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

[buzz]

I'm quoting this part, as I too believe magic could do with an element of uncertainty.

IMO, that's what saving throws and spell resistance is for. Adding a spell failure chance that starts out at 50% makes me even less interested in playing a low-level spellcaster. No way I want to see this in D&D, as-is.

Now, if you wanted to combine this with the ability to boost the effectiveness of a spell in exchange for needing to make Spellcraft checks or something, then I'd be interested.

 

[Merlion]

Fighters get paths, which give them predetermined abilities at each level where they don't get Fighter Feats. Cavalry starts off with Mounted Combat, Command starts off with bonus to CHA, eventually leading to Leadership, while Cavalry gets horsemanship feats. Marines get shipboard fighting feats, etc.

While often useful, I am some times wary of "path" type design methods. Mainly because it eliminates the ability to have a character of a class who is just that class. You cant be just a Fighter and do a bit of this and a bit of that, your a Cavalry Fighter or a Command Fighter.

I think Armor as DR and CBDB would in themselves help the fighter a lot, as would the inclusion of more (good, useful, balanced) feats (especially making things like Uncanny Dodge) into feats. Increasing skills would make them more interesting as well.

Every class gets +1 Skill Point/Class Level in ALL Class Skills, PLUS their current Skill Points... These may be spent to maximize skills, or for Cross-Class Skills, as desired. Maximums are done as now.

Interesting idea.

Roll Sorceror/Wizard into one class, give the Sorceror the bonus magic Feats, and make them two variants of one class.

They already are two variants of one class. Thats why I think the Sorcerer needs to be individulized and improved, or just taken out.

Do the same with the other (Semi-)Spellcasters. Make a Spontaneous Casting variant of each, and a Studied Caster (with Scribe Scroll as a free Feat) of each. The player chooses which one they want their PC to be.

Eh...I dont really see why there needs to be a spontaneous version and a wizard-style version of every class that casts spells. If the magic system is not in any way changed, I doubt anything like this would happen, although I think making the Druid and Cleric spontaneous (as described in UA) would be interesting abd possibly more balanced.

In relation to 3, lots of new special abilities relating to the "Job" of each class, and similar Class-only Feats... For instance, the Druid might get Speak With Animals as an At-Will Ability at a certain level, and a Ranger or Bard might have a Class-only Feat to allow the same ability.

Interesting idea, although I think many of them would need to be extremely minor like unto the little flavour abilities Magister's get in AU.

Spellcraft is done away with as a separate skill, and all Spellcraft tasks are performed with Knowledge (Arcana).

....why? Theres not really any need to have less skills, and while these 2 do have similiarities, they are different. Spellcraft is the study of spells and their identification. Knowledge (Arcana) represents studying ancient mysteries, esoterica, magical creatures and the like.

Bards automatically receive Perform (Voice), which includes all aspects of singing, oratory, poetry, whatever, as a freebie. They may then spend their skill points/level to maximize this, and/or on instruments. This solves the "No one will ever take an instrument!" problem.

I think I'd rather have it be an automatic perform skill of the players choice. Not all bards neccesarilly sing as their primary performance.

Concentration could be removed as a skill, being rolled into Knowledge (Arcana), as well (although the Class Skills lists would have to be updated).

What does concentrating have to do with studying esoterica? I think maybe Concentration should be a class skill for everbody, but making it part of Knowledge (Arcana) makes no sense.

To reduce the reliance upon magic items, "Items" should be buyable as a "Power", instead. So you buy "+1 Power" instead of a "+1 Sword", and any weapon you use is treated as +1. Same with armor, etc. Then other special weapons/armor abilities can be stacked on. This needs playtesting to see how abusive it is, but sounds good to me.

To me, this sounds overly complicated, and it also doesnt figure in magic items gained through adventuring.

I'd be happy just to see rules presented in core for a game with a different, lower level of magic item assumption.

It'll Never Happen: Spells all have a spell failure chance... You start with 50%, and go down from there (just like a Fighter's chance to hit). Spell damage is greatly reduced (in line with weapons damage), but can also be used at will, as long as you have components. Eventually, you get to 100%, but new spells start at 50%. Thus, it is better to use a "Sure-fire" low-level spell than the handy-dandy new Zappathingum you just got.

