Why Star Wars, CoC, and Modern?

[Plane Sailing]

I have seen on threads that people believe there will be a revised version of D&D 3E based on the new rules from these games (Star Wars, Call of Cthulhu, and Modern). Why is this?

One of the principle reasons (as I understand it from comments by Ryan Dancey) for WotC releasing the SRD (system reference document) and promoting both the d20 logo and Open Gaming Content was to make it easier for companies to introduce innovations within the single basic system... innovations which Wizards would then be able to incorporate into any future version of D&D.

So it is not specifically that there are any percieved flaws, but that over time WotC will be able to draw the best of the d20 rules and mechanics.

You could see CoC, WoT, d20M, SW as all being testing grounds for alternative mechanics, and while these are often setting-specific it is still possible that they may provide input into any future versions of D&D.

Cheers

 

[Dismas]

Yes, but Sanity lifted unchanged from the BRP version of the game was a mistake, I think. I'd like to cobble together a Sanity system that relies more on the standard d20 type mechanics to work (fail a Will save to take sanity damage, sanity is measured as WIS damage, or something like that.)

But it does follow the standard d20 type mechanic. If the character can not effect the outcome of a roll then it is a % check (cf. Miss chance), this is one of a number of Meta Rules, some of which can be seen in the behind the curtain sections in the DMG, articles in Dragon etc.

 

[Agback]

I think that D&D "revised" might be something as simple as various options that you can pick and choose from, with a description about how those options might change your game.

This would have to be done carefully and thoroughly, because some options would throw everything from magic to monsters out of whack.

For example, suppose there were an option that made characters get harder to hit as they went up in level. That would make characters get tougher with level faster than they do now. You would have to compensate either by leaving out that proportion of hit point increase that is supposed to represent the charcter getting harder to hit rather than tougher, or else beef up the monsters that are supposed to be approriate challenges for characters of given level. The first solution would require every spell that deals or heals damage to be adjusted, and the second would require every monster to be adjusted.

Game balance in a complicated system with lots of details (like D&D) is a very tricky bit of gear.

Regards,


Agback

 

[bwgwl]

For example, suppose there were an option that made characters get harder to hit as they went up in level. That would make characters get tougher with level faster than they do now. You would have to compensate either by leaving out that proportion of hit point increase that is supposed to represent the charcter getting harder to hit rather than tougher, or else beef up the monsters that are supposed to be approriate challenges for characters of given level. The first solution would require every spell that deals or heals damage to be adjusted, and the second would require every monster to be adjusted.

a simpler solution (and probably the main reason why you'd want a mechanic like this) is to disincentivize the use of armor. if people aren't wearing armor, then a Class-based defense bonus is really the only way to improve AC.

consider a tropical setting where wearing heavy armor would impose even stiffer penalties than it does now (not just an armor check penalty, but perhaps subdual damage and other penalties).

 

[tetsujin28]

However, having played for close to 30 years, there is one problem in 3e (which I otherwise think is vastly superior to previous editions): characters deal out more damage than before. If you compare a 2e fighter to a 3e fighter of the same level, the 3e fighter is probably going to be doing more than a hit die of damage on the average hit, maybe even two. This only gets more problematic as you gain levels. Thus the need for fighters to gain magic armour, so that they're not actually weaker, comparatively, at high levels than they were at low levels. For those of us who prefer a low magic environment, this is problematic. Hence, the usefulness of things like the Unarmoured Defense Proficiency from Swashbuckling Adventures.

On a further note, I think that d20 is going to lead more towards "classless classes" in the future. I think that d20 Modern is a step in the right direction. I also really like the way d20 CoC handles classes.

 

[Jeph]

a tropical setting where wearing heavy armor would impose even stiffer penalties than it does now (not just an armor check penalty, but perhaps subdual damage and other penalties).

I run that, you know. It uses VP/WP, class defense bonus, and armor=dr for WP only. Only had 1 session so far, but it's worked well.

 

[mkletch]

Which one of these 'alternate d20' systems has the armor=DR system? I looked, but could not find.

I have been considering buying all of these books (CoC, d20M, SW, WoT), basically for all of the alterante rules bits.

Thanks,

-Fletch!

 

[Desdichado]

But it does follow the standard d20 type mechanic. If the character can not effect the outcome of a roll then it is a % check (cf. Miss chance), this is one of a number of Meta Rules, some of which can be seen in the behind the curtain sections in the DMG, articles in Dragon etc.

This is the third time I've tried to respond today, but it looks like I can actually post again, so I'll gamely try again...

I'm amazed that you can possibly say that. Sanity most definately does not follow the standard d20 type mechanic as ability checks are not made with a d% and abilities do not go from 1-100. Monte Cook and John Tynes even specifically call out Sanity (and the Cthulhu Mythos skill) in the text of the game itself as not fitting the d20 mechanics, but they consciously left them that way as a (imo, bad) design decision.

 

[Wolf72]

I'd rather see a Player's Option type thing.

I sorta agree,

I'd like to see a big book of alternative rules ... same layout as the PHb.

so in chap4 there is several different alternative rules for skills ... I don't want one persons options, but a compilation of several peoples ideas ...

ie: monte's ranger, alt.ranger, var.ranger ... etc

 

[Plane Sailing]

a simpler solution (and probably the main reason why you'd want a mechanic like this) is to disincentivize the use of armor. if people aren't wearing armor, then a Class-based defense bonus is really the only way to improve AC.

I don't think that class based defense bonus reflects less availability of armour. Low level characters can quickly buy any armour they want.

No, I'm pretty sure it is to replace magic armour & similar protections. In D&D peoples AC escalates mostly because of rings, bracers magic armour, magic shields and so forth. SW, WoT, CoC, d20M don't have the same range of toys to increase AC, so the only way of making heroes harder to hit at higher levels is giving them this defense bonus.

Cheers