PDA

View Full Version : 4th Edition Wish List



Pages : [1] 2

Person_Man
2007-08-16, 02:44 PM
OK, so unless you've been living under a rock, you should know that it's official (http://theminiaturespage.com/news/519193/). 4th edition will soon be a reality.

I didn't want to hijack the main thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53910), which is all over the place in terms of the topic of discussion.

So, this is a thread for us to talk about what we want to see out of 4th Ed, preferably in a constructive fashion. This is not a place to complain about WotC gouging us for money, or to debate the need for 4th ed, or to rant about viral marketing, etc. If that's what you want to post about, please refer to the main thread.

UPDATED August 23:

Here is a compilation of things that I've mostly seen consensus on:

1) WotC doesn't sell books, it sells social interaction: It's essentially global grass-roots organization of people who get together and play a game. Buying books, miniatures, subscriptions, video games, and everything else related to D&D is just a secondary effect of that social interaction, just like buying bats and cards are secondary effects of people who play or watch baseball. Thus, the focus of the company should always be on high quality social interaction. Let us play test our game. Listen to our feedback. Respect the online community. Get buy in intellectually and emotionally, and we will reward you with buy in financially.

2) Play test, play test, and the play test some more: Apparently, the official release isn't until May 2008. Put whatever rules you have up on a public SRD, and let us play test them. Then listen to our feedback.

3) Hire a real editing staff: You have the resources of Hasbro. We will not forgive the sort of mistakes we see all the time from basement companies. Hire a serious staff of OCD English and Math majors to correct the spelling, grammar, math, and flow of all of your content and charts. At this level, stupid errors just show us how you care more about volume then content. Or better yet, just send out a draft of every book to 100 gamers at random before you officially release it. I guarantee that they will nit-pick it and find every single error in it within 24 hours for you, free of charge.

3) Hire a real IT staff: Why did your website crash after the vaunted countdown? How come it wasn't back up the next day? If 4.0 is supposed to have a major segment revolving around online technology, that online technology should work. Hire some people who worked for Valve or some other company that knows how to do this correctly. Don't just fake it on your own.

4) We want 4.0, not 3.75: If we're going to pony up cash for a new game, it should be a new game. And it should be a better game. Keep what works, destroy what doesn't work, have something new and interesting for us to play with, and play test the heck out of it to make sure that it works.

5) If 4.5 is coming out soon, tell us: It's inevitable that 4.0 will need tweaks. Just be honest with us about them and about when you are going to re-publish rules, and we'll reward you for it with loyalty. Screw us over in an attempt to sell a few more books, and we'll hate you for it.

6) Find a way to convert rules: Some of our most beloved games exist in 3.5 or previous editions. In particular, people feel very strongly about particular classes, prestige classes, or game world (like Greyhawk, Kalamar, etc). These rules and game worlds should be converted into 4.0, not abandoned on the side of the road just because they're somewhat less popular then Forgotten Realms.

7) Rational Special Attacks: Mounted Combat, Overrun, Disarm, and Grapple are all confusing or counter intuitive. Ride by Attack is screwy, Overrun is a Standard Action, Disarm is very difficult to pull off as a Monk, Grapple is just plain confusing, etc. Make clear, simple rules for every special attack, that an intelligent player might actually use.

8) No Dead Levels: Fighter 20, Rogue 20, etc. There should be a reason to take every level of a class.

9) Kill Polymorph and Wildshape: The easiest methods of breaking any game. Kill them. Or if you really want to keep them, make something similar to the PHBII variant Druid and use that.

10) No Full Caster Progression PrC: Why would anyone be a Cleric 20 when PrC like Radiant Servant of Pelor exist, where you give up nothing? No PrC that should offer more then 4/5 caster progression, with the 1st level being a dead level for spell progression.

11) Kill the Action Advantage: No Time Stop, Celerity, Quickened Spells, White Raven Tactics, etc. Dragons (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070822a) should not get 2 free action attacks, an extra standard action, and an immediate action. Breaking how rounds work breaks game balance and massively slows down combat.

12) Ditch Iterative Attacks: Or at least find a way to make it more rational and less cumbersome.

13) Fix scaling: Some things provide very minor static bonuses, some give huge scaled bonuses. The result is that players who want to take a feat or ability for fluff reasons (for example, Weapon Focus) don't because it sucks so badly. Take an inventory of everything, decide what you want to keep, and then scale it properly.

14) Monsters as PCs: Natural Attacks, LA, and Racial Hit Dice are confusing. Combining them with standard attacks and class levels is maddening. Players want to be able to play monsters as PCs, especially popular monsters, such as Mind Flayers, Lich, Orcs, etc. Create balanced rules for doing so. Don't just graft something on at the last minute.

15) Balance the Stats: Int, Wis, and Cha shouldn't be dump stats. Make each of the stats useful for something every character can use, not just class specific abilities.

16) Pareto Efficiency: If Feat A is always better then Feat B in every probable situation, there is no reason for Feat B to exist, since any rational player will always choose Feat A. Every class, feat, skill, maneuver, spell, or piece of equipment ought to be useful in some situations that might actually happen in a regular game. There is no point in having fifty different kinds of swords if one of them is (game-mechanically) superior in every other way to the other 49 for a similar cost. Just write the fluff to be very flexible, and everyone will be much happier.

17) d12 Should Stop Being Lazy and Get a Job: If you're going to have a d12, use it often enough to justify its existence. "Barbarian hit die" do not constitute "often."


Here are some things that I personally want, which may or may not have the consensus of the community:

1) Each player gets 1 Move and 1 Standard Action, and No More!: A Move can only be used for a Move. A Standard Action can be used for any 1 action. 1 attack or spell or maneuver or whatever. Each 1 whatever has 1 effect, resolved by no more than 1 die roll and 1 damage roll (if successful). Incidental actions, such as drawing a weapon or talking, are Free actions. Free Actions should never cause damage, have a direct effect on others, or replace something that would normally be a Standard Action (i.e., no Quickened spells/Immediate Actions). Once you accept this basic premise, combat will move MUCH faster and will be much easier to understand. As players or monsters gain levels, you can simply add more options for their Standard Action, and make the 1 whatever more powerful and/or varied and/or cooler and/or able to bypass defenses. But you should never increase the amount of time it takes to resolve, because doing so slows down the game, makes the mechanics much more difficult to understand, puts off new players, and allows veteran players to exploit their greater understanding of the rules to gain a huge action/power advantage.

2) Limited, Never Expanded Spell Lists: The Beguiler and Duskblade are models of well balanced but strong classes. Wizards and Clerics are the model of easy to abuse classes. The main culprit is codex creep. Every time a book comes out, full spellcasters become more powerful. Just make specialist wizards/clerics specific core classes with limited lists, carefully balanced against each other and all the other classes.

3) Keep Classes: Again, plenty of people disagree with me on this, but its part of what makes D&D be D&D. Keep it.

4) Consolidate Rules: In my opinion, this is your best option for addressing "Give us 4.0 and not 3.75." You've come up with spells, feats, maneuvers, skill tricks, psionics, incarnium, inspiration points, taint, etc. They're all great ideas, but they really just don't gel together in the same game world. Sort through it all, and come up with a single set of mechanics that work, and don't require a DM to be an encyclopedia of rules in order to run combat.

5) Keep 20th Level as the Normal Cap: Apparently, you've blown D&D up into 30 levels for no particular reason. This will make porting 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 3.5 edition material into 4th edition impossible. Keep 20 levels.

6) Art Matters: Self evident statement. Don't give us ugly books.

So, what are your ideas?

Cybren
2007-08-16, 02:46 PM
Fundamentally alter the core mechanics such that those proposed changes need not be enacted at all.


That is, don't give us 3.55

Morty
2007-08-16, 02:47 PM
Ditch full attacks. Not only it looks silly but also gives meleers problem on high levels.
Tone down magic items. It's mostly matter of taste, but it'd remove gear dependency of high level characters.

Matthew
2007-08-16, 02:47 PM
1) Saving Throws scaled by Level on a 1:1

2) Iterative Attacks Dropped

3) A better way of calculating difficulty than 'By Encounter'

giblina
2007-08-16, 02:57 PM
Fix skill point crap so that any character planning to be multi-class-rogue doesn't need to be rogue at level 1.

Deepblue706
2007-08-16, 02:59 PM
I'd like all of those mechanical ideas implemented, Person Man.

I'd like more customizability with each character. A better flaws variant would be nice. I'd also like to see some improvements on the skill system: For instance, I think untrained skills and those with 1 rank should have greater differences. You can ride a horse with just your knees (so you may hold a lance and a shield, etc) by making a check at DC 5. Untrained. Staying in your saddle when struck is similarly a DC 5 check. Sure, mounted combat isn't too common in D&D, but I really feel as if the designers felt such tasks are "insignificant for HEROES". I really think it'd be nice if that kind of attitude wasn't so pronounced. Also, I think the gap between the involvement of ranks and stats in skills should be larger (and ranks far more important).

I think I saw someone mention ToB maneuvers, etc, being implemented to core. I think that'd be cool - I'm all for more options in combat.

I'd like for TWF and using a shield to be more viable combat options, so it makes sense to develop a variety of styles.

Deepblue706
2007-08-16, 03:00 PM
Fundamentally alter the core mechanics such that those proposed changes need not be enacted at all.


That is, don't give us 3.55

Yeah, that'd be nice.

KIDS
2007-08-16, 03:02 PM
1. remove Experience multiclassing penalties and make favored classes grant minor bonuses for that class (like sub-levels)
2. soften up Alignment system. Not remove, but soften. Eberron is a good example of that.
3. balance the game per encounter ratio, not [/i]per day[/i] or 6/day ratio! Some of us actually run stories and don't want to keep up the game balance by having packs of ninjas ambush players every night. Tome of Battle, Warlock and Reserve feats are good step in that direction
4. no bloody dead levels! See PBH2 for core classes that you actually want to get to 20.
5. more room for coolness without crazy multiclassing chains
6. Rework or remove polymorf, replace Wildshape with something like PHB2's shapeshifting
7. even out the spellcaster power progression (i.e. no wizard vs. housecat balancing at lvl 1!)

Other than that, I'll admit I'm fairly happy with 3.5 including Complete and Tome series as they stand; 4E will bring some more improvements and consolidate what we have as well as simplify it... I give it an expectation of 8.5/10

yango
2007-08-16, 03:05 PM
No Full Caster Progression PrC: Why would anyone be a Cleric 20 when PrC like Radiant Servant of Pelor exist, where you give up nothing. No PrC that should offer more then 4/5 caster progression, with the 1st level being a dead level for progression.

If they use a talent system for class features, they won't need PrCs at all. You could just qualify for "prestige talents" or something.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-16, 03:06 PM
Get rid of nonscaling feats.

Aquillion
2007-08-16, 03:12 PM
I wish for a playable wish spell!

Cybren
2007-08-16, 03:13 PM
Get rid of nonscaling feats.

or just get rid of bad feats. Or implement a system such that different feats have different costs. Or merge feats, skills, and skill tricks into a singular system and include an arbitrary table of flaws that you may choose to roll on to get extra points for purchasing things but if you're unlucky you will be an albino one legged dwarf who hates all wizards.

Matthew
2007-08-16, 03:16 PM
Get rid of nonscaling feats.
...or get rid of Scaling Feats. One or the other anyway. Or make balanced Feats!

Porthos
2007-08-16, 03:17 PM
More Skill Points and Opportunities to get Feats for characters
Make the Paladin a PrC (or 4E equivilent)
Beef up Melee Types

That's it, pretty much. :smallsmile: Oh sure, There is always my eternal hope that they nuke Vancian Magic and Alignments. As well as making the game closer to a "classless" (i.e fully customizible characters) game. But those are never going to happen, so I won't include them in my Wish List. :smallbiggrin:

Dausuul
2007-08-16, 03:17 PM
Above all, cut out the plethora of modifiers and fiddly little adjustments that make 3E combat such a headache right now.

Beyond that...

Get rid of all "hunt through the Monster Manual and pick what you want" effects. Polymorph, gate, and the like should have specific lists of creatures associated with them.
Dump iterative attacks. Find a better way to scale up fighter power at high levels, probably along the lines of ToB maneuvers.
Scrap all per-day mechanics. No more casters going nova, no more PC narcolepsy.
Tone down casters at high levels.
Pump up fighter-types at high levels.
Increase character flexibility and grant more frickin' skills.
No abilities or spells that let you mess with initiative order or gain extra actions. Just no.
Less class dependency (i.e., you should be able to make a viable party without somebody having to play a healer).
Way less magic item dependency, especially at high levels.

brian c
2007-08-16, 03:18 PM
Get rid of nonscaling feats.

That's one of my top wishes. Also, I agree with everything Person_Man says, which admittedly happens rarely.


Besides that though, I'd like to see the Monk be a viable class, and more generally I'd like to see the base classes all be balanced relative to each other. How it is now, there's obviously a ranking you can give (Wizard, Cleric, Druid, then everyone else) and although I know some class is going to be the strongest, I don't think it should be so clear-cut to determine.

and

GET RID OF VANCIAN SPELLCASTING.

Morty
2007-08-16, 04:03 PM
GET RID OF VANCIAN SPELLCASTING.

Yes, let's get rid of working mechanics that distinguishes D&D spellcasting from other systems'.
And there's something I forgot: scratch alignment system. It doesn't contribute anything positive, causes endless discussions and gets in the way of storytelling.

Riffington
2007-08-16, 04:07 PM
More use for skills, but fewer rolls.

(analogy: Compare the best mountain climber in a college climbing club to an unathletic untrained person. You will be hard-pressed to find a cliff face/wall anywhere that poses any challenge to the former, while offering any chance of success to the latter. Yet they both roll a D20 - the first adds +5 (3 ranks, +2 strength) and the second subtracts -1. There's a decent chance the schlub will beat the athlete up a rock face.)

Depending on the situation - really at most one of those people should have to roll. Perhaps it's a challenge suited to the athlete, and only he has any real chance. Perhaps it's a challenge suited to the unathletic man, and only he needs to roll.

yango
2007-08-16, 04:12 PM
Besides that though, I'd like to see the Monk be a viable class, and more generally I'd like to see the base classes all be balanced relative to each other. How it is now, there's obviously a ranking you can give (Wizard, Cleric, Druid, then everyone else) and although I know some class is going to be the strongest, I don't think it should be so clear-cut to determine.

Well, since theres a possiblity of one class getting the cut, I'd say it would be monk, since IMO its the least iconic of the existing 11 classes.

I think the real issue they need to get to is that with 3.x, casters started low, but increased in power quickly (which is why losing caster levels is so bad), and non-casters start higher and progress more slowly. They should have everyone start on equal footing and progress equally.


GET RID OF VANCIAN SPELLCASTING.

See, why do people hate Vancian casting? I've asked in various places, but never got a straight up answer.

I suppose it makes sense to get rid of it, since its one of the factors contributing to the skewed growth model that casters have.

But seriously, why all the hate?

Deuterium
2007-08-16, 04:24 PM
See, why do people hate Vancian casting? I've asked in various places, but never got a straight up answer.

I suppose it makes sense to get rid of it, since its one of the factors contributing to the skewed growth model that casters have.

But seriously, why all the hate?

Because you get this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0345.html) situation. :smalltongue:

Morty
2007-08-16, 04:26 PM
Because you get this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0345.html) situation. :smalltongue:

So? It's a good way to measure wizards' power so they don't toss spells around all day.

Matthew
2007-08-16, 04:26 PM
What? Bad planning? Heh, I know what you're saying, though. I don't like Vancian Spell Casting either...

4) Get rid of the Power Attack problem, my suggestion:


As a Swift or Immediate Action you may add your Base Attack Bonus to Damage for one successful Attack per Round.

Deuterium
2007-08-16, 04:30 PM
So? It's a good way to measure wizards' power so they don't toss spells around all day.

Well, give them a limited number of spells, sure. But expecting them to expect the unexpected can be a tad frustrating.

Morty
2007-08-16, 04:32 PM
Well, give them a limited number of spells, sure. But expecting them to expect the unexpected can be a tad frustrating.

Noone is expecting them to expect the unexpected. If wizard doesn't have right spells prepared- well, sucks to be him. Surprises are supposed to hurt. And it's perfectly possible to have versatile set of spells prepared.

TO_Incognito
2007-08-16, 04:37 PM
Fundamentally alter the core mechanics such that those proposed changes need not be enacted at all.


That is, don't give us 3.55

This is pretty much the only acceptable move; otherwise "4th edition" really will be 3.75, and an even more disgustingly obvious grab for money than 3.5 was.

Pauwel
2007-08-16, 04:38 PM
Noone is expecting them to expect the unexpected. If wizard doesn't have right spells prepared- well, sucks to be him. Surprises are supposed to hurt. And it's perfectly possible to have versatile set of spells prepared.

I don't know about you, but that doesn't feel like a real wizard to me.

If you look at the classical wizards of fantasy litterature, could you imagine them being in this situation? Would Merlin ever "forget" to prepare a certain spell?

Logically the Vancian system makes perfect sense for wizards (not at all for sorcerers, but that's another thing entirely), but it just doesn't feel right. Magic should be open-ended, not limited to a rigid list of spells.

Morty
2007-08-16, 04:41 PM
I don't know about you, but that doesn't feel like a real wizard to me.

If you look at the classical wizards of fantasy litterature, could you imagine them being in this situation? Would Merlin ever "forget" to prepare a certain spell?

Logically the Vancian system makes perfect sense for wizards (not at all for sorcerers, but that's another thing entirely), but it just doesn't feel right. Magic should be open-ended, not limited to a rigid list of spells.

Unfortunaetly, open-ended magic doesn't fit game like D&D at all. In game like D&D, spellcasters need to have their capabilities limited and definite. And comparing Merlin to D&D wizards, or any RPG wizards at all, makes little sense. Wizard wasn't an ordinary spellcaster.
And on the side note, I prefer wizards using rigid lists of spells rather than being open-ended in most cases.

-Cor-
2007-08-16, 04:50 PM
My wish? No more Classes. Period.

No such things as Class Skills, or Features, or Prestige Classes.

Everyone gets the same amount of skill points based on INT.

Just Feats or Features that you qualify for with stats and skills and buy as you go up in levels.

To put it simply. Completely customizable characters.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-16, 04:54 PM
My wish? No more Classes. Period.

No such things as Class Skills, or Features, or Prestige Classes.

Everyone gets the same amount of skill points based on INT.

Just Feats or Features that you qualify for with stats and skills and buy as you go up in levels.

To put it simply. Completely customizable characters.

Try WoD or Exalted.

Pauwel
2007-08-16, 05:01 PM
Unfortunaetly, open-ended magic doesn't fit game like D&D at all. In game like D&D, spellcasters need to have their capabilities limited and definite. And comparing Merlin to D&D wizards, or any RPG wizards at all, makes little sense. Wizard wasn't an ordinary spellcaster.
And on the side note, I prefer wizards using rigid lists of spells rather than being open-ended in most cases.

I only used Merlin as an example.

I guess it might just be me, but I think it kills the sense wonder in magic when the spells are so strictly defined. You're probably right, but I do think that it wouldn't necessarily be completely unbalanced with a more open-ended magic system. A much more limited version of Ars Magica's system, or perhaps something like Tzeentch's curse from the Warhammer RPG and effective GM'ing, that would make it much more interesting to be a wizard.

But yeah, you're right. I don't really like D&D anyway.

Morty
2007-08-16, 05:04 PM
I only used Merlin as an example.

I guess it might just be me, but I think it kills the sense wonder in magic when the spells are so strictly defined. You're probably right, but I do think that it wouldn't necessarily be completely unbalanced with a more open-ended magic system. A much more limited version of Ars Magica's system, or perhaps something like Tzeentch's curse from the Warhammer RPG and effective GM'ing, that would make it much more interesting to be a wizard.

But yeah, you're right. I don't really like D&D anyway.

Oh, I agree that D&D magic could be much more interesting and "magical". It's just Vancian casting doesn't affect it at all.

TETanglebrooke
2007-08-16, 05:05 PM
i dont want to get rid of the vancian system but it would be nice if they could make it less clunky somehow (no i dont have any suggestions)

i really wish they would just stop psionics and set them into a game of their own (i have no real problem with psi i just dont think they belong in dnd)

i would like to see changeling as core and bards as playable or npcs.

i really want the nova capabilities of casters to go into lasting power

i want to see the monsters with more unique abilities rather than just cut and paste sla or something.

Pauwel
2007-08-16, 05:08 PM
My wish? No more Classes. Period.

No such things as Class Skills, or Features, or Prestige Classes.

Everyone gets the same amount of skill points based on INT.

Just Feats or Features that you qualify for with stats and skills and buy as you go up in levels.

To put it simply. Completely customizable characters.

Not gonna happen, not with D&D.
Like Fax I think you should try a different system. I suggest Mutants and Masterminds, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay or, if you're up for something other than typical fantasy, Shadowrun.

Zincorium
2007-08-16, 05:09 PM
Completely customizable characters sounds good, but then it's already been done.


My personal list?

1. Meaningful advanced classes (see d20 modern) that allow a character to specialize/change. Save prestige classes for those things which truly are prestigious.

2. Eliminate the favored class/xp penalty thing, or make it optional. I haven't seen anyone play with it because they think it's a good rule, they play that way because it's presented as a standard thing. A large portion of groups ignore it entirely.

3. A 2nd ed sphere-like system for new spells. To gain anything from a new book, you have to lose a category of existing spells from your list. The set list w/ free casting works well, the dread necromancer and beguiler are very balanced. Further customizing the list at character creation (or perhaps a feat later on?) with DM permission would allow you to play any sort of caster without being Batman. Making it a per-encounter amount of spells rather than per day would be interesting, but I'm not sure I trust WotC not to break it again.

