D&D 3.1E: What to change?

[Eternalknight]

In my personal opinion, if they were to remove hit points in favour of something else, change the Vancian magic system to something else, make it a classless or leveless game, make armor reduce damage and change the ranger to a non-dual weilding character, I would not buy the game, as it would no longer be Dungeons and Dragons. All these things must have something going for it; after all these concepts have been going strongly for nearly thrity years. Present them as options, yes. A book of options for using othe d20 games ideas would be a wonderful thing, but don't make them core rules.

 

[Psion]

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

Didn't =/= couldn't.

Actually, I would have quit playing *D&D a long time ago if Player's Option hadn't come along. PO had its problems, but you know what: I retooled it with some house rules, and it hummed along like a champ. And if I can do it, the authors can do it.

I picture a 3e version of PO in which the classes are much more customizable, but still retain their identity as classes by virtue of the abilities that they can select. If d20 modern and ELH (and 3rd party d20 products like d20) are an indication of the shape of things to come, it may be tending that way anyways.

However, that is not stuff for a .1 upgrade, I think, though I still have tidbits like this in my house rules. For example, I have more selectable abilities for certain races and classes.

 

[WizarDru]

Didn't =/= couldn't.

Actually, I would have quit playing *D&D a long time ago if Player's Option hadn't come along. PO had its problems, but you know what: I retooled it with some house rules, and it hummed along like a champ. And if I can do it, the authors can do it.

I agree with you, Alan, to a point. The problem is that some house rules are often untested in the greater scheme of things, and so the original author of said rules thinks they're bulletproof, because the six or ten people who've used them never pushed them too hard or found a flaw with them. I dropped D&D when 2e came out, and didn't return until 3E hit the shelves (and had pretty much stopped playing 1e by the time 2e arrived...not RPGs, mind you, just D&D).

I expect the designers to hold to a more rigorous standard than a house rule, which can be changed on a moment's notice, when a problem is percieved. There's a serious difference between ten people testing a house-rule as part of play, and that same rule being released to 50,000 gamers, all of whom are trying to crack that nut. Otherwise we end up with things like mercurial greatswords, bladed gauntlets and spiked chains.

 

[Tiberius]

I don't think it needs changes. I rather like the AoO, Vancian magic, armor-as-AC, think Haste and Improved Haste are fine, etc. The only thing I'd change is the addition of some form of permanant death mechanic to the rules regarding return from death. As it stands now, high-level and/or important characters are nearly immortal. I would prefer that death be a concern of all mortals, rather than merely those who don't have a cleric in their party.

-Tiberius

 

[Conaill]

...lessening the advantages of multiclassing relative to single classing.

The advantages of multiclassing? Allow me to rephrase that...

"lessening the potential for abuse presented by a few very specific multiclass combinations". In particular, things like starting with a single level of Rogue or Ranger.

And once we manage to get rid of this frontloading of classes, I also think we should do away with the multiclass XP penalties. They're essentially WotC's half-assed way to discourage multiclassing abuse, but in practice they do nothing more than discouraging you from trying interesting character concepts.

 

[Conaill]

[size=-2]quote:[/size]
-------------------------------------
Originally posted by Droogie
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.

I assume he meant adding a Withdrawl standard action to cover the "if all you do is move" clause of the AoO section, which seems to be causing a lot of confusion. (For example: what if your Move is interrupted by a Readied attack or an AoO, and you decide to change your action to attack?)

Making this into a standard action or full round action makes it clear you cannot do anything else during that round. Standard action would still allow Withdrawl and MEA (e.g. climbing a ladder, getting up from kneeling etc), but not drinking a potion, casting a scroll, or making any sort of attack.

 

[Wolfen Priest]

That's why I think all my suggestions work, and I don't think (m)any changes other than that are needed. I propose giving the ranger more power (in places he already has it, no less) at later levels, giving people a reason to continue playing as one, without changing the rules for those who take one level of ranger only.

Further, I think my rules on multiclassing would work great, giving every race "favored class = any," and eliminating all multiclassing restrictions for half-elves (and possibly giving them a +1 to CHA as well). Otherwise, who would play a half-elf? Most people play humans for the bonus feat & skill points anyway, so I doubt these rules would disrupt the game much, if at all.

Also, I would make point-buy the 'standard' way to make a character; screw rolling dice, there's not enough player control, and everyone (OK fine, almost everyone) cheats anyway.

I would probably throw out all the domain powers for clerics too. I mean come on, sometimes when I play a cleric I'm almost ashamed to bring it up that I have domain powers, clerics are simply too powerful. Getting rid of this won't change that, it will be just enough, IMO.

EternalKnight: I agree with you. Getting rid of hit points, changing armor and spells, all those ideas are too radical (and I don't mean radical, as in "radical, dood"). I wouldn't want to play the game if it changed that much. It wouldn't be D&D anymore. Leave the basics alone, I say just tweak the small stuff. Combat (especially AoO's and action types) needs to be re-written and clarified though.

I think WotC would make a lot of money selling a very bare-bones book solely about combat. It wouldn't be very interesting, but would just address all the different combat options that are possible, using elaborate mini's for illustrations. Who _wouldn't_ buy that?

Just my .002 pp.

 

[Avatar]

Some changes I'd like to see:

First, if the ranger is the two-handed guru, how come s/he still gets major penalties to their off hand? If you've been practicing with two weapons for a while, I'd think the penalty would be less.

(I know something you don't know, I'm not really left handed)

Second, I understand the rationale behind starting off all Cs at level one, but I have two major problems with it. First, like someone pointed out earlier, if you've been caravaning with dad till you turned 18, you should have some skills in it by the time you choose your new career (class). Second, and this is a biggie. I'm sorry, an elf or dwarf, who starts adventuring at 80, STILL has more life experience than an 18 year old human. Even if their development is slower, the fact is, you been around 80 years, you know more than someone who's only been around 18. I think longer-lived races should start with more skills.

And it makes NO sense that a human gets an extra feat when they've been around for the shortest amount of time.

But that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

 

[Davelozzi]

Second, and this is a biggie. I'm sorry, an elf or dwarf, who starts adventuring at 80, STILL has more life experience than an 18 year old human...And it makes NO sense that a human gets an extra feat when they've been around for the shortest amount of time.

There comes a point where you have to accept certain rules for game balance reasons or else you might as well not even bother with having different races.

Oh yeah, in my original post, I forgot one other change that I'd make -- replace most of the artwork with a more traditional medieval look instead of all the dungeonpunk crap. And get rid of all double weapons except quarterstaff and chain.

 

[Neowolf]

Oh yeah, in my original post, I forgot one other change that I'd make -- replace most of the artwork with a more traditional medieval look instead of all the dungeonpunk crap. And get rid of all double weapons except quarterstaff and chain.

With all due respect, I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with either style, but remember who WotC tends to market their products toward: teenagers and young adults. You've gotta consider that that particular demographic is more likely to be interested in the fantastic looking (I don't mean "fantastic" in the "good" sense, I mean it in the "fantasy' sense) style they've been using.

Personally, I like a little of both. Remember, this is fantasy roleplaying, not necessarily medieval roleplaying. Forgive me if any of that came across as disrespectful, that's not how I intended it.