PDA

View Full Version : What I want to see from 4th Edition



ken-do-nim
2007-01-06, 03:30 PM
Well, we're perhaps a year and a half away from the release of 4th edition (no I know nothing official), so I've been thinking about what it may look like. Here then is a list of the changes I'd like to see:

1. Every race should have at least one hit die/level. This alleviates the awkwardness of having 4 x skill points the first character level; instead you'd get your racial skills for that level. It also gets rid of the oddity where all humans have to have a class yet you can run into other creatures without any. At last there could be such a thing as a normal human! It would also make 1st level play more fun, since your characters actually have 2 hit dice (one race, one class). That is, unless you want the first adventure to start with picking a class.

2. Each class should fill a specific archetypal role and be distinct from one another. Right now we have 2 holy armored knights (cleric, paladin), for example. Each class must play extremely differently from the others. Ranger for example should become less about a canned feat package and more about wilderness expertise.

3. Classes should be set up to provide immense variety. Questions about balance aside, I love that the fighter is just a collection of bonus feats. Whereas look at the monk; they get a few bonus feats early on (with just a few choices), then it is a rigid path. Any two 20th level monks are going to look pretty similar. But with some thought and creativity, you could come up with an immense amount of different qualities and powers they could have.

4. Classes should be balanced contribution-wise. Wizards should do their best to end a lot of the concerns voiced on this forum and others regarding "casters win". Spells like the polymorph chain need to be fixed.

5. Feats can be bought via point buy. Some feats are better than others, and this is a good way to balance them. Just as there is a feat to gain extra skill points, there can probably also be a way to convert skill points into extra feats.

Well that's all for now, I'm sure you'll all come up with so much more.

Matthew
2007-01-06, 03:32 PM
Backwards Compatability (I always say this).

Callos_DeTerran
2007-01-06, 03:34 PM
...is for it to not exist unless its backwards compatiable. If I've bought all the splat-books that I have for nothing, I will quite seriously stop buying Wizards products.

Captain van der Decken
2007-01-06, 03:34 PM
Balance..
Really, I'd just prefer something like 3.75. Just rebalancing the whole thing.

ZekeArgo
2007-01-06, 03:39 PM
Well, we're perhaps a year and a half away from the release of 4th edition (no I know nothing official), so I've been thinking about what it may look like. Here then is a list of the changes I'd like to see:

1. Every race should have at least one hit die/level. This alleviates the awkwardness of having 4 x skill points the first character level; instead you'd get your racial skills for that level. It also gets rid of the oddity where all humans have to have a class yet you can run into other creatures without any. At last there could be such a thing as a normal human! It would also make 1st level play more fun, since your characters actually have 2 hit dice (one race, one class). That is, unless you want the first adventure to start with picking a class.

Unnessicary, and not even true, if you read the statblocks for the other PC races they are always listed as level 1 warriors or experts or whatnot.

Nevermind that as you said theres no longer any 1st level play.


2. Each class should fill a specific archetypal role and be distinct from one another. Right now we have 2 holy armored knights (cleric, paladin), for example. Each class must play extremely differently from the others. Ranger for example should become less about a canned feat package and more about wilderness expertise.Ahh, so the Ranger would become a Scout then?


3. Classes should be set up to provide immense variety. Questions about balance aside, I love that the fighter is just a collection of bonus feats. Whereas look at the monk; they get a few bonus feats early on (with just a few choices), then it is a rigid path. Any two 20th level monks are going to look pretty similar. But with some thought and creativity, you could come up with an immense amount of different qualities and powers they could have.

Already addressed: PrCs


4. Classes should be balanced contribution-wise. Wizards should do their best to end a lot of the concerns voiced on this forum and others regarding "casters win". Spells like the polymorph chain need to be fixed.True, (also, do you mean players of Wizards or Wizards of the Coast?). But even still very difficult if they want to retain the same flavor as well as a vancian magic system.


5. Feats can be bought via point buy. Some feats are better than others, and this is a good way to balance them. Just as there is a feat to gain extra skill points, there can probably also be a way to convert skill points into extra feats.Arbitrary, since writers for one suppliment will have no idea how well their feats will mesh with things that come in later on. Would just cause an endless errata printout adjusting costs as new books came out

Morty
2007-01-06, 03:44 PM
True, (also, do you mean players of Wizards or Wizards of the Coast?). But even still very difficult if they want to retain the same flavor as well as a vancian magic system.
I'm preety sure that wizards can be less insanely powerful while retaining falvour and Vancian magic system. It'd just take to think while designing spells, which WoTC clearly didn't do while designing spell lists for 3.x- just look at Rope Trick, Wall of Iron, Teleport, Polymorph, Mage's Magnificent Mansion and so on.

purple gelatinous cube o' Doom
2007-01-06, 03:54 PM
Well, we're perhaps a year and a half away from the release of 4th edition (no I know nothing official), so I've been thinking about what it may look like. Here then is a list of the changes I'd like to see:

When 3.5 came out, Wizards explicitly stated that this did not in any way mean that it meant that they were half way to making 4th edition. 4th ed is still a long way off.

Behold_the_Void
2007-01-06, 03:58 PM
I think a drain system like Shadowrun has might do well in balancing wizards. That and a revamping of several spells. You do have to be careful though, a lot of spells are iconic and should still be available in some form.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-06, 03:59 PM
Look at Arcana Evolved for spellcasting with pretty much the same flavor but much better balance.

Behold_the_Void
2007-01-06, 04:00 PM
I've heard a lot of this "Arcana Evolved", but haven't seen it around. Is it a 3rd party source or something?

Falconsflight
2007-01-06, 04:02 PM
Well, we're perhaps a year and a half away from the release of 4th edition (no I know nothing official), so I've been thinking about what it may look like. Here then is a list of the changes I'd like to see:

1. Every race should have at least one hit die/level. This alleviates the awkwardness of having 4 x skill points the first character level; instead you'd get your racial skills for that level. It also gets rid of the oddity where all humans have to have a class yet you can run into other creatures without any. At last there could be such a thing as a normal human! It would also make 1st level play more fun, since your characters actually have 2 hit dice (one race, one class). That is, unless you want the first adventure to start with picking a class.

What is awkward about the 4x skill points?
Also, Humans and every other base class (Halfling, Gnome, Half-orc, etc) are all the same. They don't have monstrous hit die. It's becuase they technically aren't monsters. Each of the base classes live in a society that isn't detrimental to any other society. By that I mean, you won't see a gnome and Human war without just cause. But you can see humans fighting orcs or goblins, just because.


2. Each class should fill a specific archetypal role and be distinct from one another. Right now we have 2 holy armored knights (cleric, paladin), for example. Each class must play extremely differently from the others. Ranger for example should become less about a canned feat package and more about wilderness expertise.

Technically, the Cleric has the archetypical role of being the healer. That's how it looks and is supposed to be played. People just see the spells and the armor and go "Hey, I could kick some butt with this class" Admittadly, Wizards should do a minor fix to this, like getting rid of spells that only affect their power. (I.e Righteous Might)


3. Classes should be set up to provide immense variety. Questions about balance aside, I love that the fighter is just a collection of bonus feats. Whereas look at the monk; they get a few bonus feats early on (with just a few choices), then it is a rigid path. Any two 20th level monks are going to look pretty similar. But with some thought and creativity, you could come up with an immense amount of different qualities and powers they could have.

It's the flavor of the class. Fighters fit a lot of roles, they need the availabilty of different feats. Monks fit one role. Barbarians fit one role. Rangers fit one of two roles. Their abilities and their flavor say they only get one role. Barbarians Rage, Monks are eternal and Rangers tend to shoot bows or wield two weapons.


5. Feats can be bought via point buy. Some feats are better than others, and this is a good way to balance them. Just as there is a feat to gain extra skill points, there can probably also be a way to convert skill points into extra feats.
This... Just doens't make any sense. They have prereq's for a reason. Plus only the fighter gets enough feats for him to actually be not annoyed by this. Everybody else will only have 7 feats for the entire game and you want to exclude some just because they don't have the points?

oriong
2007-01-06, 10:00 PM
# 1 just isn't right...what is an 'ordinary human?', why should they exist, there are plenty of ways to represent them already with NPC classes. And other monsters have classes too, most of the ones listed in the monster manual are 1st level warriors.

#3 and #4 are contradictory. Each class should be a fixed archetype, with an absolutely minimal 'overlap' with other classes but at the same time they should also have immense variety? The only way to do this is to pare it down into the 3 'core' archetypes you see in Unearthed Arcana: Warrior, Spellcaster, and Expert, which frankly destroys the flavor built into the classes. You might as well make the game point buy. There's nothing wrong with things like a fighter and barbarian, or a sorcerer and a wizard, or a cleric and a paladin, they share interests and some abilities but they are ultimately very different classes.

I disagree with number 5. Combining Point Buy and Class systems in any significant degree number tend to be Bad Ideas. With the amount of material produced by wizard's it's even worse. if you go even farther and turn skill points into feats you'd get weird things like rogues who are more combat experts tha fighters.

Bosh
2007-01-06, 10:45 PM
-Make keeping track of which bonuses stack with what much much easier. Limit them to a couple easy to remember types and then color-code them or something. As things is keeping track of what stacks with what is an enormous pain in the ass.

-Make it so that in anything close to a fair fight a fighter would crush a wizard but give wizards plenty of means to avoid fair fights. I'd like there to be lots of useful spells with 10 minute casting times personally.

-Get rid of insanely powerful cleric self-only buffs.

-Give fighters a few useful non-combat abilities. Nothing major, just some small stuff.

-Overhaul the multiclassing system. Right now a looooooooooot of multiclassing options are just completely untenable powerwise (just try to play an 6th level fighter/7th level cleric/7th level wizard) that works just fine in 2nd edition. Because of this there are an insane number of feats and PrCs that only exist to bring some multiclass options back up to par and make the game more complicated. Do something like have multiclass characters gain a level of abilities in one class whenever they gain two levels in another class.

Deathcow
2007-01-06, 11:23 PM
If 4th ed. is a year and a half away, I will be very upset. I'm still not completely upgraded from 3.0 to 3.5.

ken-do-nim
2007-01-07, 12:03 AM
# 1 just isn't right...what is an 'ordinary human?', why should they exist, there are plenty of ways to represent them already with NPC classes. And other monsters have classes too, most of the ones listed in the monster manual are 1st level warriors.


An ordinary human is someone who has no class-specific training. We can do away with the npc class commoner, unless someone actually uses 15th level commoners. Having a class should mean you've had training.



#3 and #4 are contradictory. Each class should be a fixed archetype, with an absolutely minimal 'overlap' with other classes but at the same time they should also have immense variety? The only way to do this is to pare it down into the 3 'core' archetypes you see in Unearthed Arcana: Warrior, Spellcaster, and Expert, which frankly destroys the flavor built into the classes. You might as well make the game point buy. There's nothing wrong with things like a fighter and barbarian, or a sorcerer and a wizard, or a cleric and a paladin, they share interests and some abilities but they are ultimately very different classes.


I believe you can achieve immense variety yet fit archetypes by using bonus feats and asking characters to choose powers. All the spellcasting classes have built-in variety already by which spells they pick. Probably clerics should be asked to know certain spells, instead of being able to prepare anything. Fighters as I noted already have fighter bonus feats, rogues already have special abilities to pick from at high levels, so I really just want to see more of this. Monks should have different paths to enlightenment, akin to schools of magic, and these paths come with a different set of abilities to pick from. Rangers should have ranger bonus feats so they can specialize in setting traps (something which I don't see enough of in D&D) vs. sniping vs. sneak attacks against their favored enemies vs. various tactics that can be used depending on the wilderness setting. Maybe some paladins have today's smite evil, whereas others blast evil in a cone, etc. I think if Wizards' puts enough imagination into it, they can expand the classes greatly. Then you don't need so many prestige classes because the classes themselves allow for great flexibility.



I disagree with number 5. Combining Point Buy and Class systems in any significant degree number tend to be Bad Ideas. With the amount of material produced by wizard's it's even worse. if you go even farther and turn skill points into feats you'd get weird things like rogues who are more combat experts tha fighters.

I think having feats via point buy would help writers of later books to balance their feats. Right now, they want to do something cool, and if they worry the new feat is overpowered they just bulk up the prerequisites. But if feats cost different points, it gives them another way to balance them. I'm not too attached about converting skill points to feats so I'm fine with scrapping that part.

ken-do-nim
2007-01-07, 12:06 AM
-Overhaul the multiclassing system. Right now a looooooooooot of multiclassing options are just completely untenable powerwise (just try to play an 6th level fighter/7th level cleric/7th level wizard) that works just fine in 2nd edition. Because of this there are an insane number of feats and PrCs that only exist to bring some multiclass options back up to par and make the game more complicated. Do something like have multiclass characters gain a level of abilities in one class whenever they gain two levels in another class.

Maybe you can spend a certain amount of skill points to increase your effective level in another class. Then we can do away with "practised" spellcaster by making it a skill point cost instead of a feat.

I still wonder if somehow we can merge skills & feats. They both represent time you spend practising something (well, some feats aren't like the dragonmarks, but by and large they are tricks you learn), so shouldn't they use the same mechanic?

Zincorium
2007-01-07, 12:12 AM
The main problem as I see it is that WotC has shown a trend of massively revamping much of the basics (see: all races can be any class, ability score modifiers rather than miscellaneous bonuses) yet keep may silly things that were the status quo in 2nd ed yet don't really need to be carried over (the bag of holding/portable hole explosion, the alignment system as is).

So if 4th edition follows that trend, and I'm hoping it not only doesn't but isn't released for at least another 10 years, then you'll have a lot more rules to re-learn (but they'll probably be simpler) the specific things which are 'broken' will change but there won't be fewer of them, and miniatures will almost be required for a the complete experience.

ken-do-nim
2007-01-07, 12:22 AM
So if 4th edition follows that trend, and I'm hoping it not only doesn't but isn't released for at least another 10 years, then you'll have a lot more rules to re-learn (but they'll probably be simpler) the specific things which are 'broken' will change but there won't be fewer of them, and miniatures will almost be required for a the complete experience.

Yeah, I did read that it will be more miniatures focused, because Wizards makes more money on miniatures than it does on D&D. So the game will be in some sense a vehicle to sell plastic minis. How it can be any more minis focused I really don't know. I can just see it now; the DM says "You can't fight monster xyz because I haven't bought the mini yet, and it says in the rules you have to use the genuine thing or it isn't legal".

Ambrogino
2007-01-07, 02:04 AM
Character attributes will come i randomised boosters and you will be unable to level up a character unless you have a (rare) card for the next level of the class you are playing. Adventures will consist of the DM randomly drawing Monsters from the deck to fight in 10x10 rooms guarding chests. WotC will hire ninjas to kill anyone playing a previous edition in order to increase 4.0 ed card sales. Harry Potter will be the first World Book.

Khantalas
2007-01-07, 02:40 AM
Nah, you can play fine without miniatures. You just need an electronic blackboard. And a computer, of course.

MrNexx
2007-01-07, 02:53 AM
Nah, you can play fine without miniatures. You just need an electronic blackboard. And a computer, of course.

Or a chalkboard. Or imagination. Both are acceptable substitutes.

Rockphed
2007-01-07, 04:00 AM
I was going to get a white board with a nice grid on it, but I ran out of money...

Bouldering Jove
2007-01-07, 04:50 AM
Cheaper alternative: graph paper and pencils.

ambu
2007-01-07, 05:03 AM
Gentleman I believe that 3.75 already exists. If you agree with the following:

-Spellcasting and spellcasters should be balanced with other classes.
-Magical items should be considered in a case by case mode
-Archetypes like the magic wielding warrior or the agile fighter should be core-meaning balanced and as well integrated as say the rogue
- Alignments must be optional, or to say it differently, it must be possible to play without alignments without stumbling on the magic system

then Arcana Evolved is what you are looking for. Do yourselves a favor and look it up. It gives a much clearer understanding of what DnD can be. It is written by Monte Cook, one of the designers of d20 nevertheless and published by Malhavoc Press (this goes for Behold_the_void)

ken-do-nim
2007-01-07, 08:05 AM
Character attributes will come i randomised boosters and you will be unable to level up a character unless you have a (rare) card for the next level of the class you are playing. Adventures will consist of the DM randomly drawing Monsters from the deck to fight in 10x10 rooms guarding chests. WotC will hire ninjas to kill anyone playing a previous edition in order to increase 4.0 ed card sales. Harry Potter will be the first World Book.

