3.5 - what would you import from 4e?

[JonestheSpy]

So, I'm not going to give up on 3.5 anytime soon, I like little of what I know about 4e, and I'm certainly not shelling out the dough for a bunch of new books.

BUT, I'm sure 4e has some elements that work better than 3.5. So, for folks familiar with both systems, if you could import only one rule or change from 4e to 3.5, what wolud it be? Obviously, I'm thinking of something you could fit in without too much work, instead of figuring out a whole hybrid game.

[Lert, A.]

I like how they did the races. No +this, -that, flaw, ability, etc.

+2 to two scores (some small variaitions exist), bonuses to a couple of skills, a few usful abilities and a racial power or two. Very clean.

[Tiki Snakes]

I second the abilities, but my first instinct is the rolling together of skills.

(Athletics rather than climb, swim, jump etc. Stealth rather than hide and move silently, perception rather than spot and listen, etc). I've seen some very 3.5 systems using just that kind of concept, actually, and it's almost always an improvement.

[Cedrass]

The skills. Even if I would make the list a little bit longer.

Like someone said, the races are very very clean. Even if I'm not sure I like how they all get boosts. But I guess it's something I could get used to.

One thing that doesn't seem to have made it in the final product (I never played 4e, no group I know wants to try it...) is the way I heard they'd handle duration. Like, spells and powers or anything for that matter, would have durations of "Encounter, Round, Attack, Turn, Etc". That way we wouldn't have to keep track of "Hey is my 10 minutes for Shield is over?". Correct me if it actualy is in the game.

Aside from that, the way everyone has a little power they can do, even Figthers is something nice. But we have Tome of Battle for that so, it's all well.

[TMZ_Cinoros]

There are a lot of things that I like in 4e that I'd want to backport to 3.5, as I like many changes in 4e, but dislike the system as a whole.

Some things off the top of my head:

Streamlining saving throws so that the defender has non-AC defenses and the attacker makes an attack roll. This is actually fairly simple to do in 3.5. Instead of the DC of a spell caster being 10 + Spell Level + Ability Mod, the attacker rolls a d20 and adds Spell Level and Ability Mod against a defense of 10 + the appropriate saving throw bonus for the defender.

I also really like the redefinition of saving throws to be 10 or higher being a save, 9 or lower being a fail. It significantly nerfs save or lose spells by giving the defender a 55% chance of shrugging off an effect.

Second Wind. Universal and significant in combat healing is exactly what 3.5 needed. And by significant, I mean more than just a few d8. Belt of Healing kind of closes the healing gap a bit, but it isn't enough.

However, I am not a fan of a limited number of healing surges. Healing surges are an example of 4th edition's design philosophy of "state goal x, but accomplish it by not x." A finite number of healing surges actually ENCOURAGES the 15 minute adventuring day. Once you burn through your healing surges, you'd better take an extended rest, or you are screwed majorly in the next battle.

Fixed HP increases. Rolling a 1 on your hit die upon leveling is just disappointing. Also, being able to quickly derive your hp without keeping track of the die rolls for hp each level is really nice.

Minor actions. Yes, Swift Actions are essentially the same as minor actions, but the name minor action fits better. Also, lots of moves that are move actions in 3.5 just work better as minor actions (like taking out an item).

At-Will, Encounter, and Daily abilities. I hate how 4th edition's powers are kind of cookie cutter and narrowly defined, versus the large variety of spells, most of which had many interesting interactions and secondary uses that are not readily apparent. But after playing 4th edition, Vancian spell casting kind of sucks. I like being able to blow my wad and still have something more than just mundane weapons to use.

Now, this would be EXTREMELY difficult to implement properly, and would take a lot of work to go through the list of spells. It would be one way to balance out weaker powers against stronger powers. However, the net effect would be to make casters more powerful in general. Perhaps the best solution is to only play with casters and Tome of Battle classes. I do have to say that after 4th edition, its kind of hard to play just a normal fighter.

At-Will Cantrips. Oh god, I LOVE the wizard cantrips. Prestidigitation at-will is just pure win. Perhaps one of the few choices in 4th edition that actively promotes roleplay opportunities.

The concept of rituals. The execution of rituals in 4e was EXTREMELY bad. Rituals in 4e usually either extremely narrow in usage, too expensive, or took too long (or some/all of the above). Some rituals should be free, I think. And some rituals should be usable in combat time. WotC is starting to catch on by allowing some free rituals per day for some classes, but it is too little, too late.

I just like the concept of rituals because I hate taking utility spells at the cost of combat ability. Rituals had so much potential, but WotC WASTED all of that potential and made a system that is barely usable.


There's more, but thats all I can think of at the moment.

[Tiki Snakes]

One thing that doesn't seem to have made it in the final product (I never played 4e, no group I know wants to try it...) is the way I heard they'd handle duration. Like, spells and powers or anything for that matter, would have durations of "Encounter, Round, Attack, Turn, Etc". That way we wouldn't have to keep track of "Hey is my 10 minutes for Shield is over?". Correct me if it actualy is in the game.

Er, pretty much the case. Duration isn't really relavent for many powers, but for those that do;
Till the end of the encounter is usually for bigger spells, daily ones. That's till the fight is over, or 5 minutes, depending on how nice your dm is, or how relavent.
Then you have various ones like "Till the start/end of your next turn", which is usually for anything that gives a bonus or penalty.
Also, many conditions you can impose (or have imposed) have (Save Ends) which simply means that it sticks around till you roll a save, as you'd guess. :)

So, they basically have made it to game, as far as I know. I don't know how well this would translate to 3, though, because most of these things with duration are repeatable. You get your encounter powers back, after all, in ways that you don't get spells back in 3. Though I like the system, it could possibly hurt certain characters/spells if applied to 3.

