D&D 4E Let's Make 4E!! (Brainstorming)

[Mouseferatu]

I compared the armor as DR and defense bonuses in UA and Conan, and I gotta say, Conan's system is WAY better. Characters using finesse weapons (like a dagger, rapier, etc) can completely ignore the DR of armor if they roll high enough (a number above the required to hit roll of the attack equal to the DR of the armor), but barring vital area strikes reflected above, a dagger just ain't going to cut it against heavy armor. On the other hand, certain weapons have high armor piercing ratings (such as halberds, picks, etc) and can rip through armor by brute force. IMO, this is how it should be, and I'd LOVE to see 4.0 incorporate Mongoose's Conan armor as DR and dodge/parry based defense.

Now see, just as a purely personal preference, that's very much not what I'd want to see. I don't like having to worry about this weapon's armor piercing ability vs. that particular armor's defensive rating. I want to know to-hit and damage, and I want to know defense and damage reduction. Nothing more. Anything else, such as "weapon type vs. armor type," or anything along those lines, complicates what is already a more-than-sufficiently-complex system. Given the choice between realism vs. speed/ease of gameplay, I'll go with speed/ease of play any day.

Just IMO, of course, but I feel strongly enough about it that if D&D4 makes combat much more complex than it already is, I doubt I'd play it.

 

[hong]

I compared the armor as DR and defense bonuses in UA and Conan, and I gotta say, Conan's system is WAY better. Characters using finesse weapons (like a dagger, rapier, etc) can completely ignore the DR of armor if they roll high enough (a number above the required to hit roll of the attack equal to the DR of the armor), but barring vital area strikes reflected above, a dagger just ain't going to cut it against heavy armor. On the other hand, certain weapons have high armor piercing ratings (such as halberds, picks, etc) and can rip through armor by brute force.

Damage is an entirely different metric to d20 checks like attacks. This is one reason why 3.0 Power Attack behaved in an unintuitive way (the less base damage you do, the better it is). It's why save DCs based on damage can be lethal (CdG, feats like Stand Still). Note that the rule above is equivalent to having everyone with a finesse weapon use Power Attack with an amount equal to the DR of the armour. Mixing up metrics like this is a great way for loopholes to appear, especially when third-party publishers get involved. I don't have any great confidence that a mob like Mongoose know what's going on, when it comes to rules intricacies.

 

[RFisher]

Now see, just as a purely personal preference, that's very much not what I'd want to see. I don't like having to worry about this weapon's armor piercing ability vs. that particular armor's defensive rating. I want to know to-hit and damage, and I want to know defense and damage reduction.

I think damage reduction is an unneeded complication as well. When I want more details in my combat system, I play GURPS. When I play D&D, I want an abstract combat system.

I think the core rules of a D&D4e should only include an abstract combat system. A more detailed combat system, if desired, should be published as a supplement. Actually, I'm on record as requesting the same thing in a GURPS 4e as well.

Anything else, such as "weapon type vs. armor type," [...]

If you are adding details to the combat system, I actually think this should be the first one you add. All the complex rules you can come up with usually don't improve the versimilitude of combat, IMHO, better than just directly saying that weapon X is better against mail, weapon Y is better agaist plate, &c. I'd rather do one table lookup per roll than four calculations that don't give more realistic seeming results.

(Which reminds me, I've got to try using Arms Law with 3e sometime.)

 

[Calico_Jack73]

You know, if you combine the "level-based defense bonus" and "armor as DR" optional rules from Unearthed Arcana, you completely remove that particular problem. I hope we're quite some years from 4E yet, but it wouldn't surprise me one iota if, one it does come out, we see both of those as a core part of the rules.

I'll have to check it out... I am eagerly awaiting delivery of my UA book from Overstock.com.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

You know, the Palladium FRPG accomplished the DR thing a LONG time ago. Shields don't give you more armor or make you any harder to hit, they instead grant a Parry bonus. Any roll to hit higher than 4 but less than the AR of the armor that you wear doesn't damage the wearer but does damage the armor itself until it is totally worthless (of course you can always go to an armorsmith and have it repaired). Any roll higher than the AR does damage directly to the character i.e. you found a chink in the armor and struck a meaty part. Since both systems are 3d6 and d20 based it is fairly easy to steal the best parts of Palladium and incorporate them into D&D. I'm still working on convincing my current group to let me incorporate some of the Palladium systems in our D&D game.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I think the core rules of a D&D4e should only include an abstract combat system. A more detailed combat system, if desired, should be published as a supplement. Actually, I'm on record as requesting the same thing in a GURPS 4e as well.

If you are adding details to the combat system, I actually think this should be the first one you add. All the complex rules you can come up with usually don't improve the versimilitude of combat, IMHO, better than just directly saying that weapon X is better against mail, weapon Y is better agaist plate, &c. I'd rather do one table lookup per roll than four calculations that don't give more realistic seeming results.

Sorry about the three posts in a row. I'm replying as I'm reading.

I have to disagree with D&D needing to have an abstract combat system. The entire experience system almost completely depends on combat to progress. If you check the DMG the Role-playing XP bonus is reccomended to only be 50XP/Character level. SO... if I start a game and someone does a great job of role playing they get 50 extra XP for the whole session. If over the course of the session they kill four CR 1 creatures then that is a total of 1200 XP for the party (or 300 per player in a four person game). Hmmmm... if I want to level up rapidly I'd much rather go out and kill things rather than roleplay.

Sorry if I sound like I am beating Palladium's drum but I also like their experience chart. They split monster XP into three catagories: minor, major, and great threats. You get far more XP for roleplaying. Heck, if you attempt to use a skill you get 50xp whether you succeeded or not. You get the most if you roleplay self sacrifice to save a large group. Self Sacrifice need not be lethal... the point is that you put yourself into the situation to save others. You also get a great deal of XP just for coming up with plans of action. I just wish Palladium wouldn't have waited so long before they started supporting their FRPG instead of focusing on TMNT and Rifts.