D&D 4E What I'd Like to See in D&D® 4e

[reanjr]

Combat... Make combat more flavorful for the fighter-types. Wizards have all their neat spells, fighter-types should have multi-round tactical options, cinematic fighting styles and squad-based tactical options. I would change the current iteritive attack scheme so that each character has *one* Base Attack Roll. If you want to make multiple attack, you choose to do so by taking a cumulative -4 penalty to all attacks (for each additional strike). That means if I have a BAR of +20, I can make two attacks @ +16 each, three attacks at +12 each and so on. This reduces the number of useless attacks at higher levels and allows the player to choose from making a small number of accurate strikes - against a powerful dragon perhaps, or making more, innaccurate ones - say against low level mooks.

Probably enough for now...

Thoughts?

A'koss.

I already do something like this for my game, except I use -5 penalties and it applies to any type of action with a check. So, you could move and attack at no penalty. Or you could move and take 2 attakcs each at -5 penalty. Or move, attack, attack, activate a magic item at -10 penalty. Things like flurry of blows and rapid shot grant a single free attack (unarmed or monk weapon with flurry, ranged weapon with rapid shot) each round. So a monk/wizard could move, cast a spell, then attack unarmed at no penalty. An Archer could shoot 3 times with no penalty, but a fourth shot would make them all -5. I'd like to see something like this in D&D as it clears up confusion for different action types (standard, move, free, swift, immediate, etc.) All you have is action, full-round action, and not an action, which are all self-explanatory. And as stated before, you get rid of iterative attacks at different bonuses, which is just a pain.

 

[vortex]

Great topic!

I really like many of the suggestions i've heard so far. A few of my own, some already mentioned...

1> Scrap current magic system. How about a skill check based system. This would entail a major overhaul of the current framework but would more closely mimic a lot of magic in fantasy. Perhaps this could be balanced with casting fatigue of some sort. I'm interested in checking out the Black Company Setting as i hear it has something like this.

2> Armor as damage reduction with all the mess this would entail built in. For a great example of this see The Waking Lands website... http://www.wakinglands.com/htm_files/the_combat_variant_page.htm

3> An optional, workable called shot rule with rules for piecemeal armor.

4> Less dependence on buffing magic items. It is very difficult to run a low magic item game as it destroys the balance of classes and CR encounters. Also eliminate magic items that grant class specific abilities instead of enhancing them. Ex. amulet granting undead turning.

5> Combat maneuvers and skill based stunts like in the Book of Iron Might. Great product!

6> Permanent spell effects seperated into rituals similar to S&S Relics and Rituals or Living Imagination's Spellbound.

7> Weapon Group proficiencies from Unearthed Arcana. These are fantastic, only a minor change and add a lot of flavor.

8> Tracking and trapfinding available to anyone, albeit at a very high difficulty.

- Feydras

Feydras - i think these suggestions have been propsed before - It was called RuneQuest!

 

[A'koss]

I already do something like this for my game, except I use -5 penalties and it applies to any type of action with a check. So, you could move and attack at no penalty. Or you could move and take 2 attakcs each at -5 penalty. Or move, attack, attack, activate a magic item at -10 penalty...

I think that's a great idea reanjr - kudos! While I might argue in favor of a base -4 penalty (though base 5 is easier to calculate), I love the modularity of it.

One other thing I wouldn't mind seeing addressed is movement in combat. I think combatants are allowed to move too far before others on the battlefield can act. I'm not sure what could be done though that wouldn't be too cumbersome in play. Break the round into two parts? Three? Have a distinction between movement and combat movement? Thoughts?

Cheers!

 

[Afrodyte]

Akoss,

Somewhere on this forum I had an idea of an action slot system for combat. I've done some thinking about it since then, but the gist of the concept is the same.

