So what do you envision for 4.0E D&D?
- Thread starter Valiantheart
- Start date
FreeTheSlaves
Adventurer
Here is my 4ed wishlist.
Timing: ASAP, I have tired of 3rd ed and 3.5 is a job 1/2 done.
Races: More devotion to humans and include ethnicities. Races give stat bonuses and dictate who can breed with whom and ethnicity dictates starting bonuses to skills, weapon proficiencies and little special fluff.
Classes: Have the base class features somewhat modulated within certain limits so you can pick and choose a bit. E.g. a ftr with good reflex saves. Let caster level stack like BAB does. More popular core classes like the assassin.
Stats/hps: Make charisma specifically more important (maybe it affects a hero points mechanic that allows special moves), I want to see players ripping out hair deciding which stat gets the dump. Set hps, noone rolls it as given, time to get real.
Levels: 1st level needs to be stronger and 20th level weaker. It has reached the point where we wizz past levels 1-3 because they just suck, make them enjoyable.
Combat: Pretty good already but special actions are still too complex. Give us a defence bonus by class and level that improves AC.
Magic: Rewrite this please. Spell-casters should be able to cast spells much more often before exhaustion but the spells should be generally less powerful. Spellcasters should be rolling magic-to-hit-rolls every round just like the fighter. Multiple spells please per round at higher level. Possibly use an additive magic system where for e.g. you could cast a 6th level spell or 2*3rd level spells as a standard action.
Skills: Ditch obscure skills by rolling several unpopular ones together. Class essential skills (I'm looking at you survival and perform) should be class features. I am not convinced that class skills are even necessary.
Feats: Keep them simple. If they are ambiguous/convoluted, don't bother to print them. Virtual feats are not needed, sure the ftr/rgr is dual-wielding in plate but there are already enough drawbacks.
Alignment: Sure, keep it there as core but explain why a stated allegience system is useful. Provide alternative allegience systems or how to cope without one.
Monster Stat blocks: Need to be half the size, they're getting too unwieldy.
That's enough for now.
Timing: ASAP, I have tired of 3rd ed and 3.5 is a job 1/2 done.
Races: More devotion to humans and include ethnicities. Races give stat bonuses and dictate who can breed with whom and ethnicity dictates starting bonuses to skills, weapon proficiencies and little special fluff.
Classes: Have the base class features somewhat modulated within certain limits so you can pick and choose a bit. E.g. a ftr with good reflex saves. Let caster level stack like BAB does. More popular core classes like the assassin.
Stats/hps: Make charisma specifically more important (maybe it affects a hero points mechanic that allows special moves), I want to see players ripping out hair deciding which stat gets the dump. Set hps, noone rolls it as given, time to get real.
Levels: 1st level needs to be stronger and 20th level weaker. It has reached the point where we wizz past levels 1-3 because they just suck, make them enjoyable.
Combat: Pretty good already but special actions are still too complex. Give us a defence bonus by class and level that improves AC.
Magic: Rewrite this please. Spell-casters should be able to cast spells much more often before exhaustion but the spells should be generally less powerful. Spellcasters should be rolling magic-to-hit-rolls every round just like the fighter. Multiple spells please per round at higher level. Possibly use an additive magic system where for e.g. you could cast a 6th level spell or 2*3rd level spells as a standard action.
Skills: Ditch obscure skills by rolling several unpopular ones together. Class essential skills (I'm looking at you survival and perform) should be class features. I am not convinced that class skills are even necessary.
Feats: Keep them simple. If they are ambiguous/convoluted, don't bother to print them. Virtual feats are not needed, sure the ftr/rgr is dual-wielding in plate but there are already enough drawbacks.
Alignment: Sure, keep it there as core but explain why a stated allegience system is useful. Provide alternative allegience systems or how to cope without one.
Monster Stat blocks: Need to be half the size, they're getting too unwieldy.
That's enough for now.
Here's what I'd like to see
- One main spellcasting class, with a focus on either divine or arcane. Maybe a feat system to control what spells the caster has access to. Basically, a solution to the multiclass casters getting shafted problem.
- Broader skills. Do we *really* need jump, tumble, and balance as seperate skills? Make one Acrobatics skill. Also gets rid of the synergy complications.
- Monster stat shorthand. Take a cue from Buffy and have simplified stats for monsters. Maybe only a single 'save' or something like that.
