| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| CTRMann07-27-07, 06:12 PM | Signed |
| 7he_Architect08-01-07, 07:23 AM | But if they roll 3 d6 instead of a D20 then it would be better. Sooooooooooo.... Not Signed! |
| Cyber-Dave08-01-07, 12:54 PM | If 4.0 is anything like Star Wars Saga, not signed. That rule set is better than 3.5 hands down. So much better, I can't seem to bring myself to play any other ruleset anymore after having played Saga. |
| Aussiegamer08-01-07, 06:15 PM | I'll sign yes as the rules for SW are more complex for doing anything due to the higher volume of checks to do anything with force...transpose to magic and eekkk! |
| JosephKell08-01-07, 08:37 PM | I would like to see the Saga rules converted for D&D and d20 Modern. Yeah, some people will be displeased as D&D becomes more generic, and some settings it won't fit well. Like, if Magic involved a Use Magic check, then I could see some problems (unless a Caster class gave additional bonuses on checks). Except if magic is like Star Wars where anyone with the equivalent of Force Sensitivity feat can try to use it, then it could become a bit not-D&D. But that could just mean that no one has figured it out yet. Perhaps there will be Arcane Magic Access and Divine Magic Access feats and separate skills to train in for each and each one would have its own training feat to learn 1+Int or 1+Wis spells to the Spell Suite. If your argument for not wanting D&D 4.0 to be written is that you don't want to buy something new, well, don't buy it then. No one is stopping you from playing 3.0, 3.5, AD&D, or the original. Do what you want. If, however, you don't want 4.0 to be written is because you think that a certain version is already perfect. Well, you might be right, but we will only know that when other things are tried and found to be lacking. But hey, if they are found to be worse than a current incarnation, no one is gonna force you to buy it. /anti-signed |
| AegriSomniaPress08-01-07, 10:07 PM | I would like to see something with a bit more of an Alternity skills rawk the house lean. I like the d20 mechanic but if they did the skill sets and abilities like alternity I would be all over that ****...otherwise the current edition is fine how it is. Soooooo...conditionally signed Regards, Seth Those That Follow, Don't let humanities last hope be your dieing breath |
| Ranger REG08-02-07, 02:17 AM | Meh. :bored: Had this been up last year, I would have signed. Now, while I'd rather 4.0e will come out in 2010 or later, I'm not going to resist if it comes out earlier. |
| Luzetski08-02-07, 04:44 PM | No offense, but I'm not signing. I only recently started thinking about moving on to 3.5 (I've been using my home-brewed 2.7 for... ever). If 4.0 is just around the corner (so to speak), I'd be greatly looking forward to 4.0! To be honest, though, I don't think it's coming any time soon, so I don't think you have a lot to worry about. :) Rabit |
| CTRMann08-04-07, 12:56 AM | I just resent the fact that they are only doing this to sale more books! P.L.E.A.S.E! How greedy can Wizards get? |
| sigma99908-04-07, 02:32 AM | pssshhh you guys are being silly, just don't buy it. Like I am right now with all the crap coming out. :P |
| Ranger REG08-05-07, 01:40 AM | I just resent the fact that they are only doing this to sale more books! P.L.E.A.S.E! How greedy can Wizards get? Is WotC (and previously TSR) the only target for your tirade? Or do you resent other RPG companies putting out new editions of their own rules (e.g., Hero Games HERO System 5th Edition)? If you're perfectly happy with any of the old edition rules, stick with it. |
| Onslaught[IT]08-05-07, 11:16 AM | Signed. Why? Because I think Saga isn't good for D&D, at least not *all* of it. It works good? Yeah, but for Star Wars. Maybe for D20 Modern. But it's not D&D. "People would say the same thing when 3.0 came out!" you say. Why? Because we don't have THAC0 anymore? We still have it, just changed the name and it works backwards... it's BAB! Changing D20 for 3d6? I don't think they'll do that. D20 is one great icon for D&D - that's why it's named D20 System. But taking out AC and the magic system would a sad thing. Yeah, i could just keep playing 3.5 if I like... but I like the official settings, both Forgotten (which I met at 3.0) and Eberron, and neither would have support anymore. Anyway... I know we'll see a 4th edition one day... every system has it's new edition: GURPS, WoD, Hero, Rifts, Pendragon... name it, if it doesn't have a new edition is because it's too new for that. I just think the new edition shouldn't come that soon - and I'm guessing that by 2009 we'll have it. Also, I think it shouldn't come with too many modifications - most of the system is perfect as it is... mix some of the skills is good, but it like the customization (point by point) we have on D20 instead of the trained vs untrained of Saga. More generic isn't always the best thing... and when it comes to D&D, sure it isn't. |
| AegriSomniaPress08-05-07, 02:18 PM | I feel primarily that d&d needs a thematic change not really mechanically. Right now there current method of publishing produces cool stuff but damn looking through them is like being vomited on by a concept monster. There is just such a horrendous miss match of things out that it leaves one wondering where to put the peaces. Overall the only changes I would personally like are to see the psionic and magic system form kind of a blending of systems. Regards, Seth |
| TempleofAsura08-05-07, 06:06 PM | I don't think much needs to be changed, but I would really like to see level adjustments fixed, or gotten rid of for some completely different mechanic. Anyhow, 3rd edition has been out for quite a while, and how long has 3.5 been around? Seems like quite a while as well. I don't think it would hurt if they put a new edition out in a few years, well, unless they seriously screw things up with 4th edition. |
| Ranger REG08-06-07, 02:04 AM | ;13312946']Signed. Why? Because I think Saga isn't good for D&D, at least not *all* of it. It works good? Yeah, but for Star Wars. Maybe for D20 Modern. But it's not D&D. Which SAGA mechanics you don't like crossing over to D&D? 1. CondTrack+HP? 2. Cast magic or activate psionic as a skill check? 3. Saving Throws as Defense? 4. Talent Trees? 5. Consolidated skills? 6. Elimination of iterative attacks? 7. 2-2-2 diagonal movement? |
| Ezram08-06-07, 02:46 AM | http://growabrain.typepad.com/growabrain/images/just_say_no.gif |
