Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Argyle King" data-source="post: 5761087" data-attributes="member: 58416">I don't want a 3.5 version 2.0 either.   ...I'm not even sure how the math of the nomenclature works for that.Don't get me wrong, I loved a lot of things about 3rd edition and have fond memories, but I understand the need to do things differently.  As I've said elsewhere, I simply have a love/hate relationship with 4E.  There are some changes from 3rd to 4th which were so good that I do not believe I can go backwards and still enjoy 3rd; however, there were some changes which I feel so negatively toward that they taint the goodness I feel toward the rest of the game.So... what would I have done with 4th Edition?  (because I hate to whine and moan without offering anything)Again, this is something I have said elsewhere many times, but I would have made much more use of the condition/disease track.  I believe a lot of grittiness could have been added to 4th Edition by making things less binary; less simple yes/no.Imagine if some of the save or suck spells from 3rd Edition were ported into 4th edition by using 4th's disease track.  For a quick arbitrary example, let's say a mindflayer is trying to dominate you.  First failed check and you move to dazed.  The second goes to stun.  The third goes to domination.Some of you are going to read that and say... wait just a minute there; some effects work exactly that way.  ---> Dazed (save ends) ---> first failed save leads to...Yes, it is similar, but here's where my idea is different:  You can get better on the disease track.  Instead of only being able to move one way along the condition track; sliding further and further toward suck, you can attempt to shake it off.  On the same token, you cannot instantly just shake it off with one save; you have to fight your way out.Downside?  I'd say the obvious downside is more book keeping.  However, I believe that model would make things much more dramatic.  Imagine the lone paladin trying to call upon the blessings of his god and purge his mind of enemy influence; in a life or death struggle with a vile mind eater.  What's nice about that idea is that it completely gets rid of saves too; I'll explain in a bit why that's nice... just hear me out.  Instead of saves, we now can make abilities and skills more relevant.   The previous example of a mindflayer might work something like a cross between how saves are now and the endurance check which diseases give.  Maybe a will roll.  Your will defense would determine if the initial effect hit or not.  After being put under the influence, you'd then need to make will rolls to shake it off.  No need for fancy modifiers or extra mechanics; just getting more mileage out of the numbers which are already on the character sheet instead of inventing a new mechanic.So, why do I feel dumping the 4th Edition model for saves is good?  Well, I ended my last paragraph by saying there's now no need for an extra mechanic.  The defense numbers are already there; the disease/condition track idea is already there... now they work together as opposed to tacking on the idea of a d20 save roll.  Also, remember how broken the original orb wizard was?  I'm going to go out on a limb and say it may have been more balanced if recovering from a condition worked differently.  Perhaps instead one massive penalty to a save, the normal orb ability was to make recovering more difficult in a manner similar to bumping a skill check DC up to the next difficulty class.  That may be a terrible idea too; I don't know; I'm not somebody who gets paid to do this.  It just seems to me that it was obviously way too easy to stack orb penalties onto a single d20 roll vs a base number of 10 -for every type of save- and make the odds virtually impossible.  By spreading the idea of saves across a broader mechanic, I believe it would be possible to also spread those penalties out more and have things work smoother as opposed to dumping all the math onto one roll and trying to fit it all in.There are other ways to use the condition track to.  How about crafting or repairing broken equipment?  Let's say your sword gets broken somehow.  What if that meant your sword now had the broken 'disease.'  To improve the condition your sword, you needed to make some sort of 'heal' (I'm not sure what 4E skill would fit) check on your sword.  On a success, it moves one step toward being repaired.  Failures would mean it is beyond your ability to repair it, and you'd either need to wait until leveling up to try again or you'd need to seek out the blacksmith in town to fix it.  My point for bringing any of this up is to showcase that there are plenty of mechanics available in 4E which were good mechanics, and would have worked perfectly fine to bridge some of D&D's past editions and outlook with that of the more gamist ideals 4E wanted.  For some reason, they just weren't used.  What I described is still more streamlined than 3rd's crafting rules; meanwhile, it's complex enough and offers a 'real' enough explanation for what's going on when you roll the dice that I feel it would satisfy me.  Getting back to where I started... again, it provides a way to tone down some of the hardcore 3rd Edition spells and fits them into a model which 4th Edition already contains.  I just showcased one idea of how it might be possible to keep some ideas from previous editions by embracing the ideas and direction of the new edition.  Yes, there's slightly more book keeping than the current model, but I also think it's more interesting than the current model.  Instead of "the solo just failed his save against sleep; let's beat upon this bag of hitpoints until he dies" you get "crap, the dragon is starting to shake off the wizard's spell; we need to hurry before he comes to."Plus, as I mentioned, it cuts down on the need to keep tacking on different mechanics.  So, yeah, my model might be more complicated than the simple yes/no of a d20 roll for a save, but it's also less complicated in that more parts of the game can fit into it.  Instead of having diseases, skill challenges, and saving throws use different mechanics, they can all work from this same model.  Now comes the question of how to scale difficulty.  That's a good one.  Personally, I dislike the number inflation which occurs from leveling up.  As such, rather than having checks continue to turn into bigger and bigger numbers, I would signify harsher effects by lowering the amount of steps on the condition track or by having the initial state of the attack be further down the track.So, a level 5 effect might look like this:Healthy <--> Dazed <--> Dazed & Slowed <--> Stun <--> DominationA level 11 version might look like this instead:Healthy <--> Dazed & Slowed <--> Stun <--> Dominationor this:Healthy <--> Dazed <--> Dazed & Slowed <--> Stun <--> DominationBold denotes where a target starts the track from.  ...just an idea</blockquote>

Verification