4. Turn/rebuke undead? No thank you. There can be spells for that, but most clerical groups aren't similar enough to warrant an identical/exactly opposite power. Give us some more variety, or make it a talent tree.

5. Expand the talent tree and feat ideas. They're good, everyone likes being able to choose feats. Unfortunately there are never enough feat slots, unless you're a fighter, in which case there are never enough well made feats that are worth taking.

6. Avoid the 'stupid feat/skills prerequisites so Prcs are more powerful' trap. If you want to reduce someone's power, have them lose class features like caster levels at the first level of the Prc or during it's progression, not before. The whole idea of a character being strong at the end game being balanced by being weak at the beginning is a wreck, it's not fun at the beginning and at the end it's broken.

MrNexx
2007-08-16, 05:09 PM
Unfortunaetly, open-ended magic doesn't fit game like D&D at all. In game like D&D, spellcasters need to have their capabilities limited and definite. And comparing Merlin to D&D wizards, or any RPG wizards at all, makes little sense. Wizard wasn't an ordinary spellcaster.
And on the side note, I prefer wizards using rigid lists of spells rather than being open-ended in most cases.

Actually, back when 3e psionics came out, I decided I didn't like it, and adapted the Dragonlance SAGA spellcasting mechanics to D&D. They could probably use an update, but they did allow mechanical representation of free-form magic.

http://www.editors-wastebasket.org/nexx/tsr/3epsi.html

TheOOB
2007-08-16, 05:09 PM
I think the preparation spellcasting system should be dropped in favor for all spontaneous casting. The ability to essentially rewrite your class ability list every day is too powerful. Also, obviously, magic should be balanced to abilities other characters get at equal levels.

Also, dead levels need to be eliminated, one of the reasons PrCs are so good is because the base classes don't offer much that you can lose by taking them.

Sulecrist
2007-08-16, 05:10 PM
I'd like simplified progression charts for cohorts, mounts, and familiars. They shouldn't be secondary PCs, but they shouldn't just hop in at level 6 and be crap until 20, either.

Maybe if all they did was add abilities while being used. A horse would let you go increasingly faster, give you a high ground bonus, and maybe intimidate someone if you were charging them. A raven familiar could send spells through touch and act almost like the Eyes of Kilrog in WoW, but wouldn't actually exist as a separate block of stats on the table.

Actually, Dave Noonan and Mike Mearls talked about this a month or two ago.

Morty
2007-08-16, 05:19 PM
Actually, back when 3e psionics came out, I decided I didn't like it, and adapted the Dragonlance SAGA spellcasting mechanics to D&D. They could probably use an update, but they did allow mechanical representation of free-form magic.

http://www.editors-wastebasket.org/nexx/tsr/3epsi.html

Well, it's surely more psionical than D&D psionics as written. But I never claimed that free-form magic can't be represented mechanically -from what I've heard it is in WoD- but that it doesn't fit D&D play style very well.

Archpaladin Zousha
2007-08-16, 05:22 PM
Get the names of the historical/mythological monsters correct this time. Here are some necessary corrections, in my opinion:

Don't call the snaky haired ladies with stony stares medusas or medusae or whatever. Call them gorgons. Make sure they have their golden wings and bronze claws.

Don't make the basilisk and the cockatrice seperate species. They are the same monster.

Draw the chimera correctly! The goat head is supposed to be coming out of it's back, the snake head is supposed to be on the end of the tail. And lose the wings!

The Lamia is a woman with a snake tail instead of legs. Not some sort of lion-centaur thingy.

The Manticore doesn't have wings, the face is specifically a man's and the tail is supposed to be a scorpion tail with spikes.

Give Nagas the ability to assume other shapes. They could appear as humans, humans with snake tails instead of legs, and giant snakes, in addition to the snake with a human head.

If you're going to use creatures from world mythology, make sure you get it right!:smallfurious:

Fhaolan
2007-08-16, 05:22 PM
Wishes...

I wish that in the first Monster Manual they actually put rules rather than just listings of creatures. They started with 3.x MM, by putting the basic advancement rules in there, but I would expand that with the more info covering monsters taking classes, and a revised version of Race as Class rules from Savage Species, and other similar kinds of stuff. It would make the first MM book rather big, but that can be dealt with.

All undead presented as whatever replaces 'templates'.

...

That's actually pretty much it. All the rest of the stuff I wish for are things that *I* have to do because it's campaign specific, or things that really don't affect me that much because my campaign world is lower level than most.

I'm curious to see how they do to high-level play (which in my terms is 10th level +), but it has little effect on me as I rarely get that high. I understand that 3rd edition breaks down quite quickly at high levels thanks to magic, and is almost completely bonkers at epic level.

Morty
2007-08-16, 05:24 PM
If you're going to use creatures from world mythology, make sure you get it right!:smallfurious:

Then kobolds, goblins and gnomes should be the same creature.

Tokiko Mima
2007-08-16, 05:25 PM
Add unarmed strike to the list of weapons monks are proficient with! :smalltongue:

dyslexicfaser
2007-08-16, 05:33 PM
Then kobolds, goblins and gnomes should be the same creature.
Elves too. In many myths, they were just another name for goblins.

Exarch
2007-08-16, 05:49 PM
Oh, so does that mean that Dwarfs would be Spell-Like Abilities too?! Mmm, just another reason why DWarfs are my favorite race (other than humans, of course).

Spiryt
2007-08-16, 06:00 PM
My Wish?

Do something with caster. I was only playing computer games based on 2nd edition, but judging from them, I can say that they were much better balanced.

Sure, well prepared wizard could destroy whole party with little luck, but damn clerics and driuds weren't better meelers than fighters. They have their spells, powerfull spells, but fighters were fighting. As name implies.

I really liked the fact that spells had really diffferent casting times and some were harder/easier to resist than others ( saving throws modifiers).

Although saving throws were weird ( even if they sound interesting) :smallbiggrin:

Pokemaster
2007-08-16, 06:18 PM
Step 1: Keep all the current core races in the core book.

Step 2: Make multiclassing as flexible as possible.

Step 3: Destroy as many base classes and prestige classes as possible and replace them with talent trees. A lot of them are too specific or could be handled through better multiclassing and aren't really necessary.

Step 4: Convert the Star Wars Saga Edition rules to D&D, for they are awesome.

Step 5: Find a way for spellcasters to pick up other classes without falling far, far behind the rest of the party.

Step 6: Allow spellcasters to cast spells more often so they're not useless at lower levels and nerf damage spells so they're on par with non-magic-users.

Spiryt
2007-08-16, 06:23 PM
Step 5: Find a way for spellcasters to pick up other classes without falling far, far behind the rest of the party.

Step 6: Allow spellcasters to cast spells more often so they're not useless at lower levels and nerf damage spells so they're on par with non-magic-users.


Hmmmm, can you explain it? :smallconfused:

MrNexx
2007-08-16, 06:26 PM
Don't call the snaky haired ladies with stony stares medusas or medusae or whatever. Call them gorgons. Make sure they have their golden wings and bronze claws.

If you're going to use creatures from world mythology, make sure you get it right!:smallfurious:

And in medieval bestiaries, gorgons were large metal bulls.

If you're going to complain about D&D using creatures from world mythology, make sure you get it right!:smallfurious:

Bosh
2007-08-16, 06:29 PM
Only one item on my wish list:

1. Proper playtesting: Hasbro has the resources to playtest the crap out of this and make sure its reasonably balanced before release. If they don't do beta testing and have the sort of power disparities that exist in 3.5ed D&D I'm just going to play Conan d20, d6 fantasy or Fate or something instead. Recent cheese-ridden supplements have been annoying me, this is Hasbro's last chance...

Abstruse
2007-08-16, 06:39 PM
I sincerely doubt we'll see it, but how about consistent wounding rules so that combatants don't fight precisely the same at 1 hp as they do at full hp? If you're down to the wire in terms of nearly getting beaten, having been bloodied, burned, and bludgeoned, you shouldn't be fighting just as well as when you were fresh and ready for combat.

Below 50% hp, a certain penalty, below 25%, more, and so forth.

Of course, that adds some additional measure of complexity to combats, which might not be their intent at this point.

Damionte
2007-08-16, 06:48 PM
It's very difficult for me to even begin to narrow down what I'd liek to see in 4th edition without seeing what they've already done. since some of the things are changes to the current system, they would become redundant changes if another change made the idea pointless.

Once I've seen what they've done, then I can go about picking it apart and blasing them for the mistakes they're bound to make.

I supopse my biggest wish for the wish list, is for the rules to make sense. For the rules to be clear and final. I don't want to read a bunch of fluf in the rule book that just confuses the rules. Yes put the fluf in there but don't put all of the fluff in the discriptions of how things work. Save the fluff for the side bar.

My wish is that we won't have to spend the next 8=10 years arguing over stupid things they didn't write correctly the first time. don't leave holes in the rules that make us argue about rather...

Spring Attack Works with Unarmed strikes,
Mage armor stops magic missle,
Are Monks proficient with gauntlets?

You know what I mean?

Person_Man
2007-08-16, 08:00 PM
I wish that WotC website wouldn't crash after their countdown hits 0. Did they not expect a huge amount of traffic after all that build up? I've checked back a dozen times tonight, with no luck.

Seriously, somebody should lose their job.

Screenshot as of 8:54 PM:


http://g.1asphost.com/someguyindc/WOTC%20sucks.JPG


And yes, I normally use Firefox and not IE. I'm at work right now, making it all the more annoying.

Archpaladin Zousha
2007-08-16, 08:18 PM
And in medieval bestiaries, gorgons were large metal bulls.

If you're going to complain about D&D using creatures from world mythology, make sure you get it right!:smallfurious:

I can't seem to find any information about those critters, though I understand your meaning. Would you be so kind as to direct me to where I can find out more about this medieval gorgon? It's one of the few articles Wikipedia actually does not have.

I see no reason why we can't clump the group of gnomes, goblins and kobolds into one group.

And there were elegant graceful elves like the ones in Tolkien. Norse mythology had a race of elves called the Alfar, while the dwarves were also reffered to as the Svartalfar or dark elves.

I also see no reason why we can't have both named gorgons. People are smart enough to know the difference, right?

MrNexx
2007-08-16, 08:33 PM
I also see no reason why we can't have both named gorgons. People are smart enough to know the difference, right?

We currently do. One is called a medusa.

As for articles about it, the best I can give you is to look it up on JSTOR.

Indon
2007-08-16, 08:46 PM
-More simple variant rules (perhaps even included in Core, so we don't have to wait for Arcana Again).

-A different (read: better) way to manage exotic race characters than Level Adjustment, such as Racial Levels.

-An overhaul to feats/spells/ToB maneuvers/special combat maneuvers. More modularity along these lines (so that, for instance, you could have abilities that are both on a spell list and a maneuver list, or maneuvers that require no training, etc) would be excellent, I think.

-And I wish they don't "balance" the game. I'd much rather D&D not be vanilla-ized to the degree that would call for.

Lemur
2007-08-16, 08:57 PM
I hope they go back to calling the Monster Manual the "Monstrous Manual". Is that really so wrong?

cody.burton
2007-08-16, 09:14 PM
I hope I can pick up the book, look in the front cover and read: "Playtesters: TLN, BWL, Emporer Tippy, Fax, Tleilaxu Ghola" (Sorry if I missed anyone, but you get the drift.)

Everyman
2007-08-16, 09:17 PM
I wish for much of what Person Man has already said, except for a few more things...

1) That the new "race levels" actually add to the game.

2) That abilities that get better as you level actually give you more to work with than just a higher number for modifier.

3) That there is a clear difference between arcane and divine spells other than just arcane spell failure.

Aquillion
2007-08-16, 09:18 PM
Step 6: Allow spellcasters to cast spells more often so they're not useless at lower levels and nerf damage spells so they're on par with non-magic-users.Damage spells aren't what's broken. In fact, in reasonably optimized builds, damage spells tend to lag behind melee damage. This is because there's just a lot more ways to improve and increase melee damage--Power Attack and related feats, improved str, magic weapons, haste, and so on. And most importantly of all, since melee damage comes in iterative attacks, these bonuses can be applied to each and every hit, and apply four or more times on a full attack at high levels.

Casters are powerful at high levels, but not because of damage. The casters that are good at doing damage (druids and clerics) are good because they have self-buffs, wild shapes, and summons that let them do melee damage effectively... other casters are better off casting spells that bypass / eliminate the encounter completely, or ones that incapacitate enemies to let the melee damage dealers get their full attacks off.

This is why the Warmage isn't considered a terribly powerful caster.

Arceliar
2007-08-16, 09:25 PM
Get rid of nonscaling feats.

I disagree if the system in any way continues to resemble the current d20 system. Scaling feats, or rather ones which alter the growth rate of an ability.

Having a permanent +2 to attacks, for example, is (effectively) a +10% chance to hit, relative to a 10-average system.

What they really need is for all bonuses which scale to have counter-bonuses that scale at an _EXACTLY_ equal rate, then let feats alter such abilities by a "step" if you will (ie: +2).

Now, 1-20 with the current system I suppose that it doesn't come up too much for the few scaling abilities out there to get out of hand, but if we ever want ANY hope of a balanced epic progression for abilities, everything needs to scale equally.

As for my own thoughts, I for one thing a level 20 fighter (or any class, for that matter) ought to know SOMETHING about defending himself in combat, besides fighting defensively and the few defensive feats. AC should have _some_ base bonus that scales with level to counter-balance base attack (at least the wizard-like base attack). Use items to counter items, and training to counter training.

For spells, although epic spellcasting is horribly broken because of a few mitigating factors, I do think the INTENT behind it could help balance normal spells in d&d. There are a handful of spells that are just far far too, well, overpowered relative to the other spells at that level and the abilities other characters have at that level. Polymorph really comes to mind here. Maybe when designing spells they should assign cost in a epic-spell like manner to better judge the balance of some things.

Fix the +2 bonus good saves get every first level. You cannot imagine how annoying that is till you DM for a mettle/evasion munchkin.

Which reminds me, Fix mettle and evasion.

Lastly, and I may have lead into this somewhat, I think levels ideally should be able to scale indefinitely. I realize a limited # of spells can hinder this, not that spellcasters don't deserve it, but to achieve a truely balanced system it's just good practice if things work the same at level 1 as they do at level 100. Even if (or rather, especially if) that means characters are less about what abilities they have and more about when and how they use them.

Sure, it'll still somehow be horribly broken as soon as fringe books start hitting the shelves. But hopefully at least Core material would be balanced. Is that so much to ask?

Decoy Lockbox
2007-08-16, 09:33 PM
My 4th edition wishlist is largely based on a homebrew system I and some friends had been designing, to be based on 3.5 D&D. Unfortunately, a lot of the spellcasting would be freeform (which I think is a bad choice for D&D), but here are the ideas anyway.

1) Differentiate the source and method of spellcasting for the major spellcasting classes. (toning down spellcasting power goes without saying)

Casting a cleric spells should not feel the same as casting a wizard spell and so forth. Clerics could have "piety points" they they expend to ask their god (played by the DM) for favors and miracles. These favors would take the form of spells and abilities, and would be drained with overuse (the deity gets annoyed at an overly demanding cleric) and would need to be restored by doing tasks/quests based on the cleric's god or church. For example, a cleric of pelor could regain favor by feeding/clothing the poor, healing the sick and combating undead. I thought this would be cool because the cleric would, instead of casting spells, literally drop to their knees and beseech their God to smite their enemies, heal their allies and so forth. The DM would consider the request, and the conduct of the cleric, and act accordingly. This would make the God's abilities much more thematic -- the fire god sends gouts of flame to smite the foes of his servants, while the god of water would send raging torrents of water and so forth.

Druid spellcasting would work similar to the way that mana works in Magic: the gathering. Each druid would be bound to certain terrain types (the number limited by level) and can call upon the powers of that terrain type at will. For example, a druid who is bound to the forest could turn into a tree, use entangling style effects, summon animals from the forest, create trees and so forth. But using these abilities drains the power of the land, and so the druid must perform tasks or quests in service of the land -- a desert druid might deforest a wooded area and attempt to convert it into a desert in order to placate the land.

Sorcerers would essentially function as a fully freeform spellcasting system, but centered around thematics. The fire sorcerer can use fire for many different things, but that is largely the extent of his powers. However, this focus would give benefits....that we never came up with.

Wizards become the true magical scientists they are supposed to be (seems that way to me at least). Wizards are the only class that lacks on-the-fly freeform casting, as they have to codify their magic into discrete spells that they research (and, of course, name themselves). Wizards would continue to be the "batman" of the party in terms of utility, because I think that role is very cool.

2) Weapons are too similar to each other. When you get down to it, swinging a battleaxe or longsword at someone in D&D 3.5 is essentially the same thing. In older editions of D&D, there were speed factors, weapon vs armor tables (1st edition AD&D) or weapon type vs armor tables (2nd edition AD&D) which made most of the weapons very different from each other.

For example, daggers in 3.5 seem completely useless to me (other than for throwing). A dagger is small, just like a shortsword, but it does less damage and has a worse threat range. There is no compensating factor, it is just worse.
Compare that to AD&D -- daggers still did less damage than short swords, but were faster, allowing you to strike first.

1st edition's weapon vs armor table was overly complex in that it cross listed each weapon (not damage type) with armor numbers (but not type). For example, to figure out what modifiers you would get for attacking a guy in plate armor using your dagger, you had to find dagger on the left side of the table (buried amongst the billion other weapons, including scads of very similar polearms) and cross-reference it with the AC type of platmail (3), rather than just an entry which said "plate mail", on the top of the table. Daggers didn't work so well against heavier armors back then.

If you wanted to chop into a plate wearing guy, you busted out a flail or a two handed sword, weapons which had great bonuses to hit the heavy types. Whereas in 3.5 D&D, attacking someone in plate using a dagger is the same as with a greatsword or a bow or a mace. They should be different, as it both makes sense and allows for more interesting weapons and armor.

3) Tone down the craziness of caster versatility. Whenever I play a wizard, cleric or druid I feel like Peter Griffon in this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJq946191-Y

Watching the fighters get beat down in combat while I shape reality with my spells to fly, teleport, turn invisible, mold the earth, render people retarded with feeblemind, deal damage at crazy ranges (400 ft +40/lvl anyone?) and so on. Fighters fight; casters do EVERYTHING ELSE. And in some cases, outfight the fighter.

The last time I played a melee character at higher level than 5, I felt like one of those stereotyped African tribesmen in those old movies -- the enemy caster would fly into the air or teleport away and I would be there, standing on the ground like a chump, shaking my fist in anger at him.

Fighter: Get back here so I can impale you on this pointy stick!
Wizard: .......No. Please make a DC 30 will save by the way.
Fighter: *fails will save* What did you do? I didn't see anything explode?
Wizard: Using spells to deal damage? How pedestrian. I simply applied a domination effect to your feeble, 2 skill point-having brain, which compels you to do basically anything I want for the next 12 days. Also, during that 12 day period I will recast the spell and compel you to voluntarily fail the save, keeping you in bondage forever, or until another spellcaster comes along and frees you.
Fighter: Damn you Wizard! Damn you to Hell!

Playing an epic, heroic warrior should not feel like being a pawn in world dominated by powerful casters. And yet, that is basically what you are.

4) Make warriors more resistant to mental effects. I mean, sure it makes sense (in terms of game balance at least) that in order to train the body, you must neglect the mind, but it is hardly fun to have situations like this:

Player: My fighter charges the dragon! I am a master of the blade, and I fear no foe!

Dm: *Looks at dragon's fear DC, then at player's will save* I think the mechanics disagree with you. Make a will save.

Player: Noooooo! *hangs head in shame* I guess I will be running away for the duration of this combat then.

5) Change save or die effects to less swingy things (this includes save or lose effects like fear, domination). I hate the idea of an entire encounter being decided by a single die roll at the beginning of the fight, or of someone losing their character to a single unlucky roll.

6) There are to many things immune to mind affecting spells, crits, poison etc for these to be generally viable tactics. Now against the players, however...

Heres hoping that 4th edition will be great! They would have to seriously drop the ball on this one for me to not give it a try.

geez3r
2007-08-16, 09:59 PM
I have only 1 wish; I wish that WoTC playtests the numbers off the dice for 4e.

From the Design and Development articles, we know that many new mechanics are being included. For example, a dwarf fighter would play differently than an elven fighter, even at high levels because race now plays a larger role in a character's power. Furthermore, different weapons now have different properties, so an axe fighter is different than a flail fighter. Next you factor in the new recovery mechanics for spell casting (yet to be revealed in any detail). After you do that, one must factor in the re-writing of many core mechanics.

At the end of the day we are left with an entirely different system. If it hasn't been playtested properly it could wind up being even more unbalanced than any previous edition.

So, WoTC, please playtest 4th Edition on a much wider scale than you have ever done. If you are so concerned about bringing D&D into the digital age, scour the forums for people like TLN, BWL, VT, Zeta Kai and Fax and have them play test certain aspects of the new edition. If there is a problem, not only will they find it, they will make a great solution to the problem.

CasESenSITItiVE
2007-08-16, 11:43 PM
I can't seem to find any information about those critters, though I understand your meaning. Would you be so kind as to direct me to where I can find out more about this medieval gorgon? It's one of the few articles Wikipedia actually does not have.

...

