Don't look at me like that dammit. I'm sure anyone that's not blindly and stupidly loyal has problems with 4e. These are the problems I have with 4th edition so far, and what I feel should be done to fix them for the next Edition. Some of these are pure personal taste and I will freely admit to them, but I've included them to because obviously I feel had the game done them that it would have been better for it. Some of these are pure math related.
Some of these are house rules that I've already adopted.
Note this thread is NOT for.
1 Flaming 4e.
2 Flaming other posters
3. Being Disruptive.
Onto the list.
1. Races, they say they got rid of Subraces, but really they only did a half ass job of doing it. All Elves should be under one Racial Profile, with a "Pick your power and your Stat Combination" All of them get a +2 to Dex, then you pick Int, Wis or Cha as your second +2. Do note the Changeling already comes damn close to doing this already so yes there is a Precedent.
Followed by a Pick your Skill bonuses. Let's face it your skills aren't Natural they are the direct product of where and how you were raised. The Elf, Eladrin, and Drow's bonuses should be 1 interchangeable (in the case of a Wild Elf Drow cross breed for example). 2 selectable.
Then your Secondary Race Features get picked, which determines which Racial Power you get. Such as the Elven movement comes with Elven accuracy, Eladrin defenses, Fey step, and the drow one, duh the Drow racial power.
Your racial power determines which racial feat chain you are eligible for. Not hard really. And again there is a Precedent already in the FR book.
This would INCREASE character diversity without screwing the game royally. All elves can obviously spawn with humans, therefore they should be able to spawn with each other. This also solves the "half breed Elf" problem that the game currently just denies the existence of. And really any other solution is just driving a square peg into a round hole. Ie it won't be pretty. Stop clinging to Tradition for tradition's sake.
The Halfling. Just get rid of it already. It's not really doing anything positive for the game, and really it always gets the short end of the stick (HA!) as it is. Obviously the designers hate them. I hate them. You hate them. It being gone means everyone wins. Unless they do a total fluff revamp, (like making them the result of crossing Fey with something.... or something similar to that logic train) they really only seem to serve one purpose in fluff and that's to be eaten.
The Gnome, It's stomach-able now but that is not saying much. That being said I like it better than the Halfling now, and that's saying something because of how bad I used to hate the Gnome.
2. The Math The math is barely functional. I know it, you know it and even Wizards know's it. (Why do you think Expertise and Paragon Defenses, and Epic Defenses were made) Pay more attention to the math of the game. I noticed that the math didn't add up almost as soon as I got my gift set. It's just sloppy workmanship to have let the game to go print with the math being as lame and sickly as it is. Stop using the "Patch it later!" mindset
3 Stat MathAs an extension of the Math, let's take a moment to talk about Ability Scores. Look, a 16 Prime + racial bonus character SHOULD NOT be hitting only 50 percent of the time. Let's face it, an 18 at level 1 is the max you are going to get. Due to the bonuses monsters get as the game progresses, the accuracy of the Pcs, vs the accuracy of the party fails to stay on even keel. This makes the game filled with False Difficulty. The game gets more and more difficult as the levels pile on, and it h has nothing to do with Encounter Design and everything to do with the Math Not Working Right. Monsters hit Pcs on numbers far lower than the hit the monsters on typically and that's stupid. And it kills Character Diversity.
Now before you start moaning allow me to explain. If a 14 Prime + racial mod was where the 16 + mod is now, characters would be able to more freely multiclass and utilize the multiclassing system that is already in place. Fighter Wizard wouldn't seem like such an ungainly combination, (or for that matter Warlord Wizard) and you wouldn't have to make classes to fit the Gish Role because of how bad that combo really is compared to a Pure Classer.
13+stat mod should hit on a 12, 14+stat mod should hit on an 11, 16+mod should hit on a 10, and 18+ mod should hit on a 9. This would also make the guy with the 20 Prime not Suck like he currently does. That's a whole lot of sacrifice for next to no return under the present system.
Now before someone "defends" them let me leave you on this snippet with the counter argument. I've already tweaked the math of the game to let this correction happen. My parties (all 3 of them) still find the game challenging enough that combat is still worth playing, and still find their backsides but to the wall in encounters. However it's not frustratingly difficult at paragon anymore for them, because they can actually do their effing job and keep up with the monsters. Ie they feel their characters are competent not just Barely Scraping By like they did under the old Math.
4.Dalies Ohhhh goody. This was one of the first things I and the rest of my group drug out back and shot in the face. Dalies they make no sense. 1 you start with too few of them to matter. and 2, they don't come back often enough for the little impact they usually have in the over all game. 3. People save them to Nova on BBEGs making Solos easier to curb stomp than Minions. All because of the clunky, stupid and worthless Extended Rest Recharges basis. Their current recharge also encourages the Five Minute Workday far too much still. Even with the amount of times you can ER in a day rule.
Daily powers should have functioned based off of your Milestones. When you hit a milestone, pick a spent daily power. That power recharges. This freed up Daily use Tremendously, and actually made the game play more dynamic. Players weighed whether they should press on, vs stopping. Rather than just stopping. It also makes the game play far less swingy because you don't have players dumping Dailies only at the very end of the day's events. It allows the "Daily" power to have the impact on the game it was supposed to. It also made Milestones feel more significant.
5.Armor Armor right now is broken, (mostly in part due to Stupid Class features, and that Hide is = to plate for no good reason. Heavy Armor requires more feats to use than Light Armor yet provides less bonus to AC in the long haul. Hide armor shouldn't exist in the game (I'm fine with it equaling scale... but plate? come on guys yall can do better). Third it was the exact opposite, for no good reason but 4th they pushed it the other way too far. To make it worse Light armor users will have better NADs*.
6.Hybrid Classing In it's current form I just don't like it. It seems to take the idea of balancing Class Features on the idea that people aren't going to be easily getting them and throws them out the window. Hybrid Swordmage Avengers anyone? If the Stat Math worked better, it'd be insanely broken, by that same token if Stat Math had worked better normal multiclassing would have been just fine.
7. Optional Rules Let's face it the three books and their respective setting guides so far have been a Spartan Wasteland when it comes to optional rules. No you don't always need Rules to convey a feel, but in alot of cases the Spartan Nature of 4e without any Optional Tables really makes it feel generic. This is D&D's biggest problem and probably always will be is that it's so utterly Generic. Let your settings Specialize the System for god's sake! Give there a reason to buy the books for more than just Fluff. For example, in one of my campaign setting I added what is more or less Destiny Points to the player characters, these are Mana Points in this setting, which allow the Pcs to do stupidly powerful things every so often. The world is supposed to be Hyper Magical, and I think that rule really conveys the point.
If a setting is Gritty and Hardcore Mode like say, Warhammer's setting maybe there should be Optional Rules included somewhere that makes combat, very quick, down dirty and brutal.
In another setting of mine, the Far Realm is starting to swallow reality as normal D&D knows it, all sorts of mind breaking horrors, and tainted locations exist. I brought the Taint and Insanity rules out from Unearthed Arcana, and tweaked them abit for 4e and folded them into that world. Players feel a little more dread, and horror because the setting has two rules that (in this case minorly) impact the gameplay. Which is something that 4e is sorely lacking, and I feel should be corrected for 5e.
Include Optional Rules, in it's own chapter in the Dmg. Like say in the 4e Dmg's case, put the Optional Rules, chapter or section in with the Nentir Vale.
8.Feats I'm sorry "HURH HURH HUR I R A GOD OF WAR BUT I ONLY JUST NOW LRN TO CRITZ!" is not a good thing. That's pure Lazy and Fail right there. Critting better is a Heroic or early Paragon thing. It's sure as hell ain't epic. Especially in the context of what it means to be epic. Feats were one of the few things 3e did RIGHT, they just screwed up in that they didn't scale with level like everything else did. A great many of 3e's problems comes from that. So what did they do with 4e? take feats **** them, water them down and then break them into tiers which in many cases they have no business being in. Let feats grant abilities again, Economy of Actions will balance them just like it did (a few exceptions aside) in 3e.
That's it. That's my wishlist folks. Discuss. What are some of the things you want to see?
You're right about the daily thing. They make boss-owning amazingly easy sometimes. Having been the regular GM for a group through a little over half a year, I know how frustrating it is to feel that the climax is ruined by a few daily powers. Because everything is goes downhill for the boss as soon as he has an effect on him that lasts more than 1 round. Knocked prone, can't stand up (save ends), anyone?
Or having a party full of humans with Action surge. Someone does a Righteous Brand, and the next thing you know, in one round the Boss Fight is effectively over.
I agree wholeheartedly with fixing the Base chances of hitting. I had a thread around here that was more of a rant after a particularly bad gaming session but it talked about that.
In particular I dont like it when monsters seem to only need a 7 or less to hit and PC a 14 or greater.
Agreed, especially when the Economy of Actions is already vastly in favor of most monsters.
While I don't play 4e, those are some interesting thoughts on races and handling bonuses for both abilities and skills, I can't fault your logic on most of it... might swipe that one from you actually. I don't agree at all about gnomes or halflings, as they're two of my favorite races, but that's opinion, so I'll leave it at that.
While I don't play 4e, those are some interesting thoughts on races and handling bonuses for both abilities and skills, I can't fault your logic on most of it... might swipe that one from you actually. I don't agree at all about gnomes or halflings, as they're two of my favorite races, but that's opinion, so I'll leave it at that.
It's a much more elegant and less hamfist way of handling it. It was bloody obvious to me after a couple months with the books. Light bulb went off in my head one day and Thus the change to elves. hehe
I disagree on the armour and halfling thing. I've seen several halflings played, and played well. Everything else I agree with, I am especially intrigued by the race ideas you have. The only other thing for 5e I can come up with is removing alignment. It is literally the last sacred cow that needs to be shot in the face.
Followed by a Pick your Skill bonuses. Let's face it your skills aren't Natural they are the direct product of where and how you were raised. The Elf, Eladrin, and Drow's bonuses should be 1 interchangeable (in the case of a Wild Elf Drow cross breed for example). 2 selectable.
What you're talking about are backgrounds, they already exist. The racial skills are also much of a natural knack, or just having the build for it.
Personally I'd like to see a decontexted rules core for the 4e power-based system, so I can just make all my own stuff 
But that's probably not going to happen anytime soon 
I largely agree and could probably add a few things to that list myself.
The armor thing isn't a huge problem, but it's vastly annoying spending 2-3 feats and having someone take one (or none) feat and still have a better AC. I'd probably balance it by adding resist all 1 to the armor specilization feats for the heavy armors at paragon and increasing it to 2 at epic
Scaling feats is a huge problem in both 3e and 4e (It's a huge part of why fighters suck in 3e). If slightly fewer of them were handed out, but what they did scaled with level (a few do this already, but not many) then you really wouldn't need tiers for feats, as they just wouldn't be as effective for lower level characters.
Feat Powers--I was hoping to see more powers that helped refine/define your character race/class wise, some special manuvers/spells/x that can only be performed by Y would add some spice. The existing class/race feats only modify existing abilities numerically. Building on existing traits in new ways would be very cool and could provide some much needed variety.
The base math also needs to be corrected properly, a feat tax isn't an appropriate system fix for design errors. I personally think the numbers(for everything) scale too fast too, but then I've never viewed/enjoyed "bigger numbers" or "leveling up" as a reward---the game experience is reward enough thanks.
My big two beefs are
a) Not enough at will abilities: you only start with two? (and never really get more?) This can lead to some serious boredom where every problem starts to look like a nail. I get that the at-will powers are supposed to define your character, but this can lead to repetative usage of the same tactics, having a couple more options would really liven things up a bit. Alternatively 2 at-wills but ways you can modify them to be different each time you use them (ie: Elemental Shocker-each time you use it choose an energy keyword, range/burst/blast variables, and a small secondary effect(ongoing damage, push, slow, etc).
b) inflation of numbers: don't get me wrong combat is fun, but it takes way too long (3e was long too, but for other reasons) to hack through the HP blobs. Making this go faster or providing optional rules to change this would be a nice thing. I liked the speed of 2e combats (10-15 mins) and realize that with more tactics combats will take longer nowadays, but 20-30 mins should be doable without resorting to minions for everything. I'd like to enjoy it, get it done and get back to the RP fairly quickly, it would also be a boon to the combat heavy groups as they could get more combats in a session.
A few things I'd like to see (although possibly as a 4.5 rather than 5...it would piss me off to switch editions too soon) are:
Tougher, more interesting solos. The ones in the MM sucked, and while MM2 is slightly better it didn't go far enough. Every solo should have abilities which prevent it from constantly being flanked the entire combat, some ability to end ongoing status effects (e.g. as a free action once per round a solo can add +10 to a saving throw. solos can still take this action even when unconscious or stunned. if the solo makes the saving throw, its turn immediately ends. so status effects would still slow them down, but no truly nasty status effect would last for more than a couple rounds--no stunlocking, or even really using other dailies to just render a solo a non-threat for most of the fight), the ability to make multiple attacks per round, and ideally some extra dynamic aspect like a new from which kicks in when bloodied, or a built in skill challenge that must be completed before the solo can be taken down. A fight with a solo should scare the crap out of players, not having them breathing a sigh of relief because they know it will be an easier fight than a normal encounter.
Nerf twin strike. Its broken and everyone knows it. Give rangers some other cool benefit to partially make up for it, but right now this power is so good it not only overshadows any other striker, it makes rangers themselves boring and one-dimensional as they will pretty much only ever use one at-will, or encounters or dailies that are just souped up versions of that at-will. I'd say the easiest fix might just be saying that damage mods can only be applied once per power rather than an attack--if a power lets you make multiple attacks, you gain a few extra dice from the extra weapon damage, but you don't simply double every possible modifier. Thats one way, I'm sure there are others, but definitely take rangers down a notch.
More at-wills. Let players gain a new at-will at paragon and again at epic. Don't make them simply more powerful in a straightforward way so that old at-wills become obsolete (e.g. don't introduce a level 10 at-will for warlocks called "eldritch cannon" which is eldritch blast but adds int to the damage as well as con/cha, because then no level 10+ warlock would ever use eldritch blast again), but do maybe offer some cool options that weren't available early on, lfor example a wizard at-will that does very low damage but covers a massive area much larger than the level 1 at-wills (like an ultimate minion-sweeping at will). The same old at-wills get boring.
Improve backgrounds. Right now they're a good idea, but wildly inconsistent. The suggestions in PHB2 are really low-impact, +2 to one skill or treat a non-class skill as a class skill. The ones in campaign books are often much, much better, stuff like getting to use a stat other than constitution for starting health. From day one backgrounds should have been introduced, every character should have them, and WotC should do their best to actually balance them in some way.
QFSuper Truth.
Obviously, everyone has their own playstyle, and you're certainly welcome to your house rules. Whatever lets YOU have the most fun, you should definitely use!
However, you're incorrect when you say some things are just 'wrong." Those are opinions, not facts. You're welcome to your opinions, of course! Like I said, everyone has a different vision of how D&D *should* be, and that's fantastic! Without those differences, the game could easily get bland.
Races: I actually think the splitting of Elves into Eladrin and Elves was a fantastic move. I've never liked Half-elves, so I don't want to comment on them, since I'm biased. Also, just because you hate hafllings, doesn't mean they shouldn't be included. I also don't see why you think the designers hate them - they have some of the more powerful racial abilities in the game (I'd agree that they don't fit certain classes well, but that's a far cry from "hating"). I never play Halflings personally, but I see no problem with them. I'll agree Gnomes got changed oddly in 4e, but one little thing like that doesn't make me hate the entire system.
The Math: You conveniently fail to mention *how* the math doesn't add up. Is there a problem with the commutative property or something? Maybe there are problems with some numbers? In any case, I haven't seen many jarring cases yet (a few monsters, yes. But a few typos or poorly-designed creatures doesn't mean an entire system is broken).
Stat Math: I've seen several threads going into this. You need to examine the game a bit more. Around a 55% chance to hit is necessary, simply because there are so many ways to boost up the hit percentage, even at the very low levels. Flanking alone bumps it to 65%; add in some leader-role bonuses and you're easily looking at 75% or more. Think of it this way: Hit bonuses are an excellent way to reward teamwork (a major part of the game). Hence, if all your players are using lone wolf tactics, you will be seeing lower hit-rates (you could house-rule that PCs get a +2 to hit if you like lone wolf campaigns). Another thing: If you hit all the time, fights become incredibly boring. I've experimented with lowering AC and raising hit points, and it makes the game dull. Everything's predictable, there's no suspense. Just like mid-high level 3rd edition.
I don't know why you get the "barely scraping by" feeling. All the players I've been running through the game feel the miss chance acutely at the first half of Heroic, but it fades away rapidly, and never returns. I'm blessed with team players, though, that flank and play effective leaders, so maybe our situations are different. Like I said, if your group plays differently, it *can* be fixed. I'm not committing the "Oberoni" fallacy here. I'm saying, the game was built for team play. If you're not using team play, you need to change the system, because it won't work for you. I'm not denying there's a problem, I'm just trying to elucidate why you're perceiving one. Clearly, you have changed the system to work for you. Awesome.
Dailies: I balked when I first saw dailies. However, so far we haven't had much of a problem. First off, my players don't use the "Five-minute workday" strategy - we get together to play Dungeons and Dragons - dungeon crawls, exploration, resting gets in the way of that! True, it might be mechanically superior to only adventure for a a couple rooms every day - but we play by the spirit of the game, not the rules exploits. Also, sometimes there are things you can't wait for - like recently, saving the Baron's grand-daughter. But that's campaign specific.
Anyway, I rambled. My main point is, I haven't had a problem with Dailies, and now that I've seen them in action, I approve of them. After all, every player wants some powerful move that they can whip out to crush their enemies from time to time. It's just fun!
Armor: Again, you're just saying "It's broken" and yet...I see the opposite. The rogue and wizard in my player's group have the lowest armor classes, and are weak on certain defenses (notably Fortitude, and in the Rogue's case, Will). I agree that certain Hide-armor wearers can have ACs approaching plate-wearers, but really, the only case where it can come close is the Warden - and frankly, since it's a defender, I don't see a problem with it. It's very thematic, and makes for a cool, non-metal defender. If the Warden didn't get a crazy bonus to wearing Hide, he'd be pretty worthless as a defender, don't you think? I don't have campaign-specific books, so maybe there are some abusive classes, but outside of that - I really have not seen the problems you're claiming.
Hybrid Classing: My bank account is *still* messed up so I can't subscribe to DDI yet. I'm afraid I can't comment on this.
Optional Rules: Personally, I'm overjoyed that they included less optional rules. In 3rd I got sick and tired of people quoting me optional rules as if they were hard-wired into the game. Especially fumbles! Geez! Anyways. I'm sorry you miss them, but I don't. I'm just saying this to point out that, just because you think something *should* be a certain way, doesn't mean everyone thinks the same as you.
Feats: I'm glad they made high crit ranges something difficult to reach. It makes them special, not something that just happens every other attack roll. Personally, I think feats were much better done in 4e than in 3e - the "Economy of Actions" means you either used a feat-granted power all the time, or never. Passive bonuses are definitely a much better way to go.By the way: using "HURH HURH HUR I R A GOD OF WAR BUT I ONLY JUST NOW LRN TO CRITZ!" as an argument isn't...constructive. Actually, it makes you look like a kid. Kind of like using a silly voice to imitate someone else. From your avatar, I'd have thought you'd grown out of that :P
Personally, I think you're falling into the "it's different, it's bad" mindset. Especially since you make such ludicrous claims that aren't backed up by the reality of the system.
I'm not saying 4e doesn't have its flaws. It certainly does. However, I think you're making up a lot of flaws. In some cases, you clearly don't like the way the system works because it doesn't mesh with your play style. That's fine. However, just because you don't like something, doesn't mean it's "broken." Alternatively, just because you don't like something, doesn't mean everyone else hates it (look up "egocentrism").
Just to state it once more, I'm not trying to bash your play style, or concept of gaming. However you have fun, is cool! That should be the primary goal of any game: having fun. And whatever house rules you have to make for that, go for it! However, it does get under my skin when you make up problems with a fairly robust game system. Emphasis on "fairly" :P
No matter what, have fun and keep rolling!
To add to your list:
Better feat management- When weapon users get +1 to damage via focus, implement users should not have stat requirements for specific damage types. There should not be conditional "feat bonuses" as they don't stack with weapon focus, but likewise be more careful in making abusable untyped bonuses.
Other feat patches to be avoid besides defenses/expertise: improved grab/bullrush, verstile master, Melee training, etc.
Multiclassing: lower the level requirements to take the feats. Be more open with skill training or have them act like skill focus if they force a "double training" like paladin/cleric and religion. Also the hybrid ability to use one implement for anything or a weapon as an implement should be built in.
Disarm should become an abstract and universally applied condition like Prone, either that or don't write a power like Exorcism of steel which gives no meaning to the effect it causes.
Some way to raise a second NAD if you use 2 stats in the same defense.
A new one.
Each class should get 3 at wills.
1 DPR at will
1 Mobility At will
and 1 Control At will
Also, ditch the controller role. 4 editions has taught me one thing. You can't make a Balanced Controller. Either they are gods or they suck. With no mid ground. Let the Leader choose whether or not he's going to focus on Control, or Buffing the party. Also giving everyone access to some form of control universally will help.
1. Races, they say they got rid of Subraces, but really they only did a half ass job of doing it. All Elves should be under one Racial Profile, with a "Pick your power and your Stat Combination" All of them get a +2 to Dex, then you pick Int, Wis or Cha as your second +2. Do note the Changeling already comes damn close to doing this already so yes there is a Precedent.
I had much the same idea when I first saw the eladrin and elf races.
Followed by a Pick your Skill bonuses. Let's face it your skills aren't Natural they are the direct product of where and how you were raised. The Elf, Eladrin, and Drow's bonuses should be 1 interchangeable (in the case of a Wild Elf Drow cross breed for example). 2 selectable.Then your Secondary Race Features get picked, which determines which Racial Power you get. Such as the Elven movement comes with Elven accuracy, Eladrin defenses, Fey step, and the drow one, duh the Drow racial power.
Your racial power determines which racial feat chain you are eligible for. Not hard really. And again there is a Precedent already in the FR book.
This would INCREASE character diversity without screwing the game royally. All elves can obviously spawn with humans, therefore they should be able to spawn with each other. This also solves the "half breed Elf" problem that the game currently just denies the existence of. And really any other solution is just driving a square peg into a round hole. Ie it won't be pretty. Stop clinging to Tradition for tradition's sake.
I'm surprised there isn't more interchangability in the system than there is. Guess more races help 'sell' the game.
The Halfling. Just get rid of it already. It's not really doing anything positive for the game, and really it always gets the short end of the stick (HA!) as it is. Obviously the designers hate them. I hate them. You hate them. It being gone means everyone wins. Unless they do a total fluff revamp, (like making them the result of crossing Fey with something.... or something similar to that logic train) they really only seem to serve one purpose in fluff and that's to be eaten.
I'm also not a fan of halflings, never have been. Still, I think they have a place in D&D (whatever that might be).
The Gnome, It's stomach-able now but that is not saying much. That being said I like it better than the Halfling now, and that's saying something because of how bad I used to hate the Gnome.
Agreed, gnomes are better now 
; a fellow is actually playing one in our current game. First time in a very long time (since our Spelljammer games in 2e).
2. The Math The math is barely functional. I know it, you know it and even Wizards know's it. (Why do you think Expertise and Paragon Defenses, and Epic Defenses were made) Pay more attention to the math of the game. I noticed that the math didn't add up almost as soon as I got my gift set. It's just sloppy workmanship to have let the game to go print with the math being as lame and sickly as it is. Stop using the "Patch it later!" mindset3 Stat MathAs an extension of the Math, let's take a moment to talk about Ability Scores. Look, a 16 Prime + racial bonus character SHOULD NOT be hitting only 50 percent of the time. Let's face it, an 18 at level 1 is the max you are going to get. Due to the bonuses monsters get as the game progresses, the accuracy of the Pcs, vs the accuracy of the party fails to stay on even keel. This makes the game filled with False Difficulty. The game gets more and more difficult as the levels pile on, and it h has nothing to do with Encounter Design and everything to do with the Math Not Working Right. Monsters hit Pcs on numbers far lower than the hit the monsters on typically and that's stupid. And it kills Character Diversity.
Now before you start moaning allow me to explain. If a 14 Prime + racial mod was where the 16 + mod is now, characters would be able to more freely multiclass and utilize the multiclassing system that is already in place. Fighter Wizard wouldn't seem like such an ungainly combination, (or for that matter Warlord Wizard) and you wouldn't have to make classes to fit the Gish Role because of how bad that combo really is compared to a Pure Classer.
13+stat mod should hit on a 12, 14+stat mod should hit on an 11, 16+mod should hit on a 10, and 18+ mod should hit on a 9. This would also make the guy with the 20 Prime not Suck like he currently does. That's a whole lot of sacrifice for next to no return under the present system.
Now before someone "defends" them let me leave you on this snippet with the counter argument. I've already tweaked the math of the game to let this correction happen. My parties (all 3 of them) still find the game challenging enough that combat is still worth playing, and still find their backsides but to the wall in encounters. However it's not frustratingly difficult at paragon anymore for them, because they can actually do their effing job and keep up with the monsters. Ie they feel their characters are competent not just Barely Scraping By like they did under the old Math.
Actual game design (and associated math ;)) is out of my depth but I agree with what you're saying here; just not sure how I would supe things up myself.
4.Dalies Ohhhh goody. This was one of the first things I and the rest of my group drug out back and shot in the face. Dalies they make no sense. 1 you start with too few of them to matter. and 2, they don't come back often enough for the little impact they usually have in the over all game. 3. People save them to Nova on BBEGs making Solos easier to curb stomp than Minions. All because of the clunky, stupid and worthless Extended Rest Recharges basis. Their current recharge also encourages the Five Minute Workday far too much still. Even with the amount of times you can ER in a day rule.Daily powers should have functioned based off of your Milestones. When you hit a milestone, pick a spent daily power. That power recharges. This freed up Daily use Tremendously, and actually made the game play more dynamic. Players weighed whether they should press on, vs stopping. Rather than just stopping. It also makes the game play far less swingy because you don't have players dumping Dailies only at the very end of the day's events. It allows the "Daily" power to have the impact on the game it was supposed to. It also made Milestones feel more significant.
I really like this. Consider it snatched ;).
5.Armor Armor right now is broken, (mostly in part due to Stupid Class features, and that Hide is = to plate for no good reason. Heavy Armor requires more feats to use than Light Armor yet provides less bonus to AC in the long haul. Hide armor shouldn't exist in the game (I'm fine with it equaling scale... but plate? come on guys yall can do better). Third it was the exact opposite, for no good reason but 4th they pushed it the other way too far. To make it worse Light armor users will have better NADs*.6.Hybrid Classing In it's current form I just don't like it. It seems to take the idea of balancing Class Features on the idea that people aren't going to be easily getting them and throws them out the window. Hybrid Swordmage Avengers anyone? If the Stat Math worked better, it'd be insanely broken, by that same token if Stat Math had worked better normal multiclassing would have been just fine.
I like the idea of hybrid classing myself but still haven't gotten around to playtesting a fighter|rogue (so much to do in D&D, so little time). On the other hand, I've always been leary of multiclassing (just a gut feeling, no hard and fast reason).
7. Optional Rules Let's face it the three books and their respective setting guides so far have been a Spartan Wasteland when it comes to optional rules. No you don't always need Rules to convey a feel, but in alot of cases the Spartan Nature of 4e without any Optional Tables really makes it feel generic. This is D&D's biggest problem and probably always will be is that it's so utterly Generic. Let your settings Specialize the System for god's sake! Give there a reason to buy the books for more than just Fluff. For example, in one of my campaign setting I added what is more or less Destiny Points to the player characters, these are Mana Points in this setting, which allow the Pcs to do stupidly powerful things every so often. The world is supposed to be Hyper Magical, and I think that rule really conveys the point.If a setting is Gritty and Hardcore Mode like say, Warhammer's setting maybe there should be Optional Rules included somewhere that makes combat, very quick, down dirty and brutal.
In another setting of mine, the Far Realm is starting to swallow reality as normal D&D knows it, all sorts of mind breaking horrors, and tainted locations exist. I brought the Taint and Insanity rules out from Unearthed Arcana, and tweaked them abit for 4e and folded them into that world. Players feel a little more dread, and horror because the setting has two rules that (in this case minorly) impact the gameplay. Which is something that 4e is sorely lacking, and I feel should be corrected for 5e.
Include Optional Rules, in it's own chapter in the Dmg. Like say in the 4e Dmg's case, put the Optional Rules, chapter or section in with the Nentir Vale.
Another good point here I think. There should be a reason to buy the setting guides and player's guides for more than just porting a bit of fluff here or a mechanic there.
8.Feats I'm sorry "HURH HURH HUR I R A GOD OF WAR BUT I ONLY JUST NOW LRN TO CRITZ!" is not a good thing. That's pure Lazy and Fail right there. Critting better is a Heroic or early Paragon thing. It's sure as hell ain't epic. Especially in the context of what it means to be epic. Feats were one of the few things 3e did RIGHT, they just screwed up in that they didn't scale with level like everything else did. A great many of 3e's problems comes from that. So what did they do with 4e? take feats **** them, water them down and then break them into tiers which in many cases they have no business being in. Let feats grant abilities again, Economy of Actions will balance them just like it did (a few exceptions aside) in 3e.
I think seperating feats into tiers is a good idea; not all feats are created equal ;). I do agree that some feats are mis-catagorized though.
That's it. That's my wishlist folks. Discuss. What are some of the things you want to see?
I don't have much of a wishlist (yet); more or less I just want to say that I agree with much of what you seem to be saying. Also, I really like your idea for dailies resetting at milestones-- gotta snatch it ;).
Some cool ideas but i don't think it warrants a new edition. Thats what i really hated about 3.5. Really not enough changes to make it a new edition. They could of just did some errata or something but oh no i'm expected to go out and by all the books over again? screw that man that was just a scam to get you to spend more money, an they totally ruined the ranger i liked the 3.0 one better. But i'm not tryin to start no sh*t i'm just saying i hope they stick with 4e for a while i'm not willing to go out and by more books. But still you got some valid points in there, but they seem to work fine as house rules. Really i think thats what its all about. Every DM should have house rules. Every campaign should be different from the rest. Everyones got different views of what elves or whatever should be like or how magic works, but please im not ready for 5th edition!! Still getting used to 4e.
At this point I think a 5e will be similiar to 2e in that it will be a clarification and cleaning up of the rules and mechanics of the previous edition more than an actually brand new edition. It would still be largely compatible I think.
Of course if they get enough design team turnover that could change quite easily.
Of course if they get enough design team turnover that could change quite easily.
UGGHHHH!!! i hope not.
I agree, its a valid set of issues you have there. My own paraphrasing/ take on it is:
1. Monsters should play by the same rules as the PCs. Attacks, damages, defenses, hit points, healing, etc., should parallel PC abilities of similar level.
2. PC powers should scale with levels, such as doing an extra [W] every 10 levels after you can first get it. Likewise, the Paragon and Epic level powers you are swapping for should start off doing more [W]. It should take a similar number of hits to defeat a monster, regardless of level.
3. PCs should have recharge powers. Improving the current encounter powers to recharge and dailies to encounter doesn't seem that bad.
4. A better range of paragon paths and epic destinies. The class-specific and racial are okay, but how about some linked to power source, or class role?
Other than all that agreement, I disagree on dropping the controller role- it just needs better definition. Such as how striker is to defender, controller is to leader.
Cpt_Micha,
A lot of the stuff you identify are tweaks. I mean where to categorize feats really is just a small issue.
I like the rule for Dailies recharging at a milestone. I also don't have a problem with races being separately categorized. It works fine for marketing reasons, and it's not complicated. I also disagree on halflings and controllers -- I've seen plenty of fun halflings and controllers (and even halfling controllers). I just wish there was a way halflings could be functional barbarians.
I do agree that I'd like the math to be a bit tighter, so you don't need the Implement/Weapon Proficiency feat tax. Again, that's minor.
Here's my list:
- Distinguish Origin from Class Role. Why are arcane strikers required to make pacts? There should be more subdivisions:
- First, choose a power source (Arcane, Divine, Martial, Primal, Psionic, etc.)
- Second, choose a class role (Controller, Defender, Leader, Striker). This determines your "specialization".
- For arcane classes, for example, I think specializations should be based on schools of magic. So a diviner would be a leader, while an evoker or enchanter might be a Controller, and a transmuter might be defender.
- For martial classes, specialization might be based on weapons. Two-handed weapons might be defenders, small weapons might be for striking, sword-and-board might be a leader specialization, etc.
- Third, choose an origin. This determines your class and your primary attribute. Thsi would also result in the elimination of multiple-attribute classes (except for hybrids and multiclassing), which I prefer.
- For example, a wizard uses magic through arcane study. His primary attribute is Intelligence.
- A warlock uses magic through a pact. His primary attribute is Constitution.
- A bard invokes magic through musical talent. His primary attribute is Charisma.
- A swordmage invokes magic through weapon movements. His primary attribute is Dexterity.
- And so on. This results in a 3-dimensional matrix, rather than a 2-dimensional grid, allowing for more variation and customization, while still maintaining the uniformity that allows for game balance.
- Fourth, choose a race. Races wouldn't be too different than now (but see below)
- Fifth, choose skills. I'm pretty happy with the skill selection, though I think all Skills should be available to anybody. At most, each power source, class and/or origin might grant automatic training in a skill.
