Quote from: Shazbot79;360766What about characters that want to nimbly dodge out of the way of attacks, rather than just standing there and taking it?

Could use a defense roll as a free action when attacked, which would be d20 + reflex mod.  If it's greater than the attack roll, the player could shift to an adjacent square unharmed.

Quote from: ggroy;360775Could use a defense roll as a free action when attacked, which would be d20 + reflex mod.  If it's greater than the attack roll, the player could shift to an adjacent square unharmed.

Less die rolls is better?

It might be more productive to have less defense values. maybe just a Physical Defense for which you can add either DEX or CON, or a Magic Defense, for which you can add either CON or WIS.

Then again, do we really need 6 ability scores? Seems like they can all be rolled into something like Strength, Agility, Intellect and Willpower.

But here we start getting into game design which is another thread entirely.

Quote from: Shazbot79;360776Less die rolls is better?

Back in the 1E AD&D days, I liked using defense rolls in place of a static AC.

Quote from: Shazbot79;360776It might be more productive to have less defense values. maybe just a Physical Defense for which you can add either DEX or CON, or a Magic Defense, for which you can add either CON or WIS.

Dragon Warriors did something like this, with every player and monster having a physical defense and a separate magic defense.

Quote from: Shazbot79;360776Then again, do we really need 6 ability scores? Seems like they can all be rolled into something like Strength, Agility, Intellect and Willpower.

But here we start getting into game design which is another thread entirely.

If one doesn't have any spellcasters, in principle a minimalist game could be played with only strength and dexterity (agility).

Adding magic would require another stat, such as "psyche" for lack a better term.  This would encompass the spellcasting combat functions of intelligence, will and charisma.

Quote from: ggroy;360777Adding magic would require another stat, such as "psyche" for lack a better term.  This would encompass the spellcasting combat functions of intelligence, will and charisma.

Or simply Body, Mind and Spirit scores. (I think these are the stats that BESM uses)

See, people say that 4E rebuilt D&D from the ground up, but it really didn't. No more than AD&D or 3rd Edition did, at least.

The game still has those same 6 stats, still has HP and AC, still has magic items rate with +'s, still has alignments, still has levels and classes. In order for the game to be rebuilt from the ground up, all of these things would need to be revisited and perhaps revised.

Of course if everything that's recognizable as D&D is removed from D&D...even if it makes a better game in the longrun, is it really worth it?

Meh...I'm tired and babbling.

Quote from: Shazbot79;360766I like the idea of at-will attacks for spellcasters. Not just things like Magic Missile or Cloud of Daggers...but also cantrips like Light, Prestidigitation and Ghost Sounds. I always thought it was silly in AD&D that these relatively minor things took up an entire 1st level spell slot.

I like that attacks are made against static defenses, and that savings throws have become a duration tracker rather than a defensive mechanic.

I like that monsters each have their own gimmick. Goblins get to scurry away when you miss them, Hobgoblins get to make a savings throw as soon as they are hit with an effect, Gnomes turn invisible when you hit them, Orcs go into a frenzy when wounded, Gnolls get bonuses for attacking in packs...

Before, it felt as though the only difference between one melee monster and the next was HD.

Trimmed down, these are the major points that came to my mind too. Good stuff!

I dunno if it's an innovation exactly, but I was impressed at how many nuanced differences they could wring out of one combat system. Clerics and Wizards both have spells that summon a damage field that lasts for a few turns but the Cleric damage fields are generaly safer -- they only harm someone who ends their turn in the AoE. Wizard damage fields generaly hit anything that enters or starts it's turn in the damage field.
 
The difference in wording is subtle but the battlegrid effect is quite different. Cleric damage fields are a threat like an unexploded handgrenade. "Leave or get blowed up!" Whereas Wizard damage fields are killing stuff right now.
 
There was also a trend of Wizard damage fields causing friendly fire, whereas Cleric friendly fire was harmeless or beneficial.
 
I don't know if all Wizard and Cleric damage fields follow those patterns, but when I read the PH it came across as a very fresh idea to segregate classes not only by damage type (clerics get radient, wizards get force) but also by the game mechanics of when their damage fields increment.
 
I thought it was a good idea to nerf the Cleric's Armor proficiency.
 
And also when I got a chance to play, I enjoyed seeing how many things don't work in difficult terrain. We made that mistake exactly one time and never ever fought in difficult terrain again.

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;360791I dunno if it's an innovation exactly, but I was impressed at how many nuanced differences they could wring out of one combat system. Clerics and Wizards both have spells that summon a damage field that lasts for a few turns but the Cleric damage fields are generaly safer -- they only harm someone who ends their turn in the AoE. Wizard damage fields generaly hit anything that enters or starts it's turn in the damage field.
 
