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

[sladethesniper]

OK, I'll agree that it seems nifty to move your opponents around, but wouldn't that simply be a codification of how many items/effects already do that (teleport, daze, stun guns, wind blast, explosions, gravity effects, throws, displace, etc.)?

One fiddly bit isn't bad, it's just not worth the cash. Granted, eventually I'll probably dole out the cash (since my son loves D&D and all the munchkiny evil-ness therein, plus the 4E minis are already out...and of course he's hooked on them) for 4E, but not any time soon...maybe for his birthday next year.

I am all about taking ideas from any game system and making them work for me.

-STS

[Harshax]

Yeah I agree, $100 dollars for research material isn't worthwhile for a couple of ideas to translate into BRP.

That said, I think there a few more gems that you can extract from the teaser material. For one, i like the concise energy types (fire, cold, radiant, necrotic). Nice concept of spell 'trappings' couple with Savage Worlds generic magic system could be a nice alternate for BRP. (actually, I'm prone to borrow from SW whose design is more like BRP than D&D - i just don't care for 'levels')

I also like the advice in skill challenges (too long to post here, and writing from my pda is hell on the thunbs)

[sladethesniper]

True about the cost.

I do like the energy types, and so I already stole them from 3E for my BRP games. It all fits together nicely for a derivative magic system.

-STS

[frogspawner]

For me, the useful bits appear to be:
- Encounter-long spell durations (frankly, just openly acknowledging an existing state-of-affairs - that they're too much bother to administer!)
- Um... that's it.
(OK, Social Encounters sound intriguing and may turn out useful, too).

The "Points of light in a dark world" setting idea is cool. But that's not Rules. And my campaign seems to be heading that way already, anyway...

Other things we learn - D&D is being changed again, so they can sell more books; and though many of the changes are actually improvements, many more are not. We are reminded that D&D is grotesquely rules-heavy, overly prescriptive (controlling, not enabling) and, increasingly and sadly, just a silly kids game.

[Al.]

Originally Posted by NickMiddleton

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).



Nick

I've only actually played Savage Worlds once so the following observation may not be too robust.

But it seemed that SW mechanics are much more characteristic based than BRP.

So shouldn't Tricks, Taunts, Intimidates be skill-based for the Active party? And maybe Passive highest of (Characteristic x5 or Skill)?

So Lucky Callow Youth (Pow 16 and Intimidate 20%) only uses his 20% as Active when intimidating but 80% when resisting Intimidation. Whilst Big Bastard Sergeant (Pow 12 and Intimidate 100%) uses 100% as Active and (because he understands Threats) 100% as Passive to defend against Intimidation.


However my favourite mechanism for such grooviness comes from PenDragon pass and its rule for 'Feats' (my D&Dphobia being what it is I rename them 'Stunts' but use the rules unchanged)



Al

[Harshax]

Originally Posted by Al.

I've only actually played Savage Worlds once so the following observation may not be too robust.

But it seemed that SW mechanics are much more characteristic based than BRP.

So shouldn't Tricks, Taunts, Intimidates be skill-based for the Active party? And maybe Passive highest of (Characteristic x5 or Skill)?

Savage Worlds is more like BRP, in the sense that you have a very clean rule set that tries to do the most with its basic elements, as opposed to tacking on more rules. eg. Tricks offer a huge variety of tactics without having to spell out rules for trip, feint, disarm, intimidate, sand in eyes, etc. That would be an entire volume if printed for D&D.

I don't know the best way to implement tricks yet, but I'll probably use Characteristic vs. Characteristic. Otherwise there would be too many skills, thus defeating the point. Though, upon rereading your post, I must say I'll have to give it some thought. (Maybe broad trick skills based on Dex, Pow, and Int. With the option to use your raw Characteristic, or your skill [which can be improved only through experience])

[Greymagius]

After reading similar list elsewhere and reading of a plan to issue new players Handbooks, Monster Manuals & DMGs every year, I'm of the idea that it's NOT a roleplaying game, it's a do-it-yourself collectible card game.

I've had player threaten to play a Wizard named Charmander
I can seriously see players putting their at will/scene/day "powers" on cards and flipping them as used.

I have my homebrew (A)D&D campaign of 20+ years, that I might yet convert.. but it won't be to D&D. In truth, I cut my gaming teeth on RQ2. I still think it's the best system out there. D&D4 sounds and feels more video/collectible-card than RPG to me. If I covert, it will require a LOT of conversion. 'Magic' , Sorcery & Psi might cover part of it, but at the levels of play attained, some use of 'Super' rules would be required.



What might we learn fro D&D4? We will have to see once it's out who plays it and who decides to stay with earlier editions or jumps to a different system. My hope is that Chaosium would return to a more vigorous interest in RPG's. Aside from (very) periodic CoC supplements, they produce little RPG products. BRP, IMHO, is far superior to D20 OGL and if permitted to be used, could provide a vast ocean of products & resources. I'm looking forward to several possible settings suggested here and wish all the best of luck. Now, if only someone can get me my copy a bit quicker, so I feel less like a junkie strung out needing a fix...

later,
Grey

[Al.]

Originally Posted by Harshax

I'll probably use Characteristic vs. Characteristic. Otherwise there would be too many skills, thus defeating the point.

I agree with the desire to avoid skill list bloat. Anyone who has compared combat tactics in RQIV:Adventures in litigation and the same in Pendragon can see how having a skill for every eventuality can turn a fun tactical decision into a chore. (Example Pendragon if I want to get past your armour I declare double feint and roll under the lowest of my weapon skill and my Dex score; RQIV I have to develop a separate skill called double feint so after having invested in that why would I use any other tactic?)

However SW uses skills for the offensive for Taunt and Intimidate and BRP could do too. In fact the BRP skill specialisations rules potentially make this easier.



Al

[Mugen]

Originally Posted by Al.

I agree with the desire to avoid skill list bloat. Anyone who has compared combat tactics in RQIV:Adventures in litigation and the same in Pendragon can see how having a skill for every eventuality can turn a fun tactical decision into a chore. (Example Pendragon if I want to get past your armour I declare double feint and roll under the lowest of my weapon skill and my Dex score; RQIV I have to develop a separate skill called double feint so after having invested in that why would I use any other tactic?)

However SW uses skills for the offensive for Taunt and Intimidate and BRP could do too. In fact the BRP skill specialisations rules potentially make this easier.



Al

Note that it is possible to use broader skills with specialisations to avoid the need to develop too many skills.

For instance, you could have :

1 Hand Melee : 37%
*1 Handed Sword : +32% : 69%
*Dagger : +12% : 49%
*Double Feint : -25% (Untrained) : 12%

2 Hand Melee : 14%
*2 Handed Sword : +12% : 36%

And so on...

[Tywyll]

Originally Posted by NickMiddleton

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

Cheers,

Nick

Hey Nick,

Do you mean the 'anti-parry' rules that RL got, or were there other abilities detailed somewhere else? If so, where were those rules detailed?

Cheers!