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

[mmadsen]

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.

The Damage Save system in Mutants & Masterminds (which appears in Unearthed Arcana as the Injury System, I believe) works by assigning each attack a Damage Rank. Then the Damage Save DC against that attack is 15 + Damage Rank.

If you make your Damage Save, the attack only caused negligible damage -- no need to track minor bruising. If you fail slightly (by less than five), you take a solid hit -- you're at -1 to all future Damage Saves. If you fail by more than five but less than 10, you're hit and stunned. If you fail by 10 or more, you're out of the fight.

Such a system is at least as quick and easy at hit points (with less accounting!), is actually more realistic, and lends itself naturally to cinematic combat. It does need some kind of action/drama/fate points though; otherwise our brave heroes (or their dastardly foes) might fall in the first round of combat. Of course, once you add in action/drama/fate points, save-or-die spells become less of a problem too.

 

[Merlion]

And I do not doubt that a new edition will arrive. However, I am willing to bet that the new edition does not appear from another 3-4 years. Why? Because they would be shooting themselves in the foot by bringing out a new edition so close to the release of Eberron and DnDonline. Any major changes would tank Eberron before it got started.

Yea, thats exactly right. Also utterly irelevent to this discussion and this thread. Its not about when its going to come out, its speculation of what might happen when it does.

Armor as DR seems to be your pet change. I will say that it is highly unlikely that change will go into effect.

And you simply dislike it, but that doesnt effect the likelihood of its being made core.

It isnt a "pet change." Its simply a likely one, for a number of reasons. One of the biggest being that it isnt a terribly large change. It doesnt remove or even really change any sacred cows. Armor Class is still there and works the same way. Armor is still there, it just works in a slightly different way.

but the majority of people are just fine with the current Armor as AC.

First, I dont think thats true. The majority of people are probably "ok" with it, but its a frequently brought up complaint about the way the game works, in my experience. Because it is both unrealstic, and illogical. Especially when combined with the linked issue of the fact that right now, characters defenses are based entirely on equipment, and how that equipment works, and that a point is reached pretty quickly where the AC granted by armor no longer does one much good at all (since the AC system is all or nothing in nature).


Second in response to that...the majority of people are fine with the current edition, but their will still be another one. Just because everyone doesnt *hate* something doesnt mean they wouldnt like imrpovement.

And you're still ignoring that someone weilding a dagger against DR 8 just cannot damage the person

First, I am not ignoring it...I addressed it in my last post on the subject, which you are ignoring.

In the UA system (as I said before) the max DR you can get from armor is *4*(Full Plate). Thats enough to negate all normal damage from a person with a str of 11 or less wielding a totally normal dagger (which to me seems perfectly fine).

I also re iterated what another poster had said, that if such a system were used, tweaking things to slightly increase the chance of critical hits might not be a bad idea, to help represent a lucky shot with a low damage weapon.

So you basically want just the heavy fighter types to be viable options.

This is interesting...does this mean you dont think the heavy fighter types are viable options now?

I never said I thought that. Although I think the Fighter class could use a boost, and I think that AC/Attacks/Damage in combat do have some issues, and I think the combination of Armor as DR and CBDB helps address some of them, without making massive fundemental changes to the system of the game.

Armor as DR really is far more trouble than it is worth

I cant see this statement as anything but silly since, having used it, I know that 1) it is not trouble and 2) its worth a great deal.

Have you ever in fact tried it? (not that it should be neccesary, looking at the system should tell you its far from the great clunky thing you seem to think)

 

[buzz]

Well, this gets into a bit of a semantic issue. After all, a "5% increase" from 90% to 95% means that you hit 6% more often (1.06 times as often); a "5% increase" from 5% to 10% means that you hit 100% more often (2.00 times as often).

"How often" is a question dependant on whom you're fighting. It doesn't change the fact that a +1 bonus adds 5% to your chances to hit in any situation where you're not relying on a natural 20. It also increases the range of ACs you are capable of hitting by 1. There's no "narrow" end of the curve where the +1 is meaningless, becasue there is no curve. If my attack bonus is a monstrous +37, that +1 is still going to be useful when I need to hit an AC of 47. My chances go from 50% to 55%. Same when I'm trying to hit a measly AC10 with a wimpy attack of +0.