The difference in wording is subtle but the battlegrid effect is quite different. Cleric damage fields are a threat like an unexploded handgrenade. "Leave or get blowed up!" Whereas Wizard damage fields are killing stuff right now.
 
There was also a trend of Wizard damage fields causing friendly fire, whereas Cleric friendly fire was harmeless or beneficial.
 
I don't know if all Wizard and Cleric damage fields follow those patterns, but when I read the PH it came across as a very fresh idea to segregate classes not only by damage type (clerics get radient, wizards get force) but also by the game mechanics of when their damage fields increment.
 
I thought it was a good idea to nerf the Cleric's Armor proficiency.
 
And also when I got a chance to play, I enjoyed seeing how many things don't work in difficult terrain. We made that mistake exactly one time and never ever fought in difficult terrain again.

That sounds terribly like a Wargame when one reads it cold. Not saying that is a bad or good thing but it certainly a Quantum Leap from this to 'I like the fact that I can now play a Lizardman' or 'I like the fact that you could devise a Priestly class that better reflected the God they were supposed to worship rather than just being a second class fighter than could heal'.

Quote from: RandallS;360741Components didn't appear until the AD&D 1e Player's Handbook appeared. There were no spell components in OD&D.

And Pundit, mages with an attack they can use every round isn't very new either. A common house rule for OD&D allowed magic-users to use slings (1d4 points of damage, same as their dagger -- using Greyhawk damage rules). A lot of GMs simply allowed magic-users to zap targets with a magic blast from a wand for the same damage (but unlike a magic missile spell, required a roll to hit just like the sling).  This was no different from letting them use a sling and pick up stones as ammo, but it fit the character class better.

Key words bolded. House rule. I'm pretty certain we're talking RAW here. Otherwise what is the point to this whole discussion? You can house rule away anything, anytime.

Quote from: Melan;360768All the while fucking up the rest of the magic system. Good grief.

+1.

Wasn't going to be the first to say it. But yeah.

You want a good systematic ritual system? Try the Relics & Rituals for 3e. Great flavor and fits nicely with the system.

Quote from: jibbajibba;360794That sounds terribly like a Wargame when one reads it cold. Not saying that is a bad or good thing but it certainly a Quantum Leap from this to 'I like the fact that I can now play a Lizardman' or 'I like the fact that you could devise a Priestly class that better reflected the God they were supposed to worship rather than just being a second class fighter than could heal'.

Well, you've been able to play a lizardman forever. It's a lot harder to do innovative fluff.

Do note my comments on power sources earlier, though -- I think that qualifies.

Quote from: beejazz;360760whoever wrote The Book of Three, The Horned King, etc.

Lloyd Alexander

(Sorry to be a pedant, but he was one of my favorite authors, sadly now deaceased.)

Quote from: IMLegend;360796Key words bolded. House rule. I'm pretty certain we're talking RAW here. Otherwise what is the point to this whole discussion? You can house rule away anything, anytime.

My point was that is is not a "new idea" created especially for 4e -- it is simply copying something previous done (and expanding it too far, IMHO, but that's another issue). I really get tired of pro D&D designers getting credit for creating things that were done long ago simply because they managed to get them into the official(tm) rules. It's a pet peeve of mine that isn't going to change, so feel free to ignore my comments.

Quote from: jeff37923;360800Lloyd Alexander

(Sorry to be a pedant, but he was one of my favorite authors, sadly now deaceased.)

Ah, thanks. That was on the tip of my tongue, but just wasn't coming. I read a lot as a kid, but didn't pay much attention to authors until later.

Quote from: Melan;360768Nothing listed in this thread so far has struck me as good (for D&D; they may be good ideas for other, non-D&D games) or innovative. Rituals have some potential, but all they do is codify things that were previously specific to a campaign (seriously, is there a DM out there who didn't make up something like "to open the gates of the sealed city of the dwarves, you have to *blah* *blah* *blah*"?) and lumped in a bunch of spells that belonged to the utility niche. All the while fucking up the rest of the magic system. Good grief.

Melan nails it from the 3 point line.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;360750Darts + a bearer to carry more (plus flasks of oil, and a hired linkboy to carry a lamp from which they may be lit) makes the magic-user a tad bit more useful than anyone's giving credit, in older editions.

But of course for most people since the rulebook didn't say "Magic-users can take darts as their weapon proficiency, and hurl flasks of oil" the idea of up and doing so must have been just beyond comprehension.

I get sick and tired of the notion that creeps up with every post 1e game that "Well now we've finally fixed the mage!  No more useless 1st level!" because if you can't think of ways to play the character so they're actually useful (like I outlined above), maybe a pen and paper RPG is a bit much for you.  And to the "guy with a game boy" example?  Thank god I don't have to game with anyone like that.

Get over yourself. I've loved wizardly types since my beloved Holmes edition, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy the idea of a wizard doing magical stuff more often from the beginning, even if I do despise the entire rest of 4e.