[JonestheSpy]

Streamlining saving throws so that the defender has non-AC defenses and the attacker makes an attack roll. This is actually fairly simple to do in 3.5. Instead of the DC of a spell caster being 10 + Spell Level + Ability Mod, the attacker rolls a d20 and adds Spell Level and Ability Mod against a defense of 10 + the appropriate saving throw bonus for the defender.

I also really like the redefinition of saving throws to be 10 or higher being a save, 9 or lower being a fail. It significantly nerfs save or lose spells by giving the defender a 55% chance of shrugging off an effect.



Wait, this is confusing. I get the first part about reversing the savings throw, so the caster is overcoming the defense of the target, but how does that mesh with this "save= 10 or higher" thing?

[Tsotha-lanti]

Healing surges, minions, fewer separate skills. Maybe defenses.

[AstralFire]

Wait, this is confusing. I get the first part about reversing the savings throw, so the caster is overcoming the defense of the target, but how does that mesh with this "save= 10 or higher" thing?

Very few things in 4E require saves, and most of what used a save in 3E now uses a defense of some kind.

[Eldariel]

Some of the changes to the skill system and racial feats, along with the new feat progression, and AC progression of some kind for all classes. Maybe archery stat associations (Dex to damage automatically), and maybe roll over saving throw system (so save = your present save+10 as a fixed number and the attacker rolls with spell level+stat+d20). Mostly, I don't think 4.0 does things better by and large, just differently, so in keeping 3.5 as 3.5 there isn't too much to import without fuxxoring things over.

Better to find fixes for 3.5 within 3.5 (like instead of porting 4e Fighter, you can port over ToB classes, and instead of porting over 4e casting, you can layeth the smackdown with ban/nerfbat).

[Cedrass]

Very few things in 4E require saves, and most of what used a save in 3E now uses a defense of some kind.

But, aren't defenses just a different word for "saves" ? Like I said, I never played, but when looking at a character sheet, I still see Fort, Ref, Will...

[RTGoodman]

Wait, this is confusing. I get the first part about reversing the savings throw, so the caster is overcoming the defense of the target, but how does that mesh with this "save= 10 or higher" thing?

I think he means, you still have the normal defenses for things, but when overcoming them later (like trying to get over hold person) or whatever, you get the flat d20 roll - you shrug it off on 10+, or you don't. Kinda like a limited iron heart surge (from ToB) for everyone.

If I were gonna bring 4E to 3.x, I'd definitely include:

-Condensed skill list with combined skills (Stealth, Perception, etc.)

-Standardized HP (a set number or at least half-die minimum per level).

-Use the Attackers Roll All The Dice variant, which is basically giving you Fort/Reflex/Will DEFENSES instead of saves. I just think it's a more streamlined approach.

-More control on spell durations - it fixes a lot of Clericzilla and God-Wizard problems when most of your class-mimicking spells (divine power, righteous might) DON'T last past the end of the encounter. Certainly not ALL spells need them (leave fly, etc.), but some could stand the nerfing. Along with that...

-Make most game-breaking spells into "rituals," but not necessarily how 4E does them. I think there's a UA variant for it anyway. Just make them take longer to cast, cost more, and all that.

-Minions - that is, crowds of mooks that you can one-shot (since you do this at higher levels in 3.x anyway with standard orcs/goblins/whatever) THAT ACTUALLY POSE A THREAT. That is, they've got okay defenses and can deal damage, but they're mostly still speed bumps.


But, aren't defenses just a different word for "saves" ? Like I said, I never played, but when looking at a character sheet, I still see Fort, Ref, Will...

Not QUITE. Fortitude, Reflex, and Will defenses are, in 4E, what saving throws of the same name were in 3.x. Saving Throws in 4E, on the other hand, are a straight d20 roll you make to shrug off certain effects. (Ongoing damage, slowed conditions, etc.)

[AstralFire]

But, aren't defenses just a different word for "saves" ? Like I said, I never played, but when looking at a character sheet, I still see Fort, Ref, Will...

It's been pared down to one general (no category) 'Saving Throw' concept and is used extremely rarely.

[Starscream]

I agree with most of what people have said already, especially about the saving throws.

But so far no one has mentioned my favorite modification to saves: Dual Ability Bonuses.

You can either your Str or Con modifier to Fort saves, your Dex or Int to Reflex saves and your Wis or Cha to Will saves. I think this is great, because it means almost every class can have decent saves, and it cuts down on the MAD of some classes.

[Artanis]

But, aren't defenses just a different word for "saves" ? Like I said, I never played, but when looking at a character sheet, I still see Fort, Ref, Will...

4e "Fort defense, Ref defense, Will defense" translates to 3e "Fort Save, Ref save, Will save"

4e "Saving throw" has no 3e equivalent

[Draz74]

Sounds like we have similar tastes, TMZ ...


However, I am not a fan of a limited number of healing surges. Healing surges are an example of 4th edition's design philosophy of "state goal x, but accomplish it by not x." A finite number of healing surges actually ENCOURAGES the 15 minute adventuring day. Once you burn through your healing surges, you'd better take an extended rest, or you are screwed majorly in the next battle.
I agree with most of what you're saying, but instead of giving unlimited healing surges, I think it's better just to limit the rate at which reckless characters can burn through their surges. Many 4e abilities that spend a surge should have some other cost instead; and if characters could go through a maximum of 3 surges per battle, I think the 15-minute workday would be nicely circumvented.


Minor actions. Yes, Swift Actions are essentially the same as minor actions, but the name minor action fits better. Also, lots of moves that are move actions in 3.5 just work better as minor actions (like taking out an item).
Hmmm, I like "swift" better. But you're dead on about e.g. drawing items getting changed to a minor action being a good thing.


