D&D 4E Mythusmage's D&D 4e Thoughts

[MoogleEmpMog]

In theory, this looks good. In practice, it'd be an absolute nightmare! With 100 levels, that means a player needs to do the level-up bookkeeping 100 times...in a 2-year campaign, this would mean every session! Somehow, I don't see this happening...

My current group already levels every session, or almost; we play every other week in a one year campaign and hit around 18-22 level at the end of each campaign. Admittedly, I don't see it happening, either.

I'm not sure quite what you mean with this...are you getting at reducing *all* class features to what would amount to a much-expanded skills table? If so, you're starting to drift away from D+D and into something else, I think.

In the DMG, all class features would be available via point buy - essentially, the DMG would include a D&D version of Mutants and Masterminds or HERO's systems - while in the PHB they would be the same as they are now: class features. Rebuilding classes with the DM would be encouraged as an alternative to multiclassing.

Or, get away from this foolishness of having non-kindred races as PC's except maybe as a splat option. Half-xxx - or part-xxx (these should be fine-tuned, to reflect that part-xxx's can breed with either race, and a half-elf/human child will be 1/4-elf) - should not be reduced to a chooseable feat...yuck!

If you remove a core option that's been there since at least AD&D 1e, is that not 'drifting away from D&D?' Making it a feat might clean up the system; then again, maybe not.

No idea what you're getting at here. Please elaborate.

This was already explained by another poster. Note, however, that elemental damage would be the default, not the exception. Typeless damage is a huge plus.

If you remove the need for a healer you'd also have to reduce or eliminate damage that needs healing. And, healing spells are rarely if ever cast *during* a battle except in dire circumstances; the patching-up is done after the battle is won. Healing spells don't need any strengthening

Have you ever even looked at another RPG? Seriously? 'Patching up after the battle is won' can be solved in myriad ways without relying on the 'healbot' that D&D invented.

Heck, the spellcasting solution for out-of-combat spells (see below) solves this.

Then you have to redesign the average adventure so those "roles" aren't required - no more traps, etc. Chances are those electronic games you're referring to have removed those elements without anyone noticing...

Or, you know, you could design the rules so that those roles can be filled in different ways, and the average adventure so those problems solved in different ways. As it stands, read adventure design guidelines: elements like traps, undead, etc. are ADDED to adventures TO GIVE the rogue/cleric/etc 'something to do' - they don't show up organically.

Define encounter. How do non-encounter-based spells work e.g. most divinations? I'd rather see a looser version of the current system, where you have so many slots-per-level-per-day but you can cast wild-card within each level, so no more memorization. As for x/day, that's such a simple mechanic I fail to see any need for change.

Non-encounter-based spells could be handled using some type of ritual magic rules, or allowed to succeed out of hand. Frankly, out of a dramatic encounter, there is very little I can't see a competent wizard accomplishing. Divining a secret? Should succeed - unless it's contested by some other power, in which case it becomes an encounter. For that matter, anything outside a dramatic encounter (which need not be combat), regardless of who's attempting it, should generally succeed*. If it isn't something you can accomplish automatically with time and effort - then it's an encounter.

*Caveat: I mean anything in-genre.

x/day seems simple... until you realize its power is entirely predicated on how often you use the ability in a day, as are spells. Which means any attempt at balancing encounters has to assume a certain number of encounters per day, and those encounters have to be of a certain type (generally combat), which means... well, most of the problems people have with the current CR system, except for those caused by equipment. Or bad CRs.

I'd like to see countering be more useful, but limited such that you really have to pick your spots when using it. Simplest option: make Counterspell itself a spell...second level, casting time immediate, cannot be improved or affected by any metamagic feat. That way, there's a built-in limit on how many you can do, and at cost of casting other 2nd-level spells.

Actually, that's pretty much what I would advocate (assuming that 'spells' in the present sense are retained). I've shopped that idea around, but so far, no one has wanted to commit it to paper.

