[WOTC] Core Rulebooks to be revised?

[candidus_cogitens]

Umm ... guys, the emperor looks naked to me!

This sounds like a phony rumor.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

And this is really important because... ?

It's as important as having NPC's in published materials have the proper number of feats and skills for thier classes and levels. Unless having NPC's that follow the rules isn't important. I for one don't want to have to rework a bunch of stuff in new books that expect the revised books.

But hopefully WOTC will not update the SRD and I can keep buying 3rd party stuff with no need to do more work to adapt it.

 

[KDLadage]

Umm ... guys, the emperor looks naked to me!

This sounds like a phony rumor.

You have seen this thread, have you not?

 

[Gez]

Just wanted to tell Felon and KDL that making the paladin a PrC, and turning armor into DR, are two things massively unlikely (and personnally, I'm thankful for that).

My own hopes (also unlikely, but this time I'm not thankful for that):

More spell known for sorcerers, so they could be balanced for normal players (as they are now, they are balanced only if you keep them in the autoturret artillery role). Psionics in the core rules (as there is much overlaps between powers and spells, metamagic and metapsionic, and item creation feats, that should be technically possible; but I doubt it). More abilities for wizards and sorcerers. Clerics have better HD, BAB, saves, skills, and spells (they can have access to otherwise arcane-only spells; and miracle cost them nothing when used to replicate spells, contrarily to wish).

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Why does everyone want to screw up the Paladin? They better not touch it becuase old timers like me will be livid.

 

[kenjib]

If bards do get a bump up to 6 skill points per level, then the net result of this will be as follows: you will have to add two skills at max ranks to each 'old' bard.

That's minor, compared to a change like "bards now have d10 hit dice".

Cheers!

I think d10 hit dice is actually much easier, since you just add level * 2 to total hit points to make up the difference. Very simple.

You method for skill points is not as simple, because a bard NPC stat block most likely has at least some skill points in everything that is important for that NPC. Thus, by giving out max ranks in two skills that he doesn't already have you are likely effectively giving that NPC max ranks in Craft (underwater basketweaving) and Knowledge (underwear preference and how it corresponds to personality type). Instead of maxxing out relevant skills which have ranks but are shy of maximum.

Sure, in the end you can still update the NPCs and it's easy and not really a big deal, albeit still an irritation. I was just pointing out that most rebalancing of classes will result, technically, in incompatibilites. Sure, it can be converted but it's a hassle, especially when you might not always know for sure whether any given d20 book has already taken the revisions into account or not. Therefore, either WotC is bending the truth when it says "backward compatible" or the bard will not get 6 skill points per level.

One way they could make changes that are backward compatible would be increasing flexibility without increasing ability. For example, adding skills to a sorcerer's spell list is completely backward compatible. Giving a sorcerer more skill points per level would not be. Giving the ranger the option at first level to take point blank and rapid shot as virtual feats instead of ambi/twf is backward compatible. Getting rid of ambi/twf, replacing it with a pool of bonus feats, and only giving them one at first level would not be. Incorporating the expanded toughness feats from the splatbooks into the PHB would be backward compatible. Revising toughness so that it gives 1 hit point per level and does not stack would not be. Adding a spell to a spell list would be backward compatible. Removing a spell or changing the spell level of a spell would not be.

I'm not even saying that all changes should be backward compatible. Should backward compatibility stand in the way of producing the best possible improvements? I don't think so in every case but it should be a strong consideration.

Side note - in terms of PRCs for the DMG and feats for the PHB: While I think there will be some from other sources already published, most of them will be new stuff. They don't want to kill off sales of their other books by putting this one out and they don't want to discourage sales of the revised edition to people who already have those other books. I think most of the new content will be just that -- new. The same goes for adding psionics to the PHB or anything else that would discourage sales of other books.

 

[Olive]

A couple of you guys are dreaming:

they're not going to change half-elves or make paladins PrCs or anything like that.... then it would probably be 4e...

this is going to be minor stuff, that can easily be worked into existing products etc...

anything else would be insane!

 

[Felon]

KDL, thanks for the responses! Care to slid me a URL for Umbragia?

Gez, Olive, I have no expectations of the paladin becoming a PrC. And I don't really have any problems with it being a core class in the first place, as long as it offers the flexibility that a core class is supposed to offer.

I openly stated that my list of proposed changes was mostly just wishful thinking. I know that most of the revisions will be cosmetic. But if WotC hears enough demand for some deeper changes to the system, they may well prove more accomodating than most of us would suspect.

 

[KDLadage]

I was not speaking of what should happen, but of what should have happened.

However, I feel that an "optional Paladin PrC" is doable in the new DMG, especially given the page count they are looking at.

 

[KDLadage]

Felon: Go to the ENWorld main page, scroll down to the HOSTED SITES -- select JAGGED EDGE GAMES. You will be well on your way to UMBRAGIA.