At-Will Cantrips. Oh god, I LOVE the wizard cantrips. Prestidigitation at-will is just pure win. Perhaps one of the few choices in 4th edition that actively promotes roleplay opportunities.
I'd prefer this to be granted by some sort of minor feat or class feature, rather than being available automatically from level 1, but the idea is sound.


The concept of rituals. The execution of rituals in 4e was EXTREMELY bad. Rituals in 4e usually either extremely narrow in usage, too expensive, or took too long (or some/all of the above). Some rituals should be free, I think. And some rituals should be usable in combat time. WotC is starting to catch on by allowing some free rituals per day for some classes, but it is too little, too late.

I just like the concept of rituals because I hate taking utility spells at the cost of combat ability. Rituals had so much potential, but WotC WASTED all of that potential and made a system that is barely usable.

This is dead on (as is much of the stuff I deleted).

[Thrawn183]

I really like the limited healing surges per day. I mean, if the DM really wants something special that can get unlimited healing per day then *poof* there's a magical pool that restores your healing surges.

Barring that, it makes it so that you really want your tanks up front and taking hits because healing on them is more effective, and they can be healed more often.

At a certain point in 3.5 if the wizard keeps getting dropped to 1 HP and healed back up he can just go on forever. Magical healing is cool and all, but that just rubs me the wrong way.

I also like action points. I had a DM try and introduce Hero Points but it was kind of dumb. If you did something awesome you got one and could spend it to add 20 to any roll you wanted. Problem was we never got them (3.5 is much more condusive to full round attacks then cinematics) and never spent the one's we actually did get because they were so rare.

[AslanCross]

I second the abilities, but my first instinct is the rolling together of skills.

(Athletics rather than climb, swim, jump etc. Stealth rather than hide and move silently, perception rather than spot and listen, etc). I've seen some very 3.5 systems using just that kind of concept, actually, and it's almost always an improvement.

This is one thing I'd import.

Also:
-Skill challenges. Even though the execution was bad, I kind of liked the idea. I did try it once in 3.5, but I don't think I got it to work too well.
-If there was a way to import the cleaner encounter design I would.

[Optimystik]

I'm dying for them to release a 4e CRPG. Everything I've read here makes it seem like it would translate to digital even better than 3.x did in NWN.

[RebelRogue]

Off the top of my head:

Simplification of the skill system.

Quickening of all cure spells (mimicking that all the "Word" powers of Leaders are Minor Actions) and possibly giving them short range. this make in-combat healing a more viable option. Whether or not this is a good idea to combine with a Healing Surge mechanic is an open question.

Reduce the duration of suck/lose statuses (corresponding to allowing saves each round in 4th), so that you have to move fast to take advantage of them, meaning battles take longer than monsters failing a save.

[Myatar_Panwar]

-Skills, like others have said.
-Ability mod's for races.

All the other "improvements" I don't think would work very well in 3.5


I'm dying for them to release a 4e CRPG. Everything I've read here makes it seem like it would translate to digital even better than 3.x did in NWN.

YESSS.

[potatocubed]

I'm dying for them to release a 4e CRPG. Everything I've read here makes it seem like it would translate to digital even better than 3.x did in NWN.

It might. 4e simulates a turn-based, grid-based video game, like Final Fantasy Tactics, very well, but I don't know how well the concepts would translate to NWN-style real-time gaming.

What I would love to import from 4e to 3.5 is the monster design. No fiddling about with levels and hit dice and templates - just pick a level, get some numbers, invent some suitable powers, and rock. It used to take me upwards of an hour to generate a mid-level 3.5 enemy. I can do the same in 4e in 10 minutes.

[Livor]

Who would make it though? Bioware has been working on their own rpg system, so I doubt that we'll see anything D&D based from them.

[Randel]

I generally play as a wizard no matter what the edition so here are my thoughts:

1. At-Will powers: I like that in 4th edition I can fire off Magic Missiles (basically magical arrows, they don't auto-hit) or rays of frost to help my allies out without worrying about burning my good spells all in one encounter. I figure that every round I spend firing a 1d4+int bolt at an enemy is a round I'm not tossing a Sleep spell on all the enemies and trying to basically win the battle myself.

In 3.5 I feel that as a wizard I have to make maximum use of all my spells (since I only get a few of them per day) while in 4th I have a few less 'powerful' spells but can fire off lesser spells repeatedly. The at-will spells are about as effective as firing a crossbow and at level 1 that is what I seem to do most of the time.

Of course, so far I've only been able to play 1st level characters for the most part so my knowledge of how high-level wizards fight is limited.

2. Having more than 1d4 hit points plus con per level: In 4th edition, I don't have to run away from housecats anymore! Yay! I still have to be careful and stay away from combat, but its less likely for a stray arrow to do me in.

3. Rituals: Not having to choose between sacrificing combat spells for utility spells is a real plus! Granted there is the cost of ritual components and the casting time that makes things difficult so it could use some balancing.

I imagine if you were to integrate rituals into 3.5, they could be seperated into out-of-combat rituals that cost little money but take time, or in-combat rituals that cost more money but take very little time. Stuff like Create Food and Water would be more out-of-combat while others would be in-combat.

Maybe the in-combat rituals would act more like Potions or Scrolls or other consumable magic items? Take time out of combat to mix up a vial of Purge Invisibility or Mount or Fly or something.

Bad Guy: Fools, you may have entered my private sanctum but how can you hope to defeat that which you cannot see?! *turns invisible*

Wizard: Quite easily, you miscreant! Thanks to Thermolinger's Essence of Revisibilication! *pulls out a vial of powder and throws it onto the ground where it shatters and lets out a flash of light and red smoke. The Bad Guy is now visible again*

Fighter: It's Stabbering time!

Rogue: *filling his bag of holding with loot and captured damsels while the rest of the team is fighting* Egads! That's a nice trick there wizard, how did you pull pull that off?

