4e is now dead to me.

[Username17]

The "per day abilities" are Vancian essentially. However, once you've put everyone on a Vancian per-day ability diet, there's no reason for these super special finishing moves to be class linked.

If the Wizard can shoot Magic Missiles all day, a Lightning Bolt every encounter, and a giant hellstorm of fire once per day; and the Paladin can smash with religious Zeal all day, Smite every encounter, and drop a divine udgement once per day; there's no fucking reason who you couldn't make a character who smashes with religious Zeal all day, Smites every encounter, and shoots a giant hellstorm of fire once per day. Seriously, no reason at all.

-Username17

[Voss]

1196641627[/unixtime]]They'll probably drop vancian entirely, but piddle the idea of keeping it just to sucker the fans into reading 4e stuff.

Eh. They were crowing about (largely) dropping it at GenCon.

Frank, sometimes I can't tell if you like the 4e ideas that are showing up or not. With the class training feats to take other class powers, it looks like that paladin can totally do just that. And if the feat gives the powers directly the way its written up, you don't even have to give any significant up.

[RandomCasualty]

1196641880[/unixtime]]I always thought the vancian spell system was best for multiclassing.

...At least the slot-and-expense part. But for some reason, getting a wider set of spells to go into the same slots just doesn't fit with those guys.

Even though that's exactly what a plain wizard does.

No, it's actually horrible for multiclassing, because all the abilities build on top of each other. You get 1st level spells, then 2nd, then 3rd, and 1st level spells are built with the intention that they suck at higher levels, so if you only have 1st level spells and you're 7th level, you've got abilities that aren't level-appropriate.

The whole concept of spell levels needs to be dropped. All spells need to be equal in power.

[Crissa]

Umm, the bigger abilities are just like higher spell levels. It's just another name.

It really doesn't matter if you have first level transmutation spells, second level illusion spells, and a third level evocation spell... That's just like having your handful of abilities and per encounter abilities and one bigger one. Or five non-stacking +1 feats, two +2 feats and one +4 feats. Or...

RC, I don't know what you're talking about. Vancian is lame, but that's not really why it's lame.

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty]

1196675876[/unixtime]]Umm, the bigger abilities are just like higher spell levels. It's just another name.

It really doesn't matter if you have first level transmutation spells, second level illusion spells, and a third level evocation spell... That's just like having your handful of abilities and per encounter abilities and one bigger one. Or five non-stacking +1 feats, two +2 feats and one +4 feats. Or...

RC, I don't know what you're talking about. Vancian is lame, but that's not really why it's lame.

Yeah, I guess Vancian alone may not be the best descriptor.

I suppose I don't actually mean the base concept of Vancian, but rather the spell level tiered Vancian system we've had since 1st edition. Basically, the entire heart and soul of the D&D casting system, which is different from everything else.

The basic concept that magic missile and color spray are shit at 10th level can't really fly if you're looking at a true open multiclassing system that works.

[Crissa]

Well, there's no reason that first level spells should be meaningless at 10th - or that they shouldn't. There's a little bit in classic D&D that allowed what used to be combat resources (spell slots) to then be converted to non-combat resources. Also, it allowed for a change in mechanics and flavour, for the wizard that zapped you in the head and you felt bad to the wizard that zapped you in the head and you found yourself in a life or death struggle with flies. They really weren't the same spells at all.

That's all well and good, but I think we've talked about why you shouldn't trade combat resources for non-combat.

And if the Fighter has no obsolete abilities to pawn off to this non-combat pool, that made him suck all the more.

-Crissa

[RandomCasualty]

1196677710[/unixtime]]
And if the Fighter has no obsolete abilities to pawn off to this non-combat pool, that made him suck all the more.

In terms of combat versus non-combat, the rogue is really who screws over the fighter, because skills should be the fighter's noncombat potential, only he doesn't get any because the rogue is supposed to be the skill monkey.

Really, the fighter, rogue, monk and ranger need to be combined into one class.