Sucks for the DM, who goes to all the trouble of designing an edge-of-the-seat encounter only to have the PC's use a few action points to avoid the harm. The PC's have enough ways of escaping death or harm, they don't need any more, and certainly not something as broad-brush as this.

I'm guessing you've never played an RPG that gives this kind of narrative control to players, even briefly. IMX, it does not in any way, shape or form 'suck for the DM,' unless he's an adversarial DM who wants to kill the PCs using the rules, or he has crappy players. In the former case, the players probably need a new DM, in the latter, the DM needs new players.

This is not Magic. Creature type does not even need to exist in D+D and can easily be ditched completely. If an ability needs something to base off of, use alignment.

Creature type has existed in D&D since the first use of Turn Undead, the first swing of a Sword of Giant Slaying, and the first casting of Charm Person. It's only recently been codified. It's already been modified (rolling Beast into Animal and Magical Beast and making Shapeshifter a subtype) and there's no reason it can't be further cleaned up.

Sooner or later, I had to agree with something here; this is it. Alert the media!

That'd make spells and spellcasters much less useful; how would you compensate?

By removing most of the spells/day limits on spellcasting.

I agree here also. Tinker toys are fun, which is why the game gives so many out, but when their existence is built in to adventure design it's gone too far. That said, having the occasional item specific to a character can really add to the story.

Agreed.

 

[eyebeams]

In a strange turn of events, let's say I'm told to mastermind a new edition of D&D. The new edition needs to be profitable and retain the feel of the classic game.

Here's what I do:

1) The line has three core books called Dungeouns and Dragons, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons and Epic Dungeons and Dragons.

2) D&D is a complete RPG covering levels 1-5 or 1-10. It's like the Basic Set except that it does not become obsolete for anyone wishing to play a longer or more complex game. It includes all the standard races and the four archetypal classes, along with fundemental rules and a greatly simplified feat system. Skills are pared back to get rid of narrow Knowledges. AoOs are based solely on relative position. The game includes about a dozen sample 1st level characters with names and background, along with ways to customize the character. Monsters fit the levels covered by the game. DMing sections focus almost exclusively on dungeoneering. Spells have no components.

3) Advanced Dungeons and Dragons covers expanded feats, the rest of the core classes and character levels 6-10 or 10-15. The game expands spellcasting complexity by adding components. AD&D's focus is on wilderness and "name level" gaming. There are more monsters and higher level spells. AD&D also covers optional rules, with advice on how to hack the system to taste.

4) Epic Dungeons and Dragons covers levels 11-20 or 16-25. "Epic" is a misnomer, as it isn't about unlimited advancement. ED&D specializes in planar adventures and worldshaking adventure, and includes rules for empire building and artifacts. This book also introduces prestige classes and racial levels (level-adjusted races are dead, Jim), and new races. Rules variants similar to Unearthed Arcana put more power in an experienced DM's hands. There are a few entirely new systems for "high magic" and possibly basic psionics.

5) All three cores, combined, cover more than the current three core books. After two years we release the D&D Tome, which combines (and erratas/expands where ncessary) all three books as a Ptolus/WLD-style collector's item.

6) Each core has a companion supplement. D&D has the D&D Dungeoneering Manual. AD&D has the Wilderness Manual and ED&D has the Planar Manual.

7) Deities and Demigods and the Psionics Handbook round things out, along with the Monster Manual -- now a supplement, rather than an absolute necessity.

8) An adventure path module accompanies each core release (and is released right on each book's heels), allowing DMs to run characters through every level covered in each core.

9) There are *two* implied campaign settings, covering "high fantasy" (Forgotten Realms) and "dungeonpunk/pulp" (Eberron). The rulebooks cover the differences between each playstyle. Planescape comes back to support ED&D.

10) 4 years after the cores come out D&DII takes the places of a "3.5"-style revision.

 

[Beckett]

Hrm. In general, I think I could get behind eyebeams' idea. D&D and AD&D had better come out very close to each other, though. While D&D sounds great for bringing in new players, I know my group is going to want the greater number of options in AD&D from the start.

 

[stonehill_troll]

I want 4E to still be D&D. Some of these suggestions ... aren't.