| Onslaught[IT]08-06-07, 07:18 PM | Which SAGA mechanics you don't like crossing over to D&D? 1. CondTrack+HP? 2. Cast magic or activate psionic as a skill check? 3. Saving Throws as Defense? 4. Talent Trees? 5. Consolidated skills? 6. Elimination of iterative attacks? 7. 2-2-2 diagonal movement? Hello. 1. I didn't get this one. Could you explain, please? 2. Not crossing. 3. Not crossing. 4. I don't know this well enought, but as far as I know I'm ok with this one. It's just a better way to deal with feats. 5. As I said before, I prefere point-by-point distribuition. And I also think it works best. 6. This is a bit 'no' and a bit 'yes' IMO. Why? Well, afaik, there's a way to do more attacks with a certain talent tree... and I suppose the warrior-types would have more talents to chose, so they could get that anyway, so that's a yes. But, as far as I've been told, the system is more moviment-oriented than the original (where "standing in the front of your enemy for rounds" is good because you get more attacks... which doesn't happen in SAGA), and that great for SW... but not that nice in a game with full plate knights and so on, so thats a no. 7. D&D Minis use 1-1,5-1 movement. I like it. I think it's more logical, more tatical and more cool. Nothing I can't house-rule? True. But I'd like 'official support' for those kind of things. |
| Cyber-Dave08-07-07, 02:08 AM | You know, after reading your post Onslaught, I really don't think you have ever played SAGA, which means you really cannot accurately judge it. I have played every version of Dungeons and Dragons, and d20 rules, published by TSR and Wizo's (except for 1st edition). I have to say, SAGA is a better game then 3.5. It works better in almost every way possible. There are some rules I change, but that is always true of any pencil and paper RPG I play. Thing is, I change far less in SAGA then I have for any other game. Saving throws as defenses makes the game run faster, and the only reason NOT to make this change is because of some strange nostalgic loyalty to D&D's original rules. The talent trees don't work instead of feats, they work WITH feats. Every class gets a talent one level, and a feat the next. Talents pretty much replace class abilities. They allow for characters that are a lot more flexible then classic character classes. Two 5th level "fighters" (soldiers) will not pretty much be the same class, but with different skill and feat choices. The mechanic makes the game much more interesting to play. Originally I was against the removal of a "skill point system", having actually played with it it works MUCH better. And as for the "movement" thing, make withdraw a standard action (in SAGA rules) instead of a move action (ala RAW) and everything works fine and dandy. Honestly, the ONLY thing from SAGA that would not work well for a D&D game is a skill/feat based magic system. Making a talent based magic system, however, would work just fine. SAGA is a better game hands down. If 4.0 is anything like SAGA, its a change I would welcome. |
| Ranger REG08-07-07, 03:41 AM | ;13327923']Hello. 1. I didn't get this one. Could you explain, please? :uh-huh: Yeah-h. That explains your position. :smirk: |
| Baron_Endac08-07-07, 10:13 AM | Which SAGA mechanics you don't like crossing over to D&D? 1. CondTrack+HP? 2. Cast magic or activate psionic as a skill check? 3. Saving Throws as Defense? 4. Talent Trees? 5. Consolidated skills? 6. Elimination of iterative attacks? 7. 2-2-2 diagonal movement? I don't think that 1 and 2 can fit in the dnd system but 3,4,5,6 can be a definite improvement to it. Not signed... As for psionics, they have failed to balance them in 2.0 3.0 and 3.5 I wouldn't miss them if they didn't appear at all...:ghosted: |
| ArgulFraster08-07-07, 11:15 AM | Death to 4.0! 3.5 FOREVER! (Dammit, I haven't learned 3.5 yet, no Vecna-damned way am I going to learn a new system-and definitely not without d20s! If I wanted to use three d6s for everything I'd play GURPS! No! ALL HAIL THE D20! |
| Ranger REG08-08-07, 02:07 AM | I don't think that 1 and 2 can fit in the dnd system but 3,4,5,6 can be a definite improvement to it. Why not #1 and #2? The longstanding established hit point system is too sacred to be removed from the D&D game? The longstanding established "fire-n-forget" Vancian-style magic system is also too sacred to be removed from the D&D game? I say make wizards work their magic the way fighters work their weapons. |
| Baron_Endac08-08-07, 09:12 AM | Why not #1 and #2? The longstanding established hit point system is too sacred to be removed from the D&D game? The longstanding established "fire-n-forget" Vancian-style magic system is also too sacred to be removed from the D&D game? I say make wizards work their magic the way fighters work their weapons. Well... Yes to both, I'm a trational fan of AD&D and it just seems wrong to have generic magic powers and skil-check dependant effectiveness instead of a long list of spells that increase in power with caster level...:plotting: hmmm, perhaps a blend of those 2... By the way, what's the deal with the 3D6? |
| JosephKell08-08-07, 12:43 PM | Which SAGA mechanics you don't like crossing over to D&D? 1. CondTrack+HP?HP in saga is triple starting class HP + Con Modifier (Con Modifier isn't tripled, I believe). So Soldiers have 30 + Con, Nobles have 18 + Con. In addition, any time a thing takes more damage than its Damage Threshold, it moves -1 step on the Condition Track. The steps are: Normal (0), -1, -2, -5, -10, unconscious/dead.2. Cast magic or activate psionic as a skill check?The way this works is you have powers known and when you use them you make a skill check to see how powerful it is. For example, when you do Force Slam, you roll to see the damage. I like it because we don't see people abandoning things they knew from level 1. Fireball can be scaled quite easily if you make the damage AND area scale over levels (see Wheel of Time d20). So a level 1's fireball might only hit the principle target, but a level 5's might hit the principle and the two guys next to him. You get Powers back by rolling a nat 20 on your skill check, or by spending a Force Point to get back one spent power. Or 1 minute after an encounter ends. And some talents allow you get back certain powers once per encounter.3. Saving Throws as Defense?This is a good thing because instead of having the 10 targets of a grenade/fireball make rolls (saves) against the attack, the attacker makes 1 roll.4. Talent Trees?These are the unique class features of a class pretty much.5. Consolidated skills?This makes me happy, especially how they deal with how your modifier is calculated. And it isn't broken. Sure a player could do Noble 1/Soldier X, but they lose 12 hit points and 1 BAB in the process. It matters.6. Elimination of iterative attacks?At first I thought this was bad, but with the inclusion of the Condition track, it fixes itself. You can make iterative attacks with feats though.7. 2-2-2 diagonal movement?I missed that because I skimmed the movement section because I thought I was familiar with how movement worked in table top (1-2-1-2...). Thank you for directing my attention to that.;13327923']I didn't get this one. Could you explain, please?There you go. I explained everything. Death to 4.0! 3.5 FOREVER! (Dammit, I haven't learned 3.5 yet, no Vecna-damned way am I going to learn a new system-and definitely not without d20s! If I wanted to use three d6s for everything I'd play GURPS! No! ALL HAIL THE D20!You seriously need to RTFM. Saga uses d20's. You are obviously getting your information from people that don't have the information in the first place. FYI: Saga works for D20 Modern core setting as is. At least four of the base classes do (not the Jedi). |
