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

[Michael Sorensen]

I would like to see a really clear definition of a baseline adult human. This is really simple in point based games (ie, a normal adult human is a 50-point character). This is not so simple in D&D. All monster descriptions, non-human races, etc. should be based on this description. This description should also include no mention of class, or if it does (like a level 1 commoner), all PCs should use the same baseline as a reference point.

If such a definition already exists, please let me know.

 

[Kanegrundar]

I would like to see a really clear definition of a baseline adult human. This is really simple in point based games (ie, a normal adult human is a 50-point character). This is not so simple in D&D. All monster descriptions, non-human races, etc. should be based on this description. This description should also include no mention of class, or if it does (like a level 1 commoner), all PCs should use the same baseline as a reference point.

If such a definition already exists, please let me know.

I always considered a baseline adult human to be 10's in each stat and the commoner class. Beyond that, all monsters, humanoids, etc. use the same definitions for what their stats represent. Maybe I'm not fully understanding the question, since this is the way 3.0 and 3.5 have been set up since day 1.

Kane

 

[mythusmage]

Die Progression... This are one of those suggestions that has both some nice benefits and some negative reprocussions. One thing that continues to irk me somewhat in 3e is the fact that there are no grazes from high level attackers and their huge damage modifiers allow for little range in damage. We tested a rule in our LM game whereby every +1 to damage increased the damage die rather than a straight modifier. Here's the die progression we used:

1 - 1d2 - 1d3 - 1d4 - 1d6 - 1d8 - 1d10 - 1d12 - 1d8+1d6 - 2d8 - 1d10+1d8 - 2d10 - 1d12+1d10 - 2d12 - 1d10+2d8 - 2d10+1d8 - 3d10 - 1d12+2d10...

For example, if you had a Fighter with a 20 Strength (+5), Weapon Focus (+1) and a +3 longsword (base 1d8, +3), he'd have a total of +9 damage modifier. So the Fighter would inflict 1d10+2d8 (3-26, Avg. 14.5) damage per blow. That gives you some greater variability in damage, a chance for some grazing wounds to occur and our group found it a lot of fun.

The flipside of course is that with greater variability in damage means less predictability and that generally favors the monsters in the long run. But since I made a point earlier that I would definitely be looking to increase the survivability of characters (particularly at higher levels) it should work out alright.

Damage Reduction... One of the benefits of the die progression scheme is that if you want powerful monsters to have DR - just say that they reduce the damage die you inflict. For example, a dragon has say... DR 4. The fighter in the first example would now reduce his damage by 4 steps against the dragon if he could not bypass it. Now he's inflicting 1d10+1d8 damage per blow. It has a certain elegance to it I like and it gets around problems where weaker attackers can't inflict any kind of damage because of a high static DR modifier.


That's good for today methinks...

Thoughts?

I'm thinking the following:

Each weapon would have two size ratings, use size and damage size. For example, the broadsword would be a medium weapon in use size, and a large weapon in damage size. That is, medium sized individuals would be able to use it one-handed and have it do full damage. Where damage size is concerned weapons would do the following damage:

•smaller: 20 hits needed to inflict one point of damage.
•Fine: 12 hits needed to inflict one point of damage.
•Dimunuitive: 4 hits needed to inflict one point of damage
•Tiny: 1d2
•Small: 1d4
•Medium: 1d6
•Large:1d8
•Huge: 1d8+1d4
•Gigantic: 3d8
•Colossal:5d8
•larger: 8d8

More to say on the matter, but I need to organize it first. Expect a revision later.

 

[A'koss]

I'm thinking the following:

Each weapon would have two size ratings, use size and damage size. For example, the broadsword would be a medium weapon in use size, and a large weapon in damage size. That is, medium sized individuals would be able to use it one-handed and have it do full damage. Where damage size is concerned weapons would do the following damage...

Essentially a simplified, universal damage scheme. I might play with those numbers a little bit, but that's an interesting idea.

It could work, however, is there enough granularity for D&D and it's myriad weaponry...? Another way might be just a simple Size Modifier adjustment.

F:?
D:-8
T:-4
S:-1
M:+0
L:+2
H:+4
G:+8
C:+16

A gargantuan longsword inflicts a base 2d12 damage (1d8 +8 steps).

However, I really like your idea where really weak attacks require multiple hits in order to inflict 1 point damage. You could extend the Die Progression to accomodate that pretty easily.

32/1 - 16/1 - 8/1 - 4/1 - 2/1 - 1 - 1d2...

That takes care of those housecats hunting down commoners for sport...

More to say on the matter, but I need to organize it first. Expect a revision later.

Ditto...

Cheers!

