D&D 4th edition rules and what we can learn from them...

[Lord Twig]

The problem I have with 4e is that it is moving away from simulation to cinematic. I like simulation RPGs. I do not like cinematic RPGs.

To give an example, Firecube is a big problem for me. I know that a lot of people feel that the simplicity of being able to count one square as one square, even when going diagonal, is worth the anomaly, but for me it breaks my willing suspension of disbelief. I find myself going, “That’s stupid! How hard is it to make a circle on a grid map? Here, I can do it in two seconds!” The simulationist gamer in me just goes berserk.

Of course I can house rule the diagonal movement, but it is just one example of many.

I don’t like the use of cards. These are optional, but you can use "Power cards" to track your abilities and whether you have used them or not. It smacks of D&D: the Gathering.

I don’t like the new roles (Striker, defender, controller, leader): Dungeons of Warcraft.

I don’t like that angels are no longer Good: Now you have more monsters to kill! Seriously, angels are no longer Good so that they don't waste space in the Monster Manual on monsters that you will never fight.

I don’t like the new demons and devils: Devils have wings, demons don’t. (What are they? Autobots and Deceptigons?)

I don’t like Healing surges: The 30th level epic cleric can heal an army of wounded, but he can’t heal you (you used all your healing surges). You are done for today, take a six hour nap and you’ll be fine. You are fully healed and have all your powers back ofter 6 hours of rest.

I don’t like how recharge chances are listed as “Recharge: 4 5 6”. Like I can’t figure out that I need to roll a 4 or higher on a d6 if they just put “Recharge: 4” there? (It is a nitpick I know, but really it makes me think they are questioning my intelligence.)

Minions. All minions have 1hp. I find it hilarious that an ogre that might take 100 points of damage to drop when you are 3rd level, will die with a single dagger thrust from the wizard at 10th level. At 3rd level he was the “boss”, but at 10th he is just the Giant’s minion.

There is more, but you get the idea.

I guess I can sum up everything above with the simple statement that I fundamentally disagree with WotC’s design philosophy for 4th edition.

[Harshax]

I'd say one of the more innovative concepts in 4E is the idea that combatants tend to be pushed, pulled, shifted, or slid around the battlefield. I find this idea to be very intriguing, it makes combat more dynamic as you may be forced to give ground, or feinted into enemy ranks, or simply knocked back from the position of wedging yourself in a doorway. Could BRP use this? Yes.

The idea that everyone has powers is also pretty neat, in the sense that it gives some narrative control to the players. This could easily be incorporated using a character's POW. Much like spellcasters using POW to fuel spells, combatants could use POW to capitalize on martial exploits and thereby perform a few neat tricks. Could BRP use this? Maybe?

Rituals. In 4E, spells all focus on combat effects. Non-combat magic is based on rituals, and the economy of rituals is; AFAIK; based more on time and materials. BRP already has something like this, but it's still based on the economy of POW (RQ3 rituals)

[Lord Twig]

Originally Posted by Harshax

I'd say one of the more innovative concepts in 4E is the idea that combatants tend to be pushed, pulled, shifted, or slid around the battlefield. I find this idea to be very intriguing, it makes combat more dynamic as you may be forced to give ground, or feinted into enemy ranks, or simply knocked back from the position of wedging yourself in a doorway. Could BRP use this? Yes.

Not everything that 4e proposes is bad. The idea of moving around in combat is good, but I honestly do not like the way that they have implemented it.

Originally Posted by Harshax

The idea that everyone has powers is also pretty neat, in the sense that it gives some narrative control to the players. This could easily be incorporated using a character's POW. Much like spellcasters using POW to fuel spells, combatants could use POW to capitalize on martial exploits and thereby perform a few neat tricks. Could BRP use this? Maybe?