| Onslaught[IT]08-08-07, 09:17 PM | I can't believe... I made a huge reply and it got lost in the black hole of the internet... *sigh*... I'll make it shorter then... JosephKell, thanks for the info. HP in saga is triple starting class HP + Con Modifier (Con Modifier isn't tripled, I believe). So Soldiers have 30 + Con, Nobles have 18 + Con. In addition, any time a thing takes more damage than its Damage Threshold, it moves -1 step on the Condition Track. The steps are: Normal (0), -1, -2, -5, -10, unconscious/dead. Stronger characters at first level is nice for SW, but I don't like it in D&D. This is a good thing because instead of having the 10 targets of a grenade/fireball make rolls (saves) against the attack, the attacker makes 1 roll. I have problems seeing this with melee attacks. And I think it lets the "hit or miss" to the villain's luck instead of each player's luck. So I still prefer more rolls, even if it's not the quickest option. The talent trees don't work instead of feats, they work WITH feats. Every class gets a talent one level, and a feat the next. Talents pretty much replace class abilities. That sounds good. Suppose we have a Druid with Talent Tree. He could focus on spellcasting, wildshape or animal companions only with it's Talent Tree, without any prestige class or expansion. Or could be just like the classic druid that do a bit of each. Is this supposition correct? You know, after reading your post Onslaught, I really don't think you have ever played SAGA, which means you really cannot accurately judge it. I have played every version of Dungeons and Dragons, and d20 rules, published by TSR and Wizo's (except for 1st edition). I haven't played it yet. I just read (and have been told) about the system, it's changes, etc. The longstanding established "fire-n-forget" Vancian-style magic system is also too sacred to be removed from the D&D game? I *like* the Vancian System! It gives D&D it's own magic system, since no one else uses it - and it works good enough. It has a D&D feeling, and matches D&D. I'm not saying that SAGA is a complete waste of ideas. I'm just saying that some of them works great for Star Wars but poor for D&D. I'd really miss AC an the Vancian Magic System, for exemple. I also think that Talent Trees are great, the new skill point could be good (I've not played with it yet... but, as I said, I prefer chosing skills point-by-point.). Iterative attacks... well... they're there to let Fighters get the same amount of power of Wizards, and to make a difference between higher level characters and low level ones, without any equipment. |
| Ranger REG08-09-07, 01:18 AM | ;13353901']I can't believe... I made a huge reply and it got lost in the black hole of the internet... *sigh*... I'll make it shorter then... JosephKell, thanks for the info. Stronger characters at first level is nice for SW, but I don't like it in D&D. Why not? It would give wizards with the d4 HD a chance to stay longer in battle against mooks. ;13353901']I have problems seeing this with melee attacks. And I think it lets the "hit or miss" to the villain's luck instead of each player's luck. So I still prefer more rolls, even if it's not the quickest option. Meh. When it comes to melee and ranged attacks, AC let the "hit or miss" apply to the attacker's luck instead of the defender's since OD&D. ;13353901'] That sounds good. Suppose we have a Druid with Talent Tree. He could focus on spellcasting, wildshape or animal companions only with it's Talent Tree, without any prestige class or expansion. Or could be just like the classic druid that do a bit of each. Is this supposition correct? That's how I would model it. With various talent trees for the classes, you may do away with prestige class. ;13353901']I *like* the Vancian System! It gives D&D it's own magic system, since no one else uses it - and it works good enough. It has a D&D feeling, and matches D&D. Many of us are tired of the system, which is probably why they limit the use to Spells per Day rate. I prefer a system that makes the caster "attack" with their spells as much as the fighter attack with his sword against the defender's defense. I also want to bump up the use from Spells per Day to Spells per encounter. Also, if you multiclass, your spellcasting don't stop at the level of your class, as with the existing rules. You may not gain access to high-level spells due multiclassing but your Use Magic skill rank will continue to increase. |
| JosephKell08-10-07, 03:32 PM | Sure the idea of making it possible for a Fighter to have similar spellcasting ability as a Wizard or Sorcerer may seem unfair, but that is easily balanced by: 1. Giving Spellcasters the appropriate spellcasting feat to be able to take the skill as a class skill. 2. Giving Spellcasters special (exclusive) talents to better modify their spells (this could easily replace Metamagic feats in 3rd edition). 3. Give Spellcasters a d6 hit die and a 3/4 BAB. 4. Separate the Magical Training spells to Arcane and Divine so that all the spells learned how to be of the same type. Obviously it would make Mystic Theurge Spellcasters popular, but that isn't much a problem (especially if Arcane Spell Training does 1 + Int and Divine Spell Training does 1 + Wis). Being a spellcaster (and not just a ritual user) requires: 1. The appropriate Skill Access feat (Arcane or Divine). 2. The appropriate Training feat to learn Spells (Arcane or Divine). That is 2 feats, and the Training feat isn't on any bonus feat list. Comparison between a HUMAN Fighter/Soldier and a Human Spellcaster: Human Soldier: Feat (Arcane Spellcaster), Bonus Human Feat (Arcane Spell Training), Talent (some Soldier/Fighter talent), uses one trained skill on Use Arcane Magic Human Spellcaster: Feat (Arcane Spell Training), Bonus Human Feat (Skill Focus - Use Arcane Magic), Spellcaster Talent (maybe one that allows the exclusion of targets from an area effect), uses one trained skill on Use Arcane Magic So both know 1 + Int Modifier spells, and has Use Arcane Magic as a Trained class skill, but the Spellcaster has a better modifier. Soldier: 0 (half level 1) + 5 (trained) + Charisma Modifier Spellcaster: 0 (half level 1) +5 (trained) + 5 (skill focus) + Charisma Modifier And if you consider that a Soldier in a D&D setting is gonna have a solid Strength, Dexterity, and/or Constitution score, it becomes very M.A.D. trying to squeeze in Intelligence and Charisma. And now using up two feats. But a Spellcaster going either Arcane or Divine isn't trying to cover so many roles. A Spellcaster trying to go both Arcane and Divine faces a similar problem but not one that is unattainable. I for one don't really see a good reason to separate Arcane and Divine spells. I do however see a need for Rituals and the like for things that aren't rushed and/or allow time to view reference material. |