- Arcane grants Arcana, Divine grants Religion, Martial grants Athletics or Acrobatics, Primal grants Nature or Dungeoneering, Psionic grants Insight, etc.
- Sixth, choose powers and feats.
- There might be separate powers for each class, and also powers based on your origin, as well as skill powers and even race powers (and obviously feat and item powers too). So an eladrin might choose a 6th level power that enhances their fey step.
- Feats also would have their own prerequisites, as usual
- Eliminate numerical magic items. This goes in with a more rigorous math system. Eliminate +X items. Just incorporate these bonuses into the character progression.
- Everything's a Power. Powers are easy to read and understand and track. Everything should be a static bonus or a power.
- No dailies. Eliminate the daily and replace it with the milestone power. Same with item powers.
- Better Ritual/Practices. Lots of people want more utility powers. I disagree. I think Rituals need tweaking. I like what they've introduced with Martial Practices, though I think the only prerequisite should be training in a Skill. I think more Rituals are needed and they should not be tied to money to invoke. I prefer healing surges as the cost (or even a new mechanic).
- Tweak. There are a few tweaks I would like to see.
- Half-breeds. Why not have half-breed rules the way we have hybrid class rules. Get rid of half-elves and half-orcs. Instead, allow for hybrid races with generic rules.
- Slay the last sacred cow. Dump alignment altogether. We're so close.
- Embrace refluffing. I don't think developers realized what they had when they talked about refluffing powers. The DMG should talk extensively about refluffing everything.
- Enough with the shifting. I think the powers as they now stand concentrate too much on pushing, pulling, sliding, and shifting. I like it, but we need more variety. More conditions, and less reliance on the ability to move allies and enemies around to distinguish classes, please.
- Treat weapons as implements. Either give implements proficiency bonuses, damage dice, and special traits, or get rid of them for weapons (I prefer the former).
- Scalability. Someone else mentioned this and I agree. Scale damage with level so 3rd level powers are not useless at 15th level.
I agree with the math issue. Monsters attacks and defences seem to increase by 1 per level, so from level 1 to 30, they increase by 29. PC's on the other hand get +15 for their levels, +6 for magical items and +4 for stat increases. This leaves them 5 short. Expertise makes up for 3 and Demigod ED makes up another 1.
There are other factors at the higher levels that I may not be aware of. So far, I've only played the lower levels. When strictly looking at the math and only looking at the hitting percentages, this is what I see. Perhaps powers, feats and other abilities and other factors like damage makes up for this apparent disparity. The simple analysis I did only looked at the attack and defence bonuses. A more complete analysis should also look at damage, powers, feats (excluding Expertise) and other abilities that perhaps make the overall numbers different than looking at attack and defence bonuses alone. On the surface, things don't add up and even if it did, Expertise (and possibly Focus as well) would skew it in another direction.
I'm not at all concerned about the hybrid rules at this time. Again, my experience is at low levels only. I am aware of some really strong hybrid builds, some of which need to make use of the paragon hybrid option. My experience with hybrids so far indicate that their power level will vary much more greatly than single classed characters. Having the flexibility of two classes or two roles provide additional options at a cost. Sometimes this flexibility is very useful if you can make use of it. If you cannot consistently make use of this flexibility then your particular hybrid character would seem less useful. The two hybrid character I have seen do not appear to be too powerful or too weak. Both are playable and are comparable to the rest of the group.
So far, I haven't had any issues with the stat math. I'm playing a fighter/wizard with 16 in Str and Int. I don't feel underpowered or anything yet. I built a swordmage with starting Int of 20, and plan to try it out soon. When I play the SM, I expect to see how significant the change from a 16 attack stat to a 20 would be.
What I would like to see are better V-classes. I like the idea of V-classes, but would like to see better execution. Right now, they appear to have fewer options than A-classes once you choose your main attack stat. Also, I would like to see a bigger benefit for pumping two attack stats instead of one attack stat and one secondary stat.
I think we're still a long way out from 5e. I think that one of the strengths of the current edition is that it's pretty flexible. As people have pointed out, most of the OP's requests are simple tweaks to the existing rules. The designers have also shown a willingness to 'patch' the game through successive splat books. And we're seeing fairly radical variations on the basic rules in new 4e classes like the Psion.
Point being, that there's not really a call for a new edition unless you have some radical design departures in mind.
I think that 5e, when it comes, will be a pretty serious departure from what we have now. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth on the internets, let me tell ya!
In the meantime, 4e still has a lot of gas in it. I think they could run with it for another five years, easy. And personally I'm okay with that. While there are things I'd tweak, as I'm sure there are for most people, they are just that - tweaks; minor changes to a ruleset that overall has proved very exciting and robust.
I do wonder what the OP would make of the prediction in certain quarters that 5e will eliminate To-hit rolls altogether. ;)
1. Monsters should play by the same rules as the PCs. Attacks, damages, defenses, hit points, healing, etc., should parallel PC abilities of similar level.
I totally disagree, As a DM I do not want to have to create characters for every single monster, I like 4e's take to monsters, you just need stats and make up powers. I dont have to give them equipment or items unless i need to, feats or picking classes or multiclassing...
Actually If all your saying is that they should be on par, i agree. but I do not want to get into creating monsters like 3.5 again.
The problem with halflings leads into a problem you've not listed. The halfling racial is pretty much equivalent to giving the halfing more hit points...the one resource that players have in huge abundance in the game, and this doubtless is what makes halflings a fairly inferior class (outside of some special rogue builds). If the elven racial power was "can move 2 extra spaces, once per encounter", I bet it would become far less attractive as a race, for the same reason (players have more than sufficient mobility in the game as it is).
The problem has been exacerbated with power creep, especially with Divine Power, which ridiculously magnified the power of the healing classes. The introduction of the Seal at-will, which grants healing without costing surges, has effectively put infinite healing at the hands of the players, creating scenarios where the party uses their bare fists on the last few monsters, punching them for little damage while healing themselves for ridiculous amounts.
I've already instituted a flat x2 modifier for damage for monsters in my campaign, and the party trivially laughs off level +2 encounters, because the damage is still way too low relative to the healing the party gets.
So, for 5e: a commitment to make healing limited (like it was supposed to be...healing potions cost a surge for SOME reason, right?), and to make 'same level' monsters hit for enough damage to make a difference in combat.
Improve backgrounds. Right now they're a good idea, but wildly inconsistent. The suggestions in PHB2 are really low-impact, +2 to one skill or treat a non-class skill as a class skill. The ones in campaign books are often much, much better, stuff like getting to use a stat other than constitution for starting health. From day one backgrounds should have been introduced, every character should have them, and WotC should do their best to actually balance them in some way.
I want to disagree with this one. The pre-PHB2 backgrounds are often abusive- especially Windrise Ports- or grant benefits that are worthless to who they'd fit the most (military weapon proficency). I think the skill based Backgrounds from PHB2 deal far better with the lingering remnant of a pre-adventure life without being crazy.
A few more suggestions:
Weapons:
Why have both maces and hammers?
Can we get proper support for flails, picks, and staff?
Balance double weapons with the other superiors better.
A few more "properties" to make raising a tier more interesting than a die size or a +1 atk. Maybe make some of the simple weapons worth using (part of making melee training universal like monsters).
Things like paragon features that are hyperspecialized, like various Demon/Undead slayers, should be made generic so you can pick your target, have a wider breath in the target choice (like Shadow Origin instead of just Undead), or at very least have more "base" power and smaller riders against their focus.
Various "concealment" powers before PHB2 seem to be written without the new stealth rules in mind, making them less helpful than I think they were intended originally. Reading the assassin demonstrates how effective those powers could have been.
On the general thread:
I don't consider posting in this thread a request for 5e to come sooner, nor denying the possiblity that some with be addressed in a form via errata in 4e. But when they finally get around to it, I think request collections like these will be useful to Wizards.
I want less race stuff. I want people to play an elf because they like elves, a dragonborn because they think it's cool, not because the stat and feat choices for the dragonborn make it a really good paladin.
However, I doubt I will see this. Like feats and powers, an ever expanding roster of races, that let you get just that right combination of stats and powers, is a great marketing technique to sell new books.
I just want to clarify before I resume explanation about the Controller post, that 4e is a solid system. This isn't a "ZOMG WE NEED NEW EDITION" but rather as another poster said a Collection of posts and thoughts that will be convienent for Wizards to look at in the future.
The reason I want the Controller role abolished is because it's mechanics are too swingy. All of them in this Edition were severely Undergunned compared to the other classes (save for the Paladin who was crap before the Avenger and later because of the Avenger... but that's another post). This isn't even the only game I can say that about, Pure Control doesn't work. Even Wow had to learn that lesson the hard way, everyone needs to be able to do DPR. If you look at Tactics (as in Final Fantasy) the worst classes are the Pure Control classes, this is no coincidence I feel.
Leaders already fufill the support role, and often times they themselves make as Effective of controllers as the actual Controllers because frankly you aren't facing enough enemies at a time to make the little extra Aoe distance of a Pure Controller class worth it. Leaders being the Support role already, should also be the Controllers if they build themselves towards it rather than being a buff bot 101 all the time. It opens up the playing field and makes the leader Role IMO more attractive.
Everyone else having a little capability of control (which is possible with a few of the classes already such as the Warden and the Fighter, to some extent the Ranger, and the Warlock can Control as well) already steps on the Controller's toes.
I personally feel it would be better in the long run to ditch the Controller because out of all of the Class Roles it's by far the most Specialized and it suffers greatly for it.
Yes this means the Class "Wizard" has disappeared. But really, do we NEED a class named Wizard? Maybe Mage, is the type of Arcane Leader and Bard and Wizard are the two archetype builds of the Mage?
In the case of Divine, you have the Priest and his subsets are the Cleric and the Invoker?
HealingTo me this healing without surges thing has gotten out of hand. It's like they intentionally have disregarded the lesson of INFINITE HEALING of Previous Editions to make people want to heal more often. Or at least that's my guess. Healing Surges and the generous number of them Pcs get exist, or should exist for a reason. Stop with the Infinity Heals.
Healing without surges should not exist, period. Even the greatest healer should not be able to make up for more than a certain amount of inherant squishiness, or otherwise there is no downside whatsoever to playing a glass cannon.
Have to disagree on the controller role though. Their effectiveness may be variable and hard to balance, but in my experience controllers just make combat a lot more fun and dynamic. I think a larger issue is that Wizards didn't really know how to build a controller at first, so the PHB Wizard sucked, and then they basically decided to "fix" him by boosting dpr, instead of, you know, actually coming up with ways for a controller to be really effective in combat by controlling. For example, I once played a one-shot where the DM, who shared your opinion of controller usefulness, decided that he was going to double the amount of squares on every invoker slide effect. I have to tell you, without changing damage one bit, this made the controller role in our party infinitely more valuable, and suddenly he was truly doing what I always imagined a controller should do--utterly rearranging the entire battlefield to his liking, and the second the enemies adjust, rearranging it again.
If you look at Tactics (as in Final Fantasy) the worst classes are the Pure Control classes, this is no coincidence I feel.
Istaran without any of the Math Correction I mean.... "feats" wizards released you'll notice if you had a 16 Prime at Paragon once you get there. The game really does start breaking down that early. You are still capable of getting through encounters, but it becomes more and more difficult to do so. Monsters at Epic, would be just stupidly disgusting in power I think. as it is I already had to pull a great deal of punches just so the party wouldn't TPK. And that's following the Xp Budget and encounter designs.
Sorry, have to give you 1 out of 8 valid points there. None of your objections made much sense to me, except the math issue, and it's weak.
Sure, the math makes epic a little more challenging, as the monsters outpace your attack bonus. It might even have been intentional, to leave a little wiggle-room for the inevitable power gaming that'd be going on by the time most campaigns hit epic. I'll admit I hate the 'feat tax' kludge that is 'Expertise,' but I wouldn't want to wait for 5th or even 4.5e to see that fixed. In my group, we've just tossed Expertise. If hitting ever becomes a problem - and right now, the fighter and rogue are routinely hitting on '5's, so I don't see it happening right away - we'll just tack on a +1 attack bonus for everyone at Paragon and, again, at Epic. About the same effect, no feat tax.
Then again, by epic, leaders will be giving out obscene attack bonuses. Even sticking with my original build plan and PH-only material, my Warlord would be giving +8 attack bonuses in Epic, right at 21st, 3/encounter to everyone he uses Inspring Word on, +4 on action points, net +10 with at least one power I can think of. That'll more than make up for any power creep or math 'error' in the monsters' defenses, when it really matters. And, at higher levels, you do have more encounter, daily, and utilitiy powers, more magic item powers, and, thus, more potential synergy, both within a build and within a party. At 1st, if your daily missed, or if your at-wills didn't hit pretty consistently in a 'padded sumo' solo battle, the game would get even more frustrating. At higher level, if a daily or encounter misses, you've got several more to choose from that might make as big a difference to the fight, and you're unlikely to get reduced to slogging away with at-wills, at all.
What would I like to see from 5th?
Well, first of all, I'd like to not see it, at all, until at least 2016. And, no 4.5, either. Honest errata will do. thankyouverymuch
Secondly, I'd like to see something as different from 4e as 3e was from 2e. What's the point of rolling eds if you're just going to make minor changes? Maybe drop the battle grid and go for a more hardcore RP experience? A return to highly customizeable classes? A more free-form, arbitrary, and imbalanced magic system? I don't know. I just know that I'd never have thought of suggesting anything like 4e when 3.5 was all that was out, and I'd like to be as pleasantly surprised by 5th.
Istaran without any of the Math Correction I mean.... "feats" wizards released you'll notice if you had a 16 Prime at Paragon once you get there. The game really does start breaking down that early. You are still capable of getting through encounters, but it becomes more and more difficult to do so. Monsters at Epic, would be just stupidly disgusting in power I think. as it is I already had to pull a great deal of punches just so the party wouldn't TPK. And that's following the Xp Budget and encounter designs.
My paragon tier character -did- start with a 16 prime. And at low paragon so far the only really problematic thing I run into is the same thing as at level 1: monsters 4-7 levels above the party. LFR authors love to use them. My particular character's style makes me quite useful even if I never land a hit, so I do okay.
Again though my theory is the math was designed with a gradual shift in mind, so while monsters about 2 levels over party at low heroic work out pretty well, at mid paragon monsters should be much closer to party level, i.e. exactly on level should be typical, with level +2 being the exception that a level +4 monster would have been in low heroic. At high epic they should typically be about 2 levels below the party. Looking through the compendium, the only level 29+ standard monsters I find are all from Elder Evil; well after the 'math fix' feats were added.
My suspicion is the game was designed and balanced with a gradual shift towards more monsters. This aspect was never expressed in the encounter rules in the DMG (perhaps for simplicity?) and so it didn't become a part of the common expectations. Without the shift, parties went from fighting an on level encounter of say 5 level 1s against a level 1 party to 5 level 30s against a level 30 party, and found them facing relative attack/defense numbers as if they were fighting 5 level 5s at level 1. Meanwhile their powers/features have adjusted to set them up to effectively engage 10 level 26s as about the same difficulty as fighting 5 level 1s back at level 1. But since the DMs of the world were playing with the smaller fights/higher levels all the way up through epic, WotC responded by supporting that style with a set of feats that makes it more plausible. Note that expertise is a much bigger percentage swing in DPS when you are facing creatures you would otherwise need a 20 to hit than things you would need a 10 to hit.
That said, it's all lovely theory and such but how people actually play the game is another question.
I agree with the Feats issue. in 4e, feats are meh most of the time. They're just small little accents rather than something defining like they were in 3e. Last weekend, I created a 6th level dwarf cleric and when I got down to the feats I was left unimpressed. None of them really jumped out to me except for Channel Divinity feat (which is a no brainer for any cleric it seems).
That's actually an interesting theory. I'm definitely adjusting my DMing accordingly once the time comes. We're in mid heroic now and I routinely throw level + 2 or even +3 encounters at the party and they destroy those with ease.
I agree with the Feats issue. in 4e, feats are meh most of the time. They're just small little accents rather than something defining like they were in 3e. Last weekend, I created a 6th level dwarf cleric and when I got down to the feats I was left unimpressed. None of them really jumped out to me except for Channel Divinity feat (which is a no brainer for any cleric it seems).
I am not sure why I keep hearing this complaint and yet am always frustrated that I have so few feat slots because I want so many feats and also feel at least some 'need' to pick up the boring ones like Expertise (for some reason I always get expertise at level 8. That's just the magic number for me I guess). There must be something wrong with me.
(Probably that I buy too many splats and have a DDi subscription.)
That's actually an interesting theory. I'm definitely adjusting my DMing accordingly once the time comes. We're in mid heroic now and I routinely throw level + 2 or even +3 encounters at the party and they destroy those with ease.
Note: I am not recommending lowering the relative level of the encounter, only of the constituent monsters. This results in higher monster count.
Of course, if you PCs all have epic defense feats and expertise, then this is at least unnecessary. But if they're throwing up to 5 feats at the issue, maybe you can give them some benefit from it instead of assuming it away so that PCs with feats providing +3 attack, +6 Fort/Ref/Will at level 30 are in fact accurate and hard to hit rather than 'on par'.
(Probably that I buy too many splats and have a DDi subscription.)
Well that could be it. I'm sure I'll be in the same boat with tons of material to sift through. My group only had access to PHB, PHBII and Martial Power, however.
(Probably that I buy too many splats and have a DDi subscription.)
Well that could be it. I'm sure I'll be in the same boat with tons of material to sift through. My group only had access to PHB, PHBII and Martial Power, however.
They mostly started with the most bland basic feats in the PHBs, with a few more interesting/flavorful feats on a per class/race basis, but few enough of those to make them feel almost assumed until enough new options came up to make you reconcider them.
For example, my level 8 ranger doesn't have weapon focus or lethal hunter. I'd actually like to have power attack at some point, for those times when my attack roll really can afford a -2. (If someone grants me a Righteous Brand bonus it's a no brainer actually.)
So what beat it in the list?
Butcher's Lure - Ghost sound at will. Purely for RP reasons. My character is cursed and cannot speak common (but can understand it just fine), so he uses this to have his animal companion do all the speaking for him.
Spiked Chain Training - Proficiency with spiked chain, treat it as a light blade and a double weapon (+3/2d4 w/ reach on each end). I'm a beastmaster ranger with a 2 weapon fighting style. This is the best weapon I could find and gives a little more flexibility with reach.
Weapon Expertise (light blade) - Accuracy is good.
Nimble Blade - Accuracy is good.
Mounted Combat - I have a dire wolf mount which grants me combat advantage whenever I have at least one ally (other than my mount.. but including my animal companion) adjacent to my target. Which combines with Nimble Blade and Spiked Chain Training to give me +3 combat advantage pretty easily.
If I was to re-do the Expertise feats, I would write them like this:
{Weapon/Focused/Implement} Expertise:
Benefit: Select a {weapon group/weapon/implement}. While using a {weapon/weapon/implement} from that group to make an attack with the {weapon/weapon or implement/implement} keyword with a {weapon from that group/weapon of that type/implement of that type} you are proficient with, you may use the number 4 in place of an attribute modifier on the attack line. This number increases to 5 at level 8, 6 at level 14, 7 at level 21, and 8 at level 28. This does not change the damage dealt by the power or any other effects of the power. You may take this feat more than once; each time you do, chose a different {weapon group/weapon/implement} to which this feat can apply.
This allows you to use your 'expertise' in a particular weapon/implement to attack as accurately as someone who started with an 18 in their attack stat and leveled it all the way, without a +2 from an epic destiny. Conceptually you are completely replacing talent with skill for attacks with this weapon/implement style you are specifically trained in. A few powers like twin strike aside, you still want to invest in your attack stat to get damage. The upper levels aren't raised any: anyone with a 18+ including race gains nothing from this feat. 16+ is only getting a +1 even in late epic, and even then some EDs will eliminate the bonus (giving you freedom to retrain). 20+ starting stat still stays out ahead, keeping a benefit they paid dearly for. This can also be used for things like a Str/Wis ranger taking weapon expertise(bow) to have a backup twin-strike that doesn't get scaled to irrelevance, or even a Fighter taking that same feat to be functional with a bow with mediocre (at best) dex.
I agree with the Feats issue. in 4e, feats are meh most of the time. They're just small little accents rather than something defining like they were in 3e.
In 4E, feats are supposed to be small accents. In 3E, they did much bigger things because for some classes, they were pretty much all they got (Fighter being the worst offender, as they were literally the entire extent of their class abilities). This of course excepts Casters.
You get 18 feats in 4E. In 3E, most characters got 7. That;s more than double. do you understand why they don't do quite as much now?
In 4E, feats are supposed to be small accents. In 3E, they did much bigger things because for some classes, they were pretty much all they got (Fighter being the worst offender, as they were literally the entire extent of their class abilities). This of course excepts Casters.You get 18 feats in 4E. In 3E, most characters got 7. That;s more than double. do you understand why they don't do quite as much now?
I like you.
I'll join the chorus: Feats are *deliberately* supposed to be small things that are cool, not major things.
In 4E, feats are supposed to be small accents. In 3E, they did much bigger things because for some classes, they were pretty much all they got (Fighter being the worst offender, as they were literally the entire extent of their class abilities). This of course excepts Casters.
You get 18 feats in 4E. In 3E, most characters got 7. That;s more than double. do you understand why they don't do quite as much now?
For one, it's not fair to compare 30 levels for feats in 4e with only 20 levels of 3.5. Doing a 30 to 30 comparison, 30th level PCs in 3.5 will have 11 feats. So, it's not more than double at all. 4e PCs do have more feats, and I already knew they were designed to be accents, but still doesn't change the fact that I don't like how 4e implimented them.
In 4E, feats are supposed to be small accents. In 3E, they did much bigger things because for some classes, they were pretty much all they got (Fighter being the worst offender, as they were literally the entire extent of their class abilities). This of course excepts Casters.
You get 18 feats in 4E. In 3E, most characters got 7. That;s more than double. do you understand why they don't do quite as much now?
For one, it's not fair to compare 30 levels for feats in 4e with only 20 levels of 3.5. Doing a 30 to 30 comparison, 30th level PCs in 3.5 will have 11 feats. So, it's not more than double at all. 4e PCs do have more feats, and I already knew they were designed to be accents, but still doesn't change the fact that I don't like how 4e implimented them.
Actually, it is kinda fair. 13-14 (average 13.5) encounters per level in 3e, right? And 8-10 (average 9) encounters per level in 4e. Hmm. 13.5 x 20 = 270. And 9 x 30 = 270.
It really depends how you want to cast it. You can say anything isn't fair, or anything *is* fair, because the systems don't compare exactly.
Actually, it is kinda fair. 13-14 (average 13.5) encounters per level in 3e, right? And 8-10 (average 9) encounters per level in 4e. Hmm. 13.5 x 20 = 270. And 9 x 30 = 270.
It really depends how you want to cast it. You can say anything isn't fair, or anything *is* fair, because the systems don't compare exactly.
umm... I thought we were talking about the number of feats each PC has, not the number of encounters to level to level up.
Actually, it is kinda fair. 13-14 (average 13.5) encounters per level in 3e, right? And 8-10 (average 9) encounters per level in 4e. Hmm. 13.5 x 20 = 270. And 9 x 30 = 270.
It really depends how you want to cast it. You can say anything isn't fair, or anything *is* fair, because the systems don't compare exactly.
umm... I thought we were talking about the number of feats each PC has, not the number of encounters to level to level up.
We are! After 270 encounters, 3e characters will have about 7 feats, while 4e characters will have about 18 (depending on various classes/races, of course).
We are! After 270 encounters, 3e characters will have about 7 feats, while 4e characters will have about 18 (depending on various classes/races, of course).
Considering feats are tied to your level, it makes sense to choose the same level and compare the number of feats each one gets. I don't see how you reached that level has any factor in this.
I'm coming into this late, but I just wanted to field some thoughts on some of the OP's original Post.
1) Just becuase you don't like short people doesn't mean that other people don't like them. I'm doing just fine with them as of this writing. My Paladin kicks tushie. I half heartedly agree with you on the elf breeds, but elves are too popular. Just reducing the number of them is a signifgant improvement, honestly. I'm happy as it is at the moment.
2) I don't think the math is really 'broken', but the players like options that make life easier. I honestly don't see the feats as fixxers, as I really think it was intentional for monsters to become harder to hit as you leveled up. I am still not convinced you need the feats, especially for characters all ready min/maxxed.
3) I'm not convinced that you need that much variance, but that's a style thing, and I completely understand that. I feel an 11 should be the target, not 10, though...
4) I don't disagree with this assessment, but my players are starting to loose up with Dailies. It just might be an issue of player paranoia more then an issue with how they work. None the less, as a house rule, this works, and I have recommended such myself i private.
5) This is not true. I have demonstrated before and again that AC changes are the same. This is really done on purpose. No class needs heavy armor, and it's only some players that desire it. I don't see a reason to change this, as it makes no difference in the long run when looked at from a long view. It prevents thematic challenges, sure. No Rogue running around in shiny full plate, for instance, but I don't see this as a big deal.
6) Optional Rules = Here are ideas we didn't play test, have fun! I mean, honestly, that has been the case in EVERY game that has had optional rules. Optional Rules are not really good things from my experince. I also argue that because of the high degree of optimization and that every splat book ads more optional rules that the game already has enough optional rules.
7) What you are looking is for another power system. I understand wanting feats to do more, but we saw what that lead to in 3E. I think it's not a completely wise idea to go for constantly more powerful effects. I think they already started moving the right direction by removing Stat requirements on feats. it boggled my mind why it took them till FRPG to get rid of them. I think for your purposes, you want a more extensive Paragon Path that directly modifies your character in a more direct and costimizable way.
...
While I respect your wishlist, I think part of it is not horribly productive. If I were to put together a wishlist at this time, I think I would go with...
1) Less Classes, More Customization - I think we could have easily reduced Rogue and Ranger into one class called the scout. We could have condensed the Wizard and the Warlock into one class, and let the path you choose determine your roll. I think that given how class abilites are writen for builds anyway, that this isn't a horrible way of customization, and allows for more variety in each book.
2) Simplify Magic Items - I think they had a brilliant idea... that.. well... They had a brilliant idea that doesn't really have any clear plan or pattern. I think if we divide Magic Items into Low and High Heroic, Paragon, and Epic, it would make a lot more sense, and make people a little happier. The issue that I've not thought and moved through is how to simplify that, and make more useful items a little more expensive, still. I think it could be simplified more then it is right now, though.
3) Redo Skill Challenges - Really, I think I understand what they tried to get at, and I've not seen DMG 2 yet, but really, they don't work the way they really intended, and I think part of that is that the authors were not sure how to convey it across themselves. I want a more active system that allows for more off the cuff winging it. I want to get 'rid' of the Encounter sized Challenges, as the 15 success ratio doesn't seem horribly useful or fun to anyone. I want to see Trap Challenges that don't remove a person from a party for 5+ rounds with traps that can be defeated in one by the fighter. Time to scrap what you thought would work, and actually institute something that does.
4) Less Monsters over More Levels - On the same page, Drow should be encountered before Paragon Teir. Dragons can be encountered at every teir, why can't Effreet? Why do Orcs suddenly stop being a threat just because you are now at Epic level, when their GOD is attacking you? Monsters should remain valid threats at every level of play, and to do that, you need more variations of them. Some monsters almost achieve this, with Humans being the only ones that truely do. We need more like that.
... and that really is just my wish list for the moment.
The thing about the Math, is that it is broken. The game was intended to be played the same at low level as it is at high level. Mearls out and out said this.
Shame it doesn't actually do that. To make matters worse, monsters as the levels progress (Solos and Elites in particular) hp totals become Bloated.
Fixing the Math, would go along ways to fixing 4e.
Either, let feats grant abilities (which by the way by abilities, I mean being on par with Magic Item powers, and used on a similar recharge mechanic and use limit as well).
Or expand the power Suite so characters have more options.
As far as Optional Rules go, one there's a reason they are optional and two as long as you have a brain in your skull while making them they won't necessarily be unbalanced. IE don't let whoever made Blade Cascade make them. Optional Rules doesn't = Unbalanced and game breaking necessarily.
And hey if they cut the number of classes down, and the amount of Power Book Vomit down they could spend more time testing and designing said rules. Less Martial Power 2... more Optional Rules I say.
Each power source should only get ONE splat.. not fifty million.
Make it 4e-esque, I would like them to avoid changes like 2e to 3e where you almost play a different game. (By the way, I like both of them and 4e)
I'm with the minority, it seems, regarding the fact that some of your suggested changes seem like a step in the wrong direction. You're asking for a book of optional rules, and you've done a good job of suggesting a bunch of useful optional rules (considering how many agree with you).
For the Dailies issue, I prefer the House-Rule that every third Milestone gives you an Extended rest. That way you can have six encounters, short rest, and continue. It fits the Dungeon-crawl pace that some groups enjoy.
For elves especially, I'll have to link to TvTropes: tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Five...
Finally, something that would be a significant change, that I do want to see happen, is the replacement of the skills with a skill-based system. The skill challenges hold a lot in common with a skill-based systems skill rolls, I don't see why they shouldn't take that next step, and have multiple tiers of skill training.
It would satisfy the complaints of "climbing doesn't make you good at swimming" 
(ugh) and allow for more customization with non-combat abilities.
The thing about the Math, is that it is broken. The game was intended to be played the same at low level as it is at high level. Mearls out and out said this.Shame it doesn't actually do that. To make matters worse, monsters as the levels progress (Solos and Elites in particular) hp totals become Bloated.
Fixing the Math, would go along ways to fixing 4e.
Which is the general consented opinion, but considering that the game is not played the same across the levels, by the way the tiers are put together, and the difference in powers, I am not convinced that by 'Same across the levels' they meant 'Exactly the same in every way', and more 'No Class will be left behind', which is more of the big problem point of the time. 10th level play is the same as 1st level play effectively in 4E. When you look at the game in 3E, the game play was not the same at those levels between the classes, and there was a definite imbalance.
Either, let feats grant abilities (which by the way by abilities, I mean being on par with Magic Item powers, and used on a similar recharge mechanic and use limit as well).
Which is why I suggest you want a different power structure, in a optional splat book, not feats. Feats as they stand fill their purpose, and even MORE powers are confusing to players who are not very hard core about playing the game. A more casual D&D player (such as one that is playing once a month) already is feeling overwhelmed with the number of choices of powers even at mid-heroic tier. Adding even MORE powers will compound the issue. Making it an optional structure keeps newer players, or less dedicated ones, from being overwhelmed by choices, which is a key issue.
As far as Optional Rules go, one there's a reason they are optional and two as long as you have a brain in your skull while making them they won't necessarily be unbalanced. IE don't let whoever made Blade Cascade make them. Optional Rules doesn't = Unbalanced and game breaking necessarily.
I'll agree to disagree here.
And hey if they cut the number of classes down, and the amount of Power Book Vomit down they could spend more time testing and designing said rules. Less Martial Power 2... more Optional Rules I say.Each power source should only get ONE splat.. not fifty million.
I don't think that will happen. Putting aside the fact that more time <> more play testing, I don't think any roleplaying system has survived by not providing multiple splat books for their classes. White Wolf practically lives on the fact that they provide a fluff book for every little clan and tribe. Multiple Power Source Splat Books is not a negative thing, nor should it be viewed as such.
Although, add on rules and power books, ala Unearthed Arcana, is not a bad thing, and of course we would like to see some of that. I just think that your desire does not match reality, and I don't see it as a strategy for the next edition, to be honest.
1. Races
The elf, eladrin, drow, gnome, halfling, they aren't races. They are the names given to stat/ability combinations. If you really don't like the way they are portrayed, change the fluff. Because that's what seems to be your problem. No one is holding a gun to your head to use
2. & 3. The Math & Stat Math
The only thing you really need to do is lower all monster defenses by 1 or 2 to fix this. The math of the game is sound, it works, it is just a little too high. Subtracting 1 or 2 keeps the math exactually the same and puts it more in line with what you seem to want. Stat math is set up the way it is because different classes require different stats. Why should a Wizard Fighter be easy and viable if neither class really cares about the stat requirements of the other. There are plenty of classes in diferent roles and power sourses that work well together, like Cha-Warlord/Str-Sorcerer.
4. Dalies
Agree with you on this one, and your fix is a nice idea. Making dailies into a bi-encounter-ish power is a good thought. In my group, the level after you gain access to a new level of encounter or daily powers, you pick one to part of your list but it becomes a permanent power. Extra powers (three times the amount, almost) but a bunch of low-level stuff.
5. Armor
Not really seeing where you're going here. Certain enhancements are only for heavy armors and a darn good. I only see hide armor equaling plate if the character has a 20 in dex or int, and characters who use heavy armors tend to have those scores as secondary abilities, if not dump stats in general.
6. Hybrid Classing
This goes back to the Stat Math, which isn't as wrong as you think.
7. Optional Rules
First, the books a player tends to go for, PHBs and Powers, are really light on the fluff. Campaign Settings and DMGs, books designed for the DM, are fluff heavy because that is what's needed.
Second, why do you need optional rules? My 3rd ed. games had a ton of optional rules but 99% of them were never published by WotC. They were our optional rules. And with 4th ed. only 1 1/2 years old, why release many changes so soon.
8. Feats
You say two opposite things: 3rd stank because feats didn't scale and scaling feats doesn't work. Yeah, better critting should be paragon/epic level because you should be doing about 5d8-6d8 extra damage on a crit, as well as max damage on powers that easily add up to over 100 damage. Feats are a heck of a lot less important in 4th, especially since characters get a much larger amout, and can conver the majority of them to upper-tier feats through retraining.