BRP could use this I guess, but I won't. Powers, feats, whatever you call them, BRP doesn't need them in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Harshax

Rituals. In 4E, spells all focus on combat effects. Non-combat magic is based on rituals, and the economy of rituals is; AFAIK; based more on time and materials. BRP already has something like this, but it's still based on the economy of POW (RQ3 rituals)

Spending Experience Points to make magic items or preform magic spells was always a bad idea, so it is good that they are trying to fix that. I thought that the ritual magic in RQ3 was excellent. Definitely ahead of it's time. Something like it should be added to BRP. Probably in that 'Magic Source book' that everybody agrees would be a great idea, but no one is writing yet.

[Harshax]

Originally Posted by Lord Twig

Not everything that 4e proposes is bad. The idea of moving around in combat is good, but I honestly do not like the way that they have implemented it.

BRP already has many of what 4e thinks is new: Brutal critical hits, knockback with bludgeon weapons, impales with piercing weapons. All it is missing is simple mechanics for feints, or to borrow from Savage Worlds 'Tricks'.

A 'Trick' is any maneuver in combat that is meant to lower someone's defenses. It could be anything from the classic [looking over opponent's should] and saying 'Glad you finally showed up', to throwing sand in someone's face, or an intimidating shout.

Tricks can be Agility tricks (feints), Psychological (POW, eg: intimidate), or Intellectual.

This is resolved with opposed rolls on the resistance table. Dex vs Dex, Pow vs Pow, or Int vs Int. If successful, you lower your opponent's defense by 10% until the beginning of your next turn. Optionally, crits could lower defenses even more.

Feints force your opponent to move 1m in any direction. If this would cause them to fall off a cliff or into lava, they get to make a DEX or Luck roll to fall prone.

To Summarize, tricks and maneuvers offer more combat options without excessive rules. Use tricks when you cannot overwhelm your opponents defenses. Use feints to control the battlefield. Optionally, Feints could be a skill.

BRP could use this I guess, but I won't. Powers, feats, whatever you call them, BRP doesn't need them in my opinion.

No, BRP doesn't need feats and powers. It might be able to use a method for players to exert some narrative control through spending temporary POW, such as temporarily improving damage, skill competencies, or just damage soaking. Very minor things, IMO.

For 1 pt. Temporary POW =
+5% to Skill Check
+1 damage
Soak 1 HP
Be Heroic

Or something like that. You get the picture

[NickMiddleton]

Originally Posted by Harshax

BRP already has many of what 4e thinks is new: Brutal critical hits, knockback with bludgeon weapons, impales with piercing weapons. All it is missing is simple mechanics for feints, or to borrow from Savage Worlds 'Tricks'.

A 'Trick' is any maneuver in combat that is meant to lower someone's defenses. It could be anything from the classic [looking over opponent's should] and saying 'Glad you finally showed up', to throwing sand in someone's face, or an intimidating shout.

Tricks can be Agility tricks (feints), Psychological (POW, eg: intimidate), or Intellectual.

This is resolved with opposed rolls on the resistance table. Dex vs Dex, Pow vs Pow, or Int vs Int. If successful, you lower your opponent's defense by 10% until the beginning of your next turn. Optionally, crits could lower defenses even more.

I like the idea of tricks, and started roughing out some ideas for a BRP system - then I thought again:

So the lucky farm boy (POW 18) is better at Intimidation than the veteran Soldier (POW 12), the smart kid (INT 18) better than the average adult hustler (INT 12), the graceful apprentice (DEX 18) better than the normally co-ordinated Guard (DEX 12)?

I concluded after some thought that a) a lot of this stuff is covered in the new BRP in the Spot Rules and b) they are functions of skill (i.e. experience and training) not raw ability (i.e. stats).

If I was to implement a generalised mechanic for non-combat skills aiding in combat I'd use a variant something like this: a character with a sufficiently high skill (e.g. Fast Talk 50+) can use it in an opposed test vs. an opponents appropriate skill (e.g. for a bluff, or taunt use of fast Talk, probably Insight) and if they win either penalise the opponents defensive skill or add to their attacking skill an amount equal to their special success chance with their winning skill e.g. in the Bluff example, one fifth of their Fast Talk could be applied as either a penalty to the defenders parry or Dodge, or as a bonus to the Attackers weapon skill.

