My Thoughts on DnD, and the next Edition (Long, rambly)

[Belen]

It is not beside BelenUmeria's point. Indeed, it seems to be the entirety of his point.

See, you have completely missed my point. I said that miniatures are required for me to play DnD because my players will not play without them.

Thus, they are required in my game. I never said that they were required in your game.

The fact remains, however, that the rules are designed around use of a mat and miniatures. Combat requires some method to track movement and area of effect. Period.

The implication of the rules is that DnD requires the use of miniatures or some form of representation. Combat is centered around people knowing exactly where they are etc.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

4th edition -- assuming that they do make one before 2010 -- probably won't be a real drastic change. 3rd changed a lot, but no other version change has been nearly as dramatic. (For instance, I ran OD&D modules in AD&D 2nd without a hitch.)

D&D 4th will be similar to Call of Cthulu, Wheel of Time, or d20 Modern -- a stylistic change that doesn't mess with the learning cuve that WotC/hasbro has going for them. AD&D had to be altered; there were people not playing AD&D simply because of the rules. No one's doing that with D&D.

I am.

Well to a degree, I do like some OGL games.

 

[Merlion]

I think UA will stay where it is, in terms of book category and content type.

I didnt say anything about UA's book catagory or content type changing.

I think that some of the matieral in UA is more or less being tested for possible inclusion in the next edition of the game (much as seemed to happen with Skills and Powers providing a lot of stuff that got incorporated into 3rd edition).

In particular, I think CBDB, Armor as DR, and Spontaneous Metamagic are likely inclusions because they dont slaughter any sacred cows, and they add either logic, realism, balance or some combination thereof. And they particularly add or change things that many people dislike about the game, and in ways in which some have already changed it themselves.

What problems? Could you specify? And if you have, and I've missed the post, my apologies

Like that if you create a class that casts spells, and call them an "arcane" spellcasting class because their power is innate or learned rather than coming from the "divine" (or from faith in something divine, they dont seem to be able to decide which it is), and give it access to healing spells people have fits and say "arcane spellcasters are supposed to heal!" (Despite the fact that it is stated that Arcane and Divine magic can each do anything....its the classes that have actual restrictions on what kind of magic they do or dont use).

And like how I've heard people complain that bards shouldnt be able cast Cure Light Wounds because its a Divine spell (Despite the fact that its the caster that determines what a spell is, not the spell itself).

Basically, its just terminology, and has little actual mechanical effect, but people think it does. It usualy just seems to create confusion. And what little mechanical effect it does have could be much more neatly handled on an individual class by class basis.

Plus it removes another restriction. You can create a class and have its magic work however you want, without having to put it into a catagory of either innate/learned magic or "from an outside source" magic.

Restrictions on roleplaying? Eh? Could you clarify that one for me too? Maybe I'm being obtuse. Sorry, if so.

I didnt prhase that first part well. What I mean is, alignment restrictions on base classes, and specfic roleplaying restrictions on classes (such as the Paladin's code).

It's a very easy to get around 'problem' anyway. Just ignore what it says! Works a treat, as I'm sure you're aware already.

Trouble is, if your a player, you dont get to choose to do that unless the DM lets you.

Hmm, dunno about the whole Cleric as opposed to Priest as opposed to Cleric thing here

Unbalance aside, the Cleric has archtype issues. One beyond question is that its trying to fill too many...at least 3 ("Priest" "Crusader" and "Healer"), and second in my opnion, the Priest archtype in particular is not even one that should have a base class.

I agree that they could do with some toning down

Thats the important part. As it stands the Cleric is considerably more powerful over the total span of levels than any other class...only the druid really comes close. The Wizard doesnt compete until basically 17th level.

Not every party should require one for survival's sake

Every party doesnt require one now, but because they designers think they do, the Cleric got overpowered.

Something like the aforementioned Unearthed Arcana, then? Personally I imagine they will keep it as Unearthed Arcana, a supplement / 'optional corebook'.

