D&D 4E What would you want to see in 4e?

[sinmissing]

From what I have read, I get the impression that the Grim Tales system (unlike the core rules) requires the assumption that abilities are equally usefull to PCs and NPCs. Is this the case, and if so, how do you justify it?

Kinda, Grim Tales assumes abilities are equally useful, but many abilities are only accessible to characters that have at least 3 levels in a class that can access them. These are called Advanced Talents. Many of the talents: sneak attack, rage, are modified to fit this model.

 

[glass]

Actually, it is supportable. Any GM who has run monsters with DR or had barbarian PCs or adamantine armor in the game can easily see that it requires more recordkeeping. There is enough to remember in the game without having to remember that one player's attacks require full damage, while you knock 10 points off another's.

An Appeal to Annonomous Authority. You still haven't demonstrated any additional record keeping inherent in a damage-reducing armour system.

There have been way too many times when a player has forgotten their own DR. This occurs with multiple players across a variety of groups and age spectrums. I see this all the time as I run quite a few demos for Wizards.

People are less likely to forget if it is a more standard part of the system.

Attack versus AC/difficulty class is a simple method. You either hit and do damage or miss. If you use armor as DR, you usually hit, but then have to add and subtract on the fly. If you are fighting or running multiple enemies, then it is a pain in the arse. Your experience may differ, but mine has shown that DR is a tricky rule that requires a lot more work and leads to slow combats. It may be great for groups that have every t crossed or i dotted, but for people out to have a bit of fun, it is more complicated than it needs to be.

Begging the QuestionYour argument that AC is better (ie, more fun) assumes that AC is more fun.

I do find it funny that you refer to IH, which is a heavy resource management game, to support your position.

But, according to those involved in playtesting the dieroll for DR took very little time, which was the point I was making. What do IH's other characteristics have to do with anything, exactly?

I do not mind armor as DR as an optional rule, but if they replace AC with it as a core rule, then the game will suffer for it.

But, as an optional rule it really doesn't work. That's why I'm arguing for it in the core.

People are not computers. They should not have to keep track of dozens of effects and rules during a combat.

Obviously people are not computers. As for keeping track of dozens of effects and rules, we are talking about one effect/rule here, not dozens.

It just makes the combats more about the dice and the character build rather than an RPG.

Another unsupported assertion. Wow, you really keep 'em coming, don't you?


glass.

 

[glass]

DR takes more record keeping because you must remember each combatant's DR when reducing damage.

And you have to remember each combatants AC. No inherent extra record keeping.

The biggest problem I have with DR (exascerbated by a non-location specific damage system), is that heavily armored combatants quickly become immune to weapons like darts and daggers.

Not if it's done right.


glass.

 

[Belen]

Another unsupported assertion. Wow, you really keep 'em coming, don't you?

Oh...please "support" why you believe DR a better mechanic than AC, given that AC has survived for decades. You onviously have a personal preference for DR, but you make no claims regarding why it is a better mechanic than AC.

It is easy to argue with someone regarding their comments when you have said nothing substantial yourself.

Even if Armor as DR was built into the system, it would require more record keeping. I have played systems where armor=DR and they have all taken more time than a flat attack versus a set difficulty class. Not to mention that weapons such as daggers become fairly useless.

If you want real support for my views, please read the excellent article by Sean Reynolds: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/armorasdamagereduction.html

 

[Staffan]

I do not mind armor as DR as an optional rule, but if they replace AC with it as a core rule, then the game will suffer for it. People are not computers. They should not have to keep track of dozens of effects and rules during a combat. It just makes the combats more about the dice and the character build rather than an RPG.

Sheesh, all us Swedish gamers who grew up on Drakar och Demoner and its variants must be way smarter than all those American gamers if we can handle a system where armor absorbs damage without having any problems at all with it.

The biggest problem I have with DR (exascerbated by a non-location specific damage system), is that heavily armored combatants quickly become immune to weapons like darts and daggers.

You say that as if it was a bad thing. I see it as a plus, as long as there is some way of bypassing all or part of that DR on a lucky roll (like a crit).

 

[lgburton]

glass, as much as i do agree with the logical construction of your refuting arguments, i must also point out that you use the same flaws which you point out. for example:

Not if it's done right.

is an <a href="http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#expert">Argument from Authority</a>.

----------------

an argument against the implementation of Armor as DR could start with the premise that "faster combat is more fun." this premisse is often found in the "tactical combat gets in the way of RP" camp.

---------------

consider the number of mathematical steps in using (pre-determined - your ac is alreay on your character sheet) Armor class vs. to-hit roll.

roll 1 d20. add pre-determined bonus

then if you meet or beat certain number, roll an arbitrary damage die (dice), and add pre-determined damage bonus.

subtract damage dealt from hit point total.

so, we have the possibility of 2+ rolls with 3 (possibly more depending on damage dice) arithmatic operations.

---------------

in order to add armor as DR, you create a greater variable scheme for situational modifiers (such as adamantine weapons bypassing DR) that must be constantly kept track of in combat.

you must also add an additional arithmatic operation (subtracting DR from damage dealt)

though it does not take much more time (and, depending on the players, possibly less time) to calculate thes additional operations, especially considering that there are no additional die rolls, it does add another layer of complexity to the equation of combat.

------------------

ok, now for an opinion.

as a DM and a player who is quite used to introducing people to the game, i find that adding that additional layer of complexity to what is already a complex and precariously balanced system seems unwise without totally re-writing the combat system.