Now THAT has got to be the funniest thing I've read in a long time!

But yeah, with Hasbro owning WOTC, I'm not sure we can expect quality product ... at some point making the best RPG and making the best money-making RPG part ways.

JaronK
2007-01-07, 08:08 AM
What I want:

Skills, at high level, should do things roughly on par, powerwise, with spells. We've already got plenty of classes that can do magical things at high level without being true spellcasters (rogues can dodge a 20' diameter fireball in a 10' room without being harmed, monks can run at lightning speeds, barbarians get so mad they become tougher, etc). Just making Disguise be able to do things like Alter Self at high level would mean the skill monkeys could keep up with the spellcasters.

That, and revise some of the earlier melee base classes (like Fighter) so they keep up with the spellcasters and the newer melee classes (Warblade).

While we're at it, all Base Classes should have some reason to stay in the class instead of PrCing out (I'm looking at you, Sorcerer) and have some capstone ability that makes level 20 special (see Dread Necromancer and Scout for examples of how this should work. See Rogue and Fighter for how it should not).

JaronK

Falrin
2007-01-07, 08:22 AM
I want to see "Thanks to ... & ... from the WoTC Optimization Forum for playtesting" at the end of the book.

Spells should be rewritten. A 2 Turns time-stop, no polymorph, more 10 minutes casting (teleport), ...

A book with "Errata" for 3.5 starting with the sentence : "We could make this 4.0 and make everybody buy this. We could then update every other book we ever published and let you buy those. But we chose to fix 3.5 and give this book away for free because we made you buy all those hoorible suplements without even checking them for spelling, let olone balance."

The Valiant Turtle
2007-01-07, 08:44 AM
Here's a link to Arcana Evolved:

http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?arcanaevolved

It's from Malhovak Press, which is basically Monte Cooks personal publisher. Monte was one of the prime architechts of 3rd Edition, so you might think of this as what 3rd edition would have been if he did it solo, although he has said that many of the ideas come from seeing how 3rd edition played out. It is an excellent system and does balance magic users out a bit more. My only problem with it is the world setting he made, which isn't all that great if you ask me. Monte writes excellent rules, but I've never been a fan of his world settings, although I am sorely tempted to get Ptolus.

He has also written Iron Heroes, which is an attempt to do DnD with almost no magic whatsoever. I haven't looked at it much, but I've heard it compared to Conan alot.

Ambrogino
2007-01-07, 08:58 AM
He has also written Iron Heroes, which is an attempt to do DnD with almost no magic whatsoever. I haven't looked at it much, but I've heard it compared to Conan alot.

Cook didn't write Iron Heroes, Mike Mearls did. "Monte Cook presents" is on the cover to differentiate it from the other , non-Malhavok Press stuff White Wold publish.

RandomNPC
2007-01-07, 10:48 AM
i want to see more 3.5 stuf, the games not so broken that there is no fun for anyone, people still play. when they anounce the release of 4th im going to stop buying books and play with what i have. What they need, something i've not even home ruled, is something my players kind of do it themselves. the party balances out, because the wizard knows one good shot from a greataxe will either drop him or put him close, and the fighter knows he can save the wizards bacon.

Matthew
2007-01-07, 10:50 AM
The main problem as I see it is that WotC has shown a trend of massively revamping much of the basics (see: all races can be any class, ability score modifiers rather than miscellaneous bonuses) yet keep may silly things that were the status quo in 2nd ed yet don't really need to be carried over (the bag of holding/portable hole explosion, the alignment system as is).

So if 4th edition follows that trend, and I'm hoping it not only doesn't but isn't released for at least another 10 years, then you'll have a lot more rules to re-learn (but they'll probably be simpler) the specific things which are 'broken' will change but there won't be fewer of them, and miniatures will almost be required for a the complete experience.

Zincorium, the thing is 3.x is actually very closely related to 0.x, 2.x and 3.x. Attribute Score Modifiers are taken from 0.x, the all Races can be any Class was a frequently discussed and implemented House Rule for 2.x, indeed many of the changes are just well used House Rules.

Fourth Edition will either be a minor reworking of Third (as with War Hammer 40K Fourth Edition) or a completely different take on things (the D&D Engine is now OGL, you can see the result with OSRIC) [i.e. a new Engine]. Given the whole minimum effort maximum profit ethos, I expect it will be a dressed up version of 3.x (probably a lot more photographs of models), with enough changes to force people to buy and few enough to prevent alienating the market.


i want to see more 3.5 stuf, the games not so broken that there is no fun for anyone, people still play. when they anounce the release of 4th im going to stop buying books and play with what i have. What they need, something i've not even home ruled, is something my players kind of do it themselves. the party balances out, because the wizard knows one good shot from a greataxe will either drop him or put him close, and the fighter knows he can save the wizards bacon.

Heh, an often heard sentiment and an old one (see players of 0.x, 1.x and 2.x), but the majority of people will eventually 'buy in' to any new edition, even if just out of curiosity.

Journey
2007-01-07, 11:55 AM
Maybe you can spend a certain amount of skill points to increase your effective level in another class. Then we can do away with "practised" spellcaster by making it a skill point cost instead of a feat.

I still wonder if somehow we can merge skills & feats. They both represent time you spend practising something (well, some feats aren't like the dragonmarks, but by and large they are tricks you learn), so shouldn't they use the same mechanic?

I'd just like to see the "feats" system scrapped altogether in any new edition, or else so thoroughly revised that it no longer resembles the current system. Multi-classing should be revamped (particularly to make it much harder to multi-class) as well, and Prestige Classes should be completely eliminated. The only redeeming quality in the basic d20 system is the uniformity of the mechanics of rolling skill checks, attacks, saves and the like. The skills, feats, and class systems are entirely and almost completely broken.

I don't want to beat the old "past edition vs. 3.x" dead horse too badly, but suffice it to say that everything bad that players did with, e.g. AD&D and 2nd edition I find has become the basic rule in 3.x. My view is that 3.x is essentially a powergamer/munchkin/rules-lawyer dreamland and that it discourages role-playing in favor of min-maxing and roll-playing. That's just my opinion of course and I'm not looking to argue about it in this thread (mainly because it's my experience that with this kind of debate nobody seems to change his mind, so it's pointless and a derail); I'm just providing the rationale for why I would like to see the change.

If they return to a more archetype/level based system instead of the shabby, hybrid with a skill-based system I might consider buying the new products. For the time, however, I'll stick with previous editions (house ruled, of course) and skill-based systems that aren't broken and don't encourage powergaming.

Matthew
2007-01-07, 12:05 PM
Journey:
There a number of threads knocking around with titles like 2.x versus 3.x, but they usually end up being locked and closed. Basically, all editions were open to abuse and all editions can be played with emphasis on role playing. It's not really a matter of mechanics, though, as much as it is of mentality. I sympathise with your view, but I don't wholeheartedly agree.

Journey
2007-01-07, 12:08 PM
Journey:
There a number of threads knocking around with titles like 2.x versus 3.x, but they usually end up being locked and closed. Basically, all editions were open to abuse and all editions can be played with emphasis on role playing. It's not really a matter of mechanics, though, as much as it is of mentality. I sympathise with your view, but I don't wholeheartedly agree.

Yeah; I've seen the discussion hashed and rehashed here and in other forums; that's why I tried to make my statement an opinion rather than an invitation to discussion about it. :)

I really, really don't think it's appropriate to discuss in the thread, but I felt I had to give the reason why I wanted to see the changes I did.

Matthew
2007-01-07, 12:10 PM
Fair enough.

Desaril
2007-01-08, 12:52 AM
Jumping in late, but...

I disagree with most of the posts that suggest clearer distinctions between the classes, making the game archetypical. I don't like archeypes as characters, I like archeypes as inspiration. I think that class features should have more options/trees like the fighter, ranger, monk, and high level thieves. Why should every thief have sneak attack and trapfinding? Give each class a large group of feats to choose from at different levels and allow customization.

I'd like combat to promote more descriptive action and movement. Right now, the AOO rules deter movement more than anything else (that's a whole 'nother post). I'd also make it easier to do the special moves (disarm, sunder, bull rush and especially grapple) without having to dedicate one of your rare feats to that particular move. It makes the combat more interesting when you can take actions other than OK, I SWING AGAIN!

Journey
2007-01-08, 07:06 AM
Jumping in late, but...

I disagree with most of the posts that suggest clearer distinctions between the classes, making the game archetypical. I don't like archeypes as characters, I like archeypes as inspiration. I think that class features should have more options/trees like the fighter, ranger, monk, and high level thieves. Why should every thief have sneak attack and trapfinding? Give each class a large group of feats to choose from at different levels and allow customization.

I'd like combat to promote more descriptive action and movement. Right now, the AOO rules deter movement more than anything else (that's a whole 'nother post). I'd also make it easier to do the special moves (disarm, sunder, bull rush and especially grapple) without having to dedicate one of your rare feats to that particular move. It makes the combat more interesting when you can take actions other than OK, I SWING AGAIN!

One can have a system of archetypes while still allowing for a very large variety of abilities within each archetype. I had a selection of house-ruled abilities and the like for just this purpose in previous editions. I think the 3.x rules attempted this and failed. The next edition should address these aspects while keeping the beneficial changes from previous editions.

As for combat--you describe quite well exactly what my complaint is with the 3.x skills and feats system. These two mechanics tend to make players see their characters' possible actions with tunnel-vision. If the character doesn't have the feat, he can't do it (often, if he doesn't have ranks in a skill he won't even try it). The feats offer an illusion of flexibility while in effect they end up being much more restrictive on play. They also offer a mechanical benefit for characters and NPCs at the expense of descriptive variety. All of the items you listed are considered "special attacks" and don't require feats even in 3.5, I thought (although that is surprising--I wouldn't be surprised at all to see these things become feats if 3.x continues in the same direction). The same can be said for non-combat skills and feats as well.

Renegade Paladin
2007-01-08, 07:39 AM
What I want from 4e is for it to not come out for quite some time. If it is announced within the next two years, I will simply buy up any remaining interesting 3.5 material and then sit tight for a few years with what I've got. I see no need to upgrade unless the new system is just massively superior, and I don't see that happening.

Saph
2007-01-08, 07:49 AM
I'd rather it didn't come out for a long time either. D&D 3.5 is pretty good already, I'm having fun playing it, and I honestly don't feel like doing all the work to catch up on a new set of rules again - I only just finished getting the 3.0/3.5 changes straight.


- Saph

Fatty Maroon
2007-01-08, 07:57 AM
I have to agree with you randomPC, I hardly see a reason for 4th edition. D&D is now using d20 it makes it a lot easier for people who ave played other d20 games but not D&D to play. I would like to stay 3.5.

Tormsskull
2007-01-08, 09:01 AM
I'd like to see WotC sell D&D to someone else to produce. Assuming that doesn't happen, I'd like them to balance all of the books against every other book. When a player takes a feat from supplement x it isn't that big of a deal. But when they take a feat from supplement x, a skill from supplement y, and a spell from supplement z suddenly the game is broken.

I'd love to see a total reworking of the magic system. I'd also like to see a campaign (sort of like FR or Eberron) that is dedicated to low-magic play. Sure, DMs can and often do nerf magic in many different shapes and forms, but it would be cool to see the resources a full campaign devoted to it could produce.

I'd like to see competent customer service people who have a firm knowledge of 4th edition working the e-mail responses. If a large number of responses are received, the answer should be researched/decided and added to the FAQ (I know this already happens but WotC seems to dodge certain issues to avoid disenfranchising some of their customers).

I'd like to see fewer classes but have the classes offer more customability. I think a durability system for weapons/armor needs to be included with an easy way to track it. I'd like to see a method for called shots included that actually makes sense.

I'd like to see WotC move away from the 'everything has to be exactly equal' standpoint. If a class is more powerful than a different class, make them have to gain more exp per level like in 1st edition or 2nd edition. Trying to make every class exactly balanced causes more problems than it is worth IMO.

ken-do-nim
2007-01-08, 09:58 AM
Tormskull, those are some great ideas there. D&D badly misses called shots; you're right, and a full low-magic campaign world would be a nice product.

Um, I thought of something else I'd like to see from 4E (me not being one of the people saying 3.5 is good enough and that we don't need it). I'd like to see the power levels of the monsters revamped closer to what it was in 1E:

CR 16 - your highest non-individual demons, devils (balor, pit fiend, hmm... sounds like 3.0 doesn't it?)

CR 17 & CR 18 - devil/demon nobility (dukes, barons, etc.)

CR 19 - minor demon lords / archdevils start, as well as demigods

CR 20 - most powerful dragon caps here (as opposed to what, CR 26 in today's 3.5?)

CR 21 - medium demon lords / archdevils start here, as well as lesser gods

CR 22 - Lolth

CR 23 - top demon lords/archdevils start here (Tiamat)

CR 24 - Demogorgon/Asmodeus

CR 25 - greater gods start here

CR 30 - pantheon heads (Zeus, Odin, etc.)

Ping_T._Squirrel
2007-01-08, 10:41 AM
I would like to see 4th ed being delivered via hover car and robot.

Orzel
2007-01-08, 10:55 AM
I really only want to see 2 major improvements:

1) A system to imporove class abilities without taking the clas again. Having your caster level never increase for years, just because you haven't taken a wizard level in 4 levels is silly. If we assume that characters practice their older skills and features, they should learn as well as upkeep.

2) Less spell lists and make 'em stack. Every class having their own spell list is dumb. Make 5-7 spell lists and have classes that share lists stack spells per day, caster level, and other things. Power to the druid-rangers , sorcards, and cleriladins!

Zincorium
2007-01-08, 10:57 AM
I would like to see 4th ed being delivered via hover car and robot.

Add in the robot as part of the package and I'm so there. 90 years old, having the robot flip the pages for me...

ken-do-nim
2007-01-08, 11:20 AM
I really only want to see 2 major improvements:

1) A system to imporove class abilities without taking the clas again. Having your caster level never increase for years, just because you haven't taken a wizard level in 4 levels is silly. If we assume that characters practice their older skills and features, they should learn as well as upkeep.

2) Less spell lists and make 'em stack. Every class having their own spell list is dumb. Make 5-7 spell lists and have classes that share lists stack spells per day, caster level, and other things. Power to the druid-rangers , sorcards, and cleriladins!

We discussed #1 earlier in the thread. I wrote:



Maybe you can spend a certain amount of skill points to increase your effective level in another class. Then we can do away with "practised" spellcaster by making it a skill point cost instead of a feat.


I'm not sure that's the answer, but you are right that a lot of fun build ideas suffer from this problem.

Thomas
2007-01-08, 11:22 AM
...is for it to not exist unless its backwards compatiable. If I've bought all the splat-books that I have for nothing, I will quite seriously stop buying Wizards products.

I'll never understand this.

Do people seriously think that WotC should support everything it publishes indefinitely? Is the company supposed to exist forever, and actually make money with RPGs without publishing new RPGs in it's existing, profitable product lines? (Publishing new RPGs in new lines is not a good business decision, usually. They don't do well, as a rule. The industry is dominated by a few giants, and a couple of smaller in-betweeners, all with history.)

It's a company. They exist to make money. They can't make money unless they publish new games. (Man, I hope nobody that complains about backwards compatibility also complains about new "splatbooks"; that'd just be schizophrenic. "They shouldn't publish new editions, and shouldn't publish new books for the existing edition..." I guess the company should just be subsidised...)

