D&D 4E Gencon and 4E

[Pants]

Really? That's what the majority of people were saying when 3e came out, but less than three years later 3.5e came out.

Well... it really depended on who you talked to and it still does today.

Here's when I see 4e coming out... when Eberron and FR have cycled through all their possible releases. WotC can keep cranking out derivative generic D&D books as long as they want, but I really don't see them releasing 4e with the Eberron and FR wells still full. Especially Eberron.

In fact, I think that one of the big signs that 4e is coming will be the releases of some of the old 2e/1e settings in HC format. In my not very experienced opinion, I see WotC turning to old settings and releasing one-shot books to update those settings about a year or 2 before 4e.

 

[Merlion]

Merlion, what sacred cows do you think should go? Also, which do you think should remain? What elements of the rules makes Dungeons and Dragons what it is, and which are not essential to the game's identity? (I would argue that character classes and levels are likely to remain in any future edition.)

I realize this is a very specualtive thread, but it might be a good vehicle to discuss some of our likes and dislikes about the current rules?

First, I agree with that last part. D&D will most likely always be a system with classes and levels. It will always be at least a relatively rigid system where your character class is the biggest thing defining what you can do. I wouldnt mind it being a bit looser than it is now, but its never going to be White Wolf, nor would I want it to be.

Unlike many D&D fans I really feel that those things are pretty much all that makes D&D D&D in the end. That and obviously dragons, elves, etc. You can change just about anything else, and it will still be D&D.


Now as to what I'd like to see change, and sacred cows...well I realized a lot of what I'd like to see changed arent neccesarily "sacred cows" in the broad sense, but some are. Some are more like "legacy issues" rather than full blown SCs. Heres some of em in no particular order



*I'd like to see all base-class alignment restrictions removed. There is no point or purpose to them, all they really do is restrict roleplaying. It could be said that they add flavour, but only a specific one. Those things should be choosen by DMs and players, no forced by the rules.

Truth be told, I'd like to see the whole Law/Chaos axis of alignment removed, but thats never going to happen.


*remove the concept of "arcane" magic and "divine" magic or any similiar monolithic designations of magic types. Let magic simply be magic and all differences in source, form, style, use and whatever else be entirely class by class.

Related to this, "arcane" spell failure should be removed and either wearing armor should interfere with all spellcasting or again it should be handled class by class...in a balanced way.


*I'd like to see the magic system change a bit. I've always found it silly that a wizard or other spellcaster who knows a certain spell has to "prepare" multiple "copies" of the spell in order to cast it more than once.
Arcana Unearthed's magic system, in terms of how it works, is just about my ideal. You have a spellcasting resource (slots in that case, but points or whatever works) and you can ready a certain number of spells each day, and are able to cast them with your slots in whatever combinations until you run out of resources.
Something like the heightened/diminished system in AU would be nice to.
(however, my future comments are acting under the assumption that the magic system will remain the same...it is probably rather unlikely to be changed in the official rules themselves)

*In a related note, I think all spellcasters should have to learn their spells. No getting the entire spell list for free. Or if its going to be that way, it should be that way for all classes. I think all classes having to learn spells makes more sense tho



*reduce magic item dependency. At least have options described where one can run a game where magic items arent so engrained in how everything works as far as CR etc


*Let the concept of the Feat live up to its true potential. Especially as far as feats for spellcasters go. Standard D&D doesnt really offer a whole lot to spellcasters as far as feats. Metamagic, spell focus, spell penetration...thats about it. Especially as far as things that can be actively used. AU's caster feats that grant access to more spells and "spell templates" are a good example.


*balance the classes


*remove the need/obession with having "healer" as a primary class role, and simply spread healing around enough that pretty much any party will have enough no matter what.


Theres more, but I'm getting hungry. I'll post other things as I think oif them

 

[Kanegrundar]

In fact, I think that one of the big signs that 4e is coming will be the releases of some of the old 2e/1e settings in HC format. In my not very experienced opinion, I see WotC turning to old settings and releasing one-shot books to update those settings about a year or 2 before 4e.

That would be awesome if they did that. It would ensure that I would stick with 3.5 instead of moving onto a new edition, since I would finally have absolutely everything I've ever wanted from D&D in one ruleset finally. No converting or doing any legwork to get the feel of the few classic settings that I loved, since WotC did it for me already as one last hurrah to my favorite edition of the game. Excellent. (I would still look at 4E, but it would have to be a HUGE improvement over 3.5 and still be compatible enough to make conversion easy.)

Kane

 

[William Ronald]

That would be awesome if they did that. It would ensure that I would stick with 3.5 instead of moving onto a new edition, since I would finally have absolutely everything I've ever wanted from D&D in one ruleset finally. No converting or doing any legwork to get the feel of the few classic settings that I loved, since WotC did it for me already as one last hurrah to my favorite edition of the game. Excellent. (I would still look at 4E, but it would have to be a HUGE improvement over 3.5 and still be compatible enough to make conversion easy.)