[JonSetanta]

Fighter could have something typically cartoonish like "I can eat an entire banquet in mere seconds!"
The ability would then have Somatic components (big chomping motion, shoveling into mouth with arms) and Verbal (SNARFMUNCHSMACK)
There, justified.

So, what was the reason again why spells like Sleep and Color Spray, and to a lesser extent Fireball and damage cappers, are so limited by later levels?
Like, why do they have caps of, say, "can't affect more than 5 HD"? Is this a result of Vancian, so the Wizard doesn't spam Color Spray every round (which they can anyway with wands at low levels, etc)?
Because Psionics doesn't have caps, only PP limits: you get what you pay for, it's not the same 'pace' so to speak, and different problems arise such as going-nova vs. rationing PP.

[tzor]

1196669807[/unixtime]]No, it's actually horrible for multiclassing, because all the abilities build on top of each other. You get 1st level spells, then 2nd, then 3rd, and 1st level spells are built with the intention that they suck at higher levels, so if you only have 1st level spells and you're 7th level, you've got abilities that aren't level-appropriate.

The whole concept of spell levels needs to be dropped. All spells need to be equal in power.

I'm going to disagree. You do point to a problem, the non linear nature of spell progression and the accumulative nature of spell slots, but you don't need to fore all spells to be "equal." You need to eliminate the pyramid shaped accumulation of the slots.

Counter example: Assume a linear progression of spell slots and assume only one type of spell slot. It takes 1 slot to cast a 1st level spell, 2 slots to cast a 2nd level spell, 4 slots to cast a 3rd level spell and so on. Balancing requires that a level 2 spell is twice as powerful as a level 1 spell and so on but that is only moderately difficult assuming you take the time in the first place. (Actually you need them slightly less than twice as powerful because the ability to do it in a single combat round as opposed to two combat rounds is in fact a power advantage.)

BTW: I can't speak for pure Jack Vance mechanics but there are no level limits in 1E AD&D as far as I can recall. They were put in place because high level AD&D characters were throwing insanely massive damage rolls with some spells and I suppose someone thought that was sort of Gygaxian and thus something to be removed from their incarnation of AD&D.

[JonSetanta]

That's probably the case, tzor. I wouldn't know personally since my intro to D&D was one of the mid-printings of AD&D.

[Voss]

It was a combination of things, I think. Damage spells weren't capped, but hit points essentially were. Most characters got roughly 9 hit dice (with con modifiers), and then just a straight +2 or +3 hit points per level. And monsters generally had fairly low hit points (especially when compared to 3e)- an ancient huge black dragon had all of 8 hit dice.

This meant a couple of things-
first, damage spells didn't suck ass. You could actually seriously hurt or kill level appropriate threats with fireball.

second, low level spells didn't become obsolete so quickly. In fact some were downright awesome. Chromatic orb falls into this category. shitty at low levels, it gets better with caster level, changing from shit damage (1-4) with a blind effect to a paralysis effect at 7th and at 12th save or die, with paralysis for 2-5 rounds even if you save. And its a fucking illusionist spell.

However, in second edition they capped the damage spells. It was actually one of the few major changes in the edition (as opposed to consolidations). It dropped their effectiveness considerably, but it wasn't too horrible, though low level spells start to not be level appropriate any more.

But then, 3rd edition. Uncap the hit points and keep the caps on damage spells. There is no way they can't suck, and lower level spells become meaningless as you gain in level. All that remain are the buffs spells, since they utterly failed to come up with a way to compare the power of damage vs. buff, for some reason.

[Username17]

Frank, sometimes I can't tell if you like the 4e ideas that are showing up or not.

Some of the ideas are good. Others are not. The Class Training thing, for example is a really obviously shit idea. First off they make everyone pick a base class and they can't ever change it. Right away that puts people on the rails of AD&D - the rails we didn't like. And no amount of character customization is going to make that not feel like an imposition. But the reasoning behind it is that different classes have a different chasis: with the obvious implication that some chasis are better than others.