This is the nice thing about a linear distribution. In, e.g., a 3d6-roll-under system, that +1 becomes dramatically useless at the low and high ends, and incredibly useful in the middle range. In the former, the bonus is good for maybe less than 1% change in odds. In the latter, it can be worth as much as 12%-13%.

This is why the flat d20 roll suits D&D. It scales whether you're playing 1st level commoners or 40th level archmages. Ergo, why it's always in a PCs interest to increase their stats. There's no point at which the bonuses they provide become irrelevant.

 

[mmadsen]

Well, this gets into a bit of a semantic issue. After all, a "5% increase" from 90% to 95% means that you hit 6% more often (1.06 times as often); a "5% increase" from 5% to 10% means that you hit 100% more often (2.00 times as often).

"How often" is a question dependant on whom you're fighting.

Well, it's a question of who's attacking and who's defending. For a skilled fighter who's already 90% likely to hit his opponent, a +1 means he's 95% likely to hit his opponent. As I pointed out, that "5% increase" means he hits 1.06 times as often -- which we might call a "6% increase" in hits. For an unskilled combatant who's only 5% likely to hit that same opponent, a +1 means he's now 10% likely to hit. That same "5% increase" means he hits twice as often -- which we might call a "100% increase" in hits.

My point is merely that "5% increase" doesn't necessarily mean 5% more hits, and that the actual multiplier varies depending on the original to-hit probability.

There's no "narrow" end of the curve where the +1 is meaningless, becasue there is no curve.

Even without a bell-curve probability distribution, that +1 has much, much less effect for an attacker with a high bonus than for another attacker with a lower bonus (assuming the same opponent).

If my attack bonus is a monstrous +37, that +1 is still going to be useful when I need to hit an AC of 47. My chances go from 50% to 55%. Same when I'm trying to hit a measly AC10 with a wimpy attack of +0.

An attack bonus of +37 vs an AC of 47 is the same as an attack bonus of +0 vs an AC of 10 regardless of what dice you roll (as long as it's dice plus bonus vs. AC).

 

[Verequus]

I saw several (that's an understatement ) post about the subject on magic and spellcasting, so I take some representative ones for making my point.

Just a sidenote: Why is it that whenever I see a thread like this one one of the complaints I hear is about spellcasters multi-classing and loosing spell-level effectiveness?

Is it just a holdover form the previous editions when a multiclassed character was quite a bit more powerful for a given amount of XP?

Or do we really want a Fighter/Wizard to be as good as two single classed characters from a power stand point?

I realize there is a high demand for it post 3e release and therefore it was shoe-horned into 3.5 via prestige classes of questionable play balance and showed up in UA also but should there be more bang for your 20 levels as a multi class than single classed character?

I think it is something that has a valid balance stand point for not existing and the system for 4e should not be tweaked to allow such.

Sorry for the mini-rant.

I confess to being one of the guilty ones who keep complaining about multi-classed spellcasters, so I'll field this one .

The main problem with spellcasters in 3.xe is that they tend to lose out on quite a lot when then multiclass (apart from PrCs that give +1 spellcaster levels). They lose out on caster level, spells per day and access to higher level spells. Other classes do not lose out so much - fighter type classes still get to stack their BAB and hit points, and skill-focussed classes still get to stack their skill ranks. Multi-class combinations such as Fighter/Barbarian or Ranger/Rogue are still viable.

Thus, the main complaint about multi-classed spellcasters is that they are much less effective than practically any other character of their level. A Clr10/Wiz10 is less effective than a Clr20, a Wiz20, a Ftr20, or a Ftr10/Rog10. Just as multi-classed spellcasters were significantly over-powered in previous editions, they are significantly under-powered now.

There have been many "fixes" to make multi-classed spellcasters more viable, from prestige classes such as the Arcane Trickster, the Eldritch Knight and the Mystic Theurge, to the feat Practised Spellcaster (in Complete Divine) that helps to offset the spellcaster level deficit. However, to me, they are like masking tape on a leaky pipe that really ought to be replaced.