- Seperation of Characters from their Stuff. Get rid of the concept that high level characters need a huge laundry list of items to be even marginally effective. THe magic item shuffle really turns me off about high level D&D. Maybe magic items that scale with their wielder, so that the mystic sword you found at third level is still useful and valuable at 17th.
- Get the people pushing miniatures out of R&D. You want to use minis, fine, but don't be changing the rules to push your other game.
- Vow not to randomly change minor things in a revision, only errata, fixes that need to be done, and other essentials. Not that I'm bitter.
- One main spellcasting class, with a focus on either divine or arcane. Maybe a feat system to control what spells the caster has access to. Basically, a solution to the multiclass casters getting shafted problem.
- Broader skills. Do we *really* need jump, tumble, and balance as seperate skills? Make one Acrobatics skill. Also gets rid of the synergy complications.
- Monster stat shorthand. Take a cue from Buffy and have simplified stats for monsters. Maybe only a single 'save' or something like that.
- Seperation of Characters from their Stuff. Get rid of the concept that high level characters need a huge laundry list of items to be even marginally effective. THe magic item shuffle really turns me off about high level D&D. Maybe magic items that scale with their wielder, so that the mystic sword you found at third level is still useful and valuable at 17th.
- Get the people pushing miniatures out of R&D. You want to use minis, fine, but don't be changing the rules to push your other game.
- Vow not to randomly change minor things in a revision, only errata, fixes that need to be done, and other essentials. Not that I'm bitter.
Halivar
First Post
I want to see 2nd Edition with 3rd Edition combat rules.
I especially liked the way skills and professions were handled in 2nd Edition; I thought it was easier and more robust.
3rd Edition's is just silly; though I do think 3.5 has gone a long way towards pairing down the kludge. We can do a bit more, though.
I especially liked the way skills and professions were handled in 2nd Edition; I thought it was easier and more robust.
3rd Edition's is just silly; though I do think 3.5 has gone a long way towards pairing down the kludge. We can do a bit more, though.
Mercule
Adventurer
No. No. NO!The Cardinal said:
This is the _last_ thing D&D needs. Merits and Flaws only work passibly well in a point-based system. D&D has never been, is not now, and never can be a point-based game system. It would cease to be D&D if it morphed that far.
There might be a way to get M/F to work in a class/level based game, but it would be a completely new mechanic and probably not worth the effort. Certainly, trying to port in what Hero, GURPS, or Storyteller have is a nonsensical endeavor. Every attempt I've seen (which is about a half dozen or slightly more) has been about as eligant as a penguin trying judo.
What I expect out of 4E:
1) Retain many core mechanics. 4E will probably resemble 3E in the same way that 2E resembled 1E. We'll keep the d20 branding. Skills, feats, PrCs, DR, etc. will persist in roughly the same way they do now. Sure, there may be some tweaking, but not a complete rebuild. Whatever 4E is, I doubt it'll be as big of an increment from 3.x as 3.0 was from 2E.
2) Reshuffle the classes. No strong feelings about what form this will take, but it's happened in every revision. My hunch (and hope) is that the Paladin will become a PrC. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Barbarian disappear again (or become a PrC). It really doesn't serve much of a purpose, anyway. Ranger will, no doubt, be altered again (again, because it has been in every update).
2a) We may see more customizable classes. The Fighter may be rebuilt to fit tank, swashbuckler, ranger, all equally well. The Rogue may be buildable to bard, diplomat, thief, etc. Wizard may fit into both the spontaneous and prepared caster roll. I'm not holding my breath for it, and I'm not even sure I want to see it happen. It could be done well, but it could also be horribly mangled.
3) New multiclass rules. The 3.5 team pretty much stated that 3.x multiclassing doesn't work well for casters. I think this will be one of the big fixes and will be disappointed if it isn't included. I'm not sure what form it'll take (if I had an idea I thought was good enough, I would have tried my hand at publishing it), though. It could be as simple as a Caster Level similar to BAB, or it could be much more significant."
4) Vancian magic will start to fade. This may be wishful thinking on my part, but we'll see. With the release of alternate magic rules in Unearthed Arcana, WotC will have quite some time to see how they are received. If it goes well, I think we'll see variant rules in the DMG, or maybe even the PH, for mana points or skill-based casting. I think the Vancian system will still be the core system for spells, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if some modifications were made to "soften" the effects of slots.
5) Monster Manual races will be even more like PC races. This is close in 3.5, but I think almost anything in the MM will be immediately playable as a PC in 4E.
Can't think of too much else "of note" that I expect to see in 4E.
