This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The message boards have been upgraded. Please log in to your existing account by clicking here. It will ask twice, so that it can properly update your password and login information. If it has trouble recognizing your password, click the 'Forgot your password?' link to reset it with a new password sent to your email address on file.

Author Topic: Nutkinland 4.0: D&D sacred cows vs. design features  (Read 4048 times)

blakkie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • b
  • Posts: 2648
    • View Profile
Nutkinland 4.0: D&D sacred cows vs. design features
« Reply #30 on: June 09, 2006, 12:09:35 PM »
Quote from: Gunhilda
Yes, it did.  Proficiencies were almost entirely based on the ability score -- sure, you could spend proficiency slots to improve the score, but that was woefully inefficient.



Quote
In 2e, an 18/something Strength meant something.


A rose by another name.  What you are describing is the effect of magic items getting a boost.  Because of the utterly quirky Strength percentile it wasn't that easy to describe relative Strength increases up to and through 18.  As well ability score advancement became a regular and normal thing in 3e.

Now your initial roll in 3e doesn't mean as much since it isn't the end of the line like it was in AD&D, barring Wishes. But that is something very different.
"Because honestly? I have no idea what you do. None." - Pierce Inverarity

Gunhilda

  • +12 Banhammer, Trollbane
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • G
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Nutkinland 4.0: D&D sacred cows vs. design features
« Reply #31 on: June 09, 2006, 12:14:52 PM »
Quote from: Xavier Lang
Magic Item creation.

Allow for intelligent item creation the same way you do normal.  Let people pay for better intelligence, special abilities, etc...  It shouldn't be random.

Instead of EXP cost have a time/energy cost of magic item creation.
Allow modifiers of the gold cost, and depending on balance, the time cost based upon situation, materials, etc...

To make a +1 sword have it take the number of days to make that it would take to cast true strike or whatever spell you pick to be cast say 100 times.  If you can cast 5 first level spells, it takes 20 full days not just the time it takes to cast a 1st level spell 5 times.  Allow spell casters to work together on something.  So 3 wizards could finish it in 7 days but each has to cast all of there 1st level spells every day.  This would allow a mage's guild to build a magic item in a day or 2 if they have the incentive, and would allow apprentice mages to make low level items.  You could always restrict things so that one wizard, the one leading, has to have the feat of item creation but the others don't.  This would help explain why mages gather and why there are so many low level items for PC's to find.  If  while I'm doing research I can have a couple of apprentices make a couple of +1 swords a year, the apprentices can pay for themselves the way a journeyman or apprentice works with teh master on creating non magical things.
In 3e, I like that there *is* a method of magic item creation.  However, I'm not happy with any of the details, either.  If I'm playing the mage, am I going to drop the xp for the fighter's +3 vorpal hemmoroid-inducing longsword?  Not unless I am getting a MONSTROUS share of the treasure, glory, and wenches.

And the chance of me making a +1 dagger is still exactly zero.

I like your idea, Xavier, 'cause it actually makes some sense to me.  :)
 

blakkie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • b
  • Posts: 2648
    • View Profile
Nutkinland 4.0: D&D sacred cows vs. design features
« Reply #32 on: June 09, 2006, 12:17:47 PM »
Quote from: Gunhilda
Well, at least you know you're playing with fire.  :p


I like fire. Fire fun! :combust:

Quote
I will try explaining what I mean again tonight or tomorrow when I have access to my PHB.  I am talking about replacing the huge bonuses to stats that large+ monsters get in D&D with a size stat.  And I will be able to make this clearer if I have the chart to look at.


I'm just saying that the chart of bonuses is already there right in the 3e book. It just wasn't used in the way you are suggesting. Instead they went wild with the physical ability scores, incorporating into them a duplicate of that size bonus they already had assigned to those larger (and smaller) creatures.

I like the root of your idea. I'm just pointing out that you don't need to create a new source for the bonus, it is already there.
"Because honestly? I have no idea what you do. None." - Pierce Inverarity

Gunhilda

  • +12 Banhammer, Trollbane
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • G
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Nutkinland 4.0: D&D sacred cows vs. design features
« Reply #33 on: June 09, 2006, 12:25:20 PM »
All right, now that the ibuprofen is FINALLY starting to kick in, I think that we're just talking sideways at each other.  What I was planning was taking that very chart and making it the chart for the size stat, where smaller and larger monsters get their adjustments to damage and whatnot.

But I see now what you're saying (I think) that a stat isn't needed -- just saying they're Large is enough.  Their size then just gives the relevent bonuses.
 

blakkie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • b
  • Posts: 2648
    • View Profile
Nutkinland 4.0: D&D sacred cows vs. design features
« Reply #34 on: June 09, 2006, 12:32:17 PM »
Quote from: Gunhilda
All right, now that the ibuprofen is FINALLY starting to kick in, I think that we're just talking sideways at each other.  What I was planning was taking that very chart and making it the chart for the size stat, where smaller and larger monsters get their adjustments to damage and whatnot.