Your right...it wont ever happen, nor should it in D&D. D&D is a system that assumes characters can always use their abilities effectively...its easier and I think more enjoyable that way.

PCs start getting the powers, abilities, and skills they need to do their jobs, and have something left over to flavor themselves as they please.

This is one of the reasons I love Feats so much. the introduction of Feats was a big step in this direction.

 

[Merlion]

That it is not worth the work. New editions change stuff. That requires a lot of work. If they are not going to change thingd, there is no point in a new edition.
glass.

This is an important point to remember in this discussion. Their *will* be a new edition, and they *will* change things.

However on the flip side many things wont change...I am pretty sure it will still be d20, I know they arent going to *remove* (note remove, not neccesarilly that they wont change) classes, armor class, and hit points as the basics of the system. I dont foresee a move away from a lots-of-classes system to a three-or-four-basic-classes system.

I dont see them removing Skills or Feats.

So thats why I think many things will be *changed* (such as adding CBDB and Armor as DR into the whole combat mix, which changes things but removes no sacred cows).

They have to change something in a new edition, but still keep certain things a certain way.

 

[mmadsen]

I see Class Based Defense Bonuses, and Armor as Damage Reduction quite possibly becoming core.

Agreed. I'd prefer to see Defense and a Damage Save though. A Damage Save speeds up the game and brings standard combat a bit more into line with spells and specialized combat maneuvers -- if you beat your opponent on a roll, something bad happens to him.

Many people have negative feelings about things like hit points, armor class, and the overall extremely abstract nature of DnD combat.

It's not the abstraction of D&D combat that bothers people; it's the oddity of "hitting" and "doing damage" without really hitting, but still needing to heal the damage, etc. D&D combat can be very concrete and detailed in ways that don't make sense (realistically or cinematically).

Remove the Arcane/Divine terminology.

Either remove it or make it meaningful (e.g., quasi-Christian priests vs. quasi-diabolicaly magicians).

Remove Alignment And Roleplaying restrictions.

I believe d20 Modern already moves in this directions, with Allegiances rather than Alignments. I wouldn't mind Allegiances with ranks, like skills.

Expand Feats/Change the Rogue

Certainly each class's special abilities could become feats. I don't think the goal is to make any ability available to anyone so much as it's to make each class more flexible -- and to make new classes easier to devise.

Certainly the holy-warrior archetype could just be a Fighter with a bonus-feat list full of holy feats.

Fix the Cleric.

I'd love to see the Cleric replaced by a non-combat Priest class that multiclasses well with the holy-warrior Fighter.

I'd also love to see Domains expanded to more than one spell per level, so that three domains could define a Priest's spell list.

Fix or Remove the Sorcerer: The Sorcerer either needs to get its own archetypal and class-role identity separate from the Wizard, and be balanced within it, or it needs to be removed.

The Sorcerer is obviously a variant Wizard that they gave a cool "dragon blood" backstory as a rationale for allowing both variants in the core game.

I'd love to see some kind of Sorceror (or Psion) class with mechanics that lend themselves to any spellcasting monster or character with a few magical abilities -- not just the typical progression up the spell-level ladder.

Increase Skill Points.

Or decrease everything else. Seriously.

 

[mmadsen]

Armor as DR just makes SO much more sense. Wearing metal doesnt keep you from getting hit, it keeps you from getting hurt. Its not a super drastic difference mechanically, especially past low levels...its just a whole lot more logical.

Actually, the AC rules are more realistic for a man armed with a knife or rapier against another man in a breastplate -- especially at first level, where a knife or rapier wound could conceivably be crippling.

A more common argument against armor-as-DR is that the math doesn't work out well in play. A knife becomes useless against a chain shirt or breastplate.

Of course, this is fixed by increasing the probability of critical hits -- which also helps solve the problem of escalating hit points.

But I think a Damage Save (or something similar) makes more sense than either AC or armor-as-DR.

 

[Belen]

That is the main fault with Armor as DR, none of the low damage weapons would work, thus anyone who was in combat melee would need extra strength etc.

I also do not think it is more believable.

 

[Merlion]

Agreed. I'd prefer to see Defense and a Damage Save though. A Damage Save speeds up the game and brings standard combat a bit more into line with spells and specialized combat maneuvers -- if you beat your opponent on a roll, something bad happens to him.

