So, Paizo Publishing have decided to go with D&D “3.75” after all… that’s interesting.
Unfortunately, it also means that I’ll not be getting back aboard the Paizo bandwagon for a while (although the Paizo/Necromancer bandwagon may be an interesting place to be). For the most part… no, I absolutely have enough 3.5e adventures to last me until the decade after the next one. Savage Tide will last me through 2008, and after that I fully expect to be running solely 4e material.
The thing is, as demonstrated by Adam and Nate in my Ulek campaign, 3.5e has some problems with its mathematical basis, especially when it comes to Armour Class and saves at high level. Either you can’t be touched (Adam & Nate) or any attack will hit you (Sarah). There’s precious little middle ground. I rather enjoy high-level play, but the work that goes into balancing the encounters gets harder and harder. It’s been nice having Paizo’s adventure paths to run, although even they get somewhat wonky at the highest levels. (Craig was especially good at creating an effective character…)
4e is meant to fix a lot of these maths problems. That will be great. It also will be changing a few things we’re used to in how actions are resolved, and those may be not traditional D&D…
I wonder if we can use the basis of 4e mathematics for a simpler system without lots of action types, or a more Vancian spellcasting system… quite possibly, I feel. Not that I’m actually wanting one yet, but it may be a project to think about if 4e doesn’t prove to be what my players want.
When Wizards cancelled Paizo’s licence for the D&D magazines, Dragon and Dungeon, I wasn’t so unhappy about losing Dragon, for it rarely gave me articles I would use. Short-term amusement for the most part, rather than ongoing inspiration. Losing Dungeon was far more significant. As yet, Wizards have not proven they can provide an ongoing substitute.
I would have subscribed to Pathfinder, but as I don’t have a credit card, and Paizo had removed the year-subscription option, that also kept me out. Not having a FLGS doesn’t help, of course…
So, for now, I’ll read reviews of what Paizo is doing and wait for the next stage of what happens.
3.x also has a huge disparity between characters (i.e. the power gamer vs the casual player). There is also a disparity between some of the monsters (your typical True Dragon won’t really miss on an attack roll unless you Power Attack for everything vs your templated lycanthrope which can either be a walk in the park or a real challenge [A tyrannosaurus giant for example]).
I can cook up a 4E-like system for 3.5 but my two biggest problems will be a) re-writing the spells (and adopting a 1st to 20th-level spell progression while I’m at it) and b) rewriting the monsters (although I can make an easy-to-make formula for creating such creatures–it’s just stating out individual, unique foes that will be time consuming). I can even make it non-magic dependent while I’m at it!
Give me an advanced grappler anyday to break the 3e system… oh, some Paizo adventures suggested them as well. 🙂
I’m interested in using the math of 4e to create a very simple (oD&D-like?) system and then going from there.
What other elements do you want?
A) Vancian Spellcasting (retain 9th-level spells or break it into 20 levels?)
B) Feats? (If you do include them, can we improve the rate of advancement or retain the 1 feat/3 levels?)
C) Skills? (I’m going for a more SW Saga if you do want to retain skills.)
D) Multiple Attacks?
Also, I forgot:
E) Cool Special Powers each level.
F) Defense System + Saving Throw (SWSA, D&D Miniatures, etc.)
Anything is fair game.
Let’s say the basic idea is that this is a system for Player Characters that is compatable with 4e monsters and possibly adventures.
From there we can do anything we want as long as the relative balance is preserved. More complicated? Less complicated? Sideways complicated? Experiment! Obviously, I rather need to see 4e before I can do too much. 🙂
I’m enthusiastic about the changes they’ve touted for 4e, and I intend to play the system as written at first… but I’m relatively certain, based on what we’ve seen so far, that I’ll soon be hybridizing somewhat, or at least using the basic system elements to make a game more consistent with my group’s interests.
Not a complaint, mind you… I’ve been playing long enough that I certainly realize that new and fresh ideas, no matter how invigorating, are persistently less likely to reflect my needs as a gamer and a DM, which have their foundation in fairly antiquated gaming concepts.