1) Less Classes, More Customization - I think we could have easily reduced Rogue and Ranger into one class called the scout. We could have condensed the Wizard and the Warlock into one class, and let the path you choose determine your roll. I think that given how class abilites are writen for builds anyway, that this isn't a horrible way of customization, and allows for more variety in each book.
2) Simplify Magic Items - I think they had a brilliant idea... that.. well... They had a brilliant idea that doesn't really have any clear plan or pattern. I think if we divide Magic Items into Low and High Heroic, Paragon, and Epic, it would make a lot more sense, and make people a little happier. The issue that I've not thought and moved through is how to simplify that, and make more useful items a little more expensive, still. I think it could be simplified more then it is right now, though.
3) Redo Skill Challenges - Really, I think I understand what they tried to get at, and I've not seen DMG 2 yet, but really, they don't work the way they really intended, and I think part of that is that the authors were not sure how to convey it across themselves. I want a more active system that allows for more off the cuff winging it. I want to get 'rid' of the Encounter sized Challenges, as the 15 success ratio doesn't seem horribly useful or fun to anyone. I want to see Trap Challenges that don't remove a person from a party for 5+ rounds with traps that can be defeated in one by the fighter. Time to scrap what you thought would work, and actually institute something that does.
4) Less Monsters over More Levels - On the same page, Drow should be encountered before Paragon Teir. Dragons can be encountered at every teir, why can't Effreet? Why do Orcs suddenly stop being a threat just because you are now at Epic level, when their GOD is attacking you? Monsters should remain valid threats at every level of play, and to do that, you need more variations of them. Some monsters almost achieve this, with Humans being the only ones that truely do. We need more like that.
I like your list, so:
1 - Which is why SWSE is my group's favorite game. 5 base classes, that's it. Talents make up all the customization needed. Which is why I'm working so hard on a talent system for 4th.
2 - They have come a long way simplifying magic items, what with the elimination of a huge number of '+x' items, though, true, that can keep going. But you cannot eliminate magic entirely, since it is inherent in almost all settings, published or home-brewed.
3 - Yeah, and most homemade just changes the math, doesn't rebuild it from the ground up like it needs.
4 - Actually, taking a pre-existing humanoid from epic tier, adjusting it's stats slightly and giving it a goblin or kobold racial power works pretty great. Using just the MM1, i built a campaign with 30+ different goblins, 15+ each of hobgoblins and bugbears.
When the time comes for 5th Edition, some things I would like to see are: *Enhancement bonuses removed from magic items. Some people love magical treasure, some people not so much. By sticking to properties and daily powers for enchanted items and removing the expected +N bonus from the game math, the needs of both camps can be met. *Lower dependancy on ability scores. I think that 5E should take a page from True20's book and do away with the 3-18+ ability scale and instead express ability scores as straight modifiers (I.E. -5 to +5). Furthermore, I think that ability scores should cap around "+5" (20) so that character efficacy is tied more to experience level and MAD classes aren't shafted as much. *Rechargeable powers and healing. 4th Edition goes a long way toward eliminating the "15 minute workday" problem of previous editions, but it could still go farther. Intead of having encounter or daily powers, why not have a point based system that powers these abilties which characters roll to recharge inbetween encounters. Likewise, characters could also recharge healing surges in between battles. It's a simple matter of expanding their resources. *More class flexibility. Yes...there is plenty already in 4th Edition, but for 5th I would like to see optional class features that promote secondary roles for all classes. (I.E. A Fighter is still a defender primarily, but they should have optional class features that allow them to act as decent secondary controllers, strikers and leaders.) *More magic flexibility. Particularly for controllers, I wouold like to see class features that allow them to alter, shape and enhance powers, rather than the static effects we see now. *More depth for races. What 4th Edition does for the game's myriad races is amazing. Not only is every single race/class combination playable and effective, but racial feats make the character race selection an important choice throughout their career. 5th Edition should strive to do this, but even more so. I like what Fantasy Craft did with their races, wherein players can choose "species feats" at first level, essentially accounting for all of the various subraces. Heck, there is even a 4E precedent for this in the FR Player's Guide. That's what I could come up with off the top of my head.
I currently see none of these as a problem, especially the magic items. I have no idea why, but I love magic items that come with bonuses.
Warcolnol's views are close enough to my own that I see nothing wrong with me seconding them.
I will, however, add an additional caveat when it comes to crits.
Crits are much more powerful in 4th edition. Things happen on crits. And things do a hellish amount of more damage when properly optimized. The reason both Righteous Rage of Tempus (pre-errata) and radiant weapon crit-fishers are so viable is because crits *hurt*, especially with a melee weapon.
In 3.x edition, spells could not crit, and weapon crits served to only increase the damage range and average damage, not guarentee more. E.g. A no ability mod +2 great ax does 1d12+2 damage, and 3d12+6 on a crit. The damage was 3-14 and sometimes 9-42.
In Fourth Edition, a no ability mod +2 fullblade (also 1d12) does 1d12+2 damage on a hit, but on a crit does 12 (fullblade maximized) + 2 + 1d12(High crit weapon) + 2d6(for being a magic weapon).
A crit expands the damage from 3-14 normally to a more impressive 17-38 damage (4 points of average damage higher from 4th edition, and 21 points higher than a non-crit!)
When you move into the paragon tier, the difference between crits becomes even more pronounced. The 3.x greataxe becomes +3, and increases to 4-15 and 12-45, while the +3 fullblade becomes 12 (fullblade maximized) + 2 + 2d12(high crit weapon) + 3d6(for being a magic weapon) to deal out 19-56.
When you begin to add in things such as solitaires, the devastating critical feat (a paragon feat which brings the range to 20-66 by adding another d10), and any of the other 66 feats or 2046 items that have "critical hit" in their description, the amount of *stuff* that can happen from a single critical hit is mind boggling.
Critical hit range is so hard to improve because of all the benefits critting has in 4th edition.
If there were to be a 5th edition I would like to see:
1 - Point-buy system, along the lines of Mutants & Masterminds. You get points-per-level to buy attacks, defenses, powers, skills, and abilities.
2 - Keep races, roles, and sources, chuck the classes. Add in additional quantifiers, to differentiate melee, ranged, mind-effecting, elements, etc. These quantifiers determine 'class abilities' and 'cross-class abilities', how expensive it is to buy different powers, skills, and such.
3 - Drop the difference between feats, powers, and class abilities. Make 'Passive Abilities', buffs, feats, class abilities like Prime Shot, and 'Active Abilities', for powers and abilities like Channel Divinity or striker damage.
4 - Keep monster designing as is, just do away with the last of the color-coding and needless balance. While cool, we don't need archons of every element, I would love to see a Dragon just breathe fire, not be a red dragon.
5 - From-the-get-go list of how to make your own stuff. Monsters, powers, skills, abilities, a formula for the DM and PCs. In later books, that's where you release new sources and effects and items and stuff.
6 - No more magic items, but a magic item system, where abilities aren't tied to the location on your body. Items that have movement affects, power-manipulation affects, defensive properties, mental manipulations, you can only have so many of a genre of magic items. It doesn't matter what or where they are for properties. The object itself is separate, so a charm bracelet is nice and incognito but easily broken or lost, while armor is big, obvious, and can take one heck of a beating.
6 - No more magic items, but a magic item system, where abilities aren't tied to the location on your body. Items that have movement affects, power-manipulation affects, defensive properties, mental manipulations, you can only have so many of a genre of magic items. It doesn't matter what or where they are for properties. The object itself is separate, so a charm bracelet is nice and incognito but easily broken or lost, while armor is big, obvious, and can take one heck of a beating.
I'm not crazy with your other suggestions (particularly any attempt to make D&D a classless system), but I do think the idea that there should be item categories, rather than item slots. We're pretty close to that now...
- AC boost (armor)
- NAD boost (cloaks, necklaces)
- Movement boost (boots, carpets)
- Carry boost (bags, gloves)
- Attack/damage boost (weapon/implement)
- New attack (necklace of fireballs, bag of tricks)
- New utility (dust of appearance, ring of climbing)
- Healing
- Etc.
I'm not crazy with your other suggestions (particularly any attempt to make D&D a classless system), but I do think the idea that there should be item categories, rather than item slots. We're pretty close to that now...
- AC boost (armor)
- NAD boost (cloaks, necklaces)
- Movement boost (boots, carpets)
- Carry boost (bags, gloves)
- Attack/damage boost (weapon/implement)
- New attack (necklace of fireballs, bag of tricks)
- New utility (dust of appearance, ring of climbing)
- Healing
- Etc.
Well, my whole suggestion was for a new edition, not just a X.5th. Though it would never work for DnD. A system like d20 Modern, though, which is supposed to be more free-form, not a fantasy, supers, sci-fi, horror, pulp-noir, but rather all of them, then it could work.
I love the d20 products WotC makes. Even if I never buy or use them, they inspire my game. I really would love for Wizards to take a longer view of the hobby industry and try to come up with a PnP RPG that was a little more inventive instead of imitative.
In 3.x edition, spells could not crit, and weapon crits served to only increase the damage range and average damage, not guarentee more. E.g. A no ability mod +2 great ax does 1d12+2 damage, and 3d12+6 on a crit. The damage was 3-14 and sometimes 9-42.
Just a minor nitpick, some spell could crit in 3.x. The only ones that can are Touch spells (ranged and melee) and they crit on a natural 20 for x2 damage.
8.Feats I'm sorry "HURH HURH HUR I R A GOD OF WAR BUT I ONLY JUST NOW LRN TO CRITZ!" is not a good thing. That's pure Lazy and Fail right there. Critting better is a Heroic or early Paragon thing. It's sure as hell ain't epic. Especially in the context of what it means to be epic. Feats were one of the few things 3e did RIGHT, they just screwed up in that they didn't scale with level like everything else did. A great many of 3e's problems comes from that. So what did they do with 4e? take feats **** them, water them down and then break them into tiers which in many cases they have no business being in. Let feats grant abilities again, Economy of Actions will balance them just like it did (a few exceptions aside) in 3e.
That's it. That's my wishlist folks. Discuss. What are some of the things you want to see?
I'd like to see cascading talent trees for weapons and implements (and armors, and so forth) take the place of feats for them.
Ex: Fighter, level 1, would get a single weapon talent. At, say, 3rd level, he would get a new talent with that weapon and a talent for a new weapon. He would be able to learn up to 10 talents for each, for a total of 5 weapons at 10/9/8/7/6 talents. The other martial weapons he would still be "proficient" in, he simply would not have unlocked the true secrets of mastering them.
1) More stuff for races without affecting balance. Like optional racial powers that could be taken in lieu of class powers. Or gain another racial power at paragon tier and another at epic.
2) Better rituals. Instead of money as the balancing mechanic, use Healing Surges.
3) A better DM's toolbox. Things like "X effect should be available at Y level". They can do it for damage but not effects? And some guidelines for rituals, races, well pretty much anything a new DM is going to want to create.
4) More at-wills. At-wills should scale at Paragon as well, not just Epic. I also like the idea of milestone powers instead of dailies. Or maybe create more options for Action Points, like having "daily" type options for At-Wills that are only powered when you burn an AP to activate them, similar to how psions use power points to turn At-wills into Encounter powers.
5) I would love another Unearthed Arcana type book, but with optional rules that have been actually playtested. Optional doesn't have to mean unbalanced. I would love rules for grittier games and faster combats. I am also a huge fan of taint and sanity rules (and have been ever since seeing very basic optional rules back in 2e for spellcasters).
6) I really like Wrecan's suggestion for choosing power source, then role, then race, etc. to get more customization while still being balanced. It would also offer more interesting differences between power source. While the current system makes it very easy to refluff classes (an invoker could easily become arcane, a paladin could become primal, etc.), it causes the power sources to lose some of their flavor.
7) I don't think halflings should be removed from the game, but they shouldn't be as restricted as they are now. Something as simple as not gimping them on the damage bonus from versatile weapons, and letting versatile weapons wielded in two hands count as two-handed weapons could go a long way towards helping them.
8) No class skills. Let any class choose any skill. In my experience, players tend to gravitate towards the class skills anyway, since they often make the most sense for that class, but it allows for more freedom and character concepts. At most, class skills should be nothing more than a list of recommended skills for the character.
9) Magic items. This edition went a long way towards reducing the character's reliance on them. However, you still have to add extra bonuses to make up for missing items (granted, at least they tell you what bonuses to give at what levels, but still). I think magic items should grant no more than a +1 enhancement bonus, and that bonus should be able to be obtained from a masterwork weapon. That way there is no math adjustment for low-magic campaigns (which can be problematic if one or two characters managed to get a magic weapon, but no one else has).
10) Feats. I think if feats are going to be a minor thing, they should be more plentiful. Give the characters a feat at every level.
11) Monsters. Fix scaling issues and make solos more interesting, while not dragging fights out so long (I hear MM2 made some steps in this direction, but I haven't run any monsters from it yet).
12) Controllers might need some tweeking, but I don't see any problem with them overall.
13) Like someone else mentioned, no Surgeless healing.
14) Noncombat encounters. Skill challenges are a large step in this direction, but they could use some work still. I also think that a more robust system for social interactions would be nice.
Just another quick idea, less racial feats that are "When you use your Racial encounter power" and more things like "human boost to saves" or "Tiefling are accurate with fire"
Two questions:
#1 If 4E is so "broken" then why do you play it?
#2 Isn't a little early to talk abut "5E"?
Two questions:
#1 If 4E is so "broken" then why do you play it?
#2 Isn't a little early to talk abut "5E"?
Not all of us think it's broken, we're just taking the time to calmly point out things we hope they do differently in the future (whenever it may be- 4e was in developement for 4 years before release date), or possibly use errata to resolve.
I'll home errata the hell out of 4e and houserule what can't be fixed with errata. No way in hell am I buying another edition of D&D, maybe ever. Three editions is my freakin limit. I'll buy everything 4e releases. After that, I'll either stick with 4e/3e/2e forever, or drop D&D forever and find something else.
Just say no to addiction, and thats what this thread is basically about. Addiction to D&D, new editions, spending money and perfection.
I'd rather buy a "new used" car than another D&D edition.
Not all of us think it's broken, we're just taking the time to calmly point out things we hope they do differently in the future (whenever it may be- 4e was in developement for 4 years before release date), or possibly use errata to resolve.
My original reply was directed at the OP. Sorry if you took it as a general statement driected at the entire thread.
Honestly most of the OP nitpicking is personal preference. For example, I happen to like gnomes and halflings but I absolutly hate monks (or anything else "orirntial adventure'isk") but you don't see me asking for them to be removed from 4e.
Two questions:
#1 If 4E is so "broken" then why do you play it?
#2 Isn't a little early to talk abut "5E"?
Because the game is "broken" and not BROKEN? (like a certain E). The game "functions" more or less correctly now, but the math is in error. In other words it's on the sloppy end of Playable at higher level play. Which isn't a good thing. It is good however that the math is within the Tolerance range, and the game is actually playable in all of the tiers.
As for 2. Not really, we've had a year and Two PHBs, Two MMs and soon Two DMGs. That's more than enough time I feel to point out the flaws with the system and list them.
It's not really nipicking to ask for the game to actually function well or with competence rather than just blundering along and happening to have good luck enough for it to come out well in the end.
1) More stuff for races without affecting balance. Like optional racial powers that could be taken in lieu of class powers. Or gain another racial power at paragon tier and another at epic.
2) Better rituals. Instead of money as the balancing mechanic, use Healing Surges.
3) A better DM's toolbox. Things like "X effect should be available at Y level". They can do it for damage but not effects? And some guidelines for rituals, races, well pretty much anything a new DM is going to want to create.
4) More at-wills. At-wills should scale at Paragon as well, not just Epic. I also like the idea of milestone powers instead of dailies. Or maybe create more options for Action Points, like having "daily" type options for At-Wills that are only powered when you burn an AP to activate them, similar to how psions use power points to turn At-wills into Encounter powers.
5) I would love another Unearthed Arcana type book, but with optional rules that have been actually playtested. Optional doesn't have to mean unbalanced. I would love rules for grittier games and faster combats. I am also a huge fan of taint and sanity rules (and have been ever since seeing very basic optional rules back in 2e for spellcasters).
6) I really like Wrecan's suggestion for choosing power source, then role, then race, etc. to get more customization while still being balanced. It would also offer more interesting differences between power source. While the current system makes it very easy to refluff classes (an invoker could easily become arcane, a paladin could become primal, etc.), it causes the power sources to lose some of their flavor.
7) I don't think halflings should be removed from the game, but they shouldn't be as restricted as they are now. Something as simple as not gimping them on the damage bonus from versatile weapons, and letting versatile weapons wielded in two hands count as two-handed weapons could go a long way towards helping them.
8) No class skills. Let any class choose any skill. In my experience, players tend to gravitate towards the class skills anyway, since they often make the most sense for that class, but it allows for more freedom and character concepts. At most, class skills should be nothing more than a list of recommended skills for the character.
9) Magic items. This edition went a long way towards reducing the character's reliance on them. However, you still have to add extra bonuses to make up for missing items (granted, at least they tell you what bonuses to give at what levels, but still). I think magic items should grant no more than a +1 enhancement bonus, and that bonus should be able to be obtained from a masterwork weapon. That way there is no math adjustment for low-magic campaigns (which can be problematic if one or two characters managed to get a magic weapon, but no one else has).
10) Feats. I think if feats are going to be a minor thing, they should be more plentiful. Give the characters a feat at every level.
11) Monsters. Fix scaling issues and make solos more interesting, while not dragging fights out so long (I hear MM2 made some steps in this direction, but I haven't run any monsters from it yet).
12) Controllers might need some tweeking, but I don't see any problem with them overall.
13) Like someone else mentioned, no Surgeless healing.
14) Noncombat encounters. Skill challenges are a large step in this direction, but they could use some work still. I also think that a more robust system for social interactions would be nice.
1. I think that's a good idea, like they did with skills, recently. They do have paragon paths for races, but powers that can be taken for your race, not part of the paragon path would be nice.
2. Since rituals happen outside of combat, and in many cases in non threatening stituations, using healing surges wouldn't be anything.
3. The monster builder makes doing that very easy. And I wouldn't be surprised if some of the upcoming Adventure Tools will include some of those.
4. Agree. Some classes get at wills later on, some don't. Not that the at wills they get are powerful, but still, it gives the appearance of unbalanced. The gaining at paragon and epic, sounds good.
5. You might see something like that with Dark Sun. But also, make up your own. WoTC fully encourages people to do this. Don't limit yourself to what someone else came up with.
6. Personally, I don't think that would work for the game, it makes it more complex, and 4E is about being less complex. It could possibly lead back to what I felt I was seeing at the end of 3, all the good combinations figured out, and people stuck to those.
7. The amount of damage halflings lose out on seems marginal. Perhaps some racial weapons to help those that care about such things. At the same time, I understand why WoTC is trying to be more practical about such things. A 3-4 foot tall, not heavily muscled being, by nature, would find better ways to defeat enemies.
8. I'm fine with class skills. You really get a lot of feats, and if there is a non class skill you want, you can get it easy enough with a feat, and not feel like you are losing out on a better feat.
9. I think magic items were and are factored into the game when it was being developed. Really, I wouldn't want to play in a game that didn't have magic items. As for low level magic games, the adventure tools can really go towards helping people adjust encounters for that. You would not believe how easy it is to make a few quick adjustments to a monsters ac and other stats.
10. I disagree with giving them at every level. That would be way to much. I could see a rule such as, you can switch out a power for a feat. If the player feels some lower level powers aren't being used as much, changing out a power for a feat of the same tier. Maybe.
11. The DMG2 also deals with scaling monsters to cover these issues.
12. I think issues with controllers becoming way over powered and to limited in scope of power has to do with things outside of the game mechanics. Such as DMs not paying to close to what items the controller gets/buys, how encounters a built and how they are run. That's just my opinion.
13. I'm fine with surgelss healing, but it needs to be rare. Anytime there is a way for players to max up on something, they will. That's the problem with games that give so many options, players are always going to go for that which works the best.
14. No system, means to me, open to do as you please. I think people want a system, because instead of having to rely on themselves, they want dice rolls. I question the bar keep. Give me a dice roll. A 25! Ok, he likes you and tells you the following... Sure it's completely acceptable to have a system in place. WoTC wanted to get away from systems that don't involve the adventure, so players and DM aren't spending time and resources on that.
Just learn to not need dice to resolve everything. Yes I know not everyone is good at it, but you only get better with practice.
Re: Power source/Specialization/Origin/Race
6. Personally, I don't think that would work for the game, it makes it more complex, and 4E is about being less complex. It could possibly lead back to what I felt I was seeing at the end of 3, all the good combinations figured out, and people stuck to those.
Well, if you had powers available for specializations and origins, I think it goes a long way to differentiating characters without resulting in optimal compinations. Obvious, some combos work better than others, in the same way that some races go well with some classes more than others. But I think 4e basically achieved the point where no one combo outshines every other combo in the way that CoDzilla did in 3.X. I think you could have this in 5e as well, even while adding another array onto the class/race grid.
Re: Magic Items
9. I think magic items were and are factored into the game when it was being developed.
Nobody's suggesting eliminating magic items. All that's been suggested is eliminating the +X items, so that there's no requirement that a character maintain magic items to be effective. Magic items, in my opinion, work best when they add a little bit to the character, like a daily power, or a small property. 4e is so close to this, except for the insistence that everybody have items occupying their neck, body and weapon/implement slots that scale with level. I'd like magic items to be an attractive option, but not a requirement.
Re: Noncombat System
14. No system, means to me, open to do as you please.
I understand what you're saying, but I think the noncombat system needs to have the same philosophy as the combat system -- endeavor to ensure that every character can contribute meaningfully in every encounter. For me, there are two types of noncombat encounters -- social and physical. Characters whose concept eschews one of the other will be left out of one type of noncombat encounter and I think that's unfortunate. I'd like more mechanics that allow big brutes to contribute in a social encounter, even if it's with intimidating glances, and for brainy wimps to contribute in physical encounters, even if it's by giving advice and analysis. I can do it myself when crafting skill challenges, but I think the system could be overhauled and built for it from the ground up without creating a system where dice replace roleplay.
Re: Rituals fueled by Healing Surges
I have no problem with this and think it's a good idea. The number of healing surges do one thing -- they tell you when it's time to rest. By making ritual casting dependant on healing surges, you limit the number of rituals a party wil have active. By limiting ritual durations to "end of next extended rest", you prevent ritual casting from creating the "five-minute workday" that plagued previous editions.
Tying ritual casting to coin merely forces a party to fall behind on expected treasure. (Which is compounded by the expectation that the party is supposed to have a +X item at Level Y, or they will be less able to handle level-appropriate encounters.) And, if you give the party more coin to make up for ritual casting, then you have no limitation on the number of rituals to be cast in a day, which leads to balance problems.
An alternative to Healign Surges would be to create a new mechanic that creates a limit to the number of rituals you cast per day. It could be related to Skills, Abilities, or something entirely new. Either way a rituals/day mechanics, I think, is a necessary component of any game with rituals, I don't think coin is a good limit, and I don't think XP (which is more or less how 3e tried to limit it) is appropriate either.
Re: Rituals fueled by Healing SurgesI have no problem with this and think it's a good idea. The number of healing surges do one thing -- they tell you when it's time to rest. By making ritual casting dependant on healing surges, you limit the number of rituals a party wil have active. By limiting ritual durations to "end of next extended rest", you prevent ritual casting from creating the "five-minute workday" that plagued previous editions.
Tying ritual casting to coin merely forces a party to fall behind on expected treasure. (Which is compounded by the expectation that the party is supposed to have a +X item at Level Y, or they will be less able to handle level-appropriate encounters.) And, if you give the party more coin to make up for ritual casting, then you have no limitation on the number of rituals to be cast in a day, which leads to balance problems.
An alternative to Healign Surges would be to create a new mechanic that creates a limit to the number of rituals you cast per day. It could be related to Skills, Abilities, or something entirely new. Either way a rituals/day mechanics, I think, is a necessary component of any game with rituals, I don't think coin is a good limit, and I don't think XP (which is more or less how 3e tried to limit it) is appropriate either.
Again, rituals being fueled only by healing surges, creates more problems then solves, if you think that having a monetary cost attached to rituals, is a problem. First, any ritual that is used out of combat, such as a warding or divination or such, becomes even more powerful, because they are basically free, no cost magic. I cast all my short rituals, go to bed and in the morning, ta da!
Rituals useful in the middle of an adventure, then put an imbalance on ritual casters. Hey, cast detect secret doors. Hey cast knock. Hey cast arcane lock, to stop these jerks from being able to follow us. Now that caster is down at least 3 or more healing surges, because I'm sure some rituals will cost more in healing surges then others.
So instead of using healing surges for what they are meant for, staying alive, ritual casters split it between healing and casting rituals. While non ritual users have no such obligation on their healing surges.
Money is actually a good check on the ability to cast rituals. It limits the number of times a player can, so no artificial limits. I read a lot of "Having to spend money on X can mean a player falls behind on being able to buy magic items" But so far, most people you ask, say they don't allow players to just buy anything, or if they are players, they find most of their magic items.
To me, that seems like a default reason, that never comes into play. A player shouldn't have just enough money to buy a magic item every few levels, he should have enough to buy what he needs, and have some left over.
Its good to see engaged ppl making efforts by bringing in suggestions or ideas to polish up 4e.
as a matter of fact, however, tastes vary greatly, so its impossible to find THE solution that works for everyone. still, most of your suggestions are going into the right direction, I think. but lets list it the way you did:
1. Races
One of 4e's main problems (but also one its advantages), is its easy accessability. Creating a character is fast and easy, with allmost everything clearly listed. but it lacks diversity, as you stated. Then again, more complex options mean more time is needed to handle all of them. 4e was clearly intended to present a polished all new product to attract new players, so they made it plain and simple to not confuse them. imo its pro and contra regarding that matter.
the races itself are allright, I think. I didnt play halfling, I dont like it, and so do I dislike the gnome, but other ppl might find them interesting, so I guess they deserve to have their place as well. still, some of the races seem more like dimension jumping superheroes to me, deva and genasi for example. I allready had a hard time imagining tiefling and dragonborn walking around in "normal" civilization.
2 & 3. Math
I suck at this, so Ill just say what I understood from it: I see the flaw in it. As I first flipped through the monster manual and saw the monsters atk bonus I was like "its chance is HOW high to hit me?!". and that wasnt the first impression: while my fighter raged in battle (hitting nothing despite a good atk bonus and a decent die roll), I was continously hit by the bad guys.
4. Dailies
I dont really know how to specify them exactly for now, but I really like the rechargable power idea. in fact, Ill surely use it in my sessions from now on. A milestone should be more than just gaining something you could get anyway when making an extended rest. Replenishing a strong power as a sign of a surge of power wailing up inside your character is a good start for me.
5. armor
armor is (and I guess will be) a very delicate topic in every setting. it seems to be ridiculous that hide, (in your stated case) rivals plate mail, but then again, characters using light armor are usually low on hitpoints. naturally, thats not a justification, but to be honest, I dont have a good solution atm.
6. hybrid classing
there will allways be shenanigans, but even as hybrid/mcing is now in 4e, I dont think you can surpass the combinations from 3e. Maybe its not perfect, but I dont see it that wrong (at least not at the moment).
7. optional rules
Maybe there is a question you should ask yourself: With all the suggestions and critics we are stating, do you think there would be fewer if they would have put in that optional rules content? Developing takes tons and tons of time, yet there is so much we have to nag about, so shouldnt they first work on a really good basic rulesetting before presenting optional ones?
Im fine with working out that optional stuff myself, but AT LEAST make the standard rules solid and clear. Im truly sick of paragraphs saying "it works LIKE doing action B, however you are actually doing more or less action C" (referrence to dual weapons anyone?) if those matters can then be interpreted by intend, mechanics, gameplay or even flavor, something definitely went wrong.
I dont say I dislike improvising, but when its major, its a problem. When looking at DC charts or some monsters it could basically say "place your errata here because our 1 playtester didnt notice that lv 15 skirmisher angel had double hp". such sloppiness, with thoughts like "the community will find and correct us eventually" suck. If I pay cash for a product, I expect an equivalent quality, I dont want to play teacher correcting entire books.
8. Feats
I like the way that "weaker" feats can still be usefull later, but I also dislike their simplicity. Beeing epic by dishing out as most damage as you can is good and well, but diversity would make those really memorable.
Phew, that was quite a list. Come to think about it, I just registered for this topic to share my decent opinion, but well ^^
regards, Shine
What about a combination? Certain rituals (like those in the "Exploration" category) require healing surges, last until the next extended rest, basically anything that is useful in a dungeon can be kept up for the duration of that dungeon (making allowances for surge cost, obviously) while other, more powerful diviniation rituals, portals, etc. require gold.
The idea of dailies recharging when reaching a milestone is an intriguing one. I certainly see how it can encourage players to press on, rather then fight/rest.
However, that would make some feats and magic items lean towards making players over powered.
You use a daily, reach a milestone, and then use that daily twice in the next encounter, a few encounters later, it's back. It's not so much a daily power anymore, is it? I just used my daily power 4 times today!
I think perhaps a better suggestion is a change of the number of dailies vs the number of utilities you get over the course of leveling.
You use a daily, reach a milestone, and then use that daily twice in the next encounter, a few encounters later, it's back. It's not so much a daily power anymore, is it? I just used my daily power 4 times today!
you could cap daily powers, like action points, so that you cant "store" them. Why not think of it as a little bonus, instead of "hey lets farm daily powers" ^^
You use a daily, reach a milestone, and then use that daily twice in the next encounter, a few encounters later, it's back. It's not so much a daily power anymore, is it? I just used my daily power 4 times today!
you could cap daily powers, like action points, so that you cant "store" them. Why not think of it as a little bonus, instead of "hey lets farm daily powers" ^^
But it isn't storing them the way I've described. First encounter, I use a daily. Lets say it's a healing daily.
A milestone later, and I have my daily back. Not to mention having a magic item, or feat or power from paragon path that lets me recover a daily. Boom, it's back. If the party presses on towards another milestone...which I'll admit is unlikely, but possible, the daily is back.
Even 3 uses of a single daily seems over powered. And not to mention, it's not just one daily, it would be ALL dailies, unless the suggestion is that when you reach a milestone, you only get ONE daily, your pick, back. Even then, it sounds like a big potential for over powering.
Why do people dislike magic items? What's the problem with requiring them, or boons to be effective?
Me, I want my character to need that +4 armor to function, or something equivalent. That's just my kind of game.
yes, of course it would be the way you described it. If I remember correctly, cpt_micha allready made the suggestion in his first post to recover only one daily power, not all. even then, the problem arises with the addition of magic items and paragorn powers, I understand what you mean. Maybe this solution is only suitable for characters who dont have access to these items/abilities.
edit: good point mechaGM, would be a clever variant.
You use a daily, reach a milestone, and then use that daily twice in the next encounter, a few encounters later, it's back. It's not so much a daily power anymore, is it? I just used my daily power 4 times today!
you could cap daily powers, like action points, so that you cant "store" them. Why not think of it as a little bonus, instead of "hey lets farm daily powers" ^^
But it isn't storing them the way I've described. First encounter, I use a daily. Lets say it's a healing daily.A milestone later, and I have my daily back. Not to mention having a magic item, or feat or power from paragon path that lets me recover a daily. Boom, it's back. If the party presses on towards another milestone...which I'll admit is unlikely, but possible, the daily is back.
Even 3 uses of a single daily seems over powered. And not to mention, it's not just one daily, it would be ALL dailies, unless the suggestion is that when you reach a milestone, you only get ONE daily, your pick, back. Even then, it sounds like a big potential for over powering.
Well, if you want to have recharging dailies, but want to limit them, you could instead say that all characters have the ability to spend an Action Point to recharge one Daily power of their choice. It might still be too strong, but it's less powerful than just having a Daily power recharge each milestone.
Why do people dislike magic items? What's the problem with requiring them, or boons to be effective?Me, I want my character to need that +4 armor to function, or something equivalent. That's just my kind of game.
Because not everyone wants high-magic games. If you want to have a character decked out with more magic items than he has slots available, that's fine. However, I want to run a character in the same game with no magic items who won't fall behind on the math required for the game to function. If you eliminate the +X items, we can both run our games our way and neither of us will have to "patch" the system to compensate.
Why do people dislike magic items? What's the problem with requiring them, or boons to be effective?Me, I want my character to need that +4 armor to function, or something equivalent. That's just my kind of game.
Because not everyone wants high-magic games. If you want to have a character decked out with more magic items than he has slots available, that's fine. However, I want to run a character in the same game with no magic items who won't fall behind on the math required for the game to function. If you eliminate the +X items, we can both run our games our way and neither of us will have to "patch" the system to compensate.
I believe the patch is the boon type thing in the DMG2.
Edit: and a follow-up question: what is a high magic game?
Why do people dislike magic items? What's the problem with requiring them, or boons to be effective?Me, I want my character to need that +4 armor to function, or something equivalent. That's just my kind of game.
Because not everyone wants high-magic games. If you want to have a character decked out with more magic items than he has slots available, that's fine. However, I want to run a character in the same game with no magic items who won't fall behind on the math required for the game to function. If you eliminate the +X items, we can both run our games our way and neither of us will have to "patch" the system to compensate.I believe the patch is the boon type thing in the DMG2.
Edit: and a follow-up question: what is a high magic game?
Ebberron can be considered high magic, since it's used for practically everything in that world.
Well it's pretty much the opposite of a low-magic game. Like I described, your character is decked out with every item possible. I have actually played campaigns where books of infinite spells were available at the local bazaar right next to the deck of many things. I've seen players go "What? Another solid gold +5 vorpal dancing intelligent katana? I guess I'll hang it on the wall with the others." In these games, the high availability of magic items was just as game-breaking as lack of items was crippling. I want both to be equally viable. The information WotC put out to patch low-magic games was nice, but not what I'm looking for.
Again, rituals being fueled only by healing surges, creates more problems then solves, if you think that having a monetary cost attached to rituals, is a problem. First, any ritual that is used out of combat, such as a warding or divination or such, becomes even more powerful, because they are basically free, no cost magic. I cast all my short rituals, go to bed and in the morning, ta da!
That only works, as I said, if rituals do not last beyond an extended rest. Blowing all your rituals and then sleeping gets you nothing -- if the rituals are all expired when you awake. As I also stated, rituals shouldn't last past an extended rest. (Those that do could have a monetary cost and should also be exceedingly rare.)
Rituals useful in the middle of an adventure, then put an imbalance on ritual casters.
Yes, that's why it's a limitation. Just like melee attacks put an imbalance on the guy in the front line. That's why defenders get more surges/day. So should ritual casters.
So instead of using healing surges for what they are meant for, staying alive
I don't think they should be looked at as merely a "staying alive" mechanic. It's a limit on how often you need to rest. The ability to invoke healing surges is a staying alive mechanic, which is why msot of those are given to leaders, who keep people alive.
Money is actually a good check on the ability to cast rituals. It limits the number of times a player can, so no artificial limits. I read a lot of "Having to spend money on X can mean a player falls behind on being able to buy magic items" But so far, most people you ask, say they don't allow players to just buy anything, or if they are players, they find most of their magic items.
In a campaign where people don't get to buy stuff, then the only limitation on rituals is the arbitrary decision fo the DM, who allows the ritual casters to "find" only as many spell components as they need. The DM also only allows them to "find" the rituals the DM wants to include.
But the whole point of game design is not require the DM to do all the labor. Sure, the DM can simply decide what works for his game. But a game designer who writes "Do what works for you" is abdicatign his responsibility as designer. The game, as written, has specific costs for ritual components, rituals and other items. The game currently uses coin as the means of limiting ritual use. You claim coin is a good limitation, but your justification illustrates not that coin is the limitation, but that DM fiat is.
A player shouldn't have just enough money to buy a magic item every few levels, he should have enough to buy what he needs, and have some left over.
And what does he need? The DMG offers guidance for the value of possessions a character should have. A ritualist who spends that coin on rituals will have less available for the neck, body and weapon slot item he is supposed to have to be able to confront level-appropriate encounters. That's why it's, imo, an inappropriate mechanic.
As I said, I'm not wedded to healing surges as the mechanic. Any mechanic for limiting rituals on a daily basis would be fine. It could be as simple a rule as "The aggregate sum of the levels of rituals you can invoke between extended rests is equal to five times your character level." So a fourth level ritualist could invoke 16 levels of rituals per day -- say, 3 4th level rituals, a 2nd level ritual and 2 1st level rituals, or five third-level rituals and a 1st level rituals, etc. Whatever works best from a balance perspective.
Well it's pretty much the opposite of a low-magic game. Like I described, your character is decked out with every item possible. I have actually played campaigns where books of infinite spells were available at the local bazaar right next to the deck of many things. I've seen players go "What? Another solid gold +5 vorpal dancing intelligent katana? I guess I'll hang it on the wall with the others." In these games, the high availability of magic items was just as game-breaking as lack of items was crippling. I want both to be equally viable. The information WotC put out to patch low-magic games was nice, but not what I'm looking for.
So, what you are looking for can only be accomplished by taking away my sense of pride in my +4 armor? 
Im still interested in changing Dailies to Milestones. But before I had read this thread, I was contemplating the following.
Problem: Daily power ~ 5 minute workday.
- Do encounter
- Spend Daily power
- Do extended rest to recover Daily power
- So do next encounter tomorrow
Solution: In addition to the 5-minute 'Short Rest' and the 8-hour 'Extended Rest', create a third catagory called the 1-hour 'Power Rest', basically a 'siesta' or 'power nap'. The Power Rest recharges all Daily powers.
Advantages:
- In terms of gaming balance, resting for 1-hour or resting for 8-hours is more-or-less the same. While resting, adventurers are likewise vulnerable to monster attacks, must take precautions, and defacto interrupt their day. Mechanically, its virtually the same, except the flavor is a more productive day.
- Preserves the flavor of needing to be 'well rested' to use a Daily power.
- Interrestingly, the 1-hour block is a useful amount of time for some characters to do a ritual while other characters take a Power Rest.
So, what you are looking for can only be accomplished by taking away my sense of pride in my +4 armor?
Yeah, pretty much. In fact, to make sure it doesn't "accidentally" make its way back into the system, you can watch me disenchant it and melt it down after I take it from you. I will then hand you back a fully functional, fully balanced, non-magical ashtray.
So, what you are looking for can only be accomplished by taking away my sense of pride in my +4 armor?
Yeah, pretty much. In fact, to make sure it doesn't "accidentally" make its way back into the system, you can watch me disenchant it and melt it down after I take it from you. I will then hand you back a fully functional, fully balanced, non-magical ashtray.
I really don't care about balance as much as fun. And for me, magic items or their 5 level equivalent known as 'boons' does it for me. I am only somewhat sad that the game doesn't work for you, but I really don't see the point in playing an RPG (Computer or paper) without getting uber cool items.
Maybe I was just suckled too much on Final Fantasy.
Which is why I hope D&D holds on to the magic items we have now. Without the +whatever, they just aren't that important.
I really don't see the point in playing an RPG (Computer or paper) without getting uber cool items.
Without the +whatever, they just aren't that important.
Yeah not important at all, except without my sword dealing fire damage trolls would have killed me or if my delver's armor didn't give me a saving throw I'd be dead........
No point without the items? How about the Role Playing? If you're just playing a diablo/hack 'n' slash game I guess that's fine, but I think you're seriously missing out on worlds of adventure.....
Im still interested in changing Dailies to Milestones. But before I had read this thread, I was contemplating the following.
Problem: Daily power ~ 5 minute workday.
- Do encounter
- Spend Daily power
- Do extended rest to recover Daily power
- So do next encounter tomorrow
Solution: In addition to the 5-minute 'Short Rest' and the 8-hour 'Extended Rest', create a third catagory called the 1-hour 'Power Rest', basically a 'siesta' or 'power nap'. The Power Rest recharges all Daily powers.
Advantages:
- In terms of gaming balance, resting for 1-hour or resting for 8-hours is more-or-less the same. While resting, adventurers are likewise vulnerable to monster attacks, must take precautions, and defacto interrupt their day. Mechanically, its virtually the same, except the flavor is a more productive day.
- Preserves the flavor of needing to be 'well rested' to use a Daily power.
- Interrestingly, the 1-hour block is a useful amount of time for some characters to do a ritual while other characters take a Power Rest.
If taking an extended rest after each encounter seems viable to the party, the DM is neglecting to include time pressure in his scenarios. If time pressure is applied, 1 hour rests tend to quickly become as unviable as 8 hour rests, though this is not universally true. If time pressure is not applied and the party is the sort of players who are willing to do an extended rest after each encounter under current rules I would expect them to do so with a 1 hour rest as proposed available; after all why -not- get your surges back while you're at it?
Of course I'm used to playing LFR where you can more or less assume there is some reason why an extended rest will fail your mission for you unless you take it at the Approved Time (TM), and the few times that isn't the case everyone is trained to expect it to be the case and misses the opportunity. (Exception: In one of the recent core specials my party had just the right ritual to subvert the time pressure and be able to take an extended rest half way through. Yay. Who would have thought a linked portal sequence in the Shadowfell would come in handy?)
I really don't see the point in playing an RPG (Computer or paper) without getting uber cool items.
Without the +whatever, they just aren't that important.
Yeah not important at all, except without my sword dealing fire damage trolls would have killed me or if my delver's armor didn't give me a saving throw I'd be dead........No point without the items? How about the Role Playing? If you're just playing a diablo/hack 'n' slash game I guess that's fine, but I think you're seriously missing out on worlds of adventure.....
I want both. I want my uper cool items, and I want story. But neither I nor any of my current players care much about acting out or characters. Sure, the background is there and is worked into the overarching story, since all my players are big into the story of what is going on, but not really actors in the least, this suits them fine, But the other important thing for three of my players is killing monsters and taking their stuff, and the other player just likes taking their stuff. 
Again, rituals being fueled only by healing surges, creates more problems then solves, if you think that having a monetary cost attached to rituals, is a problem. First, any ritual that is used out of combat, such as a warding or divination or such, becomes even more powerful, because they are basically free, no cost magic. I cast all my short rituals, go to bed and in the morning, ta da!
That only works, as I said, if rituals do not last beyond an extended rest. Blowing all your rituals and then sleeping gets you nothing -- if the rituals are all expired when you awake. As I also stated, rituals shouldn't last past an extended rest. (Those that do could have a monetary cost and should also be exceedingly rare.)Rituals useful in the middle of an adventure, then put an imbalance on ritual casters.
Yes, that's why it's a limitation. Just like melee attacks put an imbalance on the guy in the front line. That's why defenders get more surges/day. So should ritual casters.So instead of using healing surges for what they are meant for, staying alive
I don't think they should be looked at as merely a "staying alive" mechanic. It's a limit on how often you need to rest. The ability to invoke healing surges is a staying alive mechanic, which is why msot of those are given to leaders, who keep people alive.Money is actually a good check on the ability to cast rituals. It limits the number of times a player can, so no artificial limits. I read a lot of "Having to spend money on X can mean a player falls behind on being able to buy magic items" But so far, most people you ask, say they don't allow players to just buy anything, or if they are players, they find most of their magic items.
In a campaign where people don't get to buy stuff, then the only limitation on rituals is the arbitrary decision fo the DM, who allows the ritual casters to "find" only as many spell components as they need. The DM also only allows them to "find" the rituals the DM wants to include.
But the whole point of game design is not require the DM to do all the labor. Sure, the DM can simply decide what works for his game. But a game designer who writes "Do what works for you" is abdicatign his responsibility as designer. The game, as written, has specific costs for ritual components, rituals and other items. The game currently uses coin as the means of limiting ritual use. You claim coin is a good limitation, but your justification illustrates not that coin is the limitation, but that DM fiat is.A player shouldn't have just enough money to buy a magic item every few levels, he should have enough to buy what he needs, and have some left over.
And what does he need? The DMG offers guidance for the value of possessions a character should have. A ritualist who spends that coin on rituals will have less available for the neck, body and weapon slot item he is supposed to have to be able to confront level-appropriate encounters. That's why it's, imo, an inappropriate mechanic.
As I said, I'm not wedded to healing surges as the mechanic. Any mechanic for limiting rituals on a daily basis would be fine. It could be as simple a rule as "The aggregate sum of the levels of rituals you can invoke between extended rests is equal to five times your character level." So a fourth level ritualist could invoke 16 levels of rituals per day -- say, 3 4th level rituals, a 2nd level ritual and 2 1st level rituals, or five third-level rituals and a 1st level rituals, etc. Whatever works best from a balance perspective.
If they expire when you wake, like a warding ritual so you can rest safely, you still aren't losing anything. Cast your ritual, rest poof the are gone? The warding ritual has served it's purpose, and that healing surge(s) was nothing. Any ritual intended to give you benefits longer then 6 hours, have now had their usefulness and power cut, if they don't extend past an extended rest.
Yes there is less work for the DM to do, but including items, of all kinds for the players is part of the DMs job, and so adding components for rituals, to help cut down on costs, isn't any extra work. Making a player have to figure out how much he can spend on components for rituals, keeps that kind of work with the players.
You want to limit how often a ritual can be used it seems. And that money is a bad way, because it can cost a player a lot of money, and allow them to cast the ritual as much as they want.
The burden to strike a balance between how much they spend on components, and still be able to afford items, is the players, not the DMs.
Changing it to healing surges, makes the ritual caster have less healing options. Making rituals expire after an extended rest either makes the healing surge cost mean nothing, or weakens the power of the ritual for those that extend past 6 hours.
Limiting the amount of times a person can cast rituals a day, changes the usefulness of them.
I can see how you feel that money to do rituals is hinderance on those players, because it's a cost they have, that others don't. But they also have a resource as well, that the non ritual casters don't, namely to recycle their old magic items into ritual components, and to create magic items.
Changing the cost from money to healing surges, is still giving ritual casters a hinderance. And I think a worse one then money, since I would not want to be caught a few healing surges short, because I cast a few rituals, to benefit the whole party.
As for healing surges not being a mechanic for staying alive. Well, I mean they are called healing surges. What else is their primary function if not to heal? We have action points for taking more actions, healing surges for healing. You start making healing surges used else where, and suddenly, we have a bigger imbalance in the game.
If they expire when you wake, like a warding ritual so you can rest safely, you still aren't losing anything.
You're losing a healing surge that you might need if something gets through your ward. I don't see why they need to "lose anything" permanently at all. Why should ritual casting require a permanent loss?
there is less work for the DM to do, but including items, of all kinds for the players is part of the DMs job, and so adding components for rituals, to help cut down on costs, isn't any extra work.
But is arbitrary and it is not how the game is currently designed.
Making a player have to figure out how much he can spend on components for rituals, keeps that kind of work with the players.
Why should that sort of bookkeeping be in the game at all? Isn't that why they eliminated spell components? (Yes. Yes, it is.)
You want to limit how often a ritual can be used it seems. And that money is a bad way, because it can cost a player a lot of money, and allow them to cast the ritual as much as they want.The burden to strike a balance between how much they spend on components, and still be able to afford items, is the players, not the DMs.
Yes, that's the way it is. But we're discussing how it should be. Arbitrary bookkeeping requirements are generally bad game design, unless you're designing a game for accountants (who like to engage in accounting during their free time). Tracking healing surges is simple, it's easy and provides a real limit. Coin does not.
Changing it to healing surges, makes the ritual caster have less healing options.
Which is why it would have to be appropriately balanced.
Making rituals expire after an extended rest either makes the healing surge cost mean nothing, or weakens the power of the ritual for those that extend past 6 hours.
No, it weakens the power of a ritual designed to be cast before sleeping, and to have an effect that continues after you wake. If a ritualist decides never to take an extended rest, his ritual can last longer than 6 hours, under my scenario. But how many rituals are designed to be cast before sleeping,and to have an effect that continues after you wake? I don't know of any currently in the game, so your concern seems academic at best.
Limiting the amount of times a person can cast rituals a day, changes the usefulness of them.
The whole point of component cost for rituals is to limit the number of times they could be used by a character. So, no, I don't think it makes them less useful, though it does change their utility (though I would argue it does so laterally, rather than increasing or decreasing their usefulness). But the coin component fails at what it's supposed to do. It doesn't limit the number of rituals you can cast -- it merely punishes the party later for actions now. (Thus turning ritualists into front-loaded characters -- another concept that 4th edition has been trying to eliminate.)
they also have a resource as well, that the non ritual casters don't, namely to recycle their old magic items into ritual components, and to create magic items.
I never compared ritualists to non-ritualists. in fact, I've been assuming the party as a whole contributes to the cost of a ritual because 4th edition encourages teamwork. Similarly, I've been assuming the ritualist is willing to use recycled components for everyone's benefit. No, I've been talking about the entire party being undertreasured due to ritual costs.
Changing the cost from money to healing surges, is still giving ritual casters a hinderance.
Yes, but it's a hindrance that is more easily accomodated in game design by iving ritualists more healign surges.
I would not want to be caught a few healing surges short, because I cast a few rituals, to benefit the whole party.
Except, that's exactly what makes it appropriate. If the gp cost doesn't make you hesitate, then it's not a limitation. But ritualists would most likely be the fellows who hang out in the back of the party (like wizards). They are the ones who shouldn't be relying on healing surges to survive. They rely on the defenders. So they can have a healing surge or two to use each day for rituals.
How about making Surges spent in rituals not get returned until after a milestone? No circumventing the pain there.
It seems wierd to me to have Con be the primary stat for ritual casting.
Also seems wierd to me to say that how the game is currently designed is not, in fact, how the game is currently designed.
Rituals are currently a consumable or semiconsumable (in that you can have the ritual book mastered and only use up the component cost). This makes it so that they are not (with the exception of some class bonuses that grant no component cost rituals on a per day basis) used arbitrarily all the time.
Honestly I think some rituals could afford to have their component costs removed or changed to some other form. I don't think I like Healing Surges as a mechanic because they favor the battlerage fighter and earth warden significantly over the cleric and wizard as the best ritual casters. I could imagine some sort of Mystic Surges based on perhaps the better of Int and Wis.
How about making Surges spent in rituals not get returned until after a milestone? No circumventing the pain there.
Alternately, the healing surges spent on rituals that last beyond an extended rest are not recoverable until after the effect expires.
You're losing a healing surge that you might need if something gets through your ward. I don't see why they need to "lose anything" permanently at all. Why should ritual casting require a permanent loss?
But is arbitrary and it is not how the game is currently designed.
Why should that sort of bookkeeping be in the game at all? Isn't that why they eliminated spell components? (Yes. Yes, it is.)Yes, that's the way it is. But we're discussing how it should be. Arbitrary bookkeeping requirements are generally bad game design, unless you're designing a game for accountants (who like to engage in accounting during their free time). Tracking healing surges is simple, it's easy and provides a real limit. Coin does not.
Which is why it would have to be appropriately balanced.
No, it weakens the power of a ritual designed to be cast before sleeping, and to have an effect that continues after you wake. If a ritualist decides never to take an extended rest, his ritual can last longer than 6 hours, under my scenario. But how many rituals are designed to be cast before sleeping,and to have an effect that continues after you wake? I don't know of any currently in the game, so your concern seems academic at best.
The whole point of component cost for rituals is to limit the number of times they could be used by a character. So, no, I don't think it makes them less useful, though it does change their utility (though I would argue it does so laterally, rather than increasing or decreasing their usefulness). But the coin component fails at what it's supposed to do. It doesn't limit the number of rituals you can cast -- it merely punishes the party later for actions now. (Thus turning ritualists into front-loaded characters -- another concept that 4th edition has been trying to eliminate.)
I never compared ritualists to non-ritualists. in fact, I've been assuming the party as a whole contributes to the cost of a ritual because 4th edition encourages teamwork. Similarly, I've been assuming the ritualist is willing to use recycled components for everyone's benefit. No, I've been talking about the entire party being undertreasured due to ritual costs.
Yes, but it's a hindrance that is more easily accomodated in game design by iving ritualists more healign surges.
Except, that's exactly what makes it appropriate. If the gp cost doesn't make you hesitate, then it's not a limitation. But ritualists would most likely be the fellows who hang out in the back of the party (like wizards). They are the ones who shouldn't be relying on healing surges to survive. They rely on the defenders. So they can have a healing surge or two to use each day for rituals.
I'm not sure where the idea of permanently losing a healing surge comes in from, I certainly didn't say or imply it.
The game is designed to be arbitrary, but it can also be played randomly. It's designed to accomodate both. In fact there are plent of places in the DMG, which encourages a DM to pick and choose, rather then let random chance decide. Like in making up treasure parcels.
The game has book keeping. Why is book keeping the money you spent on magic items ok, but not on material components? You have to keep track of ammunition, consumable magic items, hit points, bonus's in combat. Yes removing material components from spells cut down on book keeping but there was never any intention to eliminate it. There is nothing wrong with how the book keeping in the game works. Keeping track of things is simple.
If my concern over weaking rituals because they end if you take an extended rest, seems academic at best because you can't think of that many rituals that are useful to cast before an extended rest, then your solution of them ending after an extended rest is an empty solution, which means most rituals are being used outside of adventures, which means they cost the player nothing to use.
As for using healing surges for rituals needing to be balanced, that right there tells me, it's not a good solution. Your saying having to spend money is out of balance. Any solution to that imbalance that comes with the need to balance it, means it's not a solution, just more of same in a different color.
Rituals are limited on money. A character that spends all his money on performing rituals is no different then a player that never uses a consumable item, for fear of really needing it later. It's the players choice. Just like if you decide to use all your dailies on the first encounter, and have nothing powerful left for the big fight around the corner.
As for turning characters into front loaded, how? What are rituals going to do for a player so much that they spend all their money performing them? What exactly are they getting for spending all their money on Rituals that makes it worth it?
You are comparing ritualists to non, by saying it's unfair to them, because it makes them unable to afford magic items they need to compete. Meaning non ritualists don't have this problem. And again if rituals are so awesome for players to perform, why do they need magic items?
Give more healing surges to ritualists? Again, if the solutions means having to make lots of other changes, increasing other aspects of the game, just to accommodate a change, then is it s solution, or is it making things worse?
Many rituals have a reasonable cost to them, for what they offer. And in fact, a ritaulist should be able to cast them as much as they want, if they can afford to. If they blow through their money, it's not the games design that's at fault.
Saying they don't need to rely on healing surges to live, they should rely on their defenders goes against your earlier statement, give them more healing surges. Which is it? Give them more healing surges so they don't suffer from lack of healing because they used them on rituals, or the fact that they really shouldn't be using healing surges to stay alive, that's someone's elses job.
The biggest redesign in 4E is the healing, because that way, no one person was responsible for everyone elses healing, limiting what they can do in game.
The solution of healing surges being used for rituals comes with to many other changes needed to make it work, which really goes against the design.
Currently, it's cost limits how many rituals you can do. If a player wastes his money, it's not a fault of the system.
The change to healing surges to power rituals has a yet unknown balance issue that needs to be worked out.
How about making Surges spent in rituals not get returned until after a milestone? No circumventing the pain there.
Alternately, the healing surges spent on rituals that last beyond an extended rest are not recoverable until after the effect expires.
Because again, the ritualist has to go into combat with less healing available to him. They can already start out with less, and now it gets reduced more, or he never uses rituals. Sounds like damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I'm not sure where the idea of permanently losing a healing surge comes in from, I certainly didn't say or imply it.
Nor did I say you said such a thing. What you did say is that you didn't like the healing surge mechanic because it doesn't result in the character losing anyting (in contrast, presumably, to the permanent loss of money that accompanies ritual casting in the curret edition).
The game is designed to be arbitrary
The gae is not designed ot be arbitrary. On the contrry, the designers worked very hard to keep it from being arbitrary.
Yes removing material components from spells cut down on book keeping but there was never any intention to eliminate it.
There was an intent to minimize it. I think the designers should have gone further.
If my concern over weaking rituals because they end if you take an extended rest, seems academic at best because you can't think of that many rituals that are useful to cast before an extended rest, then your solution of them ending after an extended rest is an empty solution
No, it isn't. Because my solution had nothing to do with such rituals. You raise such hypothetical rituals as a reason not to have the rule I suggested. I never raised it as a reason to have such a rule!
most rituals are being used outside of adventures, which means they cost the player nothing to use.
There is always a risk that there will be combat. A player can neverfeel secure that his healing surges will be unneeded.
As for using healing surges for rituals needing to be balanced, that right there tells me, it's not a good solution.
What?! Everything has to be balanced. That's the whole point of having game mechanics -- to allow characters to be balanced.
As for turning characters into front loaded, how? What are rituals going to do for a player so much that they spend all their money performing them? What exactly are they getting for spending all their money on Rituals that makes it worth it?
Dane, you can't have it both ways. If the money spent on rituals has no adverse effect on the ritualist, then it's not a limitation. if spending money for rituals is a limitation on ritual casting, it can only be because it forces the player to choose between spening money on a ritual or spending money on something else. The only other "else" players spend money upon is gear.
So, if coin is a limitation on rituals, it has to be because it limits the player's magic item choices later. That's frontloading.
Your critique is self-contradictory. Either coin is an effective limitation on the character or it isn't.
Give more healing surges to ritualists? Again, if the solutions means having to make lots of other changes, increasing other aspects of the game, just to accommodate a change, then is it s solution, or is it making things worse?
Neither. It's exactly the sort of thing one does when making a new edition. "Lots of other changes" is exactly what a new edition is about. I'm not discussing making a house rule for this edition. I'm talking about building a system from the ground up for a new one. Why? Because that's the topic of this thread.
Currently, it's cost limits how many rituals you can do. If a player wastes his money, it's not a fault of the system.
Yes, it is, because the system creates the choice.
The change to healing surges to power rituals has a yet unknown balance issue that needs to be worked out.
Exactly. You seem to be under the impression that you wandered into a thread about house rules rather than about new editions. Anything in a new edition has to be worked out. That's not a criticism -- that's just stating the obvious
Nor did I say you said such a thing. What you did say is that you didn't like the healing surge mechanic because it doesn't result in the character losing anyting (in contrast, presumably, to the permanent loss of money that accompanies ritual casting in the curret edition).
If a player can cast a ritual spend healing surges, from the safty of his home, or inbetween adventures, it costs him nothing. In fact, it goes more towards the abuse of casting rituals that you seem to be againts.
I can cast Drawmij's Instant Summons one day for a few healing surges, and get a free vorpal sword for several encounters (1 hour) at no cost to me. Because it lasts until discharged which means it's exempt from the extended rest additional rule you need for your idea to work.
On the contrry, the designers worked very hard to keep it from being arbitrary.
How are you intending arbitrary to mean? There are many examples in the DMG about making choices.
There was an intent to minimize it. I think the designers should have gone further.
So book keeping is part of the game, and what you spend your money on still needs to be kept track of, regardless of what it is. You are welcome to your opinion that there could be less.
No, it isn't. Because my solution had nothing to do with such rituals. You raise such hypothetical rituals as a reason not to have the rule I suggested. I never raised it as a reason to have such a rule!
How is your solution that rituals effects end at the end of an extended rest, not have anything to do with such rituals? It's not hypothetical. Using healing surges instead of money, there are plenty of good rituals to cast before you take an extended rest.
Comprehend Language, Endure Elements, Forbiddance (which does cost healing surges, 5!), Tensers Floating disc (Who wants a floating bed! That's a joke), Silence, any Eye or Warding spell, Travler's Feast. That's at least 6 rituals that can come in handy before taking an extended rest.
Not to mention, any ritual that can be made permenant by casting it each day for a year and one day, means FREE!
There is always a risk that there will be combat. A player can neverfeel secure that his healing surges will be unneeded.
I'm sorry, but saying there is always the risk of combat outside of adventures is a strawman argument. That's like saying you could be hit by a bus and killed tomorrow. Yes, you could. Clearly so far the chances of that happening haven't come up for either of us. And again we are back to healing surges being valuable to keeping your ritual caster alive, when part of your debat is that they aren't. Again, which is it? They are need or they are not needed?
What?! Everything has to be balanced. That's the whole point of having game mechanics -- to allow characters to be balanced.
It's not balancing if the solution requires more work and changes to other systems, just to work. Its taking the game more out of balance if you think it's already not balanced.
Dane, you can't have it both ways. If the money spent on rituals has no adverse effect on the ritualist, then it's not a limitation. if spending money for rituals is a limitation on ritual casting, it can only be because it forces the player to choose between spening money on a ritual or spending money on something else. The only other "else" players spend money upon is gear.
So, if coin is a limitation on rituals, it has to be because it limits the player's magic item choices later. That's frontloading.
Your critique is self-contradictory. Either coin is an effective limitation on the character or it isn't.
Money does limit the amount of rituals one can do. Again if someone chooses to blow all their money on rituals, that is not the fault of the system, but the player. So I am not being contradictory. It's not the games responsibility to control how a player plays.
The second paragraph on rituals states: A ritual book contains one or two or more rituals that you can use as often and as many times as you like, as long as yoou can spare the time and the components to perform the ritual.
Healing surges limits rituals to as many healing surges a player has. The more powerful the ritual the more it would cost in healing surges, even limiting the amount a player can do. This goes against the design of rituals.
Neither. It's exactly the sort of thing one does when making a new edition. "Lots of other changes" is exactly what a new edition is about. I'm not discussing making a house rule for this edition. I'm talking about building a system from the ground up for a new one. Why? Because that's the topic of this thread.
Is this supposed to be a, shove off answer? Feels like one.Why not just start with that, and be done with it?
Yes, it is, because the system creates the choice.
Exactly. You seem to be under the impression that you wandered into a thread about house rules rather than about new editions. Anything in a new edition has to be worked out. That's not a criticism -- that's just stating the obvious
I know what the tread is about. If you don't like holes being poked into your ideas, keep posting, but you don't need to address them. If you think your ideas are workable, then you don't need to adress my points.
If you are building an new system like you say, then perhaps you should say things like "Lets get ride of healing surges, and call them ______ points, which can be used to heal, but for other things as well" Because frankly, you sound like you are arguing changing the current system more then making a whole new game.
Then maybe people are wrong about how unbalanced the game really is. Because a majority of the ideas being suggested, end up creating new problems that need to be worked out and balanced. To me, that seems like a failure of design in making a new edition, because it goes from simple to complex to specialized, which means less accessable to people.
"Healing Surges" is a nothing cost anyway, once players start getting close to Paragon. There are such a ridiculous many "heal without spending a surge" effects now that the whole mechanic is meaningless.
In 3.x edition, spells could not crit.
Wrong. You could crit with a spell in 3rd edition.
In 3.x edition, spells could not crit.
Wrong. You could crit with a spell in 3rd edition.
Well, very specifically, any spell that you had to roll to hit on...
In 3.x edition, spells could not crit.
Wrong. You could crit with a spell in 3rd edition.
Well, very specifically, any spell that you had to roll to hit on...
Thats why Rays and the Orb spells were nasty.
"Healing Surges" is a nothing cost anyway, once players start getting close to Paragon. There are such a ridiculous many "heal without spending a surge" effects now that the whole mechanic is meaningless.
That's one of the things I hope they eliminate in a future edition, which would then make it fine as a mechanic to limit rituals. Alternately, any limit that replenishes after an extended rest would work as well.
Yeah I'm more fond of the Rituals cost surges, providing that makes them cast quicker (and thus be able to be done in combat). Like you have a No Surge cost mode, which takes how long they presently do. but quickening the process eats vitality.
If a player can cast a ritual spend healing surges, from the safty of his home, or inbetween adventures, it costs him nothing. In fact, it goes more towards the abuse of casting rituals that you seem to be againts.
Why are you so intent on raising this academic point? You found only one ritual (Drawmij's Instant Summons) and the solution to that has already been offered int this thread -- you don't regain the surge(s) used to cast the Summons until the Summons is invoked.
How are you intending arbitrary to mean? There are many examples in the DMG about making choices.
Arbitrary means the DM is imposing limits beyond those suggested in the guidelines (for example, the treasure parcel guidelines). The DM is give no guidance on how to introduce rituals in a balanced way. He has to ferret that out for himself. That's arbitrary. 4th edition was designed with the very commendable philosophy that one doesn't hav to be an expert in the game to run it. But they dropped the ball, in my opinion, with rituals, because the coin limitation isn't an effective one, and then requires the DM to step in and come up with his own limitations. Alternately, a player who is not well-versed in game balance might overspend on rituals. That sort of requirement of system mastery is a relic of game design.
You are welcome to your opinion that there could be less.
And you are welcome to your opinion that system mastery and bookeeping are hallmarks of a well-designed game.
there are plenty of good rituals to cast before you take an extended rest.
Comprehend Language, Endure Elements, Forbiddance (which does cost healing surges, 5!), Tensers Floating disc (Who wants a floating bed! That's a joke), Silence, any Eye or Warding spell, Travler's Feast. That's at least 6 rituals that can come in handy before taking an extended rest.
In a hypothetical 5th edition, those spells should not extend past the end of an extended rest. There's no reason for these rituals to extend past such a rest. You seem to have trouble comprehending that we're discussing a re-designed ritual system, not a tweaked 4th edition.
Not to mention, any ritual that can be made permenant by casting it each day for a year and one day, means FREE!
Oh, come on, dane. Do you really think I was discussing the process to make rituals permanent?! If we're going to have an actual discussion, instead of a "gotcha!" contest, at least have the courtesy of not assuming the stupidest positions. I think I deserve a little benefit of the doubt here. Yeesh.
I'm sorry, but saying there is always the risk of combat outside of adventures is a strawman argument.
I don't think you know what a strawman argument is. Healing surges work fine in any situation because D&D is a game about combat. In a game where combat is deemphasized, one would use a non-combat related daily limitation, such as the suggested "Arcane Surge" mechanic.
It's not balancing if the solution requires more work and changes to other systems, just to work.
Do you not understand we're discussing designing a new edition? Saying that it will require wholesale changes to the game is not a criticism of such an endeavor. It's merely restating the topic of conversation.
Either coin is an effective limitation on the character or it isn't.
Yes, and your description of coin has been contradictory. That's what I pointed out.
Money does limit the amount of rituals one can do. Again if someone chooses to blow all their money on rituals, that is not the fault of the system, but the player.
No, that's a fault of the system for not giving guidance to the player through a lousy mechanic. This is the same rationale that defenders of 3rd edition used for the 5-minute workday. "Well, if the DM allows players to rest after every battle to recharge spells, that's not a fault of the system." In fact, blaming the player or DM for not possessing the system mastery needed to use a portion of the game is strong evidence of a fault of the system. 4th edition, thankfully, eschewed such criticisms and has tried to get away form system mastery as a requirement of play. let's eliminate it from rituals too.
If you don't like holes being poked into your ideas, keep posting.
But you're not pokiing holes in my ideas. You're comparing the system to the current system and criticizing it merely because it's different. Every time you criticize it because that's not how it works in 4th edition, you are missing the whole point of this thread. The point of the thread is to point out where things should be different from the current edition.
Because frankly, you sound like you are arguing changing the current system more then making a whole new game.
You once again are contradicting your self. On the one hand, you criticize my idea because it requires wholesale changes, and then you say I sound like I'm only trying to change the current system? No, the problem is that you are tying to pick apart my argument by looking at tine issues one by one. This narrow focus leads you to make silly accusation and try to recharacterize this suggestion as if it were a small tweak, when what I'm discussing is a major change to how rituals would be designed and implemented in a hypothetical 5th edition. The problem is the tactic you've chosen to take in this discussion, not the proposal I've suggested.
a majority of the ideas being suggested, end up creating new problems that need to be worked out and balanced.
Most of the problems you identify seem to be in the vein of "But that's so different from how it works", rather than actually identifying problems from a game design perspective.
Yeah I'm more fond of the Rituals cost surges, providing that makes them cast quicker (and thus be able to be done in combat). Like you have a No Surge cost mode, which takes how long they presently do. but quickening the process eats vitality.
Why the heck do you want to cast rituals in combat? You have looked over them, right? There is not a single one that I can think of that would be useful Inside of combat outside of the "emergency Teleport Us Home" ritual... and honestly, as a DM, I don't want that, and as a player, you shouldn't either!
If a player can cast a ritual spend healing surges, from the safty of his home, or inbetween adventures, it costs him nothing. In fact, it goes more towards the abuse of casting rituals that you seem to be againts.
Why are you so intent on raising this academic point? You found only one ritual (Drawmij's Instant Summons) and the solution to that has already been offered int this thread -- you don't regain the surge(s) used to cast the Summons until the Summons is invoked.
How are you intending arbitrary to mean? There are many examples in the DMG about making choices.
Arbitrary means the DM is imposing limits beyond those suggested in the guidelines (for example, the treasure parcel guidelines). The DM is give no guidance on how to introduce rituals in a balanced way. He has to ferret that out for himself. That's arbitrary. 4th edition was designed with the very commendable philosophy that one doesn't hav to be an expert in the game to run it. But they dropped the ball, in my opinion, with rituals, because the coin limitation isn't an effective one, and then requires the DM to step in and come up with his own limitations. Alternately, a player who is not well-versed in game balance might overspend on rituals. That sort of requirement of system mastery is a relic of game design.
You are welcome to your opinion that there could be less.
And you are welcome to your opinion that system mastery and bookeeping are hallmarks of a well-designed game.
there are plenty of good rituals to cast before you take an extended rest.
Comprehend Language, Endure Elements, Forbiddance (which does cost healing surges, 5!), Tensers Floating disc (Who wants a floating bed! That's a joke), Silence, any Eye or Warding spell, Travler's Feast. That's at least 6 rituals that can come in handy before taking an extended rest.
In a hypothetical 5th edition, those spells should not extend past the end of an extended rest. There's no reason for these rituals to extend past such a rest. You seem to have trouble comprehending that we're discussing a re-designed ritual system, not a tweaked 4th edition.
Not to mention, any ritual that can be made permenant by casting it each day for a year and one day, means FREE!
Oh, come on, dane. Do you really think I was discussing the process to make rituals permanent?! If we're going to have an actual discussion, instead of a "gotcha!" contest, at least have the courtesy of not assuming the stupidest positions. I think I deserve a little benefit of the doubt here. Yeesh.
I'm sorry, but saying there is always the risk of combat outside of adventures is a strawman argument.
I don't think you know what a strawman argument is. Healing surges work fine in any situation because D&D is a game about combat. In a game where combat is deemphasized, one would use a non-combat related daily limitation, such as the suggested "Arcane Surge" mechanic.
It's not balancing if the solution requires more work and changes to other systems, just to work.
Do you not understand we're discussing designing a new edition? Saying that it will require wholesale changes to the game is not a criticism of such an endeavor. It's merely restating the topic of conversation.
Either coin is an effective limitation on the character or it isn't.
Yes, and your description of coin has been contradictory. That's what I pointed out.
Money does limit the amount of rituals one can do. Again if someone chooses to blow all their money on rituals, that is not the fault of the system, but the player.
No, that's a fault of the system for not giving guidance to the player through a lousy mechanic. This is the same rationale that defenders of 3rd edition used for the 5-minute workday. "Well, if the DM allows players to rest after every battle to recharge spells, that's not a fault of the system." In fact, blaming the player or DM for not possessing the system mastery needed to use a portion of the game is strong evidence of a fault of the system. 4th edition, thankfully, eschewed such criticisms and has tried to get away form system mastery as a requirement of play. let's eliminate it from rituals too.
If you don't like holes being poked into your ideas, keep posting.
But you're not pokiing holes in my ideas. You're comparing the system to the current system and criticizing it merely because it's different. Every time you criticize it because that's not how it works in 4th edition, you are missing the whole point of this thread. The point of the thread is to point out where things should be different from the current edition.
Because frankly, you sound like you are arguing changing the current system more then making a whole new game.
You once again are contradicting your self. On the one hand, you criticize my idea because it requires wholesale changes, and then you say I sound like I'm only trying to change the current system? No, the problem is that you are tying to pick apart my argument by looking at tine issues one by one. This narrow focus leads you to make silly accusation and try to recharacterize this suggestion as if it were a small tweak, when what I'm discussing is a major change to how rituals would be designed and implemented in a hypothetical 5th edition. The problem is the tactic you've chosen to take in this discussion, not the proposal I've suggested.
a majority of the ideas being suggested, end up creating new problems that need to be worked out and balanced.
Most of the problems you identify seem to be in the vein of "But that's so different from how it works", rather than actually identifying problems from a game design perspective.
In the end your new system is more complex, offers less, punishes ritual casters for using their powers, unless you inflate the number of healing surges, which will make other classes wonder why they get more.
Not to mention that if you take the feat ritual caster, does it come with more healing surges? Because if it does, you can bet everyone will take, whether or not they want to actually cast rituals, because of the bonus in healing surges.
Unless of course you say you only get bonus healing surges if Ritual Caster is a class feat. So what's the balance for other classes? What do they get? So anyone taking Ritual Caster feat, is really gimped if they want to use their powers. So arcane classes that don't have it as a class feature, are basically barred from ever using rituals.
Not to mention, you haven't touched on the idea of making scrolls? Will you be down those same healing surges until the scroll is used? If not FREE POWER! In your free time, blow out a bunch of scrolls. Not only will they NOT cost healing surges or money later, they take half the time! If it does take healing surges away until you use them makes them pretty useless. What happens if the person that made the scroll dies? Does it crumble to dust?
So effectively, in your new game, rituals aren't worth it.
On top of that, you haven't shown any examples of how the current rituals can be used over and over to front load the characters in a way that makes them more powerful. I'm still waiting for some examples on how some good examples of this. You need to show how something is broken if you want people to accept that it is.
Really I don't see many ideas in this thread about how 5E can be made better then 4E. There are some, for sure. I just don't see this as one of them.
Why the heck do you want to cast rituals in combat? You have looked over them, right? There is not a single one that I can think of that would be useful Inside of combat outside of the "emergency Teleport Us Home" ritual... and honestly, as a DM, I don't want that, and as a player, you shouldn't either!
Exactly, 98% of the rituals in the game don't have anything to do with combat or skill encounters. They are designed that way on purpose. They are all utility functions, that are thought of as stock and trade for arcane casters, in many of our ideas of fantasy. So what better why to keep that in a game, without have to take a power or memorize a spell to find a secret door, that may or may not be used in the adventure?
You would also have to write a whole new set of rituals to make it even worth while.
In the end your new system is more complex, offers less, punishes ritual casters for using their powers, unless you inflate the number of healing surges, which will make other classes wonder why they get more.
Other than you stating it to be so, you haven't actually offered any cogent reason for your points ot be believed.
Not to mention that if you take the feat ritual caster, does it come with more healing surges?
I don't know. Why do you still imagine 5th edition ritualism would work the way 4th editions do? This is like trying to explain 4th edition rituals before 4th edition is released and the person insists "Are you saying that any time I want to cast a spell outside of combat I have to pay coin? Why should my warlock have to take a feat to be able to cast spells outside combat? Why don't you just tell people that only wizard and clerics can cast rituals?" (ETA: come to think of it, 3e grognards did make these criticisms when the 4e ritual rules were first announced!)
Really I don't see many ideas in this thread about how 5E can be made better then 4E. There are some, for sure. I just don't see this as one of them.
There are none so blind as those who will not see. Since you seem content to continue to take potshots at anything that differs from 4e merely on the grounds that it's different from 4e (a point that the OP presciently predicted people would do), I think I'm done.
You would also have to write a whole new set of rituals to make it even worth while.
Imagine that. Having to rewrite the rituals for a new edition. You mean, sort of the way they rewrote spells into rituals for the current edition?
Imagine that. Having to rewrite the rituals for a new edition. You mean, sort of the way they rewrote spells into rituals for the current edition?
Yes, but the point is why would you want to rewrite them? The change we see from previous to 4E is a logical change (Move Diviniation/transportation spells to a more limited and dedicated form, so they are abused less).
The problem we see with rituals isn't that they are 'harder' to cast or are 'less' useful, the problem is mainly of player thinking. 10 minutes seems like a HUGE amount of time to players, and it serves as a mental stumbling block for a lot of people. "Why use 10 minutes to get an answer? Let's bash in doors and use our Combat Powers instead!". Hence, why we are suddenly talking about using healing surges instead of money funds, so that you have 'access' faster, or at least that seems to be what is going on to me.
Really, that's never been the problem with rituals. In fact, there is no problem with rituals. Rituals by far are as powerful as ever, it's just they are being shunned in favor of more action 'now'.
Now, that being said, I wouldn't be adverse to a new brand of 'powers', say... evocations?... that used combat surges to perform miraculous tasks in the middle of combat. Rituals that let one burn HS for appropriate skill based effects along the lines of consumable items I think would be a welcome addition to a new edition, or even this edition.
Here's a system I've been pondering using, which I think might work:
Ritual points: Each ritual costs a number of ritual points equal to its level (i.e. a level 5 ritual costs 5 ritual points). Each day a ritual caster gains a ritual point, and a caster can never have more ritual points than their level. So a level 6 ritual caster would need to wait five days order to build up 5 points for a level 5 ritual, and at most they could hold 6 points which would allow them 1 level 5 ritual and 1 level 1 ritual. At level 15 casters would instead gain 2 ritual points per day.
This would limit them slightly more than surges, without blurring the line between combat and noncombat, while still allowing even low level parties to use a decent number of rituals.
Yeah I'm more fond of the Rituals cost surges, providing that makes them cast quicker (and thus be able to be done in combat). Like you have a No Surge cost mode, which takes how long they presently do. but quickening the process eats vitality.
Why the heck do you want to cast rituals in combat? You have looked over them, right? There is not a single one that I can think of that would be useful Inside of combat outside of the "emergency Teleport Us Home" ritual... and honestly, as a DM, I don't want that, and as a player, you shouldn't either!
If you can't see why Comprehend languages being able to be cast on the fly would be a good thing, there is no real arguing with you here, or tongues etc.
As they stand right now, due to their extraneous casting time they're almost useless in many cases. And that's before you figure each one eats roughly 10 percent of the otherwise nearly worthless gps you're going to get per level.
My 5E wish. No more Binary Attacks.
Hit/Miss I feel is too limiting, maybe hit over and under defenses can have anywhere from 10% to 110% damage depending on how well you hit or miss by.
If you can't see why Comprehend languages being able to be cast on the fly would be a good thing, there is no real arguing with you here, or tongues etc.As they stand right now, due to their extraneous casting time they're almost useless in many cases. And that's before you figure each one eats roughly 10 percent of the otherwise nearly worthless gps you're going to get per level.
I'm surprised you can't see all the reasons it would be a bad thing as well. It would completely invalidate a character who made the effort and spent the feats to understand every language. Comprehend Languages works perfectly for its purpose, which is to allow a person to socialize in a foreign town. You can cast it in the morning and talk with it all day long, only casting it once a day.
To Kensan Oni:
I specifically stated I did not want to change the casting times of the rituals (although I'm amenable to a casting time of "short rest" or "extended rest").
My problem with rituals is not their inability to use them in combat. Rather, it's the specific mechanics the designers chose to use to limit the number of rituals a ritualist might cast. I simply think gold is an inappropriate measure. Rituals are not like consumable items, precisely because consumable items are made to be used in combat, and thus should be tied to gold pieces, which is used to limit how many powers one acquires. By having gold apply to non combat measures, it creates a game design conflict.
Rituals generally don't give you more combat powers and therefore should not use the same mechanic used to limit your combat powers. As I've said, I'm not wedded to using healing surges. Someone mentioned a new mechanic called arcane surges that measures how much ritual energy you can channel in a given day. ("Ritual Surges" might be a better term.)
If a ritual is designed to give you a power to use in combat, then a gp expenditure would be appropriate. The Drawmij's Instant Summons ritual, for instance, gives you a minor action that lets you summon an item from afar. That should have a component cost equal to a consumable items that lets you summon something with a minor action. Rituals that have other in combat effects can work similarly.
I would also prefer a per-day (or inter-milestone) mechanic only because that's easier to balance than gold, which is not renewable, meaning it measures how much you spend over your career. While this makes sense for items, most of which you can use throughout your career, it makes less sense for ritual casting, which almost always has an immediate and temporary effect. (Obviously, a permanence ritual is not a typical ritual.) Buying the ritual itself, however, could (and likely should) cost coin.
Whether a ritual should be convertible into a consumable (for example, by spending coin-based components) is a different matter entirely. I'm not adverse to the idea of scrolls being a consumable form of rituals (which cost coin) that specifically allow some rituals to be used in combat. In that matter, scrolls would be much like elixirs.
If you can't see why Comprehend languages being able to be cast on the fly would be a good thing, there is no real arguing with you here, or tongues etc.
As they stand right now, due to their extraneous casting time they're almost useless in many cases. And that's before you figure each one eats roughly 10 percent of the otherwise nearly worthless gps you're going to get per level.
Given that Rituals by their nature are non-combative, I am sure that the angry "I can't talk to it but it's pointing and saying things at me" person would be more then willing to wait those minutes to it can talk back. More importantly, if you know you're going into that situation, you should have precast anyway. The ritual lasts all day. Heaven knows if I am going into Drow Territory, I'd cast Comprehend Languages Deep Speech just as a precautionary measure, anyway.
Yeah I'm more fond of the Rituals cost surges, providing that makes them cast quicker (and thus be able to be done in combat). Like you have a No Surge cost mode, which takes how long they presently do. but quickening the process eats vitality.
Why the heck do you want to cast rituals in combat? You have looked over them, right? There is not a single one that I can think of that would be useful Inside of combat outside of the "emergency Teleport Us Home" ritual... and honestly, as a DM, I don't want that, and as a player, you shouldn't either!
If you can't see why Comprehend languages being able to be cast on the fly would be a good thing, there is no real arguing with you here, or tongues etc.
As they stand right now, due to their extraneous casting time they're almost useless in many cases. And that's before you figure each one eats roughly 10 percent of the otherwise nearly worthless gps you're going to get per level.
Comprehend languages lasts 24 hours, takes 10 minutes to cast and costs 10 gold, if you make a scroll it takes 5 minutes.
Because ritual effects last so long, casting a ritual during a safe period, is part of their design. So if a person needs to be able to consistently speak other languages they don't know over several days, it's perfectly possible to keep the ritual up.
The need to cast it on the fly should be a vary rare, if ever need.
And the costs for Rituals in general just go up. Even if their utility is on par with C.L.
Also, it's duration is arguably far too long as well.
Rituals are a great idea that they botched in almost every single department.
Of course, the other problem with Rituals of course is that, the higher level you go the longer casting times they get. Even if again they are only equal to C.L.
10 minutes? Really?
Longer? WTF
In the end your new system is more complex, offers less, punishes ritual casters for using their powers, unless you inflate the number of healing surges, which will make other classes wonder why they get more.
Other than you stating it to be so, you haven't actually offered any cogent reason for your points ot be believed.
Actually I have, you've just decided to ignore most of them or offer contradictory solutions. There have been many things that you have simply ignored in posts. Like the whole scroll issue. You completely side stepped that. You keep saying it's because having to spend money is unfair, because it means casters can't buy the magic items they need. But when I say most people don't buy all the items they need, you don't disagree. So if you don't disagree that most groups don't let you buy just anything, what are the ritual casters missing out on?
You say ritual casters shouldn't rely on them for staying alive, but then offer the solution of more healing surges so their life isn't threatened. When talking about performing rituals out of adventures basically costing nothing for the player, you offer the chance of being attacked as the cost, with the cavet that spending healing surges on rituals puts them in danger because of this "attack" that could happen at any moment. Which brings us back to the circular argument of bumping up the number of healing surges so they aren't at risk of not having enough healing.
It keeps going round and round, your reasons and solutions.
@Wrecan
Okay, I guess I can understand that, although this 10% of resources figure for a stable ritual isn't exactly a truth, either, but I can understand the concern.
Part of the thing as a DM, and I think this should have been covered somewhere, is remembering to adjust treasure for Ritual Use. I know as a DM, I would tend to slide in some extra gold if my players used rituals, mainly because *I* want to see them use them. besides, an extra 5 gold at 10th level for a Comprehend Languages hardly will be noticed, or an extra 700 gp's because they used Knock 4 times at 8th will hardly be noticed as odd, either.
However, that is because I am a generous and kind DM who doesn't want to punish one player due to system. I can understand wanting a different system, and I can even accept the "Ritual Point" system as mentioned earlier. I just think that once you get past a certant point, you're going to have pocket change anyway. Might as well use it for rituals.
And the costs for Rituals in general just go up. Even if their utility is on par with C.L.
Also, it's duration is arguably far too long as well.
Rituals are a great idea that they botched in almost every single department.
Of course, the other problem with Rituals of course is that, the higher level you go the longer casting times they get. Even if again they are only equal to C.L.
10 minutes? Really?
Longer? WTF
Maybe you just don't understand what a ritual means in terms of a fantasy setting.
@capt. Micha
I'll gracefully agree to disagree on rituals. I find them highly useful and not very expensive for what I can accomplish. I don't think that Rituals are a primary point for wanting a revised edition, anyway.
Or maybe I'm smart enough to realize the utter infrequency in which they are used.
Rituals as in Rituals and not D&D's pittance that think they are rituals are better known as Plot Devices. And yeah they should be special exceptions.
Utility staple spells on the other hand? They shouldn't utterly replace characters true, but they shouldn't be so utterly worthless that frankly you'll never notice if no one ever uses them either.
Kensan: Personally if I were a caster I'd probably use them fairly often. (though alot of the Premade adventures if you notice, don't give you that sort of time break between encounters, nor is there much reason to which is another gripe I have.. but that's strictly related to adventure construction) Simply because I long ago came to the realization that GP in D&D means nothing. It never has and never will mean anything. That being said, their casting time is too long the higher level the Ritual goes typically even if it's use doesn't really increase with that cost.
That being said, NONE of our caster players use them because they are either 1 too situationally useful (and that situation never comes up), or 2 they feel that it eats too many resources, 3 take too long to cast.
This is something I think is true as well. They are too specific. They aren't Plot Devices, so don't balance them like they are. They take too long to cast in many cases, and in many cases their price is vastly over what effect they actually provide the group with.
Or maybe I'm smart enough to realize the utter infrequency in which they are used.
Rituals as in Rituals and not D&D's pittance that think they are rituals are better known as Plot Devices. And yeah they should be special exceptions.
Utility staple spells on the other hand? They shouldn't utterly replace characters true, but they shouldn't be so utterly worthless that frankly you'll never notice if no one ever uses them either.
So you think rituals are useless? Well maybe in your campaign, but that means what you say is only true as far as you play.
Using your own game for the basis of saying that the whole area's of the game should be redesigned? Sorry, you just lost me.
Dane: I'm not the first person that's said their group doesn't use Useless, resource hogs I mean Rituals. Don't pretend that I am. Anyone that's been on this forum for the last year has seen multiple threads about that very issue infact.
They are too situational. Especially with as few as you get. And the other BIG damn problem with them of course is that you don't get enough of them as you level up. (Ie if you are not a wizard you get none!) So you have to either Purchase more, or hope to get more as a Parcel, which in of itself Drains Party Resources.
So you think rituals are useless? Well maybe in your campaign, but that means what you say is only true as far as you play.
Using your own game for the basis of saying that the whole area's of the game should be redesigned? Sorry, you just lost me.
To be fair, he isn't the only one who says this. My current RPGA group has completely written off all but three rituals because the writers of the modules MUST include ways around encounters that do not include use of ritual.
The current usefulness of Rituals is campaign dependant, and that can be seen as a problem, but from my perspective, the problem lies not in Rituals themselves, but in how players (Including DM's) approach them.
And the costs for Rituals in general just go up. Even if their utility is on par with C.L.
Also, it's duration is arguably far too long as well.
Rituals are a great idea that they botched in almost every single department.
Of course, the other problem with Rituals of course is that, the higher level you go the longer casting times they get. Even if again they are only equal to C.L.
10 minutes? Really?
Longer? WTF
The largest majority of exploration rituals do not take more than 10 minutes to cast. In fact, every ritual that takes more than 10 minutes to cast is significantly more potent than Comprehend Language.
That said, the 10 minute mark is not arbitrary. It is the equivalent of 2 short rests, meaning that players who get the opportunity to heal up won't necessarily get the opportunity to cast rituals. The point behind rituals was to put such effects partly in the DM's ballcourt... if he doesn't want his game spoiled by a scry spell he can simply prevent you from getting the time to do so. The same is true with many rituals, as a large majority of them were once plot breakers (not game breakers, mind you... but definitely something that could screw a DM's plot over if he didn't realize his players had access).
Game options like rituals should be open to as many campaigns as physically possible. Plot Devices, exist in every game (they even mention how Plot Devices are basically Steroid Rituals). And are sadly more universal than the current form of Rituals tend to be.
Rituals seem to be designed with a very niche focus in mind which is why I don't like them.
Decivre: and if the Dm has to break up the Short Rituals too often then he's mitigated the point of Rituals in the first place. It's a Damned if you Do, Damned if you don't. There's a reason so many games just forgo Divination in anything even resembling D&D's form all together. Or instead have very short range Scrying. None of this Hundreds of Miles crap. (Arcane Eye I'm fine with. the later on scrying not so much for that very reason of it can destroy plots)
Designing better rituals and ditching Spells that frankly should have been just marked off in Plot Device territory in the first place would have solved alot of Ritual Issues I think.
By that same token, alot of rituals are like Tenser's Floating Disk... wooooooo sooo powerful allright.
Dane: I'm not the first person that's said their group doesn't use Useless, resource hogs I mean Rituals. Don't pretend that I am. Anyone that's been on this forum for the last year has seen multiple threads about that very issue infact.
They are too situational. Especially with as few as you get. And the other BIG damn problem with them of course is that you don't get enough of them as you level up. (Ie if you are not a wizard you get none!) So you have to either Purchase more, or hope to get more as a Parcel, which in of itself Drains Party Resources.
If they are too situational, then the cost for money of them, isn't a problem, so there is no reason to change it to healing surges, like others have suggested, and you seem to like. The money to cast any particular ritual is moot with this perception.
This idea that all rituals suck to the point of being useless, but that they will bankrupt people using them doesn't fit together. No one is going to be buying scrolls of rituals that suck to use, because they have no use save in very special situations.
If you think they are useless, fine, the thing is, they aren't taking away from any class. They are extra. And extra for everyone, since you can take a feat to get the ability to cast rituals. Getting more rituals isn't that hard, unless the DM decides to be tough about it.
Not everything appeals to everyone. In this case it's an extra that does no harm to not use, if you don't like, but that does not equate to being broken. While I've used rituals in my game quite well, and the players make use of them, that also doesn't mean it's right for everyone.
Basically, what I'm hearing is I want rituals to offer me power, I don't like that they don't give me more power in the game where I want more power.
In fact, most of the suggestions in this rewrite of 4E center around that.
Agreed. The design of the game can't be made as to force people to use something or play a certain way. It's what options are about. If a game can run without a single ritual being used, and everyone have fun, who cares. If the opposite is true, great. Both sides had fun.
Most of the things in this thread are about "Gimme more power!". Yeah you are right they are.
Maybe it's because I think a character that has all but Maxed Stats, should be a little better than merely average. Or maybe it's because Multiclassing shouldn't be a Non Option because a 14 stat just isn't going to cut the mustard.
Thing is, it's not just about Power. It's about tightness of gameplay. Because as the game progresses it does NOT scale correctly. Combat takes longer and longer as the levels progress while the challenge goes DOWN as the levels increase simultaneously. The only thing "harder" about higher level 4e is that the monsters frankly have Artificially high Defenses, and too many HP.
16 Prime characters do not function correctly according to the base math of the game due to the progression.
The game starts to lose what semblence of character competence there was at the start as the levels progress, which is the Inverse of what it's supposed to be. While at the same time the monsters frankly don't do jack to a higher level party. (Particularly Solos and Elites) They just become bags of Hps waiting for slaughter.
In the case of Rituals, Since you apparently went Illiterate to one of my other posts, you'll notice that I mentioned how in many games frankly the option to Scry Through A Bunker 10000 miles away doesn't even exist because they (Rightly) believed it would be too powerful to hand out to Pcs no matter HOW it was balanced, or if it was "balanced" the cost to do so would be so prohibitively high that a very very large portion of the player base will never do it.
Some Rituals shouldn't even be in the game in the first place. Other's are just so weak and pathetic that they shouldn't even be "balanced" on the same scale as the Borderlined Plot Device Rituals. Unfortunately to maintain mechanical consistency they are put on the same scale. Which IMO hurts the integrity of the game.
Fortunately for 4e, and this is a large credit to it. Especially compared to that Stillborn Abomination known as third, 5e won't have to be nearly as radically different to what came before it as 4e had to be.
Decivre: and if the Dm has to break up the Short Rituals too often then he's mitigated the point of Rituals in the first place. It's a Damned if you Do, Damned if you don't. There's a reason so many games just forgo Divination in anything even resembling D&D's form all together. Or instead have very short range Scrying. None of this Hundreds of Miles crap. (Arcane Eye I'm fine with. the later on scrying not so much for that very reason of it can destroy plots)Designing better rituals and ditching Spells that frankly should have been just marked off in Plot Device territory in the first place would have solved alot of Ritual Issues I think.
By that same token, alot of rituals are like Tenser's Floating Disk... wooooooo sooo powerful allright.
The key phrase there is "too often". It's fine if he'd like to do it every now and then in order to make his players think out of the box. It's hard to set up a plot when you have to take into account every single miniscule thing that your players are capable of, and far easier when you have a simple means to say no to plot breakers through time constraints or resource limitation.
The point behind rituals seems to be a place to put magic that belongs in plot device territory. After all, this is the same region we have resurrection spells and the means to create new magic items. All of them either do things in a more effective manner than mundane means (it's easier to cast Comprehend Language than it is to learn a language; Knock is far more effective than picking the lock of a door, because a thief can't necessarily move a bar on the other side of the door) or do something completely out of the range of mundane effects (making a chunk of land float in the air or make dead people live again).
Also, if you don't think there can even be issues even with Tenser's Disk, you'd be wrong. When you give your players a 24-hour packmule that can never get scared or killed, that may be something you have to plan around... especially if you wanted to put them in a position where they couldn't take everything out of the dungeon.
Most of the things in this thread are about "Gimme more power!". Yeah you are right they are.
Maybe it's because I think a character that has all but Maxed Stats, should be a little better than merely average. Or maybe it's because Multiclassing shouldn't be a Non Option because a 14 stat just isn't going to cut the mustard.
Thing is, it's not just about Power. It's about tightness of gameplay. Because as the game progresses it does NOT scale correctly. Combat takes longer and longer as the levels progress while the challenge goes DOWN as the levels increase simultaneously. The only thing "harder" about higher level 4e is that the monsters frankly have Artificially high Defenses, and too many HP.
16 Prime characters do not function correctly according to the base math of the game due to the progression.
The game starts to lose what semblence of character competence there was at the start as the levels progress, which is the Inverse of what it's supposed to be. While at the same time the monsters frankly don't do jack to a higher level party. (Particularly Solos and Elites) They just become bags of Hps waiting for slaughter.
In the case of Rituals, Since you apparently went Illiterate to one of my other posts, you'll notice that I mentioned how in many games frankly the option to Scry Through A Bunker 10000 miles away doesn't even exist because they (Rightly) believed it would be too powerful to hand out to Pcs no matter HOW it was balanced, or if it was "balanced" the cost to do so would be so prohibitively high that a very very large portion of the player base will never do it.
Some Rituals shouldn't even be in the game in the first place. Other's are just so weak and pathetic that they shouldn't even be "balanced" on the same scale as the Borderlined Plot Device Rituals. Unfortunately to maintain mechanical consistency they are put on the same scale. Which IMO hurts the integrity of the game.
Fortunately for 4e, and this is a large credit to it. Especially compared to that Stillborn Abomination known as third, 5e won't have to be nearly as radically different to what came before it as 4e had to be.
I'm sorry that I haven't hung on your every post. Whatever was I thinking.
And that's what I figured, about simply wanting more power. So far, your reasons have been based on the system being broken and how you hope they fix it come 5E.
But what I've seen and feel you've confirmed, you just want more power.
That's fine to want that. But I'm not accepting that it's because the game is broken. Because where you find it broken, it's working for others.
But when it comes down to a discussion, where you are asked to give more substance to your reasons, you seem to start getting nasty, which gets returned.
If you don't like the game, fine I accept that. If you have issues with area's I accept that also. But it doesn't mean the game is broken, or needs a major overhaul, just to support your ideas of needing more power.
I'm sorry that I haven't hung on your every post. Whatever was I thinking.
And that's what I figured, about simply wanting more power. So far, your reasons have been based on the system being broken and how you hope they fix it come 5E.
But what I've seen and feel you've confirmed, you just want more power.
That's fine to want that. But I'm not accepting that it's because the game is broken. Because where you find it broken, it's working for others.
But when it comes down to a discussion, where you are asked to give more substance to your reasons, you seem to start getting nasty, which gets returned.
If you don't like the game, fine I accept that. If you have issues with area's I accept that also. But it doesn't mean the game is broken, or needs a major overhaul, just to support your ideas of needing more power.
I actually want less power, but I agree with a lot of what he's saying.
It really doesn't need a major overhaul it needs a fix in line like 2e did for 1e or 3.5e did for 3e--a refinement.
The gameplay and math isn't consistant across all 30 levels. Is it actually playable across all 30 levels---Yes obviously, could the experience be improved---of course.
I'm sorry that I haven't hung on your every post. Whatever was I thinking.
And that's what I figured, about simply wanting more power. So far, your reasons have been based on the system being broken and how you hope they fix it come 5E.
But what I've seen and feel you've confirmed, you just want more power.
That's fine to want that. But I'm not accepting that it's because the game is broken. Because where you find it broken, it's working for others.
But when it comes down to a discussion, where you are asked to give more substance to your reasons, you seem to start getting nasty, which gets returned.
If you don't like the game, fine I accept that. If you have issues with area's I accept that also. But it doesn't mean the game is broken, or needs a major overhaul, just to support your ideas of needing more power.
I actually want less power, but I agree with a lot of what he's saying.
It really doesn't need a major overhaul it needs a fix in line like 2e did for 1e or 3.5e did for 3e--a refinement.
The gameplay and math isn't consistant across all 30 levels. Is it actually playable across all 30 levels---Yes obviously, could the experience be improved---of course.
And i don't disagree with the game could use some improvements. And there have been a few good suggestions. And like you said, the game is playable across all 30 levels, even if at points it's not consistent. But I can forgive those moments. It's a huge complex system, built by many people. These things aren't easy.
Even what seems a simple idea, like using healing surges to cast rituals, creates lots of other issues, which in turn lead to even more changes. Which then goes back to, is the original system really broken, or is it I just really want something else?
And of course, if you think you can make a better system, get off the forums and get to work. With fantasy games being at high popularity, if you do indeed make a better system, you will be rich and as famous as Gary and Dave.
Kensan
I understand what you're saying about DMs being able to adjust gold for ritual use. This was already addressed earlier. If the DM adjusts all the time, then the rituals basically become free, because they will always get that gold back. If the DM doesn't adjust enough, the party loses too much gold over rituals, and so cannot keep up with the magic items the game assumes you have, and they fall behind on combat. That's why surges were suggested, but they are only one of several mechanics suggested, and only because they are a renewable daily resources. People (snipped content) like to focus in on that aspect and pick it apart despite the fact that 1) we're talking about a new edition, not just a patch to the current one and 2) several mechanics for limitiing rituals have been suggested, some of them modeled after surges, but being a separate resource. (snipped content)
A new one.
Each class should get 3 at wills.
1 DPR at will
1 Mobility At will
and 1 Control At will
Also, ditch the controller role. 4 editions has taught me one thing. You can't make a Balanced Controller. Either they are gods or they suck. With no mid ground. Let the Leader choose whether or not he's going to focus on Control, or Buffing the party. Also giving everyone access to some form of control universally will help.
Ok, so your idea of 3 at-wills basically lets every character do everything (DPR, move, and control the battlefield all at once)? Wow. I agree characters should get more At-Wills, but they should stick to the roles they're in.