Dervag
2007-01-08, 11:25 AM
2. Each class should fill a specific archetypal role and be distinct from one another. Right now we have 2 holy armored knights (cleric, paladin), for example. Each class must play extremely differently from the others. Ranger for example should become less about a canned feat package and more about wilderness expertise.Perhaps they should weaken the cleric's combat power from "almost as good as a dedicated fighter-type" to "can take care of themselves and that's about it."

The restriction that forced clerics to use only blunt weapons used to be in that vein. It might not be enough now (there are some big blunt weapons), but it would probably help. Giving clerics a spell failure chance for heavy armor might help- let the clerics wear at least some armor, but keep them from being tough enough to fight in line with a fighter for long.

Another idea might be to move a lot of the stronger 'combat buff' spells out of the Cleric list into the Paladin list. That would make the Cleric more other-focused and the Paladin into a mighty holy warrior, while splitting the dangerous combination of heal and buff spells that produces Clericzilla.


Why should every thief have sneak attack and trapfinding? Give each class a large group of feats to choose from at different levels and allow customization.Well, giving every rogue Sneak Attack gives you at least one big thing that distinguishes the rogue from any other major class. Every class should have at least one thing that only it (and possibly some closely related prestige classes) can do. That way, no matter what happens, you'll never see the good builds for two different classes suffering from convergent evolution.

Convergent evolution is the danger of any RPG with a highly flexible class development system. If every type of character must acquire a certain list of spells and abilities to be optimally effective, then every character will start to look the same. That's bad.


I'd like combat to promote more descriptive action and movement. Right now, the AOO rules deter movement more than anything else (that's a whole 'nother post). I'd also make it easier to do the special moves (disarm, sunder, bull rush and especially grapple) without having to dedicate one of your rare feats to that particular move. It makes the combat more interesting when you can take actions other than OK, I SWING AGAIN!The alternative is to make it easier to gain access to feats (say, by allowing you to buy feats with skill points). In that case, you'd have a choice between building your combatant into a canny tactician who has lots of options (sunder their weapon, bull-rush them into a wall, knock them down), or into a versatile fellow who has lots of skills useful outside of combat, but who has relatively simple options on the battlefield. That way, players get to choose between two options that both offer 'richness' of design and flexibility, which is good.

Journey
2007-01-08, 11:52 AM
We discussed #1 earlier in the thread. I wrote:



I'm not sure that's the answer, but you are right that a lot of fun build ideas suffer from this problem.

I don't see how it's a problem, given that the underlying core of the game is an archetype system that is also level-based. Furthermore, the (in my opinion ludicrous) gestalt system addresses this "problem" already.

It seems to me that a lot of these kinds of suggestions would all be answered by simply playing GURPS or Harnmaster (or some other skill based system), where "level" and "archetype" both don't exist. If you want characters to be able to have a lot of abilities associated with different archetypes and be able to raise these abilities without paying attention to character level, then playing an archetype/level-based game is the wrong way to do it.

Valairn
2007-01-08, 12:01 PM
Convergent evolution is an inevitability, just like it is in real life. Armies only used some guns at first, guns got better, armies had more guns, eventually all armies had guns exclusively. Not a perfect example, but generally adventurer's or tacticians are going to study what works, not what doesn't. If the fighter knows twenty levels is going to gimp him, the fighter is not going to take twenty levels, he's going to take whatever will make him better at his actual trade, which is killin peeps. If the fighter knows that he can learn a spell that enlarges him and allows him to slaughter better, the majority of fighters will learn this if they can, why? Cause its part of their trade. Look at military's, their recruiting standards get tighter and tighter, why? Cause smart, capable people can accomplish multiple tasks with greater efficiency, eventually military units would be highly trained warrior/wizards special forces types, that could devastate anyone not up to snuff with them. Convergent evolution is an inevitability in a combat based game, because combat goes to the people who play the cards of their intelligence, and use tactics that are superior to their opponents. Of course telling a good story often involves ignoring that, or at least suspending it reasonably.

Convergent evolution can actually give a game more flavor if you use it right, take the sword sage for example, a warrior/wizard type that has a large skill selection to boot, its a great class full of flavor and completely unique, but yet he's more or less just a colorful gish. Flavor is really the key here in my opinion.

Thomas
2007-01-08, 12:02 PM
It seems to me that a lot of these kinds of suggestions would all be answered by simply playing GURPS or Harnmaster (or some other skill based system), where "level" and "archetype" both don't exist. If you want characters to be able to have a lot of abilities associated with different archetypes and be able to raise these abilities without paying attention to character level, then playing an archetype/level-based game is the wrong way to do it.

IAWTC. When I play D&D, I want D&D. Classes, AC, magic missiles, the whole deal. When I don't want D&D, I play any of many games that do other things infinitely better.

One game can't be everything.

tape_measure
2007-01-08, 12:10 PM
What do I want to see....?

- Book trade-in. I'll be damned if I waste another small fortune on books that are going to be out of date 4 years later. Though, being able to trade in old books for a fraction of the new book price would be wonderful (however, unlikely...).

Tormsskull
2007-01-08, 12:12 PM
What do I want to see....?

- Book trade-in. I'll be damned if I waste another small fortune on books that are going to be out of date 4 years later. Though, being able to trade in old books for a fraction of the new book price would be wonderful (however, unlikely...).

Sorry, but that's never going to happen.

tape_measure
2007-01-08, 12:19 PM
yeah...I know. :smallamused:

'Wish in one hand...' type of prayer, but here's hopin'!

Thomas
2007-01-08, 12:20 PM
What do I want to see....?

- Book trade-in. I'll be damned if I waste another small fortune on books that are going to be out of date 4 years later. Though, being able to trade in old books for a fraction of the new book price would be wonderful (however, unlikely...).

I still don't understand this.

When you buy something, it's pretty obvious that it's only going to last you a certain amount of time. RPG books are cheap, and they've sure got a much better "years of use/$" ratio than most anything you'll ever buy.

Computer games cost around 50-60 € here (that's like $80 or whatever). RPG books - even D&D b books - rarely cost more than 50 €. A computer game lasts me around 50-100 hours. An RPG book lasts me around 5-10 years (at the least).

Are roleplayers just totally divorced from the realities of economy and commerce or something?

Valairn
2007-01-08, 12:34 PM
OGC has made us all very.... frugal

tape_measure
2007-01-08, 12:34 PM
...
Are roleplayers just totally divorced from the realities of economy and commerce or something?


ummm....no. I'm ****in sick of paying too damn much for books/music/art. Plain and simple. Of course, you have to factor in certain dilemas called life that make zipping over to the local shoppe to pick up another set of books that are going to be out of date soon less important.

Further more, spenidng $29.95 on a DnD is ridiculous...to me. Give me a nice hardbound version of East of Eaden, Pomp and Circumstance, or hell..Where the Red Fern Grows for the above price and I'd jump all over it. THAT would be a sound investment in my eyes, but I think that comes with not having an allowance any more. :smallamused:

Thomas
2007-01-08, 12:37 PM
THAT would be a sound investment in my eyes, but I think that comes with not having an allowance any more. :smallamused:

Is that supposed to be a burn? Your kung fu is weak, indeed - try that on someone who's still in their teens, maybe.

Valairn
2007-01-08, 12:46 PM
wow 30 dollars, OMG, for something you will reference again and again and again, use more than any normal book, 30 bucks is a steal compared to most things, and its not like YOU have to buy every book, a good group works together!

Journey
2007-01-08, 12:47 PM
Are roleplayers just totally divorced from the realities of economy and commerce or something?

For me, personally, it's a matter of the relative benefit of purchasing the new material. With WoTC's ever-increasing reliance on "expansion" books and supplemental rules I'm less interested in investing in the D&D product line any more.

It's $25-$30 per core book to be able to play the basic game. If you're interested in DMing and playing, that's a minimum of $75-$90 to spend. Each expansion book costs the same (or more), and it's arguably the case that at least one setting book and one expansion book (e.g. Complete Adventurer/Expanded Psionics ) is necessary to be able to play in most campaigns/groups. This ups the cost to between $125 and $140 dollars for a scant handful of books with a very limited, restricted utility and a very weak guarantee for their future viability.

For people with limited access to groups/interested parties, that's a significant expenditure of money (regardless of income). I don't even want to get into the nature of play-by-post games, where it seems the norm is to create characters of every kind of class and combination but what appears in the core books.

When I had a solid, regular gaming group back in college, spending $120 on the 2nd edition material was worth it. Now, not so much.

ken-do-nim
2007-01-08, 01:39 PM
One mitigating factor is that I've been selling off on eBay the expansion books I've bought and then found I'm not using. So at least some recoup of costs is possible for a book that wasn't worth it.

grinner666
2007-01-08, 03:26 PM
Nothing, frankly.

I will be damned if I'm going to spend hundreds of dollars ... again ... so that three years later I can do it all over again when they decide to try to fix what they screwed up this time. 1E lasted two decades, fer Chrissakes ...

If Wizards wants any more of my money they can earn it. But supporting THIS edition of the game. But I ain't falling for the "new and improved" schtick any more. This edition is the last edition I buy.

Thomas
2007-01-08, 03:36 PM
I will be damned if I'm going to spend hundreds of dollars ... again ... so that three years later I can do it all over again when they decide to try to fix what they screwed up this time. 1E lasted two decades, fer Chrissakes ...

Yeah! And they never changed or added rules with AD&D, and there were never any consistency issues with the 4-6 totally different systems, different versions of kits, different proficiency systems, Player's Option...

... wait...

MrNexx
2007-01-08, 04:01 PM
I will be damned if I'm going to spend hundreds of dollars ... again ... so that three years later I can do it all over again when they decide to try to fix what they screwed up this time. 1E lasted two decades, fer Chrissakes ...

Actually, 1e lasted for about 12 years; the Monster Manual was released in 1977, and the PH for 2nd edition was released in 1989. Now, mind you, you can take the 1st edition Monster Manual and drop things directly into a 2nd edition game simply by keeping page 53 in the DMG open, or using one of the DM screens... the XP is equivalent, and the Monster Combat Matrix will track to 2e ThAC0 very easily. By that measure, it lasted for 23 years. Of course, I also talk to people who can run Keep on the Borderlands as a 1st edition module without modification, and it's set up for the Basic set, which is an even older ruleset...

Dervag
2007-01-08, 05:48 PM
Convergent evolution is an inevitability, just like it is in real life.But in an RPG you don't want convergent evolution. There should be multiple viable ways to succeed, rather than being one and only one way.


If the fighter knows that he can learn a spell that enlarges him and allows him to slaughter better, the majority of fighters will learn this if they can, why? Cause its part of their trade.But if every class learns the same spell and does the same things, then the game is boring. There's no difference between wizards and rogues and fighters, because they all end up converging towards the same pool of optimal skills and abilities.


Look at military's, their recruiting standards get tighter and tighter, why? Cause smart, capable people can accomplish multiple tasks with greater efficiency, eventually military units would be highly trained warrior/wizards special forces types, that could devastate anyone not up to snuff with them.No, not really.Look at the US military today. Their recruiting standards are getting lower, because an elite military of smart, capable people can't provide enough boots on the ground to occupy a country. A small elite army actually isn't best for all situations.

And even then, your statement ignores the fact that the military specializes enormously. Artillery units are not the same as infantry units. Pilots do not receive the same training as Navy SEALs. Even if everybody is highly trained, you do not see convergent evolution because you need lots of different kinds of specialists to produce a working combined arms force.

RPGs should offer players the same thing. You should be able to play multiple different kinds of 'front line combatant' with complementary play styles, rather than having all front line combatants evolve to look the same optimum build. Airborne infantry and marine units don't train the same way and don't do the same things, even though they're both infantry. And there should certainly be divergence between broadly different categories. There should be viable ways to specialize in magic over melee or in melee over magic, and characters that take different choices in that respect should look different. Otherwise, you have a party of four or five or however many people, all of whom play identical characters. That's boring, so you don't want to build your game that way.


Convergent evolution is an inevitability in a combat based gameNot if the game is designed to offer the player multiple choices. For example, there may be several ways for a fighter to be effective. He might follow a 'weapon specialization' path, or a 'power attack' path, or a 'battlefield control' path. And the ideal is for all these paths to work, but to have different strengths and weaknesses and to create fighters that feel different.

What you don't want and should not design a game to do is force every fighter to be an identical greatsword-wielding power attacker to be effective. That's boring.


Convergent evolution can actually give a game more flavor if you use it right, take the sword sage for example, a warrior/wizard type that has a large skill selection to boot, its a great class full of flavor and completely unique, but yet he's more or less just a colorful gish. Flavor is really the key here in my opinion.But if everybody converges towards the same point, the flavor won't matter. If the fighter and wizard both find themselves learning more and more of the other's skills until they meet in the middle, something important about the game has been lost, and the game just isn't as fun afterwards.

BobGhengisKhan
2007-01-08, 06:02 PM
Some way to be awesome at mounted combat without being a Paladin.

MrNexx
2007-01-08, 07:06 PM
Some way to be awesome at mounted combat without being a Paladin.

Try being a druid. Sure, you can wildshape, but your Animal Companion as a mount isn't a bad option.... and scales very well with the paladin's warhorse.

Oh, I'd like to see consistent metaphysics. If positive energy heals, and Disrupt Undead is positive energy, give me a good answer why Disrupt Undead can't heal someone.

Alynn
2007-01-08, 07:40 PM
Ability score balancing: To which I mean, mental scores should have more to do with combat outside of spell casting.

Such as, Int for attack rolls (knowing where to hit)
Wisdom for armor class (would need a rework for Monks, but able to "See it Coming" makes you less likely to be hit)
Charisma, the only one I haven't put my finger on what it could help with.

Armor = Damage reduction
Dex + Wis + Shield = AC
Still keep max dex penalty, so heavier armor means you can get hit more often, but take much less damage.

Mostly I'm interested in balancing the usefullness of abilities for all situations pretty much eliminating the "dump stat" and making them all worth something.

Lord Iames Osari
2007-01-08, 07:42 PM
@^^: Because the ritual of spellcasting used by wizards twists the energy in such a way as to render it unsuitable for healing.

MrNexx
2007-01-08, 07:50 PM
@^^: Because the ritual of spellcasting used by wizards twists the energy in such a way as to render it unsuitable for healing.

That's an after-the-fact justification that has no basis in the game. Point to where it says that in the RAW. My version of the spell says that "You direct a ray of positive energy." It's positive energy. How is it any different from the positive energy used in a Cure Light Wounds spell? It's "twisted"? Does the "ritual of spellcasting used by wizards" twist fire "in such a way as to render it unsitable for" making things warm? For burning things?

If you're going to come up with metaphysics for your game... and for any semblance of verisimilitude, you need them... you have to stick with them, or have believable reasons that they don't apply. You can't just stick in technobabble.

Journey
2007-01-08, 08:03 PM
That's an after-the-fact justification that has no basis in the game. Point to where it says that in the RAW. My version of the spell says that "You direct a ray of positive energy." It's positive energy. How is it any different from the positive energy used in a Cure Light Wounds spell? It's "twisted"? Does the "ritual of spellcasting used by wizards" twist fire "in such a way as to render it unsitable for" making things warm? For burning things?

If you're going to come up with metaphysics for your game... and for any semblance of verisimilitude, you need them... you have to stick with them, or have believable reasons that they don't apply. You can't just stick in technobabble.

Considering that WoTC seems to be leading the entire game itself toward a miniatures/video-game-on-paper system where character power, bonuses and the like are increasingly "excused" as "allowing" the character to fill a role and are more important than "fluff" by 10:1 (or more), what does verisimilitude matter?

Starbuck_II
2007-01-08, 08:34 PM
Try being a druid. Sure, you can wildshape, but your Animal Companion as a mount isn't a bad option.... and scales very well with the paladin's warhorse.

Oh, I'd like to see consistent metaphysics. If positive energy heals, and Disrupt Undead is positive energy, give me a good answer why Disrupt Undead can't heal someone.

Agreed:

I want all casters to get ability to heal. Even if some are better than others. This way no class would need to be powered uip to play (ala Cleric).

Need a healer play any caster. Want a good healer be the Priest. But no forced concepts.

