D&D 3.1E: What to change?

[LostSoul]

I'd like to see something that suggests "tweaks" based on your game's style (ie. low-magic, high-magic, grim & girtty, only dungeon adventures, no dungeons, whatever).

I'd also like to see the game's values (skill ranks, levels) defined in real-world terms. Just what is a 4th level Expert with a +12 modifier to his Porfession skill? What does that even mean?

 

[Reynard]

I have a fairly simple one: 1 Book.

I know, I know. That is a sacred cow not unlike the Ranger and his dual weapons. However, almost every game on the market as *a* core book and lots of additions (player's guides, setting books, magic expansions, etc...) eople should be able to play a full D&D campaign with just a single book (maybe 400 pages long, but 1 book nonetheless).

In the second and third books, you add variant classes and prestige classes and more spells and more monsters and new races and all that wonky stuff. Those that want/need just one book, though, can do so.

 

[teitan]

Easy, the armor rules. I would conform them to the Star Wars rules with armor doing damage reduction instead of adding to Armor CLass and I would use the VItality/Wounds system. Other than that, no problems at all with DnD3E

 

[Droogie]

A rewrite of the rules clearly differentiating partial actions, standard actions, full round actions (and full attack actions), and one round actions in a coherent chain/hierarchy.

The grapple rules are fine mechanicwise, but should be rewritten.

Ditto AoOs.

Many of the character classes in general should be rewritten to be less frontloaded and reward sticking with a class to high levels, lessening the advantages of multiclassing relative to single classing. The Ranger, Barbarian, and Paladin would be at the top of the list for rewriting.

My sentiments exactly.
I'd like to see the PHB v3.1 incorporate mostly rules clarifications, like the AoO description from Wheel of Time and CoC d20. It's explained so much better in those tomes. Add an official "combat withdrawl" action, and we're set.

Grapple rules could be explained better.

Class tweaks. Give the ranger some love. Give the bard a couple more skil points. Multiclass restrictions gone. Gnome favored class wizard, sorcerer for the elves. Good idea!!

Tweak some spells. Harm. Haste. All good points, folks.

Errata, of course.

Adjust CRs. Clarify monster PC rules and ECLs, then scribe them in stone in the new DMG.

One vote AGAINST hp/vp and armor DR. I feel the system they have now is simpler, which I prefer.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I have a fairly simple one: 1 Book.

Oh, by all that's holy, please no!!!



Seriously, I think that'd be awful for D&D. The book would be almost six hundred pages long, seriously unwieldy, and cluttered as all heck. I like having one book to use for player info and spells, one for DM stuff, and one for critters. I don't want to be flipping through a dictionary every time I need to roll for a magic weapon or to look up the range on magic missile.

 

[hong]

I would retool all of the core and prestige classes to use a point based system for determining their class abilities, but I wouldn't reveal this in the PHB. In the DMG, or perhaps a different book altogether, I would release the class creation system. The net result would be that class based D&D would be by far the standard (and the only thing you see at all in the PHB) but there would be an option for people to play classless as well, since you can use the extra rules option to build a custom class as you go (perhaps even incrementally instead of by level as an additional option).

They tried that in 2E. It didn't work.

 

[Saeviomagy]

IMHO it's better to have multiple, seperate books. The players book contains everything you need to know as a player. Players (at least the ones around here) don't have a problem with buying the book. If it doubled or tripled in size and price, they'd stop doing that. We'd be back to the old days where there's one copy of the book between 8 people. That's not a good thing.

That and the fact that big books are a pain to find anything in, a pain to transport and tend to disintegrate.

I can't imagine a DR system that would be balanced and worthwhile in D&D, since it's entirely possible to get characters doing hundreds of points of damage in a single hit, while low-level characters struggle to do 10. At High level armour would become totally worthless OR at low level it would rule the game (whereas now it tends to be that little extra which tips the balance at almost any level).

As for changes I'd like to see? Some other way of doing 1-hit-kill(or dominate or hold or...) spells which isn't 1-hit-kill. I've never liked the all-or-nothing spells in any game system, and in 3rd ed they tend to dominate even more than they used to, due to the ability to raise monstrous DCs. (I've been thinking - some form of ability damage scheme?)

 

[kenjib]

They tried that in 2E. It didn't work.

Very good point.

 

[jollyninja]

experience point penalties gone and AoO's explained by someone who lists english as their first language. more skill points and fewer restrictions on what they are spent on. i do not mean fighters with hide and move silently as class skills, i mean fighters with professions and that sort of thing. and i do not just mean fighters, i think everyone should have gotten more even the mighty rogue. screw the munchkins let them min max to their hearts content but when my backstory says that the fighter learned his craft to protect dad's caravans while they travelled, i should be able to take a butload of ranks in said skill. that's my 2 cents. also monte's alt classes are better then the PH versions. damn playtesters!

 

[WizarDru]

Add an official "combat withdrawl" action, and we're set.

What would this mythical action do that the Total Defense action doesn't already simulate? Unless you're looking for a 'get-out-of-jail-free' action, which sounds like an untested and potentially game-balance disrupting change.