I also see no reason why we can't have both named gorgons. People are smart enough to know the difference, right?

you'll never find the D&D gorgon under the name "gorgon", even though some people called them gorgons at that time. instead, look for a catoblepas

horseboy
2007-08-17, 12:14 AM
Only one item on my wish list:

1. Proper playtesting: Hasbro has the resources to playtest the crap out of this and make sure its reasonably balanced before release. If they don't do beta testing and have the sort of power disparities that exist in 3.5ed D&D I'm just going to play Conan d20, d6 fantasy or Fate or something instead. Recent cheese-ridden supplements have been annoying me, this is Hasbro's last chance...
Seconded. Make it good enough to make it worth coming back to.

Goober4473
2007-08-17, 12:22 AM
My main hope is that they fix prestige classes. The original idea was cool. Weird classes that are perhaps a little more powerful andm ore specialized, but you have to give something up and be the right kind of person. Now, there are 45 million prestige classes, and all of them are easy to get into, and overpowered. It is no longer a question of weathe or not to take one, but rather which one to take. I haven't seen a 20th level character with only base classes in a long time, and if I did, it'd probably suck. And I don't like that.

Hawriel
2007-08-17, 12:31 AM
I really hope they get better writers and editors. WotC writing is sloppy, contradictive and full of run on sentences. I hate that WotC found it necessary to repeat whole paragraphs through out the book. For example the feat section. It drives me nuts that every feat had the base rule preprinted right below the special ability that feat gave. Yeah it was nice to have a side by side comparison. However if the rules where clear to begin with they would not need to be repeated. The other reason it drove me nuts. Waist of paiper. It cost WotC mony and time write the book so hamfisted that cost ME mony. Simple clear direct writting = less paiper and ink = less expensive book.

I would hope they would use a different magic system. I agree with alot of you. why does a highly inteligent Wizard need to prepair a spell at the beginning of the day? IF he does why does he need to prepair the same spell three times? If you know a spell than you know it piriod, cast at will. If the spell needs physical components then revamp the rules so its simple and you can keep track of components like an archer would arrows.

no more fighters clerics and wizards, the latter two very educated, with only 2 skill points. I do agree that evasion is broken. I have a character with 10 thief levels and a dex of 20. with no magic bonus to the save. My thief will take not get hurt by anything with a reflex save. Of corse force a will save and im eather killing the party or running in a circle

Iudex Fatarum
2007-08-17, 12:41 AM
My wishes are to redo all magic, I like the idea of a elemental based magic. perhaps wizards get weaker spells but not the elemental restrictions possibly. I like them being more generalized.

i agree that the preping v spont casting is odd. I wish meta-magic was actualy useful. for both types. I agree about monks and i wish damage scaled with all classes equaly.

I also wish they would redo the game mechanics for ranging, I still avoid them most of the time because i just don't like them.

I also wish the sword and board/ TWF were better balanced agaist the one 2-handed weapon. I like the idea of making a sword and shield even more powerful than 2 handed weapon.

Fhaolan
2007-08-17, 12:41 AM
I can't seem to find any information about those critters, though I understand your meaning. Would you be so kind as to direct me to where I can find out more about this medieval gorgon? It's one of the few articles Wikipedia actually does not have.

I see no reason why we can't clump the group of gnomes, goblins and kobolds into one group.

And there were elegant graceful elves like the ones in Tolkien. Norse mythology had a race of elves called the Alfar, while the dwarves were also reffered to as the Svartalfar or dark elves.

I also see no reason why we can't have both named gorgons. People are smart enough to know the difference, right?

*Fhaolan bows* Ask an' ye may receive! http://penelope.uchicago.edu/oddnotes/topsellgorgon.html

It's amazing what you can find online at university web-site sometimes. :smallsmile:

And using Alfar as models for RPG elves boosts up their powerlevels massively. The mythology around the Alfar is also very mixed. They may or may not be divided into two subsets: svartalfar and ljosalfar, or maybe the svartalfar are actually the dvergr. And then maybe the Alfar are actually half-Vanir/half-dvergr.

That's the problem. A lot of people seem to think that mythology was this big monolithic belief system where everyone had the exact same idea as to what Annubis was. No, there were *lots* of different versions of these creatures/Gods, and it was a rare occurance when two versions coencided enough to be recognizable beyond the name. Just because Bullfinch wrote one version down and managed to convince everyone that *his* version was the right one, doesn't mean that it actually was. :smallbiggrin:

Matthew
2007-08-17, 01:00 AM
Yes, exactly Fhaolan, that is also the reason why ancient mythology makes no cohesive sense, but yet occasionally seems to almost do so.

Paragon Badger
2007-08-17, 01:18 AM
My wish for 4th Edition...

To be able to trade in a 3.5 book for a 4.0 book.

I'm not forking over another few hundred bucks when I've owned the 3.5 books for only two years... :smallannoyed: :smallmad:

Ceridan
2007-08-17, 01:23 AM
My wish for 4th Edition...

To be able to trade in a 3.5 book for a 4.0 book.

I'm not forking over another few hundred bucks when I've owned the 3.5 books for only two years... :smallannoyed: :smallmad:

I hear you and second the motion. WotC are getting almost as bad as Games-workshop. Money grubbing W^@#$%!!

Damionte
2007-08-17, 01:53 AM
My wish now is that they won't come out with 4.5 as soon as I buy 4.0 the way they did last time.

Matthew
2007-08-17, 01:53 AM
My wish now is that they won't come out with 4.5 as soon as I buy 4.0 the way they did last time.

Heh, heh. We'll see.

I would like for Orcs to reclaim their heritage and lose the stupid World of Warcraft/Warhammer "Waaagh Da Orcs" steroid induced nonesense. Back to Lawful Evil and more normal proportions.

[Edit] What I have noticed on the Wizards Forum is that there is total disagreement over what would be beneficial to the game. Everybody wants different things. Sounds like they want 2e...

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-08-17, 02:10 AM
I wish that WotC website wouldn't crash after their countdown hits 0. Did they not expect a huge amount of traffic after all that build up? I've checked back a dozen times tonight, with no luck.

Seriously, somebody should lose their job.


Unless it was all a joke from WotC, this is really sad...

Have anyone actually seen anything from the new site or has it been down until now?

skywalker
2007-08-17, 02:17 AM
I would like for there NOT to be advanced classes, I think that it should be a requirement in the DMG that anyone wanting to play a prestige class should have to provide the book from which it comes.

I wish that they won't base it all off d20 modern, because d20 modern is not that good.

I most certainly wish(and pray) that they DON'T change the skill system, although I fear it is too late and this has already been decided. Hence, I mourn the rogue of yesteryear, the true skillmonkey, and look forward to 5th edition.

Wizzardman
2007-08-17, 02:18 AM
Unless it was all a joke from WotC, this is really sad...

Have anyone actually seen anything from the new site or has it been down until now?

Still down, although I've caught a glimpse or two of the old website hiding amongst the rubble.

My big wish for D&D 4.0: A way to convert all the other books I have.

Seriously. I've even got a couple old Second Edition books just begging to be reused, not to mention the gigantic horde of books I already have. Give me a nice big conversion chart and some uses for all those extra books, and I'll be happy.

Edit: I'm also kinda hoping that they don't use the new skill and combat systems from the new Star Wars book. I would kinda miss my Craft and Profession skills.

Attilargh
2007-08-17, 02:23 AM
See, why do people hate Vancian casting? I've asked in various places, but never got a straight up answer.
I don't hate it, but I don't like it either. I've never happened to see a novel by mr. Vance, and the rulebooks make poor work of explaining why a spell just fizzles out of mr. Wizard's brain after it is used. It's as if the the spells were merely imaginary scrolls and the mind their backpack. :smallconfused:

I want classes that are worth taking multiple levels in. I want equally tempting feats. I want weapons that are both simple and mechanically distinct from each other. I want simple special attacks. I want no Batmen, CoDzillas or other one-man-party nonsense.

Ædit: Ohhh, and the merrily kleptomanic halflings should get the boot as well. I just can't wrap my head around the concept of a whole culture of Robin Hoods.

nagora
2007-08-17, 02:53 AM
My wish? No more Classes. Period.

No such things as Class Skills, or Features, or Prestige Classes.

Everyone gets the same amount of skill points based on INT.

Just Feats or Features that you qualify for with stats and skills and buy as you go up in levels.

To put it simply. Completely customizable characters.

You want a different game. Personally, I think lessening the importance of classes was the biggest of all the many mistakes in 3rd (and even 2nd) edition. All this skills and feats crap just plain sucks.

Customise the character by playing the character, not by turning the character sheet into a spreadsheet.

Charity
2007-08-17, 02:58 AM
scour the forums for people like TLN, BWL, VT, Zeta Kai and Fax and have them play test certain aspects of the new edition.
Sorry you are the second guy to do this.
I think it is not the best kept secret in the world that TLN and BWL are one and the same. Just thought I'd say, of course I'm sure the 4th Tempter may be feeling left out... Yes these people would certainly be an asset to any playtest, but their own forum has a weallth of information on how to break 3rd ed, I imagine that they could not be so foolish as to have totally disregarded the treasure trove in their backyard.

Thinks about the things that bug him...

Itterative attacks and many origin combat bonuses really slow stuff down, I don't want to go back to the 'roll to hit', 'roll for damage', 'next' style, but there needs to be simpler mechanics.
Social skills are pants, just bin the lot of them.
Smoother transition between combat rounds and out of combat activity, it's awkward and clunky as it stands.
Pointless classes and dead levels need to be removed.
Some thought given to balancing the PHB races lets not punish those half breeds anymore eh?
I could go on but much of this has been said before.

I would like to say that I have nothing against Wizards making some money, otherwise they wouldn't be producing any material now would they? I'm sure those busy bittorrent bees will be helping out all you povety stricken youths anyhow.

Zincorium
2007-08-17, 02:58 AM
I would like for there NOT to be advanced classes, I think that it should be a requirement in the DMG that anyone wanting to play a prestige class should have to provide the book from which it comes.


You mean, if you have a book and they don't, they don't get to play that class? Are you including the DMG in this? 'Cause that sounds more like a personal issue with your players than a game design issue. I'm not advocating that people get to play PrCs without the DM having access to it, because that's just stupid. Basically, I'm having a hard time figuring out a reasonable way to interpret what you're saying.

Advanced classes are a good way to increase character development without the strong hint that it should have a level of 'prestige' to it, you don't give much reason why you don't like them.



I wish that they won't base it all off d20 modern, because d20 modern is not that good.


Personal preference, so while I can't disagree, there's nothing for discussion without reasons why.

I don't think the stat-based six classes is a good idea for D&D. I do like the talent trees as a concept (if not the execution) because they're specific to the classes and help to differentiate characters in the group, rather than having two characters of vastly different backgrounds and flavor having nearly the same abilities.



I most certainly wish(and pray) that they DON'T change the skill system, although I fear it is too late and this has already been decided. Hence, I mourn the rogue of yesteryear, the true skillmonkey, and look forward to 5th edition.

The saga system works for people who would rather almost anyone be able to do things to some degree or another. Rogues would still get massive bonuses (+5) to a whole bunch of skills under that system, and if they keep the trapfinding ability or something like it, they'll still have a role no one else can really fill.

That said, if any change to the skill system ruins the game to the point of unplayability for you, oh well, that's kind of sad but you're obviously better off staying with the previous system.

akumadaimyo
2007-08-17, 03:01 AM
I'd like to see more emphasis on roleplay and character development than "kill stuff, get phat lewt". The rules for giving XP for good roleplay and thinking are nebulous to non existant.

I'd like to see Alingement changed or done away with entirely. Too often are the arguments about alingment and what is good or evil and too many people play things like Paladins only to see what they can get away with. No more I say.

A better system for ECL/LA. I like Tieflings and some of the weaker ECL/LA races but the rules for playing some of them is a total bear.

I'd also like to see more equality between the classes. Some classes totally outshine others in overall usefullness.

I for one do NOT want to see all classes get the same kind of skills. Perhaps dont make all skills cross class but still give rogues the most points perhaps. I like rogues and getting rid of their "utility" ability makes them less usefull. If the fighter can now all of a sudden do the same things you can and just as well, why are you needed again?

nagora
2007-08-17, 03:31 AM
I don't hate it, but I don't like it either. I've never happened to see a novel by mr. Vance, and the rulebooks make poor work of explaining why a spell just fizzles out of mr. Wizard's brain after it is used. It's as if the the spells were merely imaginary scrolls and the mind their backpack. :smallconfused:

The brain of a magic user is incapable of generating the power even of a 1st level spell without incapacitating the caster. However, it is capable of shaping a "magic bag" (this happens when the spell is learnt), which then holds the power (from one of the inner planes, for example) and effects of whichever spell it is "shaped" for. The release-words (and actions) of the spell then act as a "knot" in the caster's head on this bag, holding back the power until needed - a much easier task than actually filling the bag with brain power. When the knot is untied to let the spell work, the words vanish from the caster's head, usually along with any material components which form part of the multi-dimensional knot. In other words: the reason the spell "fizzles out" of the caster's head is because if it doesn't the spell is still tied up and won't be released.

Scrolls do indeed work in a very similar way.

Does that help?

ZekeArgo
2007-08-17, 03:37 AM
I'd like to see more emphasis on roleplay and character development than "kill stuff, get phat lewt". The rules for giving XP for good roleplay and thinking are nebulous to non existant.

Well... thats because roleplay and development RP are entirely up to the DM. I mean sure they could say "you should award X% of XP depending on the severity of the change/development" but really, the only thing you can codify with rules are things that can be subjectivly put down on paper.


I'd like to see Alingement changed or done away with entirely. Too often are the arguments about alingment and what is good or evil and too many people play things like Paladins only to see what they can get away with. No more I say.

A lesser focus on alignments would be nice, and a complete or at least near-complete removal of spells/abilities that detect alignment.


A better system for ECL/LA. I like Tieflings and some of the weaker ECL/LA races but the rules for playing some of them is a total bear.

Agreed, racial levels that wont completly gimp your character would be nice


I'd also like to see more equality between the classes. Some classes totally outshine others in overall usefullness.

/signed


I for one do NOT want to see all classes get the same kind of skills. Perhaps dont make all skills cross class but still give rogues the most points perhaps. I like rogues and getting rid of their "utility" ability makes them less usefull. If the fighter can now all of a sudden do the same things you can and just as well, why are you needed again?

Kinda tricky to handle this, since you want to be able to create characters suited to the players vision, but you also want their abilities to feel distinct, while being mergeable with other class abilities. Not much to add on the topic myself.

banjo1985
2007-08-17, 03:37 AM
Please please please change the damn magic system and put in the vitality points rule as core! It might give me a reason to buy it! Attack of Opportunity rules that worked and a bit more focus on outside of combat would also be much appreciated!

As you can tell I'm not a fan of 3.5, but I am more than willing to give 4E a chance, but it's gonna have to change a fair bit to impress me.

Irreverent Fool
2007-08-17, 03:38 AM
OK, so unless you've been living under a rock, you should know that it's official (http://theminiaturespage.com/news/519193/). 4th edition will soon be a reality.

I didn't want to hijack the main thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=53910), which is all over the place in terms of the topic of discussion. And the WotC 4th Ed boards are locked for a few more hours.

So, this is a thread for us to talk about what we want to see out of 4th Ed, preferably in a constructive fashion. This is not a place to complain about WotC gauging us for money, or to debate the need for 4th ed, or to rant about viral marketing, etc. If that's what you want to post about, please refer to the main thread.

My wishes:

Rational Special Attacks: Mounted Combat, Overrun, Disarm, and Grapple are all confusing or counter intuitive. Ride by Attack is screwy, Overrun is a Standard Action, Disarm is very difficult to pull off as a Monk, Grapple is just plain confusing, etc. Make clear, simple rules for every special attack, that an intelligent player might actually use.

Limited, Never Expanded Spell Lists: The Beguiler and Duskblade are models of well balanced but strong classes. Wizards and Clerics are the model of easy to abuse classes. The main culprit is codex creep. Every time a book comes out, full spellcasters become more powerful. Just make specialist wizards/clerics specific core classes with limited lists, carefully balanced against each other and all the other classes.

No Dead Levels: Fighter 20, Rogue 20, etc. There should be a reason to take every level of a class.

Kill Polymorph and Wildshape: The easiest methods of breaking any game. Kill them, or make the PHBII variant Core rules.

No Full Caster Progression PrC: Why would anyone be a Cleric 20 when PrC like Radiant Servant of Pelor exist, where you give up nothing. No PrC that should offer more then 4/5 caster progression, with the 1st level being a dead level for progression.

Kill the Action Advantage: No Time Stop, Celerity, Quickened Spells, White Raven Tactics, etc. Breaking how rounds work breaks game balance.

What are your ideas?

I agree with the special attacks bit, but it really looks like your asking for a different game here.

Matthew
2007-08-17, 03:50 AM
Eh? It looks like the same without the most broken elements to me. What do you regard as particularly out of place?

nagora
2007-08-17, 03:58 AM
I'd like to see more emphasis on roleplay and character development than "kill stuff, get phat lewt". The rules for giving XP for good roleplay and thinking are nebulous to non existant.

I've never really "got" the idea that you get better at what you do not by doing it but by speaking in-character.


I'd like to see Alingement changed or done away with entirely. Too often are the arguments about alingment and what is good or evil and too many people play things like Paladins only to see what they can get away with. No more I say.

Good and evil are pretty well defined in-game, so that's not a real problem and the paladin issue is an issue with the players. Frankly, you can't have paladins without a moral code so you'd end up having to define one specifically for the class anyway.

Alignment is not a big issue for most characters most of the time.


I'd also like to see more equality between the classes. Some classes totally outshine others in overall usefullness.

A return to separate XP levels for each class would be an easy and elegant fix for that. The effort that has to be put into balancing classes when there is only one XP ladder is madness and doomed to failure, no matter how much one worships the false idol of "simple systems are best".


I for one do NOT want to see all classes get the same kind of skills. Perhaps dont make all skills cross class but still give rogues the most points perhaps. I like rogues and getting rid of their "utility" ability makes them less usefull. If the fighter can now all of a sudden do the same things you can and just as well, why are you needed again?

Boosting the identity of classes is certainly a good idea. Otherwise you might as well play GURPS. I'm not getting at GURPS, but classes are the defining characteristic of D&D. They've been severly eroded.

I doubt anyone as imcompetant as Skip Williams and his crew of buffoons will actually make any improvements worth noting with 4e (after all, they designed 3e) but I'm sure that they'll get a nice royalties boost no matter what the push out.

Orzel
2007-08-17, 04:10 AM
1) Get rid on the current skill rank system. Numbered ranks, opposed checks vs base DCs, ranks vs abilities, and class skills are silly. Instead skill should be have level rankings. You pick primary, secondary, and tertiary skills based on your classes and the rest are unranked. Then the numbers could be balanced to give nonskillmoneys a chance to beat DC without focusing but hard as heck to do so.

2) Fix Weapon Combat. I don't care how. Just fix it. Make it less "My number beat your numbers" because there are too many ways to get numbers. Magic doesn't work that way and that's why it wins.

3) Fix spell slots. Caster start with too few and then gain too many. Then they jam 3 spells slots they don't care about into an encounter win using wands and rods.Figure out how many spells a caster should use in/for an encounter/challenge and limit them to that many. No 2 all day buffs + 3 quick buffs + 2 win spells nonsense.

4) Faster combat. Back to "Hit, Damage, Effect, Next". 2-4 rolls a turn.

5) "If'n my wizard wanna shoot somebody's limbs into a wall, I shouldn't need a feat. I should shoot and miss 'cause I'm a wizard and don't have bow learning." Some feats are stupid and should be special actions available to all and performed by few.

Attilargh
2007-08-17, 04:10 AM
Scrolls do indeed work in a very similar way.

Does that help?
Well, sort of. Now at least I understand the thing I do not like. Neat idea, but not really my thing.

Personally, I might like a mix of spell preparation and spell points. That way a wizard could learn any number of spells without getting to use them all at once, but still would retain some flexibility when deciding how to use his prepared spells.

nagora
2007-08-17, 04:44 AM
Well, sort of. Now at least I understand the thing I do not like. Neat idea, but not really my thing.

Personally, I might like a mix of spell preparation and spell points. That way a wizard could learn any number of spells without getting to use them all at once, but still would retain some flexibility when deciding how to use his prepared spells.

The problem with spell points systems has always been that they boost the power of spell casters unless you make, for example, a 5th level caster able to cast far fewer spells per day in the point system than a caster in the Vancian system. Players don't like that.

But the flexibility of a points system combined with the number of spells castable in the normal system makes for a very, very powerful character. Magic users are generally agreed to already be too powerful.

Roog
2007-08-17, 04:55 AM
I doubt anyone as imcompetant as Skip Williams and his crew of buffoons will actually make any improvements worth noting with 4e (after all, they designed 3e) but I'm sure that they'll get a nice royalties boost no matter what the push out.

If you dislike 3e that much, you have had 7 years to find a system you do like, and the 4e release is probably irrelevant to you.

ShneekeyTheLost
2007-08-17, 05:39 AM
My only wish, which will sadly be unfufilled...

balance casters and melee

paigeoliver
2007-08-17, 05:42 AM
Hmmm, my 4th Edition Wish list.

They take Castles and Crusades, tack on the more complicated 3.x character generation system and brand it D&D 4th Edition.

nagora
2007-08-17, 05:56 AM
2) Weapons are too similar to each other....
1st edition's weapon vs armor table was overly complex in that it cross listed each weapon (not damage type) with armor numbers (but not type).

Actually, if you read the rule closely it is actually armour type, with the AC of that armour listed instead for extra confusion points. In other words, +3 leather would still be treated as leather, not AC 5. Sadly, the weapons were not grouped into type and the resulting table was a mess but could be mastered somewhat with a character sheet with space for the line that related to your weapon. But, really, the solution would have been weapon types (heavy cutting, medium crushing etc) Vs armour types.