Need to disable traps: get trapfinding feat (Rogues get feat for free).

All classes closer to balance this way.

Saph
2007-01-08, 08:56 PM
That's an after-the-fact justification that has no basis in the game. Point to where it says that in the RAW. My version of the spell says that "You direct a ray of positive energy." It's positive energy. How is it any different from the positive energy used in a Cure Light Wounds spell? It's "twisted"? Does the "ritual of spellcasting used by wizards" twist fire "in such a way as to render it unsitable for" making things warm? For burning things?

If you're going to come up with metaphysics for your game... and for any semblance of verisimilitude, you need them... you have to stick with them, or have believable reasons that they don't apply. You can't just stick in technobabble.

Actually, it is pretty consistent. Positive energy in D&D is used for healing, but that doesn't mean that positive energy will automatically heal you, in the same way that a roll of bandages and a syringe of morphine won't do any good if you just throw them at someone's head. For example, Ravids hit things with positive energy - but they don't heal them. I don't see any verisimilitude problem.

And positive energy isn't necessarily good for you. Ever read Azure Bonds? :)

- Saph

The_Cowinator
2007-01-08, 09:14 PM
I want there to BE no 4th Edition.:smallfurious:

Heck, I didn't even want a 3rd Edition. 2nd had it perfect, and 1st was still pretty good and entirely compatible. I honestly still try to run 2nd Edition campaigns. A 2.5 would've been perfect, basically an excuse for rule *tweaking* and new graphics.

But a Mana System for Wizards would be cool too. Wizards are broken in most games.:smallfrown:

MrNexx
2007-01-08, 09:58 PM
Actually, it is pretty consistent. Positive energy in D&D is used for healing, but that doesn't mean that positive energy will automatically heal you, in the same way that a roll of bandages and a syringe of morphine won't do any good if you just throw them at someone's head. For example, Ravids hit things with positive energy - but they don't heal them. I don't see any verisimilitude problem.

And positive energy isn't necessarily good for you. Ever read Azure Bonds? :)

No read Azure Bonds, I haven't, but it also predates this particular paradigm. The paradigm in 1st/2nd edition was that healing was Necromancy, and a matter of manipulating life-force.

As for Ravids, they also violate the principles they've set down... positive energy heals living creatures. Negative energy damages living creatures. If there are reasons for violating this, you explain them.

Desaril
2007-01-09, 12:06 AM
I agree with Mr. Nexx, that healing spells should be necromancy, not conjuration. It's more realistic, but I disagree that all positive energy should heal. Living beings need heat/warmth to survive, but fire can also burn/kill them. Similarly, our atmosphere admits and then traps certain types of radiation, but we can't walk around in nuclear reactors. A simple answer is that any spell that uses positive energy to inflict damage uses it differntly from the spells that use it to heal. I think that's common sense, not some post hoc. The sword that stabs you is made of the same steel as the armor protecting you, just put to a different use!

oriong
2007-01-09, 12:20 AM
That seems like a pretty narrowed view of things MrNexx. The fact that positive energy does something doesn't mean it can't be used to do something else.

Think of electricity: electricity burns (not exactly what electricity does admittedly) in the same way that positive energy heals: large, raw amounts of it will cause have X effect (say a lightning strike as comparison to being exposed to the positive energy plane). However, that's not all electricity does. Small amounts of electricity can power motors, light bulbs, or be converted into other EM waves such as radio, etc, and be too weak to actually do damage. Therefore, is it impossible to believe that positive energy can be used to produce effects other than healing, with amounts too small to heal as a 'side effect'?

Let's look at positive energy's opposite: negative energy. Negative energy doesn't just damage living creatures, there's a ton of different effects that all make use of it: animating undead (and the tremendous variety of undead), inflicting negative levels, inflict effects such as blindness or ability damage, create unholy water, cause paralyzation, and of course inflict straightforward damage.

Positive energy likewise has a ton of effects which are possible, but at the same time different from the abilities of raw positive energy. It's pretty clear that every single spell, even if they fall under the category of 'healing' manipulates positive energy in some way to perform a specific task: they don't just spray someone with a shower of energy they use it and transform it.

The restoration spells use positive energy to heal certain types of damage to the body, but they won't do a thing if you've got cut. the various 'remove' spells work very specifically as well, alleviating only certain conditions.

The raise dead spells can restore life to a dead body but won't do anything if something's already alive.

Even the basic 'cure' spells don't operate like raw positive energy, they have 'safties' of some kind that prevent you from absorbing extra energy and overloading.

So why is disrupt undead unbelievable? if you need an explanation think of it this way: small, precise 'jolts' of positive energy, too weak to actually heal a living creature attack the foundation negative energy 'bonds' that keep undead animate. Heck, that's even the implication of the word 'disrupt'.

Positive/Negative energy has never been a simple heal/harm dichotomy, there's no reason it has to be. They aren't violating any principles they've set down, because those principles don't actually exist.

Valairn
2007-01-09, 04:46 AM
I had this whole big response Dervag, and I realized it was a completely different topic, so I gutted it for the relevant stuff and may make a new post later.

I agree, convergent evolution CAN make the game suck, if it limits what players can choose. On the other hand convergent evolution CAN make the game awesome if you use it to open player options. Why can't the rogue cast a few spells? Let him take a feat for a couple if he wants to! That's the idea I was going for originally not everyone has to choose the same skills and feats!!!!!

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-09, 04:59 AM
I want there to BE no 4th Edition.:smallfurious:

Heck, I didn't even want a 3rd Edition. 2nd had it perfect, and 1st was still pretty good and entirely compatible. I honestly still try to run 2nd Edition campaigns. A 2.5 would've been perfect, basically an excuse for rule *tweaking* and new graphics.


2nd had it perfect?
Oh, come on. I'd have to be paid to play second edition. Woo! Thac0! System shock rolls! Racial class level limits! And have you READ the rules for first edition lately? They're pretty damn incoherent, not to mention terrible; there is nothing consistent, just a series of half-random exceptions.

Journey
2007-01-09, 06:52 AM
I had this whole big response Dervag, and I realized it was a completely different topic, so I gutted it for the relevant stuff and may make a new post later.

I agree, convergent evolution CAN make the game suck, if it limits what players can choose. On the other hand convergent evolution CAN make the game awesome if you use it to open player options. Why can't the rogue cast a few spells? Let him take a feat for a couple if he wants to! That's the idea I was going for originally not everyone has to choose the same skills and feats!!!!!

Again, why not just play a skill based system like GURPS or Harnmaster if you want characters that aren't restricted by Archetypes? They're two different kinds of games. You don't want to play D&D. You want to play a different role-playing game that uses the same labels for skills and abilities that D&D uses (presumably because they're familiar; but I wouldn't know), or else characters that are powerful to the point where the underlying mechanics are essentially broken.

Ambrogino
2007-01-09, 07:03 AM
Again, why not just play a skill based system like GURPS or Harnmaster if you want characters that aren't restricted by Archetypes? They're two different kinds of games. You don't want to play D&D. You want to play a different role-playing game that uses the same labels for skills and abilities that D&D uses (presumably because they're familiar; but I wouldn't know), or else characters that are powerful to the point where the underlying mechanics are essentially broken.

I'm not Valairn, but I want to play D&D - in that it has the most support, some good camapign worlds, books upon books of interesting monsters, spells and items, without being straight jacketed into a dull archetypal character I've seen a hundred times before. No other game can currently provide the ammount of material D&D has to draw upon. There's no reason why D&D has to be restricted to archetypes, as long as it still supports them for those who want them, but there's every reason to lift a restriction as it can only lead to more (numerically) interested players.

Journey
2007-01-09, 07:28 AM
There's no reason why D&D has to be restricted to archetypes....

As I wrote in the earlier post, you don't want to play D&D. You apparently want to play a game that uses D&D material, but with a different rulesystem. Did you know that you can use the campaigns and a good portion of the other material with GURPS, d6, Harnmaster, or even Shadowrun (3e; I haven't looked at 4e)? I've seen and/or participated in such games personally. The conversions to each of these rulesystems is fairly straightforward, and there are certainly those that exist online you can reference if you feel it's too much work.

The current incarnation of d20 itself is already broken; the changes you propose would exacerbate the problems that broke the system in the first place and add to them. The only reason to lift restrictions to the extent that "classes" become meaningless labels is to provide for super-powerful characters justified half-***** with "role-playing" (the old "My wizard likes to sing so he has to take a level of bard" bit).

paigeoliver
2007-01-09, 08:01 AM
I would like to see a couple of things happen.

The entire current 3.5 system and it's 4.0 extension should be renamed D&D Miniatures. The rules system is really much more of a competitive miniature's based system than it is a playable roleplaying game.

Make the real Dungeons and Dragons game more like Castles and Crusades. Or simply extend the license the Castles and Crusades people have so they can CALL it Dungeons and Dragons.

If they don't do those two then I would really like the power level scaled back from it's current Superheroic level. D&D is currently as superhero game disguised as a heroic level game. Old versions of D&D featured characters that were HUMAN in their limitations. Even the highest level characters were still mortal and human.

That went way out the window in 3rd edition. As more sourcebooks come out the game moves into that superheroic realm at lower and lower levels. The game actually now starts out in the realm of the superhero since some of the base classes (Dragon Shaman, Warlock, etc) begin the game with superpowers.

If you take a 10th level 3.5 D&D character and convert them directly to Champions (easiest system to directly port characters to for comparison, since it has scores in the same range and a point buy system that can simulate everything in 3.5) you would find that they would not only be on par with the superheroes of those games, they would actually be above many of them in power. That same character could defeat a party of 6 characters converted from second edition. And you can't really argue that 10th level is even high level, most of the times it seems like the characters gain a level nearly every session.

That brings me to my next point. Speed of advancement. The combat has gotten so slow that they massively increased the speed of character advancement to compensate, but they sped it up so fast that characters gain levels in a blur. I have seen characters walk out of a town at first level and ride back into that same town at 6th level a week later.

A first level 3.5 fighter has to kill 3 wolves to gain 2nd level (3 1/3 to be exact)..
A first level 2nd edition fighter has to kill 30 wolves to gain second level.
A first level 1st edition fighter has to kill 30 wolves of average hit points to gain second level.
A first level BECMI fighter has to kill 80 wolves to gain second level.

I chose the wolf as a comparison monster because it is an appropriate opponent for first level characters in all 4 systems, and wolves have near identical stat blocks across all 4 systems, with Becmi, 1st and 2nd edition wolves having 2d8+2 HP and 3.5 wolves having 2d8+4, and all versions having an armor class 3-4 better than the basic unarmored human. The 3.5 wolf ends up being WAY more squishy even with the two extra hit points, since 3.5 characters have higher attack bonuses and far better damage than their predecessors.

The 3.5 advancement is SO fast that it makes it difficult to even write stories for. We played the classic "Keep on the Borderlands" adventure in 3.5 (the 1st level adventure that used to come with the D&D basic set) and the party had made it to 6th level in this module before the GM finally had all the remaining monsters attack us at once in order to just get it over with.

We tried playing the temple of elemental evil with new characters and the party now has 8th level characters still on the first dungeon level of the temple (module originally designed to go 1-8th level with a 4 level temple).

Tormsskull
2007-01-09, 08:12 AM
I would like to see a couple of things happen.

The entire current 3.5 system and it's 4.0 extension should be renamed D&D Miniatures. The rules system is really much more of a competitive miniature's based system than it is a playable roleplaying game.


Agreed. I think that D&D needs a huge rework to move to more of a roleplaying game and less of a session of accounting.



That went way out the window in 3rd edition. As more sourcebooks come out the game moves into that superheroic realm at lower and lower levels. The game actually now starts out in the realm of the superhero since some of the base classes (Dragon Shaman, Warlock, etc) begin the game with superpowers.


I noticed this too, and I hate it. I never use supplements and this is one of the main reasons. It is so difficult to realistically pull off any kind of 1st level campaign i.e. the PCs are normal people.



If you take a 10th level 3.5 D&D character and convert them directly to Champions (easiest system to directly port characters to for comparison, since it has scores in the same range and a point buy system that can simulate everything in 3.5) you would find that they would not only be on par with the superheroes of those games, they would actually be above many of them in power. That same character could defeat a party of 6 characters converted from second edition. And you can't really argue that 10th level is even high level, most of the times it seems like the characters gain a level nearly every session.


I'm not familiar with Champions, but this does not surprise me at all. Since D&D has seemingly moved to a younger audience it has changed to accomodate them. The typical modern D&D player seems to be all about power, levers, phat loot, etc. Its becoming too much World of Warcraft and not enough D&D. (And I like WoW, but I don't want D&D to become WoW).



That brings me to my next point. Speed of advancement. The combat has gotten so slow that they massively increased the speed of character advancement to compensate, but they sped it up so fast that characters gain levels in a blur. I have seen characters walk out of a town at first level and ride back into that same town at 6th level a week later.

A first level 3.5 fighter has to kill 3 wolves to gain 2nd level (3 1/3 to be exact)..
A first level 2nd edition fighter has to kill 30 wolves to gain second level.
A first level 1st edition fighter has to kill 30 wolves of average hit points to gain second level.
A first level BECMI fighter has to kill 80 wolves to gain second level.


Yeah, this is just plain ridiculous IMO. Again, the game has moved to more of an instant gratifacation system rather than it used to be. If D&D keeps moving in the direction it has been, I wouldn't be surprised to see non-epic levels increased to 30 or 40 or more. This would allow for characters to level up faster because it seems that some players get bored if they aren't gaining a level every session or every other session.

MrNexx
2007-01-09, 08:54 AM
Ok, I first want to say that I'm on board with you and paigeoliver about these things; I agree with you two about most of your complaints, but I wanted to say something...


Since D&D has seemingly moved to a younger audience it has changed to accomodate them.

Has it occurred to you that D&D hasn't moved to a younger audience but that you, in fact, have gotten older?

I'm not trying to be flip; I'm serious. I teach high school. I'm reminded, daily, how old I am, and I'm not 30 yet. Five years ago, when I started teaching, someone was sort of half-singing "I love Rock and Roll" to herself. I told her we didn't need Joan Jett today, unless she was also going to get to work; she looked at me, confused, not knowing who Joan Jett was; "I Love Rock and Roll" was a Brittney Spears song to her.

I find that a lot of people who don't work with kids forget that they're not them anymore. I'm forcibly reminded of such, and include it in every prayer of thanksgiving I have.

Dausuul
2007-01-09, 08:54 AM
What I would like to see from 4E...

I agree with the above posters who want to broaden the options available under the core classes. Some of the core classes are far too restrictive. Some suggestions would be:

Paladins - Lift the alignment restriction and give the paladin the option to choose from several different codes, ranging from the classic paladin code to a cruel infernal-knight code that demands something like an oath of service to a demonic master.
Monks - Merge the monk with the warlock. Monks should have an array of innate magical powers, which they can use to develop along any number of lines. Also lift the alignment restrictions.
Druids - Give druids elemental affinities, allowing a bit of customization, and move them away from the "nature-loving civilization-hating protector-of-fluffy-animals" stereotype. Expand the concept of the druid to include almost any divine spellcaster who doesn't worship a specific deity or pantheon... I won't go so far as to suggest calling them "shamans," but that should be the idea. Oh, and remove the alignment restrictions.
Bards - Make them not suck so much in combat, and make them dominate less in a social setting. And remove the... you get the picture.

Give fighter types more versatility; maybe take some of the maneuvers from the Book of Nine Swords and turn them into feats with a BAB requirement, and maybe merge some of the Improved Disarm/Trip/Grapple feats.

Conduct a thorough review of the non-combat mechanics, and balance them with something approaching the thoroughness with which they balanced combat. While the D&D combat systems are carefully calibrated (mostly), the systems for social interaction are slipshod at best. Look at glibness. That's the social equivalent of a spell that grants the caster a +30 bonus on attack rolls for 10 minutes per level. How can anyone possibly consider that balanced? I don't ask that the social systems be developed to the extent that the combat rules are--D&D is and always has been built for hack-and-slash above all--but I would like at least some consideration given to the idea that sometimes people talk instead of fight.

