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

[buzz]

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

But the linearity makes the +1 always mean the same shift in probability, no? On a 3d6 curve, there are points where that +1 is pretty irrelevant, .3% as opposed to the d20's 5% across the board.

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.

I guess this is ultimately what I was trying to say w/r/t the original disdain for the +1 bonus, but got conflated with the linearity issue. I understand now what you're saying about the relative merit of the bonus in a given instance, and how this relates to the roll v. AC mechanic, and not the die curve underlying it.

In general, the challeneges in D&D scale along with the PCs' ability. There is no CR/level-of-ability at which the +1 becomes useless, only situations in which it does, and these situations span all levels of advancement. Ergo, why I didn't see this as anything that needed to be "fixed" in our hypothetical 4e.

Damn your Vulcan logic, mmadsen...

 

[mmadsen]

In general, the challeneges in D&D scale along with the PCs' ability. There is no CR/level-of-ability at which the +1 becomes useless, only situations in which it does, and these situations span all levels of advancement. Ergo, why I didn't see this as anything that needed to be "fixed" in our hypothetical 4e.

Agreed.

Champions, by the way, uses a very similar system to d20, but with 3d6. It naturally scales well, since all that matters is your Offensive Combat Value vs your opponent's Defensive Combat Value.

GURPS, on the other hand, doesn't naturally scale across skill levels. You effectively roll against a static DC to hit. Then your opponent rolls against a static DC to dodge, parry, or block. This has the advantage of being fairly quick, despite the two rolls, because you don't compare skills or perform any math, and it may reflect reality fairly well -- trained swordsmen parry each other, untrained brawlers windmill at each other -- but it means that "high level" characters always "hit" without hitting, because their "high level" opponents always successfully parry.

Damn your Vulcan logic, mmadsen...

 

[mmadsen]

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.

I'd like to see (a) greater odds of critical hits, and (b) alternatives to multiplying damage. Instead of taking the damage multiple, for instance, you could take a "free" disarm attempt, or bull rush, etc.

AD&D 1e examples include shooting under the raised fin of landsharks, shooting out Beholders' eyes, etc.

Really? Where?

 

[rangerjohn]

Steverooo, nice list.

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

And on that subject I don't hope anyone will be offended if I blatantly link to a thread I recently started in House Rules, than until now have went unnoticed.

It deals with making spellcasting less of a sure thing in combat and I'd appreciate any input, both from those interrested in such a thing and from those who would just give my mechanic some criticism as an intellectual exercise.

The only way something like this would work, is if the spell caster could cast spells as oftern as a fighter can swing a sword.

 

[Grayhawk]

The only way something like this would work, is if the spell caster could cast spells as oftern as a fighter can swing a sword.

Just to clarify my position on this, I'm not advocating a Spell Failure check, but rather a way to make spell casting in combat a bit riskier than it currently is.

Kinda like in previous editions where you called out your actions and rolled for initiative each round, thus risking to have your spell casting interrupted by those that got to act before you in that particular round.

Again, for those interested my idea on how to do this is in this thread.

 

[mmadsen]

The only way something like this would work, is if the spell caster could cast spells as oftern as a fighter can swing a sword.

There are more ways to boost a spellcaster's power than just allowing more spells per day: higher level spells, wider selection of spells, spontaneous spells, metamagic feats, etc.

 

[buzz]

Just to clarify my position on this, I'm not advocating a Spell Failure check, but rather a way to make spell casting in combat a bit riskier than it currently is.

I'm in general agreement with rangerjohn, in that, if you're going to introduce anything that makes D&D magic "riskier", there has to be some sort of compensation. D&D magic is already very rigid and inflexible, and low-level casters already so limited in ability, that taking away the one thing they can rely on (assuming they don't get whacked while casting) is going to make spellcasting suck rocks.

I would be happy to see, however, something along the lines of Ars Magica, i.e., casting a "formulaic" spell (i.e., as written in the PHB) is a safe bet, but you can opt to enhance and modify it in exchange for a failure chance, or maybe some non/lethal damage. It'd certianly be more fun than metamagic.