QFT

Too many of the changes listed will make D&D into another game... why? Why don't people just play those games that include those elements that you are seeking to bring into D&D? Play True20/Blue Rose, Runequest (original or later versions), GURPS, Dragon Quest, Powers & Perils, Exalted, Traveller, C&C, HERO, Rolemaster, etc. Most recently I have played original Deadlands and enjoyed it, but after 6 months we still returned back to D&D. Despite my misgivings I enjoyed D20 Modern, though I soon missed D&D and we went back to it.

People need to step and look at D&D as a business model with strong brand recognition and substantial IP value among its target audience. Change so much that it loses it brand recognition and it will lose its IP value to the business. IMV it makes good sense to keep; class system, alignment system, AC/BAB, vancian spell-casting system, saving throw, D20 and D12-D4 for other die rolls, and various other elements that have relativity remained the same thru its various editions.

I do recognize that there will change, but not as substantial as some people above would like. The largest element of complaint I see around here and over on WOTC own boards, is the workload on DMs. Without DMs you can't play, and looking over the gamer-seeking-gamers boards over various forums it’s hard to find DM, and especially good DMs. Thus I believe that the impetus for a substantial amount of change for 4th Edition D&D will come in addressing the primary player – the DM. Yet on the other hand, they will not do anything that will impact the development and publishing of expansion products (books/modules) since that’s where they make their sales and profit. Thus even 4th edition we will still have monthly books being published with more options for the players and DMs.

Thus where they can help DMs is in the presentation and packaging of the rule-set. Thus I believe we will see the following changes:
Classes:
- Low-Power Setting: (22 PB) Base classes (warrior, wizard, cleric, rogue) will each have one prime ability score requirement, tighter class abilities and will be toned down power wise overall.
Then expanding options for classes
- Regular Power Setting (25 PB) add class ability set and minor feat path to warrior to create fighter, barbarian, ranger, paladin, etc. , the same for the other classes.
- High Power Setting (28 PB) add class ability set and more feat paths to warrior to create more powerful variants
The class abilities will come in very gradually, as the character gains levels in the class, his knowledge and abilities in his profession will also develop and grow. The classes may very well be weak up front and slowing gain unique abilities and powers. This to hopefully encourage DMs to run games past Level 10-12, where I see many DMs get burnt out trying to challenge powerful PCs.

Skills: will remain the same, with additional situational DCs pre-defined

Spells; further standardization (e.g. short, medium, long range predefined in 3.0/3.5): more elements of the spell description/definitions will be pre-defined. Thus it would be easier for DMs to judge and specify which spells are applicable within their campaign, as more books with additional spells are published. IMV, an attempt should be make to make divine and arcane spells different would also be a great.

Feats; standardization/codification, (Andy Collins mentioned this for PH2): I believe we will see this in 4th, there will be “levels or tiers” of feats (low power to high power feats). Thus it would be easier for DMs to judge and specify which feats are applicable within their campaign, as more feat options are presented.

Prestige Classes (used to be Kits in 2nd), will remain, but IMV will be toned down and even more flavor oriented. They will still include game mechanic bonuses (class abilities/feat improvements) that may well be built directly of feats, but with built-in game mechanic restrictions as well. There will be little or no upfront abilities. I see only 3-5 level prestige classes, with the first level or two having no bonuses. E.g., once a PC has proven himself with the “Dragon Riders of Britannia” they will teach him some of their order’s secret abilities. Prestige classes will return to their original intent of being a DM tool for his campaign.

Magic items, will remain, but I don’t see the creation rules coming thru in the core rules for 4th edition. They seem to have caused a lot of problems for DMs, which several designers & developers have commented on since the release of 3.0/3.5. Again magic items will be further codified in the rules, much like spells to ease the DMs task of assessing their value and impact in the game.
As to gear dependency I don’t know, I know that WOTC recognizes the problem, but changing will require a substantial change in the monsters as well.

