D&D 4E 4E requisites

[Arbiter of Wyrms]

When will you be ready for 4E?

I'm not looking for a date. Those threads grow tiresome quickly. I'm looking for what conditions need to be met before most of us agree that the switch is a good one. 3E represented an incredible improvement over AD&D, IMO, but I've begun to see flaws that 3.5 could not, and probably should not, have changed. As much as I believe, though, that changes must take place before I, personally, will be enthusiastic for 4E, I also believe that some things must stay as they are.

Changes Needed:
I believe that 4E must include many of these changes to the cleric class.

4E must fix the wonderfully-innovative-but-still-not-perfect LA/ECL/CR difficulties that plague 3E.

A range of base classes for each "party role," i.e. skill-user, combatant, spell-user should be included and these must be genuinely different from one another.

I would like to see a stable, thoroughly playtested psionics system included in the core rules.

Clear guidelines for the incorporation of innevitable supplemental material must be included from the outset. "Does my character automatically get all these new spells? How do I know if these feats stack? Did the designer who wrote this read the core rules?"

The core rules should be divorced from any particular campaign setting.

Greater transparency in the rules would facilitate the kind of customization that makes the game so rich.

The PHB should include an easy-to-find appendix to walk anyone through the process of character creation in a fun, quick, inspiring way.

The firm marriage of table-top RPG and miniatures must not be allowed to grow stronger. some of us don't even play at a table. Terrific stories can be created without ever resorting to minitures, tokens, or battlemats.

Holy Cows (or things to keep):
d20/OGL This, above all, is essential to the survival of the game. I agree with those who have said that Wizards no longer has any choice, under the OGl, but to keep the system, but I also believe that their legal department is better funded than mine. Without the competitve/colaborative effort of multiple publishers, the game would stagnate.

Excellent production values. I use my PHB at every game I run. I like to know that it can handle extended use as a writing surface, a coaster, a shim, a simple weapon which deals 1d2 nonlethal damage, and a reference text. It has to be beautiful. The artwork should inspire my imagination as much, or more than, the writing. Idecces, tables of contents, and cross-references make every reference book better.

The miniature-friendly nature of the game is good. While not everyone always uses minis, or even wants to, minis on a battlemat really can enhance a game and should never be discouraged.

Classes

Levels

Hit Points

Races

Templates (they don't have to just be for creatures anymore)

Types

Challenge Ratings

Difficulty Classes/Skills

Feats or something like them

Ideas to which I'm open:
Gestalt characters as a core rule. I like the gestalt rules not because they're so uber-powerful, but because they allow for a fine degree of customization and differentiation.

Multiple system of magic. Warlocks' invocations, Wizards' spells, Psions' powers, Priests' prayers, Binders' pacts, and more. I'm perfectly happy having them all work differently and all of them side-by-side. Only the hard-core gamers will ever learn all of them, but that's no different from how things work now. Casual gamers will only learn one system or will learn none at all. Again, status quo.

So, what sorts of standards would have to be met to sell you on 4E?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I wouldn't get your hopes up for core psionics support. Far from it, in fact. Psionics remain a polarizing element in the game and you'll have just as many people (at least) who DON'T want core integration of the rules.

 

[EricNoah]

Really, I have barely begun to scratch the surface of 3E. I have scads of un-run 3E adventures and yet-unused 3E rulebooks, settings, and monster books. I'm only in the middle of my third campaign, for crying out loud -- I ran a 3E FR "Bastion of Faith" and then an AU game and now Red Hand of Doom. I have a lot more to explore and use and experience. I am nowhere near ready to plow on to another edition, no matter how good it is.

That may sound ironic coming from me.

But ... as long as we're being hypothetical ... to me the number one non-negotiable thing is -- adequate computer support. The toughest part of my job as a DM is information management, and computers are the way I deal with it.

 

[replicant2]

Really, I have barely begun to scratch the surface of 3E. I have scads of un-run 3E adventures and yet-unused 3E rulebooks, settings, and monster books. I'm only in the middle of my third campaign, for crying out loud -- I ran a 3E FR "Bastion of Faith" and then an AU game and now Red Hand of Doom. I have a lot more to explore and use and experience. I am nowhere near ready to plow on to another edition, no matter how good it is.

Agreed.

In part because I'm older and have less playing time, my group has yet to experience even half of what 3E offers. We have two 3E campaigns going and a third D20 modern campaign as well, and none of our characters have progressed past mid-level. We haven't even dipped into things like 5th level spells yet, and have encountered maybe 1/3 of the creatures in the Monster Manual, if that! And we don't even use any of the splats!

If you're listening, WOTC, we don't need 4E yet.

 

[Darrin Drader]

There's two things for me.

But ... as long as we're being hypothetical ... to me the number one non-negotiable thing is -- adequate computer support. The toughest part of my job as a DM is information management, and computers are the way I deal with it.

That's one of them.

The other is that they streamline the system to cut the time needed for preparation and combat.

It used to be under 2E that I could spend 2 hours and prepare a pretty cool, fun adventure that would last 6 or 8 hours. Now I'm almost at a 1:1 ratio (without using shortcuts, which I do often), and I must plan for fewer encounters because there's so much number crunching and accounting for special powers and feats included.

Of course I'm really on the True20 bandwagon these days, I may stop playing D&D altogether.