But I see now what you're saying (I think) that a stat isn't needed -- just saying they're Large is enough.  Their size then just gives the relevent bonuses.


Ding!

Turdquaffer. :emot-flowers:
"Because honestly? I have no idea what you do. None." - Pierce Inverarity

Name Lips

  • Likes Egyptian Rivers
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • N
  • Posts: 501
    • View Profile
Nutkinland 4.0: D&D sacred cows vs. design features
« Reply #35 on: June 09, 2006, 12:33:23 PM »
I'm recalling an option in the BoVD to create items with lower XP cost - it requires extracting souls from intelligent beings and using them to fuel magic item creation. You need a lot of souls to get a good item, and it's permenantly tainted evil, but it's a thought.
Next phase, new wave, dance craze, anyways, it's still rock and roll to me.

You can talk all you want about theory, craft, or whatever. But in the end, it's still just new ways of looking at people playing make-believe and having a good time with their friends. Intellectualize or analyze all you want, but we've been playing the same game since we were 2 years old. We just have shinier books, spend more money, and use bigger words now.

ColonelHardisson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2584
    • View Profile
Nutkinland 4.0: D&D sacred cows vs. design features
« Reply #36 on: June 09, 2006, 01:33:36 PM »
Quote from: obryn
Hell no.  Where'd you get that from in my post?


It was pretty easy to make the progression, since I've heard the "real life stats" spiel a helluva lot more over the years than people speculating about their alignment.

Quote from: obryn
I hear that a lot less than the goddamn alignment thing, though.


Odd. I've always heard just the opposite.
"Illegitimis non carborundum." - General Joseph "Vinegar Joe" Stilwell

4e definitely has an Old School feel. If you disagree, cool. I won't throw any hyperbole out to prove the point.

Zalmoxis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 595
    • View Profile
Nutkinland 4.0: D&D sacred cows vs. design features
« Reply #37 on: June 09, 2006, 05:26:00 PM »
I misunderstood early on... I thought this was what we thought D&D could not do without and still be called D&D. The ideas in here are really great though.

Dacke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • D
  • Posts: 311
    • View Profile
Nutkinland 4.0: D&D sacred cows vs. design features
« Reply #38 on: June 09, 2006, 06:09:23 PM »
Quote from: Xavier Lang
Currently each spell in D&D is a special case rule and everything has to be spelled out in the spell individually.  Toss that.
 
Create basic ideas such as Energy Attack.  Let players assign parameters to it, such as energy type, range, duration, shape, etc... at the cost of making it a higher or lower level spell.
No. Nonononono.

One of the things I like the most about D&D is the quirkiness of the spells and magic items. In a "roll your own" magic system, you almost never see spells like Evard's Black Tentacles, Changestaff, Bigby's Clenched Fist, "I prepared Explosive Runes today", Mordenkainen's Magnificient Mansion, or Rope Trick. Neither would you see a Ring of the Ram, a Ring of Shooting Stars, a Bag of Tricks, a Folding Boat, or various Feather Tokens. That kind of stuff is one of the main draws of D&D for me.
 

ColonelHardisson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2584
    • View Profile
Nutkinland 4.0: D&D sacred cows vs. design features
« Reply #39 on: June 09, 2006, 06:17:47 PM »
Quote from: Dacke
No. Nonononono.

One of the things I like the most about D&D is the quirkiness of the spells and magic items. In a "roll your own" magic system, you almost never see spells like Evard's Black Tentacles, Changestaff, Bigby's Clenched Fist, "I prepared Explosive Runes today", Mordenkainen's Magnificient Mansion, or Rope Trick. Neither would you see a Ring of the Ram, a Ring of Shooting Stars, a Bag of Tricks, a Folding Boat, or various Feather Tokens. That kind of stuff is one of the main draws of D&D for me.


I totally agree. Systems like those in Ars Magica and Black Company d20 seem cool in theory, but are so hard to use in a spontaneous way without taking up a lot of time during play while the players tries to piece together what he wants his spell to do.

That said, a system which took apart the current D&D spell system and provided players with the ability to do magic that way would be OK, as long as the spells as they exist now remain. So players of spellcasters could still load up on "prepackaged" spells, like they do now, but the system would be there for those who want to come up with spells on the fly. Otherwise, I get the feeling you'd end up with a lot of spellcasters that resemble the Warlock from Complete Arcane.
"Illegitimis non carborundum." - General Joseph "Vinegar Joe" Stilwell

4e definitely has an Old School feel. If you disagree, cool. I won't throw any hyperbole out to prove the point.

Xavier Lang

  • I'm BillyBeanBag's fault.
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • X
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Nutkinland 4.0: D&D sacred cows vs. design features
« Reply #40 on: June 09, 2006, 06:18:22 PM »
I wonder if there would be a workable way to remove some of the bonuses and stuff from D&D and make them ability score dependant?

Example - you don't have a will save.  You have a wisdom score.  You roll and add your wisdom, that's your "will" save.  No need for the extra thingy.
roll 1d20 + con for fortitude type effects.
roll 1d20 + dex for reflext type effects.