Each round is composed of a number of action slots (5, 6, or 10). An action slot represents a unit of time during which your character can do something simple such as draw a weapon, aim a weapon, swing or shoot a weapon, walk, say a brief phrase, stand up or lie down, etc. More complicated actions such as charging and bull rushing essentially become a string of action slots. If you try to do more in a round than your actions slots allow, you gain a cumulative -5 penalty for each action slot beyond the 5th, indicating that you are rushed or harried or otherwise not putting all your effort into doing something right as opposed to quickly. This only applies to things you physically do, not things you think or perceive, although it is reasonable to apply a penalty to those things as well (probably a cumulative -2 penalty).

You determine initiative as the core rules. Initiative, besides telling who goes first, determines which characters get to act during which action slot. The character with the highest initiative naturally goes first and on the first slot, and people act on down the line. If your initiative is 5 below the highest, you start your action on the second slot. If 10 below, the third, and so on until you reach 20 below the highest initiative, which means you only get a chance to act at the very end of the round. Now, a round only has 5 action slots, which means that if you get to act on the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th slot, you can't do as much in a round as the one who gets to act first without penalty.

There are still turns, but turns represent basic actions that can be described and resolved quickly (move, attack, start casting a spell, etc). You start your turn at your prescribed action slot (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.). Each turn, you get to resolve up to 2 action slots' worth of things. If you try to do something more complicated, you have to resolve it on your next turn. If someone has their turn during the same action slot as somebody else, they go in order of initiative.

Examples of what you can do with action slots:
1 action slot: move action
2 action slots: standard action, 2 move actions
3 action slots: full round action

Let's say you wanted to run up 50 ft. of stairs, jump onto the chandelier, and cut the rope so it can drop on your opponents (standard swashbuckling maneuver). On your first turn, you use both action slots to bound up the stairs. On your second turn, you use both action slots to jump onto the chandelier and quickly cut the rope. If you get a third turn that round, you could probably do a little bit more.

Of course, in a real combat, you have to think about things like initiative and the other people in the combat. So let me give you an example.

Greg is the GM. The characters are Fred Fighter, Rick Rogue, Clarence Cleric, and Willy Wizard. They are looking for treature in an abandoned castle. Unfortunately, about 20 elven bandits have made this their headquarters, and they don't like visitors. The party finds its way into the ballroom.

Greg: The elves start entering the ballroom. There are about two dozen in all. Most of them have swords, but about a third of them have bows. Roll initiative.
Abby (Fred's player): 9.
Bill (Rick's player): 19.
Chuck (Clarence's player): 8.
Dave (Willy's player): 18.
Greg: Now the elves get 15. Initiative order is Rick, Willy, elves, Fred, and Chuck. Rick and Willy and the elves go on the 1st action slot. Fred and Chuck have to wait until the 3rd action slot to go. So, Bill, what's Rick up to?
Bill: How long is the stairway?
Greg: About 40 or 50 feet.
Bill: Rick starts running up the stairs.
Greg: Willy?
Dave: I start casting hypnotism. It should go off on my turn next round.
Greg: The elves start filing into the room. The ones with swords draw their weapons, and the ones with bows start aiming. Nobody goes on the second slot, so that brings us to...3rd slot. Who can act now?
Abby: I can.
Chuck: Me.
Bill: Me too.
Greg: And the elves can act too. Let's go in initiative like before. Rick?
Bill: I jump on the chandelier. Jump check. My result is...11.
Greg: You almost land on the chandelier, but you didn't jump quite hard enough.
Bill: Oh, man!
Greg: Make a reflex save.
Bill: 20.
Greg: You manage to grab on to one of the arms of the chandelier, and you're dangling above the fight. Trying not to fall takes one of your action slots this turn.
Bill: Fair enough.
Greg: Willy's casting a spell, so it's the elves' turn. The archers turn their bows toward Rick, who's struggling to get on top of the chandelier. The elves with swords start closing in on Fred and Willy. The archers attack Rick. They miss. Arrows whiz by Rick. Now, Abby.
Abby: Fred charges toward the elf nearest him. How far away is he?
Greg: About 20 feet or so.
Abby: OK. I start charging.
Greg: Chuck.
Chuck: I cast spiritual weapon. It goes off on the 5th slot.
Greg: Alright. Anybody go on the 4th slot?
Abby: I do.
Greg: Alright.
Abby: I'm gonna use Power Attack, three for three. I rolled a 16.
Greg: That hits. Damage?
Abby: 20 points.
Greg: Ouch. You almost cleave his head in two.
Abby: Yes!
Greg: Now it's the 5th slot. Who goes this turn?
Chuck: Me.
Bill: Me too.
Greg: Bill, you go first since you have initiative.
Bill: Try to pull up onto the chandelier. Strength check...8.
Greg: Nope. Chuck.
Chuck: Spiritual weapon since the 4th slot was when it manifested, would attacking still take up 2 slots. The description says I use my Wisdom mod instead of Strength for it to attack since it works as a spell and not a weapon.
Greg: I'm going to say that it doesn't.
Chuck: OK. Cool. I'm gonna go for the elf that's close to flanking Fred. Attack..natural 20! That's a threat. Then...11? It's a force weapon, so does it use touch AC?
Greg: Even if I did, 11 wouldn't hit. Damage?
Chuck: 4.
Chuck: The elves try to shoot Rick again. A few of them back off from Fred, particularly the one that just got hit with Clarence's spell and the ones who were near the one who got his head split open.
Abby: Heh-heh.
Greg: That takes up their slot. Any other actions this round?
Abby: Are the elves pretty close together?
Greg: Yeah.
Abby: I'm going to attack the nearest one.
Greg: A standard attack, or a flurry or rushed attack?
Abby: Standard attack.
Greg: OK. You get a -5 penalty since it goes over the 5 slots you're allowed.
Abby: OK. And that could've been a crit. 16.
Greg: Hit.
Abby: 15 points.
Greg: He's dead. Any other actions? Next round...
​