A magic rating system will go some way to solving the problem. I'm thinking a unified spell progression chart will also help so that Clr10/Wiz10 characters can still get access to 9th-level spell slots. What they will give up is access to higher-levels spells. That way, a Clr10/Wiz10 can still throw out a heightened (to 9th level) baleful polymorph and a quickened mass cure light wounds while his Wiz20 counterpart casts wail of the banshee and quickened cone of cold.

Someone else mentioned, that he would like to have a unified spells per day table.

Nearly all complaints about a inflexible magic system can be solved, if you use Elements of Magic Revised. No arcane/divine division, stacking caster level, all casters have the same amount of Magic Points for the same level and can use the same amount of spell lists (closest comparison would be probably a power of the new psionics, but a spell list is more flexible and has no minimum caster level for taking it).

The major base class is the Mage, somehow a merge of the wizard and the sorcerer, because class members can cast both spontaneous and prepared spells and choose, which amount of MP they want to divide between both applications. Oh, and they have access to all magical effects, meaning they can choose, if they want to mimic a wizard, a cleric or something in between. With that, a "wizard 20", a "cleric 20" and a "wizard 10/cleric 10" are equal in power.

If you want to have wizard/fighter, then the base class Mageknight is the choice. With a caster level of 15 at level 20 the trade-off between magical power and combat prowess is entirely fair (please don't use the typical D&D-spells for a comparison - EoMR-spells are weaker in power compared to the equivalent level, because flexibility has to have a cost somewhere for balance).

People, who like to have archetype classes and not a general Mage, should check Lyceian Arcana out - it details a lot of customizing options, along some flavored classes. Don't wait for the fourth edition, if you can have it 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.

Those kind of feats are included in EoMR.

And going back to the actual topic: Wizard could simply take the EoMR-machanics, because they are fully under the OGL. But I doubt, that they would do it, unless they they remove Vancian magic or want to include at least another option.

 

[zoroaster100]

Merlion, I am currently playing, and enjoying, something very close to core D&D 3.5. However, I strongly agree with pretty much everything you say about changes that would be good for 4th edition. One thing, though, I hope they make no changes that would impact the use of the D&D miniatures line, as I've invested a small fortune on those and hope to use them with any edition of D&D in my lifetime.

 

[buzz]

Well, it's a question of who's attacking and who's defending. For a skilled fighter who's already 90% likely to hit his opponent, a +1 means he's 95% likely to hit his opponent. As I pointed out, that "5% increase" means he hits 1.06 times as often -- which we might call a "6% increase" in hits. For an unskilled combatant who's only 5% likely to hit that same opponent, a +1 means he's now 10% likely to hit. That same "5% increase" means he hits twice as often -- which we might call a "100% increase" in hits.

Which is what you said earlier, and which isn't really the point. In both cases, +1 equates to an additional 5% chance of hitting, as you point out. The proportional increase is irrelevant, at least to the point I'm making. The original poster said that there's a point in D&D where a +1 bonus doesn't mean anything, and that's simply not true. A +1 bonus always means something because a d20 is linear.

My point is merely that "5% increase" doesn't necessarily mean 5% more hits, and that the actual multiplier varies depending on the original to-hit probability.

I'm not talking about an increase in number of hits. Not to mention, your "90% vs 5%" example applies to all characters regardless of skill level. There are times when a skilled fighter will have a 5% chance to hit, and when an unskilled commoner will have a 90% chance. The value of the bonus as an addition in a given situation remains the same regardless: a 5% shift.

Even without a bell-curve probability distribution, that +1 has much, much less effect for an attacker with a high bonus than for another attacker with a lower bonus (assuming the same opponent).

It has the same effect. It increases their chance to score a hit by 5%. That this 5% might not matter much when a skilled fighter is attackng a bound-and-gagged opponent or when a commoner tries to swing at Orcus (rough equivalents of the example you've set up) doesn't really speak to how a +1 bonus affects die rolls on a flat districution.

An attack bonus of +37 vs an AC of 47 is the same as an attack bonus of +0 vs an AC of 10 regardless of what dice you roll (as long as it's dice plus bonus vs. AC).

Yes, 50% = 50%. That's not my point. The point of my example was to show you that in both these cases --i.e., a lowly commoner and an epic-level warrior-- the +1 bonus means the same thing: a 5% addition to their chance to score a hit with a single attack. Ditto if either was in a situation where their chances were 5%, 25%, or 75%. Neither character is going to choose to forego the bonus, because the bonus matters. The only time the bonus doesn't matter is when you're deep into auto-hit/auto-miss territory (unless you're tlaking about mechanics that don't use that, like skill checks, in which case it always matters).

In a curved distribution, however, the closer to the narrow ends of the curve, the less value the bonus has. Assuming a 3d6-roll-under system, the +1 means maybe a .3% addition at the extremes, which isn't even worth the bother. In the middle, it could mean as much as 13%, very much worth the bother.

Now, you could argue that a +1 sword is of little use at very high levels, when you take into account things like the immunities possesed by high-CR monsters or that it's going to look shabby next to the +5 flaming burst ghost touch vorpal greatswords PCs can afford by then... but that doesn't really have anything to do with the value of a +1 bonus. If I'm that +37 fighter battling that AC47 demon, I'll take all the bonuses I can get. E.g., why PCs don't stop flanking opponents just becasue they're 19th level.

D&D/d20 is linear. It scales. The system knows this. There is no point in level advancement where bonuses become less useful. There are only situations (and generally pretty extreme ones) where they are more or less useful, and such situations are available at al levels of advancement.

 

[Steverooo]

22) It'll Probably Never Happen: Some sort of "Called Shot" Mechanic is returned to D&D, without necessarily needing a Feat (although a Feat can improve its operation, just like with Sunder & Trip). You can call a shot, and hit a specific thing. "I shoot the weapon out of his hand!", or "I shhot out the giant cyclop's eye, blinding it!". Maybe there's a penalty to hit, or the hit must threaten, or some other mechanic to offset the benefit, but there needs to be some sort of Called Shot rule.

AD&D 1e examples include shooting under the raised fin of landsharks, shooting out Beholders' eyes, etc. Something similar (and not level or Feat based) is still needed.

 

[mmadsen]

The original poster said that there's a point in D&D where a +1 bonus doesn't mean anything, and that's simply not true. A +1 bonus always means something because a d20 is linear.

A +1 bonus always means something on 2d10 or 3d6 too. It has nothing to do with a single d20's linearity.

Now, if the question is whether the bonus is meaningful, then we have to recognize two things: (1) a multi-die "bell curve" magnifies bonuses and penalties around the 50-50 midpoint, and (2) a "5% increase" isn't as meaningful between 90% and 95% as it is between 5% and 10%.

Not to mention, your "90% vs 5%" example applies to all characters regardless of skill level.

It applies regardless of absolute skill level, correct. It's a question of relative skill level. As I said before, an attack bonus of +37 vs an AC of 47 is the same as an attack bonus of +0 vs an AC of 10 regardless of what dice you roll (as long as it's dice plus bonus vs. AC).

It doesn't matter whether you roll a single d20, 2d10, or 3d6, an attack bonus of +37 vs an AC of 47 is the same as an attack bonus of +0 vs an AC of 10. It has nothing to do with the d20. It has nothing to do with linearity. A dice-plus-bonus-vs-AC system always scales perfectly if the bonus and AC increase in lock step, regardless of what dice we roll.

But I'm afraid we've strayed very, very far from the topic of what changes might appear in fourth edition and what changes we'd like to see in that edition. I only wanted to make the trifling semantic argument that a "constant" bonus isn't equally meaningful at all points along the (linear) curve.

 

[SSquirrel]

I think saying a certain thing has created a "breeding ground for powergamers" is...incorrect. A given thing...a class, a spell a feat, can be unbalanced, but if people are going to "power game" they are going to do it regardless. Thats about people, not the rules.

Ok now I'm sure someone between pages 2 and 8 has already pointed this out, but D&D has almost ALWAYS been a playground for powergamers. See pretty much ANY Elf in 2E, but especially Rangers it seemed like. See kits. Yes these are 2E examples, but I knew many gamers who would do ultra high level twinky kinda stuff like going thru the Greyhawk book and killing the gods in turn to get their gear heh. Star with Death so you have his uber scythe.

People will ALWAYS try to find advantages in ANY game system. Amber is an exercise in how well you can badger your opinion. Vampire has things like Chimerstry or the various blood magic powers which can be ridiculously powerful. I can't imagine power gaming happening in something like TOON, but it's on the short list of games like that *grin*

Hagen