D&D 3.x Conceptual Problems with 3E/3.5E and Desired Solutions for 4E

[Aaron L]

Weights for weapons and equipment are way over the top. Those need to be brought down to reasonable levels. No way in hell someone could wield a 15 lb. weapon.

Edit: I type like a git.

That's already been largely taken care of since 3.5, since it's also a big pet peeve of mine I've paid close attention to it. Greatswords in 3.5 are 8 pounds, which, while still a bit on the heavy side, are perfectly fine. Longsowrds are 4 pounds, again a bit heavy for the average, but still well within the realm of reason.


My current problem is with shields and shield weights. There is no way in heck a man could wear a 15 pound solid steel shield in a fight! No such thing ever existed! All shields larger than bucklers were wood and leather, with perhaps a bit of metal surfacing or a metal boss in the center. And 15 pounds is completely ludicrous! Your arm would fall off if you tried to use that for any length of time.


While I;m at it, bucklers are so far from reality it;s funny. Of all the shields in the PHB, the only one you can't bash with is the buckler. Meanwhile, in reality, the shield that was used primarily to punch at an opponents face was... you guessed it... the buckler!

And the falchion! What in the heck is this weapon supposed to represant? Real world falchions were one handed, heavy chopping blades like over-sized machetes. They were not two handed scimitars. If they wanted a two handed scimitar in the PHB, they should have had a two handed scimitar and called it that, and either subsumed the falchion into the longsword, or given it stats comparable to the battle axe.


And last but not least, Max Dexterity Bonus. It should be higher flat across the board by at least 1 or 2 points. Full Plate wasn't the turtle shell "if you fall on your back you're helpless" deathtrap that it's portrayed in the popular media. The weight of plate armor was comparable to modern military packs, and the weight was more equally distributed instead of just bing strapped to the back. I'm still amazed they didn't include rules for knights needing to be winched unto their horses by cranes, (which I have seen in so many books and encyclopedia it isn't even funny.) A fully trained knight in full kit was expected to be able to kip up from a prone position on his back, and vault onto his horse. A Maximum Dexterity Bonus of +1, THAT IS NOT.

Sorry, rant over. I just get really ticked off when game designers who are writing about medieval styled games don't seem to make even the slightest effort at researching the tome period they are supposed to be modeling. Only slightly related, I get sick of the ridiculously romantic view of the katana, and Japanese swordsmanship vs European swordsmanship in general. Europe had just as well developed schools of sword fighting, and just as (if not better!) made swords than Japanese nihonto, and developed them earlier. What Europe didn't have was a cultural fetish about swords.

Just do a small amount of looking and you'll find German and Italian sword-fighting manuscripts detailing longsword through side-sword and even dagger and wrestling techniques every bit as detailed as kenjutsu and aikido. Even better yet, the stances and techniques of Japanese vs European swordsmanship are so similar it is downright eerie, and if you looked at side-by-side comparisons of the stances you'd think they were translations of the same book.


So I guess what my pointless rant is about is that I'd like just a passing nod toward realism in fighting. Not detailed hit charts or anything like that, I like hit points and abstractness just fine, thank you! But real weapon and armor and shield weights, accurate portrayal of weapons, and some small kind of recognition of different martial styles (which, actually, I think 3E does with feats just great, and one of my favorite aspects of the game!)


Again, sorry for the long rant, I'm just in a sour mood this morning, and as this isn't attacking anyone or anything, I just decided to use this too vent, and maybe illuminate or entertain people a bit with my inane knowledge and opinions

 

[Upper_Krust]

And hello to you also, U_K!

Hello again matey!

I agree. My initial apprehension about these starting racial hit dice being full-blown hit dice with the attendant skill points and so on has disappeared now that I have considered the matter further. Apart from the good solution this offers for hit points and survivability of lower level characters, it eliminates the need for the 4 x skill point at 1st level, since each hit dice grants skill points anyway and conveniently there are exactly 3 such bonus hit dice.

As we both agree, the only thing these hit dice should not count towards is epic levels/ability to reach level 20. What we have not determined, though, is how this system would mesh with level advancement of races that have different numbers of racial hit dice, such as halflings or gnomes, or the bigger races such as ogres. Also, a major rebalancing of the races would be necessary.

