4th Edition: A Wish List
- Thread starter Hardhead
- Start date
EarthsShadow
First Post
Personally, all they need to do is really revise 3e a little bit, but they won't need a 4e at all. And if they did, it would be d20.
Dragongirl
First Post
hong said:
I prefer d100, percentile has so much more versatility!
Oni
First Post
Two things I would like to see off the top of my head are really flavor things, though they do require a mechanics revision. I would like to see more differentiation between the various types of spellcasting, especially the sorcerer and the bard.
I think the monk is too narrowly defined, it seems overly specific in it's abilities. I would like to see a monk that has a list of various skills to choose from as they level up, to build a more personalized monk. Not quite sure how to do it, though the way they did the Loremaster's secrets comes to mind though many more options. That way you could make the more esoteric monk, or a more combat oriented monk, give a more eastern or western flavor, or just make an unarmed combatant that isn't a monk in the commonly thought of sense that the current monk seems so straightjacketed into.
But I really consider these to be minor gripes, I like 3E.
[edit: Oh and I'd like to see that stupid little gap on the sorcerers spellcasting table that puts him a level behind the wizard fixed, I have yet to hear an acceptable explanation for that. As far as I can tell they just did it to make the top of the table look pretty.]
I think the monk is too narrowly defined, it seems overly specific in it's abilities. I would like to see a monk that has a list of various skills to choose from as they level up, to build a more personalized monk. Not quite sure how to do it, though the way they did the Loremaster's secrets comes to mind though many more options. That way you could make the more esoteric monk, or a more combat oriented monk, give a more eastern or western flavor, or just make an unarmed combatant that isn't a monk in the commonly thought of sense that the current monk seems so straightjacketed into.
But I really consider these to be minor gripes, I like 3E.
[edit: Oh and I'd like to see that stupid little gap on the sorcerers spellcasting table that puts him a level behind the wizard fixed, I have yet to hear an acceptable explanation for that. As far as I can tell they just did it to make the top of the table look pretty.]
Last edited:
Wishlist for 4E:
1) Greater modularity of rules components, and less interdependencies between them. D&D gamers are rules tinkerers, and a game designed with the ability to rip out large chunks of the system to suit their needs is a hoop I'd like to see 4E jump through. You can, for instance, rip skills, feats and AoO out of 3E, but it leaves game balance wounds (because the game assumes that a fighter's feats are balanced with a rogue's skills, etc.) and a lot of annoying interdependent bits and pieces to ignore. For 4E to keep each layer of the ruleset as a self-contained module would be a game design feat in and of itself (pun intended) but that's the kind of excellence you'd need to aspire to to make a new edition worth it. Having said that, I doubt it's even truly achievable...
2) Relating to that, a cutdown on the statting overhead of the system. It's almost okay as is at low and medium levels, but there is still definite room for improvement, especially at high levels. One or more parts of the system might have to go on a diet to achieve this. If 3E is really designed to be fudged on the fly, make the system reflect that in more ways than just token ways such as a generic NPC stat list.
3) Fixing of the skill system so that the DRs tend to break into always succeed/no chance to succeed a bit less at high level. Ability checks seem primitive and blunt tools by comparison, but at least their resolution was less likely to be a foregone conclusion, and less completely unpredictable from party to party at mid-to-high level.
4) Greater building on the fluffy-crunch intellectual property of D&D from editions past. Although designers are justified in attempting to present something new for the new edition with regard to fluffycrunch material, the time for that comes when the crowning achievements of past editions are already in the game, not vice versa. Unless this is some keep-backwards-compatibility-low-so-they-buy-new-stuff conspiracy on behalf of WotC (which I doubt), leaving out death knights in place of digesters for game design reasons is keeping too much of an eye on the game balance ball at the expense of the game's flavour and feel.
1) Greater modularity of rules components, and less interdependencies between them. D&D gamers are rules tinkerers, and a game designed with the ability to rip out large chunks of the system to suit their needs is a hoop I'd like to see 4E jump through. You can, for instance, rip skills, feats and AoO out of 3E, but it leaves game balance wounds (because the game assumes that a fighter's feats are balanced with a rogue's skills, etc.) and a lot of annoying interdependent bits and pieces to ignore. For 4E to keep each layer of the ruleset as a self-contained module would be a game design feat in and of itself (pun intended) but that's the kind of excellence you'd need to aspire to to make a new edition worth it. Having said that, I doubt it's even truly achievable...
2) Relating to that, a cutdown on the statting overhead of the system. It's almost okay as is at low and medium levels, but there is still definite room for improvement, especially at high levels. One or more parts of the system might have to go on a diet to achieve this. If 3E is really designed to be fudged on the fly, make the system reflect that in more ways than just token ways such as a generic NPC stat list.
3) Fixing of the skill system so that the DRs tend to break into always succeed/no chance to succeed a bit less at high level. Ability checks seem primitive and blunt tools by comparison, but at least their resolution was less likely to be a foregone conclusion, and less completely unpredictable from party to party at mid-to-high level.
4) Greater building on the fluffy-crunch intellectual property of D&D from editions past. Although designers are justified in attempting to present something new for the new edition with regard to fluffycrunch material, the time for that comes when the crowning achievements of past editions are already in the game, not vice versa. Unless this is some keep-backwards-compatibility-low-so-they-buy-new-stuff conspiracy on behalf of WotC (which I doubt), leaving out death knights in place of digesters for game design reasons is keeping too much of an eye on the game balance ball at the expense of the game's flavour and feel.
Last edited:
-Make the monk not suck. Warrior BAB might just do it.
- Fix the problem spells
- Make the gotta-have class skills class abilities. Might as well say bards have 3 skill points because they need perform.
- More skill points all around.
- Make tumble a little less uber
- make it free, send some WotC thugs so my players won't complain about switching
These are minor actually. I really like the 3e system as it is. I'd say do NOT change
- the AC/BAB system. Its simple, it works.
- Classes and levels. If I wanted a classless skill based system, I could be playing GURPS.
- Fix the problem spells
- Make the gotta-have class skills class abilities. Might as well say bards have 3 skill points because they need perform.
- More skill points all around.
- Make tumble a little less uber
- make it free, send some WotC thugs so my players won't complain about switching
These are minor actually. I really like the 3e system as it is. I'd say do NOT change
- the AC/BAB system. Its simple, it works.
- Classes and levels. If I wanted a classless skill based system, I could be playing GURPS.
Similar Threads