Right now it isnt an optional corebook. Its just optional. And I dont care wether its a seperate book or included in the DMG or whatever, there needs to be extensive stuff telling people yes, it is ok to change the game to suite the desires of you and your players. Here are some examples of how to do it.

D&D - Cleric != D&D. I'll expand on that (in a minor way) in a bit.
Which brings me to the expansion on the D&D minus Cleric thing above. Insert any of the following in the place of Cleric, and the formula will (no doubt) still work : Wizard/Sorcerer/Mage/Magic User/Spellcaster, Fighter/Warrior, Rogue/Thief, Paladin, Bard, Ranger, Druid, Monk, Barbarian, Elf, Half-Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, Halfling, Orc, Helf-Orc, Drow, HP, AC, HD, Saving Throws, Levels, XP, Gold-Silver-Copper (100-10-1), Common, Magic Missile, Bigby's X Hand.....

I dont follow this. Are you saying you can or cannot remove those things and still have D&D?

I realize that they will *never* remove the Cleric from DnD. That I can cope with. I will however be inexpressibly unhappy if in 4th edition the Cleric is still unbalanced as it is now.

I hope they include a Defense Bonus in the core rules, and I believe it's got a chance at being there.

I would be surprised not to see it, or something like it. Several other d20 games, at least one of which is produced by Wizards uses such a system. Its logical. And again given that they made UA Open Game Content it just seems to make it more likely.

And if they include CBDB they will include either Armor as DR or something similiar, so fighters and paladins will still have a reason to wear armor.

That's the catch really (or one result of it anyway) : It's genuinely great that WotC has listened to players and actually implemented some of what they heard was desired but at the same time (I believe) while keeping those same ears close to the ground, they must've heard overwhelming resistance to deleting/replacing some of the staples of D&D since prehistory.

There are things that they will not ever change. Although I think the list slowly gets shorter. The two things that I think will never be removed and never even be meaningfuly altered are the fact of D&D as a relatively rigid class based system, and as a system with lots of base classes for many different roles, as oposed to a small number of very generic classes and ways to make them other things (although obviously it has and will continue to present this in variant form).

I dont think Armor Class will ever be replaced (such as by an oposed defense roll sort of system), and Hit Points I think will remain or maybe some day go to something different but extremely similiar like VP/WP.


But they have already changed some things more than I would expect some times.

 

[Merlion]

Anyway, in an effort to return to topic and away from pointless arguement, I am going to list a couple of other changes that I would like to see, or that I predict. And I once again call others to put forth their predictions and wishes for the next edition (we're acting under the assumption that it will be d20, and have classes, as far as predictions go)


Something I would like to see (and that is possible although I dont know if they will take the time):

Elements, Energies, and damage types disentangled. As it is, we have Air, Earth, Fire and Water subtypes for creatures, and even descriptors for spells, but we have nothing that does, say, earth or air damage or similiar things...in fact those subtypes and descriptors have little actual game effect.

And then we have the 5 "energies" which do have all sorts of game effects, and which often get associated with the elements, some times in strange ways. Along with the fact that one energy (acid) is actually a form of matter and another (cold) is actually an absence of energy (although that at least is dealble).

So I would like to see maybe things shift to "damage types" so instead of energy damage or whatever, we have acid damage, fire damage etc, and add in water damage, air damage and things that do them, so these things actually have some meaning.

And then, disentangle the elements from the energies. Some associatation I can see (especially, say, Air and Electricity) and maybe even some duel associations (I tend to think of Acid as both Earth and Water).


Another thing I would like to see (And wouldnt be surprised if it happend): A bit more equality with races:

Right now, Dwarves and Gnomes get more benefits than just about any other race, and half-elves and half-orcs get very very little. Then in the middle we have, like Humans and Elves and to some extent Halflings as a sort of average.

I think maybe give the half-races a teeny boost, and maybe bring down the dwarves and gnomes just a little, and things would be good.