Should be relatively straightforward though.

The 3 extra HD would only represent a +1 CR/ECL leap.

Ok, I like this. It is elegant and produces convenient numbers, where medium humanoids get 3 hit dice - which ties in nicely to the 4 skill ranks at 1st level. The choice of 1 HD per 2 feet is somewhat arbitrary, but it does yield convenient numbers and that matters. I would certainly be satisfied with a system of this nature in 4E.

The only real issue I have with this system is that it gives high level characters even more hit points than they already have if it is combined with normal hit dice advancement per level (and it surely would be thus combined). In case of low level characters this is a good thing, but for high level characters, I would like to keep their hit points limited at most to the level they get now. I would suggest giving characters only half the size of their hit dice per level. So... Wizards/Sorcerers would get d2, Rogues d3, Clerics/Druids d4, Fighters/Paladins d5 and Barbarians d6 (or their alternative classes whatever they would be in 4E).

While high level characters might have more hit points, they'll have proportionally far less when contrasted against low level characters.

Instead of a 1:15 in terms of level, it will be more like 4:18.

 

[Roman]

Should be relatively straightforward though.

The 3 extra HD would only represent a +1 CR/ECL leap.

Although I agree that one humanoid d8 hit die is definitely not worth a full level, I am not sure how you arrived at this conclusion. 3 hit dice surely seem to be more than +1 ECL and there is also the question of how the small races would be balanced to also gain the equivalent ECL (since if all core races had equivalent ECL, we could just ignore it and hence make that the new +0 ECL baseline and we really need to do that or otherwise we end up with humans, the race that is supposed to be the baseline for just about everything in D&D, being a +1 ECL race).

While high level characters might have more hit points, they'll have proportionally far less when contrasted against low level characters.

Instead of a 1:15 in terms of level, it will be more like 4:18.

True, and this is a definite benefit, sufficient benefit that I would prefer it to the current system, but it would still be preferable if the top level hp did not increase beyond what it is in the current edition.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hi Roman mate!

Although I agree that one humanoid d8 hit die is definitely not worth a full level, I am not sure how you arrived at this conclusion. 3 hit dice surely seem to be more than +1 ECL and there is also the question of how the small races would be balanced to also gain the equivalent ECL (since if all core races had equivalent ECL, we could just ignore it and hence make that the new +0 ECL baseline and we really need to do that or otherwise we end up with humans, the race that is supposed to be the baseline for just about everything in D&D, being a +1 ECL race).

I mapped all class and race hit dice when I created my CR/EL document a year or two back.

The base humanoid HD is worth 0.458 ECL (thats with no attributed equipment). So three of those is 1.375 ECL. Challenge Rating is therefore 0.916, but I think its so close to 1 that you would have to round up in this case.

True, and this is a definite benefit, sufficient benefit that I would prefer it to the current system, but it would still be preferable if the top level hp did not increase beyond what it is in the current edition.

I think the pros sufficiently outweigh the cons.

 

[Roman]

I mapped all class and race hit dice when I created my CR/EL document a year or two back.

The base humanoid HD is worth 0.458 ECL (thats with no attributed equipment). So three of those is 1.375 ECL. Challenge Rating is therefore 0.916, but I think its so close to 1 that you would have to round up in this case.

Hmm, ok, but I am still uncertain about the methodology you used to arrive at the humanoid HD being worth 0.458 ECL.

Also, why do you use 2:3 conversion between CR and ECL? I was under the impression that the conversion between CR and ECL cannot be done on a formulaic basis as it depends on the specific abilities in question, as they have different degrees of usefulness between PCs and NPCs.

Assuming your starting numbers are correct, though, than this would work, but we would still have to power up the smaller races by giving them various abilities in order for them to reach the same ECL so that it would become the new baseline.

I think the pros sufficiently outweigh the cons.

I agree. Nevertheless, it would nice if the high-level tail of the hit point conceptual problem was corrected too.

 

[RainOfSteel]

And as evidence, I'll offer that I disagree with your assessment of wisdom. Could you split them up? Sure. But I think it's perfectly fair to lump in awareness of your surroundings with willpower (awareness of self, I guess). Certainly much better than (shudder) dexterity.