Grazzt
Demon Lord
Dark Jezter said:What do I envision for D&D 4.0?
Lots of whining, complaining, people saying that the changes are unnessecary, people saying that it came too soon, people saying that it's too little too late, people saying that they've had it with WOTC and they're giving up on D&D (only to return to the gaming community a month later and act like nothing happened), people writing long rants about why the previous edition was better, etc.
But despite all their complaing, they'll snap and buy the books anyway.
Yep- that's what I see for 4e.
What I'd like to see is the removal of the "video game feel" that D&D has now acquired. That and perhaps less "dungeonpunk" artwork permeating the books.
Last edited:
Garboshnik
First Post
-Better multiclassing, especially for casters. Specialization shouldn't be as necessary for characters to do well.
-Make skills more useful, d20 modern does a good job of this IMHO.
-Support for low-magic/high magic campaigns.
-Fine tuning.
3.0/3.5 really is a good system, I can't think of too many major issues to change.
-Make skills more useful, d20 modern does a good job of this IMHO.
-Support for low-magic/high magic campaigns.
-Fine tuning.
3.0/3.5 really is a good system, I can't think of too many major issues to change.
Halivar
First Post
I don't want to hijack the thread or anything, but could you elaborate on what "work" means, and what "worth the effort" constitutes?Mercule said:
I'm not nit-picking, It's just hard to decide whether I agree or disagree when such blanket statements are made without any supporting arguments. I want to know what you're thinking of here.
In another thread, I got the intimation that M/F systems reward player amnesia, though an observant DM can easily trump that.
Mercule
Adventurer
Well, I'm programming in the other window, so English language definitions may not be my forte right now. I reserve the right to fine tune later.Halivar said:
"Worth the effort" is a very subjective statement. What I essentially mean is whether adding the M/F mechanic would be value-added to the majority of consumers. If most people are ambivalent to it, then it really shouldn't be in the core rules. If the mechanic doesn't impact game play in any significant fashion, then it's probably a waste of time. And, especially, if using M/F requires more work than it adds enjoyment to the game, it isn't worth it.
By "work", I'm referring to several things, including the "amnesia" issue. In any system that has M/F in place, the player can build a "stronger" character through judicious aquisition of flaws. In Hero, for example, a character with 50 points in flaws is always, always, always stronger in the long run than a character with no real noteworthy weaknesses. If you don't fill your alotment of flaws, then you will have a sub-optimal character. The longer you play the system, the more you're able to pick out what the "best deals" are, and since you can't do much w/o the points you get back from flaws, even more RP-types have a hard time resisting the lure. Especially since if they're going to play certain attitudes, anyway, they can easily justify points for Psychological Limitations.
Considering that D&D derives much of its market strength and long-term playability because it is a relatively simple system, I don't want to see any sort of complex M/F mechanic that allows an experienced player to get too much of an edge over a newbie. Sure, every system has some spread between green and veteran, if only in tactical knowledge. Merits and Flaws, in my experience, dramatically inflate this.
In D&D, as a class-based system, I have a hard time imagining what the reward would be for taking a flaw. Would it just be a merit? A feat? Bonus skill points? How does a merit differ from a feat? If a flaw can be exchanged for either a feat or skill points, can I buy a feat with skill points or vice versa? If not, why? If so, why not just hand me some "character points" and be done with it (this runs afoul of my position that D&D must, above all, remain class/level based)?
The most commonly thrown out method is feats (in some form) as the inverse of a flaw, so I'll look at that. It's been acknowledged that not all feats are created equal. At the least, some are primarily useful as a stepping stone for other feats. How does this relate to flaws? Are flaws created unequal? Could someone be nearsighted in exchange for Spring Attack? Or will we see point values assigned?
If more than feats are allowed (skills, extra spell slots, whatever), it would also reduce the modularity of D&D. Right now, the d20/OGL allows someone to just publish a new feat, skill, class, spell, or monster that is generally compatible with the rest of the system. As soon as you create ties to other bits, you reduce that ability. Also, it's simple (as opposed to easy) enough to create an entirely new magic system and just plug it in (Elements of Magic). If the M/F system got to ambitious, it would really reduce that ability.
So, my summary is, M/F are bad because:
1) They usually add a lot of complexity to a system.
2) They are hard to balance.
3) They reduce modularity.
4) They increase the learning curve significantly.
5) They push us toward a point-based system.
Hope that helps.
Similar Threads