| Onslaught[IT]08-10-07, 07:05 PM | Why not? It would give wizards with the d4 HD a chance to stay longer in battle against mooks. Wizard's aren't supposed to resist a lot of damage in the first levels. I don't like new characters (1st level) looking like 3rd level ones. Meh. When it comes to melee and ranged attacks, AC let the "hit or miss" apply to the attacker's luck instead of the defender's since OD&D. When you throw a fireball you're attacking an area, so it makes sense that the defender's luck is more important. When you're trying to hit something directly, you're in a different matter. That's why I prefer AC for melee/ranger/touch attacks and many saves for area spels and so on. With various talent trees for the classes, you may do away with prestige class. You could create more talent trees or derivation from the first one so that new or different trees would be our new prestige classes. I do like that idea. Also, if you multiclass, your spellcasting don't stop at the level of your class, as with the existing rules. As for that, I prefer the 3.5 way... spells per day (some spells have no use in encounters...), vancian system and spells tied to class level. |
| DCAnderson08-15-07, 10:45 AM | I'm signing this because I know this thread will have absolutely no effect on anything! Hooray! |
| Amphimir_Miriel08-16-07, 12:10 AM | I have not bought any D20/D&D product where the bulk of the gaming info is not under the OGL license. If there is no SRD 4.0, no way Im buying D&D again. |
| TheAnthroDM08-16-07, 12:49 AM | Oh yes, let us say no because we know that WoTC will stop production if a couple(minimization) people don't like it. Dear god it's the end of the world. If you didn't see this coming, you're (edit). 4.0 doesn't make 3.5 an less valuable, you don't like the new system, don't use it, stop *****ing, and play DnD. ;) |
| Ezram08-16-07, 01:23 AM | Hey, TheAnthroDM Grow up! |
| TheAnthroDM08-16-07, 01:26 AM | Hey, TheAnthroDM Grow up! In the famous words of some /b/tard "No, u!" Seriously, you're the ones who need to grow up if you think that 4.0 is such a dramatic evil that it must be protested against. |
| Ezram08-16-07, 01:31 AM | Oh yes, let us say no because we know that WoTC will stop production if a couple(minimization) people don't like it. Dear god it's the end of the world. If you didn't see this coming, you're (edit). 4.0 doesn't make 3.5 an less valuable, you don't like the new system, don't use it, stop *****ing, and play DnD. Trolling is against the CoC. I am neutral on the issue until the first book is released, but am against insulting players with different tastes. |
| WizO_Keldar08-16-07, 01:49 AM | This thread was created to show support.....or not, for a speculated 4.0 release. Let's not turn it into a feud. Show your support by stating why it would be good, or show your lack of support by discussing why it would not be good. However, do not be impolite or insulting to one another. Posts will be deleted and further action taken if necessary. Thanks. |
| Cab08-16-07, 09:04 AM | Out of interest, do we know anything about 4th ed yet? Might I make a comment about previous editions and the transition from one to another? Original Dungeons and Dragons wasn't too hard to follow; it was brief, simple, easy, and left a lot to be tailored by individual DMs. The Holmes edition took what was just beginning to get complex as more supplements had come out and gave us the first Basic rules. While the rules were basic, the presentation was a little difficult for many, but the gem of the idea for basic D&D was there. AD&D (1st edition) came along and tried to give us all a unified rule system that you could use as well in tournaments as you could at your own gaming table. The intention was always that the game would be updated from time to time, initially that was done with Unearthed Arcana, but as more hardbound books appeared it was apparent that there was a need for a 2nd edition (Gygax talked about that really early on). 2nd edition was to be simply a combination of the best elements of 1st ed made in to a coherent edition again... At the same time Frank Mentzer had produced what, in my opinion, was the most ambitious and playable version of D&D of all time, in the Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters/Immortals (BECMI) line. He'd had the excellent work of Holmes, Cook and Moldvay (on top of the original Gygax/Arneson versions) and he built beautifully on that. But the two games, AD&D and D&D, were pretty similar; to interconvert was straight forward. 2nd edition finally came along, but it was produced by TSR post-Gygax. It didn't sell as well as 1st ed, but it did okayish. It was still nearly the same game; some of the sub-systems were different, but the meat and drink of it wasn't far from 1st ed. It was an evolution of that game, allbeit one in a direction that seemed alien to some old timers. TSR went down the pan, for reasons that aren't relevant here. But in came 3rd ed, then 3.5... and all of a sudden the game was different. So many concepts had changed radically, some of necessity, and some merely out of a different set of preferences of the authors I think. The scale of 3.5 was (and is) huge, with rulebooks weighing in at 300 pages a time, lots of intricacy in combat and tactics, prestige classes and feats... Gosh, but it is so very, very different to 2nd ed and to 'classic' D&D which it replaced (which is why so many people stayed with older editions). In my own view, theres a lot to commend 3rd ed, but it isn't the same game that I recognise (as someone who has played the game for considerably longer than 3rd ed has been around!) as D&D. Therefore my advice, my instinct, is that 4th edition should do two things. Firstly, it should simplify and streamline; a players rulebook more than 100 pages long is too big. You don't need it; the basic players book of the Mentzer era was a pamphet, the players books in BECMI all together were still far more brief and had more than enough to play an in depth, complex game for years. Secondly, it should be an evolutionary change from 3rd ed rather than a reviolutionary change. The revolution from 2nd to 3rd ed put a lot of people off, don't make that mistake again! Ideally, 4th ed would be simpler, faster, easier, lighter and would re-engage with all of the gamers who have time for the d20 game engine but little sympathy for the sheer scale and complexity of 3rd ed. Well, thats my tuppence worth. |
| timstearns208-16-07, 03:41 PM | It's been so long since WOTC has put out a product that I'm interested in that 4.0 is a non-announcement. Because of the OGL and publishers using it to put out quality product, 4.0 is sort of like M$ Vista, too expensive and unnecessary. |
| timstearns208-16-07, 03:54 PM | It's pretty easy for me to sign, I've been buying stuff from d20 licensed and OGL based publishers instead of the poor WOTC offerings that moving to 4.0 is really not necessary. Tim |