Kane

I think that compatability would be somethign that a lot of people would want in a new edition. I thought WotC did a good job in supporting the changeover from 2nd Edition to 3.0, and I hope they would do so in the future.

 

[Kanegrundar]

Conversion from 2E to 3E wasn't impossible by any means, but it wasn't intuitive. The systems were simply too different to make conversion quick and painless, like I would like it for any new edition to 3.5. However, a little patience will yeild much of the same material we see in the current edition via new supplements that draw in part from ideas from the edition(s) before, so conversion isn't that big of a concern to me.

Kane

 

[Mercule]

There is room for improvement in the D20/D&D system. If 4E does make these improvements, I'll welcome it with open arms. If not, *shrug* we'll see. I've pretty well petered out on my purchases, anyway. I've got so many rulebooks that even the brightest and shiniest of the upcoming releases are starting to look like dross. Funny thing is, I suspect a change of editions would probably take my game to a semi-permanent state of "core-only" rules.

What improvements would encourage me to buy 4E?

*Rework multiclassing. I like the idea behind the current system, and it works fine except for casters. Personally, I don't care whether multiclass casters are "competitive", but either they should be or WotC should stop pretending that they are. Using PrCs like the Mystic Theurge is silly and a cumbersome patch, at best. If they want multiclasses to be comparable, build it directly into the multiclass rules.

*Go back to formula on the classes. By this, I do not mean go with generic or insanely customizable classes. I mean take a look at what the fantasy archetypes are and build the classes to support those archetypes, rather than including classes just because they're sacred cows. Ranger and Barbarian, especially, stand out to me as shades of the same archetype -- which is probably why the Ranger class is still not particularly satisfying. Either make Fighter work as a functional Swashbuckler, or adjust the Monk class so that it handles any light, skilled warrior. Make the cleric a caster and a priest. If someone wants a warpriest, let them multiclass. That sort of thing. This also ties into the multiclassing tweaks in that it should be painless to "blend" archetypes to create interesting/custom characters.

*Reintroduce clerical spheres or something similar. Having a cleric of the god of fire and one of the god of night perform identically except for a very limited handful of spell slots is absurd. Also, ditch the whole positive/negative energy thing. Clerics channel the divine. And, let the exact for of that channeling be open-ended -- basically any of the channeling feats from the various books should be fair game at the get-go, rather than requiring everyone to start out by putzing with undead. Maybe tie things into the domain/sphere system.

*I'd like to see most of the x/day or slot mechanics replaced with activation rolls or a cost of some sort, but if it's not handled right, the game would probably stop feeling like D&D, so I could live with those being left alone.

*Make character power somewhat less based on upgrading loot. But loot is preferrable to manga/anime style superpowers. Fighters should stay inherently mundane.

*Some things not to change: Keep it class and level based. Keep classes as relatively predefined constructs. Use the d20 mechanic as the basis for most things. There are a few others (saves, etc.) but most amount to, "Keep the basic system, just tweak some of the implementations."

 

[glass]

I think it is far too late for the provebial cat to be put back in the bag, in other words rescinding the OGL means nothing, i.e. Malhavoc does not have to destroy any copies of AU or Green Ronin have destroy any extant stock of M&M. Rescinding the d20 logo does have that effect on books using the logo.

The OGL (theoreticaly) cannot be rescinded. However, neither it nor the d20 STL have ever been tested in court, so how they actually work is still debatable.

How would not putting 4e under the d20/OGL work, does that mean that WotC is forced to stray away from the STR,DEX,CON,INT,WIS,CHR system that is familiar but also under the OGL?

No. WotC own their intellectual property, and can do what they like with it. The OGL affects how other can use it, not WotC.


Disclaimer IANAL, so take the above with a pinch of NaCl...


glass.

 

[Rasyr]

Can I ask how you know that WotC's current lawyers do not like the OGL? I am not being snarky, just asking where you picked up that bit?

From an email by Ryan Dancey on the ogl mailing list.

How would not putting 4e under the d20/OGL work, does that mean that WotC is forced to stray away from the STR,DEX,CON,INT,WIS,CHR system that is familiar but also under the OGL?

Remember, what is currently under the OGL is NOT D&D, but a subset of the rules, and when something is put under the OGL, the creator/owner does not lose their copyrights to it.

IF (note capitalization) WotC put out 4E, and did not put it under the OGL. The net effect is that they will split their player base between those who stay with 3.5 (or other similar systems) and those who move to 4E. They already know that within a year of release the vast majority of people will move to the new version. It happened with 3.0 to 3.5 - lots of public denouncement of the change, and then everybody switched anyways. There is nothing to say that this cannot or will not happen again.