 

[woodelf]

Yup. I tend to agree with this. As is, 3e made the following changes to the magic system without changing the game from D&D into something else:

1) Turning "memorization" into "preparation"

2) Introducing spontaneous casters

3) Giving clerics and druids 8th- and 9th-level spells

4) Introducing metamagic feats

5) Giving all casters bonus spells for a high spellcasting stat

These are MAJOR changes to previous eds' spellcasting rules, beside which introducing AU's readying/spell lading/templates/frequency categories (simple, complex, exotic) would be minor alterations.

I disagree. (1) is purely semantic. It's a change in terminology, not functionality. (3) and (5) are minor tweaks--you still get spells the same way, and cast them the same way, but neither is any more significant of a change than is altering the chart that determines how many spells you can cast per day. (4) is a noticable change, but the concept of metamagic goes back to at least the AD&D2 PH spelllist, all D&D3E does is clean it up a bit, and move the effects into a mechanism other than other spells. Now, (2) *is* a significant change.

However, several of the AU changes are *more* significant. Creating diminished and heightened versions for every spell is a huge change--for the first time, D&D spells are scalable, and for the first time learning a spell actually gets you 3 spells. Similarly, templates are at least a significant of a change to metamagic as moving the metamagic abilities from spells to feats was in the first place. When you then combine these two ideas with divorcing the spells prepared from the spells cast, you have done something that D&D has never had in spellcasting: provided flexibility. Even with metamagic feats, all you really get is effectively an expanded spelllist--you still have to choose the spells ahead of time, cast those you have prepared, and suffer if you prepare the wrong ones. In AU, you are much more likely to have spells of every flavor prepared, but you can still use just, say, the combat spells, and not be crippled. The weaving of spellslots is, likewise, a huge change, because it's pretty much the first time (other than some spell-point optional systems) that D&D has let you have flexibility in what spells you cast, level-wise. Eliminating the distinction between arcane and divine magic is a similarly significant change to the feel of D&D magic--especially since D&D is just about the only RPG with that particular distinction.

About the only change that AU introduces to magic that *isn't* significant is the unified list, divided into simple, complex, exotic. It's still a nice change, but the frequencies were suggested as far back as AD&D1, and all it would take to create a "unified" spelllist in D&D3E would be to assign one more set of descriptors to the spells: "divine", "arcane", "druidic", etc., and give various classes access to them. Or be slightly subtler, and assign access with the existing descriptors.

Or, to restate this in completely subjective terms: the feel of spellcasting in D&D3E is pretty much identical to AD&D1/2, other than sorcerers, while AU feels like a whole new system.

 

[reanjr]

Don't you think the improved multiclassing rules in 3.0/3.5 sort of eliminates the old "restrictiveness" of levels? When I look at all the classes and prestige classes that are available, and all the different combinations that are possible, I'm always impressed by how much can be done with the existing system. The very distinctness and specificness of the different classes and prestige classes, while sometimes verging on the ridiculous, is a toolbox of inspiring ideas to use in building your character. While some inexperienced players will think that every Oozemaster is alike, an experienced player can probably come up with several different character backgrounds using the Oozemaster prestige class...

While it is certainly better than any previous edition, there's a lot more that could be done. There are still quite a few niche archetypes that can not be filled. The swashbuckling class is still not possible with core rules. And even with accessories, you are forced to be a dashing, charismatic, smartass if you want to fight good without armor.

Most of the problem is not that there is no combination to give you the things your character should have for a particular concept, but that in the process of getting these things, you attain abilities that make no sense for your character.

Why should the swashbuckler receive proficiency in Full Plate? Why is the apothecary able to cast spells? Why does my diplomat have cleric spells/sneak attack/bardic music? Why is it that my skills in wrestling coincide directly with my skills with a bow? Why can't I combine my knowledge of spellcasting (wizard) with my innate talent (sorcerer), since they are cast in much the same way (scroll are the same)? Why is it that my devout follower of Hektar, God of Peace and Healing, knows how to use Full Plate and kicks tail in a fight? Not to mention, why is Hektar granting me miracles that make me a killing machine? Why does my centaur have a special mount?

If I wanted to spend some time, I could fill almost an entire notebook of these contradictions. The package deal makes no sense for MOST character concepts. Just try to recreate the abilities and shortcomings of any character from Lord of the Rings or almost any other non-TSR/WotC fantasy. It usually can't be done.

Here's another, and I think better, argument. Levels are a convenient way of measuring, well, power level, frankly. D&D has always been, and I think should always be, a game where there are clear distinctions between different power levels. It's not the kind of game where you can have a generic adventure module that's suitable for either beginning or experienced characters (like you find in, say, Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu). A 13th level D&D party is going to be handling vastly different things from a 1st level D&D party -- probably in terms of general mood and role-playing opportunities, as well as sheer toughness of monsters.

