The Perfect Number

[LordGraz'zt]

Nope, you were clear enough; I want an infinite number of options - or only limited by my imagination.

You don't need to have a system with "powers".

edit: Such a system would be simple: action resolution would resolve the character's specific actions and remove abstraction, for the most part.

This sounds like a narrative style system.

I guess a middle ground is something like Vampire: The Masquerade's Disciplines - you had "powers" but they were not overly defined and there was a lot of room to move within them but there was still a limit to what you could and could not do.

 

[LostSoul]

This sounds like a narrative style system.

Maybe? I'm not sure what you mean by narrative.

The idea is simple: just like in the rest of the game, the player describes their character's action. e.g. "I beat aside the orc's sword and punch him in the throat with my spiked gauntlet." Since all attack rolls are going to be opposed, dice need to be rolled. Modifiers are added based on the character's action. The DC is determined by the character's action. e.g. "I stab through his armour" vs. "I tackle his legs".

Where you part with traditional D&D combat is when you deal with the effect: does a spiked gauntlet deal 1d4+STR damage no matter the character's action, does any attack to the throat deal 2d6+STR damage, or do all lethal attacks deal 1d6+STR (for brute force) or +DEX (for precision) damage? Or do you drop HP and rely on the DM to describe the effect? Damage and HP are abstract; that's why I think that, in order to get "infinite" options you'd need to drop the abstraction.

I guess a middle ground is something like Vampire: The Masquerade's Disciplines - you had "powers" but they were not overly defined and there was a lot of room to move within them but there was still a limit to what you could and could not do.

Yeah, that sounds right. I think in D&D a middle ground could be achieved by weapon selection; similar to 3E, but without its dissociated mechanics. (That is, game mechanics "which have no association with the game world.") i.e. A longsword can be used to trip, and failing the roll shouldn't necessarily mean that you have to drop the sword or face a trip in response - it's possible based on what the character's actions are, but not necessary.

 

[Rhenny]

When I DM'd for my group for 3/3.5, we got to the point where play became very difficult for our spellcasters at about 10-13th level. Since we only played once every two months (maybe once a month on good months) it was difficult for the casters to remember all of their spells.

On the other hand, playing 4e (only up to level 5 so far) it seems like nearly every round the wizard ends up casting magic missle. Not much variety.

I still think there has to be something in-between 3.5 and 4e to make it optimal.

I definitely feel that fighters (and other melee classes) should have more options to start (trip, push, grapple, feint, fight defensively, etc.)