5) Change save or die effects to less swingy things (this includes save or lose effects like fear, domination).

No effect should ever do save or die; either hit points cover your luck as regards death, or they don't. Saving throws against fear/petrification etc I think I would keep, however.

Attilargh
2007-08-17, 06:09 AM
The problem with spell points systems has always been that they boost the power of spell casters unless you make, for example, a 5th level caster able to cast far fewer spells per day in the point system than a caster in the Vancian system. Players don't like that.

But the flexibility of a points system combined with the number of spells castable in the normal system makes for a very, very powerful character. Magic users are generally agreed to already be too powerful.
I don't think the reason lies in the number of spells. I've understood that Psions are pretty good in terms of class balance, even though they get about as many powers per day as wizards get spells. However, their high-end powers are not as good as the wizard's spells, which gives them flexibility at the cost of sheer power. Quantity over quality, so to speak.

But I'm not very proficient at gauging the power of a rule set, so I'll just wait and see how the next edition works this out.

PlatinumJester
2007-08-17, 06:16 AM
I want:

Something to replace the monk as a fists only class.
Paladins that have to be good but can be chaotic or neutral or lawful.
Balanced Wizard.
Duskblades as core.
Removal of Pelor as a deity
A black DnD alumni to replace Gimble and/or Jozan.
Make Familiers mre useful.
Removal of Kobolds
Buffing of the Half Elf and Half Orc.

nagora
2007-08-17, 06:17 AM
I don't think the reason lies in the number of spells. I've understood that Psions are pretty good in terms of class balance, even though they get about as many powers per day as wizards get spells. However, their high-end powers are not as good as the wizard's spells, which gives them flexibility at the cost of sheer power. Quantity over quality, so to speak.


Well, either way the extra flexibility has to be balanced (and over balanced, since casters are already overpowered) in some way.

Shinkoro
2007-08-17, 06:27 AM
Give rogues back their abilities like in second edition. Having all of rogue abilities farmed out to every class really hurt the rogue in 3.5.

PlatinumJester
2007-08-17, 06:29 AM
Yup, the rogue should have been the sneaky one, not the Ranger or Monk (blech :smallyuk:).

Morty
2007-08-17, 06:32 AM
Yes, it should be impossible anyone but rogue to be stealthy.:smallsigh:

Dausuul
2007-08-17, 06:36 AM
I would like for there NOT to be advanced classes, I think that it should be a requirement in the DMG that anyone wanting to play a prestige class should have to provide the book from which it comes.

Wait... you let people play PrCs without having the books?

It's long been a standing rule in my games that any time you want something that comes from a splatbook--be it a PrC, a feat, a magic item, a spell, or whatever--you must provide the splatbook in question if someone else in the group doesn't already have it. Once, in the days of my youth, I let somebody get away with "just remembering" how a particular ability worked. Not any more.


See, why do people hate Vancian casting? I've asked in various places, but never got a straight up answer.

I suppose it makes sense to get rid of it, since its one of the factors contributing to the skewed growth model that casters have.

But seriously, why all the hate?

I hate Vancian casting for the following reasons:

#1: It's needlessly complicated and bizarre.
#2: It contributes hugely to the tendency for the party to adventure for 30 minutes and then rest for twenty-three and a half hours.
#3: It makes casters inflexible, limiting their tactical options and often resulting in situations where the caster has a load of useless spells just hanging around.

nagora
2007-08-17, 06:39 AM
Yup, the rogue should have been the sneaky one, not the Ranger or Monk (blech :smallyuk:).

Monks certainly should be stealthy, if you allow them at all ("If you can walk on this ricepaper without leaving a footprint..."). Rangers, only in "wilderness" situations. Thieves only in urban areas/indoors.

Sulecrist
2007-08-17, 06:42 AM
I want reasonable amounts of low-level characters to be able to threaten high-level ones.

A mob of twenty level ones should still seriously scare a level ten, a la Saga.

Morty
2007-08-17, 07:04 AM
#1: It's needlessly complicated and bizarre.

Needlessly... what? You have spell slots. You put spells in them. That's all. Unless you treat everything beyond "wizard shoots fireballs until he runs out of mana" complicated.


#2: It contributes hugely to the tendency for the party to adventure for 30 minutes and then rest for twenty-three and a half hours.

Because fighters never run out of hit points. And wizards run out of their power only in vancian system.


#3: It makes casters inflexible, limiting their tactical options and often resulting in situations where the caster has a load of useless spells just hanging around.

If wizard isn't preparing versatile set of spells, it's his problem. Not to mention that spontaneous or point-based casters may have the same problem, except they can't switch their spells.

paigeoliver
2007-08-17, 07:05 AM
Did you ever actually play a rogue in the old editions? They went splat if they ever even tried to use their abilities. Now granted, the second edition rogue could at least be specialized a bit to be able to do SOMETHING, but they were still a joke.

Their chances of success with their skills were so low in the level 1-8 range that there was simply no reason to play a rogue.

Try it, go back and play a 1st or second edition rogue and try to really fill the rogue slot and play by the rules, and watch how fast you die.


Give rogues back their abilities like in second edition. Having all of rogue abilities farmed out to every class really hurt the rogue in 3.5.

Overlard
2007-08-17, 07:20 AM
I want:

Something to replace the monk as a fists only class.
Paladins that have to be good but can be chaotic or neutral or lawful.
Balanced Wizard.
Duskblades as core.
Removal of Pelor as a deity
A black DnD alumni to replace Gimble and/or Jozan.
Make Familiers mre useful.
Removal of Kobolds
Buffing of the Half Elf and Half Orc.
What have you got against Pelor? He's kinda generic, but some people just want a sun god.

Not sure why you dont like kobolds either. They're good, fun enemies that can surprise your players in nasty ways if you play them right. :smallbiggrin:

And yes, familiars should be more useful. That's why they're labelled as a class feature, not a bloody liability.

Roderick_BR
2007-08-17, 07:51 AM
My wish: That their designers and playtesters read online foruns, like their own forums, and this one, so they can see the obvious errors they didn't notice before.

Dausuul
2007-08-17, 08:12 AM
Needlessly... what? You have spell slots. You put spells in them. That's all. Unless you treat everything beyond "wizard shoots fireballs until he runs out of mana" complicated.

Okay, should have clarified: Conceptually, in fluff terms, the idea of "preparing spells" is needlessly complicated and bizarre.


Because fighters never run out of hit points. And wizards run out of their power only in vancian system.

I said it contributes hugely, not that it's the only cause. In my experience, however, Vancian magic is the major factor in PC narcolepsy. The wizards want their spells back, the clerics want their spells back, and the fighters want the clerics to have their spells back. And because you have to wait and rest for an entire day to get your spells back, that's what you do.

Compare to GURPS magic, or to the Tome of Battle, or to any number of non-d20 magic systems, wherein your powers quickly recharge after an encounter.

The Prince of Cats
2007-08-17, 08:30 AM
... And because you have to wait and rest for an entire day to get your spells back, that's what you do.

Compare to GURPS magic, or to the Tome of Battle, or to any number of non-d20 magic systems, wherein your powers quickly recharge after an encounter.
The D20 Everquest system had hourly mana regeneration, which went down well with my party. It meant that you could be overwhelmed if you tried to bite off more than you could chew, but running to bed after each encounter was pointless.

I wonder is magic will get that overhaul it has needed since day one, or will it remain as the odd part of D&D?

WorthingSon
2007-08-17, 08:49 AM
-A different (read: better) way to manage exotic race characters than Level Adjustment, such as Racial Levels.


Wish Granted... I was able to look at the site shortly last night (before the "We are retarded" notice was placed up. They are making races important again. All races will have a class style progression with them... IE you get new Dwarf powers at level 10 or whatever. They specifically mentioned that this was aimed at taking out level adjustment. Also I believe that you racial progression is a give me, so you don’t have to "multi-class" human/fighter or whatever.

P.S. Sorry no reference quote, the site is blocked at work (plus I suspect it is still down).

brian c
2007-08-17, 09:00 AM
Unless it was all a joke from WotC, this is really sad...

Have anyone actually seen anything from the new site or has it been down until now?

At 10am, still down. Someone in their IT department (or whatever) has to be getting fired.


Also... why do people dislike the skill system? I think it works pretty well. You get better at things as you gain experience, and you choose what you're best at. Granted, the fact that I can put 8 ranks into Open Lock without ever opening a lock is kinda silly, but its the thought that counts right?

Jimmy Discordia
2007-08-17, 09:02 AM
What I'd really like to see is some kind of system of which class features are equivalent to which other ones, and at which levels. For instance, what should you have to give up in order to have a d10 hit die instead of a d8, or a d6, etc.? How do extra skill points per level stack up against flurry of blows (keeping this in a 3E context, since we don't yet know how skills or attacks will work in 4E)? What kind of powers should you be able to get by giving up a familiar? Having a general idea of these things would not only make class customization easier, but if the system was well-tested and designed, would make it easier to balance the core classes. I get the feeling with a lot of classes in previous (not to mention current) editions, no one really put much thought into exactly how much better a certain feature was than another. Are a bunch of bonus feats, a bigger hit die, good BAB progression and weapon specialization worth as much as spellcasting? Most people would argue that no, they are not. So how much stuff do you need to give a fighter-type to balance spellcasting?

Granted, this would take up an awful lot of space... perhaps it belongs in something like the new DMGII. Or maybe it's just unfeasible. I'd like to see some effort made in working out how class features/feats/hit dice/skill points/whatever actually balance against each other, though.

warmachine
2007-08-17, 09:04 AM
Make the entire thing point buy, including advantages and disadvantages that aid roleplaying, skill-based and only use d6s. No! I mean:-

Make all attributes inherently useful beyond skill modifiers - a wizard may not swing a sword much but he still needs STR for melee and for carrying capacity. Charisma, unless it powers a class feature, is dumpable.
Get rid of save-or-lose - it's really annoying sitting out combat because you happen to failed a saving throw the first round.
Eliminate double cost for cross-class skills - niche protection is a design philosophy but double cost means most characters completely suck at Spot and Listen at high levels.
Make spellcasting in melee harder - mage being attacked in melee? 5 foot step back as most attackers don't have reach weapons for AoO. Even if that isn't possible, defensive casting is pretty much automatic at high levels. Mages are supposed to be powerful but vulnerable in hand-to-hand.

OverdrivePrime
2007-08-17, 09:12 AM
I've got to agree with COR on the classes issue. Nothing would make me happier than to remove classes from the game. "Go play WOD or Exalted" is a lame response. I wanna play D&D. I just wanna play it by making characters in a logical way to exactly fit my imagination.

I love the way point buy systems work for character creation and advancement. I've been trying to work out a point buy system to convert D&D, and it can be done without a whole hell of a lot of trouble. (Doing so makes it apparent reeeeal quick how unbalanced the current classes are, btw.) I'm amazed that Wizards hasn't worked out a point buy formula that they keep behind the scenes to at least attempt to balance the classes against one another.

As an example, rage might be worth 4 points, a BAB might be worth 2 points, Each advancement in saves might be worth 1 point, etc. I'd make heavy use of feats, and instead of weapon proficiencies, just use the weapon group feats. It's really not that hard, and it doesn't screw up the game any beyond simply making the characters more transparent and more customizable. What's wrong with a warrior who's got a powerful and intelligent familiar (or an assassin with a familiar, ala Vlad Taltos)? Why not make an arcane spellcaster who rocks in the wilderness?

The real reason that this idea will never get implemented by Wizards is because it's hard to make money off of it. You can't sell people infinite splatbooks when they can create all they characters they could possibly imagine just from the main book.

On second though, maybe you could. Instead of introducing new classes and PrCs, you could introduce new magic, equipment, psionics and feats. I've bought several books just because I liked the feats they presented (Complete Adventurer anyone?). So maybe it could work.

I'm tryin' hard, but I fail to see how reworking basic character creation and advancement somehow destroys the idea of Dungeons and Dragons. Following that line of thought is just clinging to old formats whose time, in my opinion, is long past. Do you just want to play Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Elf, or Dwarf and have all your abilities determined by that? Read up on First Edition, or AD&D. The character systems really aren't that good.


edit: I've been ninja'ed by Warmachine and Jimmy Discordia! Good call, guys.

Attilargh
2007-08-17, 09:13 AM
Make spellcasting in melee harder - mage being attacked in melee? 5 foot step back as most attackers don't have reach weapons for AoO. Even if that isn't possible, defensive casting is pretty much automatic at high levels. Mages are supposed to be powerful but vulnerable in hand-to-hand.
As an extension, battlefield control should be easier. The meatshield should actually be able to shield the vulnerable members of the party instead of just marking the space where an enemy might get hit. At the moment the pretty much only characters capable of it are Knights, and Fighters with reach and Stand Still or Trip.

Person_Man
2007-08-17, 09:16 AM
I think one of the best suggestions to come out of this forum is "for gods sakes play test." Some mechanics work. Some don't. If you write a mechanic that sounds like a great idea, play test it. Play test it openly. Put it on the internet, because it's going to end up there one way or another anyway. Pay attention to the boards, and read what people think. And if it doesn't work, take it out. Don't graft more rules on top of it to try and fix it. Just remove it.

banjo1985
2007-08-17, 09:17 AM
I think one of the best things to come out of this forum is "for gods sakes play test." Some mechanics work. Some don't. If you write a mechanic that sounds like a great idea, play test it. Play test it openly. Put it on the internet, because it's going to end up there one way or another anyway. And if it doesn't work, take it out. Don't graft more rules on top of it to try and fix it. Just remove it.

Unfortunately if they actually playtested and made it right first time, they wouldn't be able to bring out optional bits of rules and the inevitable 4.5 edition to bleed us dry some more!

Duke of URL
2007-08-17, 09:23 AM
I find much of this thread amusing... so many people complain at how casters are overpowered, and yet most of the suggestions have to do with removing or weakening the few limits on casters. :smallbiggrin:

Anyway... my turn for a wish list:


Magic Revision: Make Druid type spells "elemental magic" or "nature magic" as opposed to "divine magic". This gives three basic types of magic: arcane, divine, and elemental/nature.

Better base class design: First of all, simplify the number and variety of base classes.
If sticking with both prepared and spontaneous variations, start with one of each for each of the three types of magic. (E.g., arcane: wizard and sorcerer; divine: cleric and favored soul, etc.)
Likewise, martial classes (including monks and barbarians) should be grouped together as just the generic "Fighter", with multiple paths of specialization.
And sneaky types all as "Rogue" with variants.
Combo classes should be well-defined to fit particular niches, e.g., Ranger is a fighter/nature magic hybrid. Bard should be revisited -- is it an arcanist/rogue, an arcanist/fighter, or a rogue/fighter? Trying to be all three is a little too thin.
Within each class, offer a variety of specialization paths, and, as has been said multiple times, make every level count!!! Dead levels not only suck, but they promote over-multiclassing.
Paladins aren't good base classes. Never have been. Get rid of them in anything close to their current form.


Make advanced/prestige classes more specialized: PrCs, or whatever variation will be used, should always, always, be a trade-off. They absolutely must involve specializing in one thing at the cost of something else, and the cost needs to be significant. A PrC should never be a "no-brainer". When designed right, they provide excellent ways to add flavor to characters without unbalancing the game or really requiring players to use PrCs. Have entry requirements make sense and anticipate possible problems later. That is, for example, if you're going to add a Warlock type, make sure (s)he can qualify for PrCs that make sense for Warlocks.

Magic vs. Psionics: One or the other, not both. Spec out both systems in the manuals, if you like, but each game setting should only use one type.

Make "weapon groups" variant standard: I think this simplifies weapon proficiency and focus feats dramatically, as well as offers more ways for a DM to flavor up a game without having to target players' specialties too much, e.g., no more "Ok... you find a battleaxe in the treasure hoard... wait... you specialized in greataxe, not battleaxe? *scritch, scratch* Ok... you find a greataxe in the treasure hoard..." One thing I might change is to make the "exotic" group less powerful, but I'm not even sure on that.

Revise ability/skill check mechanism: Abilities do not scale well with skill points. At early levels, abilities make a huge difference to skills, but at later levels, they have less and less impact. Find some way to have ability modifiers affect skills in a more scaling fashion. Likewise, on straight ability checks, the chance of a 6 INT barbarian outsmarting a 24 INT wizard is still about 1 in 8 -- way, way too high. One option is to either use a different die (say d10 instead of d20) or double the ability modifier on ability checks.

Fractional saves and BAB: The book-keeping isn't that much more intense, and it makes multiclassing a little less painless (which isn't always a good thing, mind you). BAB would be +1 (high), +3/4 (medium), or +1/2 (low), add up all sources of BAB and then drop all fractions to get current BAB. Likewise, saves would be +1/2 (high) or +1/3 (low). Any class that gives you a high save would be a one-time +2 to that save, but only once per save per character (i.e., two classes giving high Will would only yield one +2 bonus, not +4).

Morty
2007-08-17, 09:30 AM
Okay, should have clarified: Conceptually, in fluff terms, the idea of "preparing spells" is needlessly complicated and bizarre.

Why? I personally like the idea that spells aren't simple enough to cast them on the fly so they need to be prepared earlier and only "triggered" when caster casts them.


I said it contributes hugely, not that it's the only cause. In my experience, however, Vancian magic is the major factor in PC narcolepsy. The wizards want their spells back, the clerics want their spells back, and the fighters want the clerics to have their spells back. And because you have to wait and rest for an entire day to get your spells back, that's what you do.

Party needs to rest from time to time anyway or they'll get fatigued. So I don't see how that's a problem.


Compare to GURPS magic, or to the Tome of Battle, or to any number of non-d20 magic systems, wherein your powers quickly recharge after an encounter.

Tailoring casters' capabilities specifically for combat make little sense, because casters aren't always combatants. So quick recovery after encounters doesn't make much sense.

Jimmy Discordia
2007-08-17, 09:40 AM
OverdrivePrime: I'm not exactly talking about point-buy, although I do like point-buy systems. I think what I'm trying to get at is more of a point-buy-optional system: if you want classes and levels, you have the core ones, and your DM can easily design new ones. If you want to go totally custom, you would have an easy resource to do that, if your DM will let you. Some people balk at point-buy because they're traditionalists, some DMs balk at it because no one can make a system so balanced that no player will be capable of breaking it, and making things more customizable is a good way of making them more breakable (as with multi-classing in 3E, which becomes more breakable every time a new splatbook comes out).

Ideally, though, the system I'm envisioning would allow point-buy if you wanted it. All the core classes would be pre-balanced from a point-buy perspective, and anything beyond that would be up to your DM. A pipe dream? Probably.

OverdrivePrime
2007-08-17, 09:55 AM
Similar concepts, to the same end, I think. I don't mind having core classes, but I'd love the ability to either create new classes from scratch, or just create your character from a point-buy ruleset.




Barring point-buy character creation, I absolutely demand that the whole "dual wielding ranger" concept be hurled out the window with maximum force. I love rangers, but I hate dual wielding, and always have. It's fine for NPCs and other players, but for me, I wanna do my rangering with a two-hand grip. :smallamused:

Overlard
2007-08-17, 10:00 AM
Party needs to rest from time to time anyway or they'll get fatigued. So I don't see how that's a problem.
The problem is that the spellcasters can end up blowing all their good spells early on in the day. Carrying on after that isn't a good plan, so they sit down and rest for 20 hours until they get their spells back. Unless they're up against a clock, there's no reason not to blast away in the first encounter and then wait until tomorrow to carry on. It's something the per-encounter mechanic helps solve.

Jimmy Discordia
2007-08-17, 10:03 AM
Barring point-buy character creation, I absolutely demand that the whole "dual wielding ranger" concept be hurled out the window with maximum force. I love rangers, but I hate dual wielding, and always have. It's fine for NPCs and other players, but for me, I wanna do my rangering with a two-hand grip. :smallamused:

Why do we have dual-wielding rangers anyway? Is a certain dark elf entirely to blame for this? Did I just answer my own question?

I feel like dual-wielding is more properly a rogueish thing to do. Really, it's a swashbuckler-y thing to do, but before the swashbuckler base class came out, rogues were the most swashbuckling of the base classes.

Of course, a fighter/rogue, which is basically my picture of what a swashbuckler is/should be, can burn some bonus feats on TWF... but if any class should have dual-wielding built in, it's the rogue.

Wizzardman
2007-08-17, 10:19 AM
Monks certainly should be stealthy, if you allow them at all ("If you can walk on this ricepaper without leaving a footprint..."). Rangers, only in "wilderness" situations. Thieves only in urban areas/indoors.

Because, of course, no one who has trained to lurk in the shadows of an alley could ever possibly hide in a tree, and no one whose had practice walking silently over dry leaves could ever walk down a cobblestone road without making noise.

I'd agree with maybe some penalties for sneaking outside of your preferred terrain, but sneaking is sneaking no matter where it takes place, so they should be able to at least attempt it. Additionally, there could quite easily be an 'urban' ranger or a 'rural' rogue--so why should we limit character building to say that "this class can only come from this area"?

...Also: would dungeons count as urban or rural?


Why do we have dual-wielding rangers anyway? Is a certain dark elf entirely to blame for this? Did I just answer my own question?


Nah, that's been around for a while. Blame LotR.

The_Blob
2007-08-17, 10:24 AM
I'm hoping to see a "feat tree" system that supplants the lesser feats in it with the more advanced abilities along the 'tree" (ie. weapon focus gets replaced by improved weapon focus).

Of course these newer editions are making the game more video-game-like... I'm not so sure just how I feel about that yet...

