D&D 4E 4E - more rules or less?

[an_idol_mind]

If they need to make a new edition, I'd go with about the same amount of rules, but with a different presentation.

The Player's Handbook, in my opinion, should be a very simple presentation of the game, with all the basic rules you need to run D&D but with complexity kept to a minimum.

The Dungeon Master's Guide should be the place for the complexity, including the variant and optional rules. A game is only as complex as the DM makes it, anyway.

I'd also like to see some of the more common magical treasure moved from the Dungeon Master's Guide to the Monster Manual, making the MM more like the Monsters & Treasure book from Castles & Crusades. The down side for WotC would be that this eliminates the need for a DMG if the group wants to play a vanilla game. The upside is that such an approach would likely help to win back the crowd who see D&D as too complex (since they can play with just the Player's Handbook and Monster Manual), while keeping the crowd that wants crunch (since they could use any and all of the options in the Dungeon Master's Guide).

 

[Seeker95]

I don't see a need for more or fewer rules. Rather, many of the rules can be streamlined, and many empty areas can have rules implemented.

 

[Mark CMG]

Less is more, isn't it?

 

[ruemere]

No tables.
Calculating jump distances/turn checks/encumberance is tiresome.

Less spells.
Each spell is unique instance of a rule. Too many spells and spellcasters really slow down game.

Develop/expand spell properties.
Arcana Unearthed. 'Nuff said.

Make low skill ranks more effective. Make high skill ranks more expensive to acquire.
As written, low level of skill is highly dependent on character traits and, with high variance of d20 roll, highly unpredictable. There is a reason why there are no 4th level Commoner Artisan masters - their skill ranks would not make them effective.

Example:
Skill check: d20 + ability bonus + skill ranks + skill rank bonus

Skill ranks: Skill rank bonus
0 skill ranks: -4
1+ skill ranks: +0
6+ skill ranks: +2
11+ skill ranks: +4
.... every 5 ranks: add additional +2
(formula: divide by 5, round down, multiply by 2)

Skill ranks: Skill cost bonus
The cost to add additional rank is equal to (1+skill rank bonus of new rank).
(1-5 - 1 skill point per rank, 6-10 - 3 skill points per rank and so on)

No crafts, no professions, simply skills.
Enough of this mess and questions like: I'm a sailor, can I swim just a bit?

More skill points per level. Let everyone have the same number of skill points.
We've got Intelligence bonus already. We don't need class-based progression for every class in existence.
If you're worried about Expert-type characters, make additional skill points a class feature.
For the skill rank system proposed above, 6 skill points per level should be sufficient.

Make hero development more customizable.
Grant feat every level. Grant ability increase every level. Limit starting ability scores to 8-12 range.
Group feats into feat trees (to avoid cherry picking).
Limit ability development to certain difference between lowest and highest score (to avoid min maxing chaos).

No material components for spells. Use spell foci instead.
Spell focus - item one has to attune to in order to be able to cast spells. Once removed from characters possession, the character is rendered powerless (the way to avoid mute-blind-with-broken-fingers way of subduing spellcasters).
That's also removes some pain of tracking items.

No material costs for powerful spells. Use drain-type cost instead.
Powerful spells should be limited by ability and experience drains. Otherwise, any such spell is only limited by character's personal wealth. Also, increase casting times.

Nerf game breaking spells. Give peace a chance.
Nerf:
- Instant transportation spells (suggestion: long preparations, the target location is somehow marked during spell casting - strange lights, maybe? - so there is no surprise factor involved).
- Buff spells (suggestion: ability drain for both the caster and recipient).
- Raise dead spells (long casting time instead of high cost, ability drains requiring additional healing, clinical death rule instead of unflexible -10 damage threshold).
- Instakill spells make the character dying, not dead (use clinical death rule).
- Direct damage spells are fine, but also make the character dying rather than dead.
- Massive damage makes the character dying, not dead.

Clinical death rule: the character immediately below 0 hitpoints is unconscious, a little more below - dying, but not dead. He needs professional help within minutes, not seconds.

...

And many more fixes. In short, more power to the people, albeit with fewer instant kill / instant know-how-to abilities.

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[Wombat]

Make the core rules lighter.

Add more later.

I think True20 is the way of the future

 

[Dykstrav]

The current level of complexity is fine. I personally think people want to see rules changes to those areas where they don't use the rules often (like grapple rules). Whether they avoid these situations because they don't like the rules for them or they just don't come up often varies between groups.

The way I see it, D&D boils down to a few essential elements: Six ability scores, race as a template, class as an overlay to that basic template that gives you most of your abilities, and rolling a d20 to beat up monsters and make saves. Other conventions have evovled as the game has developed, such as most powers being based on using them x number of times/day. Just about everything else is fair game for change as long as I get to explore dungeons and kill critters effeciently and reasonably quickly with the basic rules set.

I'd personally like to see a trait-based spellcasting system similar to the epic magic system presented in the Epic Level Handbook. What I mean by this is that a spell's characteristics actually have something to do with its level- instead of having to buy a feat to get a longer range on your burning hands spell, you just increase its casting DC or effective level. A roll-to-cast thing would be nice too, it'd give spellcasters more chances to enjoy the thrill of a high roll like all the melee-oriented characters get. Such a system would truly be divergent from D&D as it's presented now though.

 

[Li Shenron]

Both.

 

[Arnwyn]

I don't mind the overall complexity of the rules. But there is one thing that needs to be seriously addressed in a new edition:

The speed with which you create NPCs or alter monsters. As of now, it takes up far too much time.

The entire statement above gets one huge "ditto" from me.

 

[KB9JMQ]

I like the current system but I think parts could be streamlined better.
Grapple and AoOs could use more clarification.
Since it is a D20 + bonuses vs Opposed Roll system could we use that mechanic for everything (Turning I am looking at you). Gah I hate turning.

 

[Brimshack]

I have a hard time answering a question about "more" or "less" rules. I think the system as it is is pretty good. I especially like both feats and skills, and I like them at the present level of detail. If the system can be made more elegant without sacrificing detail, great.

What I would like to see is a system in which classes are done away with, and class skills are redesigned as feat trees. Then a simple point buy system, so much for each scale of BAB and saves, so much for x number of skills and so much for feats. Let us design our characters as free flowing as possible, then convert the idea of a warrior,, mage, etc. to more of a social status than a description of someone's abilities.

Just my own idle ramblings...