Feints force your opponent to move 1m in any direction. If this would cause them to fall off a cliff or into lava, they get to make a DEX or Luck roll to fall prone.

There are Entangle and Knock-back rules in BRP already - I think the issue is as much getting players to THINK about what their characters options are in a combat as it is a rules issue. And, funnily enough, I know of at least one Savage Worlds GM who has had problems getting players to engage with SW combat properly because they didn't know or understand the options available...

To summarise, tricks and manoeuvres offer more combat options without excessive rules. Use tricks when you cannot overwhelm your opponents defences. Use feints to control the battlefield. Optionally, Feints could be a skill.

I think much of this is, as I said, already covered in the BRP spot rules, and that the vast majority should be skill based... But I still want to sit down with a copy of SW and the BRP Spot Rule chapter as I think I think a "Guide to BRP Action Sequences" with suggestions for both players and GM's on how to implement and exploit the Spot Rules stuff might be useful.

No, BRP doesn't need feats and powers. It might be able to use a method for players to exert some narrative control through spending temporary POW, such as temporarily improving damage, skill competencies, or just damage soaking. Very minor things, IMO.

For 1 pt. Temporary POW =
+5% to Skill Check
+1 damage
Soak 1 HP
Be Heroic

Or something like that. You get the picture

This is covered in the optional "Fate point" mechanic in BRP. I've yet to try them in play, but I know Jason and others have used these sorts of things a lot and think well of them... I think it's worth looking at skills over 100% and considering how big a deal it is: in an SB style game, skills over 100 are sufficiently common that they don't nee extra rules. In a RQII/III game where skills over 100 are theoretically possible but rare and noteworthy then I think some extra benefits of exceptional skill would be good - whether something like Land of Ninja's ki skills or MRQ's Legendary Abilities done right.

RuneLords in RQII got specific unique abilities for weapon skills over 100, which might be a source of inspiration.

Cheers,

Nick

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by AikiGhost

I know that this isn't a D&D forum and that many BRP players historically have issues with D&D (I know I did) but some of the things being done with D&D 4th edition look mechanically very interesting and so I thought Id post a thread about them.

And thanks for posting! It's fascinating, albeit deeply disturbing. There's so much to comment on, I don't know where to start. I'm still reeling...

Originally Posted by RosenMcStern

Anyone who was able to read the whole list without giving up, make a SAN roll. ... (Armor Class 50 - OMG )

(Or AC -40, in the terms of my era!). Yes, it's sanity-blasting stuff alright. Luckily I'm immune, being mad already.

Originally Posted by Dredj

I was looking on a forum a few days ago. The people on the forum were wondering why CoC D20 failed, because, after all, D20 is the best system out there!

Though I'm still not as deranged as some, it seems! If D20 is so good, how come they feel the need to change it so much...?

[frogspawner]

Originally Posted by Lord Twig

<snip>
There is more, but you get the idea.
I guess I can sum up everything above with the simple statement that I fundamentally disagree with WotC’s design philosophy for 4th edition.

Yes, that stuff looks bad to me, too. Are you sure about this? What are your sources?

Originally Posted by Harshax

I'd say one of the more innovative concepts in 4E is the idea that combatants tend to be pushed, pulled, shifted, or slid around the battlefield.

Yes, more fluid melee is good. I use a simple system, which seems to work nicely: anyone attempting to dodge has to step back (or go prone, if there's nowhere to retreat...).

Originally Posted by Harshax

The idea that everyone has powers is also pretty neat, in the sense that it gives some narrative control to the players. This could easily be incorporated using a character's POW. Much like spellcasters using POW to fuel spells, combatants could use POW to capitalize on martial exploits and thereby perform a few neat tricks. Could BRP use this? Maybe?

I like this idea, if the "powers" for warrior-types can be made out to be combat techniques (not out-and-out magic). Most Feats seem suitable.

