How Would You Design Fourth Edition?

Zamkaizer

First Post
Perusing the 4E Forums, I've come across many instances in which a person has a very clear idea of how something ought to be done, yet are unable to articulate it for the sake of the discussion at hand. While many of these ideas are "the same it's always been," just as often, they are quirky elaborations or divergences on what has come before.

The purpose of this thread, then, is to allow you to express what would result were you responsible for the design of the eighth version of Dungeons & Dragons. What mechanics or concepts would you change, and, more importantly, how? Ideally, this thread should result in all manner of potentially 'yoink'able material, and give readers insight into the perspectives with which various posters view D&D and RPGs--even if that perspective is 'there's a reason I'm not on a game publisher's payroll'.

This thread is not intended as a vehicle for criticism of 4E in its official incarnation. However, you could certainly contrast your ideas with the designer's. You could also, for instance, assume the viewpoint of one back in August 2007, before we all set off on this wild and crazy 4dventure. The discussion also should be positive--merely saying you wouldn't, for example, use the rogue with which we've been presented, contributes nothing to the discussion. Instead, present us with your concept of the rogue, or perhaps even your alternative.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Zelster

First Post
I think WotC is doing an excellent job from what I've seen so far. The evidence of a fair compromise is that no single party feels 100% satisfied.
 



xechnao

First Post
Should I make the one D&D I like or the D&D the market would mostly buy ASAP? Is it about the best ruleset possible? Or is it about selling the game as the market stands right now? The D&D hobby can be various other things than a new and better ruleset. For example there are other factors such as rules familiarity.
 

Gundark

Explorer
oh good idea for a thread was thinking of starting something like this myself, you beat me too it.

I've seen people be critical of 4e without really saying what they would have done better. I'm interested to see how this turns out.
 

Zamkaizer

First Post
Concerning Time

While I've never taken issue with the abstraction of space, or, to a lesser extent, the abstraction of...the multitude of things hit points represent, the abstraction of time has always bothered me. Characters performing their actions in turns has always put pressure on both my suspension of disbelief and other rules. Try representing one character running down another--with one shooting out 80 feet in front of the other before the distance is closed once again--and you'll see just how wacky the abstraction of time can get. Were I to design 4E, this would be amongst the first issues I'd attempt to address.

A goofy idea I've been kicking around in my head for some time--and I'm not sure 4E would be the best place to attempt to implement it--is a way in which to represent simultaneous action. At it's most basic level, it goes something like this: instead of each character having a turn consisting of a move action and a standard action, all characters act simultaneously on a round divided into five segments, during the entirety of which a character can make some number of standard actions. At the beginning of each segment, the character decides whether they want to take a standard action, take a move action, or do nothing. The characters who take a standard action do so according to their speed, modified, perhaps, by their weapon (a rapier, for instance, is faster, if less brutal, than an axe). Following that, the characters who take a move action do so according to their speed. I have not yet decided what length of time a round represents--perhaps 10 seconds--though it would dictate how far each character can move with a single action and how many standard actions a character may take.

In theory, this would make movement significantly more dynamic. Characters would react to one another's movements, attempting to intercept and avoid one another. Each attack could be effectively be a spring attack. It also allows for subtle changes in balance, such as how certain spells might require their caster not move for a number of segments. It also represents much more realistically certain instances of movement. Take the aforementioned example of one character pursuing another. Instead of the pursued rocketing off in front of their adversary by some ridiculous distance, they would instead do so by a distance only about a fifth as ridiculous.

Next time: I further represent how unqualified I am by examining weapons and reach.
 

nem z

First Post
My 4e?