Attached to that, I'd sort of like to see Halflings go back to their roots a little bit. Be a bit more hobbit like, and a bit less...whatever it is that they are now.


Something I would like to see, that I have no idea if it will happen or not, Redfining Item Creation:
I like feat-based item creation, but I would like to see it go to something like Arcana Unearthed where the feats and types are based not on form (wands rods etc), but the nature or activation of the item (Craft Constant Item, Craft Charged Item, Craft Single Use Item) etc.


Something I would love that will not likely happen, Options in Religion: I would like the nature of religion, and even the presence of religion to be totally optional, instead of having it be an absolute neccesity since large numbers of the core classes's abilities depend on it.


Anyway, a few more things to ponder.

 

[glass]

See, you have completely missed my point. I said that miniatures are required for me to play DnD because my players will not play without them.

I got it, it is just a non-point. The fact that your players do not believe you can play D&D without miniatures may have something to do with 3e's marketing, but nothing to do with it's rules.

If you really do not want to play with miniatures, find a group that doesn't use them. Mine can't be the only one.

Thus, they are required in my game. I never said that they were required in your game.

You said they were required, full stop. That mean everyone's game, including mine.

The fact remains, however, that the rules are designed around use of a mat and miniatures. Combat requires some method to track movement and area of effect. Period.

The implication of the rules is that DnD requires the use of miniatures or some form of representation. Combat is centered around people knowing exactly where they are etc.

You are shifting your position here. I never said that some form of representation wasn't required (or at least very helpful) for larger combats.

Some form of representation != miniatures.

Some form of representation especially != WotC miniatures.


glass.

 

[glass]

Anyway, in an effort to return to topic and away from pointless arguement...

Sorry, partly my fault. I just get frustrated when I hear that sort of stuff.


glass.

 

[glass]

So I would like to see maybe things shift to "damage types" so instead of energy damage or whatever, we have acid damage, fire damage etc, and add in water damage, air damage and things that do them, so these things actually have some meaning.

And then, disentangle the elements from the energies. Some associatation I can see (especially, say, Air and Electricity) and maybe even some duel associations (I tend to think of Acid as both Earth and Water).

That is a great idea.

A bit more equality with races:

Right now, Dwarves and Gnomes get more benefits than just about any other race, and half-elves and half-orcs get very very little. Then in the middle we have, like Humans and Elves and to some extent Halflings as a sort of average.

I think maybe give the half-races a teeny boost, and maybe bring down the dwarves and gnomes just a little, and things would be good.

I agree with this too, although I would say quite a big boost. I also think it would be good if the half races inherited something from their human parent.

I like feat-based item creation, but I would like to see it go to something like Arcana Unearthed where the feats and types are based not on form (wands rods etc), but the nature or activation of the item (Craft Constant Item, Craft Charged Item, Craft Single Use Item) etc.

That's three for three. How would you handle weapons and armour. Would they be their own feat still as in AU, or would you include them in constant items.


glass.

 

[DragonLancer]

Something I would like to see, that I have no idea if it will happen or not, Redfining Item Creation:
I like feat-based item creation, but I would like to see it go to something like Arcana Unearthed where the feats and types are based not on form (wands rods etc), but the nature or activation of the item (Craft Constant Item, Craft Charged Item, Craft Single Use Item) etc.

I've never liked the idea of item creation in the hands of PC's, so I would hope (though it won't) it would be removed in a 4th edition.

But thats just a personal view.

 

[Steverooo]

Armor as DR just makes sense. Its hard for me to envision my character putting on armor and having it make him harder to strike in combat. Thats not what armor does. It reduces damage.

Armor makes it harder to hit YOU (as opposed to IT). You hit the armor, and the weapon bounces off, harmlessly. Your Base AC is 10, +2 DEX, +4 for armor, a roll of 13-17 hits (but doesn't penetrate) your armor. Rolls of 18+ do damage.

 

[El Ravager]

Stuff about not needing minis

Dude, didn't you get the memo?

Hasbro is teh evil...

======
El Rav