And no, the controller role does not suck. It's perfectly fine as it is, thanks.
Apologies for skipping much of the thread, will work through it later when I have more time, but on the subject of armor--particularly the "hide=plate" issue...
I have to ask, is it time to give up on the abstraction of "armor class" as a measure of both durability AND evasiveness? In other words, should armor stop counting against "to hit" and instead provide some kind of damage reduction?
There are plenty of systems that do this; I'm just wondering if D&D would be better or worse for it. White Wolf, for example, went back to the one-roll mode in its system reboot to reduce the number of rolls and clunkiness of combat. So there are obviously advantages either way. But it'd certainly solve the hide-vs-plate problem.
Dunno. Just throwing it out there.
Direct Damage Reduction (known in D&D as DR) tends to be redundant as soon as Damage Tech catches up with it. This Principle can be demonstrated through GURPS, Hero System, Mutants and Masterminds, Arcana Evolved, and more.
In short, Armor that provides DR actually is worth LESS then the current AC system. AC for the purposes of negating damage actually just plain works better as a system.
Before anyone blasts this post, please it carefully....
Back in 2E, there was a system in place that allowed a weapon to do variable damage based on the size of enemy a character was attacking. For example: a fighter using a long sword used a d12 against a hill giant, instead of a d8, like against another human for example. Without starting an arguement or edition war, I liked the system even though I thought the system was backwards and should have been reversed. In many games in 2E too many players in my groups looked forward to fighting larger creatures because they knew they could do insane amounts of damage to them and therefore hated fighting medium or smaller enemies because the fights seemed to take longer.
In 3E the damage varible was based on the size of the weilder, not the size of the monster being attacked. In 4E it's all one damage die regardless of the size of the enemy or the weilder. I understand it's all for simplicity's sake.
To return to the 2E point from before. I used to hate making encounters where larger monsters were involved because I knew the fights were going to be brief. So I switched the damage values around and the larger monsters became a tough challenge. The party had to really pool their firepower in order to beat the giant or whatever. When it came to fighting medium creatures the damage and quickness of the fights seemed to match up.
Example 1: A man buries a bowie knife up to the hild in another man's chest. Chances are that's a killing blow.
Example 2: The same man buries the same bowie knife up to the hild in a 4 ton Elephant, a 700 pound Tiger or 400 pound Gorilla. The damage wouldn't mean as much, unless the man gets lucky and hits something vital. But according to 2E, it was easier to kill or injure the beasts in the above example than to kill or injure another man. The point is a weapon, any weapon, should do more damage to creatures it's size or smaller and less damage to creatures above it's size.
If there is a 5th Edition D&D, I'd like to see a return to a varible damage system based on the size of the creature being attacked.
For Example: A fighter attacking a hill giant does a d8 of damage before modifiers instead of a d12.
This makes larger monsters terrifying to confront becasue you know your weapons won't hurt them as much.
It's like I used to say. "You can impale a mouse on an icepick, but you'd just piss off an elephant and stomped into the ground, if the elephant even felt it."
These are just opinions, not an invite to flame or start an edition war.
Apologies for skipping much of the thread, will work through it later when I have more time, but on the subject of armor--particularly the "hide=plate" issue...I have to ask, is it time to give up on the abstraction of "armor class" as a measure of both durability AND evasiveness? In other words, should armor stop counting against "to hit" and instead provide some kind of damage reduction?
There are plenty of systems that do this; I'm just wondering if D&D would be better or worse for it. White Wolf, for example, went back to the one-roll mode in its system reboot to reduce the number of rolls and clunkiness of combat. So there are obviously advantages either way. But it'd certainly solve the hide-vs-plate problem.
Dunno. Just throwing it out there.
I did some houseruling in this area in 2e and 3e. My first attempt was pretty horrible. My second attempt seemed to work out pretty good. I've been toying around with it in 4e, but its much harder to work with because everything is so carefully balanced out that you have to tweak a dozen other things to make it work. On the other hand, if the new edition was built from the ground up to accept it, I think it could work. I haven't seen the same problems Kensan described, but of course that's only my experience with a houserule used in my games, so its hardly universal.
I did some houseruling in this area in 2e and 3e. My first attempt was pretty horrible. My second attempt seemed to work out pretty good. I've been toying around with it in 4e, but its much harder to work with because everything is so carefully balanced out that you have to tweak a dozen other things to make it work. On the other hand, if the new edition was built from the ground up to accept it, I think it could work. I haven't seen the same problems Kensan described, but of course that's only my experience with a houserule used in my games, so its hardly universal.
I find that most of the time, people have a harder time making houserules for 4E because they are expected to maintain a semblance of mathematical parity. Creating houserules in the prior edition was far easier, because that parity was more philosophical than mathematical... and it's far easier to be correct in philosophy than math. That said, I don't find that you have to tweak a dozen other things to modify the game; it is far easier to modify a class, or even to make your own race, than it was in 3rd Edition, because it is often as simple as altering a single feature, creating a single power, or simply moving around the numbers on a pre-existing example.
Not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but one of my only problems with 4th Ed. is mechanically relevant keywords. Now, don't get me wrong, I like stuff like the druid only being able to use beast powers while in beast form and all that, it's just annoying when, to use an actual anecdote, you spend 20 minutes trying to figure out why one power isn't strictly worse than another only to discover that the word "rattling" has mechanical significance mentioned (here's the kicker) NOWHERE on the loving power itself.
Before anyone blasts this post, please it carefully....
Back in 2E, there was a system in place that allowed a weapon to do variable damage based on the size of enemy a character was attacking. For example: a fighter using a long sword used a d12 against a hill giant, instead of a d8, like against another human for example. Without starting an arguement or edition war, I liked the system even though I thought the system was backwards and should have been reversed. In many games in 2E too many players in my groups looked forward to fighting larger creatures because they knew they could do insane amounts of damage to them and therefore hated fighting medium or smaller enemies because the fights seemed to take longer.
In 3E the damage varible was based on the size of the weilder, not the size of the monster being attacked. In 4E it's all one damage die regardless of the size of the enemy or the weilder. I understand it's all for simplicity's sake.
To return to the 2E point from before. I used to hate making encounters where larger monsters were involved because I knew the fights were going to be brief. So I switched the damage values around and the larger monsters became a tough challenge. The party had to really pool their firepower in order to beat the giant or whatever. When it came to fighting medium creatures the damage and quickness of the fights seemed to match up.
Example 1: A man buries a bowie knife up to the hild in another man's chest. Chances are that's a killing blow.
Example 2: The same man buries the same bowie knife up to the hild in a 4 ton Elephant, a 700 pound Tiger or 400 pound Gorilla. The damage wouldn't mean as much, unless the man gets lucky and hits something vital. But according to 2E, it was easier to kill or injure the beasts in the above example than to kill or injure another man. The point is a weapon, any weapon, should do more damage to creatures it's size or smaller and less damage to creatures above it's size.
If there is a 5th Edition D&D, I'd like to see a return to a varible damage system based on the size of the creature being attacked.
For Example: A fighter attacking a hill giant does a d8 of damage before modifiers instead of a d12.
This makes larger monsters terrifying to confront becasue you know your weapons won't hurt them as much.
It's like I used to say. "You can impale a mouse on an icepick, but you'd just piss off an elephant and stomped into the ground, if the elephant even felt it."
These are just opinions, not an invite to flame or start an edition war.
Actually, a knife DID do less damage (d3) against larger creatures in Dungeons and Dragons.
And, it doesn't matter all that much, you're talking an average of 6.5 (for a d12) as opposed to 4.5 (for a d8) damage...the modifiers from strength or magic bonus in Dungeons and Dragons (or con, or charisma, or whatever abilility does it for whenever in DnD4.0) do the real damage after a certain point, anyway, especially for repeated attacks.
Back in 2E, there was a system in place that allowed a weapon to do variable damage based on the size of enemy a character was attacking. For example: a fighter using a long sword used a d12 against a hill giant, instead of a d8, like against another human for example.
Yep. 1e did that too, they were virtually identical, as I recall.
It varied with the weapon, though. A sword or spear generally did more damage against a larger target. A club, axe, dagger or the like did less vs larger foes. Some weapons, like the staff and scimitar, did the same damage either way. So, if you were going dragon hunting, you'd want a lance, two-handed/long/bastard-sword, pike, halberd or the like, because they did quite a bit of damage against large creatures. If you were after kobolds, a mace or axe or club (or broadsword) worked just fine.
I always visualized it as the larger stabby weapons simply not doing anymore damage to a S/M size target once they'd already impaled it, while they could end up stabbing very deeply into a larger one. Conversely, smaller and lighter weapons (and bludgeoning) weapons caused little more than superficial wounds to large creatures.
Weapon damage was mostly consistent with that. Lance 3-9/3-18. Dagger 1-4/1-3. Halberd 1-10/2-12. Battle Axe 1-8/1-8. handaxe 1-6/1-4. etc...
When I first lay my hands on the 4e rulebooks and read it, I was aghast at what they had done to D&D. I flamed and absolutely hated it. However, not one to see things from only one side of the coin, I decided to still try it (and to date, I had purchased nearly every copy of the 4e releases) and got my gaming friends to partake in it too.
After several sessions and months, I decided enough is enough.
What is my wishlist for a 5e? Dramatic changes.
It's not just the combat mathematics, the typecasting but also the heavy emphasis on combat (nearly 90% of the book cover materials on combat!). The sad thing about this is that the different type of powers are just repeats wrapped up differently. It doesn't matter if it's avenging echo or storm strike or something else...it's always do how many [W] damage plus modifier, slide, pull, slowed, dazed, knock prone, healing surge, ...blah blah blah.
Besides being repetitive, it is also very very imbalanced.
Take an example of a druid. A daily evocation of level 15 requires only a standard action to call forth a lightning storm ("lightning strikes from dark clouds overhead") to strike enemies in a zone but then the same druid will take 1 hour to control weather or 10 minutes to create a campsite or 1 minute to affect normal fire!!
This is ludicrious!
Imagine the same druid who took only a standard action (in seconds) to obliverate enemies with lightning from the skies was asked to increase the light produced by their campfire and his reply will be "Wait...give me a minute..."
What's my wishlist for 5e?
(1) Reduce this mindless repetitiveness of powers...it's not a computer game (even in computer games, I will finally resort to using a few abilities instead of everything)
(2) Do something about this imbalance of powers and rituals..it's not logical even in fantasy sense
(3) Improve the repertoire of powers with more diversity
Anyway, enough is enough. I'm not spending another single cent on 4e till something is done about it. I'm going back to 3.5 or PF.
For those 4e fanboys, flame on...I don't care 
Direct Damage Reduction (known in D&D as DR) tends to be redundant as soon as Damage Tech catches up with it. This Principle can be demonstrated through GURPS, Hero System, Mutants and Masterminds, Arcana Evolved, and more.
In short, Armor that provides DR actually is worth LESS then the current AC system. AC for the purposes of negating damage actually just plain works better as a system.
No you're wrong. DR is more consistent...think of how or what you need to do to break down a door, a wall or a metal barrier. This in turn relates to the damage taken by the armor before it doesn't protect you anymore.
Actually, in one of the earlier (years ago), I had posted under a different name and profile something to this extend. An armor class together with DR.
Armor class should be a combination of agility and the skill of defender to avoid, parry and block attacks.
Then when a strike hits, how much it takes to reduce damage and how much damage the defender will take. Then as an advanced rule, how much the armor or shield will take before it is deem useless (it's a progressive table chart; so it's a no-brainer for anyone to check against the chart and determine it)
C'mon, RPG in pen-and-paper is a more involved gaming platform as compared to an electronic one. There's far more options and possibilities and definitely more realistic. If it is to be taken as linear as it is, then go play an electronic game.
Yeah I'm more fond of the Rituals cost surges, providing that makes them cast quicker (and thus be able to be done in combat). Like you have a No Surge cost mode, which takes how long they presently do. but quickening the process eats vitality.
Why the heck do you want to cast rituals in combat? You have looked over them, right? There is not a single one that I can think of that would be useful Inside of combat outside of the "emergency Teleport Us Home" ritual... and honestly, as a DM, I don't want that, and as a player, you shouldn't either!
If you can't see why Comprehend languages being able to be cast on the fly would be a good thing, there is no real arguing with you here, or tongues etc.
As they stand right now, due to their extraneous casting time they're almost useless in many cases. And that's before you figure each one eats roughly 10 percent of the otherwise nearly worthless gps you're going to get per level.
Comprehend languages lasts 24 hours, takes 10 minutes to cast and costs 10 gold, if you make a scroll it takes 5 minutes.
Because ritual effects last so long, casting a ritual during a safe period, is part of their design. So if a person needs to be able to consistently speak other languages they don't know over several days, it's perfectly possible to keep the ritual up.
The need to cast it on the fly should be a vary rare, if ever need.
Kensai, now I see that your role-playing ability fails you
Who say you don't cast comprehend language in combat? If your idea of combat is merely "hack-and-slash", then you win. However if your combat includes thinking players who wants to know what their opponents are talking to better counter their plans, then you get the picture. This is call RPG.
It's not just the combat mathematics, the typecasting but also the heavy emphasis on combat (nearly 90% of the book cover materials on combat!). The sad thing about this is that the different type of powers are just repeats wrapped up differently. It doesn't matter if it's avenging echo or storm strike or something else...it's always do how many [W] damage plus modifier, slide, pull, slowed, dazed, knock prone, healing surge, ...blah blah blah.
And before this edition, how was it any different? The fact that they didn't have keywords? The fact that they didn't use brackets with a "W" when describing that spells do level times d6 damage? How was the 90% of the book that was emphasizing combat in 3rd Edition superior to the 90% of the book that emphasizes combat now?
Besides being repetitive, it is also very very imbalanced.Take an example of a druid. A daily evocation of level 15 requires only a standard action to call forth a lightning storm ("lightning strikes from dark clouds overhead") to strike enemies in a zone but then the same druid will take 1 hour to control weather or 10 minutes to create a campsite or 1 minute to affect normal fire!!
This is ludicrious!
What does this have to do with balance? The purpose behind control weather and other rituals taking so long is that they are useless in combat. It sounds like they know exactly how they wanted to balance the game.
Imagine the same druid who took only a standard action (in seconds) to obliverate enemies with lightning from the skies was asked to increase the light produced by their campfire and his reply will be "Wait...give me a minute..."
Yes, and when it takes someone a few seconds to burn something with their lighter but they can pull a gun trigger and put a bullet in something instantaneously, you can tell the world that it doesn't make sense. Again, this sums to personal preference, and not some actual sense of logic.
What's my wishlist for 5e?(1) Reduce this mindless repetitiveness of powers...it's not a computer game (even in computer games, I will finally resort to using a few abilities instead of everything)
(2) Do something about this imbalance of powers and rituals..it's not logical even in fantasy sense
(3) Improve the repertoire of powers with more diversity
Anyway, enough is enough. I'm not spending another single cent on 4e till something is done about it. I'm going back to 3.5 or PF.
For those 4e fanboys, flame on...I don't care
- No more mindless repetitiveness of powers? You mean like Summon Monster I, Summon Monster II, Summon Monster III, Summon Monster IV, Summon Monster V, Summon Monster VI, Summon Monster VII, Summon Monster VIII, Summon Monster IX, Summon Nature's Ally I, Summon Nature's Ally II, Summon Nature's Ally III, Summon Nature's Ally IV, Summon Nature's Ally V, Summon Nature's Ally VI, Summon Nature's Ally VII, Summon Nature's Ally VIII, and Summon Nature's Ally IX? That kind of repetitiveness?
- Claiming "logic in the fantasy sense" is like claiming "definitive mathematics in the philosophical sense". If you're trying to apply real-world logic to fantasy, you're doing it wrong.
- Can't argue with that, but I would be saying that even if we would have gotten 10 times the repertoire with total diversity.
Kensai, now I see that your role-playing ability fails youWho say you don't cast comprehend language in combat? If your idea of combat is merely "hack-and-slash", then you win. However if your combat includes thinking players who wants to know what their opponents are talking to better counter their plans, then you get the picture. This is call RPG.
Why on earth would anyone scream out their entire plans while in the middle of combat? Do you yell out your chess strategies mid-game for funsies? Tactical planning is done prior to combat... the best you could do with comprehended languages is figure out when they are changing plans. That said, the most important reason this is a bad idea is that it completely invalidates players who spend the feats to learn the languages.
A new one.
Each class should get 3 at wills.
1 DPR at will
1 Mobility At will
and 1 Control At will
Also, ditch the controller role. 4 editions has taught me one thing. You can't make a Balanced Controller. Either they are gods or they suck. With no mid ground. Let the Leader choose whether or not he's going to focus on Control, or Buffing the party. Also giving everyone access to some form of control universally will help.
Ok, so your idea of 3 at-wills basically lets every character do everything (DPR, move, and control the battlefield all at once)? Wow. I agree characters should get more At-Wills, but they should stick to the roles they're in.
And no, the controller role does not suck. It's perfectly fine as it is, thanks.
Three at will types does not a Role make.
As it is, we already have this sort of thing with several of the Phb Classes with Phb powers. For example the Fighter already has one of each, as does the Warlord. (Which are the two best designed classes in the book and that is partly why)
Economy of actions balances the "zomg diversity!" of a power suite. Because you aren't going to do the DPR of your Dpr mode when controlling etc. And certain roles still perform better versions of a given at will than the other. Strikers for example still have the best DPR at wills, or the best mobility ones. Defenders have decent in all three (even the Phb paladin manages this) but no singular one overshines the others. Leaders tend to have the best Control/Support at wills, while typically lacking in personal mobility/DPR even with their DPR at wills.
Each class should be as well designed as the Fighter is what it boils down to. And many, very many fall short of the Fighter's Superior Design. (note that doesn't create a balance issue, but it is a noticable System Issue)
And the reason I picked three as the minimum for At Wills, and why I said Code them into classes directly, is to gaurantee the player has a diversity of action types they can take. Rather than them making a Sure Strike, Reaping Strike, and Brash Strike fighter. (which is entirely possible right now, and there's really no diversity in play style with that fighter which would make for a rather boring character later on) vs a Fighter with, Cleave, Sure Strike, and Tide of Iron.
And Controllers are not fine as they are. Even Wizards of the Coast admits, that out of all the roles to be absent of, the Controller is the easiest to get by without on. This is partly due to several classes already having Control Elements (such as the Warlock, the Swordmage, and the Warden in particular who's at wills are -all- based around Control anyway) . And partly due to the powers of the Controller being good -supplement- powers and not mainstays.
Controller is really a Subset of the Leader Role (which should be renamed Support). Which is why I deleted the Controller already at my table and let various classes eat the Controller's powers. (such as Swordmages in my games get Thunderwave or access to it. And so forth). Given the fairly rigid Knowledge of Powers in 4e, this is balanced by several reasons.
1 Like gestalting it is balanced by Economy of Actions.
2. Unlike Gestalting and Spells Per Day, you don't really get the best of both worlds. You don't just simply prepare new spells that following day for a different role.
3. It opens up the Support Role and makes it more appealing. Support means more than just being a buffbot (which is what a great many Leader powers are when you look at them for more than 2 seconds).
4. At the end of the day Leaders in many cases can already be Just as Effective Controllers as Controllers anyway. Who cares if a controller can control 30 monsters at once? There's only 10 on the field and Leaders often get powers that control those 10 just as effectively anyway. Meaning that it's pretty implausible for the Controller to be a True Role and not a Subrole.
At my table of course, Leaders weren't the only ones that ate controllers. Particularly classes lacking in one of the At Will Roles typically probably ate some of the controller. (The warden lacking DPR at wills for example, ate the Druid's beast form at wills and yah, the Warden got Beastform out of the deal too. Because it -has no mobility or Dpr based at wills). If ya'll want examples of how this actually looks on a sheet you'll have to give me a little while since I'm going through Encounter powers now.
About Rituals. Alot of them need a casting time of only 1 minute.
And alot of the 1 hour, 24 hour etc ones are just stupid. For example in the 1 hour department, not only is the thing an Epic Level ritual, it's like 3es Scry watered down and neutered to the point that it only works for 4 rounds -at most-.
Some Rituals aren't even Rituals but a Skill Challenge YOU HAVE TO PAY MONEY FOR (such as the one where you contact an outsider. I'm sorry but that one, is purely You ask your Dm if you can summon an outsider and go through a skill challenge on summoning.... Not... you blow resources for a ritual. Especially since the outsider doesn't have to give you totally straight answers.... UGH! and Wizard's thinks it's epic level to go with it!).
Rituals should have been broken into 2 categories and balanced in two seperate mechanisms.
The Utilitarian Spells.
and then
The Plot Devices.
Plot devices have no material cost, but are each a skill challenge, for the powerful effect they will have on the game, and the story. There also needs to be a special notation that there are many Plot Devices that can be done that aren't mentioned in detail here, that these are meant to give you and your group inspiration for your own Plot Devices.
Plot Devices aren't broken into tiers. But their magnitude scales with level.
It seems to me Rituals can divided thusly:
- Coin
- Buffs. These rituals do affect how you act in combat by granting a temporary benefit. Like recipes, their casting should be priced like a consumable magic item. Examples include Ancestral Whispers, Aura Mask, Chameleon's Cloak, Cure Disease
- Recipes. These are the rituals that let you make alchemy (already separated via the Alchemy feat), potions, magic items, scrolls, etc. Since they allow you to make magic items, their casting should have a gp cost similar to consumable magic items (precisely, similar to the item they create).
- Per-Day Mechanic.
- Conveniences. These are rituals that do not provide a combat benefit, but add flavor to the game, or make an adventurer's life more convenient. Examples include Affect Normal Fire, Amanuensis, Animal Friendship, Animal Messenger, Arcane Mark, Battlefield Elocution, Beast Growth, Bloom, Clear the Path, Control Weather, Create Campsite. These rituals should have a per-day limit and only a cost if they duplicate something else that costs money (only to avoid using rituals to replace adventuring as a way to make money).
- Wards. These rituals are designed to protect the party during a rest. They are immobile. It doesn't make sense (to me) to spend party gold for this. I'd use the same per day mechanic for conveniences. I would not make such rituals permanent. Examples include Arcane Barrier, Arcane Lock, Banish Illusions, Banish Vermin, Bolster Object, Chamber of Vulnerability, Conceal Object.
- Time.
- Meta. These would be rituals that affect other rituals. Permanence is the classic such ritual. This should require a significant investment of time, rather than coin, and the resulting effect should be immobile. Basically, this is useful for a wizard to protect his home, but should not be useful for adventuring. I don't think permanence should be allowed on rituals cast on individuals. Althernately, a skill challenge mechanic could be used.
- Skill Challenge.
- Plot. These are the rituals that have to be carefully tailored to the plot, such as mass enchantments, summonings and travel-related rituals. I would also include the various resurrection rituals (though they could also be considered a buff). Examples include Adjure, Astral Sojourn, Call Wilderness Guide, Commune With Nature, and pretty much all of the bardic songs and Divinations. I agree with Cpt_Micha that making this a skill challenge (preferably one involving more than just the ritualist) would be the best way to handle these rituals.
Note that although I use examples from 4th edition I don't mean to imply that the rituals should function identicalyl to their 4th edition counterparts. They should be designed from the ground up with 5th edition. I just think that currently, 4th edition is using one limiting tool for all rituals, when a bit more variety would be appropriate.
If they had been handled like that instead, Rituals would probably be used more often. Nice job Wrecan.
I just thought of something else. There should be a limit of how many non-instantaneous buffs a character can have at once. Perhaps a "Ritual Body Slot" could be implemented. It wouldn't affect instantaneous buffs like Cure Disease or Remove Enchantment, but things like Comprehend Languages, Drawmij's Instant Summons and Ancestral Whispers might occupy the Ritual Body Slot, thus preventing ritualists from over-buffing the party. Perhaps, similar to Rings, you get one Ritual Body Slot per tier of play. This could also free up designers to devise buffing rituals without worrying too much that people will figure out ways to overbuff themselves into imbalance. Heck, invoking the ritual (if it isn't providing a constant benefit) might constitute use of an item-daily power.
It seems to me Rituals can divided thusly:
- Coin
- Buffs. These rituals do affect how you act in combat by granting a temporary benefit. Like recipes, their casting should be priced like a consumable magic item. Examples include Ancestral Whispers, Aura Mask, Chameleon's Cloak, Cure Disease
- Recipes. These are the rituals that let you make alchemy (already separated via the Alchemy feat), potions, magic items, scrolls, etc. Since they allow you to make magic items, their casting should have a gp cost similar to consumable magic items (precisely, similar to the item they create).
- Per-Day Mechanic.
- Conveniences. These are rituals that do not provide a combat benefit, but add flavor to the game, or make an adventurer's life more convenient. Examples include Affect Normal Fire, Amanuensis, Animal Friendship, Animal Messenger, Arcane Mark, Battlefield Elocution, Beast Growth, Bloom, Clear the Path, Control Weather, Create Campsite. These rituals should have a per-day limit and only a cost if they duplicate something else that costs money (only to avoid using rituals to replace adventuring as a way to make money).
- Wards. These rituals are designed to protect the party during a rest. They are immobile. It doesn't make sense (to me) to spend party gold for this. I'd use the same per day mechanic for conveniences. I would not make such rituals permanent. Examples include Arcane Barrier, Arcane Lock, Banish Illusions, Banish Vermin, Bolster Object, Chamber of Vulnerability, Conceal Object.
- Time.
- Meta. These would be rituals that affect other rituals. Permanence is the classic such ritual. This should require a significant investment of time, rather than coin, and the resulting effect should be immobile. Basically, this is useful for a wizard to protect his home, but should not be useful for adventuring. I don't think permanence should be allowed on rituals cast on individuals. Althernately, a skill challenge mechanic could be used.
- Skill Challenge.
- Plot. These are the rituals that have to be carefully tailored to the plot, such as mass enchantments, summonings and travel-related rituals. I would also include the various resurrection rituals (though they could also be considered a buff). Examples include Adjure, Astral Sojourn, Call Wilderness Guide, Commune With Nature, and pretty much all of the bardic songs and Divinations. I agree with Cpt_Micha that making this a skill challenge (preferably one involving more than just the ritualist) would be the best way to handle these rituals.
Note that although I use examples from 4th edition I don't mean to imply that the rituals should function identicalyl to their 4th edition counterparts. They should be designed from the ground up with 5th edition. I just think that currently, 4th edition is using one limiting tool for all rituals, when a bit more variety would be appropriate.
Awesome.
I'll be going through all of them and doing this in a list. If cookie emoticons worked you would surely get several. Instead you just have my thanks.
Yeah I'll be doing the same once I finish with my additional powers to classes.
It seems to me Rituals can divided thusly:
- Coin
- Buffs. These rituals do affect how you act in combat by granting a temporary benefit. Like recipes, their casting should be priced like a consumable magic item. Examples include Ancestral Whispers, Aura Mask, Chameleon's Cloak, Cure Disease
- Recipes. These are the rituals that let you make alchemy (already separated via the Alchemy feat), potions, magic items, scrolls, etc. Since they allow you to make magic items, their casting should have a gp cost similar to consumable magic items (precisely, similar to the item they create).
- Per-Day Mechanic.
- Conveniences. These are rituals that do not provide a combat benefit, but add flavor to the game, or make an adventurer's life more convenient. Examples include Affect Normal Fire, Amanuensis, Animal Friendship, Animal Messenger, Arcane Mark, Battlefield Elocution, Beast Growth, Bloom, Clear the Path, Control Weather, Create Campsite. These rituals should have a per-day limit and only a cost if they duplicate something else that costs money (only to avoid using rituals to replace adventuring as a way to make money).
- Wards. These rituals are designed to protect the party during a rest. They are immobile. It doesn't make sense (to me) to spend party gold for this. I'd use the same per day mechanic for conveniences. I would not make such rituals permanent. Examples include Arcane Barrier, Arcane Lock, Banish Illusions, Banish Vermin, Bolster Object, Chamber of Vulnerability, Conceal Object.
- Time.
- Meta. These would be rituals that affect other rituals. Permanence is the classic such ritual. This should require a significant investment of time, rather than coin, and the resulting effect should be immobile. Basically, this is useful for a wizard to protect his home, but should not be useful for adventuring. I don't think permanence should be allowed on rituals cast on individuals. Althernately, a skill challenge mechanic could be used.
- Skill Challenge.
- Plot. These are the rituals that have to be carefully tailored to the plot, such as mass enchantments, summonings and travel-related rituals. I would also include the various resurrection rituals (though they could also be considered a buff). Examples include Adjure, Astral Sojourn, Call Wilderness Guide, Commune With Nature, and pretty much all of the bardic songs and Divinations. I agree with Cpt_Micha that making this a skill challenge (preferably one involving more than just the ritualist) would be the best way to handle these rituals.
Note that although I use examples from 4th edition I don't mean to imply that the rituals should function identicalyl to their 4th edition counterparts. They should be designed from the ground up with 5th edition. I just think that currently, 4th edition is using one limiting tool for all rituals, when a bit more variety would be appropriate.
This is solid! It seems that with this in mind it wouldn't be hard to house-rule rituals in 4th edition, either. The price of rituals and time to do them were always staggering for me.
@Capt. Micha
Yes, one minute casting time probably would be just fine. The main idea behind the 10 minute ritual is actually to give PC's time to stop a ritual that they know is being cast. YOu could change this, and it would alter a dramatic effect, but that wouldn't be a 'horrible' thing. It would allow for them to potentially be cast in a long combat, if needed.
@Mouselim
You're wrong about DR. The 'temp HP effect' does not make people endure and stand longer. If you want mathmatical proof, I am not currently equipped to deal with theoriticals, but lets look at it this way. If DR was indeed more powerful, then buying PD in Gurps and DCV in Champions would be cheaper. As it stands, you can (Last time I played either) get about 25 DR for either defense point in both systems. Why? Because the systems include various and multitude ways of getting around it, just like D&D would if you introduced it as a main feature.
DR is worthless over the length of a game. Splashed in as a Special, it adds flavor and gives a slight edge (Which if you notice, is overcome by most attacks. DR 15 in D&D does not stop fire damage, it just puts the edge off an attack). In ALL games, it is better not to be hit then to be taking damage. I don't see why you would want to change this philosophy now.
Again, take a look at Iron Heroes, who used this idea. My players were SERIOUSLY unimpressed by armor in Iron Heroes. I can't stress enough how disappointed they were, and considered that the one flaw of the system at the time. It simply is not worth doing.
---
But hey, that's my opinion. You are welcome to what you want to do with the 'new edition' as it's brainstorming anyway. *I* just am saying it's not as good as you think it is.
(edit: Too Californian)
Kensan
So are you saying that DR/resistance is a bad mechanic? That it doesn't matter in the game? That seems to be what you're suggesting. I agree that if DR was included as a core mechanic, there would be ways to get around it or lessen it, but thats like saying Resist Fire 10 doesn't matter because you can still take fire damage.Yes, I agree that it just takes the edge off, but thats exactly what it should do. Its still better to avoid taking any damage, but when you do, is it not always better to take less?
Also, in such a system, you would have to have another defense (maybe call it Parry or whatever) to replace AC, so you would still have ways to avoid taking damage. I don't see how making armor reduce damage is bad so long as 1) the characters can still take some damage, and 2) there are still ways for the characters to avoid taking any damage.
"For those 4e fanboys, flame on...I don't care "
Mouselim, you clearly do care as your post indicates
Avengers from both sides, your cause would be much improved by (a radical thought I know) posting what you love about your games, what excites you, what thrills you about gaming, with no reference to the things that cause those worrying veins in your foreheads to pop so alarmingly.
Love what you love, ignore the rest.
Firstly to Decivre, you're not seeing the picture here. Who is to say that comprehend languages isn't useful in combat? Who says that control weather isn't useful too? Or Knock?
Comprehend language takes 10 minutes, control weather takes 1 hour and knock takes 10 minutes...
In terms of consistency, and don't quote real world physics or logic against fantasy, otherwise you'll get mauled
A 20th level Druid who can summon lightning from the heavens to smite his enemies takes only 1 standard action (and how many secs are that?) and a same level wizard will take 10 minutes to unlock a door? Imagine this conversation, "I'm sorry warrior, although I'm a high level archwizard, who can destroy a dragon with a spell, I need 10 minutes to unlock this door so can you do the honors of bashing it down the uncouth way?" Can you imagine Raistlin resorting to that?
I cannot comprehend your analogy of lighter and gun but imagine a mathematican genius can throw answers to different questions in a competition requires to use his fingers and toes to calculate change for buying a hotdog?
So if your party is running away from enemies and get herded into a room with no exit, it takes 10 minutes for them to use a ritual to detect secret doors? Cool...
And what is combat? I've been to the army and definitely, a commander shouts orders across the field...now is it because it is the DM controlling it and hence they act as though they are telepathic?
So in 4e, during a combat, you suddenly become a super hero able to do wondrous feats but outside it, the characters become feeble wannabes? I guess the DM will next start to say "Round 1: Fight!"
Summon monsters is one type of spell across the levels enabling higher level summoning of monsters. Now I have that same genre across the same and various levels...at least summoning monsters doesn't gift wrap it differently.
Muddypaw, I do care about the game as I had been in it for many many years...I didn't want to throw in the towel and swayed my group to try out 4e. After a few months, I'm regretting that decision...so I do care but I just don't care if the fanboys flame me
Anyway, this is a thread for our wishlist for 5e. Definitely it'll offend 4e stuff
Btw, I'm selling off all my 4e stuff to whoever that wants it otherwise I think I'll just put it in the store for general use (at least it'll benefit the general gaming population) or chuck it into the recycle bin.