Wizard: Well, when I heard about our foul-tempered friends ability to render himself unseen to the naked eye, I decided to prepare a little arcane countermeasure beforehand. One which would come in quite handy in this very situation.

Bad Guy: Curses! To think I was foiled by nonlethal ritualistic concoction... and multiple stab wounds... blegh. *dies*

Okay... that might not be best example, but I suppose in 3.5 terms then in-combat rituals would be something like getting a free 'brew potion' feat or 'scribe scroll'... which I guess they already get. But make the scroll things cheaper and only used for non-damaging utility spells.

4. Simplified Magic Item Creation: I like how in 4th edition the various magic items don't require specific spells to be able to craft them. All you need is to be of the appropriate level (which in the end makes enchanting magic items about the same as buying them from a shop. And disenchanting them the same as selling them). So, as a wizard, I don't have to pick spells based on what I can craft with them instead of what are useful in combat.

As a side-effect of this, it makes it relatively feasible for a wizard to brew up healing potions for the team. Or a badass fighter or paladin to spend a few feats to be able to forge his own magic swords.

In a 3.5 system with simplified crafting requirements you might just replace the various necessary crafting spells with magical gems or regents that the crafter has to get before they can make it. They say they want to craft something, if the DM allows it then they can just get the stuff from the store or treasure. Otherwise, the DM can put up some side-quest to get them. Hopefully once they get the item in question then it won't take 1 day per 1,000 gp to make it.

5. At-will cantrips and detect magic: Same as the above posters, but I also like that Detect Magic becomes an ability innate to having the Arcane skill. I imagine that anyone with sufficient arcane knowledge might get the ability to detect if there is something magical in the area (even if it takes as long as Searching) any Detect Magic spell or ritual would probably be used to give a bonus to the check.


Oh, and one final thing

6. Seperating the economic and combat parts of the DnD world: Okay, to be honest I really like to thing about the economics of stuff. The ability for magic to be used to feed orphans in addition to blowing up banditos is just awesome.

However, the way the spells are all formatted the same, it allows for some ridiculous stuff like Create Food and Water traps that feed whole nations and Prestidigitation traps that make infinite cool-aid.

In 4th edition, its made clear that combat spells and non-combat magic are different things and you can't really compare the effects of making a house with shooting a fireball. Plus, the rituals cost enough that farmers don't have to worry about Magical Trevor putting them out of business with those tricks that he does (which are ever so clever).

Magic items don't have spell names attached to them so it doesn't sound like the magical world is made up of plug-and-play spells that you can move around. Mage Armor is a power that mages use to protect themselves, its not the universal spell that is used in all magic armor.

Plus, crafting skills are pretty much removed from the game. I know, I myself really like the idea of crafting items but when there is a choice between combat and non-combat skills then sacrificing one for the other can mess up the game.

Sure, I could have a cool wizard character who can put some points in Craft(macaroni and cheese) and then spend some of my down time crafting masterwork pasta to sell to villagers... and triple my money. But then that starts to get silly, am I trying to optimize my character to make more money outside of combat? Am I trading off points in my various knowledge skills just so I can save money on food or weapons or something? Is my super intelligent half-elven/half-halfling wizard with +18 int going to stay at home while the others go off fighting and make some kind of army of Dedicated Wright Homunculi so he can start the fast-food revolution 500 years early?!

I know, 3.5 allows for a lot more character customization than 4th edition, but the basic game plan is have the team go kill monsters. You could probably have crafting rules on hand in case your team has to construct a shelter out of bamboo and orc corpses, but... well, the crafting rules don't really make realistic sense as they are and if a player is sacrificing actual combat-worthy skill potential just so they can craft alchemical fire or be a professional dirt-farmer then it might be better to put the non-combat skills into fluff and take it from there.

(sorry, getting late and my min-maxing powers tend to max out strange things)

[NecroRebel]

Who would make it though? Bioware has been working on their own rpg system, so I doubt that we'll see anything D&D based from them.

You really think they'll just give up something as lucrative as the Neverwinter Nights name? They're a business, first and foremost; they have a trademark, and they know they'll make a bundle if they use it, so they will, mark my words.

Neverwinter Nights 3 may be very different from the previous installments, not least because canonically Neverwinter is in ruins in 4E Forgotten Realms, but Bioware can and will make it.

[daggaz]

As I love melee classes, I was very intrigued by the notion that the weapons in 4e would actually have major functional differences, rather than a fluff name attached to a small spread of damage die and crit mods, with the occasional extra ability like tripping or disarming.

A whole feat tree dedicated to axe use? And in core? Yes please.

I havent played yet tho, so I have no idea how this panned out.

The racial differences/abilities also seemed well done. 3.5 core races put too much focus on where the simple +2 -2 mods went.

[Yora]

- As Cedrass said, the idea to have effects last for the encounter or the day really has it's merrits. I don't change the rules, but don't count every single round. If the spell last 6 rounds, I just say it lasts for the whole encounter, even if the encounter turns out to last 7 or 8 rounds.

- Again, I don't change anything, but I use hordes of weak minions, for which I don't track hp. If it takes damage, it's dead. No more trouble with remembering which of these 20 critters allready took damage before and how much.

- And true, rituals are a nice concept. I've never really read the rules of 4e. But lots of spells with very long casting times are so rarely used, that you don't want to prepare them in advance. And if you happen to need them, you don't want have to wait for the next day, only to have your spells prepared list changed back to how it was before imediately after casting. Having the caster level and material components is all that's required.

[Dagren]

I think he means, you still have the normal defenses for things, but when overcoming them later (like trying to get over hold person) or whatever, you get the flat d20 roll - you shrug it off on 10+, or you don't. Kinda like a limited iron heart surge (from ToB) for everyone.Wait, so a 1st level commoner has the same chance to break out of a powerful wizard's hold person as another powerful wizard does? Really? That just sounds lame.

