Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 atanakar Nov 13, 2009 18:00:02	[First let me says I'm a big fan of 4E. I have almost all the books and modules. My current campaign started on June 24th 2008 and characters are now level 15. I plan to bring them to level 30... unless they do something stupid !] Here we go : You've played D&D4E for a while now. What if we were to create AD&D again! A special set of optional rules that could be added to DD4E to augment its scope. What would you like to see in it? How would you go about it? Or maybe you hate the idea! All comments accepted !
#2 Dragoncat Nov 13, 2009 18:24:09	This post....makes little sense. Most of the rules are modular.  A single power is modular addition to a class, a class is a modular addition to the entire game, the inclusion of a power source is modular, the addition of an item, a ritual, or an entire gameplay mechanic is already modular in nature. You're basically asking "Hey, do you want to homebrew things?" in a forum section about homebrewing things.  I think you will find that most people do, but things need to be more specific.
#3 bone_naga Nov 14, 2009 13:51:30	I would see this as being more of an Unearthed Arcana or Players Option series, as opposed to AD&D which was its own ruleset, and then you ended up with two product lines from the same company competing with each other. That said, I love the idea of more complex rules and would really like to see a book on that. Hmmm, some things to put in it. A wound system as an optional replacement for HP, a more robust (and deadly) critical hit system (like the old combat and tactics crit charts), facing rules (like 2e AD&D had), a system for using armor as hardness/DR, better guidelines on creating powers and rituals, and a more detailed system for improvised combat maneuvers (something along the lines of what was in Iron Heroes or the Book of Iron Might).
#4 tequila_sunrise Nov 14, 2009 14:41:57	I can't think of a single 2e rule I'd ever like to use again, though I could be forgetting a hidden gem somewhere. I think you're going to have to start the ball rolling here.
#5 wrecan Nov 15, 2009 6:47:58	I'm going to rephrase the OP's question in a way that makes more sense to me: The philosophy "Everything is Core" in D&D means that optional rules are unlikely to be released.  But if Wizards were to release an Unerathed Arcana supplement of optional rules that would not be considered part of the game's core -- but had been extensively playtested -- what sorts of optional rules would you like them to design for us?
#6 atanakar Nov 15, 2009 13:04:37	The philosophy "Everything is Core" in D&D means that optional rules are unlikely to be released.  But if Wizards were to release an Unerathed Arcana supplement of optional rules that would not be considered part of the game's core -- but had been extensively playtested -- what sorts of optional rules would you like them to design for us?
#7 1shmael Nov 16, 2009 4:53:44	Here we go : You've played D&D4E for a while now. What if we were to create AD&D again! A special set of optional rules that could be added to DD4E to augment its scope. What would you like to see in it? How would you go about it? Or maybe you hate the idea! All comments accepted ! I'm writing that book now.
#8 1shmael Nov 16, 2009 4:56:54	[First let me says I'm a big fan of 4E. BTW... in this forum, always assume the first reply in any new thread will read something like, "Hey. Great Post. For me to poop on!" Great lot of imaginative folks here.
#9 1shmael Nov 16, 2009 5:06:46	That said, I love the idea of more complex rules and would really like to see a book on that. Awsome. I failed to do any market research before I got started. Nice to know there is a market. Hmmm, some things to put in it. A wound system as an optional replacement for HP Done (though it augments the HP system -- doesn't replace it -- it adds flavor without taking over the game) a more robust (and deadly) critical hit system (like the old combat and tactics crit charts) Done. Its tailored specifically for 4E. It was an enormous amount of work. But a lot of that work went into minimizing its lethality. It's easy to create a critical hit system that randomly kills player characters. And it sucks. Not so easy to create a system that doesn't produce random decapitations while still allows for the event to occur. facing rules (like 2e AD&D had) Done. But it's kept very simple and it's handled in a way that's counter-intuitive (to keep it simple). I don't want to replace the 4E combat mechanics -- just increase their load-bearing capacity. ...and a more detailed system for improvised combat maneuvers Oh just you wait and see my boy. Just you wait and see.