I'll offer complete agreement on that one. Awareness of any kind, Spot, Search, or intuition-related, does not belong anywhere under Dex.

I could, maybe, see moving some of that to Int. That would be the only valid conceptual change I would agree with (on this subject).


-----------------------------------------------

I love the vancian system, but I would pare it down to about one spell per spellcaster level, [...]

I would consider any such magic system to be hopelessly crippled and immediately abandon it.

There are a few stats that I really don't understand. Why is Reflex different from Dex?

Reflex is a saving throw, and Dex is an Ability score.

Ability scores represent a character's inherent base capability-attributes.

Saving throws are derived statistics based only in part on ability scores. They are also influenced by things other than ability scores. The three saving throws types serve as a game mechanic to keep several modifiers packaged together in a pre-calculated value that is ready to reference at a moment's notice. Technically it could be dispensed with and calculated on the fly when needed, but that would be cumbersome.

Example: You could have a high-Dex individual who took up the Wizard Class, and who therefore received only minor bonuses to the Reflex saving through from the class, or the same individual who took up the Rogue class, and who therefore received high bonuses to the Reflex saving throw from the class. Then you can pile magic item and spell bonuses on top of that.


-----------------------------------------------

Slow down level advancement. Or, have a dual-track advancement and ExP table - one track for short (1-2 year) campaigns and one for long (5+ year) campaigns.

I agree that dual-track xp charts should be made official.


-----------------------------------------------

Right now balance is accounted for on a sort of ad-hoc basis.

You are absolutely correct.


-----------------------------------------------

2: No more gold pieces -- use a resource system like Exalted or d20 Modern.

I have recently had a chance to run some Exalted, and the Resource system was an immense pain in the posterior. Resources 1 and 2 were too low to do anything significant with, and 4 and 5 were overwhelmingly powerful.

I would not wish that system on anyone.


-----------------------------------------------

Maybe they should have a completely new encumbrance system to simulate this (similiar to RQ's old "things" mechanic). That or make large unwieldy things "weigh" more systemically (but call it something other than weight).

This idea is cool, and I have thought of doing exactly this several times. The execution is, to me, impossibly cumbersome to execute in game play.


-----------------------------------------------

What the hell is the point of the core classes if everyone busts into Prestige Classes at 4th-level.

No one should be able to take a Prestige Class until 11th-level. Some, like Archmage should be Epic Prestige Classes and only available at 21st.

This is one of the central 3.5 issues in the overall balancing problems inherent in the current classes and prestige classes. The variances in power levels are in desperate need of flattening.

I don't specifically think that all prestige class access needs to be pushed up to higher levels, but I do think that the choice between taking a core class level and a prestige class level should not be such a no-brainer in almost-certain favor of whatever prestige class is under consideration.


-----------------------------------------------

One thing that bugs me is paying of XP to make magic items [...] It's a stupid mechanic and I don't think it serves its supposed purpose of balance.

I agree completely. This mechanic needs to shot into a sun.

I'd expand the XP system to give some sort of guideline for DMs to assign XP for non-combat challenges [...]

Excellent idea. I already do this myself, however I just wing it without any formal guidelines or system.

Alternate XP chart for somebody who intends on playing a long campaign and doesn't want everybody at 20th level in a year.

Absolutely.

Some other multi-class mechanic.

I'm going to have to disagree with that one. An increased XP chart for long-term campaigns will fix a lot of the problems, IMO. That way, character's won't pile on massive capabilities from vast lists of classes in timeframes so short that it makes your head spin.

Ok, I take part of that back. I think there should be a XP penalty (~5%), possibly a cumulative one, for taking more than one prestige class. This is based in the solid reality that the more you divide your attention among multiple pursuits, the more limited your achievement will be in all of them. This will discourage the incredibly silly level lists where a character has core class 5/ prestige class A 2/ prestige class B 1/ prestige class C 1/ prestige class D 1, etc.


-----------------------------------------------

1)Hyper HP just break my ability to believe in the system, a man with 20 arrows sticking out of him walking around without a care. Jumping off a 200ft cliff because it can't possibly kill you.