Scale back wealth by level. Make characters less dependent on magic items, and try to design the system to allow for easy adjusting between low, medium, and high-magic. For better or for worse, high magic is a core element of D&D by this point, so I'm not going to try to argue that the whole system should be moved to a lower magic level; but it would be nice if we weren't all locked into high magic by the rigidity of the rules. Provide some mechanics so that casters don't dominate if the DM decides to shift to a lower-magic setting.

Get rid of all X-times-per-day mechanics. Make them X-times-per-encounter instead.

And for the love of God, hand out more skill points. Maybe adopt the Iron Heroes system. (For those who don't know, in Iron Heroes, there's no such thing as a cross-class skill. Instead, there are "skill groups," like Social, Stealth, etc. If your class gives you access to a skill group, then you can put a rank into the group and it buys up every skill in the group. Combined with an increase in the number of skill points given out, this system makes it possible to create actual well-rounded characters who can do stuff outside of combat.)

Ambrogino
2007-01-09, 09:07 AM
As I wrote in the earlier post, you don't want to play D&D. You apparently want to play a game that uses D&D material, but with a different rulesystem.

Garbage. D&D is so removed from any other RPG's that even fiction lines not published by WotC can be recognised when they're being D&D based. These "D&D-isms" are nothing to do with cliched dime a dozen characters and everything to do with what makes D&D's system unique from any other. I wan't to play something that's includes the D&D tropes (dungeons, levels, vancian magic systems, kill-based XP, defined party roles, and on, and on). Making D&D even further open to my style harms your restrictive game not one iota, but restricting everything down to your prefered way harms mine. What's in the companies interest to cater to - more or less people?

ken-do-nim
2007-01-09, 09:16 AM
There are some very good points being made here. One thing I've noticed in my own playing style is that I've gone from a role-player to a power-gamer. Now I'm not sure how this has happened, but I wonder if it is a natural side-effect of the 3.5 system. Maybe the game mechanics are just so neat and the build possibilities so plentiful that I've just became enamored of the race+class+feat combos instead of the personality side of it. Or perhaps in a gamer's life this sort of thing is cyclical. But I will say that in 1E or 2E I never ever thought ahead so much. Now I'm one of those guys who starts a character at 1st and plots out to 20th level.

Saph
2007-01-09, 09:21 AM
That brings me to my next point. Speed of advancement. The combat has gotten so slow that they massively increased the speed of character advancement to compensate, but they sped it up so fast that characters gain levels in a blur. I have seen characters walk out of a town at first level and ride back into that same town at 6th level a week later.

A first level 3.5 fighter has to kill 3 wolves to gain 2nd level (3 1/3 to be exact)..

I think you must be doing things slightly wrong.

A fighter that solos wolves only has to kill 3 of them, but a 1st-level fighter can quite easily LOSE to a wolf. The CR 1 in the wolf's stats means that a party of four 1st-level adventurers are supposed to fight it, not that it's a good encounter for a 1st-level character. If characters in your game are regularly soloing enemies equal to their CR, then they're either very very good at combat tactics, or the fights are too easy for them.

If you do things the book-recommended way, then you'll find that the party needs 3 1/3 x 4 encounters of equal CR to level up - ie 13.

In the games I run, if fighting appropriate enemies, I find characters level up about once every 2 or 3 sessions (that assumes 5-ish encounters of their CR per day, or the equivalent). It's a little faster at lower levels, and a little slower at higher levels.

Of course, you can fight tougher-than-normal enemies to advance faster. In our last game, our party of 5 got enough XP to get us 75% of the way to the next level in just one session. But we nearly got TPKed twice in the process, so we can't make a habit of it.

- Saph

Journey
2007-01-09, 09:41 AM
Garbage. D&D is so removed from any other RPG's that even fiction lines not published by WotC can be recognised when they're being D&D based. These "D&D-isms" are nothing to do with cliched dime a dozen characters and everything to do with what makes D&D's system unique from any other. I wan't to play something that's includes the D&D tropes (dungeons, levels, vancian magic systems, kill-based XP, defined party roles, and on, and on). Making D&D even further open to my style harms your restrictive game not one iota, but restricting everything down to your prefered way harms mine. What's in the companies interest to cater to - more or less people?

Ironically, the D&D3.5e rules are more restrictive than even vanilla 2nd ed. This isn't to say any one edition is better than another. With 3.x, there's the illusion of choice and flexibility, but these things are also accompanied with terrific systemic bonuses for characters, thus generating both a kind of myopia amongst the majority of players and an inflation of character power.

There's a rule for every play, and a play for every rule under 3.5e. It seems that under 3.x, players are hesitant to try a role out unless it also grants some bonus or ability to the character. That's not role-playing; that's powergaming using role-playing as an excuse/after-the-fact justification. It's a fine style for those that enjoy it; I've done it myself a time or two and had a blast, but it's not something I'd care for all the time.

Furthermore, this does harm my "restrictive" play (my "restrictive" play really isn't restrictive at all--it's quite a lot more flexible than the 3.x system, actually), because it makes it harder to contain the game, facilitates rules lawyering, munchkinism and powergaming, and generates an environment where it is much harder to find players who are more interested in role-playing and less interested in roll-playing. Why? Simple: to keep players even within the same party relatively on parity with one another, everybody has to "keep up with the Joneses," so to speak. I don't know about you, but whether role-playing or roll-playing when one or two players have characters that become incredibly out of whack with the others it gets boring/irritating.

With a much less rules-railroad oriented system it's easier to both powergame (if that's your thing) and roleplay (if that's your thing).

Also, the first and primary D&D trope you've conveniently left off your list is the one of Archetypes. You've replaced it with "defined party roles," as if they're the same thing. They're not; and "defined party roles" don't make a "role-playing" system (unless you're using the tired, overbroad definition of "playing a role" that includes things like "playing the role of Mario" in the Mario Brothers line of arcade games). Tormsskull and Paigeoliver have it right.

Just so I don't leave the impression that I dislike all of the 3.x system, I will end my comments in response to you with a positive note or two about them. The streamlined mechanics of 3.x are fantastic; orders of magnitude above previous editions. They aren't any simpler, but the streamlining makes them feel less complex (for example, THAC0 and BAB are mathematically identical and require exactly the same number of computations in both systems to determine the to-hit number, but the BAB system just "feels" more natural to most people). The restrictions on race/class/level and the elimination of the previous multi-class system I feel are both positive improvements (which were often house rules anyway) that just went too far to the other extreme (from too restrictive to too permissive). I feel similarly about the skills and feats systems.


Has it occurred to you that D&D hasn't moved to a younger audience but that you, in fact, have gotten older?For me, yes. This doesn't change the fact that the 3.x incarnation of D&D resembles a video game set of rules for pen and paper more than it resembles a rules framework from which to role-play.

Tormsskull
2007-01-09, 09:45 AM
Has it occurred to you that D&D hasn't moved to a younger audience but that you, in fact, have gotten older?


That's a valid point. Perhaps it would make more sense to say that the younger people of today (WotC's target market) are different than they were only ten years ago. The game has changed & evolved to appease that crowd but I'd be willing to bet a sizeable portion of people that have grown out of that particular demographic still play the game. As such you'd think they would try to continue to keep their loyal customers happy while drawing in new ones as well.

Apparently it is working so what do I know :P

Gurgeh
2007-01-09, 09:57 AM
EDIT: This post was mostly directed at Journey, although it certainly applies to the broader argument.

I don't really think that any edition of D&D has been a 'proper' role-playing game in the sense that most roleplayers use the term - they're all much too hack & slash. Powergaming will emerge as soon as you start putting numbers to things - abilities, skills, spells, whatever, if there's a way for one method to be mathematically superior to another method then there will be people who obsessively choose the 'better' path over the alternatives. That's not a problem with the system, it's a problem with the players, and one that's been there from day one.

Powergaming (or its equivalent) is something you see in every aspect of human life. Whenever there's something that can be considered a competition (and really that's virtually anything) then there will be some people who insist on always taking the most 'efficient' approach. You can see it in chess, you can see it in Monopoly, you can see it in tabletop wargames - the list goes on. Video games, sports, economics: there are always people who insist on behaving like absolute wankers just to get an advantage over the other 'players'. I've seen more than enough of it in D&D of all stripes to know that there's no point distinguishing between editions. They're all ridiculously exploitable and open to cheese - and unless you want to stick entirely to freeform or LARP then that's a problem you're going to have to confront, to a greater or lesser extent.

To summarise, everything you consider to be wrong with 3.x is also wrong with 2 and 1. If you don't like powergamers, then you don't play with them and your problem is solved. Otherwise...


play to win nub

Allandaros
2007-01-09, 10:11 AM
EDIT: This post was mostly directed at Journey, although it certainly applies to the broader argument.

I don't really think that any edition of D&D has been a 'proper' role-playing game in the sense that most roleplayers use the term - they're all much too hack & slash. Powergaming will emerge as soon as you start putting numbers to things - abilities, skills, spells, whatever, if there's a way for one method to be mathematically superior to another method then there will be people who obsessively choose the 'better' path over the alternatives. That's not a problem with the system, it's a problem with the players, and one that's been there from day one.

Wait, what? So only games without powergaming qualify as RPGs? So, that's...Paranoia, Nobilis, and Call of Cthulhu.

I agree wholeheartedly with your statement that powergaming's a problem in the players and not the game system - which is why I'm confused as to why you're saying D&D was never a "proper" RPG. As the granddaddy of them all, I would certainly hope it was considered one...

Ambrogino
2007-01-09, 10:16 AM
Also, the first and primary D&D trope you've conveniently left off your list is the one of Archetypes. You've replaced it with "defined party roles," as if they're the same thing. They're not; and "defined party roles" don't make a "role-playing" system (unless you're using the tired, overbroad definition of "playing a role" that includes things like "playing the role of Mario" in the Mario Brothers line of arcade games). Tormsskull and Paigeoliver have it right.

I don't think Archetypes are in any way a D&D trope, or at least not one that should be supported. I certainly do not think in any way that "defined party roles" means archetypes, and if I did I wouldn't have included it. I mean the party roles tank, healer, blaster and scout, which may or may not be taken up by archetypal characters (Heavy armour fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue) or by an array of non-archeypal characters whose varied skills fill in the party roles between them - like a Ranger and Artificer covering the Scout role by splitting the skills needed between two different, less traditional characters.

I'm sorry you can't find players not interested in power-gaming - most of my players have gone through as many different editions as I have and every one of them looks on the 3.x version as "D&D, without most of the pointless restrictions."

Journey
2007-01-09, 10:16 AM
Powergaming is a "problem" with players only in groups that don't want it. It is technically correct to say that it's an issue with players and not a gaming system. However it is not reasonable to ignore the system's role, either, because a system can either facilitate, hinder, or be neutral toward powergaming. Prior incarnations of D&D were neutral, at "worst;" (in my own experience) while 3.x not only facilitates it, but has assumed that it will be the default play style.

Person_Man
2007-01-09, 10:18 AM
My biggest wish: No dead levels. Players should have something to look forward to at every level in a class, and should have a strong incentive to go from level 1 through 20 in a single class.

The "basic" class would be Fighter, which would offer a bonus feat at every level. There would also be several useful Specialization feats (that also offer Maneuvers and Stances like the Book of 9 Swords), available only to Fighters at staggered levels.

Every level of every non-spellcasting class would offer some sort of ability roughly equivalent to that of a feat. The abilities would compliment each other, and would get somewhat more powerful as the class progressed.

Arcane spellcasters would get more spells per day at low levels. Divine caster could not use metamagic of any type. (They get all sorts of other things over arcane casters). PHBII Wildshape. No Polymorph.

No prestige class would offer more then 4/5 caster progression, and no prestige class would offer caster progression on the first level of the class. If you want to cast as a 20th level Cleric, you must be Cleric 20.


When will this occur? Well, the edition history is 1974 (box), 1977 (AD&D), 1989 (2nd Ed), 2000 (3.0), and 2003 (3.5). So historically, we get a new rules set every 3-12 years, which means that we'll get 4.0 between now and 2015. But in order to publish 4.0, the game design team has to convince their corporate overlords at Hasbro to let them do an entirely new rules edition, thus rendering all of their current expansions un-marketable. So look for 4.0 shortly after sales of the expansions tank.

MrNexx
2007-01-09, 10:19 AM
For me, yes. This doesn't change the fact that the 3.x incarnation of D&D resembles a video game set of rules for pen and paper more than it resembles a rules framework from which to role-play.

I tend to agree with you. I find 3.5 to be much more playable as Temple of Elemental Evil than as a pen and paper game.

Charity
2007-01-09, 10:20 AM
There are some very good points being made here. One thing I've noticed in my own playing style is that I've gone from a role-player to a power-gamer. Now I'm not sure how this has happened, but I wonder if it is a natural side-effect of the 3.5 system. Maybe the game mechanics are just so neat and the build possibilities so plentiful that I've just became enamored of the race+class+feat combos instead of the personality side of it. Or perhaps in a gamer's life this sort of thing is cyclical. But I will say that in 1E or 2E I never ever thought ahead so much. Now I'm one of those guys who starts a character at 1st and plots out to 20th level.


It's you I reckon Ken, I used to powergame in 2nd ed. Dart specialist anyone?
4 attacks a round (at 1st level! 5 at 7th and 6 at 13th) using your giant dex to hit, adding STR damage to all 4, all at +1 to hit and +2 damage wearing full plate(well banded at 1st level).


Edit ... as for the whole which is best thing.
RPG's come in all shapes and sizes, I have played literally scores of different systems, and in truth all are a bit broken, but few so much you can't enjoy playing them.


You can play D&D style GURPS with no trouble at all, nobody makes you guys stick to the D&D brand, yup it's just a brand. This is the same as two teenagers arguing whether nike or addidas make the best trainers. Buy what you like, overlook that which you don't.

Ambrogino
2007-01-09, 10:28 AM
This is the same as two teenagers arguing whether nike or addidas make the best trainers. Buy what you like, overlook that which you don't.

Except that some trainers are better for playing football in, and others designed for long-distance runners. Lines vary on where exactly the average trainer should fit in the middle.

ken-do-nim
2007-01-09, 10:42 AM
It's you I reckon Ken, I used to powergame in 2nd ed. Dart specialist anyone?
4 attacks a round (at 1st level! 5 at 7th and 6 at 13th) using your giant dex to hit, adding STR damage to all 4, all at +1 to hit and +2 damage wearing full plate(well banded at 1st level).


Um ... maybe I'm waxing a bit too romantically about my "role-playing" days; I did discover the dart specialist and was about to play one when 3E came out.

Well, it's also harder to give a character a personality in the standard dungeon format. Even an investigative adventure is just puzzle solving and doesn't lend itself to character exploration. I've only had real role-playing success in play-by-email games for some reason.

Thomas
2007-01-09, 11:24 AM
That's a valid point. Perhaps it would make more sense to say that the younger people of today (WotC's target market) are different than they were only ten years ago.

That's so hilariously cliché it's got to be intentional!

"Young people these days!"

"Things aren't like they used to be!"

I'd rather hate it if roleplaying and RPGs were still the same as they were in the 70s. Only the hoariest grognards think that'd be a good thing...

Tormsskull
2007-01-09, 12:32 PM
That's so hilariously cliché it's got to be intentional!

"Young people these days!"

"Things aren't like they used to be!"

I'd rather hate it if roleplaying and RPGs were still the same as they were in the 70s. Only the hoariest grognards think that'd be a good thing...

Nah, it wasn't meant to be cliché. I'm not saying that we need to go back to the "good old days", I think you're just so used to hearing that it is what you assumed.

My point is that each new edition is going to be changed based on input that WotC gets from players of the previous edition. So when a bunch of people play the game and find that they don't like x, y, and z (and they communicate that to WotC) then the next edition is very likely to have less of x, y, and z.