PS: And to think that I'm just mentioning about rituals...what about those raised by Micha and many others? 3e (3.5e) and 4e are all made by WoTC. The latter was made to improve on 3x but yet now we're yearning for 5e...you be the judge.
Kensan
So are you saying that DR/resistance is a bad mechanic? That it doesn't matter in the game? That seems to be what you're suggesting. I agree that if DR was included as a core mechanic, there would be ways to get around it or lessen it, but thats like saying Resist Fire 10 doesn't matter because you can still take fire damage.Yes, I agree that it just takes the edge off, but thats exactly what it should do. Its still better to avoid taking any damage, but when you do, is it not always better to take less?
Also, in such a system, you would have to have another defense (maybe call it Parry or whatever) to replace AC, so you would still have ways to avoid taking damage. I don't see how making armor reduce damage is bad so long as 1) the characters can still take some damage, and 2) there are still ways for the characters to avoid taking any damage.
Bone_naga, you're hitting the nail on the head!
It's obvious that thus far, the game mechanics are simplifying how AC works, meshing base bonus (skin toughness), dex, shielding and magical wards altogether.
It can instead base on DR for armor/skin/hide, blocking by shields and parry by weapon. It need not be complex and can be handled in just a single round of rolls between combatants.
Combat can be made interesting by a combination of feats, skills and strike, counter-strike, blocks/parry, evasion. All these powers are just baggages...then focus more on rp instead.
PS: The problem with rp is there is only so much you can print and re-print...and this is what WoTC will avoid at all cost (pun intended)
Wrecan I am digging your thoughts on rituals. The system is capable of being so much more robust than it currently is. I have some additional thoughts:
1) I think there should be a way to seperate the treasure intended for magic items and treasure for rituals. This would solve two problems; you no longer have to be concerned about whether treasure is balanced for ritual usage vs item needs (with which you have free rituals at one extreme and under-equipped characters at the other), and treasure for rituals can be combined with treasure used for RP/unconventional rewards like titles, ships, land, ect. The latter isn't a problem in every game, but it's also not an unknown complaint on these forums. It does create the problem that you have invent an alternate treasure, on which I'm open to suggestions.
2) Give everyone the ability to use rituals. Instead make the rituals class, role, and/or power source specific, and change the Ritual Caster feat to allow you to access the restricted rituals. This way, Clerics could use Gentle Repose but need a feat to cast Endure Elements, Rangers cast Animal Messenger by default but not Wizard's Sight, a Psion can learn Discern Lies but invests a feat to summon a Traveler's Feast (ect, ect, example only). There's already a thread in Future releases complaining about the upcoming Martial Practices being unfair to non-martial character who must use a multi-class feat to learn what are essential Martial Rituals. I'm not commenting on whether or not that point of view is accurate, simply stating it exists.
3) I'm one of those who feels that some rituals should be valid options during combat. I'd like to see a method to cast those rituals in a combat relative time-frame, perhaps for an increased cost or using an alternate resource. Not all rituals need that option available, but there are so many that are situationally useful in that capacity like Comprehend Languages, Water Walk, Arcane Lock and Knock just to name a few.
I'd like to address some of the other points in this thread but I'll try not to push this post past the TLDR threshhold.
- I think the number of at wills each character can use definately needs to increase.
- I think the current feats are mostly ok the way they are, but there's also room for something like what Micha suggested. Give players a few super-feats (got a better name?) over their career that allow larger changes to the character. Fold multi-classing into that while you're at it, along with any other feats that are clearly a cut above.
- I think the whole AC system could use an overhaul, but I don't have any suggestions for that right now. I'd like to see a difference between avoiding a blow and having it absorbed by armor.
- I'm dying for optional rules. I have hopes that the DS setting will include some of what I want. I keep brainstorming the rest, but I'm not a professional designer and I don't have the time to devote to changing the system to better fit with the stories I want to tell. A book like Unearthed Arcana would probably be a huge step forward for me.
- I like both Wrecan's thoughts on changing both the class/role/source dynamic as well as Micha's ideas for improving race diversity. I don't agree with getting rid of halflings, but I'd consider redesigning them, especially since the benefits of small races never quite seem to outweigh the downside.
3) I'm one of those who feels that some rituals should be valid options during combat. I'd like to see a method to cast those rituals in a combat relative time-frame, perhaps for an increased cost or using an alternate resource. Not all rituals need that option available, but there are so many that are situationally useful in that capacity like Comprehend Languages, Water Walk, Arcane Lock and Knock just to name a few.
Absolutley. It doesn't have to be instant speed, but a few rounds even would be great and allow for some cool "I'll open this door, hold them off!" moments.
Firstly to Decivre, you're not seeing the picture here. Who is to say that comprehend languages isn't useful in combat? Who says that control weather isn't useful too? Or Knock?
You're missing the point. Rituals are intended to be magic external to player role, because everyone can cast them. Player role is a combat concept, hence the reason rituals are torn from combat. You can place them in a way that puts them into combat, but again that simply serves to destroy the role concept. Everyone is a high mobility character when you can cast ritual teleports during combat; everyone is a leader when they can resurrect and eliminate status effects during combat; everyone is a controller when they can alter the battlefield during combat... it's not a question of whether it will be useful, but rather whether it'll fit the game.
Comprehend language takes 10 minutes, control weather takes 1 hour and knock takes 10 minutes...In terms of consistency, and don't quote real world physics or logic against fantasy, otherwise you'll get mauled
A 20th level Druid who can summon lightning from the heavens to smite his enemies takes only 1 standard action (and how many secs are that?) and a same level wizard will take 10 minutes to unlock a door? Imagine this conversation, "I'm sorry warrior, although I'm a high level archwizard, who can destroy a dragon with a spell, I need 10 minutes to unlock this door so can you do the honors of bashing it down the uncouth way?" Can you imagine Raistlin resorting to that?
Makes sense to me. One is using a light touch to manipulate a door, the other is bashing it in. Considering how picking a lock in real life takes longer than breaking it, it's not exactly an unfounded concept. You're looking at these things from a very limited viewpoint: knock is still useful whether it takes 1 second or 20 minutes, because it can do so far more quietly than force can, and can even undo bolts and bars that are inaccessible to lock picking. Criminals and sieging armies would kill for such power. With control weather, a 1 hour wait is nothing in comparison to the ability to prevent or create bad weather on a whim. The farming industry would kill for such power.
I cannot comprehend your analogy of lighter and gun but imagine a mathematican genius can throw answers to different questions in a competition requires to use his fingers and toes to calculate change for buying a hotdog?
In other words, while it may not make sense to you, some thing take more time than some people might desire them to. Setting up a campfire takes far longer than firing a weapon... why shouldn't using magic to set up a campfire take a long period of time as well? It may not seem consistent to you, but that's a personal problem.
So if your party is running away from enemies and get herded into a room with no exit, it takes 10 minutes for them to use a ritual to detect secret doors? Cool...
It works in kind. Players will get annoyed if they try to herd their enemies into a room with no exit, and they can immediately find a secret escape. Then again, why are your enemies herding you into a room with a secret exit they likely know about (I'm assuming you are in their dungeon).
And what is combat? I've been to the army and definitely, a commander shouts orders across the field...now is it because it is the DM controlling it and hence they act as though they are telepathic?
Probably why armies use slang terms and code to get orders across. Such codes largely don't exist to as great a degree anymore (likely due to the invention of radio), but they did.
But again, this is a trivial argument. You're basically complaining that you can't completely bowl over your opponents by knowing their strategies. Such a magic existing would completely change the way that warfare works. By that logic, I can complain that 4E sucks because they didn't create a character class that has the power to make people's heads explode at will without resistance.
So in 4e, during a combat, you suddenly become a super hero able to do wondrous feats but outside it, the characters become feeble wannabes? I guess the DM will next start to say "Round 1: Fight!"
Ah yes, time and resources make a person into a feeble wannabe. Better tell the heart surgeon that saved my father's life that he's pathetic because the surgery took 45 minutes.
Summon monsters is one type of spell across the levels enabling higher level summoning of monsters. Now I have that same genre across the same and various levels...at least summoning monsters doesn't gift wrap it differently.
It still makes your complaints somewhat hypocritical. Repetitive powers are nothing new to 4th Edition. That said, the largest majority of identical or similar powers are only identical or similar because they are either the power of a separate class or an upgraded epic version of a heroic power intended for when you're swapping powers at that tier.
Kensan
So are you saying that DR/resistance is a bad mechanic? That it doesn't matter in the game? That seems to be what you're suggesting. I agree that if DR was included as a core mechanic, there would be ways to get around it or lessen it, but thats like saying Resist Fire 10 doesn't matter because you can still take fire damage.Yes, I agree that it just takes the edge off, but thats exactly what it should do. Its still better to avoid taking any damage, but when you do, is it not always better to take less?
Also, in such a system, you would have to have another defense (maybe call it Parry or whatever) to replace AC, so you would still have ways to avoid taking damage. I don't see how making armor reduce damage is bad so long as 1) the characters can still take some damage, and 2) there are still ways for the characters to avoid taking any damage.
DR as a replacement for AC is a Bad Mechanic, yes.
DR as a bit of flavor, as in fire resistance, not so bad.
However, as DR is implimented in 4E, DR is hardly a game breaker, and on the whole isn't increadibly effective, which is by design.
However, lesser AC (Or Evasive Mechanic) for more DR is always a bad exchange, and this is an exchange you see happen in many different games. When the choice between more DR or More Evasive comes up, Evasive always wins out, for not being hit at all is preferable to not taking as much damage.
As a complete aside, and not really trying to get in the way of anything, about the DR/AC Issue
...
There is a reason in Champions/Gurps Supers that I don't invest heavily in evasive abilities and instead purchase DR type abilities. Having high Evasive abilities in a point buy system creates a three fold problem.
Problem 1) The DM Can't Hit Me. This is, of course, your goal. However, DM frustration of having an invulnerable character produces problem 2)
Problem 2) Having High Evasion makes other characters easy to hit. By creating a character with High evasion, the other PC's who spent heavily into other areas get punished by not being able to get out of the way of damage. The NPC's will either switch to AOE's or will have High Targeting Abilities to counteract the high Evasiveness I have in the character.
Problem 3) Players can't hit NPC's. Sometimes by having a high evasiveness, it gives permission for the DM to have high evasiveness as well. This creates a situation where combats are overly long because no one can hit each other.
...
Now, this is not to say I am in favor of using DR instead of Evasiveness. Quite the opposite. I feel that Damage Reduction should be saved for very exceptional circumstances. In fact, White Wolf's Armor System where you add up to 5 dice to a roll for soak is about as far as I would want to go Mechanic Wise at this time with a DR system, as to attach real numbers to Damage Reduction starts to bring out the ugly head of having to have damage rolls that can overcome that DR, and special rules for penetrating DR, and that leads to a messy, unclean mess.
Overall, I'd rather have a system where only Evasiveness matters, then a system that fiddled with hit point balance by curving damage in weird directions. That's my only real stance really on the matter.
Wrecan I am digging your thoughts on rituals.
Thanks!
1) I think there should be a way to seperate the treasure intended for magic items and treasure for rituals.
I agree. That's why I'm quite keen on the idea presented in this thread for Ritual Surges, which would be a mechanic for determining how many non-combat rituals one can cast per day.
I suppose the question then becomes whether buying the ritual initially should cost coin or something else.
make the rituals class, role, and/or power source specific, and change the Ritual Caster feat to allow you to access the restricted rituals.
I prefer the way it is now, with rituals limited by Skill, rather than class.
There's already a thread in Future releases complaining about the upcoming Martial Practices being unfair to non-martial character who must use a multi-class feat to learn what are essential Martial Rituals.
That should be fixed by tying Practices to Skill training rather than by membership in a martila class.
3) I'm one of those who feels that some rituals should be valid options during combat.
This I disagree. I think any combat use of rituals should be incidental at most. Once a ritual can be used in combat it's akin to a consumable item and should be treated similarly.
Kensan
I guess we'll agree to disagree. I'm not familiar with Hero, but like I said I tried out an armor=DR system in 2e and 3e. Once I revised it a little bit (admittedly my first attempt was a complete failure), it seemed to work out fine, and there were characters that went both the evasion and the armor route. Both seemed on par with each other (and both were front line fighters). Granted, my own small group isn't exactly a playtest you could rely on for widespread publication, but it makes me believe that such a system is possible. I also think you would get much smaller deviations using such a system in a class-based system than you would under a point-based one.
In any case, I still have not found a good way to implement such a system in 4e, but I wouldn't mind seeing it in a future edition, even as a set of optional rules, like an Unearthed Arcana supplement, so long as those rules have been playtested and balanced.
3) I'm one of those who feels that some rituals should be valid options during combat.
This I disagree. I think any combat use of rituals should be incidental at most. Once a ritual can be used in combat it's akin to a consumable item and should be treated similarly.
Wait, isn't a ritual usable during combat an alchemical item?
Wait, isn't a ritual usable during combat an alchemical item?
Not exactly. An alchemical ritual creates an item that can be used in combat. As I said in my proposal, casting such a ritual should be treated like an item.
Bone_naga, you're hitting the nail on the head!
It's obvious that thus far, the game mechanics are simplifying how AC works, meshing base bonus (skin toughness), dex, shielding and magical wards altogether.
It can instead base on DR for armor/skin/hide, blocking by shields and parry by weapon. It need not be complex and can be handled in just a single round of rolls between combatants.
Combat can be made interesting by a combination of feats, skills and strike, counter-strike, blocks/parry, evasion. All these powers are just baggages...then focus more on rp instead.
PS: The problem with rp is there is only so much you can print and re-print...and this is what WoTC will avoid at all cost (pun intended)
Thats pretty much how I would see it happening. But you could still keep the powers (or whatever the next round of special abilities is called), so I don't see how that would adversely affect WotC at all. After all, players will always want more cool abilities, no matter what they are called or how they are structured.
make the rituals class, role, and/or power source specific, and change the Ritual Caster feat to allow you to access the restricted rituals.
I prefer the way it is now, with rituals limited by Skill, rather than class.
Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting this for all rituals, and I'd like to see them retain the skill aspect. I'd prefer to see this with just the iconic rituals, like say Glib Limerick for Bards, Gentle Repose for Clerics (or maybe all Divine), or Shadow Walk for Warlocks. I'm also not suggesting that they automatically know or get to cast these rituals for free, just be able to learn them without a feat. If you disagree I respect that, I'm simply stating my preference.
There's already a thread in Future releases complaining about the upcoming Martial Practices being unfair to non-martial character who must use a multi-class feat to learn what are essential Martial Rituals.
That should be fixed by tying Practices to Skill training rather than by membership in a martila class.
I agree (although add my opinion above), and I'm not judging Martial Practices until I see the whole set of rules.
3) I'm one of those who feels that some rituals should be valid options during combat.
This I disagree. I think any combat use of rituals should be incidental at most. Once a ritual can be used in combat it's akin to a consumable item and should be treated similarly.
Hmm, a scroll or similar object that could be cast quickly might be interesting. I'd be more interested in seeing the types of rituals I'm talking about in a new category. I've got no problem with divinations and conjurations and such taking a while to cast, but some of the rituals would be extremely useful as plot devices in certain scenes* or simply allow players options that otherwise wouldn't be there. Give me a new category somewhat like rituals that take more than a standard action but no more than a minute to complete, and perhaps use a mechanic like Ritual Surges. This would let me bring back 'fun' spells like Grease, or Animate Rope, or various Wall spells as well new things like letting the burly, athletic guys move/lift objects normally beyond their strength or letting sneaky characters set traps.
*like chase scenes where the adventurers want/need to get away from someone(or thing), or negotions, or last minute ambushes just to name a few.
Wrecan would you mind expanding on why you don't want to see rules that allow that? I'm just curious if it somehow conflicts with your playstyle, or if you have balance concerns or what exactly.
Wrecan would you mind expanding on why you don't want to see rules that allow that? I'm just curious if it somehow conflicts with your playstyle, or if you have balance concerns or what exactly.
I think it makes it difficult to balance a ritual that has combat and non-combat applications.
I would not be adverse to a ritual with a long casting time (thus making it inappropriate for combat) and a scroll of the same ritual that can be cast as a standard action, which would be priced as if it were a consumable item. But the designers would have to be careful to make sure that the rituals don't step on other toes.
In prior editions I always had the problem of the rogue being told to step aside because the wizard could cast a spell to obviate his thieving skills. Now, the rogue gets to use his skills in combat (for example to disarm a trap causing problems in the midst of combat, while the wizard's rituals are only brought out if you encounter a trap during a rest (and even then, the rogue often gets first crack at it so the party doesn't have to spend coin). I am concerned that allowing too many rituals to be used in combat will make ritualists overshadowing compared to characters concentrating in other skills.
*snip*
Stop hitting enter every 1.5 sentences, damn it. The spacing on the new board is bad enough as it is. And Micha, I'd like to see that new power set up you're working on when you're done. Sounds interesting.
About Spacing...
If you hit Shift-Return, instead of just return, you will get a normal return carriage, instead of the Paragraph division of a return buffer.
Just something I noticed...
... I just like hitting just return better, though, to seperate lines of thoughts...
Hm, here are a few more:
More "+X or +Y to Z". Defenses benefitting from the higher of two scores is a nice way to do it. So too is warlock's Eldritch Blast basing off either Con or Cha. Or a dragonborn's breath weapon off of Str, Con, or Dex. More stuff should be like that- such as Athletics/Acrobatics; the two skills have been condensed from past editions, and still have overlap. Just make it one skill that uses the better of your Str or Dex.
Bring back feat trees/chains. Have feats have more exhaustive prerequisites, especially other feats.
Bring back the notion natural armor, just in a different way that before. Only really viable if you are changing monster AC to 1/2 level, but some monsters shouldn't really be benefitting from a high Dex/Int. So "natural" armor would be one of the existing types, just without the speed or check penalties. And if a creature put on actual armor, they would only get the better of the worn or their natural armor. (Its the old barding problem).
While on the subject of check penalties, those need to be a lot more significant. -1 isn't much if anything. Doubling the current numbers would be a start. Also, check penalties should never apply to Con-based skills- you shouldn't have trouble overcoming the flu (or other disease) just because you're carrying a heavy shield. Unless they errata'd that bit...
I actually like the idea of a few surge-powered rituals, there need to be more uses for healing surges and action points. And speaking of action points, how about more sources for those? The battlefield archer PP is a great example. And drop the cumbersome "only 1/encounter" limit. 1/round should be fine.
Here's a major one that no doubt I'll be hanged and quartered for.
No more HPs.
Hps are a token mechanic. Really they are. What they mean is far too nebulous, you get far too many and it really makes the game escalate in ways that it shouldn't.
What would I like instead? A Wounds system. Basically in concept in a wounds system in four to eight hits, everything dies. This is more akin to videogames, and wargames if you've noticed and there's a reason why. It works better than Hps.
Now how do you implement it?
Well you can start by doing your normal attack roll thing. Then you roll damage, if that number exceeds a defense... let's say Fortitude here the target takes a wound. Something you could do with this system, is make it so that characters in Heavy Armor get a Fort Bonus instead of a AC bonus from their armor. And that way you can have Insanely Hard to Hit Light armor guys, that aren't totally superseeding the point of armor in the first place. Said Light armor guys are incredibly easy to wound but harder to hit, where as the heavy armor guys are easier to hit, but hard to wound.
Now Surges, still work with this system only that, instead of healing hps. You are healing Wounds.
This would take care of the Super Long Combat that D&D suffers from, in no small part due to the Big Bags of Hps.
Another thing I would like to see is the Condition Chart lifted from Star Wars Saga and brought into D&D.
Here's a major one that no doubt I'll be hanged and quartered for.
No more HPs.
Hps are a token mechanic. Really they are. What they mean is far too nebulous, you get far too many and it really makes the game escalate in ways that it shouldn't.
What would I like instead? A Wounds system. Basically in concept in a wounds system in four to eight hits, everything dies. This is more akin to videogames, and wargames if you've noticed and there's a reason why. It works better than Hps.
Now how do you implement it?
Well you can start by doing your normal attack roll thing. Then you roll damage, if that number exceeds a defense... let's say Fortitude here the target takes a wound. Something you could do with this system, is make it so that characters in Heavy Armor get a Fort Bonus instead of a AC bonus from their armor. And that way you can have Insanely Hard to Hit Light armor guys, that aren't totally superseeding the point of armor in the first place. Said Light armor guys are incredibly easy to wound but harder to hit, where as the heavy armor guys are easier to hit, but hard to wound.
Now Surges, still work with this system only that, instead of healing hps. You are healing Wounds.
This would take care of the Super Long Combat that D&D suffers from, in no small part due to the Big Bags of Hps.
Another thing I would like to see is the Condition Chart lifted from Star Wars Saga and brought into D&D.
I haven't noticed super long fights, and if you did that daily powers would be nigh useless as one of the biggest advantages they have is doing more damage normally. The way I see it pcs have just the amount of hitpoints they need to be survivable. Pcs are not supposed to die.
What level do you play at?
Also, Daily powers and encounters etc, have a use in that they are far far more likely to wound than an At Will. Also, a powers Effects become much more important under said system.
A friend of mine is already doing a Wound system sorta like this, and it works. We've only had one person go unconscious so far at least. 0W doesn't mean dead. Also the damage equaling the Fort Defense doesn't happen as often as you would think. (providing the base math of the game works or is made to work)
My friend's version, W likely hood is determined by your Fort, and weapons have a + to wound rather than damage. Powers also, affect chance to wound (or in some cases inflict multiple wounds).
@Capt Micha
Never going to happen. Hit Points are actually part of the Product Identity that makes D&D D&D. That, and the White Wolf System (Which is EXACTLY what you are proposing here, using D&D mechanics) is horrible. Really, truely, it is. The system over time favors the NPC's, and overall, is all about swinginess. While I have enjoyed WW games, players going from perfectly fine to Mauled to Dead happen way to frequently.
We also run into the issue that doing so removes the challenge from a LOT of creatures. Level differences mean a lot less when it takes 8 hits or less to kill anything, and players are REALLY good at finding ways to make hit count. As it stands right now, 5-8 hits with At Wills kill equal challenge creatures. With use of Encounters, it rarely takes that many.
Wound Track systems are not superior to Hit Point systems. In some key ways, they are inferior. THat is not to say that there are not advantages to it, but overall for heavy combat games, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
Despite how you might run your home game, D&D will always remain a combat intensive game. That's just the nature of a game that has 1000+ different beasts that want to rip your head off.
...
Micha, what is your goal in having shorter combats?
Combat shouldn't go on for more than 10 rounds. (Alot of that is fixable probably with Fixed Math and not what they have)
I think it's pretty inane myself.
I like Wounds because it makes for a grittier more challenging game as well. (There are ways to do Wounds without making people drop at well.... the drop of a hat. People in White Wolf suck at math worse than Wizards do half the time :P)
Another reason I like the wounds system is just how many games actually use a wound based mechanic. (Not just WW. Savage World, and a slew of others as well)
I'm not so sure about HP being that centric to what D&D is. After all we did kill Thac0.
Here's a major one that no doubt I'll be hanged and quartered for.
No more HPs.
Hps are a token mechanic. Really they are. What they mean is far too nebulous, you get far too many and it really makes the game escalate in ways that it shouldn't.
What would I like instead? A Wounds system. Basically in concept in a wounds system in four to eight hits, everything dies. This is more akin to videogames, and wargames if you've noticed and there's a reason why. It works better than Hps.
Now how do you implement it?
Well you can start by doing your normal attack roll thing. Then you roll damage, if that number exceeds a defense... let's say Fortitude here the target takes a wound. Something you could do with this system, is make it so that characters in Heavy Armor get a Fort Bonus instead of a AC bonus from their armor. And that way you can have Insanely Hard to Hit Light armor guys, that aren't totally superseeding the point of armor in the first place. Said Light armor guys are incredibly easy to wound but harder to hit, where as the heavy armor guys are easier to hit, but hard to wound.
Now Surges, still work with this system only that, instead of healing hps. You are healing Wounds.
This would take care of the Super Long Combat that D&D suffers from, in no small part due to the Big Bags of Hps.
Another thing I would like to see is the Condition Chart lifted from Star Wars Saga and brought into D&D.
How exactly is this any less nebulous than the hit point system? Effectively you've created a hit point system where everyone has a single-digit amount of HP, and everything does a single point of damage after rolling against a toughness save/defense (the one aspect of this I'm somewhat fond of, as I love Mutants and Masterminds). Use whatever term you want... wound, durability, stamina... it's still hit points.
That said, the length of combat isn't necessarily a problem to everyone. I'm not completely fond of it, but many are, and in many ways it is an homage to the wargames that spawned D&D. At best, they would probably be wise to produce rules for reducing and increasing hit points across the board for those who would like faster/slower battles. It could be an awesome addition to a DMG.
As for death spiral mechanics like the condition chart, I don't think it would be wise to add this to D&D. Such mechanics are great for games which encourage combat pragmatism like Shadowrun or Deadlands, but don't work as well in a game where players are portraying fantasy heroes which rush into battle without using guerrilla tactics, sniper perches or in-depth squad planning.
I'm not so sure about HP being that centric to what D&D is. After all we did kill Thac0.
THAC0 was around for a single edition (2nd Ed AD&D). Hit points have been there since the beginning. Such an alteration would be more akin to removing AC, levels, classes, humans, or changing the game's name to Liquid Metal Max: Tabletop Fantasy Mix. These things have changed in many ways over the years, but have remained a staple of the game since the very beginning.
It's more gritty. And gives you the chance to actually demonstrate that Heavy armor doesn't make you harder to hit. But harder to put down. That's why it's less nebulous.
What wargames use HP? Every single one I've played uses Wounds mechanics.
It's more gritty. And gives you the chance to actually demonstrate that Heavy armor doesn't make you harder to hit. But harder to put down. That's why it's less nebulous.
What wargames use HP? Every single one I've played uses Wounds mechanics.
Not many people want gritty D&D. That's one of the major reasons they got rid of save-or-die spells, remember? That said, your system effectively sums to two attack rolls per attack; one to hit, one to confirm. Whether armor affects the to-hit roll or the toughness roll, the end result is still simply a mathematical reduction in the odds of taking damage. Nothing has changed.
As for wargames that use HP, the eponymous Chainmail which this game descended from did. To that end, most damage mechanics are just hit points modified in one way or another; even Battletech basically uses location-tied hit points for damage resolution.
Combat shouldn't go on for more than 10 rounds. (Alot of that is fixable probably with Fixed Math and not what they have)
I think it's pretty inane myself.
I like Wounds because it makes for a grittier more challenging game as well. (There are ways to do Wounds without making people drop at well.... the drop of a hat. People in White Wolf suck at math worse than Wizards do half the time :P)
Another reason I like the wounds system is just how many games actually use a wound based mechanic. (Not just WW. Savage World, and a slew of others as well)
I'm not so sure about HP being that centric to what D&D is. After all we did kill Thac0.
See here is the thing dnd should not be gritty. It is heroic fantasy which is not gritty. There are systems that do gritty, and frankly there are not many systems that do heroic fantasy as well as dnd. I've never seen combat in 4e that was equal or near equal challenge go more than 6 rounds. Granted we have dm who sometimes throws non equal challenges that go longer, but that's a different story. Frankly I'm not seeing the hp issue you are. The only issue is solo's in mm1.
Disagree with pretty much all of your points except the bonuses to Ac from weird stats like Con on some classes.
But I don't disagree with some of your solutions.
Never had a problem with hitting or defences at higher levels, that's why Leaders exist - to help with hitting.
I also disagree with your line on dailies, but I do like the idea of milestone based recharges.
Generally, I don't have as many problems as you do with the game and I think you overstate the depth of some problems.
About the only thing I do agree with is in regards to 18 being a basic attack stat. It should've been around 14 or 16, but that kind of thing is easily solved by subtracting 1-2 from all of the defences of monsters.
Combat shouldn't go on for more than 10 rounds. (Alot of that is fixable probably with Fixed Math and not what they have)
Well, if that's the only problem, then the mission is already accomplished. My combats tend never to get past the 8th round of combat anyway, even at Paragon.
If the problem is more along the lines of book keeping, then I could understand. As mentioned in many threads, the problem with D&D combat timing often isn't in the amount of time it takes to progress an action, but more the time it takes Players to decide what action to take. More Bookkeeping adds to this problem. Wound track systems tend to have less book keeping involved, which is why they are favored by rules light systems.
I don't know of a solution that is acceptable on that front at this time, but I'll give it some thought.
I've consolidated my thoughts on improving rituals in a blog. And if the blogs allowed you to see bulleted lists, it would be appropriately formatted as well. 
Ah, well. Comments are welcome.
Not many people want gritty D&D. That's one of the major reasons they got rid of save-or-die spells, remember?
See here is the thing dnd should not be gritty. It is heroic fantasy which is not gritty. There are systems that do gritty, and frankly there are not many systems that do heroic fantasy as well as dnd.
It seems to me that a lot of different people want a lot of different things from D&D. Why do some people insist that the game belongs only inside the box? How does one preference for playstyle automatically trump another? If it's simply a matter of tradition, there's been plenty of talk about killing sacred cows over the last couple years. If a design decision is made to create a game slightly more modular at a base level to better integrate optional rules, then most people will have the opportunity to tell the kind of stories they want to tell. Then we simply need well designed optional rules and williamhm can play standard heroic fantasy D&D, Micha can play gritty D&D, I can play low-fantasy D&D, and some random person can play slapstick comedy D&D or anime style D&D or nearly anything else. Isn't that preferable for all?
@Wrecan, excellent point about utility rituals being difficult to balance between in & out of combat use. I wouldn't want them to step on the toes of skills, class abilities, or niches, but I'm not ready to give up on the idea yet. I'll have to do some further thinking on the subject.
Decivre: funny I don't remember "Gritty" being on the list. I do remember the list being.
1 They are horribly overpowered, and to give everyone else that power would turn the game into Rocket Tag Edition.
2. They are mechanics which bypass Defenses, and HP and create issues where classes are playing different games depending on what class they are playing.
Celloshane: that would be preferable. One Flexible core rule set, with Optional Rules. (And again Optional Rules don't mean Broken by default. Savage Worlds + Necessary Evil for example, or + Deadlands)
Also Gritty and Heroic Fantasy -can- go together. Wounds and lessened durability doesn't mean
"Easy To Kill DIE DIE DIE!".
Re: Replacing HP with a Wounds Mechanic
Ironically, in the Ridiculously High Numbers thread people are working on eliminating attack rolls (and thus AC) and anything involving the half-level bonus and just dumping it all into hit points!
I'm not a big fan of Wounds Mechanics for D&D combat. I think you end up relying on conditions too much to create tension because you can no longer rely on increased damage. And multiplying the number of possible conditions tends to overcomplicate a game.
I don't necessarily agree that wounds mechanics are not conducive to heroic fantasy, or that they result in "grittier" game systems. But I do think that hit points as an abstract measure of "how much fight you have in you" (be it luck, endurance, physical fitness, bulk, divine grace or just plain 'ol cojonoes), works fine. Any problems with hp -- which usually means how many rounds of combat it takes to take down an enemy -- is more a problem with the underlying math on damage values than any inherent issue with hp.
Decivre: funny I don't remember "Gritty" being on the list. I do remember the list being.
1 They are horribly overpowered, and to give everyone else that power would turn the game into Rocket Tag Edition.
2. They are mechanics which bypass Defenses, and HP and create issues where classes are playing different games depending on what class they are playing.
Also Gritty and Heroic Fantasy -can- go together. Wounds and lessened durability doesn't mean
"Easy To Kill DIE DIE DIE!".
"Grit" is generally what people call highly lethal combat mechanics in RPGs. I know that one of the biggest complaints about 4th Edition Shadowrun when people got their first looks was that "it lost its grit" when they realized that one-hit kills were much harder to pull off. That said, save-or-die abilities were only overpowered in context of other abilities. If every attack is a save-or-die, then they aren't really that overpowered compared to one another, now are they? The biggest other issue is that they bypass other mechanics... but again, a game designed for it would not have mechanics to bypass.
As for the idea that they can go together, you're right... however it does not produce the same style of gameplay that lacking those mechanics would. Heroic fantasy does not cater well to a death spiral, as the point behind a death spiral is to give characters more incentive to flee battle as combat progresses. It makes it so that success becomes more and more a fleeting possibility as injuries accrue, and only works great in a system that is meant to invoke pragmatism. That's never really been D&D. Optional rules would be great for this, but I don't think it would work well as a core mechanic of D&D.
Hence why I suggested the Condition Chart in Saga, it's a nice blend between Cinematic and "gritty" I've found.
It is fairly difficult to go down a step on it, and going down a step doesn't mean your character is necessarily maimed. It would need altering of course to fit with a Wound system. Or it could be used as an alternative to the Wound system as it is presented in Star Wars Saga.
I do like 4e, but I really wish that for 5e Wizards would cast Raise Dead on some of the sacred cows they've slaughtered. Mostly flavor differences, rather than mechanical ones. For instance, some of the things that prompted them to unleash the Spellplague upon the Forgotten Realms. I think archons ought to be LG immortals and eladrin should be CG (or at least G) immortals. Even if they retain the current planar structure I would like to see all of the old Great Wheel planes show up. There should be high elves in addition to wood elves. Demons should be independent, but not necessarily destructive. That means Succubi should be demons. I could come up with more.
