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

[Maldin]

What would I like to see in 4E?

How about a publication date of 2010?
or...
How about they republish 2E and call it 2E-Squared?

Sorry, someone had to say it. ;-)

Personally, I think combat in 3E (especially at high levels, or with large groups) takes too much time because its too detailed. Yes, it eliminates guesswork, but thats what DMs are for, and the "seat of the pants" playing of 1E and 2E is partly what made those editions more fun IMHO. Your mileage may vary, and I know alot of people will disagree. But thats why every home campaign is just a little different, even if you do play the same edition as someone else. Plus all the stacking massive-damage-dealing combat feats are just too much.

Denis, aka "Maldin"
============================
Maldin's Greyhawk http://melkot.com

 

[StupidSmurf]

What would I like to see in 4E?

How about a publication date of 2010?
or...
How about they republish 2E and call it 2E-Squared?

Sorry, someone had to say it. ;-)

Personally, I think combat in 3E (especially at high levels, or with large groups) takes too much time because its too detailed. Yes, it eliminates guesswork, but thats what DMs are for, and the "seat of the pants" playing of 1E and 2E is partly what made those editions more fun IMHO. Your mileage may vary, and I know alot of people will disagree. But thats why every home campaign is just a little different, even if you do play the same edition as someone else. Plus all the stacking massive-damage-dealing combat feats are just too much.

Denis, aka "Maldin"
============================
Maldin's Greyhawk http://melkot.com

Interestingly, at least two other posters on this thread (me being one of them) have cited a hope of a 2010 release date.

The problem with guesswork comes about if your DM is a bad guesser.

 

[GVDammerung]

My 4E Top 10, in no particular order -

1) 4 Base Classes - Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Rogue

2) No PrCs

3) Expanded feats with variable costs per Base Class type that will let you customize the Base Classes. Present the Barbarian/Druid/Paladin/Ranger/Bard etc. as collections of feats with a bonus to acquisition cost for maintaining a coherent “theme.” Increase rate at which feats are acquired.

4) No AoO. No advanced combat tactics. Make all such optional. Basic combat should be simple and fast. You hit. You miss. Thats it.

5) DR not AC. Resolve concerns about DR and speed by incorporating DR into character sheet calculations and stat blocks to better reflect the DR in play, once AC is gone.

6) Return variable and tiered XP progressions for each of the Base Classes. Slow character advancement/leveling.

7) Remove “assumed magic” in determining appropriate CR etc. Magic should be “plus factor” not a given.

8) Include variable spells along the lines of Arcana Unearthed to strengthen Wizard class, providing more versatility for same slots.

9) Increase skill points per class by +2 (Fighter/Cleric) or +4 (Wizard/Rogue)

10) Simplify monsters by removing skills, feats, stats, class levels. Basic monster should be basic with skills, feats, level abilities etc. worked into basic description or left out. Provide templates to adjust basic monsters but result must still be simple. Use a similar system for generating NPCs. Monster and NPC generation must be fast and simple with potential for added complexity via templates at Dms discretion. Do not assume complexity.

Oh. And 4E in 2008.

 

[Greg K]

If you want armor as DR so badly, then there are games for you. You do not need to play D&D.

By that reasoning, if 4e should include armor as DR and you like AC so badly, you have 3.x. You don't need to play 4e.

 

[Kapture]

Your assertion that it necessarily requires additional record keeping, OTOH is a statement of fact that despite repeated requests you have failed to substantiate. So, I'll ask you again: What extra record keeping is require with an damage-reducing armour system? Name one item!

glass.

lgburton did it fine for me, post 156. Fussy, fussy.

You guys get way too into this stuff.

AND: I think it's a little weird to harp on the reality of game that insists that as you go through life (if you are heroic enough), you can walk away from more and more 1) Bastard sword wounds, 2) Bullet wounds, 3) Animal bites, 5) Applications of lightning bolts.

Just odd.

Three mathmatical calculations instead of two. Call me a dummy, but simplifying the math allows more people to enjoy the game. I've seen it first hand. So, maybe Armor as DR is an absolutely necessary additional calculation or maybe it isn't. If it isn't, if AC alone can handle the mechanic representing whether or not you take damage from getting hit with a lot of kinetic force, then keep core and leave the rest to house rules.

 

[Kapture]

Several of my ideas, could be easily accomodated now, if the Open Gaming Foundation or other 3rd party designed a method to measure Combat Grittiness, Magic, Monsters etc. If you want Low Magic, Gritty Combat, you should be able to identify those products readily. What High Magic, Over the Top Action, then look for products with those ratings.

Now that's a funny idea. I like it, but I bet it would fragment an already small market.

 

[lgburton]

Your assertion that it necessarily requires additional record keeping, OTOH is a statement of fact that despite repeated requests you have failed to substantiate. So, I'll ask you again: What extra record keeping is require with an damage-reducing armour system? Name one item!
glass.

Burden of Proof

sorry glass, gotta do better than this.

i might also add, i'd like to see you respond to a mathematical breakdown of a armor as DR system vs. the straight d20 AC system. yes, you may have already covered some points, but please, for the benefit of those who are really arguing with you (rather than just trying to keep you honest ) about the nature of the mechanic you are attempting to describe.

 

[Zjelani]

Burden of Proof

sorry glass, gotta do better than this.

i might also add, i'd like to see you respond to a mathematical breakdown of a armor as DR system vs. the straight d20 AC system. yes, you may have already covered some points, but please, for the benefit of those who are really arguing with you (rather than just trying to keep you honest ) about the nature of the mechanic you are attempting to describe.

Why??

I'm not saying I support Armor as DR, but, my goodness this is a wish list for 4e. At least it was. And I'm not sure why the burden of proof is being so harshly thrown onto glass.

You know, I think I remember someone advocated a class-less D&D for 4e way back in the beginning of this thread. I think I'll start jumping all over that and make them prove why it's better. Because that's what wish lists are for - mathematically defending personal preferences.

You guys get way too into this stuff.

Agreed!

Hey, here's a can of worms we can throw some mathematical calculations and links to fallacy definitions at:

4e should do away with Base Attack Bonus and instead use a new value called THAC20!

 

[lgburton]

Why??

I'm not saying I support Armor as DR, but, my goodness this is a wish list for 4e. At least it was. And I'm not sure why the burden of proof is being so harshly thrown onto glass.

You know, I think I remember someone advocated a class-less D&D for 4e way back in the beginning of this thread. I think I'll start jumping all over that and make them prove why it's better. Because that's what wish lists are for - mathematically defending personal preferences.

first:
please refer to the statement i chose to show as a fallacious argument. he has asserted that no extra-record keeping is required for an armor-as-dr system, and in support of his argument, asked someone else to prove the opposite. please, click on the link that has been provided and read the text. the burden of proving one's point is always neccecary in any logical debate.

second:
i asked him to provide a breakdown of the mechanic he's proposing, mathematically, because i have already provided a breakdown of the number of operations required by the d20 AC system. please note post number 156.

third:
glass asked me to point out fallacies in his arguments. i'm certainly willing to oblige, as i find real debate (rather than the "your stoopid" method of argument) intellectually stimulating. please understand, i've already stated my opinion on the matter, and at this point i'm just trying to facilitate an honest exploration of the armor-as-dr system. i think it does have potential to be interesting, but i have yet to see a mechanic which i find easy to teach to a noob.

Hey, here's a can of worms we can throw some mathematical calculations and links to fallacy definitions at:

4e should do away with Base Attack Bonus and instead use a new value called THAC20!

word. thac20 will keep the weenies out!

 

[glass]

Why??

I'm not saying I support Armor as DR, but, my goodness this is a wish list for 4e. At least it was. And I'm not sure why the burden of proof is being so harshly thrown onto glass.

Thanks for the support, Zjelani, but in fairness I think I ought to point out that it was the one who started linking to Logical Fallacy sites, and I did ask lgburton to call me on any I was making myself.


glass.