But that seems to be more of a myth than anything. Just check the message boards here for how some low CR creature did a TPK, or some party mopped the floor with a high CR creature. The power level comparisons just don't work and, in my opinion, get way too stressed by the system. If they spent a couple of pages explaining to the DM how to assign ad hoc XP, rather than trying to explain the overly-complicated Level/CR/EL/XP system, the DM would be able to easily adjudicate what kinds of rewards to give their players. The CRs don't really work very well, anyway. I would much rather see creatures organized by something more useful, like "Creatures that will be annihilated by a grappler" or "Creatures that an enchanter will immediately make his slave" or "Don't even bother with combat if there's a cleric." Those would actually be useful. CR is not. And if CR isn't useful, then what use is knowing what level the PCs are?

Aside from that, though... I think non-level-based systems appeal primarily to more experienced role-players who have been around the block and like to experiment and tinker. If you look at the majority of computer RPGs, video-game RPGs and online RPGs, most of them use a level- and class-based system. Granted, that's only one of many reasons that EVERQUEST (for example) is more popular than ULTIMA ONLINE (for example). But it's something which is familiar and successful. I mean, there's nothing stopping D&D from branching out into something entirely different and experimental, but I don't know if the appropriate reaction is "Everyone is imitating us, so we must be doing something wrong!".

jason

I think they are thought about and created by more experienced tinkerers, but I've seen plenty of roleplayers who started with non-level-based systems or quickly grew to know and love them. The reason crpgs use levels is because you are generally handling multiple characters, where the tedium of progressing the characters would take up most of the game. Even those crpgs that only have a single character would be slowed significantly by choosing a slew of improvements from a menu after a battle. D&D and other RPGs, though, are a much slower paced experience where you grow to "know" your character a lot better. They are not the tool of the game designers to promote a cinematic tale (depending on the DM). They are your creation, but history to likes/dislikes, quirks, speech patterns - everything. In developing this character level/class - based systems are often the only thing standing between your character's mechanical representation and the ideal you have in your head. (that and the pesky DM who won't allow you to have inherited the sword that eats worlds)

 

[reanjr]

I want before all a new layout and whole new artists, with art which looks less "vanilla fantasy" (i.e.: a paladin looks like a real Arthurian knight, not what they have done with this ranger looking cartoon like girl). I want a style, a feel, something special.

And I also want "big reduction in unnecessary complexity."

I agree with the art thing. I'd like to see less art direction and cohesiveness. If a vague, watercolor looks good for this piece, while an oil on canvas rennaissance style looks good for the next piece, then that's what they should be. Give the game the feel that it actually encompasses more than what Wizards dicates it encompasses.

 

[reanjr]

Whatcha gonna do? Any class with any kind of "spell-like abilities" -- arcane spellcasters, divine spellcasters, and psionicists -- naturally takes more time than a character with less options. The more options you have, the longer it takes to play it out. Just because some characters have complicated rules doesn't mean you should reduce the number of options -- like saying "All wizards should only be able to cast one spell" or something like that. :/ Wow, sounds like a blast. :/

That doesn't have to be true. It just is with the way that D&D handles magic. I remember playing the SAGA system and marveling at how much of a breeze it was to cast spells. Took no more than half a minute, tops, and on top of that, the SAGA system had nigh-infinite flexibility and could handle more distinct spells that D&D could. I never looked at the D&D spell system the same again. It just became this bloated monstrosity that slowed the game, detracted from fun, made no sense, and didn't let my character cast spells the way they wanted to, or what spells they wanted.

Anyway, in my experience, *all* high-level combat takes a loooong time, unless the DM is intentionally rushing things along with a time limit. True, it's especially bad for spellcasters, but it's that way even for fighter types. It's all an endless succession of "But if I take a 5-foot step HERE, I'll be able to do THIS... hmm... no, wait a minute... no, I'll put _2_ points in Power Attack..."

Jason

As someone else mentioned, I've never seen a melee/missile combatant take longer than a few dozen seconds to resolve their turn... Unless you add in magical items

 

[reanjr]

If the class-based system is to remain (and I have no doubt that it will), I'd like to see the reinforcement of archetypes that those classes represent.

I agree. If the class system is there, use it when appropriate. I'd also like to see a lot more core classes.

 

[Turanil]

1) Extensive backwards compatability.

This is my main wish. I don't want 4e. I don't want new options, since there is plenty of options in the Complete Series, Unearthed Arcana, and many books that are produced monthly. I just want the same 3.5 with a new layout and art. I want to see again Elmore, Easley, and Brom. If you think like me, I suggest to go post your agreeing in this thread, so WotC will eventually see it and maybe get the idea (if they don't have it already).