D&D 4E What would you like 4E to look like.

[ColonelHardisson]

Me 1E of course.

Doesn't that already exist? Or when later editions appeared were all those books somehow struck blank?

 

[Greg K]

Greg K, there are some excellent proposals there, some of which I'd just plain forgotten about before.

Thanks

Did you mean "average saves" [as per d20 Modern]? It's just that, last time I looked, I was pretty sure good saves are the same in both systems, but medium saves were far more commonplace.

It would be average save in DND, but in d20Modern it is the good save (at least looking at the base classes in the d20M srd which is at my side). By making it a +1 in DND would be one less reason to multiclass just for a bonus.

I'm surprised I forgot to mention 'fewer absolutes'. That's one thing that seriously needs to change.

No worries. Btw, there is no way that I would be likely to forget it. I had asked for something very similiar in my pre-3e questionaire. Unfortunately, it was one of the few requests of mine that did not happen.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Hm. Well, it's been a while since I even glanced over the d20M rules. I just could've sworn that there were classes (maybe advanced classes?) with actual good saves (a la D&D). Gah. Now I'll have to go look. Either way, I knew what you meant, of course. Just being picky, and quite possibly incorrect.

Hrmph. It's a shame your suggestion went unheeded. Maybe this time around. . .

 

[Aus_Snow]

And, on a different [yet related] note, no saving throw 'bump' courtesy of multiclassing, thanks. This, I would very much like to see. Saves get *ridiculously* skewed in the core rules, for no reason (or at least, not one that makes any kind of sense in terms of flavour *or* consistent mechanics).

 

[bento]

I already own 4E...

And it's called True20! Let me count the ways:

Open character creation toolset: My players have a framework for character creation that allows them a large amount of leeway. Now they don't feel locked into creating only one kind of class, but can stretch the concept of "fighter" or "monk" into what they want, not what the rules tell them.

Conviction points: players have more control over life-threatening scenarios, so they can play more like heroes and not get killed just for trying something new. If odds don't go their way, they can spend some conviction points to shrug off damage or fatigue and be good as new.

Levelling up: Through completing story arcs are how characters level up. The structure of the game changes from killing things to finishing the adventure. One interesting outcome of this is my players now like to TALK to NPCs and monsters, leading to better roleplaying.

Mook rules: Its now easier for me to run low level and mass combat. The rules suggest when an enemy gets hit, they go down, rather than continue the battle. Now I don't have to track every little mook HP and focus on the story.

Adaptability: I can take most any 3.5E book and within mintues use the material in the True20 game. Nothing wasted!

There's plenty of other reasons why its the rules for my game, but those are at the top of the list.

 

[Xyanthon]

I’m an avowed 1e fan but I must admit that I wouldn’t expect or want 4e to be 1e in different packaging. After all, I’ve still got all of the books from the previous editions and they still play as good now as they did then. Also OSRIC is making new 1e material possible and I like that. So the whole return to an “official” 1e compatible system isn’t something I need or want.

What I’d like to see is a change. Something recognizable enough to be D&D but going on a little different track. I like the idea of having 3 core classes (a fighting man, a skill oriented type, and a magically attuned type). I’d like to see these 3 classes be able to be tuned into whatever concept is desired through a series of skills and feats. I’d still keep the levels, d20 unified XP progression, progressive armor class, etc. I’d keep much of the d20isms but simplify them. I’d make AoO and the like optional and try to streamline combat more. I really hated the idea of integrating minis into the game at first, but I must admit that I like the concept more now. I even like the Fantastic Location series and would like to see more of that type of thing. I’d probably strip out any setting in the core rules (including Greyhawk) and leave that for supplements.

I know as an old school fan that a lot of this may seem to be heresy. I have thought about it for a while and decided that 1e does 1e better than anything else and I don’t need WotC to get in on the mix and add updated art, spells, etc to a system I already play and love. I think the old school publishers out there such as Necromancer, Goodman, the OSRIC publishers like XRP, Ronin Arts, etc do a much better job of producing material that is in line with those systems than WotC could anyway. Now, I’m not saying that it wouldn’t be cool if WotC opened things up a bit more and gave the official blessing so that companies could once again produce new material for 1e, OD&D, BECMI, and the rest. I really wish they would. However, I’d like to see WotC look at some of the other systems out there like C&C and True 20 and maybe adapt some of those ideas into making 4e a much faster and more easily tailored system.

 

[The Truth]

A few more things I thought about . . .

Monsters could be revised to be a little more PC friendly. Some of the "at will" powers could be reduced to a few uses per day or usable once every 1d4 rounds, which wouldn't effect the monster much during their short lifespan but would keep PC versions under control. Perhaps also give some racial hitpoints, to offset the reduced hit points from the level adjustment. (A PC minotaur, for example, shouldn't have the feats or base attack of a human fighter, but should have at least as many hit points).

Some of the status magic (sleep, hold person, etc) could have full and partial effects. Like the partial effect of hold person could slow the target for a round, sleep could make the target drowsy (and suffer some penalty to spot and listen checks). Characters on a much higher level than the caster would suffer only the partial effect on a failed save; those on a much lower levels would suffer the partial effect even on a successful one.

Fewer absolutes is also a great idea.

I like action points, and it would interesting to see them in the core rules. Maybe they could just release a one-shot fantasy version of d20 Modern and hold off on the new edition for a while ;-p.

 

[Greg K]

Some of the status magic (sleep, hold person, etc) could have full and partial effects. Like the partial effect of hold person could slow the target for a round, sleep could make the target drowsy (and suffer some penalty to spot and listen checks). Characters on a much higher level than the caster would suffer only the partial effect on a failed save; those on a much lower levels would suffer the partial effect even on a successful one.

This reminds me of something that I forgot. I don't want to see opponent's hit die/character level cap or reduce a spell's effect. Instead, let the degree of effect be determined by the amount by which the opponent failed the save.

 

[Agamon]

A D20 base system; the core works, no need to change it.

Some consolidation of the more complex parts of the game. There's no need for the multiple different types of almost identical rolls for special maneuvers like trip, disarm, etc. Every attack should either be "attack v. AC" or "opposed attack v. opposed attack." Similarly, I think some skills could be combined for a shorter list.

I'd like to see a "magic attack bonus" that increases by level, just like BAB. Even fighters and the like would get a small advancement, just like wizards and co. get small BAB advancements. The "MAB" would impact spellcasting in all the ways BAB impacts combat.

Related to the previous point, just as Strength increases attack and damage rolls, Dex increases AC, and Con increases HP, the other three stats would do the same for magic-related combat. Int would add to one's ability to damage/affect someone with magic, Wis would add to one's ability to avoid magic, and Cha would add to one's ability to resist magic.

A slightly lower baseline of magic items per level, and a higher baseline of feats/stat bumps over the course of levels.

A combat system of scalable complexity, allowing for the use of minis, or not--and complex tactics, or not--as the players choose.

A core rules set that emphasizes feel, mood, environment, and plot as much as it does combat and exploration, with all elements equally supported and just as easy to remove for those who don't want 'em.

A consolidation of concepts such as CR, LA, HD, and ECL. While I'll be the first to admit I'm not sure how to do it, I really feel like one or two of those really ought to convey the necessary info.

Ari's got the right idea. The only thing I'd add is: get rid of alignment. That's the sacred steak I'd like to barbeque.

 

[WhatGravitas]

<Great Stuff>

The Mouse has good ideas... I know what 4E should look like: It should have "Authors: Ari Marmell & Mike Mearls"!

Would be enough - I'm rabidly fanboy enough to trust Mouseferatu and Mearls...