Should 4th ed be point and level based?

[Vigilance]

People who enjoy point-buy systems are the minority of the market in my experience.

There I said it. Flame on.

M&M and True20 have a devoted fan base and are good games, but the majority of the market LIKES classes. They LIKE archetypes and predefined roles.

There is a small market of hardcore gamers that want ultimate flexibility and enjoy the point-based systems on the market (M&M, True 20, GURPs, Hero) but despite what these system's adherents say, having pre-defined party roles is a feature of D&D/d20, not a bug and is a key to the system's enduring appeal.

Chuck

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

I agree with Vigiliance. I love archetypes and find customization to be highly overrated.

 

[MerricB]

** Yeah, yeah, I'm working on the revision. I can only say it will be out before 4th ed.

Please don't say things like that, Joe. You know that 4e comes closer everytime it's mentioned...

Cheers!

 

[amethal]

There is a small market of hardcore gamers that want ultimate flexibility and enjoy the point-based systems on the market (M&M, True 20, GURPs, Hero) but despite what these system's adherents say, having pre-defined party roles is a feature of D&D/d20, not a bug and is a key to the system's enduring appeal.

Chuck

Surely True 20 isn't point-based? (unless you mean something different by the term than what I think it means!)

That aside, thanks for your point on "pre-defined party roles". Its finally enabled me to figure out why I'd like to play True 20 but the rest of my group would like to stick to D&D. Its because they like pre-defined party roles and I don't!

I'm always trying to design characters such as wizards who are good with traps, or clerics who thrive in the wilderness.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Ok, so you're talking about a level system that lets you choose how many skill points this level, do I want to increase BAB or saves, do I want a feat etc. In effect, no classes, just levels?

Pretty much. Something similiar to Blue Rose or Unearthed Arcana's generic classes with a lot more options built into it.

 

[Jupp]

*the following is not based on any numbers or hard facts... just guessing *

I think this would confuse the user base too much. Nowadays, with the many different rpg systems around people at first decide what game philosophy suits them best and then they will play that game. Now over the years that system will get a steady, if not growing, customer base due to how the game mechanics work compared to other systems (or it will go under if its too bad, too exotic or too complicated). If people do not like the rules after a few tries they will switch to other systems, otherwise they will stick with it, even over many years. Now imagine having such a drastic (ok, "drastic" is a wee bit over the top term, but let's use it for now) change as you propose for the next edition of 4e. I do not think that would work out well with the existing user base cause they are used to a certain way of how the game works. And changes like that would alter those mechanics too much so in the end you would probably see more people leaving the system than you would be able to gain because of those rule changes. It is my impression that the gold fields of RPG are more or less claimed and fortified nowadays. There are not too many more "virgin" gamers out there that could be lured into a new system so todays companies have to try the impossible mix of a) adding new stuff to justify new editions and b) keeping those changes in a range where they wont loose existing customers.

I think your proposal for 4e being point and level based would go too far. There are other systems out there that have the same or similar mechanics so why should D&D be changed in that direction.

*end of pure speculation and guesstimation*

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Pretty much. Something similiar to Blue Rose or Unearthed Arcana's generic classes with a lot more options built into it.

This is what I’m tinkering with. I would base it on True20 and try to make it even more flexible and customizable.
First some observations: If we for one second count the Warriors armor prof. as one feat, and ignore reputation, we can draw the following conclusions.

+10 Combat bonus (attack and defense) equals 20 adept levels (an Adept has +10 less to Combat over 20 levels, but gain 20 Adept levels ).

+5 Combat bonus equals 5 feats (An Expert has +5 less to Combat over 20 levels, but gain 4 skill points more [2 feats] and +6 to saves [3 feats]).

So one Adept level equals ½ a feat, one feat equals +1 Combat.

+1 to Combat for one feat is pretty powerful, IMO. But many powerful abilities like Divine Grace only cost a feat in True20.

Now, the problem with this is, that it doesn’t include HD, which will screw the numbers some. But it’s a start. It could be a base to calculate cost of options, I think.

Upper Krust’s CR system rates a feat equal to 1/6 a CR and a character level equal to 1 CR (wealth per level is 1/3 a CR.) This can also help determine cost.

 

[Zappo]

It should be just as it is now, except that stacking and conditional modifiers should be massively reduced. Bonus types should be reduced, unnamed bonuses should be eliminated, creation of new bonus types should be explicitly discouraged, and no bonus type should stack. For example, all spells and magic items should give a nonstacking "magical bonus" by default to whatever they affect; effects that give other bonuses should be rare and amply justified (an effect that physically creates a suit of steel armor could be an example). Similar design constraints should be placed on feats, class features, and so on.

This may seem like the usual gripe about bonuses, but I think that it would have a deeper effect on the game, curbing powergaming and forcing better mechanic design. IMO, instances where you have to count more than three or four modifiers should be rare.

 

[JoeGKushner]

It should be just as it is now, except that stacking and conditional modifiers should be massively reduced. Bonus types should be reduced, unnamed bonuses should be eliminated, creation of new bonus types should be explicitly discouraged, and no bonus type should stack. For example, all spells and magic items should give a nonstacking "magical bonus" by default to whatever they affect; effects that give other bonuses should be rare and amply justified (an effect that physically creates a suit of steel armor could be an example). Similar design constraints should be placed on feats, class features, and so on.

This may seem like the usual gripe about bonuses, but I think that it would have a deeper effect on the game, curbing powergaming and forcing better mechanic design. IMO, instances where you have to count more than three or four modifiers should be rare.

Ironically enough, a point based system can easily do that.

 

[swrushing]

However, at some point, the sheer wealth of options must crumble around itself.

Would D&D be better off using levels as a tool in terms of how many feats, hit points and skills you can have, and using points to buy those things?

I'm starting to think so....

I find "classes" to be worth their while for fantasy games or other games where "the game world" is very different from our own. You learn a whole lot about the world not by reading a ton of backgeound text but by going thru the chargen process. Many more people will go thru that process and learn from it than will read your background info at more than a skim level.

So, i do not think DND is served by a more generic building blocks or point buy system.

which isn't to say that your point about the mass of complexity that all the tons of options pile on isn't valid. I do think, however, there is a place for not only "is this good" and "does this make sense?" to be considered before implementing a new feature but also "should we?."

I mean i can see breaking out racial types into cultural and physical packages so you can have an elf "raised by humans" be different than an elf raised by elves and so forth. But i also have to ask myself "is this worth the further complexification of chargen?"

The answer will depend on your design goal.