[pasko77]

Healing surges, minions, fewer separate skills. Maybe defenses.

Definately these, Healing surges being the most important.
I would limit the number of surges per day and not allow full-restore every day, but OP asked about concepts, not implementation. I immediately implemented healing surges in my ruleset.

[Duke of URL]

It might. 4e simulates a turn-based, grid-based video game, like Final Fantasy Tactics, very well, but I don't know how well the concepts would translate to NWN-style real-time gaming.

NWN only looks real-time; "under the hood", it's still turn-based.


Wait, so a 1st level commoner has the same chance to break out of a powerful wizard's hold person as another powerful wizard does? Really? That just sounds lame.

The difference is that the 1st-level commoner is far more likely to have been affected by the hold person than the other power wizard would have been. Once affected, they would have the same chance each following round of shaking it off, minus any specific modifiers that apply to "saves".

On to the OT...

I've already proposed a hybrid save system (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=81778) for use in 3.x that mixes some of the 4e "everyone learns skills at some rate" with the wide array of 3.x skills. I can see where combining certain skills would be useful, but that would also then require rebalancing the number of skill points each class receives.

I also like the general idea of "marking", to add more tactical options to combat.

Since ToB was introduced for 3.x, I don't really think that encounter powers are really that particularly novel in the 3.x universe. It takes some effort to retrofit the older classes to that model, but the idea is already out there.

I'll also echo agreement with the "attacker rolls vs. defense" mechanism -- mathematically, it works out the same, but is a little more streamlined, and probably slightly more satisfying for the player.

[J.Gellert]

I'd only use the 'Sneak attacks affect almost everything' and 'Handle negative HPs and dying differently' bits.

I wouldn't do a carbon copy of Fourth's dying rules, however. Yikes.

[KIDS]

Healing surges, condensed skills and no cross-class, minions, solo monsters, diseases, magical item (in)dependency and power system. Though usually when playing 3.5E I have to coordinate my game with some other people and thus only healing surges and some monsters manage to make it into my games.

[Fishy]

Second on the negative hitpoints thing- and weirdly related, the way 4th handles critical hits. So much nicer.

[ghost_warlock]

For my 3.G write-up, I'm using the following 4e components:

Con-score to hp.
Consolodated skills.

I'd like to port the 4e warlock over the 3e, but I'm not going to go through the work it'd take to do the conversion justice.

[Master_Rahl22]

I am a huge fan of ToB, so I was elated when 4E implemented that mechanic across all classes. However, that is the single hardest thing to try to pull into 3.x, so I would go with simplified skill list, set HP per level cause nothing sucks more than being squishy and finally leveling up and rolling a 1, the seperation of combat and non-combat magic, variable stats for Saves/NADs, and attacks that use Dex to hit and add Dex to damage, or Cha to hit and Cha to damage, etc.

Hmm, so yeah I'd probably actually just play 4E if I could find a group. Right now the only people I know who play are just as strapped for cash as I am, and since we all already have 3.x books...

[Morty]

Let's see...
First, I'd import rituals, in that some spells should take time and resources to cast. But it can be done withing the existing framework. At-will abilities for wizards would also be good, and it's been done in Pathfinder. Implelments aren't bad too, and they've been done in Pathfinder as well. Cleaner encounter design wouldn't be half bad, but I doubt it can be done without turning 3ed into 4ed altogether. At least some comments here could be summed up by "play 4ed instead".

[pjackson]

Streamlining saving throws so that the defender has non-AC defenses and the attacker makes an attack roll. This is actually fairly simple to do in 3.5. Instead of the DC of a spell caster being 10 + Spell Level + Ability Mod, the attacker rolls a d20 and adds Spell Level and Ability Mod against a defense of 10 + the appropriate saving throw bonus for the defender.


I prefer having saving throws as an active defense.



Second Wind. Universal and significant in combat healing is exactly what 3.5 needed. And by significant, I mean more than just a few d8. Belt of Healing kind of closes the healing gap a bit, but it isn't enough.


I don't like in combat healijng, though I would boost the 3.5 Second Wind feat.



However, I am not a fan of a limited number of healing surges. Healing surges are an example of 4th edition's design philosophy of "state goal x, but accomplish it by not x." A finite number of healing surges actually ENCOURAGES the 15 minute adventuring day. Once you burn through your healing surges, you'd better take an extended rest, or you are screwed majorly in the next battle.


4e often aims at the wrong goal.
I like it when a party needs to rest to recover after a battle. It shows that a fight has had a significant effect on them. The problem is when some characters want to rest and other don't.



Fixed HP increases. Rolling a 1 on your hit die upon leveling is just disappointing. Also, being able to quickly derive your hp without keeping track of the die rolls for hp each level is really nice.


That is insignificant.



Minor actions. Yes, Swift Actions are essentially the same as minor actions, but the name minor action fits better. Also, lots of moves that are move actions in 3.5 just work better as minor actions (like taking out an item).


The 3.5 action system could do with a bit of a tidy up, but a sensible DM who just uses it as a guideline for adjudicating the resulst od what the player's want theri chracters to do it isn't much of a problem.



At-Will, Encounter, and Daily abilities. I hate how 4th edition's powers are kind of cookie cutter and narrowly defined, versus the large variety of spells, most of which had many interesting interactions and secondary uses that are not readily apparent. But after playing 4th edition, Vancian spell casting kind of sucks. I like being able to blow my wad and still have something more than just mundane weapons to use.

Now, this would be EXTREMELY difficult to implement properly, and would take a lot of work to go through the list of spells. It would be one way to balance out weaker powers against stronger powers. However, the net effect would be to make casters more powerful in general. Perhaps the best solution is to only play with casters and Tome of Battle classes. I do have to say that after 4th edition, its kind of hard to play just a normal fighter.