Monsters, will remain obviously, but their write-up will change, if the sales were MMIV were good, which we will know with the release of MMV next year. That should tell us which way subsequent development of the monster manuals is likely to go. I found MMIV to be most useful monster book for DMs ever.

Combat, I enjoy the current combat system and its existing elements (AOO, grapple, trip, etc.) as they are, but I recognize that some people find it challenging to comprehend and use. Perhaps a re-write of the explanations, definitions with good examples of the existing rule set would improve this.

Modules/Adventures, I don’t’ know I don’t buy them, I just can never run them as I always found them to be a straightjacket when running. I prefer the pre-gen encounters from MMIV, Libris Mortis, or Lord of Madness to be more useful. Just drop-them into my game as random and pre-set encounters.

 

[Lanefan]

An example of this in D&D: instead of the plethora of damage spells we have, we'd have one spell: Damage.

There would then be some mechanism in place that could modify that spell; they might be feats or other spells or some class ability. The Cold Mage feat might make that damage into Cold damage, for instance. If we're talking about a spell point system here, then the spell costs one point. Add another point, and the spell is suddenly ranged. Add another point and you're doing 1d8 instead of 1d6 per level. Add two more points and it's suddenly ranged and affects a globe. Add another point and it only affects your enemies. Subtract a point and it only does Fatigue damage. Subtract another point because you have to use a wand as a focus.

Interesting idea. It'd take a *lot* of tweaking, and you'd have to be careful not to get carried away in dropping oddball spells just because they don't fit the system...I suspect you'd still end up with a lot of different spells because of this, and wonder whether the end reduction would be worth the effort.

This way you add in versatility and can do away with the reams of spells we have now. You could probably scrape almost all spells in D&D down to about ten-fifteen common effects and then just have variations on a theme via additional point costs, or feats, or however you want to modift the basic effect. It also lends itself much more readily to customized magic that can more readily mimic what you see in a book or movie.

One other thing to consider is there ought to be an avenue for casters to design their own unique spells (as opposed to just a variant on an existing theme e.g. damage), and the system needs to allow for this.

Lanefan

 

[sjmiller]

For the books themselves I'm thinking 4 128 page signatures with 8 point type in three columns plus sidebar and space for graphics. Text dense books in other words. Meant more for study than use at the table. The table is where the PDFs come in. By the time 4e comes out there will be ebook readers capable of displaying PDFs properly, and at an affordable price.

I am a book person. I have to have a printed book for use wherever I want. I don't want a pdf reader, and most likely wouldn't buy one. The only pdfs I would buy are ones that are printed out and cut apart (map tiles, etc.) or are printed out and bound into a print book. I hate using pdfs during a game, hate, hate, hate. What's wrong with a real book?

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Interesting idea. It'd take a *lot* of tweaking, and you'd have to be careful not to get carried away in dropping oddball spells just because they don't fit the system...I suspect you'd still end up with a lot of different spells because of this, and wonder whether the end reduction would be worth the effort.

It would be worth the effort insofar as a player or DM would have guidelines to create their own spells, and insofar as spells that have a fairly basic effect (Damage, for example) would be simpler to reference/run because they'd be in play. It's also good for players who want a 'themed' spellcaster - all spells based on one element, for example.

One other thing to consider is there ought to be an avenue for casters to design their own unique spells (as opposed to just a variant on an existing theme e.g. damage), and the system needs to allow for this.

Take a look at the HERO system. I can't think of a single D&D spell you couldn't duplicate in HERO. Better yet, take a look at Fantasy HERO (or, even better, the Fantasy HERO Grimoire; I seem to recall a book of that name) - they have the vast majority of spells, including oddball spells, done in HERO terms.

On the flip side, HERO and to a greater extent Mutants & Masterminds allow casters to use their 'basic' powers/spells to achieve 'oddball' effects, via power stunts in HERO and alternate power feats in M&M.

About the only thing I've noticed is that oddball effects tend to be a bit more expensive in character points, at least in HERO, than 'basic' effects. That's not universal, but it's generally true.