#10 lord_raziere Nov 16, 2009 19:33:55	Advanced Technology.  Guns, lasers, robots do not belong in D&D proper.  But since Dave Arneson wrote an adventure in which adventurers discover alien technology (not to mention Gygax's immortal Barrier Peaks adventure) there has been a long tradition of mixing D&D and sci fi.  Advanced tech would make a nice optional ruleset that should not be considered part of the "everything is core" philosophy. like designing tech-source classes (artificer don't count) like Cyborg (defender) Engineer (controller) Grenadier (striker who uses explosives) and....Medic (leader) what would the rules be for ships and vehicles though? would there some Pilot class who could pilot vehicles and ships and fight vehicle to vehicle?
#11 bone_naga Nov 16, 2009 22:31:07	I'm writing that book now. When will it be released? What will it be called? And you better make good on your promises, or else...
#12 Rustmonster Nov 16, 2009 23:48:09	I'd much rather have a "Basic D&D 4E" made. 4E is plenty complex enough. Yeah, a book full of alternate rules and stuff might be really neat. But I'd really like a book that distilled 4E into a simpler and quicker to run form.
#13 1shmael Nov 17, 2009 3:28:07	When will it be released? What will it be called? And you better make good on your promises, or else... I am aiming to finish the writing in two months. I've been working on the project for a full year but much of that time has been taken up in constant beta-testing and revision, revision, revision. Making everything simple to use and maintaining system balance has been priority number one.
#14 ah_maclimeszero Nov 17, 2009 12:25:43	I'd much rather have a "Basic D&D 4E" made. 4E is plenty complex enough. Yeah, a book full of alternate rules and stuff might be really neat. But I'd really like a book that distilled 4E into a simpler and quicker to run form. Good lord. Really? 4e is far and away the simplest D&D game ever released. If it got any simpler, you'd lose any sense of uniqueness at all.
#15 Rustmonster Nov 17, 2009 20:19:28	I'd much rather have a "Basic D&D 4E" made. 4E is plenty complex enough. Yeah, a book full of alternate rules and stuff might be really neat. But I'd really like a book that distilled 4E into a simpler and quicker to run form. Good lord. Really? 4e is far and away the simplest D&D game ever released. If it got any simpler, you'd lose any sense of uniqueness at all. I disagree strongly. Look back to editions before 3E. Where was the complexity? Most classes didn't even have a single choice to make as to how they progress. 4E is relativly complex, with powers, feats, skills, action points, more tactical combat, etc. I also disagree that a simpler version of 4E would "lose any sense of uniqueness at all". How can you tell that this hypothetical game would have no choices? It would only have no choices if they were not given, in which case that isn't the game I am asking for.
#16 lord_raziere Nov 17, 2009 22:46:36	I'd much rather have a "Basic D&D 4E" made. 4E is plenty complex enough. Yeah, a book full of alternate rules and stuff might be really neat. But I'd really like a book that distilled 4E into a simpler and quicker to run form. .......you need to it be even simpler? its the simplest edition to date......it was designed to be simple, easy to get into and play fast in the first place, so as to widen the customers they would have. if 4E as it is isn't simple enough then maybe your simply not patient enough? really, compared to other editions, 4E is the simplest you can't go simpler, and its the quickest to run yet.
#17 bone_naga Nov 18, 2009 0:46:15	.......you need to it be even simpler? its the simplest edition to date......it was designed to be simple, easy to get into and play fast in the first place, so as to widen the customers they would have. if 4E as it is isn't simple enough then maybe your simply not patient enough? really, compared to other editions, 4E is the simplest you can't go simpler, and its the quickest to run yet. I don't know about simplest. OD&D and 1e were pretty damn simple. Even spellcasters didn't have the literally hundreds of options that they did in later editions. You even had a chart that you looked at when you rolled instead of calculating BAB and THAC0. Also, while 4e is the quickest to prep, I wouldn't say it is the quickest to run. Battles in particular seem to take a long time, even at low levels. Previous editions didn't seem to have that issue until higher levels. Not that I'm bashing 4e at all, I love it, I just thought I'd point that out.
#18 lord_raziere Nov 18, 2009 9:05:00	.......you need to it be even simpler? its the simplest edition to date......it was designed to be simple, easy to get into and play fast in the first place, so as to widen the customers they would have. if 4E as it is isn't simple enough then maybe your simply not patient enough? really, compared to other editions, 4E is the simplest you can't go simpler, and its the quickest to run yet. I don't know about simplest. OD&D and 1e were pretty damn simple. Even spellcasters didn't have the literally hundreds of options that they did in later editions. You even had a chart that you looked at when you rolled instead of calculating BAB and THAC0. Also, while 4e is the quickest to prep, I wouldn't say it is the quickest to run. Battles in particular seem to take a long time, even at low levels. Previous editions didn't seem to have that issue until higher levels. Not that I'm bashing 4e at all, I love it, I just thought I'd point that out. Simplest one still in print then, for I've never read the older editions, aside from 3.5, and do not wish to if there is such a lack of options Where have these battles taken place? PbP? or in real life?