| JediDragoon08-16-07, 04:11 PM | Triple HP at would give wizards and sorcerers the survivability they need at first level and the Condition Track is a pretty elegant way to handle progressive damage. Consolidated skills made the whole system a lot simpler, since a lot of the 3(.5)E skills are redundant and most people just maxed out the important ones anyway. With Saga, all your skills increase as you gain experience, but you can pick them as trained skills and take Skill Focus to boost your ranks and, perhaps most importantly, talents tend to make skills much, much more useful than they were in previous d20 system. You still use your skills to beat DCs, but you can also select Talents that let you use your skills more effectively or that give you completely new abilities. Anyone who says it's impossible to do any fine tuning with skills has no idea what they're talking about. One of the things that I think would be interested would be an equivalent to the Force system. Giving spellcasters "spell suites" would make low-level spellcasters more useful since they wouldn't burn out all their spells after a single encounter and depending on the way it was implemented, it might power them down enough that they would be on par with fighter-types without being overpowered. One of the ideas I had was to make a spellcasting talent for Sorcerers, Wizards and Clerics and then make a bunch of talents called Advanced Spellcasting X that would give them access to higher-level spells, but I'm not sure how it would work with the last thing I expect from the Fourth Edition, which is... MULTICLASSING. Please, for the love of God, don't make this the skull-wracking mess that it is now. Right now, multiclassing usually involves hefty penalties to skill progression (which would be solved by Saga's skill system) and massive penalties to almost all spellcasters. And yet, out of the core rules, the Arcane Trickster, Arcane Archer, Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge all require multiclassing or could be easily done with multiclassing if the rules were more flexible. I believe that there are many other base and prestige classes besides these that could easily be turned into Saga-style talent trees or cut out entirely with more flexible rules. This would mean that new books would contain fewer prestige classes, if any, but it would also mean that non-standard character concepts would be handled much, much more elegantly than they are now. Then again, there's always the possibility that they'll do something completely different from the Saga edition, so I'll be waiting for the preview and SRDs. |
| Ranger REG08-17-07, 03:37 AM | ;13372822']Wizard's aren't supposed to resist a lot of damage in the first levels. I don't like new characters (1st level) looking like 3rd level ones. Wizards PCs should. ;13372822']When you throw a fireball you're attacking an area, so it makes sense that the defender's luck is more important. Yeah, but the wizard/spellcaster is the attacker on this one. They should attack with their spells as much as fighters attack with their weapons. ;13372822']When you're trying to hit something directly, you're in a different matter. How so? An incoming attack is an incoming attack whether directly or indirectly. ;13372822']That's why I prefer AC for melee/ranger/touch attacks and many saves for area spels and so on. Yeah, but that still take too long, because everyone has to roll and then compare. Why not just let one roll be compared to the target's defenses? ;13372822']You could create more talent trees or derivation from the first one so that new or different trees would be our new prestige classes. I do like that idea. Like I said, talent trees have been so underused. Now you can customize and be different from other fighter characters out there (or other wizard character, and so forth). ;13372822']As for that, I prefer the 3.5 way... spells per day (some spells have no use in encounters...), vancian system and spells tied to class level. Which is why a lot of gamers don't like the existing multiclassing rules. Due to BAB, it allows the fighters to continue to improve their combat skills (albeit at at a slower rate outside of the fighter class). Due to the skill system, it allows the rogue to improve their thieving skills (albeit at a slower rate outside of the rogue class). But because the magic system is tied to the specific class, once you stopped advancing, you're frozen at the spell level and spells per day. That sucks. And you think this should be okay? You must be a magic-hater. |
| kunadam08-17-07, 09:15 AM | I'm not totaly familiar with the SAGA system, even thougth we went over to it in our current SW campaign. I wote YES for 4.0 if is like SAGA, and a big NO if it is a miniature based board game... 1. CondTrack+HP? Cool. Makes sense. The triple hp is unnecessary for fantasy D&D 2. Cast magic or activate psionic as a skill check? NO. Best magic system thus far in d20 is the psi system in Exp.Psi.Handbook, or the one in Wheel of Time. IMHO 3. Saving Throws as Defense? OK. 4. Talent Trees? I would prefer just feats instead of feat+talents. 5. Consolidated skills? YES! Delete Use magic item, spellcraft and a couple of more unneeded skills. 6. Elimination of iterative attacks? It was cool, I would retain it. 7. 2-2-2 diagonal movement? Why not go with hexes, then problem would be solved. making maps would be more difficult though |
| Ranger REG08-18-07, 02:24 AM | Cool. Makes sense. The triple hp is unnecessary for fantasy D&D The condition track would be worthless until you're at least 3 HD. NO. Best magic system thus far in d20 is the psi system in Exp.Psi.Handbook, or the one in Wheel of Time. IMHO Personally, I prefer Spells/Power per Encounter over Spells per Day. To exceed your limit would require heavy payment (either go down the condition track and/or take a voluntary hp loss). I would prefer just feats instead of feat+talents. I prefer feat to be a one-time benefit (e.g., +1, +2), while talent be a level-dependent benefit (e.g., +1 per level, +2 per 4 levels). It was cool, I would retain it. I would only keep iterative attack ONLY if we rid of with the ridiculous decreasing attack bonus (e.g., +11/+6/+1). Why not just say we get two attacks at +6 each? I'm still keeping the level-based damage bonus. Why not go with hexes, then problem would be solved. making maps would be more difficult though Take it from an old-school wargamer, square is hip. You don't see cartographers use hexes in maps with lattitude and longitude bearings, do you? |
| j0lt08-18-07, 06:10 AM | 1. CondTrack+HP? 2. Cast magic or activate psionic as a skill check? 3. Saving Throws as Defense? 4. Talent Trees? 5. Consolidated skills? 6. Elimination of iterative attacks? 7. 2-2-2 diagonal movement? 1. I already use that in my d20 Modern games. It'd be a great addition to D&D 2. Of course! It doesn't make sense that it should be a guaranteed ability. It takes skill and training to master such forces. Without a skill check, it doesn't make much sense. 3. This is one thing I DON'T like about Saga. I preferred the 3e way of handling it. 4. It's about freakin' time! 5. IMO, they should be changed, not removed. 7. Boourns. Diagonal should've been 1.5! (or they could've gone Hex) NOT signed. I think if D&D 4e was like Saga, I'd actually play it. As it stands, the only 3e/3.5 related product I'll play is d20 Modern. |