 

[Lanefan]

But ... to me the number one non-negotiable thing is -- adequate computer support. The toughest part of my job as a DM is information management, and computers are the way I deal with it.

While I'm in the opposite camp: while computers can be handy when made to do what *I* want (usually by writing my own program), if the game forces me to use one to do what *it* wants (in other words, gives me a program that I can't change to suit my own desires) then I'm not interested. Period.

Lanefan

 

[Arbiter of Wyrms]

Really, I have barely begun to scratch the surface of 3E. I have scads of un-run 3E adventures and yet-unused 3E rulebooks, settings, and monster books. I'm only in the middle of my third campaign, for crying out loud -- I ran a 3E FR "Bastion of Faith" and then an AU game and now Red Hand of Doom. I have a lot more to explore and use and experience. I am nowhere near ready to plow on to another edition, no matter how good it is.

That may sound ironic coming from me.

But ... as long as we're being hypothetical ... to me the number one non-negotiable thing is -- adequate computer support. The toughest part of my job as a DM is information management, and computers are the way I deal with it.

I don't mean to impy that I'm eager for a new edition - I'm not. I believe that there are rules that could have been done better and I believe that we, as a community, are only beginning, really, to see the fundamental flaws in the 3E rules. As for a date, I might be ready long about 2012, but certainly not before. Like you, I have old modules to run: notably the WoTC 3.0 adventure path, Shackled City, AD&D Axe of the Dwarvish Lords and most importantly. . . the entire Planescape line.

I'm in no rush. I do think that we should start planning further ahead, though, this time.

I propose that we start compiling an official list of what house rules become more or less ubiquitous and what issues consistently cause problems and then, at GenCon 2012, we submit our findings to WotC to begin work on revision of the three core books.

Computer support and integration is something I should have thought of. I, too, use the computer extensively, though almost certainly not as much as you, and the more technology integration, the better. I suppose it's just more than I hope for.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I agree that if the game needs a computer to make preparation tolerable, then I'm not interested. 4E would need to be aggressively streamlined in order for me to buy it. While I still play 3E, I no longer DM it; my "D&D game" is Castles & Crusades, these days. If 4E heads in that direction, I'd take a look at it.

 

[MadMaxim]

The only problem I really have with the system is the amount of time required to prepare sessions for high-level parties. It's not that I don't like to prepare for a session. It's even a part of the fun for me, but statting up a 20th-level Wizard can take an entire hour, if you want to get it all right (like I prefer). So, I'd say a general streamlining of the rules, but I still love it as it is.

And they don't need to hurry, if you ask me. I want all the Eberron stuff first!

 

[A'koss]

Here are some of my thoughts...

Changes needed:

1. Better game balance and more DM-manageable at higher levels of play. This could be a lengthy thread on its own.
2. More of a character's power derived from PC ability and less from magic. Magic is good, but it can get a little silly at higher levels.
3. Simply the Skills System. Skills were a great addition to the game but should be handled more simply and (at least most) classes should have more skills overall (skills are fun!).
4. Feats. Take a page out of the Iron Heroes system here. They have simplified the prerequisite system with Feat Mastery Levels and the Feat Mastery chains themselves are a great idea. The more I look at this system, the more I love it.
5. LA/CR/ECL. I agree that this is a great idea that just needs to evolve to be greater yet.
6. Computer support. I also would like to see comprehensive and continuous support here.
7. Monsters. Think very hard about the quantity vs quality of a critter's abilities. Some monsters can do so many different things (especially those with spellcaster levels on top of numerous feats and special abilities) that playing them effectively is very difficult and time consuming.
8. Prep time. As Mearls touched upon in another thread, maximize the fun in time you put into the game. The more time spent in dealing with balance issues, stating NPCs (and spell buffs!) and just dealing with the game-y issues is time spent away from actually building your campaign.
9. I hope they think very hard about what adventures and combat should be like at higher level play and how they can make that both more managable and less, well... "D&D" for lack of a better word.
Scry/Buff/Teleport?
Improved Invis/Fly/Bombardment?
Save or Die/Nerf fests?
Got a mystery...? Got a divination solution.
There is a reason why the <10th level are the most popular ones even though you'd think HL play would be/should be the most fun.
10. Classes. Definitely look at what's working/what's not, ideas to prune from the supplements (Warlock-style class for example), inject more fun into the melee classes, improve the multiclassing rules, grant more spells per day for the big arcane spellcasters, make them a little tougher but prune some of their high level power (and the latter goes for the divine casters as well).

I do believe we need to keep the class-based system, but offering more choices of abilities within that class (like many of the Iron Heroes classes do) would be a good way to go. Hit Points - yes, but compress the disparities between the classes as well as high level stat boosts. Races - fine. They are so integral to the game you couldn't just remove them anyway (no matter how much I'd like to see the wee folk - gnomes and halflings stricken as PC races ). Templates are a good idea, even if they sometimes get abused as is typing creatures.

Another philosophy I think Iron Heroes gets right is balancing the game against the encounter and not "per day". I think they should definitely take a hard look at moving the game in that direction (not saying use "tokens" per se, but definitely move the game away from x/day).

There are definitely a lot of great things that 3e brought to the game, it will be nice to see it taken to the next step...