Originally Posted by NickMiddleton

This is covered in the optional "Fate point" mechanic in BRP. ... In a RQII/III game where skills over 100 are theoretically possible but rare and noteworthy then I think some extra benefits of exceptional skill would be good - whether something like Land of Ninja's ki skills or MRQ's Legendary Abilities done right.
RuneLords in RQII got specific unique abilities for weapon skills over 100, which might be a source of inspiration.

Exactly so.

[Harshax]

Originally Posted by NickMiddleton

This is covered in the optional "Fate point" mechanic in BRP. I've yet to try them in play, but I know Jason and others have used these sorts of things a lot and think well of them... I think it's worth looking at skills over 100% and considering how big a deal it is: in an SB style game, skills over 100 are sufficiently common that they don't nee extra rules. In a RQII/III game where skills over 100 are theoretically possible but rare and noteworthy then I think some extra benefits of exceptional skill would be good - whether something like Land of Ninja's ki skills or MRQ's Legendary Abilities done right.

RuneLords in RQII got specific unique abilities for weapon skills over 100, which might be a source of inspiration.

Like I said earlier, much of what 4E presents as new and interesting has already been done more succinctly and with less fanfare in BRP. While weapon skills over 100% might be a good source of inspiration, I would not like an added combat subsystem to be available only once a character hits the 100 percentile mark. As someone who enjoys 100 as a literal expression of competence, and typically plays with that cap, I'd want these options available from the word 'go'.

In any case, I'm looking forward to getting my hands on BRP0 and seeing what can be easily accommodated with the core book.

[sladethesniper]

I concluded after some thought that a) a lot of this stuff is covered in the new BRP in the Spot Rules and b) they are functions of skill (i.e. experience and training) not raw ability (i.e. stats).

No reason to go into that too much since Nick has beaten me to it (again ).

To add to it, however, there is one little thing that D20 does that would benefit BRP skills. The way d20 shows how each skill is used in the skill description is a very good idea. That way all the different uses of a skill (feints, increasing parry, increasing damage, skill specializations, etc.) could all be rolled up nicely into the skill description text.

There are two issues with that, though. One is that each skill description would become very long (although you could do it by type, such as combat/weapons skills, knowledge skills, etc.) and the joyous freeform skills creating rampant in CoC (flail about wildly 25% 1d4 damage) would be harder for GM's to just "wing it" if they went with this idea.

I agree with Nick that keeping skills (and not having gobs of feats, modifiers, etc.) as the basis for the majority of player rolling is the way of BRP.

After all, what good is having Warhammer 138% if some mook with lots of POW/MP's can be just as good as you are for a bit, or someone has some modifier that makes their 80% skill better than your 100%+ skill? Skills should represent a field of study/compentence in its' entirety.

:focus:

One disturbing thing I noticed is the "movement around the battlefield" effects described. My question is "why"? PC's can move around just fine, or use magic items/spells/tech items to enhance it...so why make more rules?

My other contention with 4E is the bizzare leveling and character pigeon-holing that is increasing with each new iteration. It was bad when everyone in the world was 0 level, but they almost fixed it (although commoners are pretty worthless, but at least they finally have skills...) in 3E, but now in 4E it seems like depending on who you are fighting your HP's change...

Needless to say, color me unimpressed with 4E. I only play two systems (BRP and D20) and it shall remain so for a very long time.

-STS

[Harshax]

Originally Posted by sladethesniper

:focus:

One disturbing thing I noticed is the "movement around the battlefield" effects described. My question is "why"? PC's can move around just fine, or use magic items/spells/tech items to enhance it...so why make more rules?

Movement around the battlefield isn't for the benefit of a PC who actively wants to move his character, it's for the movement of opponents against there will.

Until 4E, I don't think I came across a game system which did not treat combatants as set pieces of the table. A moves to B, and they stay there until either decide to leave. aka: the impassable line. Sure, I've seen rules for pushing, and knocking someone down, but not for tricking them to step to the right. So yeah - one fiddly bit of several hundred pages of new rules is something I think is worthwhile to add to BRP.