| Thomasyo408-18-07, 08:36 AM | i say no 4.0. its killing D&D, if you get more computerized then its not D&D anymore. |
| Korith08-19-07, 01:48 PM | I only have 1 tidbit to add. Even the people who say YES to D&D 4.0 are "Calling it 4.0 because they expect a 4.5 to be released soon!" and its thoughts like that in the minds of gamers that are going to ruin the sales of 4.0, because even the people who are for the new 4.0 will be waiting for a 4.5 in two years, just like they did with 3.0 and 3.5. I'll admit it. Whether I'm for 4.0 or not, I'll still wait after getting burned with 3.0. I bought the books a year and a half after they came out, because my gaming group was finishing up a long running campaign. Six months later, they relesed 3.5 edition. So I guess in the end, goodluck to them. |
| bawb4408-19-07, 03:52 PM | Heck No 4.0,Heck No 4.0,Heck No 4.0 Point made. |
| j0lt08-19-07, 09:34 PM | Even the people who say YES to D&D 4.0 are "Calling it 4.0 because they expect a 4.5 to be released soon!" ...because even the people who are for the new 4.0 will be waiting for a 4.5 in two years, just like they did with 3.0 and 3.5. I'll admit it. Whether I'm for 4.0 or not, I'll still wait after getting burned with 3.0. I bought the books a year and a half after they came out, because my gaming group was finishing up a long running campaign. Six months later, they relesed 3.5 edition. Despite the fact that they have officially said "THERE WILL BE NO 4.5" |
| Ranger REG08-20-07, 02:22 AM | 2. Of course! It doesn't make sense that it should be a guaranteed ability. It takes skill and training to master such forces. Without a skill check, it doesn't make much sense. 3. This is one thing I DON'T like about Saga. I preferred the 3e way of handling it. Dude, in order to reduce dice-rolling, it's better for the wizard to make a skill check against his targets' defenses. Otherwise, you'll have to deal with the additional step of everyone rolling their saving throws after the wizard successful rolled his skill check for his magic to work. After all, we didn't need a defender making a defense roll after sniper makes a successful attack roll, right? 5. IMO, they should be changed, not removed. Dude, we are changing the skills by bundling some of them. 7. Boourns. Diagonal should've been 1.5! (or they could've gone Hex) Meh. For me, I'll stick with the "1-2-1" rule. I'll only play hex with Star Fleet Battles and BattleTech, not with D&D or any d20 products. |
| j0lt08-20-07, 03:55 AM | Dude, we are changing the skills by bundling some of them. #5 was regarding iterative attacks, not skill consolidation. I agree with skill consolidation if it's done well, but I think the way they removed iterative attacks could've been done better. |
| kunadam08-20-07, 07:49 AM | Personally, I prefer Spells/Power per Encounter over Spells per Day. To exceed your limit would require heavy payment (either go down the condition track and/or take a voluntary hp loss). But dungeon heck is about a lot of encounters each after the other. Encounters are there to decrease the power of the party so when they face the boos, they are less than optimal (or they need rest). It would be a very different game with spells/encounters. Also I feel that one of the great thins about a fighter is that it can be in prime fighting shape pretty much anytime, whereas paladin/barbarian/cleric/wizards expend their fighting ability over time. Take it from an old-school wargamer, square is hip. You don't see cartographers use hexes in maps with lattitude and longitude bearings, do you? In battletech it works fine. I'm actually against the whole square/minatures rules. I was happy with the way AD&D 2ed handled the thing (i.e. DM's judgement), which alleviates a lot of difficult rules. |
| Ranger REG08-21-07, 01:47 AM | #5 was regarding iterative attacks, not skill consolidation. No. Using my quote, #6 is about iterative attacks. #5 is skill consolidation. You used the wrong number. |
| Ranger REG08-21-07, 01:51 AM | In battletech it works fine. I'm actually against the whole square/minatures rules. I was happy with the way AD&D 2ed handled the thing (i.e. DM's judgement), which alleviates a lot of difficult rules. Since when 3e restrict DM's discretion? |
| kunadam08-21-07, 07:12 AM | Since when 3e restrict DM's discretion? It does not restrict it. But the rules governing miniature based movement, do take up some space (with 5 foot step, withdraw, etc.) |
| Ranger REG08-22-07, 02:18 AM | It does not restrict it. But the rules governing miniature based movement, do take up some space (with 5 foot step, withdraw, etc.) Got nothing wrong with that. Then again, I'm an old-school wargamer. If you don't use minis-n-maps, D&D is still doable like before. |
| Nadaka08-23-07, 05:15 PM | But dungeon heck is about a lot of encounters each after the other. Encounters are there to decrease the power of the party so when they face the boos, they are less than optimal (or they need rest). It would be a very different game with spells/encounters. Also I feel that one of the great thins about a fighter is that it can be in prime fighting shape pretty much anytime, whereas paladin/barbarian/cleric/wizards expend their fighting ability over time. In battletech it works fine. I'm actually against the whole square/minatures rules. I was happy with the way AD&D 2ed handled the thing (i.e. DM's judgement), which alleviates a lot of difficult rules. There is a flaw with this line of thinking. The fighter is no more fresh after loosing half his HP than the barbarian, and significantly less fresh than the paladin, ranger, cleric, druid or bard because they have the option of trading spell slots for HP. I like the idea of per encounter scaling because it means that the actual challenge of a given encounter is less dependant on the frequency of encounters and more directly related to the encounter itself. There are some groups that like a lot of RP and may have 1 combat every 2 or 3 in-game days (or weeks). Other groups might churn through a dungeon with several dozen critters in a single day. By switching to a per encounter method, both playing styles become equally viable One doesn't need to conform to the standard assumption of 4 encounters per adventuring day to use the CR system with this change. |