 

[Sadrik]

Use flavorless basic classes that provide the basic abilities for characters (BAB, CL, SAVES, FEATS, STAT BOOSTS, ETC). Possible warrior/expert/magic-user. Also a way to multi class these basic characters so you can fill every possible niche.

Bring back Kits but call them something else. These would be comparable to the characters classes as they are in 3.x. They would give characters access to lists of feats which would double as class features. Example kits would be fighter, wizard, rogue, ranger, paladin etc. Putting the kits and classes together gives you the ability to have very campaign specific characters flavor-wise and still hold onto the basic d&d core rules without having to re-write them with every campaign setting.

Codify the spell systems into very delineated spell levels no 3rd level spells better than 5th level spells. I would suggest cutting the number of spell levels to do this more accurately (possibly 1-5 instead of 0-9).

Use a class wide action point system that would run all spells and all feats for characters. Characters would recover these points dependent on class and kit. What these action points do depends on the characters class kit and feats. For instance a wizard character may have to study to recover their action points and a fighter may have to train their martial skills. Examples of what I mean by this would be: A fighter would have to spend an action point to use his cleave feat and a wizard would spend his action point to cast his magic missile.

A massive cleanup of energy damage, energy resistance, hardness, damage reduction, and all other types of special damage. Like separating damage into fewer damage types: Physical, Burning, Heat, Cold, and Internal. For instance force damage would do physical damage, acid would do burning, fire would do heat, implosion would do internal, sonic should do physical, and electrical should do heat. Hardness, energy resistance and DR should combine and deal with the 5 damage types separately.

I probably could come up with more but these seem like they would fix and or make a very enjoyable game for me.

 

[Zaukrie]

Lots of great ideas, but some go so far as to make it "not" D&D, I believe.

Whatever they do, they need a new introductory version of the game that is still useful once you "graduate" to having more experience. The current massive PHB and DMG are just too big to use very well for beginners.

Personally, I like the new alternate versions of the core classes that have started to appear in books. I like prestige classes. I think this could all be tweaked into kits or something else that allows you to build characaters over time.

What seems to be hidden or missing in our current huge amount of rules is any kind of obvious path to the kind of character you want. Now, for some, designing their character by looking across lots and lots of feats and skills to get their vision built is part of the fun. For others, it would be great to see "if you want a skillful character that can really climb walls and hide in shadows, here are the suggested skill/feat/class combos that get you there". Then, when you come out with new player options type books, you add to the class trees. Feat and skill and class and ability trees are what I'm looking for. Did any of that make sense? I think there are so many rules now that it is too hard for some to figure out how to build their character now.

 

[Lanefan]

My current group already levels every session, or almost; we play every other week in a one year campaign and hit around 18-22 level at the end of each campaign. Admittedly, I don't see it happening, either.

Your game couldn't be more different from mine in this apsect if it tried. We bump maybe once every 4-6 months (or, every 15-25 sessions), and even then there's details and bookkeeping that get missed *every time*. Then again, some of our crew are atrocious at recordkeeping of any kind.

In the DMG, all class features would be available via point buy - essentially, the DMG would include a D&D version of Mutants and Masterminds or HERO's systems - while in the PHB they would be the same as they are now: class features. Rebuilding classes with the DM would be encouraged as an alternative to multiclassing.

Interesting. It'd be up to the DM to ensure the rebuilds don't overpower the originals; but other than that, if the guidelines are well-presented (I know, that's asking a lot) that might reduce multiclassing, and I'm all for that!

Re: oddball PC races:

If you remove a core option that's been there since at least AD&D 1e, is that not 'drifting away from D&D?' Making it a feat might clean up the system; then again, maybe not.

I'm not at all suggesting removal of part-elves and part-orcs; I am suggesting removal of planetouched-outsider-vampiric drow as PC's, before they become core if they haven't already.

Have you ever even looked at another RPG? Seriously? 'Patching up after the battle is won' can be solved in myriad ways without relying on the 'healbot' that D&D invented.