This could be interesting (although I dont know how interesting without more details on exactly what you mean), but I think it may be a little to far from the D&D standard to be likely. armor as DR isnt a terribly drastic change, and its one they've already put into an Open Game product.

Either remove it or make it meaningful (e.g., quasi-Christian priests vs. quasi-diabolicaly magicians).

I definitly wouldnt enjoy that particular version of making it meaningful. I'd much rather have it removed and have types of magic depend solely on each and every individual class.

I believe d20 Modern already moves in this directions, with Allegiances rather than Alignments. I wouldn't mind Allegiances with ranks, like skills

I wasnt very clear...I dont mind having an Alignment system, i just dont think base classes should have alignment restrictions.

Certainly each class's special abilities could become feats. I don't think the goal is to make any ability available to anyone so much as it's to make each class more flexible -- and to make new classes easier to devise.

Well the trouble is making every classes special abilities into actual *feats* (as oposed to modular abilities which they already sort of are) is that it automatically makes them more availble since anyone can take any feat they meet the pre requisites for.

Also, to me on a flavor level mystical/supernatural and highly specfic abilities as feats is just to...simple. Some things should have to come from following a specfic path (like Wildshape and Bardic Music).

However I think including more information probably in the DMG about swapping class abilities to create variants would be good. Both to make it easier, and to make DMs less terrified of changing anything.

I'd also love to see Domains expanded to more than one spell per level, so that three domains could define a Priest's spell list.

I did something like this. Creating a decent Priest class that actually fits different religions isnt that hard.

Of course what I really want is no Priest or "divine" classes at all, and religion as an option rather than a neccessity.

I'd love to see some kind of Sorceror (or Psion) class with mechanics that lend themselves to any spellcasting monster or character with a few magical abilities -- not just the typical progression up the spell-level ladder.

Something like this would be nice. Anything to make the Sorcerer different, and worthwhile.

 

[Merlion]

That is the main fault with Armor as DR, none of the low damage weapons would work, thus anyone who was in combat melee would need extra strength etc.

why? The most DR you can get out of armor in the UA System is 4 points for Full Plate.

Yes, that would negate the base damage of a dagger, but thats it. Should a person with a dagger and a str of 10 really be able to hurt someone in full plate?

And not everyone is going to be wearing full plate. Even most of the other heavy armors only have 2 or 3 DR.

as mmadsen says simply increasing Crits slightly would put everything out very nicely.

I also do not think it is more believable

It may not be perfectly realistic but I cant see how its not more believeable than having to do multi stage thinking.

"armor should really reduce the amount of damage I take, but it actually raises my AC. So I just have to think of it as making me take less damage because I am getting hit less."

Why not just have it make you take less damage, period?

 

[mmadsen]

One thing I would REALLY like to see (but I think some others' comments about it messing with some people's sacred cows are accurate) is a completely CLASSLESS system - everything for classes done with skills and feats. The ultimate in custom configurable characters. And that big area of the PHB previously absorbed with classes? Well, obviously part of it would be taken up with the extra feats and skills necessary.

But then you wouldn't have D&D, you would have GURPS. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with such a system. I have played GURPS, but it is not D&D.

No, removing classes from D&D would not turn it into GURPS. There are many, many differences between D&D and GURPS; that's just one difference. For an example of one way to do classless d20, look at Mutants & Masterminds, which, again, is just one example -- and one that doesn't stick too close to D&D.

 

[Grayhawk]

I'm quoting this part, as I too believe magic could do with an element of uncertainty.

IMO, that's what saving throws and spell resistance is for. Adding a spell failure chance that starts out at 50% makes me even less interested in playing a low-level spellcaster. No way I want to see this in D&D, as-is.

I didn't say that I wanted any kind of spell failure chance, just that I agreed that 'magic could do with an element of uncertainty', and then I directed attention to an idea in House Rules that makes spell casting in combat riskier than it currently is (IME the current 5 foot step and the Concentration mechanic makes it a pretty sure thing).

Just as a Fighter won't hit with all his attacks or a Rogue won't Spot everything, I believe that a caster should at least run the risk of having his spells interrupted.

Btw, I certainly agree that saving throws add an element of uncertainty to magic, and I also wouldn't want a straight up spell failure chance for spells, but I do believe that making spell casting in combat somewhat riskier is a laudable goal, so I would really appreciate any input on my idea.