------------------

 

[Greg K]

Many of the changes that I would like to see have been mentioned already. Anyway, here are my 4e wishes

I. Ability Scores
Dex to hit

II. Hit Points replaced with either
1) Damage Save (with use of Armor as DR)
2) WP/VP (preferably set amount of VP that do not increase with level-- class based defense, combat expertise, armor as DR, and action points can be used to increase survivability of higher level characters)

III. Race
1) Fewer absolutes (see Misc Rules section of Sean Reynold's site)

2) Gnomes: Gnomes may choose Bard or Illusionist as favored class (as per Sean Reynold's site)

3) Half Elf: fewer absolutes (see Misc. Rules section of Sean Reynold's site)

4) Half Orc: As per Sean reynolds site: half orcs do not receive charisma penalty, but penalty to diplomacy, gather info, handle animal

5) Humans: provide a choice of backgrounds (e.g, herder, hunter, noble, nomad, urban, street etc.) to choose from. Each background provides a bonus to a few skills and these skills are always class skills for the character.

6) Half-ogres: add this as core race

IV. Classes
1)Barbarian:
a) add the Barbarian Hunter and Totem Barbarian variants from UA as options
b) remove automatic proficiency with medium armor (let character spend a feat)

2) Bard:
a) add the Bardic Variants (Bardic Sage, Divine Bard, and Fey Bard) from UA as options
b) add an option for non spell casting bards
c) less emphasis on the bard as a jack of all trades
d) remove automatic proficiency with medium armor (let character spend a feat)

3) Cleric:
a) remove heavy armor and shield as per Sean Reynold's site
b) remove medium armor (let the character spend a feat)
c) reduce hd to d6
d) add more skill points
e) remove spontaneous healing and turn undead as automatic class abilities and provide appropriate domain related abilities in their place.
f) add champion of good and cloistered cleric options from UA

4) Druid eliminate the class and use domain cleric
if kept
a) light armor only
b) hit die d6
c) fewer absolutes (see Misc. Rules section of Sean Reynold's site)

5) Fighter:
a) remove medium and heavy armor and let feats be spent on them
b) add more skill points
c) provide various archetype options such as the Thug from UA each with additonal archetype appropriate class skills

6) Monk:
a) add fighting styles from UA
b) fewer absolutes (see Misc. Rules section of Sean Reynold's site)
b) provide options to choose from rather than set level abilities
c) no multiclass restriction

7) Paladin:
a) Make PrC and use champion of good cleric from UA in its place
b) add Blessed or Faith Feats that characters can take to represent being blessed (e.g. a True Faith Feat might allow a good character to turn undead)
c) if kept as core class, no multiclass restriction
d) if kept as core class, fewer absolutes (see Misc. Rules section of Sean Reynold's site)
e) if kept as core class, option for non spellcasting

8) Ranger
a) make prestige class
b) use wilderness rogue and fighter variant (use UA Thug as guideline) for outdoorsman
c) if kept as core class, provide variants for no spellcasting outdoors type
d) favored environment as per UA as an option

9) Rogue
a) add wilderness rogue variant from UA as an option
b) add bonus feats in place of sneak attack option from UA
c) add other options than can replace sneak attack
d) add a social rogue variant for conmen, charlatans etc.

10) Sorceror
a) add battle sorceror variant from UA as an option
b) Bluff, Diplomacy, and UMD as class skills
c) bonus metamagic feats

11) Wizard
a) Decipher Script as a class skill
b) combat wizard vriant as per UA

12) Specialist Wizards
a) make the specialist wizard abilities from UA core
b) give each specialist wizard their own unique spell list as per 1e illusionist
c) add even more specialist wizards


V. Skills
1) fewer absolutes (see Misc. Rules section of Sean Reynold's site)
2) add Navigate, Research, and Knowledge (Streetwise) from d20 Modern
3) ditch Use Rope
4) no further consolidation of skills

VI. Feats
replace Unarmed Strike with Combat Martial Arts, Defensive Martial Arts, and Brawling feat chains from d20 Modern

VII. Combat
a) Armor as DR
b) Class based Defense Bonus: not the version in UA but one that works in conjunction with wearing armor

VIII. Magic System
a) Replace the Vancian Magic System (preferably feat and skill as per Star Wars force and True 20 magic)
b) Add invocation rules

IX. Magic Items
a) Less reliance/emphasis on magic items and more emphasis on character abilities

X. Action Points
add action points or M&M 2e style Hero Point as core

edit:
I forgot a few things
1) Change from gold to silver standard
2) Completely rewrite epic level rules
3) ditch the x/day
4) no psionics in core
4) make the PHB non world specific. Place Greyhawk material in a chapter of DMG devoted to an example of creating a world. Then create a Greyhawk campaign hardcover for greyhawk fans.
5) UA weapon groups as core

 

[HeinorNY]

4th edition

I want to see the following phrase on the book's cover:

MONTE COOK presents: Dungeons & Dragon 4th Edition.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey there glass!

Apologies for my slow reply, I must have missed your post initially.

From what I have read, I get the impression that the Grim Tales system (unlike the core rules) requires the assumption that abilities are equally usefull to PCs and NPCs. Is this the case, and if so, how do you justify it?

Yes this is the case.

I remember discussing this very point with Sean K Reynolds in a big thread on ECL/LA a few weeks ago. But I cannot find that thread...does anyone have a link to that? It wa scertainly less than a month ago.

 

[rogueattorney]

Honestly...

What I'd really like to see...

Remove the D&D name from the next edition and call it Fantasy D20, or whatever.

Publish a new version of D&D that's more or less 1e with some of the rougher edges polished off.

Support the system that sells. I'm honestly not sure which system that would be. Will the d20 system really float on its own merits? Or will the lemmings all flock back to the brand name?

R.A.