Ranger REG
Explorer
How about, 1 rank cross-class skill cost 1 skill point, 2 ranks class skill cost 1 skill point? Only one maximum skill rank limit.Abstraction said:
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 4E How could 4E be more elegant?
- Thread starter Ry
- Start date
Droogie
Explorer
I'm not really sold on the spellpoints idea. Many seem to like the concept, but I'd like to try a skill-based magic system, similar to Blue Rose.
Come to think of it, I'm annoyed by any power or ability that you can only activate "x times per day". Its a lousy way to balance things. Not to mention the fact that I always find it difficult trying to decide if 8 hours of game time has passed so that the party can rest and replenish their "ammo".
Come to think of it, I'm annoyed by any power or ability that you can only activate "x times per day". Its a lousy way to balance things. Not to mention the fact that I always find it difficult trying to decide if 8 hours of game time has passed so that the party can rest and replenish their "ammo".
RangerWickett said:
I put these together because they both remind me of Unisystem. Magic in that system runs off magic points called 'Essence'. Many supernatural attacks drain essence, and even regular stress and trauma can cause essence loss. The class system you're talking about is somewhat similar as well. There are different 'types' instead of classes. They are much more broad. For instance in All Flesh Must Be Eaten there are survivors (cops, swat members, biker gangs, soldiers, etc.), Inspired (casters, can perform several miracles), and Norms (just Joe Average). What you are determines the points for your attributes, then you get so many for Qualities/Drawbacks, which are not unlike feats. After that you spend what's left on Skill Points, and increase them with XP over time.
Thorvald Kviksverd said:
Thorvald, Keep Lore named Int, add Perception, and change Cha to Willpower and you have the Unisystem stats.
Unisystem is almost eerie. From my own experiences and talking on RPGnet, it somehow makes d20, GURPS, and White Wolf gamers feel right at home. For a d20 player, you have six stats, qualities that are like feats, and skills. Not exactly breaking new ground. GURPS players are used to a point-buy style character creation. And the normal range for both skill and attributes is 1-5, which is the White Wolf Storyteller standard. Maybe it *is* the one true game.
Last edited:
Mouseferatu
Hero
I'd like to utterly ditch the concept of class vs. cross-class skills. Skills are skills, period. The only balancing factor should be skill points, which still gives the rogue a massive advantage over everyone else.
I dislike the notion that someone should be penalized for wanting to play a fighter who can pick locks, if it happens to make sense for the concept/background. I've ditched class skills in my home games, and it hasn't yet caused a balance problem.
I dislike the notion that someone should be penalized for wanting to play a fighter who can pick locks, if it happens to make sense for the concept/background. I've ditched class skills in my home games, and it hasn't yet caused a balance problem.
Afrodyte
Explorer
I brought up some of these ideas on RPGnet, but I'll elaborate here. Granted, this will be gone in a couple of days, so I think I'll be saving it to continue the discussion on the new server.
The basic idea for streamlining D&D would be the KISS principle. In general, the PHB should be a toolkit to allow players and DMs to create characters appropriate to a variety of fantasy adventure types. The key words here are fantasy and adventure, not Europe, Tolkien, Howard, etc. While I think it's fine to be open about being inspired by them, do not make these works the assumed standard by which everything is judged or made. Basically, you should be able to adapt races and classes to a particular setting with no problem. If you want something more specific or more flavorful, that is when you shell out money for supplements. I'd replace Chapter 6 with a longer introduction that goes into things like this.
Rule-wise, it's very hard to keep track of a lot of things in D&D because so many factors depend upon so many other factors. Yet, I would like to keep many of the options skills and feats open up, or even open new ones in the form of talent trees for classes instead of rigid class abilities (my ideas for those are somewhere around here). I don't think skills, feats, or more options are the culprit, but how the rules interact with each other. It seems that everything you want to do beyond "I hit it" and "I keep watch" has a different set of rules that unnecessarily complicates the game. Taken individually, these exceptions aren't bad, but when you try it all at once, it can be daunting and tedious.
The first thing I would do is give a standardize bonus and penalty scale. That way, it's easier to make rulings on the fly and to keep things simple (great for new DMs and players). The bonus/penalty scale I have in mind is something like: minor (+/- 1), moderate (+/- 2), hefty (+/- 5), and extreme (+/- 10 or higher). You can stack different bonuses and penalties together, but the total represents how much you are helped or hindered in a particular action. So, you can have two moderate bonuses and a hefty penalty, resulting in a minor penalty to an action. It keeps things flowing more smoothly than stopping the game, looking things up in the book to see if there's a rule on it, applying said rule, and then seeing what happens.
Skills are relatively easy to simplify. Consolidate some skills, eliminate others, and get rid of the class/cross-class rules. Just give classes a certain number of skill points, which they can distribute as they please, but make the minimum 4 + INT modifier and the maximum 10 + INT modifier, x4 at 1st level. I really hate how D&D penalizes characters for having interests and abilities beyond their niche, and this would do a great deal to overcome that. Granted, this leaves things open to min-maxing and stepping on toes, but I see that more as a courtesy issue than a game balance one.
Feats, rather than making things possible (like Cleave, Great Cleave, Spring Attack, and Whirlwind Attack), should make them easier to pull off or give tangible benefits (like Improved Critical, Spell Mastery, and Item Creation feats). They should also be worth what the character paid for them. At the very least, feats should either give a bonus or offset a penalty. Item Creation feats should be based more on how the item is used rather than what it looks like (more like Arcana Unearthed in this sense). I find it odd that crafting magic items has no Craft prerequisites. I have no idea how to fix metamagic feats, but the way they work now doesn't thrill me.
Combat definitely has to be simplified. There are too many action types, most of which reward thinking only on the tactical level. It's OK if you like tactics, but the topic is streamlining D&D. Going back to the bonus/penalty scale above, what the specific bonuses and penalties represent is up to the DM. In other words, if you want combat to be more tactically-oriented, the bonuses and penalties can incorporate things like preparation, planning, and environmental factors. For more cinematic combat, bonuses and penalties can represent things like style, imagination, and guts. You can also apply both standards.
I'd replace the different types of combat actions with an action slot system, whereby each round is composed of a certain number of slots, and particular actions require a certain number of slots. My default idea is 5 or 10 slots per round, but that's neither here nor there. This makes combat seem more continuous since you aren't taking whole chunks of each character's actions all at once (at least, not unless you want to), but breaking them down into smaller parts. The benefits of this are that combat flows more intuitively, it's easier to adjucate bonuses and penalties to non-combat actions (and a few combat actions as well), and you don't need a 30-second rule or the like to make sure players think quickly and pay attention during combat.
Last, but certainly not least, be rid of attacks of opportunity. Please. Pretty please.
Magic needs a lot of tweaking too. Each spell has a specific effect which affect creatures, objects, or the environment in vastly different ways. In effect, each spell is a rule. This makes the Vancian system necessary just to keep track of things. As with bonuses and penalties, there should be guidelines on what a spell should be able to do given the level and school. This makes is much easier to create your own spells, so listing so many in the PHB becomes unnecessary.
As for the spells themselves, I think introducing spell chains or spell themes would be a good idea. Or rather, make specialization the rule rather than the exception. Speaking of specialization, I think replacing an outright ban on opposed schools with a spell failure percentage (say, 10% per level) or an increasing penalty to a casting roll (see below) would keep options open while adding an element of risk. I'd like to have more enhancing spells than outright overt magic, especially at low levels, so it'd be easier to adapt the system to a game with different amounts and types of magic.
Rather than place the success or failure of a spell on how well somebody else rolls, making spellcasting into a casting check (basically a level check modified by the casting attribute and miscellaneous factors). For spells used in combat or against creatures, this basically reverses the Spell DC rule (except that, obviously, casters must roll higher than a creature's SR to even begin to affect it). For non-combat spells or spells used with objects, it changes things considerably. Since all spells are not cast successfully by default, there is less of a need for the spells/day rule.
The basic idea for streamlining D&D would be the KISS principle. In general, the PHB should be a toolkit to allow players and DMs to create characters appropriate to a variety of fantasy adventure types. The key words here are fantasy and adventure, not Europe, Tolkien, Howard, etc. While I think it's fine to be open about being inspired by them, do not make these works the assumed standard by which everything is judged or made. Basically, you should be able to adapt races and classes to a particular setting with no problem. If you want something more specific or more flavorful, that is when you shell out money for supplements. I'd replace Chapter 6 with a longer introduction that goes into things like this.
Rule-wise, it's very hard to keep track of a lot of things in D&D because so many factors depend upon so many other factors. Yet, I would like to keep many of the options skills and feats open up, or even open new ones in the form of talent trees for classes instead of rigid class abilities (my ideas for those are somewhere around here). I don't think skills, feats, or more options are the culprit, but how the rules interact with each other. It seems that everything you want to do beyond "I hit it" and "I keep watch" has a different set of rules that unnecessarily complicates the game. Taken individually, these exceptions aren't bad, but when you try it all at once, it can be daunting and tedious.