#19 ah_maclimeszero Nov 18, 2009 9:13:21	Wow. I have experienced the exact opposite. Battles seem to be MUCH faster than in, for example, 3.x. Man, those fights took forever.
#20 thakowsaizmu Nov 19, 2009 15:40:18	I'd much rather have a "Basic D&D 4E" made. 4E is plenty complex enough. Yeah, a book full of alternate rules and stuff might be really neat. But I'd really like a book that distilled 4E into a simpler and quicker to run form. Good lord. Really? 4e is far and away the simplest D&D game ever released. If it got any simpler, you'd lose any sense of uniqueness at all. I disagree strongly. Look back to editions before 3E. Where was the complexity? Most classes didn't even have a single choice to make as to how they progress. 4E is relativly complex, with powers, feats, skills, action points, more tactical combat, etc. I also disagree that a simpler version of 4E would "lose any sense of uniqueness at all". How can you tell that this hypothetical game would have no choices? It would only have no choices if they were not given, in which case that isn't the game I am asking for. You... didn't play AD&D, did you? Casters had spells they had to choose from and prepare per slot. Non-Weapon Proficiencies were based on all sorts of different factors. Kits added more NWP and other features to your character. And this is all just in the core book alone. I mean, sure, you could play without minis, but that is about as simple as the game got. Perhaps you forgot about SysShock, THAC0 and calculating movement. Oh calculating movement!
#21 ah_maclimeszero Nov 19, 2009 15:49:16	You... didn't play AD&D, did you? Casters had spells they had to choose from and prepare per slot. Non-Weapon Proficiencies were based on all sorts of different factors. Kits added more NWP and other features to your character. And this is all just in the core book alone. I mean, sure, you could play without minis, but that is about as simple as the game got. Perhaps you forgot about SysShock, THAC0 and calculating movement. Oh calculating movement! *twitch*
#22 bone_naga Nov 19, 2009 16:12:50	Where have these battles taken place? PbP? or in real life? IRL. Planning the battles and designing encounters is quick, but actually slugging through the battles seems to take too long unless you use lots of minions to fill the XP budget. 3e had that too, but not until higher levels. Some of it is almost certainly due to the players, but given the number of threads on the subject, it doesn't seem to be just my group.
#23 atanakar Nov 19, 2009 19:48:53	Having played all editions from the White Box to 4E I'd say 4E is by far simpler to play than 3.5. Its a much more elegant/logical system then OAD&D or 2AD&D. Basic rules where the first so I don't comment on them since it was pioneer work! Anyhow, what would YOU like to see in AD&D/Unearthed Arcana REDUX ?
#24 nerach Dec 05, 2009 10:43:34	Having played since basic D&D (the original red book), I would have to say that the entire feel of the game has changed a lot over the editions. Before I say anything else, I have yet to get into a 4E game and play or DM, and I'm still quite hesitant to do so. The more I've read, the more it feels like an MMORPG on paper where play balance is the most important facet. I'm not saying that there's anything with the change of focus -- only that it's there. Comparing a 1st level fighter and a 1st level wizard in AD&D 2E looks a lot different from D&D 4E. So does comparing these two classes again at level 20.  Some classes were meant to be a lot easier earlier on but the trade-off is that they peaked sooner and not nearly as high.  The best real life comparison that I could would be look at the lives of a carpenter and a lawyer. The carpenter goes straight from school into his trade, gaining the benefits of being employed immediately. Where as the lawyer's progression is slowed significantly by years of schooling. If both persons excelled in their chosen professions (ie. made it to level 20 or 30 in D&D terms), it would be hard to argue who would be the more 'powerful' of the two.  I'm lost on how things like the original Champions of the Lance group would have translated into 4E, or how their progression would have changed in actual game terms. It's hard to imagine Raistlin and Caramon on equal terms throughout their lives.  That's the flavor that I see lost in 4E.