Heroes don't walk around with 20 arrows sticking out of their bodies, most of those arrows hit in game mechanics terms and reduced the PC's HP total, but in the game world they actually just barely missed the hero to fly on and land somewhere (even so, the arrows still suffer for having "hit" in game mechanics).

As regards the big jump, don't forget that a DM may rule for instant death for character stupidity at any time.

If any mortal character (1st level or 50th level would not matter) in any game I ran attempted such a stupidity, I would rule it a self-inflicted suicide and then have that the player hand over the character sheet and start a new character.

-----------------------------------------------

• Balancing: 3.5 has a distinct concept problem with Balance. The problem is that a lot of the overall system has no balance.
• Class Balancing: The core classes are not balanced, and the core prestige classes are significantly unbalanced. They should all be absolutely equally balanced as a core concept of the game. New classes (and prestige classes) that have been introduced over time have gotten worse and worse in regards to balance. (Duskblade, ugh!)
• Race Balancing: The core races are not too badly unbalanced, but there needs to be a better method of building fairly and equally balanced new races.
• Feat Balancing: At the core of class balancing is feat balancing. So many of the feats are so radically different in their effectiveness that the situation is not amusing. All feats needs to be as close to each other in terms of effectiveness as possible. This does mean no worthless feats, like 3.0/3.5 Toughness, Spell Focus, etc.
• Class Ability Balancing: Class abilities need to be packaged in a way that balances them across the classes. The Red Wizard of Thay prestige class has Spell Power, which is radically more powerful than the absolutely worthless feat Spell Focus. Since feats are common things offered as class abilities, this suggests that class abilities be pinned directly to actual feats (at least to me it does). When one class gains abilities that are radically more powerful than the feats that are available in general, this creates yet more balancing problems.
• Feats and Class Ability Balancing: By accomplishing this, it would be far easier to construct balanced classes.
• Clarity and Accuracy: Concept: How about more thorough reviews of rules by more eyes before release (including WotC actually correcting rules that are reported as badly worded)? This would include the regular usage of known and defined game terminology to describe game mechanics. Vague and undefined terminology would be dumped. Examples need to be given for varying cases. (The entire rules wording for damage resistance comes to mind, especially as applies to touch attacks.)
• Feat Naming: Concept: Feats that are named for what their mechanics suggest. Can we actually try this out instead of using names that suggest something other than what is represented by the actual mechanics? For at least the core feats? Combat Reflexes suggests a mechanic related to Reflexes (which is a game mechanic saving throw type) in combat. It actually affects attacks of opportunity. Reflexes aren't involved (unless you want to claim that the feat is vaguely Dex-based, which is totally insufficient to name the feat). There are a number of feats like this. Fix the names.
• XP Expenditures for Magic Item Creation: Drop kick this detestable and conceptually flawed mechanic into a black hole. One does not decrease one's skill and knowledge by creating something. One increases one's skill and knowledge by creating something. Yes, that's right. When a mage creates a magic item (or invents a spell), that is the pursuit of the class' central nature, and should award XP (in small amounts), not take it away. I repeat, one simply does not get more incompetent and less experienced by working on these types of projects. I am not against XP expenditures for every possible purpose, but for magic item creation, absolutely, positively not.
• Spell Slots: Dump for spell points.
• Alignments: Dump them. Concept: Have everything function off of actual loyalties and allegiances. If you want to retain the subtypes of law, chaos, balance*, evil, and good for monsters, magic item and spell interaction, and pantheons and planar powers, that's something else. But as for alignments, rubbish!
• Psionics: Dump them. Concept: Avoid SF tropes in a Fantasy setting. Ok, that probably isn't going to happen, but I can dream.

* Not neutrality, as that means bystander, someone who does not participate. If a character stood for neutrality, it could not enter play as other than an observer. The whole idea is nonsense.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Roman!

Hmm, ok, but I am still uncertain about the methodology you used to arrive at the humanoid HD being worth 0.458 ECL.

I rated every class feature and ability in terms of how many feats it was worth and then used 6 feats as equivalent to 1 ECL. PC level wealth is equal to 0.33 ECL per level.