I agree that letting wizards and sorcerers have a spell they can use each round rather than pulling out a crossbow has better flavour.
(I also prefer the flavour of a standard fighter to the ToB classes.)
Reserve feats were a decent try which I have seen help a bit.

I am thinking in my next campaign of letting wizards and sorcerers get the ability at 2nd level to refresh their cantrips with a minute or so's meditation - effectively making them all encounter powers. Then at 4th level they can choose one cantrip to be a SLA usuable once per round. (and maybe give sorcerers a 2nd one at 5th level. i might give ray of frost a damage boost too.
I'd allow clerics to regain one turn undead attempt if they have used them all - I like the classes to play differently.



At-Will Cantrips. Oh god, I LOVE the wizard cantrips. Prestidigitation at-will is just pure win. Perhaps one of the few choices in 4th edition that actively promotes roleplay opportunities.


My 3.5 wizards generally have prestidigitation active for most of the day anyway.



The concept of rituals. The execution of rituals in 4e was EXTREMELY bad. Rituals in 4e usually either extremely narrow in usage, too expensive, or took too long (or some/all of the above). Some rituals should be free, I think. And some rituals should be usable in combat time. WotC is starting to catch on by allowing some free rituals per day for some classes, but it is too little, too late.

I just like the concept of rituals because I hate taking utility spells at the cost of combat ability. Rituals had so much potential, but WotC WASTED all of that potential and made a system that is barely usable.


The same concept is already in 3.5 - incantations in Unearthed Arcana (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/incantations.htm) (taken from D20 modern I believe). It is not taken very far but the potential is there.

[Kaiyanwang]

Just one note about fix HP by level advancement instead of dice roll - IIRC, is an option in the DMG.

IIRC, is something like this:

- Max HP at level 1

- low average level 2 (example for fighter, 5 bard: 3)

-high average level 3 (example for fighter: 6, bard, 4)

-low average level 4

and so on.

And a lot of things of 4th edition, like maxed skills and fixed XP for monsters are in the Unhearthed Arcana, take a look.

[Colmarr]

At-Will, Encounter, and Daily abilities. I hate how 4th edition's powers are kind of cookie cutter and narrowly defined, versus the large variety of spells, most of which had many interesting interactions and secondary uses that are not readily apparent. But after playing 4th edition, Vancian spell casting kind of sucks. I like being able to blow my wad and still have something more than just mundane weapons to use.

QFT. I never really grocked the narrative behind Vancian spellcasting, so 4e was a big improvement for me in that respect.

[Blackfang108]

But, aren't defenses just a different word for "saves" ? Like I said, I never played, but when looking at a character sheet, I still see Fort, Ref, Will...

But you don't roll Fort, Ref, and Will.

The attacker Rolls against them, just like an attack v AC.

[Dagren]

But you don't roll Fort, Ref, and Will.

The attacker Rolls against them, just like an attack v AC.So it's basically taking the 'roll for defense' option from 3.5, but taken in the opposite direction?

[J.Gellert]

I was thinking about reverse saves, actually, but ended up choosing 'no' because

1. It's a pain to write down with aspect to all already published 3.5 material - why convert when it's basically the same thing when it comes down to numbers?

2. It takes away power from the hands of players when you tell them "He casts sleep... *roll* and you are asleep." as they no longer have the illusion of being able to do something to prevent it.

(3. My players are sticklers for tradition so I didn't want to make them learn new things unless I really had to. As with #1, why bother when it's the same thing mathematically?)

[Tiki Snakes]

I was thinking about reverse saves, actually, but ended up choosing 'no' because

1. It's a pain to write down with aspect to all already published 3.5 material - why convert when it's basically the same thing when it comes down to numbers?

2. It takes away power from the hands of players when you tell them "He casts sleep... *roll* and you are asleep." as they no longer have the illusion of being able to do something to prevent it.

I agree largely, though in 4th, that's largely because the comparable spell and effects are unlikely to instantly effect them. First they are slowed, I believe, and fall asleep if they fail their first or second saving throw? Something like that.

Similarly giving 'get out clauses' to the save-or-die spells in 3.5 could be an idea, perhaps?

[Curmudgeon]

I'd go for the limited spellcasting. They fixed the caster überness fairly well.

[mistformsquirrl]

This took some thinking...

1) Encounter Powers - A lot of the powers that exist for non-caster classes (Smite Evil being an example) can be annoying to use because you only get so many per-day. Obviously, not every power should become Encounter, but there are many that would benefit from that kind of organization.

2) I'll agree with Curmudgeon on the limited spellcasting overall; though I wouldn't directly port it.

3) I almost want to suggest the Armor system as well. Although it's not perfect; I like that there are 'simply better' material versions of equipment while not having to worry about unusual effects or giving them out too early (as many of them seem to be pretty clearly designed for a given tier of play.)

I'm still not satisfied entirely with it, but I like the concept of it at least.

[TMZ_Cinoros]

I have to add one more thing. The hardest part of making the ideal D&D system is finding the right balance between good play mechanics and verisimilitude. In terms of verisimilitude, 2nd edition has been my favorite D&D (I haven't played 1st edition). In 3rd edition, the design began to put in more disassociated mechanics, and encourages more rules literalism. 4th edition completely left behind the idea of even attempting to maintain verisimilitude.

So, everyone is going to have a different idea of what mechanics should be backported, as everyone has a different level of tolerance for disassociated mechanics.

So, on with my responses...



I agree with most of what you're saying, but instead of giving unlimited healing surges, I think it's better just to limit the rate at which reckless characters can burn through their surges. Many 4e abilities that spend a surge should have some other cost instead; and if characters could go through a maximum of 3 surges per battle, I think the 15-minute workday would be nicely circumvented.