The first thing I would do is give a standardize bonus and penalty scale. That way, it's easier to make rulings on the fly and to keep things simple (great for new DMs and players). The bonus/penalty scale I have in mind is something like: minor (+/- 1), moderate (+/- 2), hefty (+/- 5), and extreme (+/- 10 or higher). You can stack different bonuses and penalties together, but the total represents how much you are helped or hindered in a particular action. So, you can have two moderate bonuses and a hefty penalty, resulting in a minor penalty to an action. It keeps things flowing more smoothly than stopping the game, looking things up in the book to see if there's a rule on it, applying said rule, and then seeing what happens.
Skills are relatively easy to simplify. Consolidate some skills, eliminate others, and get rid of the class/cross-class rules. Just give classes a certain number of skill points, which they can distribute as they please, but make the minimum 4 + INT modifier and the maximum 10 + INT modifier, x4 at 1st level. I really hate how D&D penalizes characters for having interests and abilities beyond their niche, and this would do a great deal to overcome that. Granted, this leaves things open to min-maxing and stepping on toes, but I see that more as a courtesy issue than a game balance one.
Feats, rather than making things possible (like Cleave, Great Cleave, Spring Attack, and Whirlwind Attack), should make them easier to pull off or give tangible benefits (like Improved Critical, Spell Mastery, and Item Creation feats). They should also be worth what the character paid for them. At the very least, feats should either give a bonus or offset a penalty. Item Creation feats should be based more on how the item is used rather than what it looks like (more like Arcana Unearthed in this sense). I find it odd that crafting magic items has no Craft prerequisites. I have no idea how to fix metamagic feats, but the way they work now doesn't thrill me.
Combat definitely has to be simplified. There are too many action types, most of which reward thinking only on the tactical level. It's OK if you like tactics, but the topic is streamlining D&D. Going back to the bonus/penalty scale above, what the specific bonuses and penalties represent is up to the DM. In other words, if you want combat to be more tactically-oriented, the bonuses and penalties can incorporate things like preparation, planning, and environmental factors. For more cinematic combat, bonuses and penalties can represent things like style, imagination, and guts. You can also apply both standards.
I'd replace the different types of combat actions with an action slot system, whereby each round is composed of a certain number of slots, and particular actions require a certain number of slots. My default idea is 5 or 10 slots per round, but that's neither here nor there. This makes combat seem more continuous since you aren't taking whole chunks of each character's actions all at once (at least, not unless you want to), but breaking them down into smaller parts. The benefits of this are that combat flows more intuitively, it's easier to adjucate bonuses and penalties to non-combat actions (and a few combat actions as well), and you don't need a 30-second rule or the like to make sure players think quickly and pay attention during combat.
Last, but certainly not least, be rid of attacks of opportunity. Please. Pretty please.
Magic needs a lot of tweaking too. Each spell has a specific effect which affect creatures, objects, or the environment in vastly different ways. In effect, each spell is a rule. This makes the Vancian system necessary just to keep track of things. As with bonuses and penalties, there should be guidelines on what a spell should be able to do given the level and school. This makes is much easier to create your own spells, so listing so many in the PHB becomes unnecessary.
As for the spells themselves, I think introducing spell chains or spell themes would be a good idea. Or rather, make specialization the rule rather than the exception. Speaking of specialization, I think replacing an outright ban on opposed schools with a spell failure percentage (say, 10% per level) or an increasing penalty to a casting roll (see below) would keep options open while adding an element of risk. I'd like to have more enhancing spells than outright overt magic, especially at low levels, so it'd be easier to adapt the system to a game with different amounts and types of magic.
Rather than place the success or failure of a spell on how well somebody else rolls, making spellcasting into a casting check (basically a level check modified by the casting attribute and miscellaneous factors). For spells used in combat or against creatures, this basically reverses the Spell DC rule (except that, obviously, casters must roll higher than a creature's SR to even begin to affect it). For non-combat spells or spells used with objects, it changes things considerably. Since all spells are not cast successfully by default, there is less of a need for the spells/day rule.
Mark
CreativeMountainGames.com
rycanada said:
Top Ten Ways That D&D 4.0 Could Be More Elegant
#10 Spikes being replaced largely with doilies
#9 New Magic Item: Snuff Box of Power
#8 All swords replaced by rapiers, daggers replaced by dirks, and battle axes replaced by a rich aunt
#7 4.0 will include the Critical Glance (followed by a modest scoffing)
#6 New Core Class: The Effete
#5 Verbal components of spells now include the suffix, ", please?"
#4 Golf clap is now a Free Action
#3 New Feat: Style!
#2 In the new D&D movie, Damodar gives other main characters a surprise makeover
And the number one way that D&D 4.0 could be more elegant...