Yes, you would have to make DC's higher.

Damage could be 1d4(dagger) + 1/2 Str or even just 1d4 + str but then you have to increase hit points a lot.

Then every point would matter,odd or even in your stats instead of them being used to determine other things sometimes but rarely used directly.
 

ColonelHardisson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2584
    • View Profile
Nutkinland 4.0: D&D sacred cows vs. design features
« Reply #41 on: June 09, 2006, 06:24:46 PM »
Quote from: Xavier Lang
I wonder if there would be a workable way to remove some of the bonuses and stuff from D&D and make them ability score dependant?

Example - you don't have a will save.  You have a wisdom score.  You roll and add your wisdom, that's your "will" save.  No need for the extra thingy.
roll 1d20 + con for fortitude type effects.
roll 1d20 + dex for reflext type effects.

Yes, you would have to make DC's higher.

Damage could be 1d4(dagger) + 1/2 Str or even just 1d4 + str but then you have to increase hit points a lot.

Then every point would matter,odd or even in your stats instead of them being used to determine other things sometimes but rarely used directly.


mearls proposed something like this in the "what use are stats?" thread.
"Illegitimis non carborundum." - General Joseph "Vinegar Joe" Stilwell

4e definitely has an Old School feel. If you disagree, cool. I won't throw any hyperbole out to prove the point.

Xavier Lang

  • I'm BillyBeanBag's fault.
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • X
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Nutkinland 4.0: D&D sacred cows vs. design features
« Reply #42 on: June 09, 2006, 06:37:48 PM »
Quote from: Dacke
No. Nonononono.

One of the things I like the most about D&D is the quirkiness of the spells and magic items. In a "roll your own" magic system, you almost never see spells like Evard's Black Tentacles, Changestaff, Bigby's Clenched Fist, "I prepared Explosive Runes today", Mordenkainen's Magnificient Mansion, or Rope Trick. Neither would you see a Ring of the Ram, a Ring of Shooting Stars, a Bag of Tricks, a Folding Boat, or various Feather Tokens. That kind of stuff is one of the main draws of D&D for me.


Evard's Black Tentacles is entangle + damage. Its one of the simpler to do.
Bigby's Clenched Fist is a damaging force effect.  Casual.
Explosive Runes - Damaging + hidden + trigger.  Simple.

Folding Boat is a simple conjurable boat that you can unconjure.
A feather token is a potion that someone put sprinkles on.

I want a player to create Bigby's Clenched Fist because they like punching people and its a convenient way to descibe magic in a role playing sense.
I want the numbers behing the scenes to be formula's that are easy to calculate and or modify without every spell being a special case.

A huge portion of the absues in D&D are based around there being too many special cases and not enough framework.

A swarm of insects that decend on the area and eat your enemies should be mechanically the same as a blast of lightning from the sky.  Its annoying to have to look up each spell in each book and watch for wierd extra special stuff that may or may not have been thrown in instead of being able to know what the spell would do by formula.

Ever tried to make a uniquely flavored bad guy and then discovered they use the same spells as everyone else in the same ways because some spells are just better than others?  That's lame.  I shouldn't have to write up 15 spells so my guy can use almost exclusively acid spells.  I should be able to change the energy type to acid for him and go.

I would rather give the formula's to the players to use there creativity and tactical abilty to figure out how to use the magic than to have them play librarian and look up the best spell or spells for a situation.
 

Xavier Lang

  • I'm BillyBeanBag's fault.
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • X
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Nutkinland 4.0: D&D sacred cows vs. design features
« Reply #43 on: June 09, 2006, 06:38:43 PM »
Quote from: ColonelHardisson
mearls proposed something like this in the "what use are stats?" thread.

Must have missed it, ooops.
 

Xavier Lang

  • I'm BillyBeanBag's fault.
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • X
  • Posts: 185
    • View Profile
Nutkinland 4.0: D&D sacred cows vs. design features
« Reply #44 on: June 09, 2006, 06:45:12 PM »
Quote from: ColonelHardisson

That said, a system which took apart the current D&D spell system and provided players with the ability to do magic that way would be OK, as long as the spells as they exist now remain. So players of spellcasters could still load up on "prepackaged" spells, like they do now, but the system would be there for those who want to come up with spells on the fly. Otherwise, I get the feeling you'd end up with a lot of spellcasters that resemble the Warlock from Complete Arcane.


I would be prefectly fine with a spell system that had tons of good examples that were pre built so someone didn't have to do anything than pick existing spells.  I would like players to be able to be fluid and creative with there spells if the GM and players wanted to be.

Burning Hands
Aganazar's scorcher
Fireball
Wall of Fire
Delayed Blast Fireball
Meteor Swarm

These should all be one spell with different parameters.

I don't think people realize how basic and unoriginal the vast majority of spells are in terms of actual affect.  The color and description placed on them can be amazing.  What they actually do number wise isn't as varied.