Also, why do you use 2:3 conversion between CR and ECL? I was under the impression that the conversion between CR and ECL cannot be done on a formulaic basis as it depends on the specific abilities in question, as they have different degrees of usefulness between PCs and NPCs.

I have found the 2:3 ratio works especially well in all circumstances.

I remember debating the point here about a year ago when big wigs like Sean Reynolds were involved, I don't recall being swayed by the counter argument.

Assuming your starting numbers are correct, though, than this would work, but we would still have to power up the smaller races by giving them various abilities in order for them to reach the same ECL so that it would become the new baseline.

Or you could just give those races extra levels. Theres nothing that says they have to be equal in terms of ECL.

I agree. Nevertheless, it would nice if the high-level tail of the hit point conceptual problem was corrected too.

A trifling matter.

 

[jmucchiello]

My current problem is with shields and shield weights. There is no way in heck a man could wear a 15 pound solid steel shield in a fight! No such thing ever existed! All shields larger than bucklers were wood and leather, with perhaps a bit of metal surfacing or a metal boss in the center. And 15 pounds is completely ludicrous! Your arm would fall off if you tried to use that for any length of time.

You've obviously never had to carry a small child. Or swing one like a shield. Actually the way my son lunges at stuff the peaks his interest when I carry him, I think I could handle a 15 pound shield that only moved when I moved it. (Note, my son is 15 months old. You can tell him not to lunge. But that only applies to when I said it, not now when there's some new shiny thing to lunge at.)

And last but not least, Max Dexterity Bonus. It should be higher flat across the board by at least 1 or 2 points. Full Plate wasn't the turtle shell "if you fall on your back you're helpless" deathtrap that it's portrayed in the popular media. The weight of plate armor was comparable to modern military packs, and the weight was more equally distributed instead of just bing strapped to the back. I'm still amazed they didn't include rules for knights needing to be winched unto their horses by cranes, (which I have seen in so many books and encyclopedia it isn't even funny.) A fully trained knight in full kit was expected to be able to kip up from a prone position on his back, and vault onto his horse. A Maximum Dexterity Bonus of +1, THAT IS NOT.

Um. Nice rant. But you forget that column is Maximum Dexterity Bonus TO AC. You should be complaining more about the Armor Check Penalty which affects Tumble and Ride (to mount a horse only) and other Dex checks. It makes sense to me that fancy hip swivels and such might be reduced by heavy armor to the point that you would not dodge do good in it. But dancing knights should not be penalized so greatly by the Armor Check Penalty.

 

[Quartz]

Divine vs Arcane magic distinction. Get rid of it

Agreed.

When you create a 1st-level character, you would have a fairly small number of choices of base classes: ... Unlike the 3.x base classes, these new base classes do not have full 20-level progressions, and instead top out at perhaps 3-5 levels.

This is a very good idea.

You could do this as a set of 4-level classes

Warrior: d10, 2 SP, Combat feats every level, full BAB, good Fort save.
Spellcaster: d4, 2 SP, spellcasting, poor BAB, good Will save.
Sneak: d6, 8 SP, sneak attack, evasion, uncanny dodge, medium BAB, good Ref save.
Disciplined: d6, 4 SP, self-improvement, medium BAB, all saves good.
Energetic: d12, 4 SP, rage, full BAB, good Fort save. (Need a better name for this)
Sponsored: d10, 4 SP, paladin abilities, full BAB, good Fort save.

Basically take the first four levels of the Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Monk, Barbarian, and Paladin.

 

[rounser]

The only change which I think would fundamentally improve the game would be to split D&D rules down the middle, and abstract and streamline them with regard to NPCs and the DM domain in general.

At the moment we have a Balor to keep track of with complexity approaching that of a PC. Add class levels, and the size of the stat block and the hours of work required to make them (if you don't have a computer and specialised software handy) is a dead giveaway that something isn't right, as is the difficulty of running high level adventures.

If done, the real trick would be to get the PC side of things, where customisability and detail are virtues, to jive with the DM side of things, where speed and simplicity are virtues. That's a huge design challenge, worthy of being called "4E".