But, given the choice, I'd honestly rather just see D&D adopt the magic system from Arcana Unearthed, which is way more fun.

 

[Rawwedge]

I don't think I'll be buying a 4th Edition.

I have enough gaming material to last a lifetime. Books are getting too expensive anyway. If want to change some rules, I'll just make house rules.

Exactly! I was foolish enough to jump on the book buying bandwagon for a while but the bloom is off the rose now. Once in a while something interesting comes along but it is usually a diamond buried amidst a great deal of expensive, repetitive crap.
No edition can ever be everything to everyone, especially under the Wotc marketing plan. Once you have a few key books to build around with your own material, the game takes care of itself.

 

[SSquirrel]

But, given the choice, I'd honestly rather just see D&D adopt the magic system from Arcana Unearthed, which is way more fun.

Hear hear!

Hagen

*useful post huh?*

 

[Steverooo]

I'm in general agreement with rangerjohn, in that, if you're going to introduce anything that makes D&D magic "riskier", there has to be some sort of compensation. D&D magic is already very rigid and inflexible, and low-level casters already so limited in ability, that taking away the one thing they can rely on (assuming they don't get whacked while casting) is going to make spellcasting suck rocks.

Notice, here, that RangerJohn is replying to Grayhawk, who jumped in on something I said, and linked to his own thread in House Rules... What I originally said was this:

17) 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.

Note that (while I said this will never happen in 4e, or even 5e), while a first level Mage might have Magic Missile at 50%, he would be able to use it as often as he wanted (as long as he was able to see, move, speak, and had his material components - there's your added benefit), and would never lose it because he failed his casting. Wizrads would also need their spell books to study (unless that was removed as a restriction).

This would require a complete overhaul of the magic system, however. It would no longer be Vancian, and Fireball, Lightning Bolt, etc., would be greatly reduced in damage. (IIRC, the maximum damage on a melee weapon is 4D8, on a critical hit, and spells would have to be likewise limited).

So, a beginning Wizard, as an example, has a 50% chance to cast Read Magic, and three other spells, plus (say) a 55% chance to cast Cantrips, plus a 50% chance to cast three other spells of choice... At 2nd level, he has a 60% chance on the Cantrips, gains two more spells @ 50%, and has a 55% chance on the four from first level, and any scrolls he found, or spells he learned at first.

By third level, his Cantrips are @ 65%, his 1rst level spells at 60%, any spells he learned during 2nd level @ 55%, and he gets two more spells @ 50%. At fourth level, he gets two 2nd level spells @ 50%, and his Cantrips are 70% likely to go off unhindered, Read Magic, Magic Missile, etc., go off 65% of the time, etc.

By 10th level, his Cantrips and first level spells go off 100% of the time, and his new, fifth level spells are @ 50%. The spells he gained at 4th level (his first second level ones) are now @ 80%, his first third level spells (gained at sixth level) are @ 70%, and his first fourth level spells (gained at 8th level) at 60%. (I'm doing that from memory, so I may be a bit off.)

By 18th level, his first 9th level spells will be starting @ 50%, while he'll have a 100% chance of successfully using any spell of 4th level or lower.

Now considering that "Spell Failure" doesn't mean that you lose your spell (just that it doesn't go off that round), and since no spell now does more than 2D6 Base Damage (with a possible critical for more), this is more than enough of a tarde-off. Any Spellslinger can now use his spells as often as he wants, as long as he can see his target, speak in a strong voice, make movements freely, and has his material components (and daily access to his spell books, if a Wizard). It makes the PC both more and less powerful, and magic less of an "I shot my wad!" affair.

I'd love to see it done, but I don't believe that we'll ever see it in D&D. Not even 5e! I do think the trade-offs balance out, though.

Of course, any Spell Failure from armor, shield, etc., would add to the usual amount. Magic-using types would tend not to wear armor, unless they received a special dispensation to allow it.