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

[WizarDru]

I might also add that CoC:d20 is NOT classless. It has two of them.

More importantly, just as many (and IMHO, more) people want some of the very things that the initial list claims that everyone is complaining about. Classes, IMHO, are what makes D&D what it is...remove them and you have a different game entirely. I admit I've never even heard anyone complain about the division of divine versus arcane spellcasters. AoOs can be confusing, but both they and alignment can be removed without a great fuss. I'd rather have the option of removing something than being forced to improvise and add it, when it comes to it, YMMV.

 

[Zappo]

First of all, we aren't going to see a 4th edition for a long, long time (though we may get a 3.1 edition with minor changes within a few years), according to WotC. Secondly, classes are probably (together with levels) the most characteristic aspect of D&D by far, and like them or not they will never, ever, be removed without changing the game to something else.

 

[jaerdaph]

I might also add that CoC:d20 is NOT classless. It has two of them.

I wouldn't go so far as to call the Offense and Defense options classes - after all, the D&D classes don't let you assign Base Save progressions to whatever save you want for your character. D&D classes also provide level-dependent benefits (benefits which define and differentiate the character class, and are not available to other classes) that the Offense and Defense Options don't provide.

So d20 CoC is class-less, but still level dependent.

 

[Mistwell]

You can already do all those things with 3e, why would you need a 4e? In fact, since CoC d20 is BASED on the PHB d20 rules to begin with, don't you mean CoC is waiting for a 4e?

What on earth is stopping anyone from making D&D a single-class game in their campaign?

 

[jaerdaph]

Star Wars Revised Core Rulebook.

Thanks

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

Originally posted by Psion:
Don't pretend that because you have problems with certain aspects of the system, everyone does -- or even that everyone who has problems with the systems have the same problems you have.

A bit harsh, and--I think--inaccurate. He only said that he's seen a number of 3e fans complain about them--and, from what I've seen, I would tend to agree. However, I don't think either of us would claim that all, or even most, are bothered by them.

Originally posted by WizardDru:
More importantly, just as many (and IMHO, more) people want some of the very things that the initial list claims that everyone is complaining about.

As I mentioned above, Geoffrey didn't make the claim that everyone is complaining about these things.

The above isn't meant to be snooty or anything, I'm just trying to head off a possible misunderstanding

Anyway, on to the topic of the thread...

1: Character Classes-- I don't know that this wouldn't be the next logical step (though not necessarily the best one) in the progression from fixed class/es, to mix-and-match classes, to no classes.

2: AoO-- While they may or may not be complicated, there has been enough debate and confusion regarding them that I can easily see them being discarded or replaced by some other mechanic.

3: Unified spell list-- This is similar to what was done with Magic-User/Illusionist and Cleric/Druid spells from AD&D to 2e--so there is certainly precedent for such a thing.

4: Alignment-- While I don't think D&D will ever entirely lose alignment as a feature of the game, it could certainly return to a simpler 3 alignment spectrum; or, perhaps, character conduct would only be a concern for certain classes--Priests, Holy Warriors, etc...

Whether or not any of these things will come to pass, I have no idea. However, I do know that the loss of character classes, alignments, or unique spell lists would move the game in a direction even further afield from what I consider D&D to be.

(EDIT: To reflect the fact that I wouldn't have a problem with AoOs going the way of the dodo--originally forgot they were one of the mechanics in question.)

 

[teitan]

I think 4E is about 7 years or more off and the game will have made quite the evolution at that point due to the OGL. I do think Armour will provide damage reduction as opposed to a bonus to Armour Class or some such.

As it is I think 3E as provided in the Core Rules is incredibly well designed and easy to use, despite the complex appearance of the D20 system. I am still amazed by people who say DnD has too many rules. It moves faster than any other game I have played combat wise, even faster and smoother than the games that people claim have speedy combat etc.

I don't think a 4E will be necessary for a good long time, we didn't get a hastily put together game like the original Star Wars book (damn you George Lucas, Damn you to hell) and D20 is thriving way too much for Wizards to start ditching the OGL.

Jason

 

[WizarDru]

As I mentioned above, Geoffrey didn't make the claim that everyone is complaining about these things.

Point taken. You're correct, Geoffery did say 'a number of 3e fans' not everyone...I rather inferred that, probably from more of a 'knee-jerk' reaction than anything else. It seems, IMHO, that Geoffrey was implying that because certain vocal fans were complaining about those particular four items (and again, I've only seen discussion on three of them) that they must be right, and CoC was a preview of where D&D was going. That, and the fact that we've seen this topic several times, made me jump to the conclusion of where I thought he was headed. Mea culpa.

Oh, and please...just one 'D' in my name.

originally posted by jaerdaph
I wouldn't go so far as to call the Offense and Defense options classes - after all, the D&D classes don't let you assign Base Save progressions to whatever save you want for your character. D&D classes also provide level-dependent benefits (benefits which define and differentiate the character class, and are not available to other classes) that the Offense and Defense Options don't provide.

But they're still classes, regardless of how similar and unflavored they may be, and they have specific class-dependent benefits, again regardless of how similar in nature they are. I wouldn't argue that CoC is classless, though I would readily agree that it's virtually there. In the context of this discussion, I thought that should be clarified, since it was left unchallenged. I'm not arguing that it's good or bad.

I would argue that D&D without classes is no longer what I consider D&D. As someone who's played GURPS for over fifteen years, I certainly don't have a problem with that...I just wouldn't label it D&D any longer. YMMV.

So d20 CoC is class-less, but still level dependent.

 

[WizarDru]

I don't think a 4E will be necessary for a good long time, we didn't get a hastily put together game like the original Star Wars book (damn you George Lucas, Damn you to hell) and D20 is thriving way too much for Wizards to start ditching the OGL.

Jason

I should also point out that I find it kind of funny that there is an implicit assumption that there must be a 4E at some point. Not that it's a bad thing...but people were asking this question the same month that 3E's PHB came out. Have we become so jaded?

 

[Psion]

A bit harsh, and--I think--inaccurate. He only said that he's seen a number of 3e fans complain about them

With the implication that those people represent a significant enough portion of the fan base that it warrants changing. I'm just pointing out that these aspects are in large part what makes 3e a success.

1: Character Classes-- I don't know that this wouldn't be the next logical step (though not necessarily the best one) in the progression from fixed class/es, to mix-and-match classes, to no classes.

I don't see how that is the next logical step. Truly classless is on the entire opposite end of the spectrum. Many games have classes or other archetypes in disguise. There is no reason to assume that classless is an implicitly desirable state.

2: AoO-- While they may or may not be complicated, there has been enough debate and confusion regarding them that I can easily see them being discarded or replaced by some other mechanic.

Again, squeaky hinges, and most confusion that does exist can be resolved by a clearer writeups.

3: Unified spell list-- This is similar to what was done with Magic-User/Illusionist and Cleric/Druid spells from AD&D to 2e--so there is certainly precedent for such a thing.

There already is a unified spell list, it's just that each class has its own subset of that list.

4: Alignment-- While I don't think D&D will ever entirely lose alignment as a feature of the game, it could certainly return to a simpler 3 alignment spectrum; or, perhaps, character conduct would only be a concern for certain classes--Priests, Holy Warriors, etc...

Nah, won't happen, nor is that necessarily desirable. The best you might hope for is guidelines on how to do without them.