| JosephKell08-24-07, 02:31 PM | The only thing that is broken about ability uses per encounter is healing. But that is addressable. Perhaps healing magic is just going to have to be one of those things that is X times per day. OR make it so that a given target can only receive X number of healing spells a day. If a Fighter can only get one heal per day from a given spell caster, that Fighter is not gonna way it to be after the first encounter when he/she has only taken 1 point of damage. It also makes healers much more valuable. Say the party saves a Cleric from marauders, instead of asking for coin compensation, perhaps the NPC Cleric casts a cure spell on each of them. And of course there would be an opportunity for feats/talents that let you receive additional heal per day from casters. And if 4th Ed incorporates the Second Wind feature that Saga has, players already have that. Clerics could also have a talent that lets them cast a Stabilize spell. |
| MorganChampion08-28-07, 09:00 PM | Actually,I hope that D &D 4.0 will be more like Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved...:cool: |
| Elemental_Elf08-29-07, 12:06 AM | HP in saga is triple starting class HP + Con Modifier (Con Modifier isn't tripled, I believe). So Soldiers have 30 + Con, Nobles have 18 + Con. In addition, any time a thing takes more damage than its Damage Threshold, it moves -1 step on the Condition Track. The steps are: Normal (0), -1, -2, -5, -10, unconscious/dead.The way this works is you have powers known and when you use them you make a skill check to see how powerful it is. For example, when you do Force Slam, you roll to see the damage. I like it because we don't see people abandoning things they knew from level 1. Fireball can be scaled quite easily if you make the damage AND area scale over levels (see Wheel of Time d20). So a level 1's fireball might only hit the principle target, but a level 5's might hit the principle and the two guys next to him. You get Powers back by rolling a nat 20 on your skill check, or by spending a Force Point to get back one spent power. Or 1 minute after an encounter ends. And some talents allow you get back certain powers once per encounter.This is a good thing because instead of having the 10 targets of a grenade/fireball make rolls (saves) against the attack, the attacker makes 1 roll.These are the unique class features of a class pretty much.This makes me happy, especially how they deal with how your modifier is calculated. And it isn't broken. Sure a player could do Noble 1/Soldier X, but they lose 12 hit points and 1 BAB in the process. It matters.At first I thought this was bad, but with the inclusion of the Condition track, it fixes itself. You can make iterative attacks with feats though.I missed that because I skimmed the movement section because I thought I was familiar with how movement worked in table top (1-2-1-2...). Thank you for directing my attention to that.There you go. I explained everything. You seriously need to RTFM. Saga uses d20's. You are obviously getting your information from people that don't have the information in the first place. FYI: Saga works for D20 Modern core setting as is. At least four of the base classes do (not the Jedi). Wow, that sounds like a cool system, I'm going to buy SAGA tomorrow just because of your post! :D ~~~~ As for 4e, I will not sign. I love 3.5 but some of the rules are cumbersome and need revision. I will buy the PHB for 4e, if I like it then I'll prolly play 3.5 for a few more months until my friends update. If I hate it, then I will not (obviously) update. So put me in a maybe category! :D Still its good to see people who love a system so much that they're willing to stick with it - I wish the best for you all! :) |
| j0lt08-29-07, 02:41 AM | ;13312946']"People would say the same thing when 3.0 came out!" you say. Why? Because we don't have THAC0 anymore? We still have it, just changed the name and it works backwards... it's BAB! BAB is not even close to the same as THAC0. BAB is a simple bonus that is applied to all equations. THAC0 was a stat that consisted of a finished equation, which you have to RE-CALCULATE every time the monster you were fighting had an AC other than 0?! FUGLY! Changing D20 for 3d6? I don't think they'll do that. D20 is one great icon for D&D - that's why it's named D20 System. They didn't. I have no idea where you got that idea. But taking out AC and the magic system would a sad thing. The mixing of Defense/AC and Saves takes two separate mechanics and blends them into a single mechanic which, despite taking time to get used to works better, faster and smoother. I didn't like the idea at first either, but now that I've used it, I wouldn't want to go back. I just think the new edition shouldn't come that soon - and I'm guessing that by 2009 we'll have it. Also, I think it shouldn't come with too many modifications - most of the system is perfect as it is... mix some of the skills is good, but it like the customization (point by point) we have on D20 instead of the trained vs untrained of Saga. Perfect? Hardly. Adequate? Definitely! Class restrictions aside, D&D 3.5 is a very good system. Could the d20 System use an update? Yes. Regarding the two skill systems, the new system is a little weird at first. Unless you increase your Int or take the Skill Training feat, all your skills are decided at first level. All skills that are untrained advance as you level as well, so there are no more character like the highly intelligent wizard who unfortunately couldn't tie his shoes properly due to a lack of skill ranks. A bonus to all this is making a 10th level NPC for example takes about the same amount of time as a 1st level NPC. More generic isn't always the best thing... and when it comes to D&D, sure it isn't. Unless you like flexible class choices. I can't even play 3.5 anymore without feeling claustrophobic in my character options. Boourns to that! ;13353901']Stronger characters at first level is nice for SW, but I don't like it in D&D. Yeah, it's great fun to worry that a freakin' RAT might kill my Wizard with a single attack. And I think it lets the "hit or miss" to the villain's luck instead of each player's luck. So I still prefer more rolls, even if it's not the quickest option. The defense system isn't really related to any one particular "side's" luck in either system. Cutting down on rolls makes combat more fluid, thereby speeding up the game, which is something sorely needed! Suppose we have a Druid with Talent Tree. He could focus on spellcasting, wildshape or animal companions only with it's Talent Tree, without any prestige class or expansion. Or could be just like the classic druid that do a bit of each. Is this supposition correct? Yep! With talent trees you have a number of choices of how to progress your character. In Saga, I've made 3 different characters that all have levels of Scoundrel, and they're all very different. I'm hoping they bring the same versatility to the D&D archetypes. I *like* the Vancian System! Why? It places an artificial restriction on characters in order to promote "balance", which could be achieved in other much more elegant ways than saying: "You have the ability to call upon the forces of magic, change the very fabric of time and space, BUT... You can only do so x/day because... Well... If you weren't limited, we'd have to redesign the magic system and that's hard work." It gives D&D it's own magic system, since no one else uses it - and it works good enough. It has a D&D feeling, and matches D&D. So did THAC0. I'm not saying that SAGA is a complete waste of ideas. I'm just saying that some of them works great for Star Wars but poor for D&D. Many of the major changes to Saga edition were originally developed by WotC for D&D4e and handed down to the Saga development team. Give it a chance, I think you'll end up liking it. |