Then there's going to be some kind of implementation. The two ideas that are brought up are that you spend a feat to be allowed to select your normally allowed talents off another list; and that spending the feat straight up gives you a cross-class ability. Both are bad.

The core problem here is that the only reason to have different class chasis available is to have some be better than others. And that means that what you're really doing is making a situation where players write "Warlord" on their character sheet and then play a Wizard because frankly Wizards have a shitty class chasis and you might as well be dropping your fireballs on people with a Warlord's attack bonus and hit points (or whatever).

I don't know exactly how it's going to work. Obviously they don't either. But the trails they are running down aren't good ones. There's no real reason for a Wizard to have a differet attack bonus than a Warlord - once you're slapping every action onto an "attack roll" the wizard's attack bonus is just as integral to the character as the Paladin's. There's no purpose served in having different classes inheretly having their actions be more or less likely to function on a round by round basis.

----

Much of what they are talking about is salvageable. Many of the ideas are old and potentially good and bold directions for D&D to move in. But damnit, there's so much stupid coming out of those previews that it's really obvious that they are just throwing ideas at the wall completely at random.

The real question on combat should be "how many rounds should it last?" not "How big of an aura bonus should Paladins supply?" They should be starting from a basic model of numbers and hit point comparisons at each level and then back regressing where the bonuses and penalties are coming from. But they aren't.

Once you've got universal ability slots, you should actually use them. You shouldn't do what they are doing and make a bunch of independent houses of cards and hoping it all works somehow.

Seriously, they are giving me "Warlords are more likely to have their abilities function and are harder to get rid of, but their abilities aren't as good" coupled with the ability to trade your class abilities for picks off a different list. Isn't the min/max on that pretty fucking obvious? Why is it there at all?

-Username17

[Voss]

Seriously, they are giving me "Warlords are more likely to have their abilities function and are harder to get rid of, but their abilities aren't as good" coupled with the ability to trade your class abilities for picks off a different list. Isn't the min/max on that pretty fucking obvious? Why is it there at all?

True. Its already obvious that if there isn't some form of arbitrary cap on how many per encounter abilities you can have, then one of the best things you can do is blow feats (and talents) to have a large pile of per encounter abilities so you never, ever have to attack normally (or use weaker at will abilities) at all.

Still, overall it still strikes me as better, mechanically, than 3rd edition. (except for crits). Either no one is hitting the 'I win' button at level X or everybody is. Its better than these classes win, and the rest of you poor buggers never will.
Needs some flavor, though. These poor bastards can't seem to realize that subjective shit needs to be left to the user end.


I suggest not reading the new magic item article. Its kind of sad.
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p ... [br]Pretty much 'just like now, but with extra hand holding, because we know people are fucking dumb'.

Except they don't mention the christmas tree shit at all. That will probably be a nice surprise for x-mas eve itself. In much the way a pink slip is.

[RandomCasualty]

1196728083[/unixtime]]
I suggest not reading the new magic item article. Its kind of sad.
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?p ... [br]Pretty much 'just like now, but with extra hand holding, because we know people are fucking dumb'.

Yep. I had my fingers crossed that maybe they'd get rid of bonus items entirely, but I see now that they're not.

[Username17]

So I'm unable to sleep right now so I've been thinking about what I would do if I were in charge of making 4th edition. And I've decided that I would brand it in with Magic: The Gathering. Hard. A character would have a color in addition to a level, and that would be as intrusive as “classes” ever got. Between levels 11 and 20 you are “legendary” and that means that you get a second color (because you're a M:tG legend, get it?) and from levels 21-30 you'd be Epic and get a third color.

Each color would in the basic book have six “disciplines” which would all utilize one of the six attributes to one degree or another. But the abilities therein would also have MAD so that there would be spells from Abjuration (White: Int) which would be aided by Dexterity or Charisma, but they'd all get something or other from you having a good Intelligence.

