next die size down, dwarves and half-orcs get the next size up. For example, human and half-elf clerics would get a d8 for HP, Dwarves and Half-Orcs would get a d10, elves, gnomes, halflings would get a d6.

Now I'll wait around for someone to tell me, "that's what the ability adjustments are supposed to do, dummy." But you know what? I don't think they are enough, especially at low levels. And heck, small creatures get an AC bonus, why not reflect racial differences in HP as well? (at least to a greater extent than they are now).

Interesting idea. I too favor race-based HD, or at least having HD influenced by race. It can replace Constitution bonuses and penalties (increasing or decreasing HD according to race, instead of the number of HP; at least that means that an elven wizard wouldn't need to roll high just to get 3 hit points). It's an idea that has merit.

 

[Larcen]

I suppose it comes down to how well they know the market. Do they do enough research on D&D players, or are they essentially as clueless as Lorraine and the Blumes? I think it's a legitimate point to be a little worried about.

And how much direct control does Hasbro have over the game as opposed to WotC?

I'll say it yet again: Give us the 4.0 Beta !!! Then they will have more market research than they'll know what to do with.

While I am here, here is another idea I have mentioned in the past. Right after the COMBAT section of every monster writeup in the various manuals and modules have a new section called ROLEPLAY, which will give DMs help on how to roleplay the particular monster. It will describe such things as the general personalities, mannerisms, speech habits, favorite phrases, body quirks, tone of voice, whatever, of the given monster/race that the DM can actually use at the table. This would be generalizations of course and individuals can exist. Also, it doesn't need to mention all of the above, just what stands out for the given monster. For instance, the roleplaying section on zombies would probably be very short. DMs can then pick and choose from the advice as they see fit.

This would also serve to remind new people that D&D is a roleplaying game and not just a miniatures combat game. I myself do not roleplay as much as I should simply because I am just not that creative on the spot to come up with interesting personalities for all NPC races encountered. If I had this information, I might do it more often.

I just realized that this new section should be BEFORE the combat section. For example, instead of:

===========
Bugbears speak Goblin and Common.

COMBAT

Bugbears prefer to ambush opponents whenever possible. When hunting, they normally send scouts ahead of the main group that, if they spy prey, return to report
and bring up reinforcements.
===========

We will have:

===========
ROLEPLAY

Bugbears speak Goblin and Common in a very gruff manner. They don’t have much patience while talking so tend to speak quickly and string words together. They like to say “Wot?” a lot as in “Yougoingto DIE! Wot? Isaid DIE!” When nervous they tend to bob their heads side to side. Their posture is usually hunched over and leaning as if they will rush something at any given moment. When angry, they bare their teeth and wipe their mouths a lot.

COMBAT

Bugbears prefer to ambush opponents whenever possible. When hunting, they normally send scouts ahead of the main group that, if they spy prey, return to report and bring up reinforcements.
===========

Disclaimer: The above was just an example I made up on the spot and may not be indicative of YOUR bugbears.

 

[Davelozzi]

RangerWickett,
I have to say I think you're going too far. A ability point at every other level? I think every 4th is fine.

Saving throws all increasing at the same rate? That's too boring, and not true to the fact that some classes should be better at others at some things. Sure, reduce the differences between the rates of advancement for save bonuses, but still make there be a difference. I'm not opposed to a choose one (or two) good saves like they do in d20CoC (I think). That way a swashbuckling fighter could take good Reflex instead of Fortitude, as a tank would.

Most importantly, while I'd like to see the number of core classes reduced, I think the magic number is 4, not 3. Clerics are one sacred cow that should stay, as should a distinction between arcane and divine magic.

...every monster writeup in the various manuals and modules, have a new section called ROLEPLAY...

Excellent idea!! The Monster Manual should definatley hav a section like that. And it should go back to having one monster per page as the did in 2e (but keep in a book - no binders please). Finally, I'd like to see the Monster Manual focus more on iconic monsters. Leave the arrowhead, barghest, grey render, howler, delver, digester, and other odd-balls for the MM2 and instead include more fiends (and celestials) as a few more classics from myth like sirines, brownies,etc. Although I like them, we could probably purge a wolf if need be - wolf, dire wolf, winter wolf and worg seems like a bit much for a core book. Maybe lose the wire wolf and just make dire a template instead of a bunch of individual listings. Keep animals and vermin in the main alphabetical listing instead of their own separate chapter at the end.