Hence why I suggested the Condition Chart in Saga, it's a nice blend between Cinematic and "gritty" I've found.
It is fairly difficult to go down a step on it, and going down a step doesn't mean your character is necessarily maimed. It would need altering of course to fit with a Wound system. Or it could be used as an alternative to the Wound system as it is presented in Star Wars Saga.
I dont know a wound system still seems like it would make for characters that are way too easily killed. Frankly I'm not sure combats are too long right now. If combats go too quickly it loses the tension.
I would not want alignment to be brought back. If anything, I don't think they've done enough to expunge it!
Which isn't to say it should leave the game altogether. If they ever select Greyhawk as a campaign setting to update, I hope that a defining feature of Greyhawk that will distinguish it from other settings is the Great Wheel and the alignment system.
It wouldn't be too hard to reintegrate. Greyhawk simply requires every character to take one of nine alignment backgrounds, and introduces rules for retraining one's alignment background based on behavior. Then you set up a bunch of rituals and feats related to these alignment backgrounds. For example, paladins can take a feat that gives them an at-will minor action to detect people with the Background (Lawful good), Background (Chaotic Good), or Background (Neutral Good).
That way people who miss alignment can reintegrate it into the game and people who don't just have to ignore the Greyhawk material. but I don't think it belongs in the default Points of Light setting or in the default setting for any hypoethetical 5th edition.
Hence why I suggested the Condition Chart in Saga, it's a nice blend between Cinematic and "gritty" I've found.
It is fairly difficult to go down a step on it, and going down a step doesn't mean your character is necessarily maimed. It would need altering of course to fit with a Wound system. Or it could be used as an alternative to the Wound system as it is presented in Star Wars Saga.
It's pretty hard to blend cinematic and gritty. Batman can't lose an arm and continue to fight on just as well as he did before without raising some eyebrows. The minute you introduce a mechanic which reduces a character's capabilities as an aspect of injury, you create a scenario in which avoiding injury and fleeing after injury are preferable to continuing to fight. Then you have situations where combat pragmatism is preferred. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's definitely not the style of play most expect when they pick up a game of D&D.
I don't see anything wrong with alignments myself. But really if they want to eliminate it they should just do it, not eliminate certain alignments for no reason that I can see. Or at least include all the alignments even if there is no mechanical benefit for them. But I think it should be a part of the default setting, because It's part of D&D. Or at least the version of D&D I like best.
Not that I want the conversation to stop, mind you, but there is a point where you go from wanting a new edition of a game to a different game all together. I think that line can be a delicate one to walk, and the more radical the change, the less likely that it will happen.
I think it is productive to keep in mind changes that could happen that would be a direct improvement on current play, then a wish list of things that you wish never were introduced into the game at all. The Ritual Discussion I think has been positive and might help future designers press the game forward. I'd like to see more discussions along those lines.
Still thinking about the Hit Point Conundrum. Will talk more later.
Lord Zack
If your main concern is fluff, that's the easiest thing to change. Want the Great Wheel back? Done! It takes almost no effort to do so. Think Eladrin should be Grey Elves and Elves should be High Elves or Wood Elves? Done! No mechanical changes required.
As for alignment, I'm glad they changed it. I'll admit the stripping away of LE/CG was odd. I do like alignment not being tied to any mechanics, but at the same time being present as a roleplaying guide (which is what it should have been all along, not a straightjacket) for new players. My recommendation for 5e would be to get rid of LG/CE and just have Good, Evil, and Unaligned.
I'm pretty happy with 4e, and so far anything I've come up with has largely been fiddling with 4e rather than real, new game design ideas...sort of like how all of ideas about how to fix 3rd edition got obviated by 4th not being anything like 3rd edition. Assuming 5e is similar to 4th, I'll go with.
1. The nearly complete de-emphasis of race as a mechanical issue. I want to be able to play the class I want, with the race I want, and not feel like I'm gimping myself. Racial choice, like your character's sex, should be a roleplay choice with only a small mechanical effect on the game.
2. If we have another powers based system, I'd like to see the damage become integral to the power rather than decided by weapon. No more cleaves that do d12 for one player and d6 for another. And no more having some classes limited in their damage while others can upgrade just by getting a bigger weapon. Weapon choice, and implement choice should provide access to unique feats and minor mechanical boosts, ie swords could be more accurate, axes could allow high crit, hammers could give the brutal property, but the damage die should be set by the power.
3. I had another one, but it slipped my mind. I'll post it when it comes to me. EDIT: Oh yeah! Remove dual wielding as an multi-attack ability from the game. Wielding two weapons should provide a damage boost, an AC boost or something, but NOT the ability to make a second attack. I say this as someone who LIKES dual wielding.
I'm pretty happy with 4e, and so far anything I've come up with has largely been fiddling with 4e rather than real, new game design ideas...sort of like how all of ideas about how to fix 3rd edition got obviated by 4th not being anything like 3rd edition. Assuming 5e is similar to 4th, I'll go with.1. The nearly complete de-emphasis of race as a mechanical issue. I want to be able to play the class I want, with the race I want, and not feel like I'm gimping myself. Racial choice, like your character's sex, should be a roleplay choice with only a small mechanical effect on the game.
2. If we have another powers based system, I'd like to see the damage become integral to the power rather than decided by weapon. No more cleaves that do d12 for one player and d6 for another. And no more having some classes limited in their damage while others can upgrade just by getting a bigger weapon. Weapon choice, and implement choice should provide access to unique feats and minor mechanical boosts, ie swords could be more accurate, axes could allow high crit, hammers could give the brutal property, but the damage die should be set by the power.
3. I had another one, but it slipped my mind. I'll post it when it comes to me. EDIT: Oh yeah! Remove dual wielding as an multi-attack ability from the game. Wielding two weapons should provide a damage boost, an AC boost or something, but NOT the ability to make a second attack. I say this as someone who LIKES dual wielding.
1. I think they did a pretty good job of that already. I'd like a few more racial abilities as you level up, but I think you can already choose a race without feeling gimped (unless you consider not having a 20 in your stat to be gimped). Race should still have some mechanical effect. I would hate to see it become all fluff.
2. Again I disagree. There should be noticable differences between weapons. I don't want to see two fighters, one with a dagger and one with a greatsword, doing the same damage for everything except basic attacks. In that case, why ever go 2-handed except for reach? You could always have a shield. Weapon choices should be meaningful. I think you can have different weapons that are balanced against each other, even if they don't do the same damage.
3. I wouldn't be upset if they did this, but I'd also be ok if it was present in a limited capacity, like it currently is. I think a small bonus to damage and/or defense is simpler and more representative of two-weapon fighting, but players like their multiple attacks (remember the outcry when people first discovered that only rangers could pull this off?), and 4e is a cinematic system.
It's pretty hard to blend cinematic and gritty. Batman can't lose an arm and continue to fight on just as well as he did before without raising some eyebrows. The minute you introduce a mechanic which reduces a character's capabilities as an aspect of injury, you create a scenario in which avoiding injury and fleeing after injury are preferable to continuing to fight. Then you have situations where combat pragmatism is preferred. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's definitely not the style of play most expect when they pick up a game of D&D.
Question, have you seen Star Wars Saga's condition chart? (it's also incredibly easy to move back up on the condition chart too)
It acts more like a status effect than a Maiming.
naegunfael.proboards.com/index.cgi?actio...
To give you an idea of how it can be slightly modified for D&D.
One of the things I'm thinking of adding to the chart is a Freshly Rested bonus on the Condition chart. Basically after an ER and until your first milestone you get a bonus. I've not figured out what that bonus would be yet, though.
It's pretty hard to blend cinematic and gritty. Batman can't lose an arm and continue to fight on just as well as he did before without raising some eyebrows. The minute you introduce a mechanic which reduces a character's capabilities as an aspect of injury, you create a scenario in which avoiding injury and fleeing after injury are preferable to continuing to fight. Then you have situations where combat pragmatism is preferred. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it's definitely not the style of play most expect when they pick up a game of D&D.
Question, have you seen Star Wars Saga's condition chart? (it's also incredibly easy to move back up on the condition chart too)
It acts more like a status effect than a Maiming.
naegunfael.proboards.com/index.cgi?actio...
To give you an idea of how it can be slightly modified for D&D.One of the things I'm thinking of adding to the chart is a Freshly Rested bonus on the Condition chart. Basically after an ER and until your first milestone you get a bonus. I've not figured out what that bonus would be yet, though.
I have and one hit brought someone down one tick on the chart. Sorry one hit should not be capable of doing that. I don't really like saga for a lot of reasons so anything from saga I'm disinclined to give a fair shake to. Mainly I absolutley hate the multi classing system in it and the fact that they kept racial stat penalties. Saga should have been far more like 4e.
One hit. On a crit maybe. OOOOHHH NO a crit means something! Or that a hit actually does something other than -10 hps. Combat becomes much more intense imo with the chart. Fact is the chart actually works. And it takes quite abit before the chart -really really- impacts your character. One of the nice things about the chart, is it helps the bad guys Economy of Actions. Which is something sorely needed in D&D. The Bad Guys in D&D have always had it rough, D&D isn't what I would call challenging to play. The Chart also allows potentially at least for lower level things to remain a potential threat longer than they do in D&D. (realistically in D&D if it's more than three levels lower than you it has no prayer)
You do realize 4e was developed off of Saga right? Not the other way around? More like 4e... please 4e wasn't even alive yet when Saga was released. KOTS wasn't even a twinkle in Mearl's eye.
One hit. On a crit maybe. OOOOHHH NO a crit means something! Or that a hit actually does something other than -10 hps. Combat becomes much more intense imo with the chart. Fact is the chart actually works. And it takes quite abit before the chart -really really- impacts your character. One of the nice things about the chart, is it helps the bad guys Economy of Actions. Which is something sorely needed in D&D. The Bad Guys in D&D have always had it rough, D&D isn't what I would call challenging to play. The Chart also allows potentially at least for lower level things to remain a potential threat longer than they do in D&D. (realistically in D&D if it's more than three levels lower than you it has no prayer)
You do realize 4e was developed off of Saga right? Not the other way around? More like 4e... please 4e wasn't even alive yet when Saga was released. KOTS wasn't even a twinkle in Mearl's eye.
Yes I know that. I just disagree that the chart is a good thing. From what I rember even one or two tics on the chart causes you to get negatives to hit. Which creates a death spiral. I've had a number of encounters that felt heroic, and challenging. We have had a number of fights where a person was down to zero hp, or close to it. Something 3-5 levels lower than you should not be a challenge. I know 4e was developed out of saga, and it improved on it a lot. Like I said Im not a fan of saga at all. And monsters in 3e had it easy at low levels you sneezed on adventurers and they died. One of the biggest improvements 4e made was in making characters tough enough to survive. I feel any kind of wound system would take that away.
Yes I know that. I just disagree that the chart is a good thing. From what I rember even one or two tics on the chart causes you to get negatives to hit. Which creates a death spiral. I've had a number of encounters that felt heroic, and challenging. We have had a number of fights where a person was down to zero hp, or close to it. Something 3-5 levels lower than you should not be a challenge. I know 4e was developed out of saga, and it improved on it a lot. Like I said Im not a fan of saga at all. And monsters in 3e had it easy at low levels you sneezed on adventurers and they died. One of the biggest improvements 4e made was in making characters tough enough to survive. I feel any kind of wound system would take that away.
Oh really? Do you know why that monsters up to 3-6 levels should still be a threat?
It's quite simple really. It's so that every once in a while, when you throw some jobbers at the PCs they can feel like they are actually progressing, but still be challenged enough worthy of giving Xp for.
It shows Progression, that way you aren't just "Roll 11+ blah blah blah". Over and over again followed by "You are hit on a 7 blah blah blah".
Like I said, the chart can be modified, since D&D players are used to Auto Winning so that it's a little more Cupcake for them. (Which is what I did if you clicked my link)
Yes I know that. I just disagree that the chart is a good thing. From what I rember even one or two tics on the chart causes you to get negatives to hit. Which creates a death spiral. I've had a number of encounters that felt heroic, and challenging. We have had a number of fights where a person was down to zero hp, or close to it. Something 3-5 levels lower than you should not be a challenge. I know 4e was developed out of saga, and it improved on it a lot. Like I said Im not a fan of saga at all. And monsters in 3e had it easy at low levels you sneezed on adventurers and they died. One of the biggest improvements 4e made was in making characters tough enough to survive. I feel any kind of wound system would take that away.Oh really? Do you know why that monsters up to 3-6 levels should still be a threat?
It's quite simple really. It's so that every once in a while, when you throw some jobbers at the PCs they can feel like they are actually progressing, but still be challenged enough worthy of giving Xp for.
It shows Progression, that way you aren't just "Roll 11+ blah blah blah". Over and over again followed by "You are hit on a 7 blah blah blah".
Like I said, the chart can be modified, since D&D players are used to Auto Winning so that it's a little more Cupcake for them. (Which is what I did if you clicked my link)
Why shouldn't the players win? If players did not win the charcters would die campaign over. Unless you do the whole captured and then escape bit, which while cool once or twice during a campaign would probably get old fast. I just don't see the condition track system working. Now the old vitality/wound system might be able to work if you gave characters enough wounds to survive one critical hit, but make it the way second wind only healed vitality, so that they have to rest if they take too many actual wounds.
Why shouldn't the players win? If players did not win the charcters would die campaign over. Unless you do the whole captured and then escape bit, which while cool once or twice during a campaign would probably get old fast. I just don't see the condition track system working. Now the old vitality/wound system might be able to work if you gave characters enough wounds to survive one critical hit, but make it the way second wind only healed vitality, so that they have to rest if they take too many actual wounds.
Are you intentionally misreading what I'm posting or are you trying to play a strange Devils Advocate to drive my point even further home?
D&D is too easy. Especially post level 5. You know who's going to win, it's just a matter of round count. It's been that way since 2e really. There's a difference between what I think you are suggesting of "ZOMG TPK!!! HUR HUR" and "wow, that was hard, but awesome!" or even "man, we really did well there" Huge Difference. Do note I routinely push my PCs in 4e even they are challenged. But the caliber of encounters that I design to do so is abit much. Making something a Legit Challenge, should be easier in D&D.
Not "Oh we just plowed through another batch of Hp bags"
You've not played Saga enough to really understand the chart, and how it actually works in game play and it's readily apparent. Maybe you should play a few times and see how it actually works. Rather than making commentary without any real experience with it.
Also not always winning is a good thing. Sometimes you lose. It helps create dramatic tension. If the outcome doesn't seem predetermined you are going to be putting alot more effort in winning and savoring victory when it does happen.
Why shouldn't the players win? If players did not win the charcters would die campaign over. Unless you do the whole captured and then escape bit, which while cool once or twice during a campaign would probably get old fast. I just don't see the condition track system working. Now the old vitality/wound system might be able to work if you gave characters enough wounds to survive one critical hit, but make it the way second wind only healed vitality, so that they have to rest if they take too many actual wounds.
Because things aren't so rosy outside of fairytale lane?
Not winning can encompass a large variety of things: not getting the Mcguffin, single character death, TPK, running away, villians escaping, villains completing their plans, towns/villages destroyed, etc.
Viewing winning only by the simplest of combat objectives is a pretty narrow lens to view the game with.
A condition track is fine for an RPG as long as it doesn't, as you say "create a death spiral". Very gradual decreases in ability that don't cause major hinderances until you've dropped several notches. Obviously you need to ensure that a character can still take a way out (running away) if things go poorly (so I'd limit movement hinderances on such a chart), but as long as a few hits don't reduce your combat efficiency too much I can see it being interesting and adding some extra tactical depth to a game. Heck with the new saving throw/powers mechanics I think such a thing would fit in really easily with the 4e rules.
Why shouldn't the players win? If players did not win the charcters would die campaign over. Unless you do the whole captured and then escape bit, which while cool once or twice during a campaign would probably get old fast. I just don't see the condition track system working. Now the old vitality/wound system might be able to work if you gave characters enough wounds to survive one critical hit, but make it the way second wind only healed vitality, so that they have to rest if they take too many actual wounds.Are you intentionally misreading what I'm posting or are you trying to play a strange Devils Advocate to drive my point even further home?
D&D is too easy. Especially post level 5. You know who's going to win, it's just a matter of round count. It's been that way since 2e really. There's a difference between what I think you are suggesting of "ZOMG TPK!!! HUR HUR" and "wow, that was hard, but awesome!" or even "man, we really did well there" Huge Difference. Do note I routinely push my PCs in 4e even they are challenged. But the caliber of encounters that I design to do so is abit much. Making something a Legit Challenge, should be easier in D&D.
Not "Oh we just plowed through another batch of Hp bags"
You've not played Saga enough to really understand the chart, and how it actually works in game play and it's readily apparent. Maybe you should play a few times and see how it actually works. Rather than making commentary without any real experience with it.
Also not always winning is a good thing. Sometimes you lose. It helps create dramatic tension. If the outcome doesn't seem predetermined you are going to be putting alot more effort in winning and savoring victory when it does happen.
I dont know what game you have been playing but a lot of our fights wind up being awsome and close encounters of the we barley won kind. If you lose a battle your pretty much dead, unless you run away, but in dnd you can't always do that. I agree an occasional defeat can kind of be interesting but it should not happen often. And no I will never touch saga. The free multi classing pretty much kills any desire I have to play the game, and the fact that they kept prestidge classes and racial penalties to stats. My groups have only had a couple of fights that felt like we were going through hp bags. Makeing a fight seem difficult is the job of the dm.
Why shouldn't the players win? If players did not win the charcters would die campaign over. Unless you do the whole captured and then escape bit, which while cool once or twice during a campaign would probably get old fast. I just don't see the condition track system working. Now the old vitality/wound system might be able to work if you gave characters enough wounds to survive one critical hit, but make it the way second wind only healed vitality, so that they have to rest if they take too many actual wounds.
Because things aren't so rosy outside of fairytale lane?Not winning can encompass a large variety of things: not getting the Mcguffin, single character death, TPK, running away, villians escaping, villains completing their plans, towns/villages destroyed, etc.
Viewing winning only by the simplest of combat objectives is a pretty narrow lens to view the game with.
A condition track is fine for an RPG as long as it doesn't, as you say "create a death spiral". Very gradual decreases in ability that don't cause major hinderances until you've dropped several notches. Obviously you need to ensure that a character can still take a way out (running away) if things go poorly (so I'd limit movement hinderances on such a chart), but as long as a few hits don't reduce your combat efficiency too much I can see it being interesting and adding some extra tactical depth to a game. Heck with the new saving throw/powers mechanics I think such a thing would fit in really easily with the 4e rules.
See even if the villian gets away you have technically won the battle. I dont really think you can have a condition track that does not become a death spiral. Combat in 4e is already fairly tactical. Also I hate character death it should happen incredibly seldom. Villains completing their plan is going to be plot device by the dm, and thus not something that rules can do. My group has had to run from a couple fights and come back later, but even then I don't really view that as losing. You've only lost when your dead.
See even if the villian gets away you have technically won the battle. I dont really think you can have a condition track that does not become a death spiral. Combat in 4e is already fairly tactical. Also I hate character death it should happen incredibly seldom. Villains completing their plan is going to be plot device by the dm, and thus not something that rules can do. My group has had to run from a couple fights and come back later, but even then I don't really view that as losing. You've only lost when your dead.
Which is why it's evident that you've not played Saga enough. "But it has racial penalties!" yeah, that's fixable in oh 2 seconds. The multiclassing isn't nearly as bad as you think and the things Saga suffers from is what ALL d20 suffers from, where Characters lower level than 5 just don't matter.
Also you can fail to accomplish your goals without dying. If that's not a loss I don't know what is.
See even if the villian gets away you have technically won the battle. I dont really think you can have a condition track that does not become a death spiral. Combat in 4e is already fairly tactical. Also I hate character death it should happen incredibly seldom. Villains completing their plan is going to be plot device by the dm, and thus not something that rules can do. My group has had to run from a couple fights and come back later, but even then I don't really view that as losing. You've only lost when your dead.Which is why it's evident that you've not played Saga enough. "But it has racial penalties!" yeah, that's fixable in oh 2 seconds. The multiclassing isn't nearly as bad as you think and the things Saga suffers from is what ALL d20 suffers from, where Characters lower level than 5 just don't matter.
Also you can fail to accomplish your goals without dying. If that's not a loss I don't know what is.
Well yeah but any villian completing their plan is going to be plot, or dm fiat. If the dm wants the villian to complete his plot he will regardles of what the pcs do. And sometimes players can lose due to player stupidity. It's fixable for the dm. I was a player in the game, I have yet to dm. And if I was dm I'd dm 4e not saga. The system just does not look that good to me. I'd probably find a way to adapt 4e to space if I was going to do star wars.
Well yeah but any villian completing their plan is going to be plot, or dm fiat. If the dm wants the villian to complete his plot he will regardles of what the pcs do. And sometimes players can lose due to player stupidity. It's fixable for the dm. I was a player in the game, I have yet to dm. And if I was dm I'd dm 4e not saga. The system just does not look that good to me. I'd probably find a way to adapt 4e to space if I was going to do star wars.
I disagree. A DM can say "If you do not finish this battle in under 10 rounds YOU have failed by letting the ritual be completed". There no DM Fiat or Only Plot device. Its on the players to pass or fail.
Well yeah but any villian completing their plan is going to be plot, or dm fiat. If the dm wants the villian to complete his plot he will regardles of what the pcs do. And sometimes players can lose due to player stupidity. It's fixable for the dm. I was a player in the game, I have yet to dm. And if I was dm I'd dm 4e not saga. The system just does not look that good to me. I'd probably find a way to adapt 4e to space if I was going to do star wars.
Actually Saga works brilliantly and in many places it is superior to 4e *feats still matter for one* and each class does feel different. Far more so than in 4e before you say "ZOMG NO 4e EACH CLASS IS DIFFERENT!" I'm well aware that classes in 4e are different from each other.
Or the players could just screw up that badly. Or their actions could be what the villain needed all along to win in the end. Etc. Technically -everything- in an RPG is potentially Dm Fiat, in the sense you are trying to say.
Saga's two biggest problems stem back to Varying Attack Bonus, and Stat Penalties. Take away those two and you have a system which might actually be -better- than 4e.
Well yeah but any villian completing their plan is going to be plot, or dm fiat. If the dm wants the villian to complete his plot he will regardles of what the pcs do. And sometimes players can lose due to player stupidity. It's fixable for the dm. I was a player in the game, I have yet to dm. And if I was dm I'd dm 4e not saga. The system just does not look that good to me. I'd probably find a way to adapt 4e to space if I was going to do star wars.Actually Saga works brilliantly and in many places it is superior to 4e *feats still matter for one* and each class does feel different. Far more so than in 4e before you say "ZOMG NO 4e EACH CLASS IS DIFFERENT!" I'm well aware that classes in 4e are different from each other.
Or the players could just screw up that badly. Or their actions could be what the villain needed all along to win in the end. Etc. Technically -everything- in an RPG is potentially Dm Fiat, in the sense you are trying to say.
Saga's two biggest problems stem back to Varying Attack Bonus, and Stat Penalties. Take away those two and you have a system which might actually be -better- than 4e.
Different strokes. I like how feats give smaller bonuses and the power system. To me the talents and such don't make up for the lack of powers. Most characters except for jedi can still just sit there blasting away with basic ranged, or basic melee attacks.
And how many 4e powers are just that? How many powers like Brute Strike are in the game that are just there for DPR? Alot of 4e powers are just Upped Damage basic attacks, that don't count as Basic Attacks. They aren't actually powers. They are there so the "math" works better purely.
And feats, and talents in Saga alot of them grant combat or non combat abilities that work dundun dun just like Effects from Powers do.
The only real difference is how the DPR is handled. Saga handles it with a Level Bonus because they were just Honest about it. (and it speeds up higher level play as a result because of how it interacts with the condition chart)
4e they lie and say "These are powers really!" and either give you straight DPR, or some minor effect to go with the DPR. Which work... a great deal like MANY star wars talents are that are combined with an attack.
All you're saying is you like Red apples to the golden ones there, really.
And how many 4e powers are just that? How many powers like Brute Strike are in the game that are just there for DPR? Alot of 4e powers are just Upped Damage basic attacks, that don't count as Basic Attacks. They aren't actually powers. They are there so the "math" works better purely.
And feats, and talents in Saga alot of them grant combat or non combat abilities that work dundun dun just like Effects from Powers do.
The only real difference is how the DPR is handled. Saga handles it with a Level Bonus because they were just Honest about it. (and it speeds up higher level play as a result because of how it interacts with the condition chart)
4e they lie and say "These are powers really!" and either give you straight DPR, or some minor effect to go with the DPR. Which work... a great deal like MANY star wars talents are that are combined with an attack.
All you're saying is you like Red apples to the golden ones there, really.
Powers also provide narative description, and a lot of them have other effects. I play a warlock because while I like doing damage I also like fun effects at times. Saga combat seems kinda boring at least in the 3 sessions I played. The only ones doing cool things were the jedi.
Powers also provide narative description, and a lot of them have other effects. I play a warlock because while I like doing damage I also like fun effects at times. Saga combat seems kinda boring at least in the 3 sessions I played. The only ones doing cool things were the jedi.
And how is Nimble strike any different than the Move Shoot Move feat from Saga?
Again you come back to the fact that many of 4e's powers are achievable by a Feat in Saga, or a Talent. Then you get things like Force Points (which everyone can do) which are like Powers all unto themselves but more free form in their use. And the you get Destiny points ontop of that.
Most of the abilities that you can't do at will, you can't do at will either in saga and still have a limited use of. Or you get effects like many of the Noble's talents which function a great deal like 4e powers anyway.
Funny you mention the Warlock, which it's no big secret that out of ALL of the classes in 4e it by far has the most Flavorful and Best power descriptions ever.
However when you start getting away from the Warlock you get powers that read like this. And I am quoting by the way.
You strike twice in rapid succession. Which is -higher- level than many of the "awesome" descriptions the warlock gets.
There's alot of Gold in Saga. There's good things 4e does that Saga doesn't. Frankly Powers isn't one of those for 90 percent of the classes and powers. Most of 4e's Perks orient to the cold hard baseline mechanics. (Such as Racial bonuses, racial abilties, Level Bonus instead of Varying BAB, the Role System, Fixed non random Hp, Healing Surges)
4e would probably be at least a little better off had it learned more from Saga. And had it learned that frankly people don't like POS characters. Stop making levels 1-5 POS character levels.
Powers also provide narative description, and a lot of them have other effects. I play a warlock because while I like doing damage I also like fun effects at times. Saga combat seems kinda boring at least in the 3 sessions I played. The only ones doing cool things were the jedi.And how is Nimble strike any different than the Move Shoot Move feat from Saga?
Again you come back to the fact that many of 4e's powers are achievable by a Feat in Saga, or a Talent. Then you get things like Force Points (which everyone can do) which are like Powers all unto themselves but more free form in their use. And the you get Destiny points ontop of that.
Most of the abilities that you can't do at will, you can't do at will either in saga and still have a limited use of. Or you get effects like many of the Noble's talents which function a great deal like 4e powers anyway.
Funny you mention the Warlock, which it's no big secret that out of ALL of the classes in 4e it by far has the most Flavorful and Best power descriptions ever.
However when you start getting away from the Warlock you get powers that read like this. And I am quoting by the way.
You strike twice in rapid succession. Which is -higher- level than many of the "awesome" descriptions the warlock gets.
Yeah but I feel feats in saga are too powerful they define the character more than anything else. Like I said I just don't like the multi class system, and the way force powers work. Wizard is also pretty flavourful as is barbarian with its rages, and avenger, even warlord could be a lot of fun. The classes in saga class that stands out is the jedi.
Yeah but I feel feats in saga are too powerful they define the character more than anything else. Like I said I just don't like the multi class system, and the way force powers work. Wizard is also pretty flavourful as is barbarian with its rages, and avenger, even warlord could be a lot of fun. The classes in saga class that stands out is the jedi.
Why is it okay for Powers to define your character instead of Feats? Also I've found that your Talents are the character definer in Saga. The Feats are still very nice and useful but what I really think of first and foremost is the Talents.
To you maybe. To me the class that immediately jumps out at me in Saga is the Noble. Then the Jedi, then the Soldier. You only think Jedi first because it's star wars. Everyone always thinks Jedi when the words Star Wars is dropped. It's like Pizza and Pepperoni. The Noble does fit the bill for a Warlord character pretty well, as does Soldier. (Since Builds actually mean MORE in Saga than they do in 4e)
The funny thing about the Jedi, is that if you were to port Star Wars into another setting, completely whole sale and change the Jedi's name to Mystic. And said that Mystics could be a myriad of archetypes, they would more or less be what Non Martials are in D&D.
All of those classes and their abilities are something you could still do in a more Saga based format. There's nothing about Powers that make them Exclusive.
My first character in Saga was a Jedi. I did it partly because our GM wanted someone to set down a precedent for what he wanted the Jedi to be. (okay that was mostly why) At the time I was going to be the only Jedi allowed. However not the only force sensitive. The other two pcs became Jedi later, with me as their 'mentor'.
My second character which I've enjoyed a little bit more has been my Clone Trooper however. I'm the most bad ass ***** in the room. And I'm awesome. I put that one tank killing clone trooper in episode III to shame I'm so awesome, along with making the Jedi Npcs around me green with envy.
My third character is my Noble droid, that was constructed to be a singing, entertaining bot that later broke free of her master and discovered that she was capable of being quite an inspiring presence. (and yes she's quite combat capable)
See even if the villian gets away you have technically won the battle. I dont really think you can have a condition track that does not become a death spiral. Combat in 4e is already fairly tactical. Also I hate character death it should happen incredibly seldom. Villains completing their plan is going to be plot device by the dm, and thus not something that rules can do. My group has had to run from a couple fights and come back later, but even then I don't really view that as losing. You've only lost when your dead.
Pretty sure if the villian murders the hostages, takes the artifact and gets away, the players lost. There's no situation where I'm playing a heroic character that I view that as a win--"at least we all lived"---yeah but you got your ass handed to you on a silver platter. And if you think that's DM fiat then you've obviously played with too many railroad DMs; here's the scenario, solve it (however you like/can) or lose is how most DMs I've played with run things, little to no fiat involved.
Running = losing, the foes beat you. If monsters running from players = players winning I don't see how the reverse isn't true.
Saying you only can't make up for a loss if your dead would be true, your statement however is not.
And character death should happen whenever it happens although that's largely a taste issue. I have no problems with lots of it, I find it enriches character development if it is a decently strong possibility.
See even if the villian gets away you have technically won the battle. I dont really think you can have a condition track that does not become a death spiral. Combat in 4e is already fairly tactical. Also I hate character death it should happen incredibly seldom. Villains completing their plan is going to be plot device by the dm, and thus not something that rules can do. My group has had to run from a couple fights and come back later, but even then I don't really view that as losing. You've only lost when your dead.
Pretty sure if the villian murders the hostages, takes the artifact and gets away, the players lost. There's no situation where I'm playing a heroic character that I view that as a win--"at least we all lived"---yeah but you got your ass handed to you on a silver platter. And if you think that's DM fiat then you've obviously played with too many railroad DMs; here's the scenario, solve it (however you like/can) or lose is how most DMs I've played with run things, little to no fiat involved.Running = losing, the foes beat you. If monsters running from players = players winning I don't see how the reverse isn't true.
Saying you only can't make up for a loss if your dead would be true, your statement however is not.
And character death should happen whenever it happens although that's largely a taste issue. I have no problems with lots of it, I find it enriches character development if it is a decently strong possibility.
I just feel that it makes the campaign better if it happens seldom to never that way you have the same characters going through the entire campaign.
On feats/talents, or powers. I personally feel the powers each class get make those classes feel unique and different yes you can do the same with talents I just like the power system better, in part because I don't really understand the talent system at all. And no jedi jumped out at me because it looked like a really useful one, until I realized skill training is useless in saga, yeah only taking skills from your class would be first thing I'd house rule, second would be multi classing, I'd probably disallow it entirley or change the way it works. I really really don't like the way it appears in saga.
First impression I thought the Noble was the **** experience with Saga later. Noble is still the ****.
The Jedi is -okay- for an individual character, but to me the more party useful classes are pretty much everyone else. Force powers I think could be opened up abit more but that's a preference issue more than any balance one. You can still do the force power thing, without being a Jedi so again minor thing.
Skill training I am of two minds for, given how the multiclassing works in Star Wars it makes sense, except I feel you don't get quite enough feats in Saga. The multiclassing also works much much better, than you think it does. really it's only superficially resembling 3es in final execution. It lacks alot .. okay most of the problems 3e's multiclassing actually has.
First impression I thought the Noble was the **** experience with Saga later. Noble is still the ****.
The Jedi is -okay- for an individual character, but to me the more party useful classes are pretty much everyone else. Force powers I think could be opened up abit more but that's a preference issue more than any balance one. You can still do the force power thing, without being a Jedi so again minor thing.
Skill training I am of two minds for, given how the multiclassing works in Star Wars it makes sense, except I feel you don't get quite enough feats in Saga. The multiclassing also works much much better, than you think it does. really it's only superficially resembling 3es in final execution. It lacks alot .. okay most of the problems 3e's multiclassing actually has.
I think thats probably due to no spell levels and other such things more than the mechanics being that much better. Going back on topic for 5e what I'd like to see are a lot more utility powers for each character, and at least examples of how combat powers can be used outside of combat. A tweaked ritual system where it still takes resources and time but not as many resources or as much time. I'd also like to see a way to pre cast a ritual but not fully cast it till you need it.