#25 bone_naga Dec 05, 2009 14:47:40	Having played since basic D&D (the original red book), I would have to say that the entire feel of the game has changed a lot over the editions. Before I say anything else, I have yet to get into a 4E game and play or DM, and I'm still quite hesitant to do so. The more I've read, the more it feels like an MMORPG on paper where play balance is the most important facet. I'm not saying that there's anything with the change of focus -- only that it's there. Comparing a 1st level fighter and a 1st level wizard in AD&D 2E looks a lot different from D&D 4E. So does comparing these two classes again at level 20.  Some classes were meant to be a lot easier earlier on but the trade-off is that they peaked sooner and not nearly as high.  The best real life comparison that I could would be look at the lives of a carpenter and a lawyer. The carpenter goes straight from school into his trade, gaining the benefits of being employed immediately. Where as the lawyer's progression is slowed significantly by years of schooling. If both persons excelled in their chosen professions (ie. made it to level 20 or 30 in D&D terms), it would be hard to argue who would be the more 'powerful' of the two.  I'm lost on how things like the original Champions of the Lance group would have translated into 4E, or how their progression would have changed in actual game terms. It's hard to imagine Raistlin and Caramon on equal terms throughout their lives.  That's the flavor that I see lost in 4E. There is more emphasis on balance, but a lot of those changes have translated wonderfully into play. Unfortunately, you really have to play it to understand how a lot of it works. 4e kind of reads like crap, but plays great. As for your examples, yes its fun for characters in a story to have varying levels of power, but not so much in a game. If you were recreating LotR, would you rather be someone like Aragorn or Gandalf or would you like to be Sam and hide behind everyone else? Also, in game terms the power disparity between two individuals could be better described as a difference in levels rather than one class being more powerful than the other. As for stuff about 4e being an MMO, play the game first, don't listen to hearsay. Yes the editions are very different, otherwise there wouldn't be much point in buying the new edition. In the end, it whether you like the particular rules or not, it is still very much D&D at its heart.
#26 ah_maclimeszero Dec 05, 2009 21:38:03	4e kind of reads like crap, but plays great. A thousand times, this. When I first read the books, I made a large number of unpleasant faces and confused grunts. But having run the game for several months now, I have to say, it is the most fun on the table I've had in a long time. I LIKE the balance. I enjoy that a level XX wizard is the same power as the level XX fighter. It is no fun being level 1, casting your spell, and then waiting until tomorrow to do it again. And the inverse, it's no fun being level 18, smacking one guy, and watching the wizard obliterate hordes of enemies with a yawn. I've heard the "less flavor" argument about the disparity in power. But what it really does is remove the mechanical enforcement of flavor, and encourage you to come up with your own.
#27 Dragoncat Dec 05, 2009 21:48:14	You catched my drift Wrecan. I would like to see: - Intuitive and fast paced mass combat rules. Shameless plug? Try over here for my little beta of three different unit types to help with mass combat; environmental troops that come in waves but can be slain individually, squad forces that act as small groups mimicing player classes in mass that use a simple hit threshold mechanic instead of hp, and legions which allow the deployment of these forces in a wide area with hit points for attrition. It's.....it's really, really long, sorry about that, but it might be useful.
#28 drnick Dec 07, 2009 11:11:47	Replacement of comic book alignments with a more sofisticated/psychological approach. Unfortunately, previous editions alignment systems weren't realistic either nor were they complex enough (after all complex = fun, right?). My recommendation is that all players must complete a Meyers-Briggs-Jung personality test for their character and abide by that. It's much more realistic and complex! (BTW, my paladin is a total ENFP).
#29 pigfiend Dec 18, 2009 13:17:30	The thing I miss most from being an AD&D player was the funny multi-classing. The finnickiness of dividing your experience between classes that required different amounts to level up appealed to the young me. I was so dorky that I kept a track of each third of a hit die gain in an elven fighter/magic-user/thief in case of level drain. Maybe the appeal is pure nostalgia. I remember the excitement of having the good ability scores and the accompanying chance to play a special class like Ranger or Paladin. Of course... this was a combination of power fantasy and overcoming the odds if only the ones involved in rolling 3d6. Oh! I'm also nostalgic for a lot of the Monster Manual illustrations. Type II Demon will always be that frog. Beholder will always first be that sphere with the crinkly fang-filled grin.