D&D 4E How could 4E be more elegant?

[ptolemy18]

Why does everyone (on this thread) think D&D needs to be "simplified" anyway? 3.0/3.5 is already a streamlined machine of beautiful efficiency compared to all previous editions, with their "bend bars/lift gates" rules and stuff. Man, you give people an inch....!

In any case, D&D was never intended to be some kind of "perfect generic fantasy RPG". The d20 system may be generic... the OGL may be generic... but, ever since they made the decision in D&D 3.0 to officially make Greyhawk the "default" setting, D&D has been some game about some weird-ass fantasy world with too many monsters and races and classes somehow coexisting together. :/

This is how they make money... they keep adding new stuff. And this is how they reinforce their D&D "branding"... they keep adding new stuff that they can COPYRIGHT/TRADEMARK, i.e., focusing on the displacer beasts and beholders and mind flayers instead of the "generic" things like goblins and ogres and dragons.

Personally, I like heavily variant settings, and I try to make my campaign worlds pretty different from Greyhawk, but I think I understand some of the reasons why TSR emphasizes Greyhawk. Anyway, I don't need to see D&D become some "generic fantasy" RPG. As far as I'm concerned, D&D can remain its weird, screwy self, as long as the rules leave open the options to make up your own campaign worlds, and as long as the d20 license lets publishers publish their variants.

Jason

 

[ptolemy18]

Top Ten Ways That D&D 4.0 Could Be More Elegant...

YOU RULE!!!

Jason

 

[DMScott]

Not gonna happen. It's like merging the Empire State Building and the Statue of Liberty into one New York landmark.

Frankly, pretty much none of what I posted is gonna happen, because as I noted I don't think elegance or streamlining are particularly high on WOTC's list of priorities. But the thread seems to be about what people would like to see more than what is likely to happen, so there you go.

 

[Abstraction]

The funny thing about this thread is that it is suppposed to be about how 4E can be elegant and streamlined. How do you know what changes are more elegant and streamlined? To me, the question to ask is, would such-and-so change make the game easier or harder for casual or first-time players? Most of the changes you guys want would raise that bar significantly. Realize that 3E is the first roleplaying game since cowboys & indians that people can play without knowing the rules. I think we need to keep it that way.

Some changes that I would actually like to see?

Ditch Quicken Spell for iterative spellcasting. You may cast spells iteratively at highest/highest -3/highest -6/highest -9 so a 20th level wizard could cast in 1 round a ninth, sixth, third and zero level spell. If that seems too powerful, it could go in -4 steps, for a ninth, fifth and first.

Make metamagic more generally useful. Not sure how, just do it.

Fix the multiclass gap between casters and noncasters. The multiclassed fighters BAB goes up no matter what. Casters need some way that their casting level or something goes up, even if they multiclass. Again, I don't know what the fix is, just do it.

 

[Laman Stahros]

Fix the multiclass gap between casters and noncasters. The multiclassed fighters BAB goes up no matter what. Casters need some way that their casting level or something goes up, even if they multiclass. Again, I don't know what the fix is, just do it.

Done. Unearthed Arcana has a Magic Rating system that does (basicily) just that. I changed its progressions to the same as BAB, but either way is better than the current system. It would be nice if they would include it in the core rules.

In general though, I think that the main way to make 4E 'more elegant' would be to leave most of what is alone, just clean up the messy sections, and include options in the DMG and PHB for those of use who want to make changes.

 

[jmucchiello]

- 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

Aren't these two ideas at odds. Streamlining should reduce, not increase die rolls. If you want active defense rolls, play GURPS.

- 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

So then you just move all the magic item descriptions into the PHB. Heward's Handy Haversack would need a new spell devoted to it. So would a bag of holding. Even though they are similar, it's two different spells. Messy.

- Lowest hit die for any class would be a d6

As Monte did in AU.

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.

How much of the MM do you need to run a game?

 

[DMScott]

Aren't these two ideas at odds. Streamlining should reduce, not increase die rolls.

Not necessarily. Streamlining should generally aim at making play faster and more fun; that often involves reducing die rolls, but not always. For example, my suggested streamline is to get rid of the mini-based combat where the minutiae of tactical positioning is relatively important; not a single die roll is removed by doing so, but I think it'd speed up play and allow time to be spent on the fun stuff.

If you want active defense rolls, play GURPS.

Well, that's not too bad - three pages in before the "if you want X, play Y" dismissals started. Much better than normal for an ENBoard thread.

So then you just move all the magic item descriptions into the PHB. Heward's Handy Haversack would need a new spell devoted to it. So would a bag of holding. Even though they are similar, it's two different spells. Messy.

Or you change the operation of one or the other, so you only need one spell. Preferably an already existing one - there are several candidates in the 3.5 PHB. And suddenly it's much cleaner.

How much of the MM do you need to run a game?

If we take LOTR as a model, a good mix for a new DM could be something like a couple of evil humanoid types, one big monstrous humanoid, 2-3 types of undead, and 2-5 scary nonhumanoids should probably do it, given that they can all have classes and levels. And at least one dragon, of course - can't sell a game called "Dungeons and Dragons" without having a dragon in there somewhere. Then include stats as necessary for the summoning spells. Ideally, the monster list would be doable in under 40 pages or so. That leaves plenty for supplementary monster books, but a new DM would get what they needed in one book.

 

[Ranger REG]

Frankly, pretty much none of what I posted is gonna happen, because as I noted I don't think elegance or streamlining are particularly high on WOTC's list of priorities. But the thread seems to be about what people would like to see more than what is likely to happen, so there you go.

I don't know. They did a pretty good job comparing 3e D&D to 2nd Edition AD&D. I was hoping that they would streamline what they have when doing the revision, but I guess they jumped the gun, releasing it in 2003 rather than 2005, not giving them more time to make finer adjustments, including choice of prestige classes. The revision would give Greyhawk a chance to spotlight by devoting a mostly-fluff chapter to it, even though it would increase the page and price of the Player's Handbook v.3.5.

But to be honest, I'm really not looking forward to 4e. I don't like treating my RPG like a piece of game software, to be discarded for a new version every 1-to-3 years. I can't afford it, especially when I'm not a VG junkie. My leisure time priority is my RPG hobby.

 

[Plane Sailing]

If you want active defense rolls, play GURPS.

jmucchiello and ptolemy18 - this thread is clearly for people who are interested in talking about possibilities and dreams rather than those who wish to be dismissive of possibilities. By all means start a new thread along the lines of "why I don't think there should be a 4e", but please don't be dismissive of other peoples contributions in this particular thread.

Many thanks!

 

[Mark]

YOU RULE!!!

Jason

YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY VERY SMART AND HAVE EXCELLENT TASTE!!!


Mark