The older editions seemed (very important word there) to facilitate less of a powergaming mindset than 3.x. As to why that is, maybe it was because the rules were too complicated to understand, or less people were involved in the hobby, or any of a number of other things. I think what is important to do is to pinpoint those things and try to utilize them in the newer editions of the game. Or in other words, shift the emphasis away from powergaming, min/maxing and on to roleplaying but that is, of course, IMO only.

I know if I compared the gaming group I have today to the gaming group I had 5 or 10 years ago, it was a very different experience. Both have their ups and downs. But wouldn't it be awesome if a future edition could capture what was awesome about both experiences and limit the stuff that sucked?

BobGhengisKhan
2007-01-09, 03:50 PM
Speaking as a long-time 2nd ed. player, I have to say that third is the best thing to happen to DnD in a long time. Neither me nor my group have some primordial aversion to having neat stuff and actually being able to do awesome things.

While it's still a Horatio Alger RPG, it's the best we have.

BobGhengisKhan
2007-01-09, 03:55 PM
Apparently it is working so what do I know :P

It's a problem that has actually affected the video game industry. If you spend most of your time pandering to your hardcore customers, they're the only ones you're going to have.

Journey
2007-01-09, 04:07 PM
Speaking as a long-time 2nd ed. player, I have to say that third is the best thing to happen to DnD in a long time. Neither me nor my group have some primordial aversion to having neat stuff and actually being able to do awesome things.
All the editions have had glaring holes that made them require house-ruling in one way or another; I doubt many would argue that. I am curious, however, what you consider to be the "neat stuff" and "awesome things" that are available in 3.x that weren't under previous editions?



It's a problem that has actually affected the video game industry. If you spend most of your time pandering to your hardcore customers, they're the only ones you're going to have.

Ironically, it's exactly the hardcore video gamer demographic who is likely to be more interested in the 3.x incarnation (because 3.x is more like a miniatures/video-game rule set than a pen-and-paper set) than those with an extensive history with prior editions and other rule systems.

If the excessive power were curtailed, but the streamlined mechanics kept, in a 4th edition it would be fantastic.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-09, 04:11 PM
Powergaming is a "problem" with players only in groups that don't want it. It is technically correct to say that it's an issue with players and not a gaming system. However it is not reasonable to ignore the system's role, either, because a system can either facilitate, hinder, or be neutral toward powergaming. Prior incarnations of D&D were neutral, at "worst;" (in my own experience) while 3.x not only facilitates it, but has assumed that it will be the default play style.

And the older editions didn't facilitate it? Kits! Dual-classing (Fighter 2/Thief X, anyone)! Bladesingers!

MrNexx
2007-01-09, 04:18 PM
And the older editions didn't facilitate it? Kits! Dual-classing (Fighter 2/Thief X, anyone)! Bladesingers!

I was going to respond, but then I realized I so didn't want to get drawn into this conversation again.

BobGhengisKhan
2007-01-09, 04:30 PM
All the editions have had glaring holes that made them require house-ruling in one way or another; I doubt many would argue that. I am curious, however, what you consider to be the "neat stuff" and "awesome things" that are available in 3.x that weren't under previous editions?

Well, like the fact that anything moderately powerful doesn't seem to pop out of thin air anymore, scaling skills are part of the main ruleset, there were actually a cohesive, unified set of mechanics for certain actions, and there were finally mechanisms in place for non-charismatic players to create charismatic characters.


Ironically, it's exactly the hardcore video gamer demographic who is likely to be more interested in the 3.x incarnation (because 3.x is more like a miniatures/video-game rule set than a pen-and-paper set) than those with an extensive history with prior editions and other rule systems.


I'm glad, then, because both of those tend to have consistent and well-defined rulesets, with a couple of exceptions here and there.

Of course, my ideal RPG wouldn't revolve around the acquisition of stuff because they would already have that awesome stuff right at the start, as in BESM Tri-stat, Mekton Zeta, or, in some cases, actual heroic fantasy. Pretty much every other RPG out there falls into the Horatio Alger trap.

Journey
2007-01-09, 04:32 PM
And the older editions didn't facilitate it? Kits! Dual-classing (Fighter 2/Thief X, anyone)! Bladesingers!

Dual-classing of yore is outdone by far by mult-classing of today as far as powergaming is concerned. You might also have noted by simply reading the thread that I have always been wary of a character being able to take more than one class, regardless of edition. Comparing Kits to Prestige Classes and the proliferation of powers and abilities offered by feats and the like is amusingly unworthy of retort.

This isn't really a "<previous edition here> is better than 3.x" thread. I think that overwhelmingly the vast majority of players recognize that each edition has its own pros and cons. It's pretty fruitless to argue in terms of "which edition is better."

MrNexx
2007-01-09, 04:48 PM
Well, like the fact that anything moderately powerful doesn't seem to pop out of thin air anymore,

Can you explain this point? I don't understand what you mean.



Of course, my ideal RPG wouldn't revolve around the acquisition of stuff because they would already have that awesome stuff right at the start, Like Rifts. :smalltongue:

BobGhengisKhan
2007-01-09, 04:52 PM
Can you explain this point? I don't understand what you mean.

There were no mechanics for the creation of any magic items except for the most extraordinarily basic magic weapons. Hence, "thin air."


Like Rifts. :smalltongue:

I meant with some actual consideration of play-balance. :)

MrNexx
2007-01-09, 05:12 PM
There were no mechanics for the creation of any magic items except for the most extraordinarily basic magic weapons. Hence, "thin air."

The mechanics were there, though. "Enchant an Item" was a 6th level spell; "Permanency" was, I believe, 8th. Scrolls and potions could be made at set levels.


I meant with some actual consideration of play-balance. :)

Rifts considers play balance... but only long enough to align the computer targeting system. :) Play balance all comes down to the GM.

BobGhengisKhan
2007-01-09, 05:35 PM
The mechanics were there, though. "Enchant an Item" was a 6th level spell; "Permanency" was, I believe, 8th. Scrolls and potions could be made at set levels.

Enchant Items created +1 equipment, and Permanancy used to cost permanent Con.


Rifts considers play balance... but only long enough to align the computer targeting system. :) Play balance all comes down to the GM.

I'd far prefer there to be structural assistance, not only for new DMs, but also to limit the abuses on both sides of the screen.

Dark
2007-01-09, 05:36 PM
For me, yes. This doesn't change the fact that the 3.x incarnation of D&D resembles a video game set of rules for pen and paper more than it resembles a rules framework from which to role-play.
That's exactly the impression I had when I first read the 3.0 D&D rules. I remember thinking "Ah, they're finally getting serious about the SSI license" :smallwink:

SSI was the company that made games like Pool of Radiance and Eye of the Beholder, which fit in the blossoming CRPG genre but tried to follow the AD&D rules -- which were notoriously difficult to "get right" in a computer game. I just assumed that 3rd edition D&D was deliberately designed to make that easier. Is there an official word on this?

Desaril
2007-01-09, 06:06 PM
@ paigeoliver

I agree that many of the prestige classes and feats provided in supplements move the game from realistic fantasy to heroic fantasy to epic fantasy and beyond, but I disagree that the Core books create superheroes.

I've played Champions and other superhero RPGs for years and even 10th level characters cannot compare with regular superheroes. Since Champions is a levelless point system it is difficult to say whether a 10th level character is on par with a Champions character. It would depend on whether the Champions character was built on 100 or 1000 points.

However, if we compare with comic staples as Spider-man, not many D&D characters can lift 20,000lbs (and Spider-Man is more agile than he is strong). No character is as fast as the Flash, no armor is as tough as Colossus' skin.

D&D is drifting away from gritty realistic fantasy, but it is a far cry from superheroes.

Desaril
2007-01-09, 06:18 PM
@ Mr. Nexx & Bob,

A large part of D&D is the level advancement (even if you think it is too fast), but I understand why players may not like it. When I make a characte, I imagine a full grown hero. I don't imagine a 17 year old kid who works his way up. He's already a great hero and the campaign is one of his adventures. Therefore, I don't want to have to advance to my ideal, I want to start there. Of course, the solution is to begin at 10th level

My point is I dislike RPGs where a large focus is gaining levels and equipment because that competes with roleplaying as a goal. I think gaming is "purer" when you can make decisions based on playing the character, rather than improving your character.

An counter example comes from my game last Friday in which a sorceror with a wand in his hand provoked an attack of opportunity. The player chose to sunder the wand rather than attack the caster. I thought that in many games, players would have preferred to attack the creature, thereby saving the wand for plunder. The decision to destroy a potentially useful item rather than try to capture it, was contrary to one of the basic drives in D&D.

Amphimir Míriel
2007-01-09, 08:46 PM
OGC has made us all very.... frugal

Well, I must say that here in Mexico RPG books cost 20% more than in the States and my salary is about 50% what an equivalent job would make in the US (rent, food, and a lot of stuff is cheaper here, but anyway...)

Point is that imported books are expensive, so I went and made myself my own "Rulebooks" from the freely available D20 rules... (That's also why we only play Core in our campaign)... Used Adobe InDesign and Acrobat to make some nice, readable, books.

Some guys here save up and buy the official books, and some other guys just borrow the books and photocopy them (it used to be easier with the older books because they were b&w). But with D20, we can buy cheap .pdf's, or produce our own and print them out at the local photocopier shop.

And about the Powergaming debate: I remember powergamer groups in 2nd Ed (Im a bit too young for 1st ed) that were just as bad as the cheese we complain about now. In my honest opinion, powergaming is a problem with the players, not the game... We have some house rules in my campaign to deter powergamers (no spiked chains, no polymorph, etc.), but they are usually enforced by the players, not by the DM...

paigeoliver
2007-01-10, 04:33 AM
Well the characters in my games rarely solo anything, but encounters at an EL level equal to the party have never proven to be any challenge in MOST games I have played in or ran. Of course there are exceptions, but encounters two or three EL over the party level are often the minimum needed to actually challenge a party. I have seen parties manage encounters of ELs that were 3 times the party level and still walk away with no casualties.

Only last week a group of four 5th level characters managed to spring an EL 14 encounter (a group of advanced fiendish wights), in the middle of a fight with a Crypt Thing and they defeated them all.

Tonight a group of 3 players (6th, 7th, and 8th) took a 12th level Vampire (Fighter/Wizard/Eldritch Knight), down, although the Vampire did escape. That encounter actually DID challenge them.


I think you must be doing things slightly wrong.

A fighter that solos wolves only has to kill 3 of them, but a 1st-level fighter can quite easily LOSE to a wolf. The CR 1 in the wolf's stats means that a party of four 1st-level adventurers are supposed to fight it, not that it's a good encounter for a 1st-level character. If characters in your game are regularly soloing enemies equal to their CR, then they're either very very good at combat tactics, or the fights are too easy for them.

If you do things the book-recommended way, then you'll find that the party needs 3 1/3 x 4 encounters of equal CR to level up - ie 13.

In the games I run, if fighting appropriate enemies, I find characters level up about once every 2 or 3 sessions (that assumes 5-ish encounters of their CR per day, or the equivalent). It's a little faster at lower levels, and a little slower at higher levels.

Of course, you can fight tougher-than-normal enemies to advance faster. In our last game, our party of 5 got enough XP to get us 75% of the way to the next level in just one session. But we nearly got TPKed twice in the process, so we can't make a habit of it.

- Saph

Matthew
2007-01-10, 06:49 AM
@ Mr. Nexx & Bob,

A large part of D&D is the level advancement (even if you think it is too fast), but I understand why players may not like it. When I make a characte, I imagine a full grown hero. I don't imagine a 17 year old kid who works his way up. He's already a great hero and the campaign is one of his adventures. Therefore, I don't want to have to advance to my ideal, I want to start there. Of course, the solution is to begin at 10th level

My point is I dislike RPGs where a large focus is gaining levels and equipment because that competes with roleplaying as a goal. I think gaming is "purer" when you can make decisions based on playing the character, rather than improving your character.


Sure, but the assumption here is that Level 1 represents a 17 year old kid. Relative power levels are subject to interpretation. A Level 3 Fighter seems like an experienced veteran to me, but that's because I tend to play low powered games. It all depends what you consider to be the average. A Level 10 Character for me is pretty much the upper limit of the games I play [i.e. ready to be retired].

Saying that, all editions of D&D ar flexible and can suit a large number of playstyles. The 3.x default is too high powered for me, personally, so I would like to see 4.0 scale back the default.

paigeoliver
2007-01-10, 07:22 AM
One thing I have noticed is that over the years I have almost always created characters that are older than I am.

When I was a young teenager I was mostly creating characters who were older teenagers or in their early 20s.

Now at 29 I only have a single character younger than I am amongst a HUGE stable of characters.

Alikto Moveitmoveit - 17 Year old female half-orc (is older physically, as the character was reincarnated a few times).
Julie Underhill - Female halfling human equivalent of 34 (seen 4 years of game time).
Fargan Underhill - Male halfling - human equivalent of 33 (on his second year of game time).
Vintsehko Alexander. - Human male, 34
Gerald Vincent - Human male 57 (on his 3rd year of game time).
Felonius Brunt - Human male 31
"Heather" - Female elf, elves don't have subjective ages as far as I am concerned.
Slaymore Elfcutter - Male Dwarf, subjective age over 40. (on his second year of gametime).
Dakota Jackson - Human male, 35.
Avast Mehardy - Human male, 36.
Markessa the Orange - Female elf, elves are ageless, but this one has been an adult for centuries.

Am I the only one who does this? Or have others here noticed themselves creating older and older characters as they themselves aged?

Saph
2007-01-10, 07:34 AM
Well the characters in my games rarely solo anything, but encounters at an EL level equal to the party have never proven to be any challenge in MOST games I have played in or ran. Of course there are exceptions, but encounters two or three EL over the party level are often the minimum needed to actually challenge a party. I have seen parties manage encounters of ELs that were 3 times the party level and still walk away with no casualties.

Only last week a group of four 5th level characters managed to spring an EL 14 encounter (a group of advanced fiendish wights), in the middle of a fight with a Crypt Thing and they defeated them all.

. . . okay, that's ridiculous. Something is very, very wrong with your game. Either your characters have way too much power for their level, the GM is crippling the enemies you fight, or both.

An encounter of CR five or more points higher than the party level is supposed to be a TPK unless the party can escape somehow. Four 5th-level characters against a CR 14 encounter AND something else? You should all be dead. If the characters have the recommended wealth-by-level, and the GM plays the monsters intelligently, even an encounter of CR 1 or 2 points higher than the party level should be dangerous. CR 14 against a Level 5 party is just stupid.

- Saph

Journey
2007-01-10, 07:35 AM
Enchant Items created +1 equipment, and Permanancy used to cost permanent Con.
There were three spells required to enchant an item permanently (e.g. to create a sword +x): 1) Have Permanency; 2) Enchant an Item; 3) Desired Spell(s) (e.g. Enchanted Weapon (+1 per casting, up to +3)).

A PC mage could create a weapon with up to a +3 bonus (and other effects).


I'd far prefer there to be structural assistance, not only for new DMs, but also to limit the abuses on both sides of the screen.

The "structural assistance" is a double-edged sword, though. The greater the number of rules governing character (PC or NPC) actions, the less freedom both DMs and Players have to create flexible characters and scenarios. This is what I've meant when I have said "illusion of flexibility."

A perfect example of this is the Diplomacy skill and Rich's variation on the rule to correct for the railroading it imposes as written. Prior to 3.x, "diplomacy" would have been an ad hoc skill check based on the DM's assessment of the player's "correct" role-playing his character's mood, charisma, intelligence, and so forth. Post 3.x, however, the check's already pre-packaged and, strictly by the rules, the "role" element is largely removed by its codification as a rule and replaced by a "roll."

I prefer the balance between these two: a system that doesn't codify every action a PC might take into a rule via a skill/feat/class ability, but does offer some streamlined mechanic and a relatively vague baseline. Previous editions didn't offer the latter two, while 3.x offers far too much of the former.

Tormsskull
2007-01-10, 07:57 AM
The "structural assistance" is a double-edged sword, though. The greater the number of rules governing character (PC or NPC) actions, the less freedom both DMs and Players have to create flexible characters and scenarios. This is what I've meant when I have said "illusion of flexibility."