| ZendarPC09-01-07, 01:30 AM | In regards to the issues of streamlining dice rolling, it has been my opinion that die rolls interacting with a player's stats and that do not need to be kept secret (as Move Silently and Hide do) should be left to the players. Thus, my players roll AC check against my monsters' attack ratings (AR). It's simply a d20 roll with a modifier of +(AC - 10), as if the normal AC was the same as taking 10 on the check. The same goes for spells. Using Unearthed Arcana's system of players rolling against monster Save Ratings also streamlines the game. As for Vancian magic, I like the system. Yet, I wonder if it may need to be sacrificed for the sake of the system. Spell points provide one solution, but what about BAB always improving, yet spell casting does not? The answer here is Magic Rating, the magic equivalent of BAB, determining one's caster level. In that way, skills are not necessary for casting magic, and I don't think that they should be. Magic rating and spell points solves this in a much more direct way, if we assume that the two systems are meant to be different sides of the same coin. On the other hand, why not move combat AND magic to a skill based system? We're starting look a like d10 here, but at least it's consistent and at best it strengthens the system as a whole. Which brings me to what I feel is the most important step forward for DnD: Consistency and flexibility. Find a copy of the Class Construction Engine. I think that it is model of the way DnD should go. Class abilities, skill points, even HD type are purchased based upon a point system. The CCE isn't solid, of course, but it was meant only to be a guide. If one set a team of designers to the project, we could have a class construction system that would make classes themselves irrelevant and unnecessary. Rather than publish new PrCs, one would publish new class abilities and builds. The only measure would be level. To me, that's what DnD needs. Evolution. The ability to adapt in an infinite number of ways, like it's been trying to accomplish at least since 3.0. To the extent that 4e utilizes the concepts of consistency and flexibility will be the extent that I support it. |
| Ranger REG09-01-07, 02:17 AM | As for Vancian magic, I like the system. The thing I don't like about the vancian system is the "Spells Per Day" limitation. I'd go with "Spells/Powers per Encounter." I also no longer like the "cast it and forget it" mechanics. If spellcasters want to "attack" with their spells, then they should make a magic attack roll. |
| danzig13809-02-07, 06:19 AM | I'd go with "Spells/Powers per Encounter." I know I've seen quite a few people endorse this idea. I'm curious to know how people would implement it though. One of my biggest questions is the in-between times. If you have fireball 2/encounter, what about during the times that aren't encounters. Say, walking through the forest? Do you just get to blow the crap out of things when strolling along? If spellcasters want to "attack" with their spells, then they should make a magic attack roll.This I don't disagree with. I think it should apply even to spells like fireball (again as the example), using scatter rules and such like a thrown weapon. Sure, you can get the fireball out there, but in the heat of battle (no pun intended), you might be a little off. |
| j0lt09-02-07, 07:29 AM | I know I've seen quite a few people endorse this idea. I'm curious to know how people would implement it though. One of my biggest questions is the in-between times. If you have fireball 2/encounter, what about during the times that aren't encounters. Say, walking through the forest? Do you just get to blow the crap out of things when strolling along? I'm not a big fan of x/day OR x/encounter. Both have large problems (on opposite ends of the spectrum, at that). I'm not sure what system would replace it, but I'm hoping for one... This I don't disagree with. I think it should apply even to spells like fireball (again as the example), using scatter rules and such like a thrown weapon. Sure, you can get the fireball out there, but in the heat of battle (no pun intended), you might be a little off. If you look at the Saga rules, they've done away with the scatter rules. Now, you just make one attack roll for the (insert area attack type here), and if you match or beat anyone's Reflex Defense in the area of effect, they take full damage. If you roll under anyone's Reflex Defense, they take half damage. Quick, clean, no problems. :D |
| Ragitsu11-22-07, 07:40 AM | Agreed. |
| BorosGuildmage11-29-07, 09:06 PM | DAMN IT IM POOR! I CANT AFFORD ANOTHER SET OF BOOKS!! SIGNED VERRY SIGNED!!! |
| Thomasyo412-01-07, 06:58 PM | I agree, im poor too, ive got about 20 3.0/3.5 books (thats nothing). My only hope for 4.0 is that the 3.0/3.5 books get cheaper (on ebay, they'll probably stop selling in stores). I don't like the extreme change to computers, D&D isn't and shouldn't be for it unless it makes a MMORPG (an adequate one at least). virtual dice rolling takes away some of the spirit and suspence of it and it's all to square movement and map wise. the interaction of people is equally as important as the books and is a large part of the game. We dont need a rules change, they just made a TON of books for 3.0/3.5 and unless your rich you can't buy them all even then people still use their own varients. I think their also getting greedy, they're making both magazines (Dungeon and Dragon) online which uses no materials to create (i guess you could use preservation of earths resources as an excuse) but costs too much in my opinion. I do like, though, the new character creation method online thats cool but you need to buy the books. But in reality we really have no power just speaking and we really can't do anything either except not buy it. No worries there will be plenty of people buying 4.0 so it can stay in business. im not buying it, thats my rant. (if they really wanted to make some good cash though they would of sold it closer to christmas) |
| Ranger REG12-01-07, 08:07 PM | I agree, im poor too, ive got about 20 3.0/3.5 books (thats nothing). My only hope for 4.0 is that the 3.0/3.5 books get cheaper (on ebay, they'll probably stop selling in stores). So? :bored: I got books and products since the 1e era. If you're not going to be ready for 4e by June 2008, then don't. If you think you can be ready by June 2008, then start saving up now, beginning with your Christmas/holiday gift money. It also helps you if you stop subscribing to pay-2-play MMORPGs, pass on videogame consoles, Guitar Hero, Apple iCraps, etc. :smirk: |