My thoughts on 4e changes

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ernest Mueller at 2005-04-12 21:22:16
Converted from Phorums BB System

One of the other things to do is to simplify the weapons, and damages in general. I hate all the damn fiddling with weapons. Make weapons basically do a fixed amount of damage based on size and type.

Simple small - 1d4
Martial small - 1d6
Simple medium - 1d6
Martial medium - 1d8
et al.

Give piercings a x3 crit multiplier, slashings a +1 damage, and bludgeoning - who knows, something. You can have a large weapon with reach, or without. And that's it.

Ernest

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ernest Mueller at 2005-04-12 21:39:55
Converted from Phorums BB System

Same thing with spell damages - just let wizards do a fixed amount of damage, modified by area etc. Definitely punt the cast-and-forget spells.

touch - d10/level
ray, missile (ranged touch)- d8/level
burst, cone (area effect) - d6/level
pick an energy type.

In fact, if you're going with skills for weapons, have skills in the energy types too, used for to-hit and opposed rolls for saves.

Ernest

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by thoth64024 at 2005-04-12 22:05:58
Converted from Phorums BB System

Sounds like you want a customizable effects-based system

*cough* Tri-Stat *cough*

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Kobold Lord at 2005-04-12 22:51:55
Converted from Phorums BB System

Why not just take the extra step and eliminate weapons and magic entirely? Also, there's no point in having spellcasters or fighters.

Melee: 1d10 (captures most melee weapons and touch spells)
Light Melee: 1d6 (captures light weapons and still touch spells, in other words ones you can hide)
Single Ranged: 1d8 (one target)
Area Ranged: 1d4 (several targets)

Players can describe their attacks any way they want, allowing for GM approval. Their choices are basically irrelevant. The difference between a wizard and a fighter is basically nonexistent, so make sure you give wizards the durability of the fighter, or people will just be a fighter with a sword and a flamethrower. We can toss tactical concerns like critical threat multipliers, reach, trip, and touch.

There's no reason to allow a player's decisions to be grounded in any way with the system, right? And there's no point in trying to satisfy people who want to play tactics; they can play Warhammer or something. If a fight starts, the best way to run it is to roll d10 repeatedly until one side runs out of units of durability, and supply no opportunities whatsoever for either side to make choices.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Sergio Mascarenhas at 2005-04-13 00:53:48
Converted from Phorums BB System

<< Players can describe their attacks any way they want, allowing for GM approval. Their choices are basically irrelevant. The difference between a wizard and a fighter is basically nonexistent, so make sure you give wizards the durability of the fighter, or people will just be a fighter with a sword and a flamethrower. >>

What you describe is basically the way games like HeroQuest handle things where differences are not hardwired in the system and everything is treated with the same core mechanics. You know what, it works. It works very well. In MY opinion, it works much better than games like D&D. Contrary to what you think, it does not eliminate players's choice and it does not eliminate the difference between different character concepts (like a wizard or a fighter). On the contrary, it enhances it. Just as it does not eliminate...

<< We can toss tactical concerns like critical threat multipliers, reach, trip, and touch. >>

Tactics are the purvue of the player, of his creative way of playing his character, they are not some kind of Lego house-building.

<< There's no reason to allow a player's decisions to be grounded in any way with the system, right? And there's no point in trying to satisfy people who want to play tactics >>

You don't need D&D-like rules to be able to play tactics or to to ground decisions with the system. There are plenty of other satisfying ways to do it. Open your mind and expose yourself to other approaches.

Sergio

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Charlie Dunwoody at 2005-04-13 04:04:51
Converted from Phorums BB System

Ernest,

I like your idea about set weapon damage. I used a system like that in 2nd Edition. Good idea.

Charlie

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Charlie Dunwoody at 2005-04-13 04:06:49
Converted from Phorums BB System

Kobold Lord,

Eliminating weapons and magic entirely would be, well, stupid. It might work in other games but not in D&D.

Charlie

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Charlie Dunwoody at 2005-04-13 04:10:19
Converted from Phorums BB System

Sergio,

I think you understood my column. I wanted to toss some ideas out that would involve more radical changes. I may not want to go that route, but in the first stages of planning 4th edition I'd hate to totally shut down ideas. If I really was in charge of developing 4th edition I'd ask you to consult.

That being said, I can't see using Kobold Lords suggestion of no magic or weapons. I don't think he was being serious but decided instead for a sophomoric, sarcastic approach.

Charlie

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Charlie Dunwoody at 2005-04-13 04:11:41
Converted from Phorums BB System

thoth64024,

Actually, what I want is D&D. But thanks. Might want to get that cough looked into.

Charlie

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Darrin Bright at 2005-04-13 05:47:26
Converted from Phorums BB System

I'm not sure if he's serious or not, either, but there are some advantages to abstracting conflict to the point where specifying the instruments/toys/etc. aren't all that important. However, this doesn't fit any of the standard D&D tropes, so it would be pretty pointless to take the game in that direction.

Something more along the lines of Amber or Nobilis probably does use that level of abstraction:

Player: "I kill the orcs."
GM: "With what? Stab them, shoot them, blast them with lightning?"
Player: "Sure, whatever."

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ernest Mueller at 2005-04-13 16:04:42
Converted from Phorums BB System

This is pretty much how combat works in Feng Shui, a very dramatic and combat-heavy game. Guns, Sorcery, and Martial Arts skills generate largely predictable amounts of damage.

Guns
Small handgun 8
Medium handgun 9
etc...

Weapons
Punch STR+1
Small STR+2
etc...

Sorcery
Blast (sorcerer knows a couple energy types) 8 or so, I forget

Of course you get to add in your outcome (how much you beat the to hit by) and it gets soaked by armor. If you go from a 1d20 to a more bell curved system, you can start adding in outcome as well in D&D!

If you use 2d10, if you hit someone "even" with you (BAB=Defense), you're likely to only beat it by 1-3 points. Add it in to the damage! So if you're a L20 hellekiller and you hit a L1 person, yes, you're likely to get a huge damage bonus. This could eliminate criticals entirely, it's basically a more evened out version thereof.

Anyway, Feng Shui fights are plenty of fun, full of improvisation and tactical maneuvers, without requiring huge charts of weapon damages. Just FUDding that D&D would certainly lack without it is silly - Basic D&D worked that way, and I had plenty of fun playign that back in the day.

Ernest

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Charlie Dunwoody at 2005-04-14 05:06:04
Converted from Phorums BB System

I agree Darrin that I wouldn't want to see D&D go in the direction of total abstraction. I do think every idea should get tossed out even if 4th edition designers decided not to use that idea.

Charlie

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by RagingDragon at 2005-04-14 20:18:33
Converted from Phorums BB System

> [...] you can start adding in outcome as well in D&D! If you use
> 2d10, if you hit someone "even" with you (BAB=Defense), you're
> likely to only beat it by 1-3 points. Add it in to the damage! So
> if you're a L20 hellekiller and you hit a L1 person, yes, you're
> likely to get a huge damage bonus.

This makes skilled combatants much more lethal...which makes alot of sense really.

> This could eliminate criticals entirely, it's basically a more
> evened out version thereof.

This would also eliminates a "special case" from the rules: it's a simple and consistent mechanic. I like it.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Ezekiel Black at 2005-04-17 18:22:14
Converted from Phorums BB System

If they are still rolling damage in 4E, they haven't fixed the game yet.

IMO of course.