I think I should rephrase my original thoughts. I agree that having unlimited surges per day is kind of unrealistic, as the players should suffer through some attrition. But the limited number of healing surges per day as currently implemented in 4e is something that I don't like. Mostly, I feel as though the person receiving a heal shouldn't be the one spending the surge, that it should be the healer who spends the surge.

I can't think of a system that I like. I just know that the current system feels off to me, and I can only think of systems that are less off, rather than something that fits what I feel is right.



What I would love to import from 4e to 3.5 is the monster design. No fiddling about with levels and hit dice and templates - just pick a level, get some numbers, invent some suitable powers, and rock. It used to take me upwards of an hour to generate a mid-level 3.5 enemy. I can do the same in 4e in 10 minutes.


I have to take objection to this. I mean, I like the rules they have for monster creation, like what you stated. But the design ethos that WotC has set for monsters is terrible. This idea comes from the Alexandrian. I'm having problems finding the exact post I'm getting these ideas from, unfortunately.

Anyways, current design philosophy for monsters (as stated in a 4th edition column, according to the Alexandrian, but I haven't read the primary source myself) is that monsters have a life time of about 5 rounds. Thus, monsters should not have more than 5 abilities. Out of combat abilities are never seen, and thus irrelevant and should not be put in. Also, abilities should be unique, as the player shouldn't have to refer to the PHB to see the abilities of the monster (nevermind that they could REPRINT the ability instead of making a new one).

I just hate the idea that monsters do not exist outside of combat and must be designed entirely for the average fight.



4. Simplified Magic Item Creation: I like how in 4th edition the various magic items don't require specific spells to be able to craft them. All you need is to be of the appropriate level (which in the end makes enchanting magic items about the same as buying them from a shop. And disenchanting them the same as selling them). So, as a wizard, I don't have to pick spells based on what I can craft with them instead of what are useful in combat.


I actually like having to put in spells to make an item. It adds a huge amount of flavor. After all, if you are making a magical item, it just makes sense that you need to use a spell to achieve a similar magical effect. For example, If you want an item to boost your strength, I believe you need to cast a spell for increasing strength into the item.

Picking spells for crafting isnt' that big of a deal. You just need it in your spell book, and only prepare it when you are crafting an item. You don't need to have crafting spells prepared at all times. It will take a full day's effort to make the item anyway, so you aren't doing much else.

As for disenchanting = selling, I have to say I kind of dislike that idea. 4th edition is all about OBJECTIVE VALUES! I can buy 1000 gp of arcane ritual components to make a 1000 gp magic item. Or, I can buy 1000 gp of residium. Which costs exactly the same as arcane ritual components. But is in much much shorter supply. Supply and demand? What is THAT! (Granted, past editions also had basic economic issues, like the gold to silver/platinum ratios being constant, and many other things, but 4th edition took it to a new level.)

The idea that the sell price and disenchant price is ALWAYS the same is kind of silly to me. Its like the item has some kind of inherent value.



In 4th edition, its made clear that combat spells and non-combat magic are different things and you can't really compare the effects of making a house with shooting a fireball. Plus, the rituals cost enough that farmers don't have to worry about Magical Trevor putting them out of business with those tricks that he does (which are ever so clever).


I'm sorry, but I don't entirely understand what you mean. What's the problem if magic changes the world and puts people out of business? In the real world, whip and buggy makers were put out of business (well, except as a hobby/novelty) by the automobile. If technology can cause massive social changes in the real world, why can't magic cause massive social changes in a fantasy world?



Sure, I could have a cool wizard character who can put some points in Craft(macaroni and cheese) and then spend some of my down time crafting masterwork pasta to sell to villagers... and triple my money. But then that starts to get silly, am I trying to optimize my character to make more money outside of combat? Am I trading off points in my various knowledge skills just so I can save money on food or weapons or something? Is my super intelligent half-elven/half-halfling wizard with +18 int going to stay at home while the others go off fighting and make some kind of army of Dedicated Wright Homunculi so he can start the fast-food revolution 500 years early?!


If you want to do that stuff, I don't see why you shouldn't be stopped. The craft/profession skills are highly contrived and poorly written, but there should be rules for crafting stuff through mundane means. It just wasn't put into 4th edition because the designers had the ethos that they didn't care about fluff at all, just combat. They've relegated "fluff" to the DM. Not that the DM shouldn't have creative control, but this means that 4th edition can't really be considered as much to be a roleplaying game as it used to. Default fluff is good to have, as it leaves the DM to focus on other things.



I also like the general idea of "marking", to add more tactical options to combat.


Meh, I have mixed feelings about marking. On one hand, I like how it plays out tactically. On the other hand, I hate how it is a diassociated mechanic. Especially how a fighter, who uses martial prowess, and a paladin, who uses divine energy, can't both mark the same monster. Also, I can't imagine exactly how the marks -2 to attack are accomplished when the person placing the mark isn't threatening the monster. Well, outside of the useless explanations that are so prevalent in fluff for 4th edition. If marking could be done in a way to make it better associated with some form of versimilitude, I'd like it. But 4th edition doesn't accomplish this.

[Celebrochan]

I don't know if it is in 4th edd. but in starwars saga edition you get +2 to two seperate stats at every 4th level. I think this is handy.

[RTGoodman]

I don't know if it is in 4th edd. but in starwars saga edition you get +2 to two seperate stats at every 4th level. I think this is handy.

Yeah, 4E is the same. You get +2 to two at 4th, 8th, 12th, and so on, AND +1 to ALL stats at 11th and 21st level.