Other than the most cursory of glances, I've been D+D all the way...thus, that's my frame of reference. (which, given as we're talking about D+D redesign, fits right in ) As for "healbots", if the game's going to give out damage there needs to be a mechanic of some sort to patch it up, and having a class that in essence fills that role seems fine to me. 3e already boosted the heal spells by adding the +1-point-per-level; they don't need any more.

Or, you know, you could design the rules so that those roles can be filled in different ways, and the average adventure so those problems solved in different ways. As it stands, read adventure design guidelines: elements like traps, undead, etc. are ADDED to adventures TO GIVE the rogue/cleric/etc 'something to do' - they don't show up organically.

Well, I don't read adventure design guidelines, I just design the (1e) adventures. Sometimes, a particular adventure suits a particular class; other times it doesn't, e.g. an undead-based adventure suits Clerics but screws Illusionists, and so on...all I have to do as DM is make sure these adventures only come up once in a while. As for traps, if a trap makes sense I'll stick it in; I've had entire adventures without a single trap, but the Thief PC's still found ways to help out and be involved. But I don't "add" things to an adventure just so a class has "something to do"; hell, half the time I don't even know if a given class will be in the party when the adventure gets played!

Non-encounter-based spells could be handled using some type of ritual magic rules, or allowed to succeed out of hand. Frankly, out of a dramatic encounter, there is very little I can't see a competent wizard accomplishing. Divining a secret? Should succeed - unless it's contested by some other power, in which case it becomes an encounter. For that matter, anything outside a dramatic encounter (which need not be combat), regardless of who's attempting it, should generally succeed*. If it isn't something you can accomplish automatically with time and effort - then it's an encounter.

*Caveat: I mean anything in-genre.

I'd still like to see some way of having non-encounter spells use the same resource bucket as encounter spells. In other words, a wizard who has spent all morning casting divination spells should have a lot less gas in the tank for an encounter in the afternoon than a wizard who has cast nothing. Otherwise, non-encounter spells become freebies; probably not a Good Thing from a design perspective.

x/day seems simple... until you realize its power is entirely predicated on how often you use the ability in a day, as are spells. Which means any attempt at balancing encounters has to assume a certain number of encounters per day, and those encounters have to be of a certain type (generally combat), which means... well, most of the problems people have with the current CR system, except for those caused by equipment. Or bad CRs.

Throw out, right now, any thought of "balancing encounters". If a party is out of gas and they find another encounter, or if they're up against something they just can't handle, tough. They can run. Or die. Or run *and* die. X-per-encounter means they just never get to the point of being out of gas; even if they use all their resources and then flee from the dragon and make camp in a cave, they're still nowhere near as vulnerable as they should be when the cave's resident ogres come home a few hours later if all their spells are per-encounter...

The only time people run aground on the CR system is when they use it. Once you've DM'ed even just a few sessions, you can function without the CR system at all as you'll know what your party can handle.

I'm guessing you've never played an RPG that gives this kind of narrative control to players, even briefly. IMX, it does not in any way, shape or form 'suck for the DM,' unless he's an adversarial DM who wants to kill the PCs using the rules, or he has crappy players. In the former case, the players probably need a new DM, in the latter, the DM needs new players.

I see it as the DM's job to try to make life miserable for the PC's while in the field, and be somewhat bloody-minded about it; it's the players' job to survive, and enjoy the rewards that come after. But if the players have too many ways of escaping the misery, the rewards are less meaningful and the DM's work in generating the challenges goes for naught. (or, the DM has to generate even tougher challenges with the action-point reserve in mind, which kind of forces the players to use their action points...seems pointless (pun intended) from here...)

Creature type has existed in D&D since the first use of Turn Undead, the first swing of a Sword of Giant Slaying, and the first casting of Charm Person. It's only recently been codified. It's already been modified (rolling Beast into Animal and Magical Beast and making Shapeshifter a subtype) and there's no reason it can't be further cleaned up.

For some things, as you say, creature type has always existed in a non-codifed form, allowing for DM judgement (is a Troll a Giant or not?). But does it need to be codified, other than to allow WotC yet another forum to issue Rulings and Errata? I don't think so.

Lanefan