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

[reanjr]

To ditch the the spells/day system, there are a few options:

Magic/Mana Points: Spellcasters get a certain number of magic points a day and can spend them as they wish, with each spell level costing exponentially more then the last, so a character could wing a huge spell and be tired out, or cast a lot of smaller spells.

The problem a lot of people have with that type of system (myself included) is that it makes even less sense than the vancian one. Why can't you cast more? What is stopping you? Preparation has the meta-answer that there are magical energies focused upon the caster with each prepared spell. There might even be a series of channels (levels) that this energy is stored on. As you increase in caster level, you learn how to use new channels and to contain more energy. What's the answer for why you just suddenly run out of this energy that otherwise would work fine. It seems much more intuitive that the energy would begin to trickle out after a while, making spellcasting more and more difficult.

Exhaustion save: Players can cast unlimited spells, each spell has a specific Exhaustion save listed with it, once the character has cast the spell, he makes an Exhaustion (Fort, Will?) saving throw, if he succeeds, there is no penalty, if he fails by less then 5 he gets -2 to all future saves, if he fails by 10 he is fatigued suffering all the normal penalties of it and is unable to cast any spells until he rests.

I think this way seems much more real. Just my opinion, though...

 

[arscott]

you could always combine the idea of exhaustion with mana points:

Mana bascially represents energy you have to spare for spellcasting. After you run out of mana, you can push yourself and use the remainder of your energy which comes out of hitpoints, strength, or constitution.

 

[Darmanicus]

I'd like save scores to not be fixed depending on what your class is. I think it would be better if you gained that you could allocate as you see fit each time you level up with maybe a restriction akin to skill points, (lv +3).

 

[Elephant]

Arguing about 1d4 vs 1d12 damage is silly in a game that scales from 2 hp to 500 hp.

So is statting two very similar weapons differently (1d12 vs. 2d6).

For that matter, HP itself is silly.

 

[Li Shenron]

We are not really in need for a mana system, we have always found the spell-level system very fine. The general in-game idea was that a spellcaster has enough willpower (or whatever) to cast a certain amount of spells per day of her highest level, a certain amount of spells per day of her second highest level, and so on...

I don't say that more flexilibility, like in psionics, would be bad. I'm just saying that I have no in-game explanation problems with the current system. Over the psionic way, it has the advantage of giving the players a more immediate idea of how many times they can cast each spell today, instead of having to count more often.

 

[woodelf]

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....)

Then you should take a look at Arcana Unearthed--he basically described the magic system therein.

 

[woodelf]

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.

The bar's already pretty high. D&D3E is a very complex, intricate game. It is *not* beginner-friendly. Nonetheless, you raise an important point: There are at least two measures of "elegant & streamlined" in an RPG: how it works in play, and how easy it is to learn. And they don't necessarily correspond, and may even be at odds. If you want the standard of "would it make it easier for first-time players", IME, ditching the vast majority of the combat chapter, in favor of a single rule: "If you want to do something else, it's a -2 penalty for each additional complication, and a +2 bonus for each additional element in your favor", would be a huge help. Ditch compliacted movement rules, AoOs, special sub-systems for sundering and tripping and grappling, and just about all of the chapter. Because, IME, the vast majority of things that trip up newbies are in that chapter.

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.

Have you ever actually played D&D3E with someone who doesn't know the rules? I mean, yeah, it can be done, but it's far from easy. And, more significantly, it's nowhere *near* as easy as playing Over the Edge, Everway, Fudge, or Dread with someone who doesn't know the rules. [ok, that last one's a ringer--i don't think it'd be possible for someone to play Dread without knowing the rules, because i don't think you could play the game for more than a few minutes without learning all of the rules.] Point is, there're *lots* of RPGs that are much easier than D&D3E for playing without a detailed inttro to the rules.

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.

That seems a bit wierd--it's easier to cast a 9th, 6th, 3rd, and 0th spell all at once than it is to cast an 8th, 5th, and 2nd? I like the concept, in the abstract (wizards can cast multiple spells in a round at high level), but something more like the "trade-off" multiple attacks others were suggesting would probably fit better: You can cast multiple spells, provided none of them are higher in level than (highest level you can cast) - 4x(number of spells being cast - 1). So, if you can cast 8th level spells, you could cast two 4th level or lower spells in a round, or 3 0th level. Something like that.

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

Of the options i've seen, i think arcana unearthed is the best. Most metamagic comes in the form of "templates" that you can apply to spells, and the templates have varying costs, from none, to "ladening" the spell (uses two spellslots of the usual level), to a material cost. The important commonality here is that all of them are things you can spend on the fly, and thus you can decide to apply metamagic when you need it, to the spell you need to apply it to, rather than having to guess ahead of time what to prepare specially.

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.

That one's pretty easy: do the same thing for caster level that is currently done for "combatant level": i.e., another stat, much like BAB, which is equal to level for wizards and other "full casters", and progresses at a slower rate for other classes.

 

[mmadsen]

That one's pretty easy: do the same thing for caster level that is currently done for "combatant level": i.e., another stat, much like BAB, which is equal to level for wizards and other "full casters", and progresses at a slower rate for other classes.

Or make "caster level" a skill.

 

[woodelf]

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

Well, along this line, my suggestion would be to make Take 10 a standard option that anyone can always use. IOW, a player can always choose to take 10 rather than roll the die (before rolling, of course).

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 just need standardized guidelines for how to create an item that is not exactly the same as the spell. This could be very rudimentary (the duration modifiers in Arcana Unearthed spell descriptions) or more comprehensive (Artificer's Handbook).

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

A small selection of monsters. Look at most other fantasy games, and that should give you an idea. I think Ars Magica has a few dozen monsters, frex.
Though, if this were really the goal (make the PH complete-if-bare-bones, treat the DMG and MM as "add-ons"), i'd say what you'd really want for monsters in the core book would be:
1) animals. A reasonable selection to cover most of the bases: singbirds, predatory birds; small, medium, and large carnivores; small herbivores, deer, herd animals, large herbivores; fish of a few sizes; and maybe separate entries for domestic animals. In each category, you only need one or two animals because, on the level of granularity of D20 System, the others will be similar, just adjust a speed or damage value here or there. [I still can't believe that the D&D3.5E MM doesn't have an entry for a single wild herbivore besides elephant.]
2) humanoids. Stats for goblins, orcs, ogres, and a flavor of giant. Maybe kobolds, too.
3) a few really nasty beasts, including a dragon, a beholder, and a couple other "classic" wierdos, like bullette or displacer beast
4) "dungeon specials". cubes, oozes, mimics, trappers, carrion crawler, etc.
5) undead. a selection of templates, probably, to handle skeleton, zombie, ghoul, ghost, vampire
6) something like the monster construction system from Grim Tales. Thus, for those who want to put in the time and effort *and* want their monsters to be balanced as the book intends, they can do so. People will make up monsters themselves, no matter what, so you may as well give them the tools to help keep their game fun in the process. And most people, i suspect, would still rather buy a book of ready-to-go monsters than do this very much, so you'd still have plenty of room for more monsters.

 

[mmadsen]

If you want active defense rolls, play GURPS.

While I agree that active defense rolls do not streamline the game, that comment isn't helpful. It's not as if D&D and GURPS differ in just one thing (passive defense vs. active defense rolls), and making that one change will change everything. If there's an element of GURPS (or Hero, or Vampire, or Rolemaster, or whatever) that might improve D&D, by all means, 4E should embrace it.