And limits the ability of the DM to do his/her job right. When every single action has a rule that governs it, DMs are less likely to listen to an innovative idea from a player and more likely to have them pick one of the actions available. Think of how many things never used to require a roll. Back in Basic you could just say "I look around" and the DM would say "You take the time to look around and see ______."

Now its "I look around" and the DM says "Roll a Search check". Sure, that's nice and good and all for streamlining things, but a DM is almost not needed in this case. It is simply Die roll + mods versus predetermined DC.

D&D is all about a DM having to make stuff up on the fly, its one of the essential skills of a good DM. Again, in previous editions if a character climbed on top of a house and fired down upon the zombies gathered there, resulting in the zombies trying to break down the house, the DM had to decide how much pounding the house could take. Could it withstand the zombie's walloping it without suffering any major damage? Would it crumble down after only a round or two?

Now it requires checking the hardness of the house, comparing that to the size of the house, dividing the house into sections and assigning damage to the different sections.

Most of the time these new rules are beneficial. However, some are so in-depth or rarely used that they aren't even worth learning.

Matthew
2007-01-10, 07:58 AM
True, but the inflexability of 3.x is also somewhat illusory. Circumstance Modifiers pretty much allow the DM to modify the difficulty of anything and the 'take 10' rule allows for stabalisation of Opposed Rolls. It's a kind of illusion within and illusion.

MrNexx
2007-01-10, 07:59 AM
Enchant Items created +1 equipment, and Permanancy used to cost permanent Con.

No. Enchant Weapons created +1 weapons, or more if you cast it more times on a prepared (with Enchant an Item) weapon. Permanency, according to errata, only had a 5% chance of costing you Con if used in creating magic items.


I'd far prefer there to be structural assistance, not only for new DMs, but also to limit the abuses on both sides of the screen.

While they can help at first, they can also become a straightjacket, later. I find that far more useful than the book hand-holding is another GM mentoring, experience, and a good group.

paigeoliver
2007-01-10, 08:09 AM
They were actually BELOW wealth by level at that point, and now they are WAY BELOW wealth by level. I should probably mention that most of my players are experienced Living Greyhawk players and Living Greyhawk modules usually have combats that are a MINIMUM of EL+2, with EL+3 being very common and EL+4 not being all that rare and living greyhawk modules quite regularly feature situational modifiers that favor the bad guys but are not calculated into the EL.

Tactics can go a REALLY LONG WAY, and the combat environment itself is very important.

A pair of BIG NASTY CR 12 monsters (EL 14) in a relatively enclosed space will destroy a lower level party. While an EL 14 encounter of less powerful undead or humanoid creatures in that same enclosed space is not that tough to beat.

A SINGLE creature in an open environment can often be taken quite easily by a party that is much less powerful than the creatures CR. They are defeated by spells too easily. With two or 3 casters it usually only takes one or two rounds before it fails a save against SOMETHING that will ensure it's destruction. Not to mention the fact that MANY relatively HIGH CR monsters lack any sort of versatility and can be defeated by a single mounted archer or character with ride by attack.

That same open environment with the hoard of humanoid or undead creatures will usually overwhelm the party that took them easily in a more enclosed environment.

Of course some monsters are nightmares even at EL = CR. I have found trolls, anything with a really high STR, and large grapple monsters to be particularly bad in this respect. Severely advanced assassin vines, and chokers advanced to medium sized are also real killers.


. . . okay, that's ridiculous. Something is very, very wrong with your game. Either your characters have way too much power for their level, the GM is crippling the enemies you fight, or both.

An encounter of CR five or more points higher than the party level is supposed to be a TPK unless the party can escape somehow. Four 5th-level characters against a CR 14 encounter AND something else? You should all be dead. If the characters have the recommended wealth-by-level, and the GM plays the monsters intelligently, even an encounter of CR 1 or 2 points higher than the party level should be dangerous. CR 14 against a Level 5 party is just stupid.

- Saph

Kevlimin_Soulaxe
2007-01-10, 08:16 AM
Okay, I've scanned this topic.

Maybe I missed something.

Is there anything here that we need a think tank like WotC for, or can this all be done with houserules, creativity, and a bit of elbow grease?

Saph
2007-01-10, 08:38 AM
They were actually BELOW wealth by level at that point, and now they are WAY BELOW wealth by level. I should probably mention that most of my players are experienced Living Greyhawk players and Living Greyhawk modules usually have combats that are a MINIMUM of EL+2, with EL+3 being very common and EL+4 not being all that rare and living greyhawk modules quite regularly feature situational modifiers that favor the bad guys but are not calculated into the EL.

Tactics can go a REALLY LONG WAY, and the combat environment itself is very important.

Yes . . . but the party aren't the only ones that can use tactics. The monsters can do the same, and if they're the ones doing the attacking, they can pick the environment to suit them. In fact, given the Int score of most higher-level monsters, they should be using better tactics than the party are.

There's no way to settle this, since I've got my game and you've got yours, but I promise you that most of the good GMs I've played with would annihilate any fifth-level party with a CR 10+ encounter, and I don't care how experienced they are. Of course, those GMs wouldn't send a CR 14 encounter at a level 5 party in the first place, because they'd find CR 5-6 encounters quite lethal enough already.

- Saph

Matthew
2007-01-10, 08:54 AM
Okay, I've scanned this topic.

Maybe I missed something.

Is there anything here that we need a think tank like WotC for, or can this all be done with houserules, creativity, and a bit of elbow grease?

To be fair, though, D&D 3.x could be easily described as a (heavily) House Ruled version of (A)D&D 2.x. A fourth edition will no doubt be the same sort of thing.

MrNexx
2007-01-10, 09:01 AM
To be fair, though, D&D 3.x could be easily described as a (heavily) House Ruled version of (A)D&D 2.x. A fourth edition will no doubt be the same sort of thing.

This reminds me of the lists of "Real Men, Real Role Players, Munchkins, and Loonies", where-in the Loonies played progressively more heavily house-ruled versions of Spawn of Fashawn...

Matthew
2007-01-10, 11:24 AM
*laughs* Well, you know what is often said about madness...

kailin
2007-01-10, 12:06 PM
What makes you guys think there even is a fourth-ed coming? I mean, theoretically when wizards loses ownership of D&D or finds their 3.x system has become too much trouble to write for or sell, there'll be a revision, but you're guessing it's in the works now?

3.x is still working fine, for players and designers alike. Why would wizards make its entire roleplaying system, which it's spent years developing and marketing and dominating the gaming scene, obsolete? This isn't a software package, there aren't successive versions released on a regular basis. 4th is a long way off.

Matthew
2007-01-10, 12:33 PM
Probably the announcement that it will occur one day and the nature of the business. It's worth noting the sudden increase in Core Adventures slated for publication this year. There's only so many rules add ons and variations they can come up with and sell.

stainboy
2007-01-10, 05:19 PM
Things I'd want to see...


A more refined and intuitive combat system that requires less flipping through the book to run.

A combat/skillmonkey class along the lines of ranger, but without all the naturey stuff for those who want to swing a sword and have lots of skills but don't want to cast spells.

Streamlined metamagic and item creation rules. (Those almost got completely revamped in 3.5, but the developers changed their minds.)

A Base Armor Bonus that scales with level, so two level 20 fighters in nonmagical gear don't automatically hit each other.

Better distinction between skills that need to scale with level and skills that don't. (If you're rolling against the same static DCs at any level, then there's no reason you should be allowed to keep putting points into the skill. AoOs are meaningless for many characters at high level because Tumble uses static DCs, for example.)

Planescape 4th Edition, with Tony DiTerlizzi doing the art.

Bards who don't play music in combat.

Some new way of calculating attack bonus for creatures with loads of strength. I don't know why, but it really bugs me how the big clumsy brutes never miss.

Druids, spiked chains, and the fireball spell all getting beat with the nerf bat.

"Priests of Specific Mythoi" from 2e. Nothing like the book telling you to just build your own character class.

Goblins as a core PC race!

Less crunch, fewer formulas for everything, more room for house rules and innovation. I mean, come on, we have a whole book of rules for statting out gods now. It's gone too far.

Aez
2007-01-10, 08:28 PM
My biggest wish: No dead levels. Players should have something to look forward to at every level in a class, and should have a strong incentive to go from level 1 through 20 in a single class.

The "basic" class would be Fighter, which would offer a bonus feat at every level. There would also be several useful Specialization feats (that also offer Maneuvers and Stances like the Book of 9 Swords), available only to Fighters at staggered levels.

Every level of every non-spellcasting class would offer some sort of ability roughly equivalent to that of a feat. The abilities would compliment each other, and would get somewhat more powerful as the class progressed.

Arcane spellcasters would get more spells per day at low levels. Divine caster could not use metamagic of any type. (They get all sorts of other things over arcane casters). PHBII Wildshape. No Polymorph.

No prestige class would offer more then 4/5 caster progression, and no prestige class would offer caster progression on the first level of the class. If you want to cast as a 20th level Cleric, you must be Cleric 20.


When will this occur? Well, the edition history is 1974 (box), 1977 (AD&D), 1989 (2nd Ed), 2000 (3.0), and 2003 (3.5). So historically, we get a new rules set every 3-12 years, which means that we'll get 4.0 between now and 2015. But in order to publish 4.0, the game design team has to convince their corporate overlords at Hasbro to let them do an entirely new rules edition, thus rendering all of their current expansions un-marketable. So look for 4.0 shortly after sales of the expansions tank.

Where can I vote?

ken-do-nim
2007-01-10, 09:56 PM
When will this occur? Well, the edition history is 1974 (box), 1977 (AD&D), 1989 (2nd Ed), 2000 (3.0), and 2003 (3.5). So historically, we get a new rules set every 3-12 years, which means that we'll get 4.0 between now and 2015. But in order to publish 4.0, the game design team has to convince their corporate overlords at Hasbro to let them do an entirely new rules edition, thus rendering all of their current expansions un-marketable. So look for 4.0 shortly after sales of the expansions tank.


I view the D&D version history a little differently.
1974 let's call it 0E
1977 AD&D, how about 1E
<0E is revised several times & expanded during this time period>
1986 1.5E - Unearthed Arcana/Dungeoneer's Guide/Wilderness Guide; but mostly UA made some very large changes to the game
1989 2E
1996 2.5E - Player's Options series, esp. Combat & Tactics makes large changes to the game
2000 3E
2003 3.5E
2005 3.75E - Incarnum, Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, PHII lots of new systems presented.

Looked at this way, D&D has been regularly updating the game except during the period 1977-1986, but even then the basic game 0E went through massive revamping, 1981 basic set, 1982 expert set, 1983 revamped basic set, 1984 companion rules, 1986 master rules, etc.

Now that the system is back to one game line, the revamps will occur faster. For this reason I maintain 2008 will be the release of 4E. Just please, oh god, tell me the game manuals aren't sold in randomized booster packs!

paigeoliver
2007-01-10, 11:33 PM
I don't know ANYONE who actually used the "Player's Option" stuff.

As much as I HATE the calling older versions 2.0 and 2.5 and such I would actually argue that regardless of version numbering 3.0 was the first non-incremental revision. Everything prior to 3.0 was essentially compatible with each other.


Also in the 1977-79 era the game itself was still coming out. The three core books were not all published at the same time. Also the timeline is missing the various versions of NON-Advanced D&D. 3 or 4 different revisions of the basic set, two revisions of Expert Set, companion set, master set, Immortal Set, and Rules Cyclopedia.

Thomas
2007-01-11, 03:08 AM
I don't know ANYONE who actually used the "Player's Option" stuff.

You don't know a lot of AD&D players, huh? We used it; eventually we decided that the next time we'd play AD&D, we'd not use any rules outside of the basic books, because they're too damn unbalancing. (I'm serious. Some of the stuff the players could do with S&P and C&T was sick. The poor monsters weren't scaled for that sort of combat power.) But then third edition came out, we tried it, and we all loved it.

paigeoliver
2007-01-11, 04:49 AM
Well I certainly knew people who had/have the books, but they never got used more than a few times because of the balance issues. The rules for making your own classes in the DMG were also ripe for abuse. Not so much for making super-classes as they were for making stripped down classes with alignment/ethos restrictions that just sailed through the experience levels.

The weapons mastery system from the D&D Master Set/Rules Cyclopedia had the same balance problem. None of the baddies were scaled for it, none of the previous products had weapon mastery in mind, and for that matter nothing ever took it into account other than the handful of "Master Series" modules that were produced.


You don't know a lot of AD&D players, huh? We used it; eventually we decided that the next time we'd play AD&D, we'd not use any rules outside of the basic books, because they're too damn unbalancing. (I'm serious. Some of the stuff the players could do with S&P and C&T was sick. The poor monsters weren't scaled for that sort of combat power.) But then third edition came out, we tried it, and we all loved it.

Renegade Paladin
2007-01-11, 05:08 AM
What I would like to see from 4E...

I agree with the above posters who want to broaden the options available under the core classes. Some of the core classes are far too restrictive. Some suggestions would be:

Paladins - Lift the alignment restriction and give the paladin the option to choose from several different codes, ranging from the classic paladin code to a cruel infernal-knight code that demands something like an oath of service to a demonic master.
No. That isn't a paladin; serving demons has nothing to do with being a heroic champion, to say nothing of a champion of the ideals of chivalry, which is what paladins are supposed to be; it's even what the definition says if you look it up in a dictionary. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paladin) The current code and alignment restriction is no accident.

That said, alternate champion classes for the other extreme alignments would be great. I have lawful evil and chaotic evil ones in beta right now (yes, that does mean I actually thoroughly playtest my homebrew before just tossing it around willy-nilly :smalltongue:) with (here's the tricky part) completely different flavors from the paladin. Having one class that can champion any ideal plain old doesn't work; the abilities for someone who champions ye olde Chivalric Code don't mesh with the concept of a champion of Olidammara's or Mask's ideals of thievery and trickery or Bane or Hextor's ideas of world domination. The black knight (lawful evil) and his tyrannic ideology simply doesn't mesh with healing powers and granting courage... and simply reversing those abilities doesn't cut it either. He's not a plaguebearer or necessarily seeking to induce terror, so why would he have contagion X/week and aura of despair? One class does not fit all.

Ambrogino
2007-01-11, 05:08 AM
It's worth noting the sudden increase in Core Adventures slated for publication this year. There's only so many rules add ons and variations they can come up with and sell.

Historically adventures sell inferior numbers next to supplements/expansions, which sell inferior numbers next to main rulebooks. When the Main Rule books are the only ones existing for a system it's aslo the easiest jump-on point for new players, as shelves of stuff is intimidating when you're not sure what you want. So I have no doubt at all a new edition is inevitable at some point. I do hope it will be more a 3.75 than a 4.0, but we'll see - Call of Cthulhu's on something like 6.6 editions and you can use a 1st ed adventure with a 6th ed rulebook with few problems, but Exalted 2nd ed is nearly incompatible with 1st.

I do expect based on the 3 and 3.5 launches we'll probably get 18 months notice, probably announcing at Origins to launch the GenCon after next or vice-versa.

Renegade Paladin
2007-01-11, 06:04 AM
Well the characters in my games rarely solo anything, but encounters at an EL level equal to the party have never proven to be any challenge in MOST games I have played in or ran. Of course there are exceptions, but encounters two or three EL over the party level are often the minimum needed to actually challenge a party. I have seen parties manage encounters of ELs that were 3 times the party level and still walk away with no casualties.
Your DM was fudging it. As a DM, I know how easy it is to just back off without making it seem like you're doing so. Just yesterday, my players took on the Red Wizard enclave in Mulmaster. (For those of you who play Forgotten Realms, you should know how crazy that is.) Things were going fine due to some creative spell use, but then the techsmith pulled his clay golem out of his portable hole. Those things ain't quiet. They aggroed almost the entire crafting area full of Red Wizards.

It was an EL 19 encounter. They should have all died. Only one was poised to even escape. And then I realized that a TPK wasn't what I wanted.