Going up in level would allow you to pick from abilities in your color from any disciplines that you wanted, but some abilities would have a number of mana symbols next to them indicating that you had to have a certain number of abilities from within that discipline before you could take them (an essentially flavor concern). Also, abilities have a level and you have to be that level before you can take them.

The classes in the basic book would simply be sample progressions of people selecting abilities that were vaguely synergistic and fell within a relatively tight MAD based on having two good stats. Because it happens to work out that way, you can then have three sample classes in each color without ever reusing the same stat combinations as so:

Sample Black Classes
Assassin (Dex/Int)
Necromacer (Wis/Str)
Warlock (Cha/Con)

Sample Red Classes
Rogue (Con/Dex)
Shaman (Wis/Int)
Warlord (Str/Cha)

Sample Green Classes
Druid (Cha/Int)
Ranger (Dex/Wis)
Skin Shifter (Str/Con)

Sample Blue Classes
Bard (Cha/Dex)
Psychic (Wis/Con)
Sorcerer (Int/Str)

Sample White Classes
Fighter (Str/Dex)
Monk (Int/Con)
Paladin (Cha/Wis)

In any case, one of the biggest problems facing D&D in general and the monkey poo they've been throwing specifically lately is that having everyone nut up burst damage on the first turn isn't especially fun. It's like how Voltron would have been if they started with the Sword at the start of every single fight. The big dramatic attack loses its dramatic impact, and most fights are over before they've really begun. It's essentially the same problem as the current edition's love affair with the Save-or-Die. Everyone throws the best first so there's really not much room for tactics.

So instead we want people to save up for “finishing moves” in which they can do big splashy things once a combat has gone on long enough. This means that rather than giving attacks cool-down times, we give them warm-up times where you slot them in early in the fight and then let them fly when they are ready. This gives a sense of urgency to combat without making it a game of slapjack. Combat maneuvers which can be cranked out the turn they are prepared are valuable but much weaker. A Goblin Shaman throws firebolts for a while before he calls down a torrent of A-grade destruction across the battlefield.

It's expandable in that you can write as much material as you want about “Hex Blades” who go around with Red Disciplines with the Strength and Wisdom based abilities. Also you can write up whole new disciplines with some classes which use them and it doesn't hurt anything.

And I would have a separate Condition Track (which can only be healed during down time and Hit Points (which can be popped back during a battle and essentially always return between combats).

And this is an important design consideration: Every character should be able to affect the battlefield in a meaningful way every turn regardless of what they actually roll.

-Username17

[Catharz]

Frank, I think that that's an idea you could sell to Hasbro for a lot of money, and assuming that the guys managing Wizards aren't total idiots, you would probably be overseeing the next edition of D&D (or Magic: the RPG, or D&D: The Gathering, or ...). I mean, yeah, that's exactly what they should be doing, although there would certainly be D&D fans screaming bloody murder. I'd play that game.

You're lucky that you're stuck in the Czech Republic where they can't get their claws into you.



One question though: Why have a condition track and HP? Is that really so much easier than separate lethal and nonlethal damage totals which stack to push you down the track?

[shau]

You know the old timers would go insane if WotC combined Magic and D&D.
:tonguesmile:

What would happen with guerrilla combat in such a system. Could you burn through a few turns of combat maneuvers and then run before the spirit bomb gets fired or no?

[MrWaeseL]

Just chiming in to say I'm a huge fan of condition tracks and favor them over HP.

[Catharz]

1196735790[/unixtime]]
What would happen with guerrilla combat in such a system. Could you burn through a few turns of combat maneuvers and then run before the spirit bomb gets fired or no?

Yes, but you'd loose the option to use your own 'spirit bomb'.

[ckafrica]

I think after 4th comes out we need to make 3.75 to pull all of the good ideas from the piles of poo

[virgil]

That whole mention of not having fights involve Voltron's sword being whipped out from the beginning reminds me of this article. Now, ignore the fact that they use 'examples' with a horrible bias towards their design.

Another source is from Iron Heroes with the token system, at least in concept.

[Username17]

+10 damage in FUDGE is madness. That attack is essentially an automatic take-down against just about anyone. On the other hand, +0 damage is completely worthless - you're literally better off throwing rocks. So that system does not actually perform its stated goal of having people mage duel it up for a while and then cast the giant death spell - instead magician become Goldenaxe characters where they fight with regular weapons made out of steel to chop down mooks for a while and then they call down meteors to destroy all enemies. I see where they are coming from, but it's a fundamentally flawed place.

Why have a condition track and HP? Is that really so much easier than separate lethal and nonlethal damage totals which stack to push you down the track?

Because you want lethal damage to come with penalties. So it's just plain easier to say that every time an attack does X% of your hit points or drops you to 0 hit points that you jump to the next penalty level than to have a separate tally of lethal hit points and then collect penalties for hitting specific thresholds.

I mean heck, the only reason we're keeping hit points at all is so that you can have Final Fantasy style White Mages. Otherwise we'd just go to a damage threshold system with condition tracks all around.

--

You can even have "advanced wound rules" where every time you dropped down the condition track you rolled for a specific penalty (ex.: Eye Wound, your accuracy drops), rather than having a general penalty that goes up each level of the condition track. I actually forsee those as being fairly popular because it would be a way to add in "hit locations" without completely boning players.

Another source is from Iron Heroes with the token system, at least in concept.

I thought about that. The Iron Heroes tokens are too complicated and not good. I also thought of making characters of different colors get mana under different circumstances (ex.: Red characters get Mana for each turn that their enemies take damage; White characters get mana for each turn that their allies take damage, etc...) But I think it's probably a bad idea. Characters should probably just make a "declaration" every round and some of the available declarations are "I will cast Hellstorm in five rounds..."

-Username17

[Crissa]

Guerilla warfare is all about warming up your spirit bomb before the opponent knows they're in combat. Or using your unlimited sniping resources to whittle away at them; and pulling back before they get to use their superior firepower on you. You focus on denying them the chance to regen their hitpoints (by keeping them constantly in battle, it only takes one hidden sniper to keep a squad or more ducking); pilling conditions on specific targets; you using misdirection so that the larger force is always focused at the wrong point of your group.

Of course that last one is exactly the same as a Tank or Hunter/Ranger taunting and fading back - the big weapons are aimed and wasted at them while your other units are able to hit and fade without drawing fire.

I just wonder if you could make something recognizable as D&D like that, though... Something old D&D players could pick up and see some charts and even if the numbers are different, feel at home.

-Crissa

[ckafrica]

And this is an important design consideration: Every character should be able to affect the battlefield in a meaningful way every turn regardless of what they actually roll.

So Frank do you mean that all actions will have a guaranteed effect? That starts to sound a bit like playing a card game to me. Can you clarify for me? Cheers

[Username17]

1196760858[/unixtime]]

And this is an important design consideration: Every character should be able to affect the battlefield in a meaningful way every turn regardless of what they actually roll.

So Frank do you mean that all actions will have a guaranteed effect? That starts to sound a bit like playing a card game to me. Can you clarify for me? Cheers

They are on to something with the Smites that have an attack roll and a secondary automatic effect. Plus we have precedence with Wizards casting web or fireball -best effect if you succeed (entanglement or full damage) with a lesser effect on a failure (create terrain or partial damage).

The problem with the smite write-up isn't the action mechanic, it's the flavor. The secondary effect seems to have no relationship to your action. It feels like a computer-game ability rather than a story effect. But imagine that instead you had something like this:

Overwhelming Attack
You use a rapid and brutal offensive to throw your opponent off balance and shrink their own window for counterattacking.
Make your attack as normal, whether your attack lands or not, your opponent suffers a penalty on their own attack rolls until the beginning of your next turn.

• Special: Your target may voluntarily prevent the penalty to their own attacks, but if they do so your attack automatically hits.

Same basic idea, but phrased in a more palatable fashion so that it fits into a roleplaying game better.

-Username17