 

[woodelf]

- More concise skills (ie. consolidating move silently and hide)
- Few classes with more options. I would never implement the UA generic classes, but I see it as a possibility for the future. You want to be a barbarian? Take the "warrior" class and then get the appropriate "feats/class abilities" to be a barbarian. Of course, then you get wizards who can rage...which I think is what this is going towards: additional flexibility.
- race "classes"

The core classes themselves would not have so much Greyhawk built into them, or even so much 'Pseudo-Medieval' built into them. Thus, fighters would just be people who fight best, where the feats you pick determine if you wear armor, or are a monk, or a barbarian. Experts are the skill guys who win by out-thinking the enemy, but that can mean you're an inspiring bard, or a sneaky back-stabber, or a monster-hunting scholar.

Couldn't agree more--that was the direction things were heading from AD&D1 to AD&D2, and i wish they'd continued in that way [functionalist classes] with D&D3E, instead of reversing course and re-emphasizing assorted archtypal classes.

Mages could be updated easily to keep core D&D sacred cows while making multi-classing work. Spells would be divided up into traditions (with the 3 samples being wizardry, clerical, and naturalistic, though gamers could easily create new ones). Whenever you level up you can pick spells that you know from whichever tradition you're leveling up in. Choosing spells of a certain level in a particular tradition have a prerequisite number of ranks of Knowledge (tradition), so dabbling in two traditions isn't that hard to do, but dabbling in lots can be hard.

The ability to cast spells you don't know by preparing them in advance will be a feat, so you can still make a classical wizard.

And here's yet another thing i've been working on for a while (i did the preliminary work a while ago, but, honestly, it's pretty low priority for me, so i haven't touched any D20 System work in a year or two). The more i read threads on EnWorld and RPGNet, the more i think i'd better actually get around to my "D&D 'Done Right'" rules, and actually get them out there. Sounds like a pretty fair chunk of people are looking for exactly what i've been working on.

The Player's Handbook should have a chapter, at least 10 pages long, on how you can use the same classes to create different types of concepts, for different classic fantasy archetypes, or for exotic things like Arabian, Japanese, or Planescapian.

Couldn't agree more. The AU Players' Guide has pretty much exactly this, and it's something that, for a crunchy system like D&D3E, is a must-have, IMHO.