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

[Kheti sa-Menik]

I'm only going to buy/start playing D&D 4th (if one is actaully coming, we don't even know there is one) if:
1. Less dependance on gear/magical gear, much less
2. Spellcasters are hit with the nerf stick....hard and repeatedly. Magic should be hard, expensive, and time consuming to learn. Nerf multiclassed spellcasters harder.

 

[mhensley]

Yes. And we all know that real world medieval monetary systems had no needless complications....

I understand that monetary systems were more complex in real life, but this is a game and it is a level of detail I can do without. YMMV

 

[VirgilCaine]

2. Spellcasters are hit with the nerf stick....hard and repeatedly. Magic should be hard, expensive, and time consuming to learn. Nerf multiclassed spellcasters harder.

Look at spellcaster starting ages. Magic is time-consuming to learn.

 

[VirgilCaine]

I dont have a Problem with too much mechanicaly. I love the options and rules for just about everything.
But I do have to say the economy is pretty messed up. As well as the availability of certain Items. Magical and Mudane. We dont need a new Edition for this, but something I would like to see is Items with an availability percentage based on the Gp limit of a town. I get so tired of trying to explain to someone you cant just walk into any town with 200,000 GP and buy A +5 Vorpal Great Mercurial Great Sword, and there arent Wizards just sitting around making this stuff.

Reread your DMG. The Community wealth guidelines are there for this. And magic weapons do not, RAW, wear out. So vorpal swords made thousands of years ago may very well still be around and available for purchase.

 

[Estlor]

For instance, how much damage a character does with a weapon should depend more on the character's class and level than what weapon they are using, or how high their Strength score is. A high-level fighter should be able to clean the clock of a low level fighter, even if the former has a knife and the latter has a greataxe. (Yes, hit points allow this to happen currently, but then the high level fighter has to find a cleric to heal all the wounds caused by the low-level mook.)

I disagree with this. Let me give you a real world example of why.

Say a highly-trained blackbelt in karate attacked me, a mook with no real training. For argument's sake, we'll stat the karate man as a 15th level monk and me as a 1st level commoner. However, I've got a chainsaw and plenty of gas in it. Assuming I can keep the karate man from kicking or slapping the chainsaw out of my hands, I'm going to win. Now pretend I have a kitchen knife instead of a chainsaw. Again, if I can keep my weapon, I'm going to win. But if level and not the weapon determined the bulk of how much damage we could deal against each other, that karate man would totally destroy me even with the chainsaw. Frankly, that stretches the believability of D&D combat past the breaking point.

 

[mmadsen]

So... what are your biggest conceptual problems with 3E/3.5E? How would you like to see them addressed? Even if you are able to ultimately get past it in the game, does anything in particular jar you or your fellow players in the 'this is completely nonsensical' way and would like to consequently see dealt with?

I don't want to beat a dead catoblepas, but hit points -- with their "hits" that aren't hits, "healing" of wounds that aren't wounds, etc. -- are a big conceptual problem. (Obviously some people don't mind at all...)

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I disagree with this. Let me give you a real world example of why.

Say a highly-trained blackbelt in karate attacked me, a mook with no real training. For argument's sake, we'll stat the karate man as a 15th level monk and me as a 1st level commoner. However, I've got a chainsaw and plenty of gas in it. Assuming I can keep the karate man from kicking or slapping the chainsaw out of my hands, I'm going to win. Now pretend I have a kitchen knife instead of a chainsaw. Again, if I can keep my weapon, I'm going to win. But if level and not the weapon determined the bulk of how much damage we could deal against each other, that karate man would totally destroy me even with the chainsaw. Frankly, that stretches the believability of D&D combat past the breaking point.

Well in D&D there is no weapon that a 1st level fighter can use to defeat a 15th level naked opponent. HP will be too many to overcome as the high level guy maneuvers past the weapon and takes you out.

 

[DonTadow]

I disagree with this. Let me give you a real world example of why.

Say a highly-trained blackbelt in karate attacked me, a mook with no real training. For argument's sake, we'll stat the karate man as a 15th level monk and me as a 1st level commoner. However, I've got a chainsaw and plenty of gas in it. Assuming I can keep the karate man from kicking or slapping the chainsaw out of my hands, I'm going to win. Now pretend I have a kitchen knife instead of a chainsaw. Again, if I can keep my weapon, I'm going to win. But if level and not the weapon determined the bulk of how much damage we could deal against each other, that karate man would totally destroy me even with the chainsaw. Frankly, that stretches the believability of D&D combat past the breaking point.

I was on the fense with this until your example, which completely proves the other guys point. I never thought of it before, but a 15th level figher with a sword would obliterate a 1st level fighter. a trained martial artist could kill you with a dagger or sword before you wildly swing the weapon.

 

[VirgilCaine]

Well in D&D there is no weapon that a 1st level fighter can use to defeat a 15th level naked opponent. HP will be too many to overcome as the high level guy maneuvers past the weapon and takes you out.

I was going to say that the 1st level guy could use any weapon he wanted...if the 15th level guy started asleep with the 1st level guy right beside him.

But even with a Scythe (8d4 damage on a CdG), the 15th level character (if he was a high Con, high HD class) could possibly survive the (20 or so) damage and pass the (DC 25-30 ish) Fort save and kill the 1st level guy. It's not impossible to make the save, but the 15th level character is going to have gobs of HP remaining if he passes the save--which is much harder without his Cloak of Resistance or his Con-boosting Amulet of Health.

15th level Sorceror or Wizard or Rogue would probably not survive the damage or pass the Fort save.

 

[DonTadow]

I don't want to beat a dead catoblepas, but hit points -- with their "hits" that aren't hits, "healing" of wounds that aren't wounds, etc. -- are a big conceptual problem. (Obviously some people don't mind at all...)

I don't see how they could fix this. This is a dungeons and dragons mainstay that has unfortunately evolved to every rpg since.

You can do it with flavor, but then it makes combat sound so lame. The enemy attempts to hit you but you dodge a blow for the umpteenth time that should have connected, thus deteriorating your vitality or luck a little bit.

Then again theres the current way where a player gets many gashes, cuts and scrapes but always bounces back.

I've toyed with an idea of "week" hp. Of course, it doesnt work for everyone. A player can maximum gain back 20 percent of his HP each day, regardless of healing.