I was initially shocked at 3rd Ed. in 2000, but it was a good upgrade, 3.5 fixed a few things & I'm at least going to give 4th Ed. the benefit of the doubt.

I do hope that the magic system becomes point-based (perhaps with a stat-based recovery method?) & that it becomes more like the EPHB in terms of spells/powers.

Psionic classes as core classes anyone?

I hope the 1/2 orc gets fixed (+2 to Con IMHO would NOT unbalance it).

Paladins as advanced or prestige classes? idk, I have mixed feelings about it.

Hopefully some "Battle Maps For Dummies" sections...

a 400+ page book for $20?... :smallsmile: (riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight... world peace too)

The_Blob
2007-08-17, 10:29 AM
I'm pretty certain Fahfrd & The Grey Mouser (a rogue/barbarian & a rogue) both were dual wielders long before drizzt... I think there was even a special rule that because Grey mouser had a 19 dex (which was VERY high back then) he didn't have any penalties to hit... Also, 2 weapon wield is a hold-out from 1st ed. rangers, who were the only characters who could do it with 2 longswords without any penalties, which made them uber-cool!

Of course, 1st ed. rangers (& 2nd ed.) were the "Bigot Class", they hated almost everybody!

Dausuul
2007-08-17, 10:34 AM
Why? I personally like the idea that spells aren't simple enough to cast them on the fly so they need to be prepared earlier and only "triggered" when caster casts them.

The idea that you can cast a spell 95% of the way and then have it "hanging fire" until you pull some mystical trigger and it goes off, like a gun... sorry, that just doesn't fly for me, or for a lot of other people. It is, frankly, too much like technology. And then there's the question of why it is that you can only have X many spells "hanging fire" at once... not like they take up space in your backpack.

I prefer magic with a more organic, less mechanical feel. Spontaneous casting and mana-point systems are far from ideal, but they beat Vancian magic. What I really like is the warlock approach; you don't have to worry about preparation or spells per day or how much mystic juice you've got left in your metaphysical batteries, you just cast a spell when you need to cast a spell. It's a lot closer to what magic is typically like in mythology and fantasy literature.

For big, world-shaking spells that need some kind of limiting factor so you can't cast them all day long... that's what material components and XP costs are for.


Party needs to rest from time to time anyway or they'll get fatigued. So I don't see how that's a problem.

It's a problem because "from time to time" should be "after a hard day's worth of travelling and fighting," not "after 20 minutes of level-appropriate encounters."


Tailoring casters' capabilities specifically for combat make little sense, because casters aren't always combatants. So quick recovery after encounters doesn't make much sense.

It makes perfect sense for spells that are meant to be used in combat. Which, I might add, describes 90% of the spell list. For spells that are used out of combat, other limiting factors may be necessary, but even then the per-day mechanic is clunky and awkward.

WorthingSon
2007-08-17, 10:42 AM
Perhaps a new system should be used... may something like this:

Fatuige - Caster have Fatuige which is like HP, but uses their caster stat instead of Con. So a Wizard with a 18 Int at level 10 would have 10d12+40 Fatuige. Spells have associated fatuige costs, with variable components (IE put more power in your fireball, but it'll cost you alot more fatuige). Then throw in longer casting times on super spells and you have a modified point system that would take into account magic being draining on the caster and still allow a more flexible caster.

I know it sounds like a point system... and it is, but I just think that there needs to be more dynamic to the magic system. I play a lot of high power and the casters always seem to fall behind. I would rather be able to make my spells more powerfull with my extra int, then be able to cast it a few extra times.

Were-Sandwich
2007-08-17, 10:50 AM
In my opinon, the magic system needs completely moving away from the way it is right now. No cut-and-dry spell descriptions, no spells per day, something skill base and freeform, like Mage, Arrowflight or even sometihng like Aracan Evovled would be better than what we have now. I think it might be entertaining if they imported the magic system from Fantasy Wargaming (after payign someone to sit down and understand the damn thing), which, despite its many flaws as a game, had the right idea about magic.

Morty
2007-08-17, 11:03 AM
The idea that you can cast a spell 95% of the way and then have it "hanging fire" until you pull some mystical trigger and it goes off, like a gun... sorry, that just doesn't fly for me, or for a lot of other people. It is, frankly, too much like technology. And then there's the question of why it is that you can only have X many spells "hanging fire" at once... not like they take up space in your backpack.

Because human mind can't hold arcane energies. Or something similiar. It's magic, you can describe it how you want. And I completely can't see the resemblance between vancian casting and technology.


I prefer magic with a more organic, less mechanical feel. Spontaneous casting and mana-point systems are far from ideal, but they beat Vancian magic. What I really like is the warlock approach; you don't have to worry about preparation or spells per day or how much mystic juice you've got left in your metaphysical batteries, you just cast a spell when you need to cast a spell. It's a lot closer to what magic is typically like in mythology and fantasy literature.

Mythology and literature =/= RPG games, especially when it comes to spellcasting. Besides, if we use warlock approach, we have wizards casting the same spells over and over like in some videogame.


For big, world-shaking spells that need some kind of limiting factor so you can't cast them all day long... that's what material components and XP costs are for.

Plus you won't be able to use it, because if we drop learning from scrolls then noone will take non-combat spells.


It's a problem because "from time to time" should be "after a hard day's worth of travelling and fighting," not "after 20 minutes of level-appropriate encounters."

If party tries to rest every 20 minutes it's DM's duty to tell them that they can't sleep all day.


It makes perfect sense for spells that are meant to be used in combat. Which, I might add, describes 90% of the spell list. For spells that are used out of combat, other limiting factors may be necessary, but even then the per-day mechanic is clunky and awkward.

I agree that lifting the necessity to rest may be good, but per-encounter mechanics is better left for meleers or warlocks.
Besides, those two aren't mutually exclusive. There may be arcanists who use point-based or per-encounter mechanics and those who use vancian system, for those who prefer to play D&D instead of hack'n'slash videogame put on paper.

yango
2007-08-17, 11:14 AM
I agree that lifting the necessity to rest may be good, but per-encounter mechanics is better left for meleers or warlocks.
Besides, those two aren't mutually exclusive. There may be arcanists who use point-based or per-encounter mechanics and those who use vancian system, for those who prefer to play D&D instead of hack'n'slash videogame put on paper.

Suppose they use a talent system, a la Star Wars Saga, and combined warlocks/wizards/sorcerers into 1 basic class.

How about if they start with Vancian casting, but can gain alternative casting styles as class features?

psychoticbarber
2007-08-17, 11:25 AM
What I want, more than anything, is a description somewhere about HOW classes and the like were balanced against each other. Even if they have to spread this across six books to turn a profit, I want to know what their thought-process is, so that if I want to add or change something (and I frequently do), I can do that without completely accidentally wrecking everything.

The Demented One
2007-08-17, 11:28 AM
I'm gonna /r/ that psions don't just end up being "wizards with the serial numbers filed off," as was mentioned in one of the articles. If they end up with "power slots" or such, I think me and Tribble are gonna have to make a quick dash on over to the Homebrewomobile.

Overlard
2007-08-17, 11:30 AM
If party tries to rest every 20 minutes it's DM's duty to tell them that they can't sleep all day.
And how does he do that? Just keep throwing things at them until they continue? If players don't want to proceed, they won't proceed. If you want to railroad with constructed limits or take control of the PCs, then so be it.


I agree that lifting the necessity to rest may be good, but per-encounter mechanics is better left for meleers or warlocks.
Besides, those two aren't mutually exclusive. There may be arcanists who use point-based or per-encounter mechanics and those who use vancian system, for those who prefer to play D&D instead of hack'n'slash videogame put on paper.
:smallconfused:

Right. Whatever you say. Per encounter is obviously hack'n'slash videogame, while the vancian system is real D&D.

Morty
2007-08-17, 11:35 AM
And how does he do that? Just keep throwing things at them until they continue? If players don't want to proceed, they won't proceed. If you want to railroad with constructed limits or take control of the PCs, then so be it.

What I meant wasn't "throwing things at them" but saying "you're not tired, you can't rest right now". Simple. Besides, if players are resting every 3 hours when they feel like it, it's just plainly bad RPing.


Right. Whatever you say. Per encounter is obviously hack'n'slash videogame, while the vancian system is real D&D.

I never implied that. It's just that the way I see it, per-encounter mechanics for wizards would turn them into fireball-throwers.

Fhaolan
2007-08-17, 11:38 AM
I prefer magic with a more organic, less mechanical feel. Spontaneous casting and mana-point systems are far from ideal, but they beat Vancian magic. What I really like is the warlock approach; you don't have to worry about preparation or spells per day or how much mystic juice you've got left in your metaphysical batteries, you just cast a spell when you need to cast a spell. It's a lot closer to what magic is typically like in mythology and fantasy literature.


... Uh, what? You want wizards to be able to cast any spell at any time without any kind of cost?

I must be misunderstanding what you're asking for, because to be honest it *sounds* like that kind of system would suck so hard black holes would hang their metaphysical heads in shame.

The only reason that kind of thing works in myth and legend is because the wizard is supposed to be a demi-god (Gandalf, Merlin), or hags (non-human witch/trolls with close to unlimited power).

I would think that mortal wizards would need to work like mortal wizards do in mythology and literature. Such as alchemists (rigorous formulas), hedge-wizards (who's spells fail 90% of the time, and the best they usually can manage is to light a torch), shamans (convincing spirits to do the work), and witches (familiars, potions, etc.)

Yeah, that means Wizards don't get the 'Win' button. Sorry. If I want to play that kind of game, I'll play the first edition of Mage: I Get To Do Whatever I Want And Sucks To Be You.

hrdwrkngXsoldie
2007-08-17, 11:42 AM
One thing that I would love to see clarified is spot checks. My group and I have had countless hours of argument and debate over spot checks.
Here is a situation:

Fighter A is engaged in melee combat with 2 enemies. Enemy three attacks from afar (not flanking) and then the argument insues after it is ruled that there were no armor bonuses against the attack. The player then debates that they were not given a spot check.

To me spot is not an extra sensory ability unless you have sonar or something. The players argument is that if they new the person was involved in the combat, that they would know the attack is coming. I just find it hard to suspend my disbalief that an 8th level fighter engaging two enemies would be watching for the archers shot in the 10 second of elapsed time.

There are many times where I have seen spot used as some sort of super human feat. I would very much like to have a lot of abilities made more realistic, or at least have larger set of situation modifiers for them.

Overlard
2007-08-17, 11:47 AM
It's not railroading. And what I meant wasn't "throwing things at them" but saying "you're not tired, you can't rest right now". Simple.
But, they can stop moving forwards, can't they? They don't have to proceed. They can stay where they are until they are tired. If you have something pursuing them for the sole reason that they then have to keep moving, that would be railroading. Making every quest time-based for the same reason would be along the same lines.


I never implied that. It's just that the way I see it, per-encounter mechanics for wizards would turn them into fireball-throwers.
That's not too different from how a lot of people use them now. But I don't think it would encourage blasting so much as allowing people to carry on adventuring til the end of day, rather than being a slave to spells prepared.

Personally, I think the class that has had the best spell preparation system is the spirit shaman. You choose a small selection of spells at the start of the day, and can use them however you want. eg - for third level spells you might have 3 spells to choose (you choose haste, fireball and invisibility sphere from your list) and 4 3rd level spells per day. You can cast any of those spells as many times as you want, as long as you don't exceed 4 castings. So maybe 2 fireballs, 1 haste, 1 invis, or 4 fireballs or whatever. I much prefer that to the wizard's preparation, where if you've studied fireball, you can only cast it once unless you learn it twice or more.

Attilargh
2007-08-17, 11:52 AM
... Uh, what? You want wizards to be able to cast any spell at any time without any kind of cost?

I must be misunderstanding what you're asking for, because to be honest it *sounds* like that kind of system would suck so hard black holes would hang their metaphysical heads in shame.
Yeah, Warlocks are quite crappy when one gets over the way they can do it all night long. That still doesn't stop me from hating them.

hrdwrkngXsoldie
2007-08-17, 11:55 AM
here is an article from inquest, that they put online regarding the announcement.

http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/inquest/005672645.cfm

Morty
2007-08-17, 11:57 AM
But, they can stop moving forwards, can't they? They don't have to proceed. They can stay where they are until they are tired. If you have something pursuing them for the sole reason that they then have to keep moving, that would be railroading. Making every quest time-based for the same reason would be along the same lines.

So they're staying in one place for half a day until they're tiread. Yeah. If the players are willing to do such things, it's their fault.


That's not too different from how a lot of people use them now. But I don't think it would encourage blasting so much as allowing people to carry on adventuring til the end of day, rather than being a slave to spells prepared.

By blasting I don't mean using damage spells per say. I mean casting the same spells over and over as if they were shooting a gun. And wizards can carry on with adventure all day even with preparation system, they just have to cast spells carefully instead of tossing them around at everything they see.

Indon
2007-08-17, 11:58 AM
Yeah, that means Wizards don't get the 'Win' button. Sorry. If I want to play that kind of game, I'll play the first edition of Mage: I Get To Do Whatever I Want And Sucks To Be You.

Firstly, Paradox is supposed to be extremely lethal in Mage for those who do whatever they want. Every game varies, of course, but the dangers of Paradox are expounded upon in detail if I recall.

Secondly, I think this is the big problem with designing a playable wizard. Magic is supposed to be astoundingly versatile, potent, and just plain awesome. But giving your PC wizard access to all of these things meant to make your NPC wizards cool is not neccessarily a good thing.

Overlard
2007-08-17, 12:08 PM
So they're staying in one place for half a day until they're tiread. Yeah. If the players are willing to do such things, it's their fault.
Yep. But they don't see it as being a problem as unless the DM insists they play out the downtime round by round, then it's gonna go fairly quickly to the next day where they have spells again.


By blasting I don't mean using damage spells per say. I mean casting the same spells over and over as if they were shooting a gun. And wizards can carry on with adventure all day even with preparation system, they just have to cast spells carefully instead of tossing them around at everything they see.
Which is why I like the spirit shaman system, I think it's a great compromise. You're still limited to what you can do per day, but don't end up with a load of useless spells if the DM throws something out of left field at you. The planning is still there, but you don't have to worry if the contingency you planned for doesn't come up.

Morty
2007-08-17, 12:15 PM
Yep. But they don't see it as being a problem as unless the DM insists they play out the downtime round by round, then it's gonna go fairly quickly to the next day where they have spells again.

That's metagaming and bad roleplaying. No matter how good the system is, these two things can ruin it. So again, it's a problem of players, not the system.


Which is why I like the spirit shaman system, I think it's a great compromise. You're still limited to what you can do per day, but don't end up with a load of useless spells if the DM throws something out of left field at you. The planning is still there, but you don't have to worry if the contingency you planned for doesn't come up.

While it is a good compromise I still prefer standard preparation system. Sure, it leads to situations when caster doesn't have appropriate spells, but everyone is bound to have his weakness, and casters are already preety powerful. Besides, it encourages casters to use versatile sets of spells.

Aasimar
2007-08-17, 12:22 PM
A good good bet is that StarWars Saga edition is being used as a test-bed for the 4th edition of D&D, since their stated objectives are pretty much identical. So, if you want to get an idea of what 4th edition might hold, check out StarWars SAGA edition.

That means it'll have a few base classes, which will be very customizable with talents every other level, and bonus feats on the other levels. Then there will be a range of prestige classes, and maybe a few advanced prestige classes.

The skill system was revamped a bit for SAGA, and it might just go the same way for D&D, since mostly everyone liked the new SAGA skill system.

Therein, you don't get skill points, but rather you add half your level (rounded down) to all skill checks, in addition to your ability mod. Then you add +5 for skill training (every class gets a predetermined number of trained skills at 1st level, + int mod), and you can take the feat skill focus, which gives another +5.

Also, the skill list was cut down a lot, stuff like bluff, disguise and forgery were rolled into a single 'Deception' skill, Diplomacy, Intimidate and 'haggling' are now all functions of the 'Persuasion' skill.

One of the bigger changes in SAGA was that you no longer get extra attacks as you level, but rather you gain a damage bonus to all your attacks equal to half your level, the only way to get extra attacks is to two-weapon fight, or take the 'double attack' and triple attack feats. Stuff like 'whirlwind attack' is now an area attack, where you roll once and compare to the reflex defense of everybody in the area. They take half damage even if you don't hit, unless they have evasion.

That reminds me, in SAGA, there is no AC, or saving throws, but rather you have three defenses. Fortitude Defense, Reflex Defense, and Will Defense. Each attack, depending on it's nature, simply rolls against one of them. A poison might attack a person with a pretermined modifier (depending on how dangerous it is), needing to overcome their fortitude defense. While direct attacks mostly need to overcome reflex defenses.

This sure speeds things up when doing mass effects, instead of having every little goblin roll a reflex save against a fireball, the mage would roll some sort of spell check, and compare it to all of their reflex defenses...it saves bunch of time.

There's more, to be sure. And while I'm sure a lot of SAGA stuff will form the foundation of D&D 4th edition, there's no telling how much of it will be vastly different, and how much of it will need to be made up entirely.

Fhaolan
2007-08-17, 12:25 PM
Firstly, Paradox is supposed to be extremely lethal in Mage for those who do whatever they want. Every game varies, of course, but the dangers of Paradox are expounded upon in detail if I recall.

Possibly true. I only played the first version of Mage a couple of times, and I'm reasonably certain the Storyteller wasn't too clear on the concept either. I understand that the current version of Mage is completely different somehow, but I haven't actually read the new rules yet.


Secondly, I think this is the big problem with designing a playable wizard. Magic is supposed to be astoundingly versatile, potent, and just plain awesome. But giving your PC wizard access to all of these things meant to make your NPC wizards cool is not neccessarily a good thing.

Absolutely true. It's one of the big pits it's easy to fall into, giving the NPC something uber-cool, and not thinking ahead to what happens when the PC gets ahold of that exact same thing. Keeping magic from utterly dominating the game and allowing Fighter-types and Thief-types from becoming irrelevant is *hard*. Vancian magic was one method of trying to deal with it. Parts of that system got circumvented in 3.x, leading to the over 10th level 'why play anything but a wizard, cleric, or druid?' issue. Spell point systems, Fatigue systems, are all attempts to slow the wizard down so that the rest of the characters have a chance to contribute.

I honestly don't like the current incarnation of Vancian magic myself. Mainly because I think it's *presented* wrong, and because I think there needs to be more of a connection between how that works and the mechanics of magic item creation and spell research. Also, I think they sped up the casting of spells too much. Made it too easy. Yeah, it *should* take half a freaking day to cast the big world-altering spells. That's the price you pay for that kind of power.

I like the idea of different wizards having different methodologies, even though they have the same base mechanics. A runecaster, a spellsinger, a shaman, a hedgewizard should all use the same base mechanics, but have different presentations and reasoning. Each is channeling magical energy through a different medium, each with it's own pros and cons, but the basic 'cost' is the same.

horseboy
2007-08-17, 12:36 PM
Matrix casting>Vancian system

Remove all save or die, remove wish, limited wish, miracle and all those other "I win" spells. Remove knock, find traps, locate secrete doors.

Really, does anyone else know of a game system where they have "save or die" spells other than D&D?

psychoticbarber
2007-08-17, 12:48 PM
Firstly, Paradox is supposed to be extremely lethal in Mage for those who do whatever they want. Every game varies, of course, but the dangers of Paradox are expounded upon in detail if I recall.


As the Mage book I have describes it, "Mages, when they do magic, are attempting to reshape reality to their own whims. If they aren't good enough, reality hits back in the form of Paradox." ...and he's right, it hits HARD.

Edit: That's not a direct quote, but it's reasonably close.

horseboy
2007-08-17, 12:50 PM
That's metagaming and bad roleplaying. No matter how good the system is, these two things can ruin it. So again, it's a problem of players, not the system.
It's a problem with the system because the system promotes bad roleplaying.

Larrin
2007-08-17, 12:52 PM
Wish list-

Vesatility! everything else is gravy

never-the-less:

Wizards/clerics/druid: spontaneous casting of spells known they can change with their spell book/praying. like the spirit shaman. limited spells known, but you're not locked into just one casting of it.

Sorcerors: warmages, beguilers, dread necromancers should all be distilled down to their core concepts and become the new sorcerors. you pick a few lists you have access to, get some speacial abilities and skill perks, anything else you want to learn you do with exanded learning (or what ever its called). warmages would then become sorceror that chose the evocation and conjuration(or something similar) lists, beguilers are sorcerors that chose the illusion and enchantment lists. etc. they have d6, light armour, and very specific spell types.

Fighters(all melee really): it sounds like maneuvres are in, make it usuable by all who need it, please. lets rogues have access too, but only if they invest in it.

Multiclassing: just let us multiclass, there is no need to punish us for doing so. half the time we're already punishing ourselves (a wizard/cleric will have enough unhappiness in his life without having to keep the dang levels even!)

Grapling/AoO/unarmed strikes vs natural attacks/etc: AHHHhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhh. Keep it simple, WOTC.

Skills:four divisions, speacialized skills,class skills, non-class skills, untrained skills. you automatically get X ranks in speacialized skills, Y in class skills, Z in non-class skills and 0 in untrained skills. where X > Y > Z > 0. not every thief should be great at stealth, but he should still be better then a wizard with no ranks in it. cross-class speacialization puts it on the same level as a class skill. (similiar to star wars saga rules)

Races: Rumor has it Tiefling it in? meh, i like them, but they have no reason to be very common, but then neither do half-orcs, so i guess its okay. How about just writing up about detailed descriptions of the basic 7-9 base races, but include 10 or so popular choices with less detail. that way you don't add in odd balls like the tiefling while ignoring the old classics like goblins, kobolds, orcs, half-orcs, half-elves, half-hobbits, drow, aasimars, gensai blah blah blah. Its annoying to have to look these up in the MM just to have the DM say "Not a core race". Its not like me playing a goblin's so far-fetched it reaches into the realm of not a core race. LET ME BE SMALL AND GREEN.