Character Creation:
Point-buy stats with no middleman terms
Existing skills consolidated into thematic groups
Saves, initiative, and BAB (by weapon group) converted into skills
Skills matched with attributes depending on circumstances, WhiteWolf style
No classes... all powers/abilities/magic/etc bought as steps on a feat trees
Races purchased as feats available only at 1st level
abilities are either at will or resource consuming, never 'timed'.
Alignment redefined in terms of relative traits

Advancement
XP spent to increase abilities individually
Level determined by GM as a power cap, not tied to XP totals at all
Wealth and equipment as an abstracted system
Magic items become enchanted by use, not direct crafting... 'riddle of steel' logic

Combat
Hex map w/ facing, turning cost, and half-steps to intersections
Iterative attacks eliminated
movement=standard action, so players can double attack or double move as desired
AoO rules simplified
Grappling (beyond simple 'grab') redefined as a feat tree
HP replaced with a condition track
Adaptable terrain w/ stunt potential, larger combat zones

Non-Combat Tasks
Some skills and powers focused on non-combat tasks
Specific mechanics for non-combat encounters
Subsystem for dramatic events... see JackelopeKing's D20^A
 

Dragonblade

Adventurer
Zamkaizer said:
While I've never taken issue with the abstraction of space, or, to a lesser extent, the abstraction of...the multitude of things hit points represent, the abstraction of time has always bothered me. Characters performing their actions in turns has always put pressure on both my suspension of disbelief and other rules. Try representing one character running down another--with one shooting out 80 feet in front of the other before the distance is closed once again--and you'll see just how wacky the abstraction of time can get. Were I to design 4E, this would be amongst the first issues I'd attempt to address.

A goofy idea I've been kicking around in my head for some time--and I'm not sure 4E would be the best place to attempt to implement it--is a way in which to represent simultaneous action. At it's most basic level, it goes something like this: instead of each character having a turn consisting of a move action and a standard action, all characters act simultaneously on a round divided into five segments, during the entirety of which a character can make some number of standard actions. At the beginning of each segment, the character decides whether they want to take a standard action, take a move action, or do nothing. The characters who take a standard action do so according to their speed, modified, perhaps, by their weapon (a rapier, for instance, is faster, if less brutal, than an axe). Following that, the characters who take a move action do so according to their speed. I have not yet decided what length of time a round represents--perhaps 10 seconds--though it would dictate how far each character can move with a single action and how many standard actions a character may take.

In theory, this would make movement significantly more dynamic. Characters would react to one another's movements, attempting to intercept and avoid one another. Each attack could be effectively be a spring attack. It also allows for subtle changes in balance, such as how certain spells might require their caster not move for a number of segments. It also represents much more realistically certain instances of movement. Take the aforementioned example of one character pursuing another. Instead of the pursued rocketing off in front of their adversary by some ridiculous distance, they would instead do so by a distance only about a fifth as ridiculous.

Next time: I further represent how unqualified I am by examining weapons and reach.

This is how combat actions work in the HERO system. If you really like this approach you should check out HERO. :)
 

Jackelope King

First Post
nem z said:
Subsystem for dramatic events... see JackelopeKing's D20^A

Thanks, Nem ;)

Were I designing 4e with what I knew today and I was trying to keep it distinctly D&D...

Character Creation/Advancement
Choose your race, choose your power source, point-buy your ability scores. New power sources can be bought later in the game via feat trees, but are going to be more expensive than your first one.

A single generic BAB/Save/Defense/Feat acquisition/Skill progression. Characters should be getting one feat/special ability/whatever each level.

Four generic classes based on the Controller/Defender/Leader/Striker divide. These would determine factors like hit points and proficiencies.

The concepts of feats and talent trees get mashed up into something like the mastery levels from Iron Heroes, with the prerequisites being based either on character level/tier for general feats that anyone can take, or based on your level in a specific class for more specific abilities. These feat trees should be where the distinct flavor comes in, with trees being named things like "Ranger" or "Wizard", providing very specific and very appropriate abilities.

Feats need to advance with the characters as they level so that they're always useful, or at least useful throughout a given tier. No more "throw-away" feats that are only good at first level. A feat shouldn't grant a bonus 5 hit points: it should grant a character extra hit points at each level.

Skills become very broad, more like skill groups but only available packaged. Advance all skills at the same rate, but allow multiple tiers of bonuses from feats (perhaps from an expert feat tree) to specialize in skills.

Combat
Simplify where possible, inject action where needed.

Tracking tokens in IH sounded like a good idea, and could still work nicely, but I think a simple binary system like Psionic Focus would work best. All of your "powers" have two effects: a "passive" one you can use while focused on that power source (such as a Martial Power granting you a +1 Dodge bonus while focused), and an "active" one that you need to expend your focus for (such as the same Martial Power granting you a +8 dodge bonus against one attack), so you always have the choice of whether to keep the bonus from a lot of small abilities or use one big one. It takes an action to get focused again, and you need to "take five" before you can use certain abilities again.

Get rid of 99% of the conditions out there: they're unnecessary and require players to flip through rulebooks and slow down the game. Unless the condition is spelled out in the spell the player is casting, it's not necessary.

And that goes for combat conditions too (like flanking, grappling, prone, seated, high ground)... wrap them all into the concept of combat advantage, and make it a staged condition, so one level of combat advantage gives you +2 to hit and the ability to use things like sneak attack; two levels denies your foe his dodge bonus to AC; three levels denies your foe his dodge bonus to all attacks. You don't need huge mechanical distinctions between grappling with somebody and throwing sand in their eyes if the end result is you just trying to put your foe at a disadvantage if the disadvantage is always mechanically similar and mechanically significant.

Non-Combat
See above for nem's all-too-kind plug. Resolve non-combat challenges (like chases, social combat, etc.) with series of wagers and bets resolved by opposed checks. Wager and betting is something anyone can get their heads around. Use the dice and the ebb and flow of gains and losses (perhaps represented physically by chips or a pool of dice you roll and wager) as cues for how the interaction is going in general terms, such as pursuers gaining or losing ground, or a guard being negotiated with becoming more or less suspicious.

Give everyone something to do during non-combat encounters, especially by making the aid skill more attractive, so even if Bob the Fighter has no more tact than your average barnyard animal, he can still try to make a DC 10 check to give Ted the Bard a bonus to his check.

Magic
Simplify, simplify, simplify. Make each type of magic distinct (including differences between power sources and between schools or spheres or whatever within a given power source).

Follow advancement similar to the warlock spread out across different feat trees for "spell selection", so a wizard-wannabe might take spells at different levels from the Fire Mage feat tree and the Wind Master feat tree and the Light Shaping feat tree. Like other powers, spells need to scale with level to remain useful throughout a character's career.

Magic Items
Whether or not a character needs magic items should be up to the player. There shouldn't be any "magical arms race" where players "need" a certain plus on an item or be sorely below their power level. If any of the Big 6 remain, there should be clear rules that the DM can use to simply tie the bonus they would otherwise grant to tiers as "bonuses".

Other magic items which provide neat-but-not-numerical bonuses should continue to exist, because they're fun, providing more options.

There should be feat trees which have options that "use" certain slots, such as a Monk tree that uses your "armor" slot to give you a bonus to AC equal to your wisdom or whatnot. Maybe a wizard feat tree uses a similar concept, only it adds Intelligence or Charisma instead of Wisdom to represent "mage armor".

Kill stacking dead: only the highest bonus counts.

Monsters and NPCs
Monsters turn into templates which are applied to monster roles at appropriate levels. A mind-flayer, for example, is a template which would allow for some psionics, a mental blast, and some brain-snacking. The roles would determine essential combat stats, like attack bonuses, AC, saves, etc. Make it clear that some templates have a "minimum level" because of the power of some of their abilities or stat modifiers.

The basic method for creating a monster should be "apply template to role at appropriate level". The MM should do this for the DM in the main monster write-up (providing both the mind-flayer template and the iconic level 9 mind-flayer mastermind), but the appendix should rip the hood off and show the DM how to do it for himself (just in case he wants to do something like scale down a mind-flayer to be a doable challenge for his level 4 party).

Provide clear guidelines for fudging monsters on-the-fly, so that if I need an appropriate random encounter for my level 9 party, I know off the top of my head roughly where I need to peg the members of a wandering orc warband.
 

Remove ads

Top