[Leon]

I like that arcane casters can wear armour if they choose to

[Duke of URL]

Meh, I have mixed feelings about marking. On one hand, I like how it plays out tactically. On the other hand, I hate how it is a diassociated mechanic. Especially how a fighter, who uses martial prowess, and a paladin, who uses divine energy, can't both mark the same monster. Also, I can't imagine exactly how the marks -2 to attack are accomplished when the person placing the mark isn't threatening the monster. Well, outside of the useless explanations that are so prevalent in fluff for 4th edition. If marking could be done in a way to make it better associated with some form of versimilitude, I'd like it. But 4th edition doesn't accomplish this.

As I said, I like the general idea. I doubt I'd port over the mechanics.

As an example, for the 3.5 paladin re-work I'm busy on, I'm using a pseudo-marking ability that allows the paladin to force an opponent that she threatens who attempts to attack an ally attack the paladin instead.

[Oslecamo]

MOAR HP for monsters. Sometimes I just maximize the little bastards HP.

Turn down most save-or die-effects from monsters to save-or suck or save-or-lose-one-turn-only. Still keep lethal effects here and there to keep the players in check.

[Decoy Lockbox]

For people who want to port the idea of at-will spells for wizards into 3.5, an important thing to remember is that in 4e, wizards are expected to still be using their at-will spells at higher levels. For example, a level 28 wizard's Thunder Wave could easily do 20 or 30 damage and throw the targets a good 40 feet. I very much doubt that ray of frost would be useful for anything but a first level spellcaster, and even then, its questionable at best. The perfect at-will 3.5 spell would be something like magic missile or scorching ray I think.

[Duke of URL]

For people who want to port the idea of at-will spells for wizards into 3.5, an important thing to remember is that in 4e, wizards are expected to still be using their at-will spells at higher levels. For example, a level 28 wizard's Thunder Wave could easily do 20 or 30 damage and throw the targets a good 40 feet. I very much doubt that ray of frost would be useful for anything but a first level spellcaster, and even then, its questionable at best. The perfect at-will 3.5 spell would be something like magic missile or scorching ray I think.

Maybe something along the lines of allowing them to choose one or more "at-will" spells from a list of cantrips, then as their level gets high enough, allow them to trade at-wills for higher-level spells (again from defined lists.... you want to prevent spamming abuse); (i.e., maximum spell level - X, minimum 0), where X could be something on the order of 3-6, depending on the power level you're looking for.

[RTGoodman]

Maybe something along the lines of allowing them to choose one or more "at-will" spells from a list of cantrips, then as their level gets high enough, allow them to trade at-wills for higher-level spells (again from defined lists.... you want to prevent spamming abuse); (i.e., maximum spell level - X, minimum 0), where X could be something on the order of 3-6, depending on the power level you're looking for.

Eh, or just give some benefits to those spells at higher levels.

Magic missile already SORTA scales with level. Maybe increase the damage every few levels (1d4+1 at 1st, 1d6+2 at 5th, 1d8+3 at 10th, 2d6+4 at 15th, 2d8+5 at 20th). At 10th level, each enemy hit is pushed back one square per missile that hit it, and at 20th level the enemy has to make a Reflex save (DC 10 + 1/2 level + Int mod) or be knocked prone. Not overpowering, but at least worth using at higher levels.

[Duke of URL]

The idea was to give wizards "at will" spells, not necessarily to boost the power of existing spells. Of course, there's no reason you can't mix and match both -- I'm just brainstorming here.

Under the assumption that you want to give the wizard an "at will " ability that they can use if they're out of other spells or want to save some spells for later... and not have to resort to using a crossbow or something like that... We also want ot keep damage output with the at-will well behind the Warlock, or it will never get played again.

Let's go back to what I was saying. They can have 1 "at-will" spell of spell level (maximum spell level known - 4, minimum 0th), from a defined list. So they can start by having one of the following as an at-will (I'll stick to core for now):

0th: acid splash, ray of frost

Okay, it's only 1d3, but it's a ranged touch spell and they can use it all day long when they want to save their other spells for later. This may be a good case for upping the damage to 1d3 + level, though. Once they receive 5th-level spells (9th level), they can swap that out for:

1st: burning hands, magic missile, ray of enfeeblement

None of these can really compare to a 4th or 5th level spell, but useful when you don't want to bring out the big guns. At 11th level, the new choices become:

2nd: acid arrow, scorching ray (maybe others)

And so on:

13th level - 3rd: fireball, hold person, lightning bolt, ray of exhaustion, stinking cloud

15th level - 4th: black tentacles, confusion, enervation, ice storm, shout, solid fog

etc.

There may be a cost necessary, such as sacrifice two spell slots of the appropriate level to gain the at-will...

[hamishspence]

3.5 ed was heading in the direction of At Wills (warlock, dragonfire adept, Complete Mage reserve feats) and Encounters (Tome of Battle classes, factotum) anyway.

Epic Destinies might be an interesting import. Dragon magazine did them shortly before 4th ed came out.

[RTGoodman]

Epic Destinies might be an interesting import. Dragon magazine did them shortly before 4th ed came out.

Courtesy of The Demented One:


(3.5) Epic Destinies

Abyssal Exalted (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5805552)
Alchemical Exalted (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=105728)
Arch-Psion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5691758&postcount=2)
Eternal Seeker (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5691763&postcount=3)
High Mage (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5691772&postcount=4)
Lunar Exalted (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5806635)
Mythic Sovereign (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5691781&postcount=5)
Sidereal Exalted (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5804064)
Solar Exalted (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5802306)
Terrestrial Exalted (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5814305)
Time Lord (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4673929)
True Genius (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5883915#post5883915)
Undying Avatar (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=103582)

[Artanis]

So it's basically taking the 'roll for defense' option from 3.5, but taken in the opposite direction?

You mean like in the "players roll all the dice" thing in the SRD's variant section, only in reverse? If so, then yeah, pretty much. You take a roll and turn it into a static for the defender, and take a static and turn it into a roll for the attacker.