HP,AC,Saves: mechanics stay the same, progression varied to make sense and fun.

Spells: Vesitillity; when i learn a spell that does energy damage, let me choses the energy type (when applicable) have sonic do less damage if you feel its off balancing. if i know "hold person" let me cast it at a higher level (or some sort of mechanic like that) for "hold monster" don't make me learn two spells that overlap. (same with sleep and dire sleep, or limited wish and wish or all those dang create undead spells) My suggested solution probably isn't the best, but something in this vain.

horseboy
2007-08-17, 12:55 PM
As the Mage book I have describes it, "Mages, when they do magic, are attempting to reshape reality to their own whims. If they aren't good enough, reality hits back in the form of Paradox." ...and he's right, it hits HARD.

Edit: That's not a direct quote, but it's reasonably close.

Unless it's coincidence. That meant pretty much the only thing that could challenge a mage was another mage. Antediluvian pops up and goes on a rampage. Mage: "I don't believe in vampires." Antediluvian is no longer an antediluvian. IF he still exists, the mage does it right before the cops shoot so they stop the "mad slasher". No paradox.

Generic PC
2007-08-17, 12:57 PM
Woo. Wizards DND Just opened up. There. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/welcome&dcmp=ILC-DND062006FP)

psychoticbarber
2007-08-17, 01:01 PM
Unless it's coincidence. That meant pretty much the only thing that could challenge a mage was another mage. Antediluvian pops up and goes on a rampage. Mage: "I don't believe in vampires." Antediluvian is no longer an antediluvian. IF he still exists, the mage does it right before the cops shoot so they stop the "mad slasher". No paradox.

Oh, mages were ridiculously powered in the World of Darkness. That doesn't mean you can't adopt a system with a similar take on magic, just at a lower power level. I'm actually not one to dump Vancian casting too quickly, as it is somewhat of a unique point of D&D...I wouldn't use Vancian casting if I were creating my own game, but D&D still needs to be D&D when we're done, as silly as Vancian magic might seem to some.

horseboy
2007-08-17, 01:01 PM
Woo. Wizards DND Just opened up. There. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/welcome&dcmp=ILC-DND062006FP)

AAAhhh! Tyranids have ingested beholder genestock! The Imperium is doomed!

cody.burton
2007-08-17, 01:09 PM
Spells: Vesitillity; when i learn a spell that does energy damage, let me choses the energy type (when applicable) have sonic do less damage if you feel its off balancing. if i know "hold person" let me cast it at a higher level (or some sort of mechanic like that) for "hold monster" don't make me learn two spells that overlap. (same with sleep and dire sleep, or limited wish and wish or all those dang create undead spells) My suggested solution probably isn't the best, but something in this vain.

Sounds like 3.5 psionics...

Dausuul
2007-08-17, 01:22 PM
Besides, those two aren't mutually exclusive. There may be arcanists who use point-based or per-encounter mechanics and those who use vancian system, for those who prefer to play D&D instead of hack'n'slash videogame put on paper.

Oh, right, I forgot, any change to D&D's sacred cows will turn it into a video game and ruin it forever.

Anyway, I'm not actually asking to have Vancian casting removed from D&D 4E; I think it's lame, but it's too well established a tradition by this point. I was just explaining why I detest that particular system. What I want from 4E is to get some alternative magic systems, and to have those systems get as much love from WotC as Vancian magic does, so that those of us who don't like Vancian casting can play without it and not have to patch over great gaping holes in the game.


That's metagaming and bad roleplaying. No matter how good the system is, these two things can ruin it. So again, it's a problem of players, not the system.

It's actually entirely logical from the PCs' perspective. When you're running low on ammo, you return to base and resupply. It's just that you only get fresh supplies once a day, and you burn through those supplies very quickly, so you spend most of your time hanging around the base.


... Uh, what? You want wizards to be able to cast any spell at any time without any kind of cost?

I must be misunderstanding what you're asking for, because to be honest it *sounds* like that kind of system would suck so hard black holes would hang their metaphysical heads in shame.

I'm certainly not proposing to take the wizard as it stands now and just remove all limits on casting! I shudder to imagine the brokenness... no, this would have to be part of a comprehensive overhaul of the magic system. However, at-will casting isn't broken in and of itself; the warlock is generally held to be an underpowered class.


I would think that mortal wizards would need to work like mortal wizards do in mythology and literature. Such as alchemists (rigorous formulas), hedge-wizards (who's spells fail 90% of the time, and the best they usually can manage is to light a torch), shamans (convincing spirits to do the work), and witches (familiars, potions, etc.)

That's why I'd impose expensive material components and/or XP costs, not to mention casting times measured in hours or even days, on the more powerful spells. Sure, you can cast them, but it's gonna cost you.

Fax Celestis
2007-08-17, 01:35 PM
Oh, mages were ridiculously powered in the World of Darkness. That doesn't mean you can't adopt a system with a similar take on magic, just at a lower power level. I'm actually not one to dump Vancian casting too quickly, as it is somewhat of a unique point of D&D...I wouldn't use Vancian casting if I were creating my own game, but D&D still needs to be D&D when we're done, as silly as Vancian magic might seem to some.

Entropy 5: "I throw this throwing knife in a random direction for no particular reason at all. I am lucky enough that it careens off a nearby wall, blings across a window, bounces off the ceiling fan, and lands directly in the eye of the dude who was about to assassinate me without my knowledge."

Forces 5: "I throw a penny at the werewolf. He explodes."

Were-Sandwich
2007-08-17, 01:37 PM
Aaah, good times, good times.

psychoticbarber
2007-08-17, 01:37 PM
Entropy 5: "I throw this throwing knife in a random direction for no particular reason at all. I am lucky enough that it careens off a nearby wall, blings across a window, bounces off the ceiling fan, and lands directly in the eye of the dude who was about to assassinate me without my knowledge."

Forces 5: "I throw a penny at the werewolf. He explodes."

Wizard 5: "I throw a fireball at the werewolf. He Explodes." :smalltongue:

Fax Celestis
2007-08-17, 01:38 PM
Wizard 5: "I throw a fireball at the werewolf. He Explodes." :smalltongue:

Except, in that instance, the werewolf gets back up.

Spiryt
2007-08-17, 01:41 PM
I would think that mortal wizards would need to work like mortal wizards do in mythology and literature. Such as alchemists (rigorous formulas), hedge-wizards (who's spells fail 90% of the time, and the best they usually can manage is to light a torch), shamans (convincing spirits to do the work), and witches (familiars, potions, etc.)




I don't think that such things would be necessary.
Spells should just probably take more to cast, plus maybe some additional actions/circumstances that could interrupt it.

Wizards and generally spells just shouldn't be so efficient in combat.
Teleport, identify, scrying - all powerful things that nobody besides mage can do - are enough strong to make wizards powerful.
But fight should belong to fighters - enchanced with magic,with their supernatural abilities - yes, it's fantasy. But shouldn't belong to guy who cast solif fog and then something else (or do something more cheesy).
I'm not implying that wizards should be completely incompetent in fight, of course, but they shouldn't be best in it.

psychoticbarber
2007-08-17, 01:43 PM
Except, in that instance, the werewolf gets back up.

Fair enough. 5 in a Mage discipline is a lot bigger than Wizard 5 is, even if the two character power levels were vaguely equal, 5 in a Mage discipline is like Wizard 15 or 20.

Indon
2007-08-17, 01:50 PM
Unless it's coincidence. That meant pretty much the only thing that could challenge a mage was another mage. Antediluvian pops up and goes on a rampage. Mage: "I don't believe in vampires." Antediluvian is no longer an antediluvian. IF he still exists, the mage does it right before the cops shoot so they stop the "mad slasher". No paradox.

Vampires are clearly a part of (WoD) reality. In this case, Paradox would expend by giving you massive Quiet and the flaw that you can no longer see Vampires and must explain everything they do by other means.

Edit: I'd further make things interesting by increasing that mage's quiet every time they failed to explain a vampire-caused phenomenon. When they hit full Quiet and became a marauder, they really _would_ gain the ability to make Vampires stop existing.


Entropy 5: "I throw this throwing knife in a random direction for no particular reason at all. I am lucky enough that it careens off a nearby wall, blings across a window, bounces off the ceiling fan, and lands directly in the eye of the dude who was about to assassinate me without my knowledge."

Except that there's a sizable chance it just hits you instead. That's ridiculous Paradox right there.



Forces 5: "I throw a penny at the werewolf. He explodes."

...causing an unforseen chain reaction which incinerates you and anyone else nearby.

Vulgar magic backfires. Heck, Enlightened Science backfires, and it's less Paradox-ridden than any kind of magic, pound for pound.

Sadly, few Mage campaigns are run by people who introduce Paradox as the force that prevents the world from being, really, at all magical, like the book seems to intend it to be.

horseboy
2007-08-17, 02:02 PM
Vampires are clearly a part of (WoD) reality. In this case, Paradox would expend by giving you massive Quiet and the flaw that you can no longer see Vampires and must explain everything they do by other means.


They are a part of reality, but they are NOT a part of perceived reality. Perceived reality is what will get you paradox, that and botches. In essence you're breaking the law to fulfill the law. Yes, you know vampires exist, however you're reinforcing the belief that they don't. Ultimately it does aid uh, oh, what's their names, the Weaver's mages, but it's a solid and nasty tactic.

Indon
2007-08-17, 02:08 PM
They are a part of reality, but they are NOT a part of perceived reality. Perceived reality is what will get you paradox, that and botches. In essence you're breaking the law to fulfill the law. Yes, you know vampires exist, however you're reinforcing the belief that they don't. Ultimately it does aid uh, oh, what's their names, the Weaver's mages, but it's a solid and nasty tactic.

Supernatural creatures are a part of consentual reality.

Even a Mind 5 effect to make all normal individuals be unable to percieve or even comprehend something would only cause those people to be unable to percieve or comprehend them. It doesn't nullify their existence, and trying to do so is just going to cause a backfire.

Now, maybe if you were an Archmage... but there's a reason that reality kicks them out.

Now, a better Mage tactic against a Vampire is to make _the vampire_ believe he isn't a Vampire. Mind 5, probably a couple dots in Life to supress his abilities, and you explain to him that all his supernatural abilities are merely psychosomatic and that anyone could do them. As such, it's perfectly reasonable for them to not need to drink blood anymore, and why not stay and watch the sunrise with me and my friends?

Edit: To clarify further, it would reasonably be possible to cause a category of supernatural creatures to cease existing through influence of consentual reality. This, however, would be a massive undertaking far outstripping even the resources of the entire Technocracy (or they'd have done it, because they're trying even now), which is the largest cohesive group of 'mages' described in WoD.

You definitely couldn't just cause _one_ supernatural creature to cease existing in this way because too many people believe in them as a group.

Edit again: Perhaps this sub-conversation merits a thread on its' own?

Wizzardman
2007-08-17, 02:17 PM
AAAhhh! Tyranids have ingested beholder genestock! The Imperium is doomed!

...

*dies laughing*

Fax Celestis
2007-08-17, 02:21 PM
Supernatural creatures are a part of consentual reality.

Even a Mind 5 effect to make all normal individuals be unable to percieve or even comprehend something would only cause those people to be unable to percieve or comprehend them. It doesn't nullify their existence, and trying to do so is just going to cause a backfire.

Now, maybe if you were an Archmage... but there's a reason that reality kicks them out.

Now, a better Mage tactic against a Vampire is to make _the vampire_ believe he isn't a Vampire. Mind 5, probably a couple dots in Life to supress his abilities, and you explain to him that all his supernatural abilities are merely psychosomatic and that anyone could do them. As such, it's perfectly reasonable for them to not need to drink blood anymore, and why not stay and watch the sunrise with me and my friends?

Edit: To clarify further, it would reasonably be possible to cause a category of supernatural creatures to cease existing through influence of consentual reality. This, however, would be a massive undertaking far outstripping even the resources of the entire Technocracy (or they'd have done it, because they're trying even now), which is the largest cohesive group of 'mages' described in WoD.

You definitely couldn't just cause _one_ supernatural creature to cease existing in this way because too many people believe in them as a group.

Edit again: Perhaps this sub-conversation merits a thread on its' own?

Erm, it says right in the core that vampires, werewolves, and other supernatural creatures do not induce Paradox.

Indon
2007-08-17, 02:25 PM
Erm, it says right in the core that vampires, werewolves, and other supernatural creatures do not induce Paradox.

I've made a seperate thread, I'll respond to you there?

Fhaolan
2007-08-17, 02:39 PM
I'm certainly not proposing to take the wizard as it stands now and just remove all limits on casting! I shudder to imagine the brokenness... no, this would have to be part of a comprehensive overhaul of the magic system. However, at-will casting isn't broken in and of itself; the warlock is generally held to be an underpowered class.

That's why I'd impose expensive material components and/or XP costs, not to mention casting times measured in hours or even days, on the more powerful spells. Sure, you can cast them, but it's gonna cost you.

Okay, good. I was concerned there that we were in *completely* different realities, and would be unable to communicate. :smallsmile:

So actually, your ideas and mine are almost identical. Make the spells take nasty amount of time, or really hard-to-get components, etc.

Where we appear to differ is that I just view Vancian-type 'almost complete the spell' concept as an extension of creating magic items. You basically 'charge' your own body with a spell during the prep time so you can trigger it off later. That's why I think that the magic item creation and spell research crunch needs to be more closely tied into spell casting itself. The mechanism for spell-slots and pre-casting needs to match up with the mechanism for creating wands and the like.

Roderick_BR
2007-08-17, 02:58 PM
Fair enough. 5 in a Mage discipline is a lot bigger than Wizard 5 is, even if the two character power levels were vaguely equal, 5 in a Mage discipline is like Wizard 15 or 20.
Personally, I think that 5 points into a Mage's sphere is above a D&D mage's epic level. "I'm going to the moon take a picture and will be back in 5 minutes."

Overlard
2007-08-17, 03:15 PM
That's metagaming and bad roleplaying. No matter how good the system is, these two things can ruin it. So again, it's a problem of players, not the system.
It's a symptom of the system, which is reflected in the roleplaying. If you're in no hurry, how much would you risk just to get through a dungeon quicker? Why not take it slow and make sure you're always at full power and have what you need? If you're a wizard, you're meant to be smart, which doesn't mean charging forwards when you have inadequate spells for the rest of the day.


While it is a good compromise I still prefer standard preparation system. Sure, it leads to situations when caster doesn't have appropriate spells, but everyone is bound to have his weakness, and casters are already preety powerful. Besides, it encourages casters to use versatile sets of spells.
The spirit shaman system rewards versatility too, but allows you to adapt to a degree too.

Dausuul
2007-08-17, 03:15 PM
Where we appear to differ is that I just view Vancian-type 'almost complete the spell' concept as an extension of creating magic items. You basically 'charge' your own body with a spell during the prep time so you can trigger it off later. That's why I think that the magic item creation and spell research crunch needs to be more closely tied into spell casting itself. The mechanism for spell-slots and pre-casting needs to match up with the mechanism for creating wands and the like.

Heh, I'm not real fond of charged items either. Potions, okay, and maybe the occasional ring of three wishes for the sake of tradition, but a wand loaded up with 50 fireballs bugs me.

I think my real problem is the idea of a "spell" as a quasi-physical entity. I prefer to have a spell be a process the wizard performs, not a discrete object that the wizard can assemble and then hold onto until it's needed. You build a house; you don't prepare a house-building and then hammer a nail and have a house pop up when you find a place you want to live.

skywalker
2007-08-17, 03:32 PM
My new wish for 4th edition. That the rogue stays rogue-y.

That phrase, "Every class knows it's place on the battlefield" it seems to apply to rogues especially. And to them "knowing their place."

I tremble with fear.

Matthew
2007-08-17, 03:38 PM
Why do we have dual-wielding rangers anyway? Is a certain dark elf entirely to blame for this? Did I just answer my own question?

Yes indeed. Actually, it was part of the 1e Dark Elf Sub Race that was then transferred over to the 2e Ranger.

Fhaolan
2007-08-17, 03:41 PM
Heh, I'm not real fond of charged items either. Potions, okay, and maybe the occasional ring of three wishes for the sake of tradition, but a wand loaded up with 50 fireballs bugs me.

I think my real problem is the idea of a "spell" as a quasi-physical entity. I prefer to have a spell be a process the wizard performs, not a discrete object that the wizard can assemble and then hold onto until it's needed. You build a house; you don't prepare a house-building and then hammer a nail and have a house pop up when you find a place you want to live.

That I can understand. If you can't charge magic for a specific spell into an item, you can't use Vancian-style spellcasting. And if you can't use Vancian-style spellcasting, you shouldn't be able to charge a spell into an object. They are conceptually linked together for me.

It wouldn't bother me to get rid of that whole concept, but it would bother me to get rid of one and not the other.

Matthew
2007-08-17, 03:49 PM
Did you ever actually play a rogue in the old editions? They went splat if they ever even tried to use their abilities. Now granted, the second edition rogue could at least be specialized a bit to be able to do SOMETHING, but they were still a joke.

Their chances of success with their skills were so low in the level 1-8 range that there was simply no reason to play a rogue.

Try it, go back and play a 1st or second edition rogue and try to really fill the rogue slot and play by the rules, and watch how fast you die.

Maybe in 1e it was the case, but a 2e Thief should be pretty ace at two or three Abilities by Level 3 (about 70% Success Rate).

Belteshazzar
2007-08-17, 03:50 PM
I Wish:
Wizardry still use Vancian slots (while acknowledging the possibility of some very slow on the spot spellcasting)

Psionics replaces sorcery

Fighters get some tactical love beyond attack, grapple, trip, 5ft step, rise lather repeat.

Skillmonkeys get some refinement to prevent diplomacy wankery while still remaining useful.

Clerics and Druids finally remember that they are actually the same class and they fully incorporate the importance of domain (or its new equivalent) choice further.

Half-_____ becomes a template (except half giants they are actually an independent and race like halflings.)

Dausuul
2007-08-17, 04:06 PM
That I can understand. If you can't charge magic for a specific spell into an item, you can't use Vancian-style spellcasting. And if you can't use Vancian-style spellcasting, you shouldn't be able to charge a spell into an object. They are conceptually linked together for me.

It wouldn't bother me to get rid of that whole concept, but it would bother me to get rid of one and not the other.

Indeed, although there are cases when I regard "putting a spell into an item" as a convenient metagame shorthand for making an item that will duplicate the effects of the spell. For instance, I don't consider a potion of invisibility to actually have an invisibility spell floating in it; it's just that you can produce an invisibility effect either by performing a certain spell ritual or by drinking a certain mixture of mystical ingredients.

Of course, the logical consequence of that would be that somebody might know how to make the potion without knowing how to cast the spell. Which is okay by me, really.

Fhaolan
2007-08-17, 04:31 PM
Indeed, although there are cases when I regard "putting a spell into an item" as a convenient metagame shorthand for making an item that will duplicate the effects of the spell. For instance, I don't consider a potion of invisibility to actually have an invisibility spell floating in it; it's just that you can produce an invisibility effect either by performing a certain spell ritual or by drinking a certain mixture of mystical ingredients.

Of course, the logical consequence of that would be that somebody might know how to make the potion without knowing how to cast the spell. Which is okay by me, really.

Oh, absolutely. I was thinking more in terms of the wand of 50 fireballs mentioned previously, and scrolls as casting devices. Scrolls as a charged casting device that erases itself as you read it is pretty much a perfect analog for a Vancian spell-slot.

skywalker
2007-08-18, 01:14 AM
You mean, if you have a book and they don't, they don't get to play that class? Are you including the DMG in this? 'Cause that sounds more like a personal issue with your players than a game design issue. I'm not advocating that people get to play PrCs without the DM having access to it, because that's just stupid. Basically, I'm having a hard time figuring out a reasonable way to interpret what you're saying.

Advanced classes are a good way to increase character development without the strong hint that it should have a level of 'prestige' to it, you don't give much reason why you don't like them.

I'm saying that people whine and complain about the number of PRCs, power creep, etc. I think that a lot of that can be eliminated by saying "hey, to even dip one level in this PRC, you have to have a paper source." But the advanced classes from d20 modern all rub me as un-original.




Personal preference, so while I can't disagree, there's nothing for discussion without reasons why.


Well, d20 modern has very generic classes and very little flavor. I find that d20 modern games are a lot more difficult to enjoy than D&D. This is just personal experience.



I don't think the stat-based six classes is a good idea for D&D. I do like the talent trees as a concept (if not the execution) because they're specific to the classes and help to differentiate characters in the group, rather than having two characters of vastly different backgrounds and flavor having nearly the same abilities.

I don't see how having talent trees instead of feats or PrCs is going to increase someone's uniqueness.




The saga system works for people who would rather almost anyone be able to do things to some degree or another. Rogues would still get massive bonuses (+5) to a whole bunch of skills under that system, and if they keep the trapfinding ability or something like it, they'll still have a role no one else can really fill.

That said, if any change to the skill system ruins the game to the point of unplayability for you, oh well, that's kind of sad but you're obviously better off staying with the previous system.

+5 isn't that big of a bonus. At low levels, yes, but by mid-levels, it's rather small. It's non-scaling, when you have a +20 vs. a +25, is it really worth it to be trained in that skill then?