So after the techsmith managed to dispel Evard's black tentacles, I didn't have anyone recast it, although five or six of the remaining wizards easily could have. I also held off on repeated castings of chain lightning. And then the wizards didn't have anything to affect the golem and began to retreat. The party didn't get many kills, but they lived and ultimately got away, incidentally with what they were after because they'd already procured it before this happened.

It is easy for the DM to be merciful and make you think you actually legitimately beat the encounter. If 5th level characters took out an encounter 9 above their encounter level, which the XP chart does not even have an entry for because it should never happen without extraordinary circumstances, then something went horribly wrong.

Hileria
2007-01-11, 07:27 AM
Ahhh jeezzz... What I want to see in 4th edition: Is no 4th Edition. Not for a long, long time. I've bought too many 3.5 books to want to start over now, or start checking conversion docs from WOTC every time I pick up one of my splat books.

paigeoliver
2007-01-11, 08:04 AM
You don't have to play 4th edition when it comes out you know. Honestly any edition OTHER than the current edition is always the best one to play. The books for the current edition always cost WAY MORE than the books for the old edition.

A complete set of First edition hardcovers will probably run you less than the three core books for 3.5

Now a complete set of second edition rulebooks will be a bit more pricey (you have the hardcovers, the monster manuals, all those complete books, the DMGR series, etc), it will still be only a fraction of the price of a set of 3rd edition hardcovers.

Or you could just play Rules Cyclopedia D&D and have the complete ruleset for the $25 that the rules cyclopedia goes for. This gets a lot pricier if you want to add the assorted accessories though, as the BECMI accessories are a lot rarer and pricier than most AD&D stuff. Although almost all of them would really fall under the category of campaign materials, which I wasn't covering here.

Matthew
2007-01-11, 08:22 AM
I don't know ANYONE who actually used the "Player's Option" stuff.


You don't know a lot of AD&D players, huh? We used it; eventually we decided that the next time we'd play AD&D, we'd not use any rules outside of the basic books, because they're too damn unbalancing. (I'm serious. Some of the stuff the players could do with S&P and C&T was sick. The poor monsters weren't scaled for that sort of combat power.) But then third edition came out, we tried it, and we all loved it.


Well I certainly knew people who had/have the books, but they never got used more than a few times because of the balance issues. The rules for making your own classes in the DMG were also ripe for abuse. Not so much for making super-classes as they were for making stripped down classes with alignment/ethos restrictions that just sailed through the experience levels.

The weapons mastery system from the D&D Master Set/Rules Cyclopedia had the same balance problem. None of the baddies were scaled for it, none of the previous products had weapon mastery in mind, and for that matter nothing ever took it into account other than the handful of "Master Series" modules that were produced.

I never understand this view of the Player’s Option Series. I often hear about these game breaking super characters that were possible, but I just can’t see how it was done. Maybe through the playing of unorthodox Races?

Anyway, sure there were problems with the series, but all it presented was a bunch of options. Most of it worked great and the bits that didn’t were easily abandoned. The fact that so much of it was incorporated into 3.x pretty much speaks for itself.

Spells and Magic was the most troubling of the series, but even that was hardly game breaking. You could do better with Monster Mythology than Spells and Magic (hell, you couldn’t build half the Priesthoods from Monster Mythology).

As for the Dungeon Master’s Class Building Rules, they were virtually unintelligible and produced greatly inferior Classes by and large. (A)D&D 2.x was basically a collection of optional rules built around the core dynamic.

Dausuul
2007-01-11, 08:30 AM
No. That isn't a paladin; serving demons has nothing to do with being a heroic champion, to say nothing of a champion of the ideals of chivalry, which is what paladins are supposed to be; it's even what the definition says if you look it up in a dictionary. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/paladin) The current code and alignment restriction is no accident.

That said, alternate champion classes for the other extreme alignments would be great. I have lawful evil and chaotic evil ones in beta right now (yes, that does mean I actually thoroughly playtest my homebrew before just tossing it around willy-nilly :smalltongue:) with (here's the tricky part) completely different flavors from the paladin. Having one class that can champion any ideal plain old doesn't work; the abilities for someone who champions ye olde Chivalric Code don't mesh with the concept of a champion of Olidammara's or Mask's ideals of thievery and trickery or Bane or Hextor's ideas of world domination. The black knight (lawful evil) and his tyrannic ideology simply doesn't mesh with healing powers and granting courage... and simply reversing those abilities doesn't cut it either. He's not a plaguebearer or necessarily seeking to induce terror, so why would he have contagion X/week and aura of despair? One class does not fit all.

Well, that's sort of my point. Right now the paladin is a super-specific class concept that really ought to be a prestige class. If it's going to be a core class, then it ought to be expanded, with the appropriate changes/expansions to class abilities, to make it suitable for a crusading warrior of any alignment. Instead of giving them a fixed set of abilities, give them a small list to choose from, the way clerics get to choose their domains. For example, instead of all paladins having an aura of courage, let them choose from courage (bonus to save vs. fear), wisdom (bonus to save vs. illusion and charm), terror (enemies get penalty to saves vs. fear), et cetera.

One of the definitions in your link is "any knightly or heroic champion." That offers enough leeway that I think it could accommodate knightly champions of evil as well as good... it's pushing it, I admit, but then druids do not exactly fit the historical concept of the druid either. Or just rename the class as "cavalier" or "crusader" or "holy warrior" or something if you really can't stand it.

Renegade Paladin
2007-01-11, 08:39 AM
If 4e were released in the near future, I was forced to switch to it, and paladin was no longer a base class, then I would by-God design it. Paladin should not be a prestige class; if you're chosen from childhood by your very nature as the current paladin is, then you shouldn't have to "earn" your nature, especially as a paladin PrC would probably involve a heroic quest of some sort in the prerequisites... and why wouldn't the powers of Good give you the power to complete that quest in the first place rather than wait until you're done?

I still say the best solution is a champion class for CG... and also for LE and CE in the Dungeon Master's Guide, because by-default evil characters should not be presented in the base player's guide as an option for starting players, because believe you me, players who have an evil campaign as their first don't tend to work out the game really well. As for the various flavors of neutrality, I really don't see them as extreme enough to need a crusading champion as such. There are champions of causes that may be of some neutral alignment or another (druids, anyone?), but that's not directly related to crusading for the alignment.

Edit: There's another, more practical reason why the PrC solution is a bad idea. Sometimes, newbie players want to start out as, SHOCK AND HORROR, a heroic, divinely blessed knight. We all know that's not a common archetype. *Rolls eyes* And new players honestly should not be introduced to everything all at the same time. When I'm DMing for a new player or two, I start a new campaign at level 1 and make everyone, new or not, work from just the PHB. The advanced options can be introduced later; core is hard enough for new guys, especially for spellcasters.

MrNexx
2007-01-11, 09:12 AM
I don't know ANYONE who actually used the "Player's Option" stuff.

We used Combat and Tactics extensively back in the day; to this day, I use a combination(!) of Player's Option and the Complete Books with very little problem. Bladesinger who traded away the ability to wear armor for an unarmored AC bonus? Sure. Just realize that the drow lythari I send against you will be designed with the same ideas in mind. As a DM, I require certain powers to be bought for every race (anything that I view as innate; infravision, resistances, etc.), and let you play with what's left.

If you use core adventures without modification, Player's Option can be a problem. However, we seldom use core adventures, and never without modifications. Heck, I'm currently running a 1st edition game, using T1 (Village of Hommlet). However, since I've got Unearthed Arcana, and am using it to provide fighters with Weapon Specialization, I'm upping a few of the NPCs to match the power of the PCs.

EDIT: Anyone else thinking that one of the sure signs of a coming 4th edition will be a Skills and Powers style volume for 3.5?

Matthew
2007-01-11, 09:20 AM
Heh, got any Unearthed Arcana 1.x Paladins?

Nah, I think the sure sign of 4.x will be increased Adventure production and a dying off of mechanical options...

MrNexx
2007-01-11, 09:29 AM
Heh, got any Unearthed Arcana 1.x Paladins?

Nah, I think the sure sign of 4.x will be increased Adventure production and a dying off of mechanical options...

Actually, no. That's a mechanical choice I made; the only UA stuff I'm using is Weapon Specialization. It's enough, though... we've got a Longbow specialist Fighter/Magic-User. Something like +6 to hit (damn elves), and 2d6+4 damage if they're within 30'. Otherwise, we've got a Paladin (of St. Cuthbert, to make it easier on her to donate) and a gnome illusionist/thief.

Cleared out the main room of bandits in the surprise round and their first set of actions... the leader just wound up surrendering, completely uninjured, as these psychos killed everyone in the room in about 30 seconds, and plunged half the room into darkness.

Journey
2007-01-11, 09:43 AM
EDIT: Anyone else thinking that one of the sure signs of a coming 4th edition will be a Skills and Powers style volume for 3.5?

I purchased the Skills and Powers book (and I think one other; I'd have to look on my bookshelf when I return home this evening) because a DM I was playing with one time started a campaign with them. It left as foul a taste in my mouth as the 3.x rules but for different reasons.

Anyway, I feel that TSR released that series as a last-ditch effort to delay the demise of the company. I don't believe WoTC is in danger of losing the franchise anytime soon because their business model, while devious and hurtful to the roleplaying demographic as a whole in my opinion, is nevertheless clever.

I think that UA (and PHB II, and other books that aren't the Complete series) are essentially the 3.x analogue for Skills and Powers anyway, because much like S&P they provide alternate rules for characters, whereas the Complete series tends to simply provide wider class, skill and feat variety (with some rules variants for extra flavor, but not to the extent that UA and PHBII provide).

ken-do-nim
2007-01-11, 10:23 AM
I don't know ANYONE who actually used the "Player's Option" stuff.


I loved Combat & Tactics; didn't use the others as much except the spellcasting saving throw penalty chart from the High Level book and the reworked spell schools from Spells & Magic.

I played a lot of D&D in the 80s, but by the time 2nd edition and the 90s rolled around, I was just sick of all the rules arguments and stuff that wasn't covered in the game, plus the lack of options in combat. I still played occasionally, but my interest was fading. Then Combat & Tactics came out, and it revitalized my interest in the game. That first glimmer of feats (including martial arts), the knockdown dice, attacks of opportunity, the opposed roll mechanic with blocks & parries, the new initiative system, weapon grand mastery, critical hit charts, just everything. And 3.0 continued that renewed interest, and by 3.5 D&D has reclaimed its position as my #1 hobby.

Anyone up for knockdown dice again?

MrNexx
2007-01-11, 06:32 PM
Fix the name of the falchion. A two-handed scimitar is not a falchion. Every time someone says falchion, I have to re-image for 3.5.

Kevlimin_Soulaxe
2007-01-11, 07:59 PM
...Okay. I've read more of the thread.

Nothing here sounds like something that anyone who cares enough couldn't sit down and do themselves.

Seriously, fix the name of the falchion? Why in the name of all nine levels of hell do you need a new edition for that?

Make goblins a player race? Can't you, as the DM, just...SAY...that they are? If you think they're underpowered, what'll it take for you to give them a couple bonuses?

Defense that scales with level? WotC already has something like that, check out D20 Modern. Feel free to adjust at your whim. Because, you know, the game is only how you play it.

ken-do-nim
2007-01-11, 10:01 PM
...Okay. I've read more of the thread.

Nothing here sounds like something that anyone who cares enough couldn't sit down and do themselves.

Seriously, fix the name of the falchion? Why in the name of all nine levels of hell do you need a new edition for that?

Make goblins a player race? Can't you, as the DM, just...SAY...that they are? If you think they're underpowered, what'll it take for you to give them a couple bonuses?

Defense that scales with level? WotC already has something like that, check out D20 Modern. Feel free to adjust at your whim. Because, you know, the game is only how you play it.

Well take my comment about power levels. Sure, I could rework the dragon statistics to have them peak at 20. Sure I could rewrite every major demon & devil to put them at the right CR. Kind of a lot of work though. (I'm still so amused that in the demons book, those are the actual critters, yet in the new hells book those are just aspects. It just feels like WOTC can't make up its mind!) So in the same vein, sure I could figure out a way to boost the ninja class. And the bard class. And the monk class. Etc. It's a lot of work. Plus, all the modules I've just bought I've got to tinker with now too.

Kevlimin_Soulaxe
2007-01-11, 11:56 PM
There we go! I didn't see your comment, but that is something that would require more than a bit of work, probably from more than just you.

Renegade Paladin
2007-01-12, 05:39 AM
Well take my comment about power levels. Sure, I could rework the dragon statistics to have them peak at 20. Sure I could rewrite every major demon & devil to put them at the right CR. Kind of a lot of work though. (I'm still so amused that in the demons book, those are the actual critters, yet in the new hells book those are just aspects. It just feels like WOTC can't make up its mind!) So in the same vein, sure I could figure out a way to boost the ninja class. And the bard class. And the monk class. Etc. It's a lot of work. Plus, all the modules I've just bought I've got to tinker with now too.
About the Fiendish Codices, I'd bet that somewhere between the printings of the first and second, somebody actually thought to crack a copy of the Book of Vile Darkness. :smallamused: The demon princes as presented in there have CRs in the upper 20s to 30. Weakening them to be barely more powerful than a balor was massively inconsistent, and someone realized it.

ken-do-nim
2007-01-12, 08:37 AM
About the Fiendish Codices, I'd bet that somewhere between the printings of the first and second, somebody actually thought to crack a copy of the Book of Vile Darkness. :smallamused: The demon princes as presented in there have CRs in the upper 20s to 30. Weakening them to be barely more powerful than a balor was massively inconsistent, and someone realized it.

Yeah, I half expect them to release Fiendish Codex III: This Time We'll Get the CRs Right, No Don't Laugh We're Not Kidding.

MrNexx
2007-01-12, 09:31 AM
Seriously, fix the name of the falchion? Why in the name of all nine levels of hell do you need a new edition for that?


I don't need a new edition to fix that for myself. I need it to fix it for everyone else.

The thought process goes:

Poster A says: Use a falchion to maximize power attacks and critical hits.
Mr. Nexx thinks: One-handed sword, disproportionately wide towards the point, almost forming an axe blade at the end.
Poster A means: A two-handed scimitar.

Matthew
2007-01-12, 12:58 PM
...Okay. I've read more of the thread.

Nothing here sounds like something that anyone who cares enough couldn't sit down and do themselves.

Seriously, fix the name of the falchion? Why in the name of all nine levels of hell do you need a new edition for that?

Make goblins a player race? Can't you, as the DM, just...SAY...that they are? If you think they're underpowered, what'll it take for you to give them a couple bonuses?

Defense that scales with level? WotC already has something like that, check out D20 Modern. Feel free to adjust at your whim. Because, you know, the game is only how you play it.

Seriously, you can House Rule anything, but when there start to be more House Rules than Core Rules, it's time for a new edition. Reduced Spell Caster Power Levels and a Revised Magic System would be my preference and I am perfectly capable of House Ruling them in, but if I want to see that as the default mode of D&D, then it's going to have to be in another edition (even though it won't be).

Tekren
2007-02-20, 08:00 PM
What I want to see from fourth edition:

Another ten years to pass before WotC does it. :smallamused:

Perhaps 10-level statistic-based base classes, like d20Modern? what we consider 'base classes' now could be available at 4th level as 10-level advanced classes, except for the Paladin, which becomes one of the many 5-level prestige class available near 7th level.

Also, a better spell system than 'Fire&Forget'.

Apologies for the likely confusion in the third paragraph.

Fhaolan
2007-02-20, 08:38 PM
2nd had it perfect?
Oh, come on. I'd have to be paid to play second edition. Woo! Thac0! System shock rolls! Racial class level limits! And have you READ the rules for first edition lately? They're pretty damn incoherent, not to mention terrible; there is nothing consistent, just a series of half-random exceptions.

I find reading the 1st edition DMG an amusing experience. Gygax's 'stream of consciousness' writing/editing style makes me wonder sometimes if he was deliberately trying for farce. :smallbiggrin: