PDA

View Full Version : 4e: While we're cleaning house...



Rex Blunder
2007-09-28, 09:59 AM
Alignment and vancian casting are being scaled back, and the cosmology from the back of the 1e Player's Handbook got the axe. Is there any other cruft in the D&D ruleset that you'd like to see go?

My personal list of 10 D&D features I could let go (although sometimes with regret) follows:

1) Weapon proficiencies: I don't think it's really necessary to deny wizards the ability to use the sword if they want to. If you don't have a full BAB, the weapon you use is not super important (except possibly for tripping weapons), and a wizard should not be spending his time attacking. Why make a fiddly rule against suboptimal choices?

2) Half-races: Just have orcs and elves in the PHB. The fact that the races can breed implies that they are a single species. How do you stat someone whose mother was 3/4 orc and has a little elven blood from his paternal grandma's side? Why no half-halflings?

3) class skills: apart from restricting access to PrCs, why should my fighter not spend his free time playing the flute rather than jumping? Again, why make a fiddly rule against suboptimal choices or character flavor?

4) All armor types except leather, chain, and plate. Sure, weapons experts may be able to tell you the historical context of, and difference between, ring, chain, and scale mail, or banded and plate, but we could also just assume that the broad term "plate" includes banded, scale, full, field, etc. Everyone always takes the best one in their weight class anyway.

5) Also, why do "chain shirt" and "breastplate" get to be types of armor? "Leather jacket" isn't a type of armor. Nor is "naked except for boots and a helm". Or "midriff-high pants made entirely of belt buckles". Or "no shirt, but left arm of a suit of plate mail", though god knows there's enough illustrations of that one. Either come up with rules for mix-and-match armor pieces (easier with only 3 armor types), or make people wear the full suit of armor.

6) Vargouille. That, along with pretty much everything from the 1e fiend folio, should be retired to flumphland.

7) I love Gygax - heck, I have his novels - but the following gygaxian thesaurus words can go: dweomer, glamer, bracers, weal.

8) Why do rangers get 2wf again? Drizz't? Weathertop? That guy from Willow?

9) platinum pieces. It's such a weird and ahistorical metal to be the king of currency. Maybe drop it and increase the value of gold by 10?

10) Spiked chain.

THINGS THAT ARE GOOFY BUT I CAN'T BEAR TO GIVE UP:

a) Class-based system. Or it's not D&D!
b) Magic item names in the format "X of Y-ing"
c) That one PrC where you have to kill a hippo to get in.

What's on your "time to retire" list?

brian c
2007-09-28, 10:11 AM
c) That one PrC where you have to kill a hippo to get in.

Prediction: In 4th Edition, hippo-cide will be a prerequisite for all Prestige Classes.

TK-Squared
2007-09-28, 10:18 AM
c) That one PrC where you have to kill a hippo to get in.


I must know what this PrC is. Tell me it and where to find it!

Fenix_of_Doom
2007-09-28, 10:19 AM
7) I love Gygax - heck, I have his novels - but the following gygaxian thesaurus words can go: dweomer, glamer, bracers, weal.

emphasis mine.
what's wrong with bracers? Also did Gygax really created that word? I find it hard to imagine because I here it a lot.

Solo
2007-09-28, 10:20 AM
c) That one PrC where you have to kill a hippo to get in.



Stop, you had me at hippo.

Yakk
2007-09-28, 10:21 AM
1) Weapon proficiencies: I don't think it's really necessary to deny wizards the ability to use the sword if they want to. If you don't have a full BAB, the weapon you use is not super important (except possibly for tripping weapons), and a wizard should not be spending his time attacking. Why make a fiddly rule against suboptimal choices?

Swords are better weapons than Daggers.

Being able to use Swords well is a perk of the Fighter (and other martial) classes. Same with Longbows, Great Axes and Shields.

Note that Wizards can use swords -- it is just worse for a Wizard to use a sword than a Dagger.


3) class skills: apart from restricting access to PrCs, why should my fighter not spend his free time playing the flute rather than jumping? Again, why make a fiddly rule against suboptimal choices or character flavor?

Your fighter can spend his spare time playing the flute. But he won't be as good as the Bard, whose life is spent on making music, because the fighter's life is spent knowing how to fight.

The Bard's ability to gain a full skill point and higher cap is a perk of the Bard class, not a disadvantage of the Fighter.

Compare the Fighter to the Commoner, as an example -- the 10th level Fighter can be just as good as flute player as a 10th level Commoner.


4) All armor types except leather, chain, and plate. Sure, weapons experts may be able to tell you the historical context of, and difference between, ring, chain, and scale mail, or banded and plate, but we could also just assume that the broad term "plate" includes banded, scale, full, field, etc. Everyone always takes the best one in their weight class anyway.

Yes -- if you are going to have upteen billion types of armor, at least make it so that there isn't an obvious "best choice" like they did in 3.0.


5) Also, why do "chain shirt" and "breastplate" get to be types of armor? "Leather jacket" isn't a type of armor. Nor is "naked except for boots and a helm". Or "midriff-high pants made entirely of belt buckles". Or "no shirt, but left arm of a suit of plate mail", though god knows there's enough illustrations of that one. Either come up with rules for mix-and-match armor pieces (easier with only 3 armor types), or make people wear the full suit of armor.

In some games, "Leather Jacket" is a type of armor. :)

Note that wearing heavier armor around the "vitals" is a pretty standard way of effectively protecting yourself from serious damage in a fight, while leaving your limbs free to move.


8) Why do rangers get 2wf again? Drizz't? Weathertop? That guy from Willow?

Drizz't mostly. :) Rangers have became a "light offensive fighter" over time.

kamikasei
2007-09-28, 10:27 AM
5) Also, why do "chain shirt" and "breastplate" get to be types of armor? "Leather jacket" isn't a type of armor. Nor is "naked except for boots and a helm". Or "midriff-high pants made entirely of belt buckles". Or "no shirt, but left arm of a suit of plate mail", though god knows there's enough illustrations of that one. Either come up with rules for mix-and-match armor pieces (easier with only 3 armor types), or make people wear the full suit of armor.

I have to agree with Yakk that chain shirts and breastplates are entirely reasonable.


7) I love Gygax - heck, I have his novels - but the following gygaxian thesaurus words can go: dweomer, glamer, bracers, weal.

What've you got against braces? Or glamers for that matter (something has to distinguish different sorts of illusion, surely)? Dweomers I've heard of in but a handful of places within the game, and I've never encountered "weal" in a D&D context. All are perfectly legitimate words.

Tallis
2007-09-28, 10:29 AM
emphasis mine.
what's wrong with bracers? Also did Gygax really created that word? I find it hard to imagine because I here it a lot.

Gygax didn't create any of those words, he just used them a lot.

Dausuul
2007-09-28, 10:36 AM
1) Weapon proficiencies: I don't think it's really necessary to deny wizards the ability to use the sword if they want to. If you don't have a full BAB, the weapon you use is not super important (except possibly for tripping weapons), and a wizard should not be spending his time attacking. Why make a fiddly rule against suboptimal choices?

Hmm. Yeah, I'll agree with this one, as long as there remains a way to specialize in a given weapon if you want to. Weapon proficiency rules add complexity (not a lot, but it's one more thing to keep track of in character creation) and don't provide enough gameplay benefit to justify having them.


2) Half-races: Just have orcs and elves in the PHB. The fact that the races can breed implies that they are a single species. How do you stat someone whose mother was 3/4 orc and has a little elven blood from his paternal grandma's side? Why no half-halflings?

Hmm. I'm torn on this one. The story of an elf's love for a mortal (and resulting children) is one with a lot of resonance in fantasy and myth; on the other hand, I agree with your point about the inanity of statting out completely distinct hybrid races. Perhaps a system where you can exchange some of your "primary" race's special abilities for those of another race?


3) class skills: apart from restricting access to PrCs, why should my fighter not spend his free time playing the flute rather than jumping? Again, why make a fiddly rule against suboptimal choices or character flavor?

Total agreement here. Class skills should go. If an ability is important enough to be explicitly tied to your class, it ought to be a class feature, not a skill.


5) Also, why do "chain shirt" and "breastplate" get to be types of armor? "Leather jacket" isn't a type of armor. Nor is "naked except for boots and a helm". Or "midriff-high pants made entirely of belt buckles". Or "no shirt, but left arm of a suit of plate mail", though god knows there's enough illustrations of that one. Either come up with rules for mix-and-match armor pieces (easier with only 3 armor types), or make people wear the full suit of armor.

Here's a thought: How about instead of "chain shirt" versus "chain mail," have "light chain," "medium chain," and "heavy chain?" Simpler than mix-and-match, but allows some more variety than just the basic "chain."


7) I love Gygax - heck, I have his novels - but the following gygaxian thesaurus words can go: dweomer, glamer, bracers, weal.

Um... why? Perfectly good words, as long as they aren't overused. And I don't see them being overused in 3E.


8) Why do rangers get 2wf again? Drizz't? Weathertop? That guy from Willow?

Yeah, this doesn't make a lot of sense.


10) Spiked chain.

Gaah! Kill it! Kiiillll iiiiiit!

For the things I'd take out...

1) Alignment restrictions for classes--unless there's a really, really good reason for them. It's stupid to require that barbarians not be lawful or that druids be part neutral. The only 3E core class whose alignment restrictions seem justifiable to me is the paladin, who's sort of built around being Lawful Good.

2) Favored classes. This rule makes non-human characters that much more complicated, and adds nothing; it's just a heavy-handed attempt to make elves, dwarves, gnomes, and halflings hew to their various stereotypes.

3) Turn/rebuke undead as a universal cleric ability. Way too specific a power for a class that hypothetically encompasses every type of non-druid priest out there. There's a place for this ability, but it should be one of a list of options (perhaps domain-related), not a universal thing that every single cleric can do.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but I'm sure I'll come up with others.

Techonce
2007-09-28, 10:37 AM
1) Weapon proficiencies: I don't think it's really necessary to deny wizards the ability to use the sword if they want to. If you don't have a full BAB, the weapon you use is not super important (except possibly for tripping weapons), and a wizard should not be spending his time attacking. Why make a fiddly rule against suboptimal choices?


Proficiency is comparible to training. A wizard spends his time learning wizard skills, not weapon skills. Using a sword effictivly takes a bit of training, a dagger not as much, but still some. (I'm not saying that it doesn't take any skill, and I know that a person who is very proficient with a dagger can be quite a threat, but at the basics, a dagger is more simple.) If you yank proficiencies, everyone will be weilding spiked chains (IMO the goofiest weapon out there) I do like the old method of weapon sets. It makes sense that a person who can weild a longsword can use a shortsword or a bastard sword.



3) class skills: apart from restricting access to PrCs, why should my fighter not spend his free time playing the flute rather than jumping? Again, why make a fiddly rule against suboptimal choices or character flavor?


Becase learning to play the flute has little to do with the normal training a fighter receives. He can learn to play the flute, but it takes a bit more time.



9) platinum pieces. It's such a weird and ahistorical metal to be the king of currency. Maybe drop it and increase the value of gold by 10?

10) Spiked chain.


Well platnium is worth a fair amount, and well it's always been used (although that's the worst arguement out there). Replace it with what though? Or your idea of incresing its value and then throw electrum back in there?

Kill the spiked chain.


I'd like to see the following not pop back up:

Scout class. I personally saw it get powergamed too much.

Power Attack. (gonna get balsted for this one) It gave people the ability to do way to much damage to early in the game. I homebrewed it's effect with 2 Handed weapons down to 1.5x instead fo the 2x given.

99 different versions of magic. Magic + Psionics + Warlocks + Arcanium (sp?) + Pact magic + a few others. It seemed to me that they were creating more types of magic just to create more books and it became hard to get things gelling together. Natural + divine + arcane. If it can't fit in there then kill it.

Thinker
2007-09-28, 10:38 AM
Swords are better weapons than Daggers.

Being able to use Swords well is a perk of the Fighter (and other martial) classes. Same with Longbows, Great Axes and Shields.

Note that Wizards can use swords -- it is just worse for a Wizard to use a sword than a Dagger.

He's not going to use any of them well so it doesn't matter which one he is "wielding". The difference between d4 and 2d6 isn't that big a deal anyway, 4.5 damage on average.



Your fighter can spend his spare time playing the flute. But he won't be as good as the Bard, whose life is spent on making music, because the fighter's life is spent knowing how to fight.

The Bard's ability to gain a full skill point and higher cap is a perk of the Bard class, not a disadvantage of the Fighter.
I hope they just do what SW: Saga Edition did. There are no more skill points.



Compare the Fighter to the Commoner, as an example -- the 10th level Fighter can be just as good as flute player as a 10th level Commoner.
Who let the commoner reach 10th level? :smalltongue:


Yes -- if you are going to have upteen billion types of armor, at least make it so that there isn't an obvious "best choice" like they did in 3.0.
Being able to mix and match seems pretty cool.


Drizz't mostly. :) Rangers have became a "light offensive fighter" over time.
Didn't Aragorn also TWF in the Rings movies?

Bosh
2007-09-28, 10:38 AM
I know this'll probably never happen, but I'd like to see most flashy magic especially of the direct damage sort axed. Wizards should be men of mystery, not howizters with legs. More curses and divination instead...

Kurald Galain
2007-09-28, 10:47 AM
Compare the Fighter to the Commoner, as an example -- the 10th level Fighter can be just as good as flute player as a 10th level Commoner.

Precisely. The fighter is as good as the single worst class in the game. In other words, he sucks royally at music, no matter how hard he tried. This doesn't make sense... you can't learn to sneak, because you trained swordmanship. You can't learn how to communicate effectively, because you're an archer. Et cetera.

Nonsense! Even without cross-class limits, a bard will still rule because he has way more skill points per level. Plus bardic music is a class ability, not a skill.

Ganon11
2007-09-28, 10:48 AM
I know this'll probably never happen, but I'd like to see most flashy magic especially of the direct damage sort axed. Wizards should be men of mystery, not howizters with legs. More curses and divination instead...

I think there are the spell choices available right now for that type of wizard to exist - most people just don't, however, because they're more interested in how well their wizard can be a howitzer. Were I to play a wizard, my focus probably would not be on combat (as a wizard's focus shouldn't be).

Techonce
2007-09-28, 10:49 AM
[QUOTE=Thinker;3261544]He's not going to use any of them well so it doesn't matter which one he is "wielding". The difference between d4 and 2d6 isn't that big a deal anyway, 4.5 damage on average.
QUOTE]

4.5 hp is what a wizard has at first level. I think it makes a difference. And if they are going to throw in varying abilities with the weapons that can have an impact as well.

I like skill points. Shadowrun had an interesting way of doing skills back in 1st & 2nd edition (don't know about later versions), but I don't think it would work in D&D, and it could turn into a mess trying to follow the darn chart and count dots!

Mixing and matching would make more sense if you could target specific areas of the body. ALa carte armor just adds more complexity that isn't reflected.

Techonce
2007-09-28, 10:55 AM
Precisely. The fighter is as good as the single worst class in the game. In other words, he sucks royally at music, no matter how hard he tried. This doesn't make sense... you can't learn to sneak, because you trained swordmanship. You can't learn how to communicate effectively, because you're an archer. Et cetera.

Nonsense! Even without cross-class limits, a bard will still rule because he has way more skill points per level. Plus bardic music is a class ability, not a skill.

If the Fighter wants to focus more on sneaking, then he takes a level of Rogue. Since he is spending more time on that then he isn't focusing as much on fighting skills so he doesn't get the BAB increase. IF you want skills that are not core to that class take a level in one that is.

ANd sure the fighter has as many ranks as the commoner. In their spare time, they learned to play the flute. The bard is better since learing to play the flute is comparible to the rest of his abilities. Once you know how to play one instrument, learing others is easy. If the commoner wanted to focus on the flute more, then he starts taking levels in expert and guess what he can become just as good as the bard, minus the magic stuff.

Class skills stop powergaming. Its that simple.

Dausuul
2007-09-28, 10:58 AM
I think there are the spell choices available right now for that type of wizard to exist - most people just don't, however, because they're more interested in how well their wizard can be a howitzer. Were I to play a wizard, my focus probably would not be on combat (as a wizard's focus shouldn't be).

What I'd really like would be an easy way to customize spells by "theme," so if you didn't like pyrotechnic wizards, you could remove those spells without having to go through the entire spell list and tick off direct-damage spells one by one.

Tekraen
2007-09-28, 10:59 AM
[QUOTE=Thinker;3261544]He's not going to use any of them well so it doesn't matter which one he is "wielding". The difference between d4 and 2d6 isn't that big a deal anyway, 4.5 damage on average.
QUOTE]

4.5 hp is what a wizard has at first level. I think it makes a difference. And if they are going to throw in varying abilities with the weapons that can have an impact as well.

I like skill points. Shadowrun had an interesting way of doing skills back in 1st & 2nd edition (don't know about later versions), but I don't think it would work in D&D, and it could turn into a mess trying to follow the darn chart and count dots!

Mixing and matching would make more sense if you could target specific areas of the body. ALa carte armor just adds more complexity that isn't reflected.

Shadowrun 1st ed through 4th didn't have dot counting. White Wolf games did. Shadowrun's skill system up through 3rd ed was based on a 'priority' system at character generation: The higher priority you put towards something, the more points you got to distribute towards it. Wealth, attributes, skills, race, and magical ability were all on the table. 4th edition moved to a straight point buy system.

Rex Blunder
2007-09-28, 11:01 AM
Another thing: I don't know if I ever felt the need for 4 types of sphinxes. Even if I were running an egypt campaign, I'd think that might be a little much.

Indon
2007-09-28, 11:03 AM
He's not going to use any of them well so it doesn't matter which one he is "wielding". The difference between d4 and 2d6 isn't that big a deal anyway, 4.5 damage on average.


I consider it unlikely that Wizards will have the same rate of static damage scaling in 4'th edition that let 3'rd edition Power Attackers practically ignore the damage their weapon actually dealt.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-28, 11:13 AM
Class skills stop powergaming. Its that simple.

And a fine job they do at that, considering there's no powergaming whatsoever in D&D 3rd edition...

With the exception of UMD, no class becomes overpowered by getting more class skills. Just more varied.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-28, 11:16 AM
Class skills stop powergaming. Its that simple.

...and push classes deep into base archetypes that basically make it impossible to play something unique for once.

HidaTsuzua
2007-09-28, 12:17 PM
[QUOTE=Techonce;3261604]

Shadowrun 1st ed through 4th didn't have dot counting. White Wolf games did. Shadowrun's skill system up through 3rd ed was based on a 'priority' system at character generation: The higher priority you put towards something, the more points you got to distribute towards it. Wealth, attributes, skills, race, and magical ability were all on the table. 4th edition moved to a straight point buy system.

I believe the dots referred here is to the "skill web" system used in Shadowrun 1st-3rd edition. Basically if you did not have a skill, you're referred to the web. You'll travel from the web to the closest skill you did have or attribute. On the lines linking skills and attributes would be dots. Every dot passed would increase the TN by 2. Yes, you could theoretically use strength to do surgery. However do to the way tests worked (after the TN exceeded 6, it quickly became extremely hard to do anything much less well) it'll be likely as successful as punching someone in the face to do dentistry.

Thinker
2007-09-28, 12:29 PM
I consider it unlikely that Wizards will have the same rate of static damage scaling in 4'th edition that let 3'rd edition Power Attackers practically ignore the damage their weapon actually dealt.

Why not? If at level 30 a character is doing marginally more damage as compared to a level 1 guy fights will take forever since I doubt they would get rid of the HP system. There has to be a way to increase damage and if it is just increasing damage based on the weapon, but happens to scale with level, its practically the same thing.

Morty
2007-09-28, 12:36 PM
Weapon profiniences are good thing, but they need to come up with better system than this in 3ed. Simple/Martial/Exotic distinction just doesn't work well. It seems that they've already done this- fighters will have manuevers related to weapons, so they'd be able to do more than just swing them, while other classes will be limited to it. Combined with low BAB, that'd preety much represent lack of any martial training.
And I completely disagree with axing half-breeds. I love playing them, and they're inherent part of fantasy. You just have to state clearly why certain species can interbreed. An idea I've come up with recently is to make "half-breed" race and put all mixes in it. I implemented it in my home-made system, and it seems to work well.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-28, 12:36 PM
See, 4e still gains ambivalence from me. Some things I like, some thing seem to change what I've always known as the essential character of the game. But that's dealt with in another thread. On to the comments!



1) Weapon proficiencies: I don't think it's really necessary to deny wizards the ability to use the sword if they want to. If you don't have a full BAB, the weapon you use is not super important (except possibly for tripping weapons), and a wizard should not be spending his time attacking. Why make a fiddly rule against suboptimal choices?

Yeah. I can see this getting the axe. The non-proficient axe, even. Weapon proficiencies are hold-overs from 1e and 2e. Back then, everyone had weapons they -could- be proficient in, and then weapon proficiencies. Then you tacked on the chance to hit or in 2e, THAC0 (which I always called THAC-Zero to annoy my peers.)

I don't see a need for them. Anyone can pick up a sword and swing it around. A trained level 1 fighter will swing it a little better than a trained level 1 wizard. A level 20 fighter will swing that sword with skill as compared to the level 20 wizard, who's been spending his time doing silly things like learning spells. The penalty for being non-proficient is moot by then. The wizard already stinks at swinging a weapon around, why bother penalizing him for picking up the wrong weapon?


2) Half-races: Just have orcs and elves in the PHB. The fact that the races can breed implies that they are a single species. How do you stat someone whose mother was 3/4 orc and has a little elven blood from his paternal grandma's side? Why no half-halflings?

I love my half-breeds, though. Somewhat silly, yes, but they are still enjoyable. Don't ditch 'em! Also, a half-halfling is a three-quartersling.


3) class skills: apart from restricting access to PrCs, why should my fighter not spend his free time playing the flute rather than jumping? Again, why make a fiddly rule against suboptimal choices or character flavor?

I never understood why a fighter, whose class skills in general are so banal that they actively discourage using Intelligence as anything but a dump stat, should be penalized for wanting to branch out even a little. Sure, the Bard class is more music-centered, but his powers exhibit through his music, where as the fighter's powers exhibit through his muscle. And hey, the Bard would want a competent back-up band, wouldn't he? As well, Rogues has special abilities stacked on their classic skills of opening locks and disarming traps, so why further penalize someone who wants to do either of those without the Rogue's added specialness.


6) Vargouille. That, along with pretty much everything from the 1e fiend folio, should be retired to flumphland.

As a Fiend Folio Fan, I fear the flumphification of the Fargouille -- er, Vargouille. Freaky creatures for the win.


8) Why do rangers get 2wf again? Drizz't? Weathertop? That guy from Willow?

Nothing to do with either, actually. Drizz't and Madmartegan came long after 1e, where Rangers were pretty much the only class who could dual wield. Not exactly sure why they got that either. They always just did, which created some sick situations in 1e. For example, in 1e, to successfully parry, all you had to do was to declare that you were parrying. Thus, a Ranger with Dual wield could essentially become invulnerable in many fights.


9) platinum pieces. It's such a weird and ahistorical metal to be the king of currency. Maybe drop it and increase the value of gold by 10?

I still miss electrum pieces, though! Wait, no. Not really.


10) Spiked chain.

The spike chain is joy.

Things I'd Like to See Go:
1) One Bamillion base classes and prestige classes. I see their proliferation as one of the fallouts of the "weapon proficiency" and "cross-class skill" problems. So many classes are just two base classes mashed together, combining two great tastes to one. Some offer something new, but over time there's just too many. I'd rather see basic, simple classes with more ability to branch out within one's skills without getting slapped on the wrists by the game system.

2) AC40. What the heck. Sure, my 1e and 2e had weird ACs. (How can you have negative armor? What the fluh?!) But AC40 is ridiculous overkill (or underkill as no one can hit that easily). A fighter with a non-magical weapon can barely hit them. No wonder fighters feel so adequate in 3.5e. The wizards at this point are Wishing things out of existence, and the Fighter still can't hit anything to save his salt.

3) Psionics. Needlessly redundant. "I can lift these boulders with my magic." "No, wait! I can lift them with my mind!"

averagejoe
2007-09-28, 12:39 PM
Why no half-halflings?

Because that would just be silly. Even more so than gnomes.

Techonce
2007-09-28, 12:40 PM
...and push classes deep into base archetypes that basically make it impossible to play something unique for once.

Not if you drop the penalties for Multiclassing. NOw this has to be handled carefully, cause it can open things up for abuse.

Ifyou want to play a sneaky fighter, play a rogue or a ranger. Or split between roge and fighter. You get what you want. You pay a penalty for not specializing on just beating the crap out of someone, but you get trade offs.

Not allowing everyone to do everything isn't snubbing out uniqueness, it called balancing.

Ganon11
2007-09-28, 12:45 PM
As far as base classes, I'm one of those strange people who can't afford 50 bajillion rules supplement books and, thus, sticks with the 11 base classes outlined in the PHB (My race is called college students :P).

I think it would be cool if, in 4e, they kept a certain number of base classes, but introduced a mechanic where the player himself could mix classes. What if, at first level, I like the thought of some sort of Barbarian/Sorcerer? Obviously this character won't be as ridiculously powerful melee-wise as a full Barbarian, nor would his/her magical abilities be up-to-par of a full Sorcerer, but a good mix between the two.

This would lead to nearly infinite customization in characters. Besides, it would make Fumble's dream (http://goblinscomic.com/d/20050902.html) realistic. Derr, I mean Senor Vorpal KickAss'o (http://goblinscomic.com/d/20051223.html).

I also think the Weapon Proficiency should stay (though maybe with some tweaking). The difference in BAB of classes is due to the fact that one class's (Wizard, for example) advancement is not dependent on weapons training. Another class's (Fighter, say) advancement really does depend on the character's skill with a weapon. So a Fighter is better at combat in general just because the Fighter's learning is focused on combat, while a Wizard is focused on spellcrafting.

But a Fighter still isn't that good at using a weapon he's never used before. No matter how good a fencer I am (Rapier), when I pick up a battleaxe, I'm not going to be very good. The Fighter is still OK with this new weapon because certain combat styles overlap, and the Wizard is just awful because, not only is he not very good at combat anyway, but this is also an entirely unfamilar object to him.

The 'chain' of Proficiencies someone mentioned (where proficiency with a bastard sword = proficiency with a longsword = proficiency with a short sword etc.) would probably be a good addition.

Indon
2007-09-28, 12:55 PM
Why not? If at level 30 a character is doing marginally more damage as compared to a level 1 guy fights will take forever since I doubt they would get rid of the HP system. There has to be a way to increase damage and if it is just increasing damage based on the weapon, but happens to scale with level, its practically the same thing.

Even if Power Attack just flat-out didn't exist, there would still be 1.5 times scaling of strength damage for 2-handers, and strength itself would be expected to scale, methinks.

Rex Blunder
2007-09-28, 12:58 PM
Things I'd Like to See Go: 1) One Bamillion base classes and prestige classes.

I totally agree. The new "Talents" system seems flexible enough that a lot of base classes could probably be described as one or two new talent trees. But this is somewhere I'm sure WOTC will disappoint me. I'm sure the PHB2, 3, 4, 5, etc. will each have 3 or so new base classes, many of which will be mildly-flavored fighters or wizards.

Ecalsneerg
2007-09-28, 01:00 PM
8) Why do rangers get 2wf again? Drizz't? Weathertop? That guy from Willow?


I habitually play TWF rangers, and I've never read a Dizzt novel. Nor do I use a longsword and a torch like at Weathertop.

I think the ranger fighting stlye is a nice idea, but it needs expanded beyond "two swords or shootin'"

Azerian Kelimon
2007-09-28, 01:05 PM
Not really. While the infamous Master Swinger who can do 20 attack in a single 2 handed sword swing by using the force of the first attack to rotate is a nice idea, it ain't ranger ish. Too likely to level the forests with 2 full attacks.

Thinker
2007-09-28, 01:07 PM
Even if Power Attack just flat-out didn't exist, there would still be 1.5 times scaling of strength damage for 2-handers, and strength itself would be expected to scale, methinks.

And if strength scales it eventually makes the weapon irrelevant.

Techonce
2007-09-28, 01:11 PM
[QUOTE=Tekraen;3261665]

I believe the dots referred here is to the "skill web" system used in Shadowrun 1st-3rd edition. Basically if you did not have a skill, you're referred to the web. You'll travel from the web to the closest skill you did have or attribute. On the lines linking skills and attributes would be dots. Every dot passed would increase the TN by 2. Yes, you could theoretically use strength to do surgery. However do to the way tests worked (after the TN exceeded 6, it quickly became extremely hard to do anything much less well) it'll be likely as successful as punching someone in the face to do dentistry.

Yup that's what I was talking about, and alot of dentistry tasks can be completed by punching people in the face! You could also use you skill in computers to do first aid.

NOw for those unfamiliar with the 1st edition shadowrun rules, skills were as follows:

You got x number of skill points to spend on skills at character generation based on the priority you gave skills. (you did not have character levels, but you could improve skills later on)

You put your skill points into diffrent groups like firearms, melee damage, computers, etc. In SR you rolled die for every skill point in a skill.

Firearms would be broken up into sub catagories (pistols, Assault rifles, projectiles) You could improve a catagory at the expense of losing proficieny in the main group.

For example you could and Firearms skill of 4, or a Firearms skill of 3 and a 5 with pistols. SO you only got three dice for all firearms except for pistols where you got 5. A person could further specialize with a specific specialization and it would change the dice more.

ie. Firearms 2, Pistols 4, Streetline Special 6.


I wonder if they could do something similar in 4th edition. I always found it funny that skills and weapon skills were seperate.

It would be the somewhat comparible to weapon focus and specialization.

cattoy
2007-09-28, 01:12 PM
Sneak Attacks: eliminate them or make them into a feat chain.

Currently, rogues are commonly regarded as little more than delivery systems for sneak attacks.

If rogue is the catch-all class for skilled folk that live by their wits and not by their skill with weapons, spells or spiritual favors, then why do all of them possess the ability to hit people in the kidneys when they're not looking?

Make this in to an option, let it be upgradeable and make it easier for rogues to qualify for it, but it doesn't make sense to restrict it only to rogues (and PrC). If this is a mechanically valid combat tactic (and experience tells me it certainly is) then it makes no sense that fighting men wouldn't have learned to do it alongside with their power attacks and their cleave and so on.

And you're telling me that a monk - master of precision and technique shouldn't know how to perform a sneak attack? If anything, monks should be the masters of sneak attack. Martial arts are more about precision and technique than raw damage.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-28, 01:13 PM
Humm... what else would I like to see go...

1) Short casting times for powerful spells. Honestly, I shouldn't be able to shunt myself to another plane of existence with only 6 seconds of work. That so many spells that are very very powerful have very short casting times is imho one of the primary reasons spellcasters far outclass their melee brethren.

2) Meaningless material components. Please, don't waste my time describing any material component that is in a standard Spell Components pouch. I know it's a joke... it wasn't funny so stop retelling it.

3) Alignment restrictions on classes and spells. These simply hamper roleplaying and stifle creativity. It looks as though WotC might kill em off but I haven't seen them say they will explicilly do so anyplace.

4) Thirty bagillion spells. Seriously, we don't need this many and the more we throw out there the more opportunities for cheese within the published rules exist. Pipe dream I know.

Morty
2007-09-28, 01:16 PM
4) Thirty bagillion spells. Seriously, we don't need this many and the more we throw out there the more opportunities for cheese within the published rules exist. Pipe dream I know.

Dozens of spells is what made D&D wizards extremely fun to play despite their brokennes. And I wouldn't be so sure about not limiting the number of spells.

Solo
2007-09-28, 01:26 PM
As far as base classes, I'm one of those strange people who can't afford 50 bajillion rules supplement books and, thus, sticks with the 11 base classes outlined in the PHB (My race is called college students :P).


But isn't it a racial power of college students to obtain various materials for free over the internets from "legitimate sources"?

Rex Blunder
2007-09-28, 01:28 PM
Short casting times for powerful spells

Come to think of it, I wonder if changing most or all spells to a full-round action wouldn't be a good move even in 3e. A wizard starts casting - all his enemies have one round to try to hit or counterspell him, or his spell comes off and everyone is screwed. It certainly beats the other ways to interrupt a spell, 1) readying an action (ie giving up your own action) or 2) using an AoO (since the caster has a 5-foot step and can cast defensively).

Didn't test this idea, so it might well be an overnerf.

Callos_DeTerran
2007-09-28, 01:30 PM
2) Meaningless material components. Please, don't waste my time describing any material component that is in a standard Spell Components pouch. I know it's a joke... it wasn't funny so stop retelling it.

Really? How are they meaningless? Their fluff for spells which usually don't have any fluff besides what the spell looks like when it hits. Or what about replenishing the spell component pouch on the go? (My DM's usually have the spell component run out after so many times of spellcasting. Its NOT a bag of infinite spell components people.)



3) Alignment restrictions on classes and spells. These simply hamper roleplaying and stifle creativity. It looks as though WotC might kill em off but I haven't seen them say they will explicilly do so anyplace.

What? How does this hamper roleplaying and creativity? Not having it doesn't make any sense! Sure, some alignment restrictions don't make sense like the barbarian one (I actually agree with the druid one though) but most do.

Look at it this way,

Blackguard. Don't need to be evil anymore so now paladins are taking it. Or good fighters for the smite good ability since they know the church of pelor is up to something or just because they want a 'kewl evil horse'.

ANY specific religion class for a deity (Shining Blade, Radiant Servant, whatever). Why would it make sense for someone to take the class if their alignment isn't at least close to the deity in question? That'd be stupid, not creative if the cleric of Pelor/Radiant Servant of Pelor was a Chaotic Evil madman who just wanted really good healing so pays lip service to the god of the sun. They help keep stupid things like that from happening since the DM can't always keep track of it.

I'm also one in favor of multiple PrCs and base classes. Removing them and just saying you can mishmash the base ones, makes the game a fudge load more confusing for beginning players.

Veteran Player: Ohhh, so you want to play a fighter? *Plops down the fighter chapter* Okay, now read through all of this. Pick your weapon style, your manuevers, might I suggest the "Kensai" ability tree (personal favorite, or maybe you'd like to go the "Spellsword" route...Ah you do. Good choice now you just need to go through all of the wizard abilities...yes that chapter....and now the spells...There you go, one fifth level character will be done once you do all that.
Newbie: Can't I just get bonus feats and upgrade BAB and saves like in 3.5? Where are the prestige classes?
Veteran: *Points to fighter chapter* They put all the fighter PrC options into the base fighter so you wouldn't need to buy a bunch of supplements.
Newbie:...I think I'll go play Shadowrun or Heroclix now.

Draz74
2007-09-28, 01:31 PM
1) Weapon proficiencies: I don't think it's really necessary to deny wizards the ability to use the sword if they want to. If you don't have a full BAB, the weapon you use is not super important (except possibly for tripping weapons), and a wizard should not be spending his time attacking. Why make a fiddly rule against suboptimal choices?

Hmmm. On the rare occasion that the wizard picks up a weapon and tries to whack somebody, I'd still like him to have a reason to be more likely to pick up a dagger or staff, rather than a greatsword. Although I guess some literature disagrees with this stereotype vehemently.

Perhaps we could keep weapon proficiencies with the following changes:
- Everyone is proficient with all simple weapons.
- If you are proficient with any martial weapons, then you are proficient with all martial weapons. One feat can get you all these proficiencies.
- Get rid of redundant types of weapons to narrow down the table a bit.
- Only keep exotic weapons that are actually worth using a feat on. (This may mean there won't be any, which is also OK with me.)


2) Half-races: Just have orcs and elves in the PHB. The fact that the races can breed implies that they are a single species. How do you stat someone whose mother was 3/4 orc and has a little elven blood from his paternal grandma's side? Why no half-halflings?

Personally I'm with you on this one. Maybe have Heritage feats that let you adopt certain racial characteristics; i.e. a half-elf is just an elf who takes (if he wants) the Human Heritage feat or something.


3) class skills: apart from restricting access to PrCs, why should my fighter not spend his free time playing the flute rather than jumping? Again, why make a fiddly rule against suboptimal choices or character flavor?

Hmmm. Depends entirely on what skills still exist in the game, and how difficult it is to gain cross-class skills. I admit this wouldn't be an awful thing for 3.5E, except for the way most characters would max UMD.

They'll probably use something close to the Saga skill system (:smallyuk:). In that case, I can see a reason to keep class skills in existence (i.e. a list of skills that a given class is allowed to become Trained in).

If it were up to me, I'd make it so that any character (regardless of class) gets to choose a very small number of Trained skills. He can choose these freely; a Fighter can choose Perform if he wants. But even a Fighter is likely to have more skill points than he can spend on just class skills; and a Rogue is even more extreme that way. This would be OK, though, because I'd also make it so that taking cross-class skills didn't suck so much.


4) All armor types except leather, chain, and plate. Sure, weapons experts may be able to tell you the historical context of, and difference between, ring, chain, and scale mail, or banded and plate, but we could also just assume that the broad term "plate" includes banded, scale, full, field, etc. Everyone always takes the best one in their weight class anyway.

Hmmm, interesting. I'd only considered that they might whittle down the list by a couple entries, getting rid of the least iconic armor types, and then they might adjust things so that all types of armor actually can be useful. But narrowing armor all the way down to just three types has a certain beauty about it, too. Or maybe six types (light leather, light chain, heavy leather, light plate, heavy chain, heavy plate), in an order like that. I'll have to give it some more thought, but I think I like this.


6) Vargouille. That, along with pretty much everything from the 1e fiend folio, should be retired to flumphland.

OK, but I want the flumph back from flumphland. :smallwink: Actually, no, I'm perfectly fine with the flumph staying out of Core 4E ... but I'll still include it in my campaign setting!


7) I love Gygax - heck, I have his novels - but the following gygaxian thesaurus words can go: dweomer, glamer, bracers, weal.

Like some other people, I don't have a problem with bracers, or glamer (at least the technical way they use "glamer" in 3E rules). Dweomer is an annoying word. Weal is a kind of cool archaic word, but I don't want rules based on it (but there aren't many anyway).


8) Why do rangers get 2wf again? Drizz't? Weathertop? That guy from Willow?

Combination of Weathertop, and the whole "these guys need some way to be competitive in melee even though they don't wear armor ... something compatible with their dexterous, mobile style."
... not that I'm saying it worked well. Because TWF in 3E doesn't make you competitive in melee, unless you use it in some specific combos; and it actually makes you less mobile.


10) Spiked chain.

I'm fine with the spiked chain existing. It's just that ... it should be a specialized, niche weapon. One that's used for some specific weird tactic. Like the whip is. It SHOULDN'T be "the only Core melee weapon that actually might be better, overall, than the greatsword ... which half the world's Fighters and Barbarians would use if they didn't have to spend a feat on it."


a) Class-based system. Or it's not D&D!

I'm still in the process of making UA-style Generic Classes into awesomeness. I think that's still D&D.


b) Magic item names in the format "X of Y-ing"

I won't miss this if they find a good way to get rid of it.


c) That one PrC where you have to kill a hippo to get in.

I didn't know this existed, but you're right, we should keep it. :smallbiggrin:



Things I'd Like to See Go:
1) One Bamillion base classes and prestige classes. I see their proliferation as one of the fallouts of the "weapon proficiency" and "cross-class skill" problems. So many classes are just two base classes mashed together, combining two great tastes to one. Some offer something new, but over time there's just too many. I'd rather see basic, simple classes with more ability to branch out within one's skills without getting slapped on the wrists by the game system.

Amen. I think 4E's Talent system will do this OK, though. (Although I think I still prefer Generic Classes.)


2) AC40. What the heck. Sure, my 1e and 2e had weird ACs. (How can you have negative armor? What the fluh?!) But AC40 is ridiculous overkill (or underkill as no one can hit that easily). A fighter with a non-magical weapon can barely hit them. No wonder fighters feel so adequate in 3.5e. The wizards at this point are Wishing things out of existence, and the Fighter still can't hit anything to save his salt.

Nah. Well, maybe 40 will be a little on the high side, since magic weapons will be less ubiquitous. But high AC doesn't need to go away. Instead, let's make an SR system that actually works, or some other defense against magic for high-level monsters.


3) Psionics. Needlessly redundant. "I can lift these boulders with my magic." "No, wait! I can lift them with my mind!"

Shhhh, don't let the psionics fans hear you! Personally, I think psionics should use mostly the same mechanics as magic. They'd be slightly better at a couple things, and slightly worse at a couple things; and these minor mechanical differences would be the game's way to represent a huge flavor difference. Of course, most campaign settings would make more sense if you dropped one or the other type of magic and just based them on the remaining one. (A few settings actually have good explanations of where magic and psionics come from, and how that makes them different enough that they should both exist.)

My own list ... well, it would be long. Take a look at Gyzaninar when I get done working with it!

Ganon11
2007-09-28, 01:31 PM
1) Short casting times for powerful spells. Honestly, I shouldn't be able to shunt myself to another plane of existence with only 6 seconds of work. That so many spells that are very very powerful have very short casting times is imho one of the primary reasons spellcasters far outclass their melee brethren.

It's my impression that these '6 second spells' actually take quite some time, which is why the wizard has to spend time EVERY MORNING preparing these spells. The 6-seconds spent casting the spell are the finishing portion of the twenty-minute spell started that morning.

Not saying I disagree with you - a round of combat to cast WHATEVER does more damage on average than a Fighter's full attack, and that's a little broken. Though I guess it's balanced by the fact that this Wizard can cast this WHATEVER once or twice a day, while a Fighter can be beastly all day long.

brian c
2007-09-28, 01:31 PM
Precisely. The fighter is as good as the single worst class in the game. In other words, he sucks royally at music, no matter how hard he tried. This doesn't make sense... you can't learn to sneak, because you trained swordmanship. You can't learn how to communicate effectively, because you're an archer. Et cetera.

Nonsense! Even without cross-class limits, a bard will still rule because he has way more skill points per level. Plus bardic music is a class ability, not a skill.

No no no.

The fighter is as good at music as the average person. Fighters do not have any special training in music (or performances of any kind) so it makes sense that even if they try, they won't be any better than the average person who tries.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-28, 01:32 PM
Come to think of it, I wonder if changing most or all spells to a full-round action wouldn't be a good move even in 3e. A wizard starts casting - all his enemies have one round to try to hit or counterspell him, or his spell comes off and everyone is screwed. It certainly beats the other ways to interrupt a spell, 1) readying an action (ie giving up your own action) or 2) using an AoO (since the caster has a 5-foot step and can cast defensively).

Didn't test this idea, so it might well be an overnerf.

It really needs to be done on a spell by spell basis. A standard action for fireball I don't mind and an entire round might be an overnerf. A standard action for greater teleport, a full round ought to be the least it takes, and it's not an overnerf. imho.


It's my impression that these '6 second spells' actually take quite some time, which is why the wizard has to spend time EVERY MORNING preparing these spells. The 6-seconds spent casting the spell are the finishing portion of the twenty-minute spell started that morning.


See, that would, maybe, be ok if it took more time to prepare some of these spells than others but it doesn't. It takes the exact same amount of time for the cantrip casting apprentice as for the 20th level contingency celerity timestop batman.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-28, 01:34 PM
4) Thirty bagillion spells. Seriously, we don't need this many and the more we throw out there the more opportunities for cheese within the published rules exist. Pipe dream I know.

Well, spells always get published. It was a common occurance in the days of 1e and 2e Dragon Magazine, although there wasn't so frightfully many spells as there are in 3.x. I'd like to see them stem the tide a bit, primarily because I find the sheer number of spells stepping on the toes of a creative player.

In 1e and 2e, one of my favorite things to do as a wizard was to create new spells. It was one the great class features of playing a wizard. It was fun to invent something new and put my character's name on it. It was as if I was adding to the world of magic, not just dabbling in it. The surfeit of 3.xe spells seems to leave less to the imagination.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-28, 01:41 PM
Well, spells always get published. It was a common occurance in the days of 1e and 2e Dragon Magazine, although there wasn't so frightfully many spells as there are in 3.x. I'd like to see them stem the tide a bit, primarily because I find the sheer number of spells stepping on the toes of a creative player.

In 1e and 2e, one of my favorite things to do as a wizard was to create new spells. It was one the great class features of playing a wizard. It was fun to invent something new and put my character's name on it. It was as if I was adding to the world of magic, not just dabbling in it. The surfeit of 3.xe spells seems to leave less to the imagination.

Well, yes, as I said, pipe dream. WotC will publish hordes of spells because they are a big selling point for supplements. I just wish they wouldn't. When I can go look at crystal keep, which does not list every spell, and find 101 first level sorc/wizard spells, it seems like overkill.

I totally agree with you about the spell research feature of wizards getting squashed by the deluge of spells out there. Why research your own spell, check it with the DM, write it, and put your own name on it if you can just do a quick search and find something really similar?

Telonius
2007-09-28, 01:45 PM
1. Multiclass XP penalties get the boot. They're commonly houseruled nonexistent, and it's a small plus to "realism" at the cost of a bunch of math.
2. Silly alignment restrictions. Lawful bards and chaotic monks should be able to exist. (Note I said silly alignment restrictions. It makes sense for the default Cleric to be alignment-restricted, and it also makes sense for the restriction to be lifted in specific campaign settings like Eberron).
3. That +1 BAB requirement for Weapon Finesse. Seriously, wtf? :smallbiggrin:

Telonius
2007-09-28, 01:47 PM
But isn't it a racial power of college students to obtain various materials for free over the internets from "legitimate sources"?

Racial power, yes; but some classes have alignment restrictions. :smallwink:

Techonce
2007-09-28, 01:54 PM
2. Silly alignment restrictions. Lawful bards and chaotic monks should be able to exist. (Note I said silly alignment restrictions. It makes sense for the default Cleric to be alignment-restricted, and it also makes sense for the restriction to be lifted in specific campaign settings like Eberron).


I'm a bigger fan of, tends to be and is rarely instead of never.

Bards tend to be chaotic and rarely Lawful while monks with their focus on self perfection highly favor Lawful and are rarely chaotic. Makes sense.

I'd make a player have a very good reason to play a lawful Bard or a Chaotic Monk, but I won't rule it out completely. Same goes for a lawful barbarian.

Part of me thinks that alignment should just kind of get tossed, but then that creates other issues.

However,

Remeber that WotC is keeping online play a factor in their decisions. They spoke about the poor guy in BFE wanting to play and can go online. Online play will require some more restrictions or a way to apply them.

Tekraen
2007-09-28, 02:06 PM
Yup that's what I was talking about, and alot of dentistry tasks can be completed by punching people in the face! You could also use you skill in computers to do first aid.

NOw for those unfamiliar with the 1st edition shadowrun rules, skills were as follows:

You got x number of skill points to spend on skills at character generation based on the priority you gave skills. (you did not have character levels, but you could improve skills later on)

You put your skill points into diffrent groups like firearms, melee damage, computers, etc. In SR you rolled die for every skill point in a skill.

Firearms would be broken up into sub catagories (pistols, Assault rifles, projectiles) You could improve a catagory at the expense of losing proficieny in the main group.

For example you could and Firearms skill of 4, or a Firearms skill of 3 and a 5 with pistols. SO you only got three dice for all firearms except for pistols where you got 5. A person could further specialize with a specific specialization and it would change the dice more.

ie. Firearms 2, Pistols 4, Streetline Special 6.


I wonder if they could do something similar in 4th edition. I always found it funny that skills and weapon skills were seperate.

It would be the somewhat comparible to weapon focus and specialization.

Ah, I gotcha now. Interestingly, they did away with part of the basis for that in 4E Shadowrun. You can't specialize in just 'Firearms', but have to start with a firearm type, such as pistols, then specialize from there. When Arsenal comes out, I fully expect the specialization rules to be taken a step further.

I wouldn't mind seeing it in 4th DnD either, though I assumed that's what "Martial Weapons/Simple Weapons" plus the focus/proficiency was all about. Certainly would be nice to take it at chargen instead, but then it wouldn't exactly be DnD.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-28, 02:10 PM
See, I can see putting in some tiers to represent Weapon use, but 3e has several. Too many.

We start with the basic weapon proficiencies that the class gets. Even though weapons are broken down to "Simple, Martial, and Exotic", some classes get their own breakdowns such as "Rogue" or "Wizard", making the original breakdowns almost superfluous.

Then, we have the BAB, which is different for whether a class is primarily an arms combatant or not. Thus, the Warrior hits more often with a weapon he's proficient in than the Wizard.

Then, we get Weapon Focus, which adds a +1.

Then, at fourth level, we get Weapon Specialization.

Then we can get into Greater Weapon Focus and the like, if we really want to...

The problem I see is that the tiers make things needlessly complicated. For a game, I like things to be kept simple.

I'd like to see no Weapon Proficiencies. Tier 1 becomes the BAB. A martial class will progress faster than others. Three levels of BABs would be enough to represent this. Tier 2 can be a new form of Weapon Specialization. It should grant bonuses to hit and damage, and should be able to be upgraded as one advances as well. Thus, a Fighter specialized in Rapier will be superior with the rapier than a Fighter who isn't, but the Fighter who isn't will still be better with the rapier than the Wizard. Simple, and creates less headache.

kamikasei
2007-09-28, 02:15 PM
No no no.

The fighter is as good at music as the average person. Fighters do not have any special training in music (or performances of any kind) so it makes sense that even if they try, they won't be any better than the average person who tries.

A fighter with X Charisma and no ranks in Perform is as musically capable as the average person with X Charisma. The problem is that it's harder for a fighter to learn to sing or play the flute (ie, put ranks into Perform (whatever)) than it is for certain other classes. There's not a very compelling reason for this to be so, and it's annoying that you have to incur a large mechanical cost (paying double skill points) for a lesser benefit (lower maximum ranks) in order to have a roleplaying choice like "my fighter sings" reflected in the mechanics.

Ganon11
2007-09-28, 02:22 PM
But isn't it a racial power of college students to obtain various materials for free over the internets from "legitimate sources"?

No, no, no, you're getting us confused with the "Cheap-ass bastard" race. True, there are many half-breeds in college, but there are a few 'pure' College Students left.

Indon
2007-09-28, 02:23 PM
And if strength scales it eventually makes the weapon irrelevant.

But at least that's less ridiculous than an unusually strong... let's say Pixie... Str 13, hitting _harder_ than, say, a Troll (str what, 30?), because the Pixie is better at aiming after enough class levels.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-28, 02:32 PM
A fighter with X Charisma and no ranks in Perform is as musically capable as the average person with X Charisma. The problem is that it's harder for a fighter to learn to sing or play the flute (ie, put ranks into Perform (whatever)) than it is for certain other classes. There's not a very compelling reason for this to be so, and it's annoying that you have to incur a large mechanical cost (paying double skill points) for a lesser benefit (lower maximum ranks) in order to have a roleplaying choice like "my fighter sings" reflected in the mechanics.

Although I like class skills I will admit that paying double does seem to me to be a bit much. Personally, I'd simply use caps. Say, if a skill is class then a charcter can have at most 2x ranks in it, where x equals their level in the class. If it's not class they can only put x ranks, or x ranks at the cost of 1 skill point per rank and another x ranks on top of that at 2 skill points per rank.

Personally, I think, so long as there are classes at all, there is a compelling reason for some classes to have some skills be easier to aquire than others. Those particular skills are what the training for that class goes best with. I know there is wide debate about this, but having class skills really does help game balance.

Almost everyone I've played with who advocated getting rid of class skills or similar limitation (like above) has subsequently gone ahead and abused the lack of those limitations for getting into PRC's etc, creating a cheese and balance problem for the entire game. I'm not against trading class skills off when a player has a particular theme they want represented in the mechanics (such as the singing fighter) but getting rid of them alltogather tends to lead to Wizards with enormous spot and listen checks and fighters with lots of ranks in UMD which messes things up to high heaven and tends to make the classes, like Bard, where having lots of skill points and access to lots of skills is one of the class benifits, even more underpowered than they were to start.

Techonce
2007-09-28, 02:33 PM
But at least that's less ridiculous than an unusually strong... let's say Pixie... Str 13, hitting _harder_ than, say, a Troll (str what, 30?), because the Pixie is better at aiming after enough class levels.

The pixie will hit less hard than the troll, but it will be a more effictive hit.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-28, 02:33 PM
But at least that's less ridiculous than an unusually strong... let's say Pixie... Str 13, hitting _harder_ than, say, a Troll (str what, 30?), because the Pixie is better at aiming after enough class levels.

It's not "aim". BAB is supposed to represent "skill". A pixie hitting harder than a troll because it knows where to hit and is capable of hitting that spot consistently is much more believable.

Indon
2007-09-28, 02:36 PM
It's not "aim". BAB is supposed to represent "skill". A pixie hitting harder than a troll because it knows where to hit and is capable of hitting that spot consistently is much more believable.

But that's not how Power Attack works; otherwise, it would work almost as well with a 1-handed weapon as with a 2-handed weapon, instead of being half as effective.

Power attack is sacrificing accuracy to swing harder. If I'm not mistaken, that's about what the feat's description is. Each point with a 2-hander is an effective 4 strength of hitting-hardness.

Edit: And Power Attack can be used to shatter stone.

Hawriel
2007-09-28, 02:42 PM
I agree with alot of what has been said.

Class skills: Get rid of them. Im pritty sure a rogue having 10 ranks in knowledge nobility, diplomacy, ride, survival, and god for bid perform, is not going to brake the game. Clerics have 2 skill points. why? A cleric or priest historicly are the most educated class so naturaly in D&D they should have the fewest skills. Again a cleric with enough skills to ride a horse, have knowledge about local history, be diplomatic and be a good astronomer will not brake the game. Also having a fighter be more than the dumb jock with not brake the game.

Oh a fighter being able to play a flute as well as a bard will not steal the bards thunder. The bards speciality is using music, poetry, song and oration to magicly effect peaple. a fighter who is a 1st chair flutist is still not going to create a big magical effect of +1 to attack roles. However it might be a good way to make friends with a bard. or becoming a backup player when the bard is performing in a tavern

I dont mind weapon profs but I think they should be group based. similar to whats in UA.

Half-Race: must go. thay are not races. A race is a mix of species, language, culture and religion. Lions and tygers can bread. Their offspring is not a new species. Sence the races of D&D can inter bread I think they should have a simple templet system to creat a half bread character. It should also give guidlines for RPing a half bread. A half elf may do ok but a half orc will not be well exepted in any society.

Armor sets in light med and heavy are just fine. It would be nice for a simple system of moded armor by mixed tipe. a chain huberk with plate greaves or a chest plate added. A chain shirt is a type of armor. its simple and was used by light infintry and soldiers not expected to be in heavy combat. The breast plate was used to augment chain mail and used by guards. British royal guards still use them even if its just for show. Spanish conquistadors used breast plats and pot helms up till the 1600s (please correct me if im wrong) I would how ever like to see differences in armor types. give me a reason to wear banded mail over half plate.

Rangers: yeah the drizzt effect is dumb. that is the only reason I can think of why rangers get two weapon combat. I dont know of any traditional fantacy reason why. I would get rid of that. They can keep the bow feats though that fits. If any class should get a free fighting style chain it should be the fighter.

Mony: Platinum should be dropped. Its rather silly. make gold worth at least 20 silvers, I would like 50 or a 100 to 1 silver. make two silver coins. Silver piece or crown and a silver penny. 10 copper = 1 silver penny 10 silver penny = 1 silver crown 50 silver crowns = 1 gold. electrum is just plane dumb.

Magic: the way wizards have to memorize spells to cast them in a day is dumb as hell. blend sorcs and wizards and call it a day. Spell components are a good limitation. Clerics should not memorize eather. Faith and divotion grants them power. praying should all that be needed to cast a spell. that is the prair is the spell casting. Clerical levels and the amount of power it gives is a messure of a gods trust in their clerics.

Exotic weapon: they should go. they are dumb with no practical value. A basterd sword is not exotic. Im particularly looking at double weapons, they are obsurd. Other than the quarter staff witch really is not a double weapon. its versatility is a charecteristic of the weapon.

the PRC: sorry guys I hate them. I really dont like any prc that is over 5 levels. The PRC is just power gaming. they should be dip classes, only used to add spice to your main character class. that said if you only see a core class as a dip class there is somthing wrong with the class.

Consept artwork: I really hate the FF WOW totaly inpractical fantacy artwork of the game. the artowrk and the writing is what sets the mood and tone of the game. They can have unique style for D&D but as with the LOTR movies they can ground it in historic reality. Most important make it look functional.

Techonce
2007-09-28, 02:43 PM
A fighter with X Charisma and no ranks in Perform is as musically capable as the average person with X Charisma. The problem is that it's harder for a fighter to learn to sing or play the flute (ie, put ranks into Perform (whatever)) than it is for certain other classes. There's not a very compelling reason for this to be so, and it's annoying that you have to incur a large mechanical cost (paying double skill points) for a lesser benefit (lower maximum ranks) in order to have a roleplaying choice like "my fighter sings" reflected in the mechanics.

It should be harder! The fighter's focus is on fighting and the required skills for fighting. If he spends alot of his time working on the flute then he isn't honing his other skills. Therefor he should pick up a level of bard, and presto the cap is now level +3. He doesn't get quite the increase in BAB and he shouldn't, since he spent his time making music instead of swinging the sword.

Bonus. You just got the ability to inspire courage.

If you don't want the bard abilities, take a level of expert, or just don't use the bard abilities.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-28, 02:47 PM
But that's not how Power Attack works; otherwise, it would work almost as well with a 1-handed weapon as with a 2-handed weapon, instead of being half as effective.

Power attack is sacrificing accuracy to swing harder. If I'm not mistaken, that's about what the feat's description is. Each point with a 2-hander is an effective 4 strength of hitting-hardness.

Edit: And Power Attack can be used to shatter stone.

Power Attack doesn't sacrifice accuracy, per se. Yes, you have a lower chance to hit mechanically, but in the view of what BAB represents (skill), Power Attack actually means you're foregoing your skill and training to swing harder.

bugsysservant
2007-09-28, 02:53 PM
Personally, I would like to see impossible, non- magical abilities removed. I Swing my 30 lbs. sword eight times in six seconds! I shoot five arrows simultaneously! I surf down the stairs on a shield! (oh, wait) Tripling the length of a combat round, and removing most iterative attacks would be a good start, but there are a lot of unrealistic things which should just be thrown out.

kjones
2007-09-28, 03:01 PM
Kill a hippo? Seriously?

What book is this in?

Fax Celestis
2007-09-28, 03:04 PM
Kill a hippo? Seriously?

What book is this in?

Sandstorm.

Techonce
2007-09-28, 03:08 PM
Personally, I would like to see impossible, non- magical abilities removed. I Swing my 30 lbs. sword eight times in six seconds! I shoot five arrows simultaneously! I surf down the stairs on a shield! (oh, wait) Tripling the length of a combat round, and removing most iterative attacks would be a good start, but there are a lot of unrealistic things which should just be thrown out.

Soooo you are okay with a person telling the laws of physics to sit down and shut up, but not swing a sword 8 times in 6 seconds?

A 3 thousand year old lizard that breathes fire is good, but shooting 5 arrows at once is not...

Making a combat round longer doesn't change anything, but removing what you can do in aa combat round will. If you tripled the length then movment rates would have to be tripled and then you could charge 180' in a round.

Morty
2007-09-28, 03:19 PM
Soooo you are okay with a person telling the laws of physics to sit down and shut up, but not swing a sword 8 times in 6 seconds?

A 3 thousand year old lizard that breathes fire is good, but shooting 5 arrows at once is not...

Making a combat round longer doesn't change anything, but removing what you can do in aa combat round will. If you tripled the length then movment rates would have to be tripled and then you could charge 180' in a round.

There's still a difference between "extraordinary" and "silly". High-level warrior is just as badass when he deals one crushing blow instead of five weaker ones, but it somehow looks more belivable. Same with arrows.

Nerd-o-rama
2007-09-28, 03:24 PM
Personally, I would like to see impossible, non- magical abilities removed. I Swing my 30 lbs. sword eight times in six seconds! I shoot five arrows simultaneously! I surf down the stairs on a shield! (oh, wait) Tripling the length of a combat round, and removing most iterative attacks would be a good start, but there are a lot of unrealistic things which should just be thrown out.
You know what I would like to see? Realistically-sized weapons. I disagree with everything else you said for the reasons Techonce gave, but seriously, in real life even claymore BFSs weigh like six pounds tops. You don't have ridiculous 20 lb. weapons like you do in D&D, no one could swing them.

Of course, this is entirely nitpicky.

Techonce
2007-09-28, 03:27 PM
There's still a difference between "extraordinary" and "silly". High-level warrior is just as badass when he deals one crushing blow instead of five weaker ones, but it somehow looks more belivable. Same with arrows.

I've seen videos of people firing 3 arrows at once with decent accuracy, so firing 5 isn't too out there. I figured it was always a little quasimagical.

Swinging a sword that much? Well since sword weight does't factor into anything. Sure. It's probable that somone with a rapier might do it. Maybe not 8 times but 5-6 is realistic. As realistic as dodging a fireball, or getting eaten by a giant block of jello.

Indon
2007-09-28, 03:37 PM
I guess I should just say:

What I'd get rid of is one-round combats. Offense should not scale so quickly that a fight against can end so quickly; I feel that, if anything, higher-level combats should last longer.

Starbuck_II
2007-09-28, 03:42 PM
2) AC40. What the heck. Sure, my 1e and 2e had weird ACs. (How can you have negative armor? What the fluh?!) But AC40 is ridiculous overkill (or underkill as no one can hit that easily). A fighter with a non-magical weapon can barely hit them. No wonder fighters feel so adequate in 3.5e. The wizards at this point are Wishing things out of existence, and the Fighter still can't hit anything to save his salt.


Hey, a Wu Jen with Ice Knife (2nd level spell) can hit AC 40 with 25% chance at level 12.
Ice Knife is a spell with ranged attack that gives +12 hit at level 12 caster, +6 BAB, +7 Dex (simple to have 24 dex by than) = +25 hit.
Only need a 15 on a 1d20.
But than that isa low level spell.

Just using a Orb or Lightning Blade would be easier.

Starsinger
2007-09-28, 03:47 PM
1) Weapon proficiencies: I don't think it's really necessary to deny wizards the ability to use the sword if they want to. If you don't have a full BAB, the weapon you use is not super important (except possibly for tripping weapons), and a wizard should not be spending his time attacking. Why make a fiddly rule against suboptimal choices?
I totally agree, it's obnoxious that if I want a metal fan (from OA) I have to plop a feat down to wield it with any sort of accuracy at all. This is an RPG, I should be able to use whatever weapon I want. Weapons should do more damage based on stats than on the weapon itself. This would also limit the overused weapons (greatsword, spiked chain, longsword, heavy mace, longbow).


2) Half-races: Just have orcs and elves in the PHB. The fact that the races can breed implies that they are a single species. How do you stat someone whose mother was 3/4 orc and has a little elven blood from his paternal grandma's side? Why no half-halflings?
I say make it a feat. "Half-X" which lets you select abilities from 1 talent tree of that race, but the "Half-X" feat must be taken at first level.


Veteran Player: Ohhh, so you want to play a fighter? *Plops down the fighter chapter* Okay, now read through all of this. Pick your weapon style, your manuevers, might I suggest the "Kensai" ability tree (personal favorite, or maybe you'd like to go the "Spellsword" route...Ah you do. Good choice now you just need to go through all of the wizard abilities...yes that chapter....and now the spells...There you go, one fifth level character will be done once you do all that.
Newbie: Can't I just get bonus feats and upgrade BAB and saves like in 3.5? Where are the prestige classes?
Veteran: *Points to fighter chapter* They put all the fighter PrC options into the base fighter so you wouldn't need to buy a bunch of supplements.
Newbie:...I think I'll go play Shadowrun or Heroclix now.

I know you say this in jest, but I think this would be absolutely lovely!


Almost everyone I've played with who advocated getting rid of class skills or similar limitation (like above) has subsequently gone ahead and abused the lack of those limitations for getting into PRC's etc, creating a cheese and balance problem for the entire game. I'm not against trading class skills off when a player has a particular theme they want represented in the mechanics (such as the singing fighter) but getting rid of them alltogather tends to lead to Wizards with enormous spot and listen checks and fighters with lots of ranks in UMD which messes things up to high heaven and tends to make the classes, like Bard, where having lots of skill points and access to lots of skills is one of the class benifits, even more underpowered than they were to start.

Really? I've never had that. Admittedly it's because, as I've said a few times, my group doesn't play that way. Every game I run I eliminate cross-class skills, making everything in class, who the hell are WotC to tell me/you that my/your sorcerer can't be an olympic swimmer. But just because they could, didn't mean that everyone went out and grabbed UMD, Diplomacy, and Tumble.

Now like I said, my group doesn't play "to win", hell some of the people I play with think Fighters are the strongest class mechanically because they get so many feats, and that wizards are under powered. So maybe this is part of the reason why skills don't bother us. As for entering PrCs that your base class isn't designed to enter? All this does is stop you from dipping a level or two outside your base class solely for skills.

As for what I want gone in 4e? Utility magic, now I know wizards are going to lynch me for this... but really, either get rid of the large amount of utility spells like Bless Water, Create Food and Water, Mending, Fabricate, etc. etc. or make the assumed "setting" be more like Eberron, where the creators actually noticed that there are spells that alleviate a good deal of problems. Really, there should be no excuse for droughts or anything in FR or Greyhawk, since your average NPC can cast Create Water (atleast) or control weather...

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-28, 04:01 PM
3rd Edition Veteran: Ohhh, so you want to play a fighter? *Plops down eight or nine seperate books* Okay, now read through all of this. Pick your weapon from this book, look through these seven for your Feats and Prestige Classes, might I suggest the "Kensai" class (personal favorite, or maybe you'd like to go the "Spellsword" route...Ah you do. Good choice now you just need to go through all of the wizard abilities...yes that chapter....and now the spells... You'll have to dig through the pile again to make an educated descision on those...There you go, one fifth level character will be done once you do all that.
Newbie: Can't I just get all this in one class? Why deal with all these prestige classes?
Veteran: *Points to pile* They spread all the fighter PrC options through all these books so you would need to buy a bunch of supplements.
Newbie:...I think I'll go play Shadowrun or Heroclix now.

Fixed that for you.


I know you say this in jest, but I think this would be absolutely lovely!

Seconded.

brian c
2007-09-28, 04:16 PM
Personally, I would like to see impossible, non- magical abilities removed. I Swing my 30 lbs. sword eight times in six seconds!

Okay, I have two problems with this

1) No sword weighs 30lbs, unless you're about 70ft tall. The heaviest sword in D&D core is the greatsword at a whopping 8lbs, probably more than it should be anyway.

2) How can you get 8 attacks in one round? With one weapon? BAB iterative maxes at 4 (which I agree is a bit much), TWF can get you a few more but that's not with one sword anymore, unless it's a double-bladed and that doesn't really count. Any other way to get more than 4 attacks with one weapon in a single round involves magic.

Jayabalard
2007-09-28, 04:37 PM
7) I love Gygax - heck, I have his novels - but the following gygaxian thesaurus words can go: dweomer, glamer, bracers, weal.Those are all perfectly cromulent words



What's on your "time to retire" list?Nothing really; the more that they retire, especially when they're retiring things from 1e, the less the game is D&D... and while making those changes might make for a "better game", it's not one I'm going to be interested in playing, and it's certainly going to be my last choice if I want to "play D&D".

kamikasei
2007-09-28, 05:11 PM
It should be harder! The fighter's focus is on fighting and the required skills for fighting. If he spends alot of his time working on the flute then he isn't honing his other skills. Therefor he should pick up a level of bard, and presto the cap is now level +3. He doesn't get quite the increase in BAB and he shouldn't, since he spent his time making music instead of swinging the sword.

Bonus. You just got the ability to inspire courage.

If you don't want the bard abilities, take a level of expert, or just don't use the bard abilities.

What he sacrifices in putting points into Perform is the chance to use those skill points elsewhere. Perform is not a class feature, it's a skill. A fighter has skill points, so why shouldn't he be able to put them into that skill? Why should it take more of his time and attention to learn to play the flute than to weave baskets? As things stand he can put points into Craft (basketweaving) as a class skill and get more ranks for the same cost. Mysteriously this doesn't interfere with his sword training.

My point is that playing an instrument and learning to fight are not mutually exclusive, and bards shouldn't be the only ones able to play, or sing, or whatever. While certainly some classes get more use out of skills than others (Spellcraft being an obvious example) and some skills are just more useful than others (UMD), many class skill lists - and the exorbitant cost of any skill not on that list - are simply unjustified.

Yaki
2007-09-28, 05:31 PM
3) class skills: apart from restricting access to PrCs, why should my fighter not spend his free time playing the flute rather than jumping? Again, why make a fiddly rule against suboptimal choices or character flavor?
i would make it so that class skills get an extra point pool.
say, you get 4 skill points to spend at a level. you'd get an extra 4 points to spend on your class skills and only your class skills. so spending 4 points on Hide for a fighter wouldn't waste them like a cross-class skill thing.

i somehow am having trouble explaining this


3) Psionics. Needlessly redundant. "I can lift these boulders with my magic." "No, wait! I can lift them with my mind!"
psi should be a subcategory of magic or something

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-28, 05:33 PM
What he sacrifices in putting points into Perform is the chance to use those skill points elsewhere. Perform is not a class feature, it's a skill. A fighter has skill points, so why shouldn't he be able to put them into that skill? Why should it take more of his time and attention to learn to play the flute than to weave baskets? As things stand he can put points into Craft (basketweaving) as a class skill and get more ranks for the same cost. Mysteriously this doesn't interfere with his sword training.

My point is that playing an instrument and learning to fight are not mutually exclusive, and bards shouldn't be the only ones able to play, or sing, or whatever. While certainly some classes get more use out of skills than others (Spellcraft being an obvious example) and some skills are just more useful than others (UMD), many class skill lists - and the exorbitant cost of any skill not on that list - are simply unjustified.

That's essentially my opinion. Moreover, we face the double penalty of available skill points. The Bard gets 6 + Int bonus + Human bonus per level, while the Fighter gets only 2 + Int Bonus + Human Bonus per level. So even moreso, the Fighter is, per the RAW, actively penalized for seeking to branch out into other areas. The wizard, a class that is most likely going to be studying and in the books, gets the same number of skills as a Fighter or Cleric of the same level and intelligence, and faces the same Cross-Class penalties. Moreover, some cross-class designations are particularly arbitrary. Spot and Listen are skills that are used most often in every game, but if a Fighter wants to be good at those skills at all, he needs to dump many of his skill points into them with low returns and then take Feats just to boost that skill up. Even if we can successfully argue Perform should be Cross-Class (while Craft-Underwater Basketweaving is not), why would Spot and Listen be a Cross Class Skill for anyone?

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-28, 05:42 PM
It should be harder! The fighter's focus is on fighting and the required skills for fighting. If he spends alot of his time working on the flute then he isn't honing his other skills.
So a fighter who spends his time singing has less focus than the guitarist who's learned to use a sword, sneak around, cast magic spells and speak very very fluently?

And the Fighter who sings is also less focused than the one who spends equal time learning to sew?

Of course! That must be it!

Ganon11
2007-09-28, 05:46 PM
So a fighter who spends his time singing has less focus than the guitarist who's learned to use a sword, sneak around, cast magic spells and speak very very fluently?

Of course! That must be it!

No, the Fighter who sings while learning to fight with swords, axes, bows, as well as developing new techniques to use said weapons in inventive ways has less focus than the guitarist who has learned to use a sword marginally well, sneak around, cast magic spells and speak pretty well.

Fax Celestis
2007-09-28, 05:49 PM
No, the Fighter who sings while learning to fight with swords, axes, bows, as well as developing new techniques to use said weapons in inventive ways has less focus than the guitarist who has learned to use a sword marginally well, sneak around, cast magic spells and speak pretty well.

Way to quote only part of a statement. Good job.

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-28, 05:51 PM
Fax- I edited a couple o' times, so that's fair.



I went back to it a few seconds after posting when I realized there is no concrete example for how talented a character is (Base Attack is meaningless and there's no way to judge how much work goes into spellcasting), so I looked for a better example than the Bard.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-28, 06:20 PM
No, the Fighter who sings while learning to fight with swords, axes, bows, as well as developing new techniques to use said weapons in inventive ways has less focus than the guitarist who has learned to use a sword marginally well, sneak around, cast magic spells and speak pretty well.

But here's the thing, both the Bard and Fighter have class features outside of the skill system that reflect the focus of their chosen class. A bard will out-perform a Fighter, because the Bard's class abilities revolve around creating magical effects with his music. The Fighter is indeed focused on combat, but his Class Features, namely the strong BAB, Bonus Feats, and wider weapon selection. The idea that the Cross Class reflects the variances of a class' emphasis is a redundancy. Class abilities already reflect this.

Shatteredtower
2007-09-28, 06:48 PM
i would make it so that class skills get an extra point pool.
say, you get 4 skill points to spend at a level. you'd get an extra 4 points to spend on your class skills and only your class skills. so spending 4 points on Hide for a fighter wouldn't waste them like a cross-class skill thing.

i somehow am having trouble explaining thisI've been considering a few similar ideas. One odd one:

All classes receive a base 10 skill points per level. A certain percentage of these, depending on how skill-based the class is, can be spent on class skills, with the rest spent on cross-class skills. Extra cross-class skills can be purchased by using class skill points, but the only source of class skill points is your Intelligence bonus.

If skill points aren't eliminated, I'd like to see a system put in place for allowing one to gain all of those skill points your higher Intelligence bonus would otherwise give you. I don't think it should occur instantly, but I'd like it to be the sort of thing a character could gain through training or (for NPCs or off time) years of experience.

I could do with an adjustment to weapon proficiencies, but they fit. A crossbow is easier to use than a longbow and I'm in favour of continuing to have the rules reflect that. It's easier to let DMs make case by case exceptions for players than attempt to shut the door on those things perceived to be unrealistic for a given campaign coordinator.

Dhavaer
2007-09-28, 06:59 PM
Those are all perfectly cromulent words

Do they make you feel embiggened?

Techonce
2007-09-28, 08:35 PM
So a fighter who spends his time singing has less focus than the guitarist who's learned to use a sword, sneak around, cast magic spells and speak very very fluently?

And the Fighter who sings is also less focused than the one who spends equal time learning to sew?

Of course! That must be it!

ACtually this just proved how dumb it is that craft and profession are skills for everyone.

I doubt my thoughts here will change anyones opinion, but look st it this way:


Starts as a first level fighter, dabbles in Flute. Maxes out his skill and has 2 Ranks. He then levels.

While gaining the expereince to level, he played the flute a little, but also focused on fighterly things. So he takes another level of fighter. BAB=2, Flute = 2.5

or.....

While gaining the expereince to level, he played the flute alot, and spent some time on fighterly things. So he takes a level of bard and maxes out flute. BAB=1, Flute = 5.

NOw. Maybe some classes get the shaft with skill points, I won't argue that. What class skills do is make each class a bit more unique from the others.

I guess the other difference is that I don't see leveling as getting new abilities. I see leveling as finally doing something you have been working towards.

MaxMahem
2007-09-28, 09:43 PM
For all that is good and mighty get rid of some of the redundant skills! Star Wars Sagas makes good efforts along these lines, but doesn't go far enough.

These are the easy ones.

Hide/Move Silently = "Stealth" - I mean who is going to be good at hiding, but no good at moving quietly?
Balance/Tumble/Escape Artists = "Acrobatics" - Like Saga's allow the balance usage to be untrained, but otherwise they are redundant.
Climb/Swim/Jump = "Athletics" - Hardly anybody puts ranks in these anyways, so you might as well get your money's worth.
Search/Spot/Listen/Sense Motive = "Perception" - If these have to be skills, they should all be one.
Open Lock/Disable Device = "Disable Device" - The usage is similar, and hardly anyone would take one and not the other (if they had the choice), rouges might get fewer skills to compensate.
Spellcraft/Knowledge Arcana = "Knowledge Arcana" - Most usage of spellcraft should be either flat caster level checks or knowledge checks.
Appraise/Appropriate Knowledge Skill = Appropriate Knowledge Skill (ie weapons or arcana or whatever) - Appraise is another skill that doesn't get taken very often and would be better wrapped up in other knowledge skils.
Decipher Script/Appropriate Knowledge Skill = Appropriate Knowledge Skill (ie Knowledge Arcana/Religion/Planes or whatever depending on the source) Nobody takes ranks in this skill anyways, so might as well wrap it in with something worthwhile.
Knowledge Nature/Survival = Knowledge Nature - Survival doesn't come up that often, and it doesn't make sense that a druid who might be very knowledgeable about nature doesn't know how to survive out in the woods.


Thats the ones I think everybody can agree on, here are some more controversial ones.

Gather Information/Diplomacy = Persuasion - doesn't make any sense for me to have a character good at one but not the other.
Bluff/Slight of Hand/Forgery/Disguise = Deception - fairly differen't skills, but I think they could all come together in one skill set. Anyone good at bluffing probably has some knowledge of all the others
Handle Animal/Ride = Handle Animal - Similar enough to be combined, druids and rangers might get an extra bonus.


So if I had my way here is what the skill list might look like:
Acrobatics
Athletics
Concentration
Craft
Deception
Disable Device
Handle Animal
Knowledge
Perception
Perform
Profession
Stealth

Or so. I hate how D&D has so many useless skills on it's list that NO one takes many ranks in ever. (Like Use Rope)

Hawriel
2007-09-28, 10:40 PM
Max I like your skill idias. With some disagrement.

Gather information is its own skill but I would call it street wise, and make it more flexable. It aslo bestows the ediquitte of the under world of society. Also you can ask the quation of, what is the back market value of +1 longswords in waterdeep? Or replace with Investogation.

Deplomacy is not just persuading but knowing the ediquitte of negotiations. Bluff is persuading. I would add intimidate to the package though. That is another form of negotiations.

Slight of hand, forgery and disguise are types of deception they are different skills. I would put the ability to forge and link it to knowledge law or any other appropriat knowledge for what needs to be forged. Slight of hand is a skill of its own. It should be versatile though. not just picking pockets or palming cards.

Perseption. search and spot should be the one skill. listen is a different sence. you can have great eye sight but bad hearing.

servival should be its own skill. Just because you know zoology dosnt meen you know how to find water in the desert. servival should be open to all classes though. Druids and rangers should get a bones.

hmm Idea. instead of class skills and if they condence some skills and only add afew then give a class a bonus to skills they must have because its there job instead of class, nonclass skills. somthing like your skill level equils your skill rank + class bonus + stat bonus + misc. hmm sound good to any one?

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-28, 10:41 PM
I guess the other difference is that I don't see leveling as getting new abilities. I see leveling as finally doing something you have been working towards.

I don't think anyone's arguing with that, but the Warrior-y guy who plays the flute in his off-time shouldn't have to work harder to do so well than he should to ride a horse or to act scary.

If the choice was to develop combat ability OR skill ability that would be one thing, but every class get skills, they just get certain skills restricted for completely arbitrary reasons. The class skills do incredibly little to maintain game balance* and do more to interphere with the development of a character than to help ("What do you mean Hank the Fighter can't be very knowledgable about the church he's spent the entirity his life defending?")


*I'm just saying this because somebody is going to catch me on it: UMD is significantly better than any other skill. UPD, Autohypnosis and Tumble are also up there, as are Bluff and Diplomacy if your DM doesn't use common sense to limit their use. I think the last three should be available to everybody who wants them, though DMs should instate them rationally.

Caewil
2007-09-28, 11:25 PM
Iron Heroes uses a similar idea in skill groups. In IH, there are no class skills, but if your class has access to a skill group, you can spend one skill-point to affect all skills in that group.

Eg: A WeaponMaster has access to athletics, so he can spend 1 skill-point to get +1 rank in swim, climb and jump. He can also buy ranks in perform flute, but he has to spend 1 point for that skill alone.

No class/cross-class skills, but an altogether more realistic skill-system.

dyslexicfaser
2007-09-28, 11:55 PM
*I'm just saying this because somebody is going to catch me on it: UMD is significantly better than any other skill. UPD, Autohypnosis and Tumble are also up there, as are Bluff and Diplomacy if your DM doesn't use common sense to limit their use. I think the last three should be available to everybody who wants them, though DMs should instate them rationally.

I agree. Suppose I happen to want a Roy-like fighter who uses diplomacy, rather than intimidates people into doing what he wants? Well... tough luck then, because everyone knows fighters can only wave his sword around and bully people into helping him.

Starsinger
2007-09-29, 12:27 AM
I agree. Suppose I happen to want a Roy-like fighter who uses diplomacy, rather than intimidates people into doing what he wants? Well... tough luck then, because everyone knows fighters can only wave his sword around and bully people into helping him.

I believe the good Doctor was trying to say that the skills themselves need working, not restriction.

Callos_DeTerran
2007-09-29, 01:13 AM
I know you say this in jest, but I think this would be absolutely lovely!


......


......


.....I'm trying to think of someway to respond that wouldn't be utterly senseless, sarcastic, and/or insulting but I'm having trouble...mostly cause logical arguments aren't my thing and being mean is easier. :smallannoyed:


Hmmm..I guess I'm just saying I think it'd be way to overwhelming for beginning players. Seriously...with PrCs you can chose to ignore their very existence of the plain ol' base class. Don't need to read all that other stuff if you don't want to and you'll still probably end up with something alright or decent.

Mash it all together and you can't ignore it as easily. People would get bogged down reading about their base class which shouldn't happen, or get side tracked when an ability says 'refer to ability X on page Y' and when you get there it's telling you to go back and read something else. Granted it'll happen anyway but if all those options are part of the base class, then you pretty much HAVE to notice them and ignoring them is no longer an option if you want to at least be effective...that make sense or should I go to sleep and try again in the morning?


>.>...Nah, I think I had it right the first time Dr. Weasel. Thanks for tryin' though.

Jack Mann
2007-09-29, 01:13 AM
I believe the good Doctor was trying to say that the skills themselves need working, not restriction.

Dr. Weasel said those skills should not be restricted. Faser agreed and showed an example of a character that should be possible, but isn't under the current system because of the restrictions. Where is the conflict in these views?

EDIT: Callos, man, I can't speak for Starsinger, but for myself, I don't care where the options come from. If they come from the base class, great. If they come from prestige classes, grand. If they come from feats, wonderful. So long as the options exist, I'm happy. If the fluff is nice and mutable, there shouldn't be any problem with the options being part of the base class.

Logic
2007-09-29, 01:15 AM
I would prefer to see the base classes go the same route that the base classes in D20 Modern and Star Wars Saga Edition. You select the class features that you want, and don't take the ones you don't.

Prestige classes have to have some reason why it is a prestige class, and it had better give you an ability that is innaccessable otherwise. PERIOD.

I have been working on a homebrew system for skills that was inspired by Fallout, which I would like to see made part of 4th E, but for now, it will just go in my game.

Starsinger
2007-09-29, 01:18 AM
Dr. Weasel said those skills should not be restricted. Faser agreed and showed an example of a character that should be possible, but isn't under the current system because of the restrictions. Where is the conflict in these views?

:smallredface: This is why we read something twice, Starsinger... I missed the agreement part.. heh.. *looks for a hole to crawl into*

horseboy
2007-09-29, 01:25 AM
Oh please get rid of alignments! "Which of these 9 predetermined personalities do you want?" None. Heaven forbid I may actually want to play someone with dept to them.

I'd say at least 1/2 of the spells around. Time Stop should never have gotten past the editor, and the writer spanked with a head spanking rubber chicken. Like wise any save or die spell.

The notion that the character sheet is only for what your character can do in combat. And they wonder why people talk about how D&D is built only for hack & slash. :smallyuk:

Yakk
2007-09-29, 02:30 AM
He's not going to use any of them well so it doesn't matter which one he is "wielding". The difference between d4 and 2d6 isn't that big a deal anyway, 4.5 damage on average.

If the Wizard isn't going to swing his sword, wield a long sword. Sure you get a -4 to hit with it, but why do you care?


I hope they just do what SW: Saga Edition did. There are no more skill points.

Yes, skill points are overly futzy.


Didn't Aragorn also TWF in the Rings movies?

Cart, meet horse. Horse, meet cart.


Precisely. The fighter is as good as the single worst class in the game. In other words, he sucks royally at music, no matter how hard he tried. This doesn't make sense... you can't learn to sneak, because you trained swordmanship. You can't learn how to communicate effectively, because you're an archer. Et cetera.

No -- those who specialize in sneaking can get better at sneaking.
Those who specialize in music can get better at music.

I mean, they could have given every class a "1/2 of max level" cap on their skills, then granted "+1/2 level" bonus to all class skills -- would that have made you happier?


Nonsense! Even without cross-class limits, a bard will still rule because he has way more skill points per level. Plus bardic music is a class ability, not a skill.

Um, a fighter has enough points to cap their perform. Which means your fighter, who spends almost all of his time mastering the art of using swords (and gets full BaB and a bunch of bonus feats by doing it) becomes as good a musician as the bard who spends almost all of her time practicing music...

See the idea?

Heck -- in D&D 3.5, you can even splash bard class levels and cap out your perform every few levels, and be as good a flute player as the bard. However, this costs you fighter levels, and distracts you from being as good a fighter as you could have been...

Starsinger
2007-09-29, 02:35 AM
Heck -- in D&D 3.5, you can even splash bard class levels and cap out your perform every few levels, and be as good a flute player as the bard. However, this costs you fighter levels, and distracts you from being as good a fighter as you could have been...

But why can't yo be a good musician without being a bard? There's a difference you know... anyone with talent can be a musician, only bards can work magic with music. I don't see why only bards should get to be musicians then.

Yakk
2007-09-29, 02:44 AM
But why can't yo be a good musician without being a bard? There's a difference you know... anyone with talent can be a musician, only bards can work magic with music. I don't see why only bards should get to be musicians then.

Then take a level in Expert! :)

Eldritch_Ent
2007-09-29, 02:48 AM
I don't have much to say, except for these-



7) I love Gygax - heck, I have his novels - but the following gygaxian thesaurus words can go: dweomer, glamer, bracers, weal.

9) platinum pieces. It's such a weird and ahistorical metal to be the king of currency. Maybe drop it and increase the value of gold by 10?

10) Spiked chain.

c) That one PrC where you have to kill a hippo to get in.

I personally think these are all very fine things that should be loved and cherished by DnD players. :smallbiggrin:

The spiked chain chain and things like double weapon might be a bit impractical, but they're cool. And if Dungeons and Dragon's isn't about heroes doing cool things that they normally couldn't do, like fling fireballs, mezmerize using only the sound of their voice, Kick down an adamantium door, or converse with squirrels, then what *IS* it about?

Although if your complaint is based in mechanics, and that Spiked Chain is so good as to make other weapons poor choices, then I can agree with you. Each weapon should have a good reason to take it, and the fact that Fighters only truly viable choices these days are "Pick a weapon that maximizes Charge and Power Attack damage" or "Pick a Spiked Chain or Polearm and do Battlefield control" is just kind of lame. I want a game where I can stand and fight using a sword and shield at level 20 without dying horribly to a touch AC "Save or Die" spell. :(

Edit: Minor editing and spelling fixes

Dhavaer
2007-09-29, 02:49 AM
Then take a level in Expert! :)

Or Rogue. 321

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-29, 03:23 AM
@Starsinger Sorry about that. I tend to have last second revisions on my posts which quite often mangle what comprehensibility they originally have.


I really think that the similar classes should be mashed into one generic package, meaning that I am currently rather optimistic about Fourth Edition. Wizards has, however, shown the ability to flop concepts which really should be quite neat (Exhibit A: The Prestige class section of the Complete Scoundrel. Exhibit B: The Instant Clarity feat from ToB).

I see no reason for the Sorcerer not to encompass a specialist of every school (or whatever ridiculous fluff-unit Fourth Edition uses). There should be simple, easy-to use character classes, each somewhat unique from the others. Examples:

Sorcerer: Diviner, Enchanter (Enchantment and Illusion get to be the same thing), Necromancer, Shaper, Summoner, Warder, Warmage, with Wizard as the slow-learning generalist.

Fighter: Barbarian, Knight, Swashbuckler (Capitalizing on Strength, Constitution and Dexterity respectively)

Rogue: Acrobat, Bard, Ranger, Thief (Physically, Mentally, Naturally and Urban-based respectively)


All Sorcerer sub-classes will have spellcasting similar to that of the current Beguiler. The Wizard will have access to his entire spellbook to call upon at any time, though he will take far longer to execute a spell and will not have the potency of the other Sorcerers.

Feats would all have to scale as they would be the main source of character definition and customization. For Instance, a feat might grant a character the ability to cast one specific spell per level from one school. Animal Companion would be a feat working similarly to its present incarnation and filling the Familiar/Special Mount roles as well (why have three mechanics for what could be a single ability?). Iron Will could start with a numeric bonus on will saves, spread to an Autohypnosis-type ability and eventually build to Mind Blank.

New suppliments would primarily introduce feats. Ideally, they would have new ideas for Class-Umbrellas too, but that would be too much to ask after a few splatbooks are published.

Sorcerers would need sticks to cast their spells. (Unless they're Wizards, in which case they need books.)



Martial Weapon Proficiency is out, weapon group proficiencies are in (just because you can use a sword doesn't mean you can use a flail).

Use Magic Device is out. In fact, Magic Devices are almost entirely out. Magic is not stored in sticks or books, merely channeled through them.

Finally, I believe the Cleric is out (nostalgic throwback or not), the Heal/Survival skill is in. If a character wants to play a magical healer, they will be able to combine Necromancer and a Shaper and be able to use abilities similar to the Empathetic Transfer/Body Adjustment combination. (Though they would be combined into one ability instead of two entirely different sets of rolls)


Nah, I think I had it right the first time Dr. Weasel.
Ah, my mistake then.

Jack Mann
2007-09-29, 03:24 AM
Or monk, since, y'know, they're so much more musical than fighters. Or truenamer, if you like oratory. EDIT: Or Factotum. (Dungeonscape. I knew I forgot a 3.5 book somewhere...) That seems to be it for base classes with perform.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that you shouldn't have to spend your resources on things like that. Cool backstory things like that (when I'm not fighting monsters, I play mandolin to sweet ladies) shouldn't be at the cost of your overall effectiveness. Profession, perform, and craft generally have no great impact on gameplay. The rules on them don't really support it, except where class features (like bardic music) come into play. You should be able to just say, "My character comes from a long line of blacksmiths" without having to spend skill points in craft (blacksmith). Sure, I guess it's nice to have if the DM decides to have a smith-off or somesuch as part of his plot, but that comes into play maybe once a campaign.

I don't think players should have to pay for flavor. One shouldn't have to choose between the effective choice and the cool choice. Either give flavor skills and feats more use, or don't charge players for their backstory.

Josh the Aspie
2007-09-29, 05:07 AM
I would just like to point out that monks in the real world were indeed known for chanting as a part of religious rites. Gregorian chanting is as unique and magnificent an art form as that practiced by an orchestra. Eastern monks are also known for many different kinds of chants.

Also, crafting weapons, armor, and the like, actually synergize quite well with warriors. How many warriors became smiths upon retiring, or grew out of smithing backgrounds, where they make better swords, in part, because they know the difference due to using them well? In real life I'm not sure. In fantasy literature? Quite a few.

Also, two weapon fighting does make a fair amount of sense for rangers, when you look at where they came from. The ranger was originally derived from Aragorn in The Lord of the Rings. Just like dwarves came from dwarves, elves from elves, and hobbits, who are known as halflings outside the shire.... come to be halflings. The fact that they have morphed over time does not mean that they do not have this origin.

Further, imagine you're a warrior in the woods, where most rangers are pictured to be more often than not. Let's say you need to fight with melee weapons because... well... people closed to melee range. A huge two handed sword is not going to make any real sense, as you won't often have all that much room to swing it unless you're fighting on a cleared walking trail. Even then it will be awkward. Instead, you're likely to fight with a hatchet, or a short sword, or a fighting knife (which, when you take a look at a good woodman's knife, is pretty much the same thing. Dagger to short-sword).

So, what do you do with your other hand? Just hold it out there so that if someone gets past your blade, they strike your hand instead of your chest? Well if you don't have anything else, probably so. But what if you have a hatchet -and- a knife, as many woodsmen did? Well, you're probably going to get that out too, to parry with. And if your primary weapon is locked with his, and your knife is free... are you just going to wait till your primary weapon has a good shot, or are you going to strike with your secondary weapon?

Most "Ranger" societies had small weapons, so that even if you -were- going to have room to swing a bigger one, you didn't have a bigger one to swing.

Two weapon fighting, in my opinion, is the natural melee fighting style for the ranger to take, if he's going to do more melee than ranged when it comes to actual combat, vs hunting (which is best done with a short bow in wooded areas anyway).

Citizen Joe
2007-09-29, 05:41 AM
I would really like them to stop using 'Monk' to mean 'Martial artist'.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-29, 06:44 AM
I would really like them to stop using 'Monk' to mean 'Martial artist'.

That's a good point.

Monks should have lots of knowledge and meditation skills, but nothing else; the ability to levitate and go without food for lengthy amount of times; and the ability to spout zen at other PCs, thus giving them a wisdom bonus. That, and lose their powers when they step upon an ant.

Way more realistic than the current monk, and about equally useful :smallbiggrin:

Citizen Joe
2007-09-29, 06:52 AM
Yea, I could see an oriental monk getting all those weird special abilities, but not the fighting stuff. That is simply a different discipline.

woc33
2007-09-29, 07:43 AM
I'd like to see a pary system instead of an AC system, armor gives DR and the rest of the bonuses reflect your parry. It basically works as ac except that you roll too and add the normal bonuses (but less of those exist). By spending an attack you may put the same attack bonus to your parry roll, and if you hold a shield it is also usable in your parry roll. giving shields higher bonuses would make sword n' board a better tactic.

Rex Blunder
2007-09-29, 08:30 AM
By spending an attack you may put the same attack bonus to your parry roll

I believe they had a system not unlike this in 1e. The problem is, no one used it. It rarely makes sense to give up an attack to improve your defense.

Parry is one of the hardest things to model in a game, in a way that makes it a balanced tactical choice.

Shatteredtower
2007-09-29, 09:11 AM
Hide/Move Silently = "Stealth" - I mean who is going to be good at hiding, but no good at moving quietly?A lot of creatures that prefer to lie in wait for their prey, not moving until it comes into range. Reverse the question, and you'll find an entirely different answer, as a number of highly visible creatures make hardly a sound as they move. That means you can see them coming a mile off, but you won't hear them until they're next to you.


Balance/Tumble/Escape Artists = "Acrobatics" - Like Saga's allow the balance usage to be untrained, but otherwise they are redundant.Being able to walk a tightrope has nothing to do with being able to escape from shackles or squeeze through a tunnel.


Climb/Swim/Jump = "Athletics" - Hardly anybody puts ranks in these anyways, so you might as well get your money's worth.Not fond of this. People don't climb like a fish or swim like a monkey. Expand on the uses of each, if you must, but keep them separate.


Search/Spot/Listen/Sense Motive = "Perception" - If these have to be skills, they should all be one.I fail to see why someone hard of sight should clearing be hard of hearing and easily deceived. I'll admit that there's a stronger case for combining Spot and Search. I can see the argument for making them separate skills, but most of them can be handled with modifiers.


Open Lock/Disable Device = "Disable Device" - The usage is similar, and hardly anyone would take one and not the other (if they had the choice), rouges might get fewer skills to compensate.This combo makes some sense, though I fail to see why a rogue should get fewer skill points just because these two get blended.


Spellcraft/Knowledge Arcana = "Knowledge Arcana" - Most usage of spellcraft should be either flat caster level checks or knowledge checks.Two in a row, and the stronger of the two.


Appraise/Appropriate Knowledge Skill = Appropriate Knowledge Skill (ie weapons or arcana or whatever) - Appraise is another skill that doesn't get taken very often and would be better wrapped up in other knowledge skils.Possibly, though Appraise is seldom taken because any advantage it would give you eventually has to be addressed by recommended wealth by level. Failed to get full value for that suit of jade armor you recovered on your last adventure? Not to worry! We'll just make sure you get rewarded in gold pieces next time.

The skill should have other uses than that, however. A commoner disguised as a king (or king as commoner) could run into real trouble against someone who can tell the difference between paste and ruby at a glance.


Decipher Script/Appropriate Knowledge Skill = Appropriate Knowledge Skill (ie Knowledge Arcana/Religion/Planes or whatever depending on the source) Nobody takes ranks in this skill anyways, so might as well wrap it in with something worthwhile.I've found it invaluable for piecing together the meaning of material recovered from damaged, poorly written, or archaic texts. None of the Knowledge skills cover all three.

Furthermore, I also favour Complete Adventurer's recommendation for using Decipher Script to write codes, as well as break them.


Knowledge Nature/Survival = Knowledge Nature - Survival doesn't come up that often, and it doesn't make sense that a druid who might be very knowledgeable about nature doesn't know how to survive out in the woods.Theory and practice have always been two different things. I've known botanists who wouldn't know the first thing about finding an edible plant in the woods, even if able to name dozens indigenous to the region.


Gather Information/Diplomacy = Persuasion - doesn't make any sense for me to have a character good at one but not the other.Gather Information is about knowing who and how to ask the right questions. It doesn't prevent your informants from selling you out or attempting to cause you more direct harm.


Bluff/Slight of Hand/Forgery/Disguise = Deception - fairly differen't skills, but I think they could all come together in one skill set. Anyone good at bluffing probably has some knowledge of all the others.They complement each other well, but are still too different to all be lumped together.


Handle Animal/Ride = Handle Animal - Similar enough to be combined, druids and rangers might get an extra bonus.I know more than a few veterinarians who'd laugh at the idea of getting on a horse, so I really can't agree with this one.

I admit that some skills are more useful to NPCs than PCs, but I don't see that as adequate reason to roll them up into smaller categories.


I don't think anyone's arguing with that, but the Warrior-y guy who plays the flute in his off-time shouldn't have to work harder to do so well than he should to ride a horse or to act scary.This is why I've expanded the role of Skill Focus to let a character always treat a skill as a class skill, regardless of class. It also gives extra ranks in said skill for every few levels in a class in which it's actually a class skill. The bonus is only +2, but the bonus ranks catch it up.

I also convert the cross-class ranks to class ranks retroactively, which tends to be less hassle in the long run.

Shatteredtower
2007-09-29, 09:23 AM
I believe they had a system not unlike this in 1e. The problem is, no one used it. It rarely makes sense to give up an attack to improve your defense.To my chargin, I found more than a few broken weapons in a Dark Sun supplement that gave free parry attempts. Most exasperating, which supports your next point.


Parry is one of the hardest things to model in a game, in a way that makes it a balanced tactical choice.Fighting defensively seems to be 3rd Edition's version of parrying, though I can see why it's not a popular choice. An option they could have examined was to make it a readied action that, if successful, gave you an attack of opportunity against an opponent who would then be denied the Dex bonus to AC for the purposes of that attack.

Of course, you'd then have to do something about the rules for attempting a feint. My suggestion is that a feint is an attack that requires a standard action, but that leaves you open to an attack of opportunity if you are unsuccessful on the opposed check.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-29, 09:35 AM
A lot of creatures that prefer to lie in wait for their prey, not moving until it comes into range. Reverse the question, and you'll find an entirely different answer,
Yes, but for PC skills it makes little sense to take either and not both. It's more elegant to give those monsters you mention some kind of role or trait or whatnot to reflect this.



Being able to walk a tightrope has nothing to do with being able to escape from shackles or squeeze through a tunnel.
No, but balance and escape artist are highly specific skills that aren't going to come up all that often, or never. Same with swimming and jumping, it simply doesn't come up often enough to be worth the skill points.

Et cetera. The actual issue is people getting a very limited amount of skill points, not that certain abilities aren't really the same as other abilities.

Renegade Paladin
2007-09-29, 09:54 AM
7) I love Gygax - heck, I have his novels - but the following gygaxian thesaurus words can go: dweomer, glamer, bracers, weal.

emphasis mine.
what's wrong with bracers? Also did Gygax really created that word? I find it hard to imagine because I here it a lot.
Weal is an English word for good fortune dating back centuries; bracer is the term for the armor plate over the forearm, also dating back centuries. Gygax had nothing to do with the creation of the words; there's no need to cut out parts of the English vocabulary simply because some people never bothered to learn the language. :smallannoyed:

Green Bean
2007-09-29, 10:03 AM
Weal is an English word for good fortune dating back centuries; bracer is the term for the armor plate over the forearm, also dating back centuries. Gygax had nothing to do with the creation of the words; there's no need to cut out parts of the English vocabulary simply because some people never bothered to learn the language. :smallannoyed:

Well, unless you count the natural evolution of language... :smallamused:

Renegade Paladin
2007-09-29, 10:33 AM
What about the natural evolution of language? Weal and bracer are still English words, and there's no reason to stop using them. Certainly if everyone did stop for some reason then they'd quickly fall out of the vocabulary, but why would everyone do that?

Rex Blunder
2007-09-29, 10:43 AM
there's no need to cut out parts of the English vocabulary simply because some people never bothered to learn the language.

Hey, Renegade Paladin, I know those are preexisting words. Thus I called them Gygax thesaurus words. My point is that Gygax has an unnecessarily verbose style, as anyone who has read 1e manuals or gygax novels can tell you.

I think most people who commented on my remarks about Gygax vocab noticed that these words really don't appear an excessive amount in 3e, which I think is probably true, so I guess that wasn't the strongest of my suggestions.

Remember that among generally nerdy d&d circles, insulting someone's vocabulary or intellectuallism is about one of the most insulting things you can say. But I'm sure you didn't mean to come off like a jerk.

Josh the Aspie
2007-09-29, 11:16 AM
I would really like them to stop using 'Monk' to mean 'Martial artist'.

I would as well. The Lawful paradigm comes from the idea that this is a monk we're talking about. The vast majority of the class abilities could reflect a chaotic brawler, or a wrestler who whorship's Kord just as easily.

However keep in mind that many eastern monks -are- martial artists. They train the body as a part of training the mind. There are two kinds of monks that most people are familiar with. The Western ones, typically of the Benedictine or Gregorian orders (for the ones people are familiar with at least), and for the eastern ones, The Xiao-lin monks, which are always portrayed as being incredibly skilled martial artists. "King Fu" and "Kung Fu, the legend continues" being prime examples.

Shatteredtower
2007-09-29, 12:01 PM
Yes, but for PC skills it makes little sense to take either and not both. It's more elegant to give those monsters you mention some kind of role or trait or whatnot to reflect this.It's simpler, however, to tie them to skills. As it noted, certain forms of terrain make it easier to hide, but harder to avoid making noise. Making both of them one skill makes it harder to create unique circumstances.

Move Silently without Hide is not a bad skill choice for creatures with darkvision, so long as they stay underground, since darkvision (and tremorsense) usually extends no further than charging range. "Campers" don't hardly Move Silently at all.


No, but balance and escape artist are highly specific skills that aren't going to come up all that often, or never. Same with swimming and jumping, it simply doesn't come up often enough to be worth the skill points.The absence of Balance checks has always been campaign specific, and would be fixed by cleaning up the rules for rough terrain. Escape Artist is useful for escapling grappling monsters without magical aids -- and it's the absolute nature of so much magic that is the problem here. It should have some relevance on the squeezing rules in combat as well, though.


The actual issue is people getting a very limited amount of skill points, not that certain abilities aren't really the same as other abilities.Then the actual issue should be addressed with an increase in the amount of skill points available to everyone, as well as options for customizing skill selection. The idea of condensing them into smaller fields has some merit, but I'd rather see an improvement on synergy rules. (The excesses related to both Bluff and Diplomacy compared to everything else are too much. Of course, Diplomacy needs to be fixed anyway, what with even the untrained being hard-pressed to make anything worse.)

Shatteredtower
2007-09-29, 12:21 PM
Hey, Renegade Paladin, I know those are preexisting words. Thus I called them Gygax thesaurus words. My point is that Gygax has an unnecessarily verbose style, as anyone who has read 1e manuals or gygax novels can tell you.Nah. He's just got the same fondness Phil Foglio does for Mrs. Byrne's Dictionary, which was prefaced with the following disclaimer by its editor: "The author and editor apologize for the ammunition this book provides to bad writers."

But I'm still glad Mr. Gygax used them, because they were one more thing that encouraged me to look stuff up back when I was a kid.

Fhaolan
2007-09-29, 12:43 PM
Hmmm..I guess I'm just saying I think it'd be way to overwhelming for beginning players. Seriously...with PrCs you can chose to ignore their very existence of the plain ol' base class. Don't need to read all that other stuff if you don't want to and you'll still probably end up with something alright or decent.


Basically the only way I can think of having it simple enough for beginners and complex enough for experts is to have a 'basic' version of the class with 'expansions'.

Which is pretty much what the PrCs were supposed to be in 3.x, kits were supposed to be in 2nd, and subclasses were supposed to be in AD&D. I'm pretty sure that's what everyone is talking about with these Talent Tree things that may be in 4e. There will be a few simple talent trees for the base classes in the PHB, and every splatbook and suppliment will have dozens of new Talent Trees.

The only time we will ever have a 'complete' PHB with all the player options is after the new PHB is published and before the first splatbook is published. The *second* a splatbook is published, it will include new player options. That's why people buy those things.

Dr. Weasel
2007-09-29, 01:41 PM
Wow. I'm surprised nobody caught me on what I said about the healing magic. After typing my last post, I'm beginning to disagree very strongly to the concept.

Clerics I feel are unnecessary beyond just being a different way of presenting your Wizard. I don’t see any benefit to an arbitrary difference between arcane/divine, especially when some classes blur the line (Bards for instance use the characteristics of both-Healing, Illusioning, casting in armor, and failing to cast in certain armors).

Healing magic should be available, but should be either Necromancy or Transmutation-based.

To argue against my prior stement, game momentum would be hard to maintain if your people had to heal along the lines set out by reality.

To agree with part of my prior statement, everybody should be able to have the means to heal actual hit-point loss via the Heal and Alchemy skills.

SurlySeraph
2007-09-29, 07:48 PM
@^: I agree that there should be a Heal skill. However, I strongly disagree with allowing healing magic to be arcane magic. Why? Simple. Wizards, currently, have spells that let them bend people to their will (Charm, Dominate), kill things (so many killing spells!), control the battlefield (Hold Person, Grease), go anywhere they want (Knock, Teleport, Plane Shift), avoid being harmed (Stoneskin), fight (Tenser's Transformation), even heal to an extent (Polymorph), and do dozens of other things better than the other classes. If Wizards could heal, there would be no need to have any other class in a party. They would just be that overpowered. Besides, then you'd lose all the flavor of the Cleric and Druid and have to seriously revamp the Paladin and Ranger. Making religious authorities draw power from themselves rather than from the gods would seriously undermine the religious system of pretty much every campaign setting (except Eberron), and furthermore wouldn't make much more sense. Divine magic stays.

Back on the subject of what needs to be removed: five pages and no one has brought up Natural Spell?!

Hawriel
2007-09-29, 09:04 PM
There is a heal skill. From what ive read so far I dont think any one has ever used it. To augment my clerics healing powers Ive always taken healing, herbalism, alchemi, and any other skill I could think of that would help a medieval doctor.

Clerics to be are an important class to D&D, or should I say Iconic. In a world whare gods directly interfere in the mortal world. Whether gods be good, evil or crazy. Whare demons savage villages and all the other stuff. A cleric is a must. They are the instroments of gods will on earth. As well as being the speritual guid for their societies. Thats not somthing you just drop out of a game. Espesialy sence its been such an intrical part of it.

The bards ability to heal is absurd. There is no reason for them to have healing spells. I do think they should have a music ability to help the injured and sick heal natualy faster. Rasing the moral of the injured helps.

Whare healing magic comes from. healing is a necromantic art. in D&D its always been in that school. It was wotc that changed that. Better to market it to suburben mothers quick with the accusation of devil worship, if healing was in a different school.

If you want to get rid of a caster class. I say sorc. The class is really just a wizard by another name. 4ed should pick one kind of casting style and stick with it.

Citizen Joe
2007-09-29, 09:56 PM
Whare healing magic comes from. healing is a necromantic art. in D&D its always been in that school.

It is conjuration. I suppose they are saying that the are drawing positive energy from the positive energy plane an focusing it into healing. Cause wound spells draw from the negative energy plane.

It is not a complex spell. You simply tie into your energy affinity from your religious training and focus it into curing. Thats how you can spontaneously cast a cure spell (or damage spell if you're negative affinity). That also explains how it ties in to the turning or rebuking... and how it cause wounds heals undead.

VanBuren
2007-09-29, 11:48 PM
Spell schools have nothing to do with the planes you draw energy from. By that logic, Animate Dead should be Conjuration because you're drawing energy from the negative energy plane.

I think Healing was Necromantic because it dealt with death, specifically staving it off.

horseboy
2007-09-30, 12:23 AM
Better to market it to suburben mothers quick with the accusation of devil worship, if healing was in a different school.


FYI, WotC is own by Hasbro, who also owns Parker Brothers, the makers of the Ouija board. I really don't think they care about "suburban mothers quick with the accusation of devil worship."

Jayabalard
2007-09-30, 12:55 AM
Soooo you are okay with a person telling the laws of physics to sit down and shut up, but not swing a sword 8 times in 6 seconds?

A 3 thousand year old lizard that breathes fire is good, but shooting 5 arrows at once is not...Correct

in both examples, the first case is magic, and the second case is supposedly mundane (non-magical).

I'm fine with Magic being absurd, that's pretty much what it's supposed to be, by definition. But I'd prefer to leave the non-magical absurdities out of the game.

Draz74
2007-09-30, 01:09 AM
Correct

in both examples, the first case is magic, and the second case is supposedly mundane (non-magical).

I'm fine with Magic being absurd, that's pretty much what it's supposed to be, by definition. But I'd prefer to leave the non-magical absurdities out of the game.

Hmmm, thing is that D&D -- past low levels -- is supposed to represent the superhuman, whether or not it's magic. What you're describing sounds kind of like a game where you say, "Only caster classes are allowed (or live long enough) to level up past level 6 or so." ... which, admittedly, is what a lot of fantasy literature depicts. But it's not good for inter-party interaction.

But if magic lets you do ridiculous things, then why shouldn't a warrior who's more heroic, experienced, and just all-around better than Alexander the Great be able to do ridiculous things without magic?

Kurald Galain
2007-09-30, 06:32 AM
But if magic lets you do ridiculous things, then why shouldn't a warrior who's more heroic, experienced, and just all-around better than Alexander the Great be able to do ridiculous things without magic?

Because he is bound to the laws of physics, or what pass for the laws of physics within the campaign setting.

Dhavaer
2007-09-30, 06:42 AM
Because he is bound to the laws of physics, or what pass for the laws of physics within the campaign setting.

Why can't the setting's physics allow for things we would consider ridiculous?

Serenity
2007-09-30, 08:29 AM
In a world where magic is as powerful and reality breaking as in D&D, while non-casters were confined utterly to the same limitations and laws of physics while on Earth, then no one would go adventuring or such things except casters, because they're the only ones with the power necessary to survive a wilderness of skyscraper sized creatures with appropriately scaled weapons or giant, flying, fire-breathing lizards. There's now way, by the laws of physics, that a human blade could possibly wound a giant or dragon in any appreciable way barring acceleration beyond our physical ability. Luckily, giants and dragons have a physiology that the laws of physics don't allow to exist, either.

I mean, let's look at some of our mythological roots here. Beowulf was strong enough to rip a monster's arm off, swim for several days in full armor and go straight to battle afterwards. The Greek heroes were, by and large, demigods. In Tolkein, the characters are perhaps low-powered, but still capable of quite extraordinary feats. Boromir makes a stand alone against waves of orcs, felling them with each blow, and even fighting on for a good while after being shot with arrows. Legolas can make crazy shots with his bow. Heck, the Riders of Rohan were apparently able of cutting the hamstrings of elephants with their blades!

Heroes being capable of things beyond the ability of normal humans is nothing new. If you really want to play a game where you've got the choice between an all-powerful caster and Regular Guy, more power to you. Just don't berate us for not liking that stylr of play.

puppyavenger
2007-09-30, 08:38 AM
a few things replace alignment with the alligence system from D20 modern

b. burn every mention of natuaral spell
c make the game completly balanced well keeping each class unique and fun

Jarlax
2007-09-30, 08:50 AM
while were cleaning house, lets simplify mundane items. unless your starting at level 1 your mundane items, accomidation, food and living expenses are all rounding points to your PC's total wealth.

so rework it somehow. make mundane items not take up 2.5 pages of fluff that tells me a backpack is an item that holds stuff without saying how much stuff and a 10ft pole is a stick thats 10ft long, with a table that tells me a flask is worth .03 gold and doesn't have weight, because no-one cares about CP and the few people who track weight are not getting any help from any item that says "-" rather than "1lb per 10".

next lets clean up the weapons and strength relation, the composite longbow states unless the wielder has the necessary strength he takes a -2 penalty. so the wizard with 10str cannot use a composite longbow +1 without taking a -2 penalty, however he can swing a 12lb halberd anytime he likes. if your going to enforce strength rules on weapons its all on none, not a single weapon in the whole game.


finally get rid of the over specific skills. Climb, Jump and Swim are all strength based skills requiring some form of athletic skill. the fighter, a master of his weapon and his body, can choose one, maybe two, of these things to do. they are all athletic disciplines so why do they not occupy one skill. the same way disarming a trap, opening a lock or sabotaging a mechanical device are all disciplines of the disable device skill.

Rex Blunder
2007-09-30, 09:57 AM
a 10ft pole is a stick thats 10ft long

Another thing: D&D holds the record for "number of editions of something in which '10-foot pole' is given a price", at 3 editions ... 4 if you count OD&D. The line must be drawn here! This far, and no further. Was this item just inspired by the expression about 10-foot poles, anyway?

10 foot poles actually made a lot of sense in 1st edition, which was chock-full of unfair, deadly traps, and had 10-foot map squares instead of 5-foot squares. But it's kind of an absurd item. My favorite thing about it is that it allows you to pretend that if a 10-foot pole costs 2sp, then a 500-foot pole must cost 1gp.

Jarlax is right that mundane items and accomodation are unimportant past the first level or so. I think it would be neat to be able to pay a picaresque, poor campaign where you never knew where your next meal was coming from, and small change had meaning, but after level 1 it becomes difficult to do so without heavily modifying WBL and the overall game.

Kurald Galain
2007-09-30, 10:09 AM
My favorite thing about it is that it allows you to pretend that if a 10-foot pole costs 2sp, then a 500-foot pole must cost 1gp.
My favorite thing is that two ten-foot poles are a lot more expensive than a ten-foot ladder.

1. Buy ladders
2. Break out rungs
3. Sell poles separately
4. Profit!

Rockphed
2007-09-30, 10:13 AM
the same way disarming a trap, opening a lock or sabotaging a mechanical device are all disciplines of the disable device skill.

I hate to nit pick on your oh so well made point, but Opening Locks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/openLock.htm) and Breaking Traps (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/disableDevice.htm) are different skills. Further, swimming takes a different muscle set than jumping or Climbing although there are overlaps. If I am trained to swim well, I have no benefits on climbing well.

Starsinger
2007-09-30, 10:15 AM
I hate to nit pick on your oh so well made point, but Opening Locks (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/openLock.htm) and Breaking Traps (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/disableDevice.htm) are different skills. Further, swimming takes a different muscle set than jumping or Climbing although there are overlaps. If I am trained to swim well, I have no benefits on climbing well.

Except, if you look under "Disable Device" you'll find out that it does indeed mention opening a lock as one of the things you can do with the skill, making open lock somewhat excessive. :smallwink:

Rex Blunder
2007-09-30, 10:25 AM
swimming takes a different muscle set than jumping or Climbing

Swimming and climbing is a tough example. I'm all for combining rarely-used skills - the goal, I think, should be to make all the skill choices to be roughly equally viable, on a purely gamist level, so you don't have to gimp your character to make the role-playing decisions you want - but the criterion I usually use for considering whether to combine skills is, "Is it hard - not impossible, but hard - to come up with a preexisting heroic archetype that knows one skill and not the other?"

For me, it is fairly hard to imagine someone who is good at creeping silently and not good at hiding. Likewise, I find it reasonably difficult to come up with an archetype for someone who is a silver-tongued diplomat but a bad bluffer. (Please don't come up with counterexamples, I know it can be done. I'm just saying I think that it's difficult.)

However, it's fairly easy for me to imagine someone who is great at climbing but bad at swimming, or vice versa - for instance, the classic sailor (climbs rigging like a monkey but drowns in a deep bathtub). Therefore, I don't know whether it's the right decision to combine climbing or swimming or not. It would be a sacrifice in realism. An acceptable sacrifice? Probably.

Rockphed
2007-09-30, 10:32 AM
Except, if you look under "Disable Device" you'll find out that it does indeed mention opening a lock as one of the things you can do with the skill, making open lock somewhat excessive. :smallwink:

Where?:smallconfused: It does mention Jamming a Lock(either open or closed), but not opening one.

@^ I don't disagree that all skills should be an equal spending of skill points(except profession and craft, those aren't all that important to adventurers), I was just pointing out a possible explanation. And are you suggesting that Hide and Move Silently be combined into Stealth?

Starsinger
2007-09-30, 10:44 AM
And are you suggesting that Hide and Move Silently be combined into Stealth?

Yes! It unfairly punishes non-rogues who want to be stealthy, since few classes have as many skill points to spare as rogues do. What's that you say? There are things that are good at hiding, but not good at being quiet? Why, that's what conditional modifiers are for. "+4 bonus on stealth checks to move silently." "-2 penalty on stealth checks to hide."

Kurald Galain
2007-09-30, 11:00 AM
Where?:smallconfused: It does mention Jamming a Lock(either open or closed), but not opening one.

The reasoning is that a lock is a device that has the purpose of keeping a door shut, therefore if you disable it, it will no longer be able to function as door-keeper-shutter. This does smell faintly of rules lawyering, and it would certainly be within reason for the DM to disallow this.

That said, if you look at it from a real-world perspective, both can be said to employ essentially the same competences and expertises.

kamikasei
2007-09-30, 11:05 AM
The reasoning is that a lock is a device that has the purpose of keeping a door shut, therefore if you disable it, it will no longer be able to function as door-keeper-shutter. This does smell faintly of rules lawyering, and it would certainly be within reason for the DM to disallow this.

Disable and Jam are two different verbs. Using Disable Device to Jam a Lock presumably leaves the lock locked and unable to be unlocked, or unlocked and unable to be locked, but will not change its state, just make it permanent.

Jarlax
2007-09-30, 09:11 PM
the PHB states that you can jam a lock open or closed with DD, but i had missed that open lock skill was still around, which goes to show i need to be a PC again.

i don't think skills need to be streamlined so that we are left with a whole 5 skills in the entire game. but there are skills that could be merged to make room for additional new skills or just to tidy the skill list.

the point of turning climb, swim and jump into one skill is to give classes with low skill points better options in their skills without raising their number of skill points per level. if your fighter used int as his dump stat he has 8 points at first level. if jump climb and swim are one skill he gets to select 2 skills from his new list of 5 rather than 2 from a list of 7.

rockphed did mention that swimming and climbing are different muscles. however that doesn't apply, because skill points are intelligence based, the performance of your muscles is reflected in the skill bonus your strength provides not in the skill points.

Yakk
2007-10-01, 08:46 AM
Yes! It unfairly punishes non-rogues who want to be stealthy, since few classes have as many skill points to spare as rogues do. What's that you say? There are things that are good at hiding, but not good at being quiet? Why, that's what conditional modifiers are for. "+4 bonus on stealth checks to move silently." "-2 penalty on stealth checks to hide."

In another interpretation, it rewards rogues. :)

Rogues are a gimp enough class without making their advantage (lots of skill points) worse.

Rex Blunder
2007-10-01, 10:07 AM
But in the context of a 4th edition conversation, we're not sure what's gimp yet.

gaymer_seattle
2007-10-01, 03:01 PM
so i'm creating this game called Advanced Rules & Regulations. It's a vastly fantasy setting except that you have to research historical and theatrical references to justify how and why you do what you do.

What is is this? A debate among third graders? The post is about what you'd like to see and what you'd like to go, not a D&D research grant. Vastly the arguments see to be why everyone in the world should play D&D the way they want the game to run.

keep in mind, 4E is going to be what ever 4E is going to be. If 4E says the Elves can only make toys (or be dentists), gnomes are 8 inches tall and made of pottery, and dwarves come in group of 7 and sing, then that is what 4e will be about. You have a choice. play for 4E, or don't. It's one of the great things about D&D, the rules really don't matter if you don't want them to.

that said, here are my list of keepers and killers

KILLS

Elminster, The Heroes of the Lance, , Straud and Drizzt. Kill Drizzt a couple of times. The entire worlds of Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms. If they are in a novel say good bye. Make up your own heroes and fantastic people.

Classes as they are. Have a Divine Class, an Arcane Class, a Martial Class, and Rogue Class. Build your character from options with in those categories. Martial characters will obvious be the tank type class, but can take an arcane or divine subtype if they want limited spell casting available. I haven't fleshed this out, but it's a model to work from

Hit Points and AC - after the collective gasp of horror - have all people have essentially the same amount of life energy (modified by CON and "feats"). Have a Attack Stat and a defense Stat (modified by level and DEX or STR as applicable). In combat have opposed combat rolls (attack vs defense) higher result prevails. Weapons do a fixed amount of damage modified by STR, magic and material. Armor provides a DR that subtracts damage (modified by DEX, Magic and Material).

Psions. Just get rid of them. Psychic Warriors, Soul Knifes, Wilders are okay, but Psions are just a number crunching class.

Three Quarters of the PrCs. - they were a great way to keep two Wizards from being exactly the same at the same level, but some are just plain silly. Also ditch the ability to multiclass your PrCs. Or at least require that a PrC complete it's level before taking on another PrC. this will remove these ridiculous builds people keep posting. This is an ROLE PLAYING GAME not a statistics assignment.

Magic Freaking Missile - I can only remember an illustration of a ghostly crossbow bolt flying towards an enemy in a I think a 1E book. It looked silly. It sounds silly. It is possibly one of the most infamously mocked lines of all time.

"I cast magic missile"

Why can't it be something cool like Warlocks got. Eldritch blast. Why not Arcane Bolt? or Force Bolt? can anyone actually say "magic missile" without clenching their nostrils?

Vampire Spawn - well not so much get rid of them as put them in their place. A dead spawn should stay dead, not puff into vapor and fly home. That should be the exclusive purview of a true vampire. Ok.. ok. I'm in a ravenloft campaign right now, and I just don't want to have to wade through an ocean of Straud spawn after I have already defeated them once. But aside from that... Spawn should be like kleenex (an apparently husbands) clean, sturdy and disposable.

Trivial Moral Fences - ie the alignment system. While I think that Paladins and their ilk need a code of ethics and morality that reflect their status. And clerics inherently will radiate light or darkness (depending on affiliation and beliefs), the vast majority of people are morally ambivalent. A vendor in the market is rarely going to be forthcoming about how much his products cost him. He will manipulate the truth or out and out lie to make the most money. this is wrong. But it doesn't make him evil. Alignments should be determined by supernatural affiliation to the source or extreme association with corresponding behavior.

A lot of spells - you know which ones I'm talking about. the spells that stacks with Ray of Enfeeblement and Ray of Exhaustion. The Shadow spells that due 40% of the real spell at a lower level. It might be worth looking at spells as a whole. Maybe they can be crafted similar to classes. Thus two spell casters may not have exactly the same fireball

Initiative as it stands - maybe a system by which lowest roll goes first, but a higher roll can "interrupt". this allows a character with a higher initiative to attempt to stop a spell casters, or step out of the way and attack an opponent who charges.


Magic Items with total charges. Wands and staffs. Wizards is has already posted that there will be some revisions about this. I like the direction they are going.


KEEPS

Domains - I think this is a great way to develop a deity of your own design. it says a lot about what a god is about and thusly their followers.

Sorcerers - I am biased on this one. I like Sorcerers. I don't hate Wizards, but I think that there are different ways to approach magic. You could build a sorcerer or wizard in my theoretical Arcane Class.

Feats - or some variation of. Like the PrCs I think that Feats went a long way to making characters unique in a mechanical way. what two people in the entire world are going to have exactly the same abilities modified only by an ability stat?

Heritage Feats - I point these out separately as there was some debate about "half" races, and a suggestion of the Heritage Feat, which I think is a brilliant idea. Half a Elven heritage, an orc/troll heritage, etc etc

Action Points - my favorite aspect of Eberron. I think that these should be adopted in all campaign settings. Story-wise, Heroes are able to do amazing things under extreme circumstances. With the appropriately description (Reaching into the inner calm that all followers of ****** are taught to do, I summon to my mind the brightest moment of my life and let it shine the radiance of true goodness upon my enemies)

ADDITIONS - or things I'd like to see in 4E

All magic items treated like Artifacts. As in, magic items are unique. Scrolls and potions can be fairly generic, but put an end to the +1 long sword.

This Thenaril, forged by Sendra Scarfist, the only female dwarven swordsmith of Harrowdawn. Thenaril is light and swift, but strong and sharp. It hates troll and orc flesh. (mechanically keen +2/+3 (+1d6 fire dmg) vs troll and orc kind)

This is one of the 10 rings of the Elder Glade. Crafted by the spell song of Avaria. It brings the blessings of the Eldar (mechanically +2 deflection bonus, +2 to hide and move silently in forests, +1 to saves)

These make magic items on the whole more powerful, but then it also makes them more valuable instead of like picking up the next better ipod every time you have more cash



This is how *I* would make changes to the game. It is what appeals to *ME* There are few arguments that anyone can make that will alter what I think. If you can think of ways that might makes the ideas better, I'd love to hear them. If you want to tell me how wrong I am. Save it

Dr. Weasel
2007-10-01, 03:50 PM
The changes I really want to see involve spellcasting.

1.I have to agree with what appears the majority in saying 'no more Jack Vance.' Spellcasters should have things they can do and things they can't do. They shouldn't be able to switch between them from day to day.

2.Wizards should be spontaneous and unlimited in their uses per day.

Sorcerers should be better at the magic they have than Wizards. They should gain spells faster but be limited by their styles. Wizards should be generalists, slow in progression but broad in capabilities. While Sorcerers should have a couple tricks they do very very well (think Beguiler, but to more specific effects), the Wizard should be able to emulate all of their abilities with less competence.

To modify the current system, I would start by replacing all spells with more a more generic "Enchantment" or "Energy Burst" which would have restrictions that slowly disappear as the character gains levels. An Illusionist Sorcerer would be able to cast "Illusion" indefinitely. At low levels, it would just cater to one sense, but as the Sorcerer progresses, their ability would impact multiple senses of its beholders, eventually becoming able to emulate a tangible force as long as its caster maintained focus. A "Shaper" Sorcerer would be able to create Polymorph-effects along certain guidlines. At first level the result might just be a modification of an appendage, but it would progress to grant new features and abilities as the Sorcerer gains levels.

3.All spells will have "Concentration" durations, but be malible by the caster. A Sorcerer shouldn't be able to have multiple effects going at once, but they should be able to change the effects they do have in order to keep gameplay interesting. An Enchanter would have limited control over their targets, probably progressing commands from simple stuns to utter domination, but only so long as Sorcerer maintains his focus. A low-level "Shaper" might be able to transform a target's hands to claws, tentacles or wings as they feel fit, maintaining the ability to modify them throughout a battle.

Wizards would be able to do any of these things, but not to the extent of Sorcerers (a Wizard might have equal abilities to a Telekineticist two to four levels lower than himself).

I know none of these are going to be implemented, but I definitely fancy the concepts.


[EDIT:]
All magic items treated like Artifacts. As in, magic items are unique. Scrolls and potions can be fairly generic, but put an end to the +1 long sword.

This Thenaril, forged by Sendra Scarfist, the only female dwarven swordsmith of Harrowdawn. Thenaril is light and swift, but strong and sharp. It hates troll and orc flesh. (mechanically keen +2/+3 (+1d6 fire dmg) vs troll and orc kind)

This is one of the 10 rings of the Elder Glade. Crafted by the spell song of Avaria. It brings the blessings of the Eldar (mechanically +2 deflection bonus, +2 to hide and move silently in forests, +1 to saves)

These make magic items on the whole more powerful, but then it also makes them more valuable instead of like picking up the next better ipod every time you have more cash
I think the solution would be something along the lines of having Magic Items scale with their use. The "Sword of Olly the Warrior" would be treated equally to a +1 Longsword as long as there are weapons that are definitely "better" than it is.
If an item develops more power as a character uses it more frequently, players won't be as apt to drop their current gear the second something shiny comes along; they'll be reluctant to "start over" with a new sword or crystal ball.

Citizen Joe
2007-10-01, 07:39 PM
Action Points - my favorite aspect of Eberron. I think that these should be adopted in all campaign settings. Story-wise, Heroes are able to do amazing things under extreme circumstances. With the appropriately description (Reaching into the inner calm that all followers of ****** are taught to do, I summon to my mind the brightest moment of my life and let it shine the radiance of true goodness upon my enemies)

All magic items treated like Artifacts. As in, magic items are unique. Scrolls and potions can be fairly generic, but put an end to the +1 long sword.

You REALLY need to check out Earthdawn. It is a wonderful game regarding most of your complaints/desires. I don't know why it failed other than the step system it worked instead of a simple d20 roll.

horseboy
2007-10-01, 08:30 PM
You REALLY need to check out Earthdawn. It is a wonderful game regarding most of your complaints/desires. I don't know why it failed other than the step system it worked instead of a simple d20 roll.

FASA was going under. Redbrick is publishing it now, though. They did some good clean-up, but it's only .pdf or print-on-demand.

gaymer_seattle
2007-10-02, 08:48 AM
I actually have a beaten up copy of Earthdawn some place. I really liked it. I was particularly fond of their interpretation of trolls. I have no idea who's idea it was to give trolls *that* nose, but I'm more of an "under-the-bridge with goats" troll type of guy.

Not to bash D&D, but I think that is the main reason that Earthdawn failed. It was so different and required that you take a lot of things on faith. And it was so radically different from D&D in game play.

I had hoped that Alternity might eventually evolve into a fantasy game, though I was happy with the sci-fi environment, but that too lies in the earth

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-10-02, 09:48 AM
Eh, I'm still old-school boy who likes his Vancian Wizard. I've a deep fondness for the Wizards I've played, with tomes full of spells that they constantly are trying to add to. Sure, the sorcerer had more fireballs comin' out of his fingertips, but I loved conversations like this:

DM: The room seems to be a dead end.
Player1: Crap! I rolled a '2' on my search roll. Do I find any secret doors?
DM: No --
Me: I'm casting "Detect Secret Doors".
Player2: Wait -- you can cast a spell to find secret doors?
Me: Yes.
Players: Cool!

And so on. The Sorcerer was the glass cannon; the Wizard was the toolbox. If they keep both classes, I hope they find a way to maintain those flavors ...

Citizen Joe
2007-10-02, 10:01 AM
I really gotta pull out those Earthdawn books and run a game here... Hopefully the pages haven't stuck together.

Morty
2007-10-02, 10:01 AM
Eh, I'm still old-school boy who likes his Vancian Wizard. I've a deep fondness for the Wizards I've played, with tomes full of spells that they constantly are trying to add to. Sure, the sorcerer had more fireballs comin' out of his fingertips, but I loved conversations like this:

DM: The room seems to be a dead end.
Player1: Crap! I rolled a '2' on my search roll. Do I find any secret doors?
DM: No --
Me: I'm casting "Detect Secret Doors".
Player2: Wait -- you can cast a spell to find secret doors?
Me: Yes.
Players: Cool!

And so on. The Sorcerer was the glass cannon; the Wizard was the toolbox. If they keep both classes, I hope they find a way to maintain those flavors ...

QFT here. The thing that worries me most in 4ed is that it's possible that wizard will turn into sorcerers. I'm apparently in minority here, but I like vancian casting and scribing spells into spellbook. But it looks like majority -and, more importantly, game designers- prefers to have wizards just throw fireballs around all day.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-10-02, 10:09 AM
I will admit that one of the reasons our parties have a hard time finding someone who wants to play a cleric is the Vancian system. You couple that with an ever-increasing selection of spells, and playing a cleric becomes a headache. Unlike the Wizard, the Cleric has every single spell available to him.

I'm hoping they can simplify the Cleric's job a bit, at the same time, I don't want the cleric left as the "Healbot".

Citizen Joe
2007-10-02, 10:10 AM
QFT here. The thing that worries me most in 4ed is that it's possible that wizard will turn into sorcerers. I'm apparently in minority here, but I like vancian casting and scribing spells into spellbook. But it looks like majority -and, more importantly, game designers- prefers to have wizards just throw fireballs around all day.

I'm pretty sure that they're gonna take wizards, sorcerers and warlocks and squish them all into a single class. So they'll take the warlock's eldritch blast and use that as the primary constant fire ability of the class. Then some spells will take energy but not preparation. These would likely require the focus that the one article was talking about (wands/staffs/orbs). Finally, the most difficult and powerful spells would require preparation. That way you get your blaster and your utility all in one.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-10-02, 10:16 AM
I was hoping otherwise, but that does seem likely.

Morty
2007-10-02, 10:18 AM
I will admit that one of the reasons our parties have a hard time finding someone who wants to play a cleric is the Vancian system. You couple that with an ever-increasing selection of spells, and playing a cleric becomes a headache. Unlike the Wizard, the Cleric has every single spell available to him.

I'm hoping they can simplify the Cleric's job a bit, at the same time, I don't want the cleric left as the "Healbot".

Yeah, vancian system didn't work well for divine casters, but it doesn't make much sense for them anyway- they'd be better off with smaller list of spells, possibly spontaneously cast.


I'm pretty sure that they're gonna take wizards, sorcerers and warlocks and squish them all into a single class. So they'll take the warlock's eldritch blast and use that as the primary constant fire ability of the class. Then some spells will take energy but not preparation. These would likely require the focus that the one article was talking about (wands/staffs/orbs). Finally, the most difficult and powerful spells would require preparation. That way you get your blaster and your utility all in one.

It was said that vancian casting is "mostly gone", so I suppose some spells would be just available a number of times per day, without preparation.
I personally wouldn't mind preparation casting with some blasting spells of unlimited use to provide wizard with offensive capability other than crossbow when he's out of spells.

CharlieRock
2007-10-02, 10:20 AM
I want to see skills, feats, and Level advancement handicaps for super-races gone. Useless kibble.

valadil
2007-10-02, 10:30 AM
I want to see a finer line between classes and prestige classes. It never made sense to me that a paladin was a base class. It should be a PrC that you can reach by combining fighter and cleric. Ranger, monk, and barbarian can all be fighter prestige classes too.

I like variety in classes as much as anyone, but it just seems silly to have so many options for a melee character. Start with fighter and pick some feats. Fighter with twf feats as opposed to ranger is just an unnecessary for a new player to have to make. Also, I'd make these prestige classes a bit lower level than the ones we're used to. Like paladin would be something you could start after a level or two each in fighter and cleric. Then after that you could move on to something a bit more meaty.

Citizen Joe
2007-10-02, 10:31 AM
Yeah, vancian system didn't work well for divine casters, but it doesn't make much sense for them anyway- they'd be better off with smaller list of spells, possibly spontaneously cast.


Well, just like the wizard blasty thing, I'd say clerics would grab an "energy affinity". Either positive or negative. Positive would give them unlimited slow healing capabilities so you can fix up people after battles. Negative gives them an attack touch ability. Then they would have a set of spontaneous things they could do with a focus (like turning undead and some spells like neutralize poison or restoration stuff) but the big spells would require preparation.

Citizen Joe
2007-10-02, 10:32 AM
I want to see a finer line between classes and prestige classes. It never made sense to me that a paladin was a base class. It should be a PrC that you can reach by combining fighter and cleric. Ranger, monk, and barbarian can all be fighter prestige classes too.

Woot! Same here. Paladin made so little sense to me that I never played one... ever.

horseboy
2007-10-02, 10:33 AM
I really gotta pull out those Earthdawn books and run a game here... Hopefully the pages haven't stuck together.

Uh, eau. What were you doing to that plate of the windling beastmaster-never mind I don't want to know. :smallwink:

There's a PbP forming over at Earthdawn.com. (http://www.earthdawn.com/forum/index.php?topic=578.new#new) There's also one that just started at RPGHQ (http://www.rpghq.org/phpbb/viewforum.php?f=422) that just started, but still has room for one more, if you want to join. Of course, if you REALLY wanna run, would you be allowing ADM?

Solo
2007-10-02, 10:34 AM
I will admit that one of the reasons our parties have a hard time finding someone who wants to play a cleric is the Vancian system. You couple that with an ever-increasing selection of spells, and playing a cleric becomes a headache. Unlike the Wizard, the Cleric has every single spell available to him.


Its called a Favored Soul

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-10-02, 10:38 AM
Yeah, vancian system didn't work well for divine casters, but it doesn't make much sense for them anyway- they'd be better off with smaller list of spells, possibly spontaneously cast.
...

I think they had a decent idea with Domains, but overall it wasn't played out to the fullest. Some Domains are clearly better, as they accessed spells a Cleric usually couldn't get, while other Domains just allowed the Cleric to pick a spell he already knew. Here's how I'd do Clerics ...


Each Domain has two, or maybe even three spells per spell level.
Deities have a wider range of Domains.
At level one, every Cleric gets one or two automatic Domains, Heal and Weal (Gygax Thesaurus ftw!!!)
The Cleric then chooses one or two more Domains from his deity's list of Domains.
At regular intervals, he's allowed to pick another Domain, or switch one Domain with another, all from his deity's list.

This still gives the cleric a larger selection of spells than your wizard, but still has a limit that helps him narrow it down.

Admittedly, this is a bit of a wacky solution for 3.5e.

Rex Blunder
2007-10-02, 10:57 AM
Me: I'm casting "Detect Secret Doors".

One interesting thing they mentioned was redoing the spell levels so that some spell levels were for attack spells and some were for utility spells. (remember, 30 spell levels now)

Detect Secret Doors is a cool spell, but in 3ed it has to compete against charm person, sleep, ray of enfeeblement, magic missile, etc for your 1st-level spell slots. So some might always find that it never quite gets into their memorized spells list.

If, say, the attack spells are all level 1 spells and the level 2 spells are like Detect Secret Doors, Mount, Comprehend Languages, Magic Aura, etc., you might find that you end up with more cool utility spells memorized. It would basically force you to memorized non-attack spells.


I'm pretty sure that they're gonna take wizards, sorcerers and warlocks and squish them all into a single class.

I wish they would, but I think they've hinted at various times that warlock, wizard, and sorceror will all be base classes. They might not look exactly like they do in 3e of course. Myself, I think this is too many arcane-ish casters.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-10-02, 11:04 AM
One interesting thing they mentioned was redoing the spell levels so that some spell levels were for attack spells and some were for utility spells. (remember, 30 spell levels now)

Detect Secret Doors is a cool spell, but in 3ed it has to compete against charm person, sleep, ray of enfeeblement, magic missile, etc for your 1st-level spell slots. So some might always find that it never quite gets into their memorized spells list.

Right. And typically one had to either ditch a slot for the utility, or hope the DM was kind enough to give you time to create scrolls, potions, or wands. At level 10, it's easy to toss in Detect Secret Doors or Charm Person in your list, but at level 3, that precious spell level 1 slot was hard to give up. Being the stubborn cuss I am, I'd often ditch Magic Missle (a spell I still adore) for Detect SD or Charm ...

valadil
2007-10-02, 11:16 AM
I'd also like to see the game get more skill based. For instance I think spellcasting should have more skills associated with it than spellcraft and concentration. I'm talking a skill for each school of magic. Your ranks in that skill would be involved in determining whether or not a spell gets cast, what level spells you have access to, and the DCs for said spell.

Why would I want to do such a thing? I think it'll make specialist casters a lot more interesting.

I'm also of the opinion that BAB should be a skill too. And maybe you should have a different BAB skill for different types of weapons. Or maybe I just want 4.0 to be MERP with feats.

horseboy
2007-10-02, 11:21 AM
I
I'm also of the opinion that BAB should be a skill too. And maybe you should have a different BAB skill for different types of weapons. Or maybe I just want 4.0 to be MERP with feats.

There's a Rex #4 with cheese. You want fries with that?

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-10-02, 11:24 AM
I'm not sure my feelings on specialist casting right now. It didn't exist in 1e, essentially (the Illusionist being a seperate class). In 2e, specialist classes gave up a bit of versatility for more spells per day, and more effective spells (if I'm recalling correctly, mind you).

In 3.Xe, specializing just gave you one extra spell slot a day, that you had to fill with your specialist school. Specializing in 3e is particularly boring. Though PrCs could make specializing more interesting, nothing much was done with that on the official book front (though some indies released some tasty tidbits for the specialist). In 3.Xe, specializing was pretty boring. If they can't make it interesting in 4e, I'd rather see it gone.

Roderick_BR
2007-10-02, 11:39 AM
I think they had a decent idea with Domains, but overall it wasn't played out to the fullest. Some Domains are clearly better, as they accessed spells a Cleric usually couldn't get, while other Domains just allowed the Cleric to pick a spell he already knew. Here's how I'd do Clerics ...


Each Domain has two, or maybe even three spells per spell level.
Deities have a wider range of Domains.
At level one, every Cleric gets one or two automatic Domains, Heal and Weal (Gygax Thesaurus ftw!!!)
The Cleric then chooses one or two more Domains from his deity's list of Domains.
At regular intervals, he's allowed to pick another Domain, or switch one Domain with another, all from his deity's list.

This still gives the cleric a larger selection of spells than your wizard, but still has a limit that helps him narrow it down.

Admittedly, this is a bit of a wacky solution for 3.5e.
You mean using Domains like Influence Spheres in AD&D? That could work. Maybe add different levels (major, minor)?
Like, a deity with major access to a healing domain would let your cleric cast the strongest healing spells, while a deity with minor access would get access only to the lower level spells?
For example, Pelor, the default "healing" god, would have major access to healing. Heroneous would have an average, or something, giving good healing, but not access to higher level spells, and Hextor would have minor access, giving preference to more combat oriented spells.
Some deities would have no access to some domains then, of course. Pelor would have major Sun domain, but an ice deity wouldn't have any access to it.

Edit:

I'm not sure my feelings on specialist casting right now. It didn't exist in 1e, essentially (the Illusionist being a seperate class). In 2e, specialist classes gave up a bit of versatility for more spells per day, and more effective spells (if I'm recalling correctly, mind you).

In 3.Xe, specializing just gave you one extra spell slot a day, that you had to fill with your specialist school. Specializing in 3e is particularly boring. Though PrCs could make specializing more interesting, nothing much was done with that on the official book front (though some indies released some tasty tidbits for the specialist). In 3.Xe, specializing was pretty boring. If they can't make it interesting in 4e, I'd rather see it gone.
If I recall, it gave you a +15% change of learning a spell from your school, with a -10% to others, give you a +2 bonus when resisting spells from your school, and the spells that you cast from your schools had a -2 penalty for others to save. Other than that, it was like 3.x is now. One extra spell slot to cast a spell from your school, and banning spells from 1 or 2 (and there had no list to choose from).

Subotei
2007-10-02, 02:02 PM
I want to see armour class go. Even the name itself makes no sense anymore as so many of the bonuses to AC aren't related to Armour at all. I'd rather see a Basic Defence Bonus, similar to BAB, with Armour given a damage reduction type role. This would lend itself easily to a variety of different fighting styles.

I like the class system, but I'd like multiclassing to make more sense - the whole "start wizard, take a two level dip into monk, rogue 3 blah blah blah" seems to take a good concept and turn it into a powergamers combo recipe book. Perhaps more structured career paths but with flexibility (Warhammer Fantansy RPG Style?)

I hope they keep the Vancian magic - lends a good deal of flavour to wizards.

Not that anyone will listen to me...

CharlieRock
2007-10-02, 02:04 PM
AoO
Attacks to my sanity.

The rules as presented in the rulebook seem sensible enough: If someone enters a square adjacent to an enemy, that enemy gets a free swing at them, right then and there, regardless of who’s turn it is. I’m sure proponents of the system can give you a nice list of reasons for this, why it makes combat more realistic, or what exploit it is supposed to counter.

On the surface this makes sense, although there are so many exceptions and qualifiers and footnotes and special cases that three pages after you’ve read this simple premise you’re knee-deep in a dark coagulating pool of madness. Aside from the complications of suddenly inserting a turn out of established order, there are rules to check and bonues to apply and - most sadistic of all - more information to track. Now you have to track who’s taken an AOO this round and who hasn’t, and how many such attacks each combatant is allowed, and how to handle cases where two people get AOO at once, or what happens when one AOO knocks the target into an adjacent square and creates another AOO, or how to handle AOO between creatures of greatly differing sizes and how to deal with tentacled foes and how all of this intersects with rushing, sprinting, and grappling, or what to do if an AOO is possible but the potential attacker might not be aware of the target and does this apply to non-combatants and SWEET MERCY WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!??! WILL YOU LOOK AT ALL THIS PAPERWORK!


from:
DM of the Rings (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=792)

Rex Blunder
2007-10-02, 02:31 PM
AoO Attacks to my sanity.

Agreed. There needs to be a mechanism for interrupting spellcasting, and preventing people from turning their back on you or otherwise acting silly when you're trying to kill them, and AoO does that in a reasonably realistic way. But I would like it if there weren't so many types of turns. Standard, full, and move actions are fine, but when you throw in AoO, swift, and immediate, it can get hard to keep track of who has used up what.

From the preview on dragons (http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070822a), I sorta thought they were combining immediate actions and AoO's into a single resource that you have to keep track of, for moves that you take outside of your turn, and I was kinda excited about the idea. But later quotes I've read imply that they may be keeping AoO in addition to immediate actions. That's too many turns-not-during-your turn for me.

Citizen Joe
2007-10-02, 03:15 PM
I want to see armour class go. Even the name itself makes no sense anymore as so many of the bonuses to AC aren't related to Armour at all. I'd rather see a Basic Defence Bonus, similar to BAB, with Armour given a damage reduction type role. This would lend itself easily to a variety of different fighting styles.

I like the class system, but I'd like multiclassing to make more sense - the whole "start wizard, take a two level dip into monk, rogue 3 blah blah blah" seems to take a good concept and turn it into a powergamers combo recipe book. Perhaps more structured career paths but with flexibility (Warhammer Fantansy RPG Style?)

I'll say it again... check out Earthdawn.

LightWarden
2007-10-02, 03:19 PM
A really simple solution to the skill problem of class skills (for my group, anyways) was simply to rule it so that every skill usable untrained is a class skill for everyone, with the addendum that Tumble was now usable untrained. The way I figured it, if anyone could do it, anyone could put effort into learning to do it. That way the class-flavor skills like spellcraft, open lock and sleight of hand are still left to their respective classes while leaving the wizards able to ride horses and the fighters able to dance around the battlefield. Flavorful, and not really gamebreaking since the PrC skills are trained-only skills for the most part (and I can always administer the banstick in those rare events that it's abused). The real problem then becomes "what did the cleric, fighter, paladin and sorcerer do that stuck them with 2+INT skill points per level?" (I mean, 4+INT should be the minimum here, though short of just giving everyone and everything two additional skill points per level/HD, it'd be annoying).

horseboy
2007-10-02, 04:34 PM
I'll say it again... check out Earthdawn.
Especially with the new ADM pdf. (Advanced Discipline Mechanics)

Jarlax
2007-10-03, 12:33 AM
someone suggested mashing the sorc, wizard and lock into a single class. i would argue for the sorc and the lock to get that treatment. or more specifically the warlock slay the sorcerer and take his domain portfolio as a core class.

the only redeeming feature of the Sorc is his fluff as a dragon blooded mortal, the class is mechanically a lousy wizard who doesn't have to prepare spells. meanwhile the warlock is an reasonably cool spell caster that has gained a lot of popularity in the gamer base and has a spell list that would not take up that much space in the 4E PHB.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-03, 10:09 AM
One interesting thing they mentioned was redoing the spell levels so that some spell levels were for attack spells and some were for utility spells. (remember, 30 spell levels now)
Link please?


the only redeeming feature of the Sorc is his fluff as a dragon blooded mortal, the class is mechanically a lousy wizard who doesn't have to prepare spells.
Warlock should kill sorcerer and take his stuff. He already has the flavor, anyway.


That way the class-flavor skills like spellcraft, open lock and sleight of hand are still left to their respective classes while leaving the wizards able to ride horses and the fighters able to dance around the battlefield.
Wizards riding horses? What is the world coming to!!!! It's not like Gandalf has ever ridden a... oh, yeah, wait.

Rex Blunder
2007-10-03, 10:44 AM
Link please?

ok, he didn't talk about spell levels as explicitly as I remember, but here's the link: (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13622068&postcount=11)

Also, someone mentioned that Magic Missile is a dumb name. It is. Why so cagey about the nature of the missile? Magic Arrow would have been better. Magic Bolt would have been better. Magic Slingstone - well, maybe that's not a ton better.

Vagueness is funny. It's like if the spell were called "Mordenkainen's Faithful Pet".

Besides, Magic Missile always makes me think of a glowing ICBM.

All that said, I wouldn't if "Magic Missile" stayed. It's one of the things I irrationally think of as central to D&D.

horseboy
2007-10-03, 10:47 AM
ok, he didn't talk about spell levels as explicitly as I remember, but here's the link: (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13622068&postcount=11)

Also, someone mentioned that Magic Missile is a dumb name. It is. Why so cagey about the nature of the missile? Magic Arrow would have been better. Magic Bolt would have been better. Magic Slingstone - well, maybe that's not a ton better.

Vagueness is funny. It's like if the spell were called "Mordenkainen's Faithful Pet".

Besides, Magic Missile always makes me think of a glowing ICBM.

All that said, I wouldn't if "Magic Missile" stayed. It's one of the things I irrationally think of as central to D&D.
I think it was for the alliteration.

#4!!

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-10-03, 10:54 AM
I think it was for the alliteration.

#4!!

It's funnier when Rex does it. Sorry. I guess some people just can't tell a joke ... :smallbiggrin:

horseboy
2007-10-03, 11:09 AM
It's funnier when Rex does it. Sorry. I guess some people just can't tell a joke ... :smallbiggrin:

For the alliteration or the #4? Cause I am a Rolemaster player you know. If it's not on a "detect sarcasm" chart, I can't do it. :smallwink:

Rex Blunder
2007-10-03, 11:10 AM
#4!!

Why are people always talking about fundamentally changing D&D during golf games?

horseboy
2007-10-03, 11:16 AM
Why are people always talking about fundamentally changing D&D during golf games?

Well, given that we're gamers, it can't be the fresh air and exercise.

Telonius
2007-10-03, 11:30 AM
Maybe they could keep the name "Magic Missile," but actually turn it into a glowing ICBM. Level 9 spell, massive damage, area effect... ? :smallbiggrin:

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-10-03, 12:46 PM
For the alliteration or the #4? Cause I am a Rolemaster player you know. If it's not on a "detect sarcasm" chart, I can't do it. :smallwink:

Actually, I was just stealing the punchline from RB's stolen 'prison humor' joke. Was not really a comment on your post at all!

Jarlax
2007-10-03, 04:06 PM
Maybe they could keep the name "Magic Missile," but actually turn it into a glowing ICBM. Level 9 spell, massive damage, area effect... ? :smallbiggrin:

its gotta be in there, and it has to be 1st level.

i will admit magic missile is a terrible spell as a DM, force damage, that can strike incorporeals, takes no save, takes no touch attack, can strike multiple targets, does damage that scales reasonably well in power across levels considering its spell level and all in a 1st level spell.

however its the standard move of every 1st level arcane caster in the multi-verse the good all rounder spell that works in every situation for a low level caster who does not have a lot of spells to choose from.

also, sadly a 9th level AOE force bomb would be the most horribly broken direct damage spell ever.

psychoticbarber
2007-10-03, 04:08 PM
also, sadly a 9th level AOE force bomb would be the most horribly broken direct damage spell ever.

I'm pretty sure it was a joke.

OneWinged4ngel
2007-10-03, 04:25 PM
4) All armor types except leather, chain, and plate. Sure, weapons experts may be able to tell you the historical context of, and difference between, ring, chain, and scale mail, or banded and plate, but we could also just assume that the broad term "plate" includes banded, scale, full, field, etc. Everyone always takes the best one in their weight class anyway. I would much prefer to actually have things like ring, chain, and scale, as well as special materials, all providing different, unique, and ultimately balanced benefits. You know, as opposed to everyone wearing mithral full or darkleaf breastplate. Especially since just about ALL fiction tells you you're supposed to have mithral CHAIN, not mithral full plate. When's the last time you saw someone wear mithral chain armor? =P


5) Also, why do "chain shirt" and "breastplate" get to be types of armor? I think your concern is a bit misplaced here. Chain shirt, for example, is actually a layman's reference to a hauberk, and that's totally a real piece of armor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hauberk

On the other hand, STUDDED LEATHER is not a real type of armor. Adding studs to leather armor doesn't actually make you any more protected than not having studs. Seriously. In order for studs to be useful, they'd have to be SO LARGE that it basically looks like metal armor. Studded leather is probably the result of someone (gygax) looking at Brigandine and not really knowing what it was (there's steel plates riveted under the leather by those studs) and then them keeping it as a sacred cow.

Anyways, I think that D&D has room for a *hundred* unique armors that could add a lot of flavor to the game. Just look through a bit of fantasy literature for limitless examples. On the other hand, D&D 3.5 gives us a whopping... 3 or so types of armor that people ever use, and that sucks.

MaxMahem
2007-10-03, 06:55 PM
Just to follow up on what I was saying about skills a while ago, I think the skill list needs to be seriously simplified. Face it, D&D especially in its 3.0 & 3.5 incarnations is a game defined by its characters abilities, such as feats, class abilities, special abilities, racial abilities, spells ect... Not by a characters skills. There is nothing wrong with this, it's just a different approach to game mechanics then a game like Shadowrun or GURPS which is much more skill focused (though I would note that Shadowrun has made serious efforts to simplifiy it's skill system in 3rd and especially 4th edition).

D&D has been moving this way as well, 3.5's skill list is trimmed down from 3.0, but still much to bulky. Why are there 3 separate skills for locating hidden objects, search, spot, and listen. Why are there 2 separate skills for hiding, hide and move-silently. Now while you COULD certainly divide skills up into this level of detail, why do so? Ideally skills should be seen on the same level of value as any other special ability a character gets, but this overspecialization dilutes this. I mean none (or at least very few) of the skill related feats are considered good picks, and rightly so.

I'm kind of frightened by the idea of D&D following in the pattern of Star Wars Saga because I think some of the ideas in Sagas aren't very appropriate for the setting. But skills is one things Sagas got right, or at least very nearly right.

---

Related to this topic, I think they should do away with, or at least considerably alter spells that make skills useless. For example knock, detect secret traps/doors, glibness, and even jump, spider-climb, and fly should be seriously re-evaluated. One way to do this is to only let these spells (esp knock and detect traps) give a bonus to skill checks, not totally eliminate the need for them. Another way to do this is to seriously upgrade the power of skills.

Spider Climb (for example) is a second level spells, and not only completely eliminates the need for the climb skill, but is vastly superior as well. There is no chance of falling, you can climb any surface, and there is no risk of falling. A high level wizard/sorcerer can prepare it without worrying about wasting his spell slots (which he may not need at his level). A similar character who doesn't pick up some climbing special abilities via items or PrC can't duplicate this effect pre-epic.

Now while this may be realistic, it is not game-able. D&D isn't a game all about realism (thats GURPS, play it, it's fun to), its a game about Hero's and Heroics. A character highly skilled at climbing (or jumping, or anything else for that matter) shouldn't be constrained by petty realism in terms of skills. He's not when it comes to combat ability or hit-points or anything else after-all.

Put another way, I want skills to be simplified, primarily so they can be raised to the same level of importance and ability that all the others characters statistics/special abilites are. Not simply to be a part of the character sheet that is neglected when a character reaches high enough level that spells/magic items/class abilities completely overshadow them.

Matthew
2007-10-03, 07:13 PM
Probably because they were divided up before Skill Points existed [i.e. when it was totally appropriate]. I don't know why people want D&D to be more like other games. It must be because of its popularity, because I cannot honestly see any other reason why a game built one way should be built another, if you see what I mean. We're really talking about brands here, not systems.

Roderick_BR
2007-10-03, 07:42 PM
ok, he didn't talk about spell levels as explicitly as I remember, but here's the link: (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13622068&postcount=11)

Also, someone mentioned that Magic Missile is a dumb name. It is. Why so cagey about the nature of the missile? Magic Arrow would have been better. Magic Bolt would have been better. Magic Slingstone - well, maybe that's not a ton better.

Vagueness is funny. It's like if the spell were called "Mordenkainen's Faithful Pet".

Besides, Magic Missile always makes me think of a glowing ICBM.

All that said, I wouldn't if "Magic Missile" stayed. It's one of the things I irrationally think of as central to D&D.
How about Magic Rocket? Or Magic Grenade? (that could actually be a cool homebrew spell...) Or... Magic Neutron Bomb.

About spells that replace skills, I like to homebrew them to give a +10 or more in a related skill, instead of replacing it completely. So, a if a wizard casts Spider Climb, he can climb as a rogue of same level, and a Freedom gives a similar bonus to Escape Artist/Reflex Saves instead of instant immunity to grapple and nets.

Starsinger
2007-10-04, 01:39 AM
How about Magic Rocket? Or Magic Grenade? (that could actually be a cool homebrew spell...) Or... Magic Neutron Bomb.

About spells that replace skills, I like to homebrew them to give a +10 or more in a related skill, instead of replacing it completely. So, a if a wizard casts Spider Climb, he can climb as a rogue of same level, and a Freedom gives a similar bonus to Escape Artist/Reflex Saves instead of instant immunity to grapple and nets.

But that really just changes a wizard from invalidating skills, to invalidating skill points. Why take ranks in Climb if Spider Climb lets you "climb as a rogue of same level"?

Kurald Galain
2007-10-04, 05:52 AM
Probably because they were divided up before Skill Points existed [i.e. when it was totally appropriate].

That only goes for hide and move silently, which were rogue- and bard-only abilities in 1E and 2E. For instance, listen/spot/search didn't really exist back then (although many people houseruled Perception as a seventh ability score). Note how "find and remove traps" used to be one skill, and is now two.

This doesn't really excuse such granularity as jump/balance/tumble, or survival/know nature, or read lips (dropped in 3.5) or several of the less-used craft, knowledge, and profession skills.

Roderick_BR
2007-10-04, 07:36 AM
But that really just changes a wizard from invalidating skills, to invalidating skill points. Why take ranks in Climb if Spider Climb lets you "climb as a rogue of same level"?
I didn't explain well. I meant give a bonus that makes a wizard be equivalent to a rogue. It'll work a couple times a day, while a rogue will be climbing all day long. Plus, the wizard will have to roll the check, having similar chances of falling. The wizard's benefit is that since there is no limit to how many spells he learns, he can, at his choice, sometimes climb like a rogue, jump like a barbarian, swim like a ranger... It's like a customizable skill with limited per day uses.

Matthew
2007-10-04, 07:47 AM
That only goes for hide and move silently, which were rogue- and bard-only abilities in 1E and 2E. For instance, listen/spot/search didn't really exist back then (although many people houseruled Perception as a seventh ability score). Note how "find and remove traps" used to be one skill, and is now two.

This doesn't really excuse such granularity as jump/balance/tumble, or survival/know nature, or read lips (dropped in 3.5) or several of the less-used craft, knowledge, and profession skills.

I think you are misunderstanding me. The point is that in 1e and 2e the DM assigned a chance for a Character to accomplish anything. If there was a chance that he might hear something, the DM assigned it a chance. If there was a chance he might see something, the DM assigned it a chance. If there was a chance he might find something, the DM assigned it a chance. If there was a chance he might see, hear or find something, the DM assigned it a combined chance. In 3e, they still use the same methodology, but because of 'customisation' each category was formalised and Skill Points introduced as a Level by Level concept. This has led to a lot of redundancy, as not all Skills are equal, but Skill Points are (same problem as with Feats, actually). Character Class abilities worked differently from this, we shouldn't conflate Thief Skills with Non Weapon Proficiencies/Secondary Skills/Assigned Chances.

Besides which, you're quite wrong that these things didn't exist. Listening was legislated for in the 1e DMG and 2e PHB and Observation was a Proficiency in the Complete Thief's Handbook. The granularity doesn't need to be excused, just explained.

Dairun Cates
2007-10-04, 11:49 AM
1) Weapon proficiencies: I don't think it's really necessary to deny wizards the ability to use the sword if they want to. If you don't have a full BAB, the weapon you use is not super important (except possibly for tripping weapons), and a wizard should not be spending his time attacking. Why make a fiddly rule against suboptimal choices?

Say hello to Mr. Greatsword/Battleaxe/Guisarme Sneak Attack. It's completely legal, and without proficiencies, he doesn't need to waste a feat or level of fighter on it. Weapon proficiencies aren't for wizards, they're for the semi-good weapon users that would become more powerful with some of the weapons.


2) Half-races: Just have orcs and elves in the PHB. The fact that the races can breed implies that they are a single species. How do you stat someone whose mother was 3/4 orc and has a little elven blood from his paternal grandma's side? Why no half-halflings?

I don't really see a problem unless you just really want to play an orc by itself. I don't think it detracts anything from the system per se unless the other players are cracking constant jokes about which half is which. At which point, it's really your player's faults.

Most people nowadays are actually from like 5-6 countries unless your great great grandparents were REALLY strict on who they chose as mates. Still, we tend to only list the primary countries we come from. Really the same here. It's mostly a semantical choice. The fact that they're race templates is just an excuse to have more race templates. Take out the concept and the mechanics will just show up somewhere else.



3) class skills: apart from restricting access to PrCs, why should my fighter not spend his free time playing the flute rather than jumping? Again, why make a fiddly rule against suboptimal choices or character flavor?


Tumble Fighter, Leap Attacking Smiting Paladin at level 6 instead of around 15, etc. Not all skills are equal. Besides, can you even begin to imagine an entire party with maxed out bluff, sense motive, and diplomacy? A nightmare right there.



4) All armor types except leather, chain, and plate. Sure, weapons experts may be able to tell you the historical context of, and difference between, ring, chain, and scale mail, or banded and plate, but we could also just assume that the broad term "plate" includes banded, scale, full, field, etc. Everyone always takes the best one in their weight class anyway.


Did it ever occur to you that not everyone can afford fullplate at level one or two or even three, or that there actually is a delicate balance between Armor Class Penalties and Max Dex Bonus and Armor bonus? Also, are you saying that all non-monstrous enemies should be wearing something in the range of fullplate?



5) Also, why do "chain shirt" and "breastplate" get to be types of armor? "Leather jacket" isn't a type of armor. Nor is "naked except for boots and a helm". Or "midriff-high pants made entirely of belt buckles". Or "no shirt, but left arm of a suit of plate mail", though god knows there's enough illustrations of that one. Either come up with rules for mix-and-match armor pieces (easier with only 3 armor types), or make people wear the full suit of armor.


1. Chain Shirts and Breastplates WERE historically different in some ways than some archaic armors. It was an issue of lightness vs. Protection. Some people needed to be on foot while others needs to be on horses.

2. They're not wearing the entire suit because style sells, and there's no mechanical benefit for looking cool in D&D.

3. Isn't making a system of mix-and-matching just complicating a system that they're trying to streamline?



6) Vargouille. That, along with pretty much everything from the 1e fiend folio, should be retired to flumphland.


Perfectly reasonable complaint. Don't necessarily agree that they should be thrown out entirely since it's just a monster and you don't have to use it if you don't want to, but it's perfectly fine to not like them.



7) I love Gygax - heck, I have his novels - but the following gygaxian thesaurus words can go: dweomer, glamer, bracers, weal.

Not as long as Erodin Glasamaul are standards for D&D naming schemes. Also, I agree on the bracers comment. They're not that unusual of a word.



8) Why do rangers get 2wf again? Drizz't? Weathertop? That guy from Willow?

Some class had to get them. Otherwise there was little reason of having it, and some people just like the idea of wielding 2 weapons. It's merely a style issue. Style sells books.



9) platinum pieces. It's such a weird and ahistorical metal to be the king of currency. Maybe drop it and increase the value of gold by 10?

Actually, platinum has a precedent of being used for a higher currency, although it's a little smaller than gold. I think the point is that almost no one deals in platinum. The idea is to use it as a sign of having a position of wealth or power. Kinda like 1000 dollar bills (Yes, they existed). No one uses them since you can't bloody well break them, but some people still have some as something to show off. Once again. It's flavor text.



10) Spiked chain.

Other than the fact that most spiked chain builds turn out to be illegal in some way and only get away because no one actually remembers the rules of Attacks of Opportunity, probably a good idea to at least nerf it a bit.

I dunno. These mostly seem like either incredibly radical system changes that either throw some balance or flexibility completely out of the window that doesn't need to be, or purely choices of flavor text. If you don't like the flavor text, then change it. There's no real reason to rewrite something purely on flavor text.