d20 CoC--a preview of 4th Edition D&D?

[mmadsen]

1. character classes (Characters are all skill-based.)

In d20 Call of Cthulhu, every character is effectively an Expert, and the Expert class is flexible enough to cover just about any noncombatant without magical powers. Even if you provided D&D's full list of classes, just about any normal person would be an Expert -- except that they should get an extra Hit Die, better BAB, etc. for finishing up a PhD thesis.

A few would be Fighters though (or something close to the Fighter), and that Class would work better for a few key character concepts -- especially for experienced adventurers.

2. attacks of opportunity

They're not as important in a game without plentiful, armed, melee combat.

3. a division between arcane and divine spells (There's a single, unified spell list.)

You can have a unified spell list or many, many fragmented spell lists without the Arcane/Divine split of D&D.

4. alignment

Alignment has a place in a game with supernatural forces representing Good and Evil or Law and Chaos, so it has some place in a fantasy game, if only so you know which team you're on. Having both a Good-Evil and a Law-Chaos axis though, that's just weird.

Could this be a foretaste of 4th edition?

Most of those changes seem very specific to Call of Cthulhu in a modern setting. Granted, you can play D&D with those changes, but I don't see 4th Edition going in that direction.

 

[mkletch]

As far as I'm concerned, the only thing I'd like to see in 4E from CoC is the more lethal death-by-massive-damage rule. Feat and skill chains from d20 modern would be excellent, too, and I'd like to see the VP/WP system from SWRCRB become the standard. This would fix most of MY issues with 3E. Maybe a armor-provides-DR or armor-converts-damage-to-subdual option, and that would be it. Really a minor set of changes that could be dealt with via the SRD by a d20 publisher.

Along those lines, the SRD/d20 license have made 4E a far shot, even after 8-10 years. 3.1E would be more like it. I don't think we'll ever again see a full revision from the ground up like we saw with 3E. There were major issues there, and they were 'fixed', either for good or ill. Now that those major issues no longer remain, d20 and other gaming systems will pick up where 4E would have gone.

-Fletch!

 

[Tiberius]

I think 3E is as close to perfect as we can expect. I love the customizability of characters, the Vancian magic, the law/chaos axis to alignment along with the good/evil, hit points (VP/WP == in my view of things), armor-as-AC, availability of magic items, attacks of opportunity, the arcane/divine spell division, and would be terribly disappointed with any changes that removed these from the D&D canon. Especially the addition of the VP/WP system. I can't think of any changes I would make off the top of my head other than flavor things like giving sorcerers the Eschew Materials virtual feat at first level.

-Tiberius

 

[sfgiants]

I think that there are some changes needed, but instead of making a 4e etc why not a book of options? While I know many will decry a players/dm options book, think about what it could mean. Things I would like as options: (not as standard, why mess with things that have always worked? but some would like options)

-a power point magic system (or alternate magic system)
-a more lethal combat system (as in more realism maybe Vitality and Wounds)
-a more flexible class/character system

Just as options. If balanced I would love to get a hand on these (I am thinking Unearthed Arcana 3e)

 

[Desdichado]

Why does there need to be a 4e at all? Surely, the presence of the OGL spinning out variants will make that possibility extremely remote, if it happens at all. Why fix something with a 4e if it's already fixed in open content?

 

[NoOneofConsequence]

Perhaps 4e will be the result of a marketing decision, like 2e originally was. We may end up getting a 4e DnD because the manufacturer (who may not even be WotC by that stage) sees a buck in it. Most of thechanges that became characteristic of 2e didn't really require a shift from 1e, they just happened after 2e had already been released. 3e represents the first genuine rethink and overhall of DnD since the game was first designed.

 

[mmadsen]

Why does there need to be a 4e at all? Surely, the presence of the OGL spinning out variants will make that possibility extremely remote, if it happens at all. Why fix something with a 4e if it's already fixed in open content?

Because releasing a new, improved edition puts everyone on the same page; it's guaranteed widespread acceptance. If, instead, a few great ideas pop up here and there, there's little guarantee that any one group is using any particular improvement. And it's all about those Positive Network Externalities.

 

[mmadsen]

I think that there are some changes needed, but instead of making a 4e etc why not a book of options?

I'd enjoy a book of options too, but it does then mean that other products can't easily be written to work under every possible ruleset. Again, that's the advantage of saving up a bunch of great ideas and releasing them as a new edition. It puts everyone on the same page.