 

[delericho]

I've mentioned before that some of the 'sacred cows' that some posters have said they'd like to see slaughtered are things I actually like about the game, such as:

*I'd like to see all base-class alignment restrictions removed.

In most cases, I don't mind. I would prefer that the Barbarian retain a non-Lawful requirement, and that Druids should be partly-Neutral, but I won't really mind if that's changed. I certainly wouldn't mind non-Lawful Monks or Lawful Bards.

However, I would strongly object to a loosening of the LG requirement for Paladins. To me, that would utterly destroy the class. I can live with pokemounts, but not non-LG paladins. (I would prefer the Blackguard to be implemented in the DMG as a base class, however.)

*remove the concept of "arcane" magic and "divine" magic or any similiar monolithic designations of magic types. Let magic simply be magic and all differences in source, form, style, use and whatever else be entirely class by class.

Again, I would object to this. I like the division of roles.

Related to this, "arcane" spell failure should be removed and either wearing armor should interfere with all spellcasting or again it should be handled class by class...in a balanced way.

This I agree with, although I think just "spell failure" is the way to go. Remove the exception for Bards, and introduce feats for spellcasting in armour.

*I'd like to see the magic system change a bit. I've always found it silly that a wizard or other spellcaster who knows a certain spell has to "prepare" multiple "copies" of the spell in order to cast it more than once.

This is a specific holdover from the Vancian style. It makes sense in the context of the original source material, but is becoming less sensible with each edition. However, I'd prefer that they don't just throw this element out - someone should sit down and think long and hard about how 'D&D magic' should work, complete with reasoning why, and implement that.

Arcana Unearthed's magic system, in terms of how it works, is just about my ideal. You have a spellcasting resource (slots in that case, but points or whatever works) and you can ready a certain number of spells each day, and are able to cast them with your slots in whatever combinations until you run out of resources.

It's a good system, but it's more complex than base D&D. If anything, I would prefer the system become less complex in the new edition; I certainly don't want additional (unnecessary) complexity. However, this is a taste issue, not a sacred cow, so I'll comment no further.

Something like the heightened/diminished system in AU would be nice to.

This I definately agree with.

*In a related note, I think all spellcasters should have to learn their spells. No getting the entire spell list for free. Or if its going to be that way, it should be that way for all classes. I think all classes having to learn spells makes more sense tho

Cautiously agree. Certainly, this makes adding new Cleric/Druid spells from supplementary books easier, since it doesn't represent a huge boost to those classes. That said, I'm also thinking that perhaps a Warmage approach to those classes might be better. Or maybe just a Warmage-like divine spellcasting class in addition to the Cleric.

*remove the need/obession with having "healer" as a primary class role, and simply spread healing around enough that pretty much any party will have enough no matter what.

As far as I can tell, there are two classes that are absolutely essential to a party: Rogue and Cleric. The Rogue is required to find traps, the Cleric for easy access to healing. Making Trapfinding available as a feat removes the first problem (without destroying the utility of the Rogue in general). Making healing easier to access generally would allow parties to form without the feeling that 'someone had better play the Cleric', which would be a very good thing. So, I agree with this point.

 

[delericho]

IF (note capitalization) WotC put out 4E, and did not put it under the OGL. The net effect is that they will split their player base between those who stay with 3.5 (or other similar systems) and those who move to 4E. They already know that within a year of release the vast majority of people will move to the new version. It happened with 3.0 to 3.5 - lots of public denouncement of the change, and then everybody switched anyways. There is nothing to say that this cannot or will not happen again.

The difference is that 3.0 is a dead system - I don't think anyone specifically supports it any more. If 4e is closed, the other publishers will almost certainly continue to support 3.5. That keeps the game fresh, especially once someone does a glossy full-colour "Player's Manual" for "OGL Fantasy". This would probably maintain the split, since everyone who wants to stay 3.5 can stay 3.5 and find players, new books are always available, and so on.

Wizards really have to keep the latest edition of the game open. Companies like Sword & Sorcery, Green Ronin and Mongoose are too prolific to be killed by having the carpet pulled out from under them.

Of course, whether Wizards/Hasbro understand this is another question. And, there's always a doubt about the OGL - if Wizards/Hasbro declare it rescinded, and threaten to sue anyone who continues to use it, does anyone really have the nerve and resources to challenge them?

Actually, if Wizards did produce a closed 4e, and the third-party companies responded by publishing an OGL player's manual, and a significant number of people refused to switch, this might in turn provoke Hasbro into killing the D&D role-playing game altogether. I bet the novels, electronic games and movie rights are more lucrative than the RPG anyway, and wouldn't be surprised if the miniatures were too.