#1 No more arguments RE: Roll-play vs. Role-Play, Now arguments RE: Pinky-In vs. Pinky-Out
Frankly, I don't know if "elegant" is an especially important part of WOTC's design guidelines. But if I was in charge:
- d20 Modern's basic/advanced/prestige class system; meaning relatively generic base classes with increasingly specialized advanced and prestige classes that trade flexibility for power in their area; provide class creation rules for prestige classes, since those really should be campaign dependent
- Arcana Unearthed-like magic system (in terms of spell slots, weaving, etc.)
- Ideally, harmonize magic mechanics with the rest of the system (i.e. caster makes a d20 + bonus roll against a DC to successfully cast)
- Also provide a lower magic option with a skill-and-feat magic system, so the core rules can handle a fairly wide range of fantasy genres
- Streamline the core combat rules to remove battlemat/mini dependence; those rules/feats/etc. would go in an optional splatbook
- Armour would be DR, dodge/parry would be active (i.e. usually rolled) defences
- Short of artifacts, all magic items would be built directly from spells, so I wouldn't have to devote a ton of pages to rules for items with nonstandard effects
- Lowest hit die for any class would be a d6
Rather than going with the traditional PH/DMG/MM split, I'd want to put together one core book that has the PH plus enough of the DMG and MM to run a game. Then have themed expansion splatbooks.
- d20 Modern's basic/advanced/prestige class system; meaning relatively generic base classes with increasingly specialized advanced and prestige classes that trade flexibility for power in their area; provide class creation rules for prestige classes, since those really should be campaign dependent
- Arcana Unearthed-like magic system (in terms of spell slots, weaving, etc.)
- Ideally, harmonize magic mechanics with the rest of the system (i.e. caster makes a d20 + bonus roll against a DC to successfully cast)
- Also provide a lower magic option with a skill-and-feat magic system, so the core rules can handle a fairly wide range of fantasy genres
- Streamline the core combat rules to remove battlemat/mini dependence; those rules/feats/etc. would go in an optional splatbook
- Armour would be DR, dodge/parry would be active (i.e. usually rolled) defences
- Short of artifacts, all magic items would be built directly from spells, so I wouldn't have to devote a ton of pages to rules for items with nonstandard effects
- Lowest hit die for any class would be a d6
Rather than going with the traditional PH/DMG/MM split, I'd want to put together one core book that has the PH plus enough of the DMG and MM to run a game. Then have themed expansion splatbooks.
Ranger REG
Explorer
Not gonna happen. It's like merging the Empire State Building and the Statue of Liberty into one New York landmark.DMScott said:
Mouseferatu said:
You know, that's the only good alternative to the Vancian system for wizards I've ever heard. (In that it's not TOO big an alternative... it still has the same element of "preparing in advance", just not quite as much....)
In general, I like the sorcerer rules, psionics rules and wizard rules equally. I've played all these kind of characters and I luv 'em all for their own special qualities. But I must be easy to please... or just resistant to change...
since I think 3.0/3.5 is great as-is.Jason
DMScott said:
Mmm... no, sorry. I think the existing core classes are "basic" enough... it can be fun to play an alternative campaign where you start out as a commoner or apprentice or something, but IMHO, for most campaigns, it's just BORING to have to go through some kind of generic "prep" classes before you can get to the classes you *want* to play.
DMScott said:
Personally, I think magic is already too harmonized. There needs to be more weird, game-breaking, unbalanced spells. (Tongue *slightly* in cheek... just *slightly*.
) Long live 4.0 Polymorph Other! So what if it's a 4th-level insta-kill instead of a 5th-level insta-kill... they can still attempt to hop/fly/crawl away...DMScott said:
That would be cool. I like lower-magic settings myself.
DMScott said:
I agree. Unfortunately, it seems that Wizards is committed to going in that direction. Personally, I thought 3.0 was almost perfect, but 3.5 was too obviously miniatures-driven. I'm worried they'll somehow make it even more miniatures-y than it already is.... ("Hey, no fair! You can't have a red dragon show up in your campaign unless you own the red dragon miniature! It says so in the rules!")
DMScott said:
If you're talking about having two rolls, an attack roll and a defense roll... no offense, but how can anyone play like this? :/ I know other people who use this variant, but that extra die roll just slows down combat so much, and it doesn't really add anything except additional randomness... we tried it in our campaign for one session and then gave it up.
DMScott said:
This is a good suggestion purely to save space. But like with spells, it's the weird, "flavor" magic items that are the GOOD ones. The game HAS to keep these quirky elements, or you may as well be playing an online RPG. (Heck... some people buy supplements just for lists of weird magic items... I very much dug ANCESTRAL VAULT...) Too much game balance can be a bad thing too.
Jason
Similar Threads