I'm just worried about the loss of the smart rogue(why be intelligent when it doesn't help your ranks?) and the overall pigeon-holing of rogues into sneak attackers that appears to be coming. This is also a wish-list, IE, what I would like in this game that makes it more fun for me to play. Following that, I say I'd like to see rogues stay more like they are currently, and change less than I forsee them changing. You see, I'm really excited about the rest of this new system, and I'm not obviously better off, this is just my wish.

I also plan on volunteering to playtest the damned thing through D&DInsider so I can have some say about this.

Starsinger
2007-08-18, 01:29 AM
I wish people would stop thinking of this as an upgrade to 3.5 and more as its own edition... and by that I mean people who say things like, "21-30 has to mean epic because it means epic in 3e!" or "Class X deserves Y" maybe Class X doesn't need Y because of what else was done to it.

Although, Vancian casting needs to go the way of the dodo.

Logic
2007-08-18, 02:04 AM
I wish people would stop thinking of this as an upgrade to 3.5 and more as its own edition... and by that I mean people who say things like, "21-30 has to mean epic because it means epic in 3e!" or "Class X deserves Y" maybe Class X doesn't need Y because of what else was done to it.

Although, Vancian casting needs to go the way of the dodo.


The classes, and Vancian spellcasting are what make D&D what it is. If anything, those are the only sacred cows of the system that need to stay.

Jarlax
2007-08-18, 03:20 AM
scrap the Bard.

in all seriousness after 3.5's expanded books the class just doesn't cut it with me anymore, mechanically its a solid jack of all trades but i would prefer to see it remodelled as a more "fearless leader" kind of role, inspiring courage and skill with his presence and leadership rather than songs and performances. like you would find in the Dread Pirate prestige or the auras from a dragon shaman.

keep the spells (but maybe tweak the spell list for the new class "theme"), keep the emphasis on social skills and knowledges in the skill list but remove the bardic song and bardic knowledge for a tree of abilities, one branch inspires courage and gives benefits to PCs the other branch for more evil PCs inspires terror and gives negative modifiers to monsters. Some of these play in combat, some during gather information and bluff or intimidate checks.

Now this reworked class doesn't have to waste an action playing a song to inspire courage in his friends or terror in his foes, he can use this ability as some kind of free action a number of times per day equal to his class level+charisma or once per combat for a number of rounds. Its not what he says or does, its his presence in the battle that achieves this though speaking is a free action so he might have a battle cry or catch phrase to throw in.

Matthew
2007-08-18, 03:53 AM
Gah! Starsinger, is that a 4e version of your Avatar?!

The Prince of Cats
2007-08-18, 05:46 AM
scrap the Bard.

in all seriousness after 3.5's expanded books the class just doesn't cut it with me anymore, mechanically its a solid jack of all trades but i would prefer to see it remodelled as a more "fearless leader" kind of role, inspiring courage and skill with his presence and leadership
Well, the example of play article on the WotC site suggested that one of them could do this as a special ability, so maybe that could work. I have seen (and played - see Arin) bards whose "bardic music" was slightly reworked as inspiring speeches.

If they don't do it, I can see it getting house-ruled in, if only by the LotRO players who saw the Captain class and said "that would make a great bard-variant", like I did.

Roog
2007-08-18, 05:53 AM
Half-_____ becomes a template

If that happens I want to play a Ling.

Roog
2007-08-18, 05:55 AM
+5 isn't that big of a bonus. At low levels, yes, but by mid-levels, it's rather small. It's non-scaling, when you have a +20 vs. a +25, is it really worth it to be trained in that skill then?

+25 vs +20 is as good as +5 vs +0 for a contested check.

Saph
2007-08-18, 06:13 AM
Anyway, I'm not actually asking to have Vancian casting removed from D&D 4E; I think it's lame, but it's too well established a tradition by this point. I was just explaining why I detest that particular system. What I want from 4E is to get some alternative magic systems, and to have those systems get as much love from WotC as Vancian magic does, so that those of us who don't like Vancian casting can play without it and not have to patch over great gaping holes in the game.

But don't we have that already, Dausuul?

With the 3.5 class system, we've got Vancian casters (cleric, druid, wizard), spontaneous spell-slot casters (sorcerer, favoured soul), spell point casters (psion, wilder, psionic warrior) completely do-it-whenever-you-feel-like casters (warlock) and goodness knows how many other weird variations (incarnum, shadowcasters, binders, truenamers, and others I've forgotten).

Okay, so obviously these types get less support relative to the Vancian casters, but given the metric tons of D&D material out there, that's still enough alternative magic to landfill a lunar crater.


That's why I'd impose expensive material components and/or XP costs, not to mention casting times measured in hours or even days, on the more powerful spells. Sure, you can cast them, but it's gonna cost you.

Ugh. This doesn't sound fun at all. It sounds like Advanced Heroquest, where for a wizard to fireball a bunch of Skaven, he had to burn off half the group's treasure. You could bankrupt yourself with simple attack spells.

Sure, magic has to have limits, but if you can't use your spells at whim at least to some degree, what's the point of being a spellcaster? No-one wants to be a character who has to sit around doing nothing 90% of the time because the costs of his class abilities are so high. That's the whole reason people like warlocks - it's the 'whenever I want' appeal.

As has been said; making spellcasters cool, without making other classes redundant, is HARD. Vancian casting is actually IMO a decent way of addressing this - it makes spellcasters devastating when prepared but vulnerable when not. I wouldn't like Vancian casting to go unless there's a very good replacement on offer.

- Saph

Matthew
2007-08-18, 06:27 AM
Huh? Did Magic cost Treasure in Advanced Heroquest? I don't recall and I don't have a copy these days. I have a copy of Warhammer Quest, I don't think it does in that game.

Dausuul
2007-08-18, 08:41 AM
But don't we have that already, Dausuul?

With the 3.5 class system, we've got Vancian casters (cleric, druid, wizard), spontaneous spell-slot casters (sorcerer, favoured soul), spell point casters (psion, wilder, psionic warrior) completely do-it-whenever-you-feel-like casters (warlock) and goodness knows how many other weird variations (incarnum, shadowcasters, binders, truenamers, and others I've forgotten).

Okay, so obviously these types get less support relative to the Vancian casters, but given the metric tons of D&D material out there, that's still enough alternative magic to landfill a lunar crater.

But all that alternative material is about to become obsolete, isn't it? We'll be back to 4E core, and it will be quite a while before 4E has reached the mass of splatbooks available now.


Ugh. This doesn't sound fun at all. It sounds like Advanced Heroquest, where for a wizard to fireball a bunch of Skaven, he had to burn off half the group's treasure. You could bankrupt yourself with simple attack spells.

If you read the rest of that post and the ones preceding it, you'll note that I argue for casters to have most of their spells be at-will, like a warlock. The XP and gold costs are simply a balancing factor for spells which would cause problems if you could cast them all day every day, or which are meant to be used only in dire need... much like the XP and gold costs imposed on some spells in 3.5E.

I experimented with something like this in an Iron Heroes game I ran. It was a caster class, the mystic, with a bunch of at-will "gifts" designed for use in combat (mostly buffing, debuffing, and battlefield control; for flavor reasons, I didn't want them to have a lot of direct damage).

These were supplemented by extremely powerful, feat-based "ritual magic." Ritual spells had casting times measured in minutes or hours, and they cost ritual tokens, which you only gained by going up in level; essentially, each level you got to cast a certain number of ritual spells and that was it. (Since one of the attractions of Iron Heroes is not having to worry about wealth by level, I didn't want to give them material component costs.)

The system worked out quite well, I found. In combat, mystics relied on their at-will powers, since ritual casting times were far too long to allow combat use. Out of combat, they used ritual spells when it was really necessary, but the strict limit on ritual tokens kept them from burning their uber-spells too freely.

Fhaolan
2007-08-18, 09:18 AM
I experimented with something like this in an Iron Heroes game I ran. It was a caster class, the mystic, with a bunch of at-will "gifts" designed for use in combat (mostly buffing, debuffing, and battlefield control; for flavor reasons, I didn't want them to have a lot of direct damage).

Fascinating. Have you posted this homebrew anywhere? I'm curious to see the mechanics in detail. :smallsmile:

mroozee
2007-08-18, 10:01 AM
I sincerely doubt we'll see it, but how about consistent wounding rules so that combatants don't fight precisely the same at 1 hp as they do at full hp? If you're down to the wire in terms of nearly getting beaten, having been bloodied, burned, and bludgeoned, you shouldn't be fighting just as well as when you were fresh and ready for combat.

Below 50% hp, a certain penalty, below 25%, more, and so forth.

Of course, that adds some additional measure of complexity to combats, which might not be their intent at this point.

For all but the weakest of combatants, this can be done by removing feats based on [degree of] injury. If your Barbarian loses Power Attack because he is now at 25% of his max HP, it makes a difference.

Alternatively, this could be a combat feat or class ability. Player: "I want to use Scars of Battle against the Ogre so that he can't Power Attack. I hit AC 26 for 16 points of damage." DM: "That's good enough. The Ogre is obviously hurt and not able to swing his club as freely."

Starsinger
2007-08-18, 10:38 AM
Gah! Starsinger, is that a 4e version of your Avatar?!

Have no fear, Flea the Magician wasn't scared off cuz of 4e... I just unanimated the avatar to comply with the new rules, and I cannot figure out how to get rid of that ugly black box... But no, that was just a place holder.

mroozee
2007-08-18, 10:53 AM
There is one rule that has ticked me off since D&D Basic:

FIX THE FALLING DAMAGE RULES! As it is now, at full health, my 15th level Fighter wouldn't think twice before jumping off of a 10,000 foot cliff (cap of 20d6 = an average of 70 points of damage). And that's not just to avoid a dragon... he'd do it to avoid the walking time. He couldn't commit suicide this way if he wanted to.

My recommended fix: Have ALL non-combat damage include CON (and possibly STR or DEX) damage. Falling damage set at (1d6 HP + 2 CON) per 10 feet up to 200 lets high-level types be heroic but not silly. It also looks more realistic for low-level types.

Between the dice and CON loss, my 15th level Fighter takes about 18.5 points of damage per 10 feet fallen. He can leap down from a 20' high city wall (37 total damage) to help turn the tide of battle, he might limp away from a 60' fall from a castle tower - though he'd be pretty mangled (111), but jumping from his Griffon at 100' is certain death (185).

By contrast, my 2nd level Fighter takes about 5.5 points of damage per 10 feet fallen. 11 points from the wall (ouch!) and 33 from the tower (dead!) - he doesn't have a Griffon (55 = splat!).

Ramza00
2007-08-18, 11:15 AM
In splatbook land for 4.0 they actually come out with more detailed gestalt rules, or a gestalt book.

Ramza00
2007-08-18, 12:10 PM
Cut monk, barbarian, bard, and paladin from core. Add them in one of the first splat books or make them into 4.0 version of prcs/kits/whatever. Focus the effort you would have spent in flavor and balance on these classes on other parts of core

Monster abilities should scale well. Also feats should scale not neccessary attack bonus for that is designed not to scale but damage related feats should scale.


Because you get this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0345.html) situation. :smalltongue:

So? It's a good way to measure wizards' power so they don't toss spells around all day.
Well a better way would be similar to where you can cast a main spell, but after you use all your main spells you can only cast "minor spells" similar to a reserve feat power level.

I know some other systems have similar ideas including one of the Star Wars rpgs.


i really wish they would just stop psionics and set them into a game of their own (i have no real problem with psi i just dont think they belong in dnd)

Blasphemy. I am in the camp who hopes psionics are in the 3.5 book, at least the psion and the psychic warrior. Also duskblade needs to be in the first supplement with barb and all that.


3. A 2nd ed sphere-like system for new spells. To gain anything from a new book, you have to lose a category of existing spells from your list. The set list w/ free casting works well, the dread necromancer and beguiler are very balanced. Further customizing the list at character creation (or perhaps a feat later on?) with DM permission would allow you to play any sort of caster without being Batman. Making it a per-encounter amount of spells rather than per day would be interesting, but I'm not sure I trust WotC not to break it again.
I agree

Make wizard spellcasting more like the spirit shaman using his book to change his spells. Druids and Clerics have something similar but instead it is praying and perhaps a mental mini-quest the DM throws at them occasionally.

Get rid of the sorcerer and instead have beguiler, dread necro, warmage etc. Specialist list spontaneous casters.

Spells should augment like psionics. Hold Monster and Hold person is the same spell, it is just prepped in a higher slot.


FIX THE FALLING DAMAGE RULES! As it is now, at full health, my 15th level Fighter wouldn't think twice before jumping off of a 10,000 foot cliff (cap of 20d6 = an average of 70 points of damage). And that's not just to avoid a dragon... he'd do it to avoid the walking time. He couldn't commit suicide this way if he wanted to.
I agree, but to be devil's advocate fix it too well and a spellcaster is going to play a nightcrawler. Ready an action to teleport next person A, grab/grapple them, and then teleport to 10,000 feet, let go, and teleport back to the ground.

That or use telekinesis to throw someone up reasonably high, let them go, they take falling damage, and are out of combat for 1 round giving you time to do something else that is nasty.

Deuterium
2007-08-18, 12:23 PM
I agree, but to be devil's advocate fix it too well and a spellcaster is going to play a nightcrawler. Ready an action to teleport next person A, grab/grapple them, and then teleport to 10,000 feet, let go, and teleport back to the ground.

That or use telekinesis to throw someone up reasonably high, let them go, they take falling damage, and are out of combat for 1 round giving you time to do something else that is nasty.

Surely you can see that there has got to be something wrong with a system where people don't do something this cool because it wouldn't do enough damage...

Ramza00
2007-08-18, 12:40 PM
Surely you can see that there has got to be something wrong with a system where people don't do something this cool because it wouldn't do enough damage...

No doing it for it is cool is the main reason you should do it.

Doing it for with the revised rules it does 200d6 damage or some arbitrary high number do to how we redo the rules is a very bad reason why you should do it.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I want the rules to make sense and be fun, not full of exploits people can munchkin and exploit just for the sake of exploiting.

Deuterium
2007-08-18, 12:44 PM
No doing it for it is cool is the main reason you should do it.

Doing it for with the revised rules it does 200d6 damage or some arbitrary high number do to how we redo the rules is a very bad reason why you should do it.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, I want the rules to make sense and be fun, not full of exploits people can munchkin and exploit just for the sake of exploiting.

Right, we are in agreement, then. :smallsmile:
I tend to have an idea of something I want to do and then try and work out how go do it in the game, I keep forgetting there are "players" who do it the other way around. (A good thing, I suppose.)

Pokemaster
2007-08-18, 01:50 PM
Hmmmm, can you explain it? :smallconfused:

It made sense in my mind at the time. I think it had something to do with the fact that spellcasters who multiclass tend to sacrifice more than other classes do and that although high-level wizards and sorcerers pretty much make the rest of the party obsolete, they're only capable of fighting one or two encounters per day at the lower levels.

Shinkoro
2007-08-18, 02:01 PM
Did you ever actually play a rogue in the old editions? They went splat if they ever even tried to use their abilities. Now granted, the second edition rogue could at least be specialized a bit to be able to do SOMETHING, but they were still a joke.

Their chances of success with their skills were so low in the level 1-8 range that there was simply no reason to play a rogue.

Try it, go back and play a 1st or second edition rogue and try to really fill the rogue slot and play by the rules, and watch how fast you die.


Actually I did and while a low level rogue in Second Edition had somewhat low skills, only a bard and a few other specialty classes got rogue abilities and theirs were much lower still. There was no proficiency like Able Learner that enabled a one level dip in rogue to basically be a rogue minus the backstab. Not to mention I miss the rogues ability to climb sheer surfaces. Also, in Second edition a wizard could not pull off the second class rogue bit they can now.

horseboy
2007-08-18, 02:20 PM
Here's a wish:

For the PHB to contain at least as much fluff as the average 40K Codex.

hewhosaysfish
2007-08-18, 02:47 PM
Here's a wish:

For the PHB to contain at least as much fluff as the average 40K Codex.

I'm not so sure about that one... As long as the fluff is kept out of the crunch. Sidebars and maybe seperate chapters. That way all the races and classes can slot into the niches your campaign setting gives to them without any headaches.

Zincorium
2007-08-18, 02:50 PM
Here's a wish:

For the PHB to contain at least as much fluff as the average 40K Codex.

I'd get on board with it if the fluff was well thought out and usable even for other campaign settings without difficulty.

I don't really like greyhawk, and didn't like how it was the assumed norm for all of the non-campaign specific stuff in 3.5. I'd rather have generic stuff than "This Prc is pretty nifty, but we've decided to make it useless by RAW in any non-greyhawk setting. Thanks for the 30 bucks, now go homebrew something."

Attilargh
2007-08-18, 03:14 PM
Here's a wish:

For the PHB to contain at least as much fluff as the average 40K Codex.
It already does. Races and deities, see. :smalltongue:

Matthew
2007-08-18, 03:49 PM
I'm gonna miss Greyhawk as the Default Setting. I always thought that was kind of neat. I don't play lengthy campaigns with 3e, so most Adventures do take place in Greyhawk. On the other hand, it may simply mean that they are keeping their options open for developing it as a Setting.

horseboy
2007-08-18, 04:28 PM
It already does. Races and deities, see. :smalltongue:

That's one of the things that frosts me about D&D. A Miniatures Strategy Combat Game will give you more back story than a Role Playing Game. 1/4 of a new codex is dedicated to giving you an idea what's going on, why they're fighting the way they do. What's happened and happening to them now to shape them. It's a level of depth that D&D has never had. I find that really sad. :smallfrown:

Attilargh
2007-08-18, 04:55 PM
Well, the codexes are more like a dedicated splatbook than the core rulebook. Races of Whatever, for example, are much more akin to Codexes than the PHB. After all, D&D is meant as a ruleset for any number of settings, instead of just one. It's easy for Black Industries to slap a big gazetteer into Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, but Wizards doesn't quite have that luxury.

However, you have a point. While the PHB doesn't lend itself well to setting-specific information, I'm sure there is something more that could be written into the book to make it something beyond just a rulebook. Another game I personally like very much, World of Darkness, has these short story snippets preceding each chapter, and they often give a pretty good idea of what that game is about.

Starsinger
2007-08-18, 07:30 PM
Here's a wish:

For the PHB to contain at least as much fluff as the average 40K Codex.

No, it's bad enough people take the 3.5 fluff as some sort of sacred truth that cannot be changed. I'm tired of Sorcerer = Dragon! Why can't my sorcerer just be someone with an innate grasp for magic, why sully him with draconic heritage that I don't want? Why can't my warlock be a fey who blasts people with fairy magic instead of a demon-worshipper who uses evil power? Why can't my paladin be a samurai? Why can't my fighter/cleric be a paladin? Why can't my fireball look like a show of red rose petals that burst into flames when they touch someone in a 20ft. burst?

Yes, having a PHB devoid of fluff is bad... ish. But unless there is a disclaimer that "Fluff can be changed" I don't want "as much fluff as the average 40k Codex". No thank you.

horseboy
2007-08-18, 09:45 PM
No, it's bad enough people take the 3.5 fluff as some sort of sacred truth that cannot be changed. I'm tired of Sorcerer = Dragon! Why can't my sorcerer just be someone with an innate grasp for magic, why sully him with draconic heritage that I don't want? Why can't my warlock be a fey who blasts people with fairy magic instead of a demon-worshipper who uses evil power? Why can't my paladin be a samurai? Why can't my fighter/cleric be a paladin? Why can't my fireball look like a show of red rose petals that burst into flames when they touch someone in a 20ft. burst?

Yes, having a PHB devoid of fluff is bad... ish. But unless there is a disclaimer that "Fluff can be changed" I don't want "as much fluff as the average 40k Codex". No thank you.

But if the developers themselves are seen as not being able to be bothered with roleplaying, why would the players?

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-08-18, 09:52 PM
No, it's bad enough people take the 3.5 fluff as some sort of sacred truth that cannot be changed. I'm tired of Sorcerer = Dragon! Why can't my sorcerer just be someone with an innate grasp for magic, why sully him with draconic heritage that I don't want? Why can't my warlock be a fey who blasts people with fairy magic instead of a demon-worshipper who uses evil power? Why can't my paladin be a samurai? Why can't my fighter/cleric be a paladin? Why can't my fireball look like a show of red rose petals that burst into flames when they touch someone in a 20ft. burst?

Yes, having a PHB devoid of fluff is bad... ish. But unless there is a disclaimer that "Fluff can be changed" I don't want "as much fluff as the average 40k Codex". No thank you.

I agree 100% Starsinger. I want the rules as adaptable as possible!

Starsinger
2007-08-18, 09:55 PM
But if the developers themselves are seen as not being able to be bothered with roleplaying, why would the players?

Then there had best be the disclaimer, because I absolutely hate "Your sorcerer has to draw its power from dragons cuz the greyhawk fluff says so." Idiots who don't let me reasonably reflavor are one of my biggest pet peeves.

Matthew
2007-08-18, 10:26 PM
No, it's bad enough people take the 3.5 fluff as some sort of sacred truth that cannot be changed. I'm tired of Sorcerer = Dragon! Why can't my sorcerer just be someone with an innate grasp for magic, why sully him with draconic heritage that I don't want? Why can't my warlock be a fey who blasts people with fairy magic instead of a demon-worshipper who uses evil power? Why can't my paladin be a samurai? Why can't my fighter/cleric be a paladin? Why can't my fireball look like a show of red rose petals that burst into flames when they touch someone in a 20ft. burst?

Yes, having a PHB devoid of fluff is bad... ish. But unless there is a disclaimer that "Fluff can be changed" I don't want "as much fluff as the average 40k Codex". No thank you.

Heh, bit of a double edged sword this. The way I see it, there should be plenty of fluff around mechanics, but with the disclaimer that both fluff and mechanics can be changed. As far as I am concerned, that's what Rule 0 covers. The kinds of people who won't let you alter the fluff are likely the same sort who won't let you alter the mechanics. (Aw, Man, but why can't my Fighter have Profession (Sailor) as a Class Skill?)

Machete
2007-08-18, 10:54 PM
Also, a standard for building children characters. I think it would help draw in a whole new crowd.

Indon
2007-08-19, 01:13 AM
Another item I just thought of:

-A published (online or otherwise, but preferably free online) guide on how to, in general terms, convert 3.0-3.5 to the new system.

horseboy
2007-08-19, 01:33 AM
Another item I just thought of:

-A published (online or otherwise, but preferably free online) guide on how to, in general terms, convert 3.0-3.5 to the new system.

Oh, the "Living" series should have a 3.5 to 4 conversion. Too many "important" PC's running around to suddenly disappear.

Jarlax
2007-08-19, 02:26 AM
Yes, having a PHB devoid of fluff is bad... ish. But unless there is a disclaimer that "Fluff can be changed" I don't want "as much fluff as the average 40k Codex". No thank you.

there are elements of a 40k codex i would love to see in the D&D core 3 books, sidebar short stories. perhaps one for each class across the whole PHB. a story that takes up the size of the sidebars you find in 3.5 rulebooks, that contains a brief tale starring the example PC for that class.

the often comical shorts in the ork Codex and the tough battle tales in the space marine codex always helped me understand that feel that race had to it a little better, i think it would work well for each class.

but yeah, the more class fluff in the core books the more restrictive that class beings to feel, i have always felt bad for the bard class, which really does make a good 5th PC but because of its fluff it is rarely respected and in my gaming group is outright mocked.

Zincorium
2007-08-19, 02:34 AM
there are elements of a 40k codex i would love to see in the D&D core 3 books, sidebar short stories. perhaps one for each class across the whole PHB. a story that takes up the size of the sidebars you find in 3.5 rulebooks, that contains a brief tale starring the example PC for that class.


Actually, what you're looking for was done pretty darn well in both the Eberron setting and the tome of battle, and it seems obvious that it's something they're putting in more books. The trend looks likely to continue after the transition, but obviously we'll just have to wait and see if it does.

Fhaolan
2007-08-19, 02:36 AM
Oh, the "Living" series should have a 3.5 to 4 conversion. Too many "important" PC's running around to suddenly disappear.

Actually, RPGA just made an announcement. I found a copy of it on one of RPGA's regional websites http://verbobonc.net/Home/p2_articleid/99

They're shutting down the Living campaigns, both Greyhawk and Kalmar. They're going to do a couple of massive armageddon-type adventures, and end it all. Then, they're starting up Living Forgotten Realms under 4th edition rules.

Everyone starts fresh. No conversions.

The Mormegil
2007-08-19, 10:12 AM
Kill gamebreaking. Of course, that isn't possible, but you didn't state POSSIBLE wishes right?

Now:
Spellcasting classes are too powerful. Spells must be reviewed. Period.

Shapechanging abilities must be nerfed.

I don't agree with the round mechanics thing: it IS potentially gamebreaking but killing it all isn't just right... I mean, what I propose is: kill Contingency, Celerity, reduce Time Stop to something like a swift action cast Greater Celerity (keep stunning), transform Quickened Spell into a +6 spell level feat(or more if no more 0-9 spell levels), but don't burn it all.

I want more class balance.


And, last personal wish: CHANGE THOSE SPELL SCHOOLS!
They just aren't clear.

Pokemaster
2007-08-19, 10:32 AM
I think a fair compromise for wizards and sorcerers would be to let them keep most of their buff spells and change damage spells so they're sub-par compared fighters, but spread out over multiple targets, so a wizard would have to send each magic missile at a different target, or launch 2d6 fireballs that do damage to anything within a radius of 1 square per two caster levels, or something similar. They would do less damage than fighters but hit a larger number of targets instead of dealing a lot more damage than fighters and hitting a larger number of targets.

mroozee
2007-08-19, 10:45 AM
I agree, but to be devil's advocate fix it too well and a spellcaster is going to play a nightcrawler. Ready an action to teleport next person A, grab/grapple them, and then teleport to 10,000 feet, let go, and teleport back to the ground.

That or use telekinesis to throw someone up reasonably high, let them go, they take falling damage, and are out of combat for 1 round giving you time to do something else that is nasty.

Teleport can be mitigated in several ways and probably needs a rework independent of falling damage rules:
1. Teleport / Dimension Door only affects willing creatures (current rule).
2. Increase the casting time and/or level for Teleport (a fix we put into our game because our party had become "unkillable without DM silliness").
3. Force a mage to successfully grapple (avoiding the AoO), and then ungrapple (otherwise the opponent teleports back with him) to use this trick.
4. Rule that teleportation spells do not change your momentum. Normally, this is a non-issue and simply assumed. Since you cast only once per round, after you Teleport, you fall for six seconds before your next Teleport. Ignoring air resistance, that's about 575 feet and you will be splatted if other measures are not taken.

Telekinesis (Violent Thrust) is another matter. The targeted creature gets a Will save but if he fails, he can be thrown up to 10 feet per level of the caster. A 9th level caster has a killer spell (9d6 HP + 18 CON damage). Unless they can counter the effect, most non-Fighters die from the CON damage. Most other die anyways. The Violent Thrust variant would need to be re-worked (change level and effect).

Matthew
2007-08-19, 07:09 PM
Actually, RPGA just made an announcement. I found a copy of it on one of RPGA's regional websites http://verbobonc.net/Home/p2_articleid/99

They're shutting down the Living campaigns, both Greyhawk and Kalmar. They're going to do a couple of massive armageddon-type adventures, and end it all. Then, they're starting up Living Forgotten Realms under 4th edition rules.

Everyone starts fresh. No conversions.

Yeah, that's pretty worrying. Looks like there will be no initial 4e support for Greyhawk at all, which is also potentially interesting. What will they do with the brand?

Starsinger
2007-08-19, 09:58 PM
Yeah, that's pretty worrying. Looks like there will be no initial 4e support for Greyhawk at all, which is also potentially interesting. What will they do with the brand?

Does this mean Mialee's not going to exist any more? (Please please please please please say yes!) :smallamused:

EvilElitest
2007-08-19, 10:47 PM
More Skill Points and Opportunities to get Feats for characters
Make the Paladin a PrC (or 4E equivilent)
Beef up Melee Types

That's it, pretty much. :smallsmile: Oh sure, There is always my eternal hope that they nuke Vancian Magic and Alignments. As well as making the game closer to a "classless" (i.e fully customizible characters) game. But those are never going to happen, so I won't include them in my Wish List. :smallbiggrin:

I think those traits are what differentanate D&D from something like GURPS. Its just one of the traditional rules. If you got rid of it, then it wouldn't be D&D anymore.

Now i havn't read this whole thread, so this is my wish list, sorry if I overlap

To keep (but change)

1. Keep all the current classes and the general fluff text.
2. Keep Prestige classes, feats, skills, and that jazz
3. Keep the races generally the same
4. Keep the format the same to an extent. So while hte spell system will be different, it will still operate under a vatician basis. Or the format for races.
5. Most of the fluff
6. The magic differences.
7. Make sure their is a clearly difined difference between TOB fighters and normal fighters, or Barbarions and Fighters ect. Don't let the classes overlap to much or they will become obsolete
8. Make Ebberon Aligments or Gods optional but not main stream. I don't like Ebberon for those reasons, I prefer FG. Some pleople like Ebberon, but make its own world.
To change
1. Take out dead levels
2. Makes monks, Warlocks, Warmages ect playabel
3. Make Fighters worth it
4. Make wizards and clerics weaker
5. Fix Artificter majorly, maybe make magic items a bigger deal to make
6. Balence Half elves and half orcs
7. Keep a massive catogory of all the different classes, feats,spells, races, and skills and make sure they don't overlap or make each other or make eachother obsolete
8. Also, make your fluff more clear. Clearly difine always evil, the aligment system. For example, the aligment section of the Book of Exalted Deeds should be in the player's hand book, or something equally clear. Devolp the races more, as well what is considered cannon and what is not.
9. Please, please, please, really considered weather or not a book is nessary before you publish, and do what the ToB people did, make sure it doesn't ruin the system

What i'd like
1. More Champains in other cultures, Native American, Indian, Turkish, Chinese, Real Japanase (Japan as show by Shogun, not as shown by Anime), The Pacific Islands, Mexico, Or are more detail view of Europe. Really work on the culture thing
2. A good Fluff Text mix
3. Feats that make sense
from,
EE

Spiryt
2007-08-20, 11:59 AM
I don't know, maybe it was mentioned, but I will post anyway.

Make mental abilities usable to anyone.

I can see no reason why fighter who decided to put his 16 into Int shouldn't benefit in combat from his intellect, ability to think quickly, and general better mental capability. In 3rd edition fighter could as well had 3 intelligence from what I heard...
Still I'm not saying that it should be better than classic "strong, quick and though guy", genius definetly can be sometimes even hindrance in fight, while physical power is really needed.

But still there should be some nice ways to play smart fighters ranger or barbarian
All abilities should have use to all classes. Skill points aren't sufficent, I think, since the best thing fighter can do with his "plenty" class skills is... put ranks into cross class tumble, for some chance to avoid AoO.

Of course, opposite situation would also be nice. You know, some reason for mage to have high strenght. Don't you think? (In 2nd you for ex.had to be really enduring to be Conjurer)

Person_Man
2007-08-20, 01:53 PM
I don't know, maybe it was mentioned, but I will post anyway.

Make mental abilities usable to anyone.

I'm sorta torn on this one. I agree that each of the 6 abilities should be roughly equal to each other in usefulness. But if you take it too far, and a Fighter needs respectable Int/Wis/Cha, then he's going to have serious MAD (similar to a 3.5 Monk or Paladin). Whereas a Wizard will always be able to put Str and Dex at 10, because he doesn't rely on anything physical.

Indon
2007-08-20, 02:03 PM
I'm sorta torn on this one. I agree that each of the 6 abilities should be roughly equal to each other in usefulness. But if you take it too far, and a Fighter needs respectable Int/Wis/Cha, then he's going to have serious MAD (similar to a 3.5 Monk or Paladin). Whereas a Wizard will always be able to put Str and Dex at 10, because he doesn't rely on anything physical.

Well, if mental abilities are usable for everyone, then I imagine there'd be just as much a reason for a Wizard to have high strength and dex... which, though, seem to me as they'd lead to rather absurd possibilities.

Wizard: "Time to cast a Fireball!"
Still Wizard: "YAAAAAAAAAAAAA!"
Fighter: "Dude, what are you doing?"
Wizard: "Powering up!"

Spiryt
2007-08-20, 02:04 PM
I'm sorta torn on this one. I agree that each of the 6 abilities should be roughly equal to each other in usefulness. But if you take it too far, and a Fighter needs respectable Int/Wis/Cha, then he's going to have serious MAD (similar to a 3.5 Monk or Paladin). Whereas a Wizard will always be able to put Str and Dex at 10, because he doesn't rely on anything physical.

I'm not saying that mental stat's should be so important to fighter. I rather meant - he takes high Int, and he's suffering beacuse of not so high Con for example, but in return he has some other fine abilities, beacuse he's a smart guy.

And like I said in return Mages could somehow rely on physical. Most basic example would be : having low Dex when you are not wearing protective suit known as armor is realy bad idea. Of course it would need better balancing, beacuse now wizards don't need even mediocre AC, when they have Fly, Wind wall or Polymorph on quite low levels.

Number 6
2007-08-20, 02:21 PM
I agree with Cor. Let us make our own characters, the way that Fantasy hero, GURPS, and Runequest does. Don't force us into a mold.

Get Rid of Rolling for Hit Points! It sucks when a barbarian rolls a 2 and gets less hit points than the party's rogue. It's stupid. Have set hit points.

Most of all, Don't Make it a WOW Clone!

Indon
2007-08-20, 02:24 PM
Oh, I've got another:

-The DMG should have a chapter on how to adjudicate on the fly: Making up rules for where there are none.

Spiryt
2007-08-20, 02:26 PM
Oh, I've got another:

-The DMG should have a chapter on how to adjudicate on the fly: Making up rules for where there are none.

Well, I can do it instinctively, with rule or for example ecounter. However it doesn't always end good :smallbiggrin:

ArmorArmadillo
2007-08-20, 02:39 PM
I agree with Cor. Let us make our own characters, the way that Fantasy hero, GURPS, and Runequest does. Don't force us into a mold.

Get Rid of Rolling for Hit Points! It sucks when a barbarian rolls a 2 and gets less hit points than the party's rogue. It's stupid. Have set hit points.

Most of all, Don't Make it a WOW Clone!What would be the point in making GURPS II? THe appeal of D&D for me is that I have molds available, and I don't have to pour over encyclopedias of rules to do anything.


Why do I need 4e to tell me to just automatically half HP rolls...it's a simple variant and I can already do that...


4e is not going to be about officially telling you to use a 3.x variant rule; it's an entirely new ruleset.

Indon
2007-08-20, 02:40 PM
4e is not going to be about officially telling you to use a 3.x variant rule; it's an entirely new ruleset.

Official variant rules are already on my list anyway. :P

Rumpus
2007-08-20, 04:10 PM
As for my own thoughts, I for one thing a level 20 fighter (or any class, for that matter) ought to know SOMETHING about defending himself in combat, besides fighting defensively and the few defensive feats. AC should have _some_ base bonus that scales with level to counter-balance base attack (at least the wizard-like base attack). Use items to counter items, and training to counter training.
Improved defensive abilities are represented by higher hit points. A broadsword blow to the neck or an arrow through the heart is going to be fatal no matter how badass (ie high level) a warrior your character is. However, that 12 hp blow that takes off a newbie's head is a minor inconvenience to a high level warrior, not because he has an iron neck, but because he blocks it, rolls with it, or gets out of the way. Magical HP represent increased toughness, but it makes more sense for level-up HP to be a representation of increased defensive abilities in combat.

Matthew
2007-08-21, 05:45 AM
Very true, Rumpus.

So, I am really liking the idea of dumping the usual 3e stats for weapons and instead building a number of Traits/Feats/Manouevres/Abilities around them, but I am not on board with linking particular Weapons to particular Attributes. I think that I am going to hate that aspect.

nagora
2007-08-21, 06:57 AM
Very true, Rumpus.

So, I am really liking the idea of dumping the usual 3e stats for weapons and instead building a number of Traits/Feats/Manouevres/Abilities around them, but I am not on board with linking particular Weapons to particular Attributes. I think that I am going to hate that aspect.

It's going to be a balance nightmare, which equals min/maxer dream.

Matthew
2007-08-21, 07:53 AM
It's going to be a balance nightmare, which equals min/maxer dream.

Maybe, maybe not. I suspect you will be proven right in this context, but I think the idea is itself workable.

Person_Man
2007-08-21, 08:29 AM
Very true, Rumpus.

So, I am really liking the idea of dumping the usual 3e stats for weapons and instead building a number of Traits/Feats/Manouevres/Abilities around them, but I am not on board with linking particular Weapons to particular Attributes. I think that I am going to hate that aspect.

Do we know how this is going to work? For example, will my Fighter add Wis to damage instead of Str when using a Whip? Or will it be like ToB, where each weapon is linked to a particular Skill, the Skill is modified by an attribute, and Fighters have maneuvers?

Matthew
2007-08-21, 09:17 AM
No, we don't know how precisely it's going to work, just tid bits here and there. They might even keep the 'Critical Rules', but I doubt it.

All we have are hints that Constitution is linked to Hammer somehow and that a Rogue can use Charisma to distract a foe during combat (presumably elaborating on Bluff/Feint)

Sir Enigma
2007-08-21, 09:30 AM
One for my wish list that I haven't seen yet:

Get rid of Prestige Classes.

If I want to have a character who specializes in a certain way, I don't want to start it at level 7; I'd much prefer something that starts right away and grows with the character. I much preferred the 2nd edition Kit system, and depending on how it's implemented, a Talent-tree system could work just as well or even better (that way, if the character changes his focus, you start taking talents elsewhere on the tree).

Rather than publishing new prestige classes all the time, supplements could contain new talent trees for the existing classes (possibly usable by more than one class, such as an acrobatic-fighting tree usable by both fighters and rogues); this would also mean less six-class multiclassing just to get the concept you want. I'm not sure if this would also eliminate the need for new base classes; I suspect not, as I think that something like the Duskblade couldn't really be done just by a talent tree.

Matthew
2007-08-21, 10:55 AM
One of the things I really want to see in 4e is an end to Multi Classing. I know it will never happen, but I really wish it would. I don't mind Warriors learning Spells, but it bothers me when they become Wizards. I would rather see customisation of a Class, rather than mixing of Classes.

nagora
2007-08-21, 11:17 AM
Maybe, maybe not. I suspect you will be proven right in this context, but I think the idea is itself workable.

Putting aside my doubts about the designers' abilities or lack thereof, I still think it's a foolish thing to even try. They are dramatically increasing the number of variables that have to be tested and accounted for to keep things balanced. They can't help but fail.

It's the single-xp table fiasco all over again: instead of having one central variable to tune balance, they now have to look at every single facet of the class and decide which to boost, which to hold back. They've made a rod for their own backs, and the players' too.

Matthew
2007-08-21, 11:38 AM
Putting aside my doubts about the designers' abilities or lack thereof, I still think it's a foolish thing to even try. They are dramatically increasing the number of variables that have to be tested and accounted for to keep things balanced. They can't help but fail.

It's the single-xp table fiasco all over again: instead of having one central variable to tune balance, they now have to look at every single facet of the class and decide which to boost, which to hold back. They've made a rod for their own backs, and the players' too.

Honestly, I think it depends on the implementation. I see nothing potentially unbalancing about allowing different weapons to be used for different Maneouvres. However, it all depends on the scale of those Maneouvres. I think they should be dissassociated from Feats and Talent Trees, though, but that doesn't appear to be what they are going to do.

Sir Enigma
2007-08-21, 12:42 PM
One of the things I really want to see in 4e is an end to Multi Classing. I know it will never happen, but I really wish it would. I don't mind Warriors learning Spells, but it bothers me when they become Wizards. I would rather see customisation of a Class, rather than mixing of Classes.

I like the idea of multiclassing, but I dislike the 3rd edition implementation, particularly the idea of one- or two-level dips. I used to like the 2nd edition version, running two classes in parallel, but it had its problems too, and I doubt it will return. Unfortunately, I can't think of a better alternative offhand - customization of existing classes I doubt will work except by making the whole system point-buy and classless, which I don't advocate; this may just be the price we pay for using a class-based system

hewhosaysfish
2007-08-21, 12:42 PM
I don't mind Warriors learning Spells, but it bothers me when they become Wizards.

*boggles at the concept*
To my way of thinking, "person who learns to cast spells" = "Wizard", so basically in my head your statement becomes:

"I don't mind Warriors learning Spells but it bothers me when they become people who learn spells."

Matthew
2007-08-21, 12:56 PM
I like the idea of multiclassing, but I dislike the 3rd edition implementation, particularly the idea of one- or two-level dips. I used to like the 2nd edition version, running two classes in parallel, but it had its problems too, and I doubt it will return. Unfortunately, I can't think of a better alternative offhand - customization of existing classes I doubt will work except by making the whole system point-buy and classless, which I don't advocate; this may just be the price we pay for using a class-based system

I think it is a matter of how you want your Character to develop. if you want him to radically change at some point in his career or develop gradually along the same general lines. That's why I love Dusk Blades and Beguilers (even though I find the names goofy). They are basically the old Fighter/Mage and Mage/Thief Multi Classes.


*boggles at the concept*
To my way of thinking, "person who learns to cast spells" = "Wizard", so basically in my head your statement becomes:

"I don't mind Warriors learning Spells but it bothers me when they become people who learn spells."

I don't think so. I'm thinking of scenes like at Moria, where not only Gandalf is coming up with words of opening, but also Gimli, Legolas and Aragorn (if I remember rightly). It's pretty much the same as acquiring a Magic Helmet of Invisibility, but acquiring "words of power". Being a dabbler in magic is not the same thing as being a Wizard.

Pokemaster
2007-08-21, 01:09 PM
I think it is a matter of how you want your Character to develop. if you want him to radically change at some point in his career or develop gradually along the same general lines. That's why I love Dusk Blades and Beguilers (even though I find the names goofy). They are basically the old Fighter/Mage and Mage/Thief Multi Classes.

I really, really hate those classes, and they're the main reason why I hope the 4th Edition makes it a lot easier to multiclass. If I could make a Fighter/Mage or Thief/Mage multiclassed character who could keep up with the rest of the party's abilities, I wouldn't need to go through dozens (if not hundreds) of classes and prestige classes in order to find an appropriate one.

Matthew
2007-08-21, 01:14 PM
I really, really hate those classes, and they're the main reason why I hope the 4th Edition makes it a lot easier to multiclass. If I could make a Fighter/Mage or Thief/Mage multiclassed character who could keep up with the rest of the party's abilities, I wouldn't need to go through dozens (if not hundreds) of classes and prestige classes in order to find an appropriate one.
I'm not really following you. Why do you hate Dusk Blades and Beguilers?

Skjaldbakka
2007-08-21, 01:19 PM
I implemented a dual-classing system in my last big game. It was effectively gestalt, with no multiclassing allowed, and you gained 1/2 normal xp (effectively splitting your XP between the two classes). These 'dual-classed' characters were about even with the rest of the party (you wind up at 3/4 average party level most of the time.)