D&D 4.0 - What the?

[Dark Jezter]

I can't believe how many people here want to see the number of core classes reduced.

You can't take away my beloved barbarian class! 2e took it away from me, and I had to wait until 3e to get him back!

 

[Larcen]

...Find a way not to hose multiclass spellcasters.
...

God I hope not. I think spellcasters are powerful enough, and multiclassing them SHOULD hurt. You think the power curve it high now, wait until they "fix" this and people start rolling up barbarian/sorcerer/cleric/druids.

People are always going to want everything for their PCs, please let's not give it to them.

 

[Brother Shatterstone]

I can't believe how many people here want to see the number of core classes reduced.

I want nothing of the sort I want more classes to be honest, or at least the inclusion of some of the classes added in other WotC supplements. 3rd edition is all about player options and I hope 4th edition continues this trend.

 

[RangerWickett]

4th Edition Planning, part II

Just to clarify our mission a bit, our goals are to

1. Reduce the reliance on magic items for all characters. Along with this, reduce the raw power of magic, perhaps augmenting it in different ways.
2. Make skills and feats more important, providing more options to characters in various circumstances. Now not everything will be decided by attack rolls, evocations, and hold spells. This will entail giving characters more skill points and feats, but we will make sure not to require feats to try things. Thus, you can try to two-weapon fight without needing the feat; you'll just suck.
3. The system should support flexibility, but not make it part of the PHB. House rules and other suggestions will be in the DMG, so that the basics of the game can be assumed unless someone tells you otherwise.

Races
We're going to keep the racial setup as is, but fiddle with a few abilities. We'll include the basic rules for playing Level-Adjustment races, and include one or two examples. Let's say . . . dark Elves and half-Dragons. Yeah, that'll piss of the purists and delight the fanboys. It's perfect!

Elves will get -2 Str and +2 Dex. The Strength reduction helps balance out the benefits they gain in warrior classes from high Dex (as an archer, low Con isn't that bad), and it avoids the problem of 10th level wizards with 15 hit points.

Gnomes will stay in. Halflings will keep stats much the same, except that they won't be described only as wandering gypsies. Going back to the originals, halflings will have both the stay-at-home bumpkin style (like The Hobbit), and the more adventuresome variety (as described in some side stories of Tolkien's).

 

[Larcen]

I am seeing the general trend here to give characters even more goodies. I am of the opinion they we should take away some of their power. At least at high level. The power curve should not be exponential, it should be linear.

Add this to my list as well: Give classes automatic ranks in certain skills. However the skill points they get now per level should probably be lessened a bit to counteract this. As it is, it's entirely possible for a 20th level cleric to have zero ranks in Knowledge(Religion). Even if we assume the character did nothing but learn about his own personal religion in his long illustrious career, the depth of that knowledge should be worth some skill points in that area. I am sure we can think of other skills that a class should get simply by practicing that profession.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Fewer classes? I'd push for a classless system if I thought anybody'd listen to me. There has to be some way to balance this idea, but please hear it out (if you can still hear it over the sound of sacred cows dying in excruciating agony): No classes. The same xp model. All things that are currently class abilities, feats, skills, additional HP, etc are all "purchasable" with xp. Costs are assigned to each ability so as to make them balanced and not overly succeptable to mad min-maxing. You start out with a set number of xp to create your character, and as you adventure, you earn xp with which to purchase new abilities or improve old ones. You keep a running tally of total xp, to determine what "level" you are for purposes of xp rewards and CR comparisons. No, really, this could work! If you don't limit your character to one or two areas of specialization, effectively creating your own class, you end up good at nothing, just like over-multiclassing right now. But it's the ultimate in customization!

That's what I'd like to see. I don't think it's going to happen, though.

 

[Valiantheart]

I think one of the problems with Vanican magic is the limitations it places on utility spells. I know I am much more apt to memorize blast/blowup spells than say knock because 9 times out of 10 they're more useful. I think if they allowed the wizard class to be able to rememorize spells for spell slots he hasnt used that day it would be a much more flexible system. I can imagine a wizard taking out his book, sitting down on the floor and emptying his mind of a web spell to add in a knock spell. It takes time so it wont have immediate combat consequences and improves versatility.

Some other changes I would like:
1. Less dependence on magic items particularly for the melee classes. I know I am tired of carrying my golf bag of weapons around.

2. A generic fighter class that can choose to be a brute, a nimble swashbuckler, or sword master depending on his selection of feats. Or a nimble fighter class.

3. A generic Paladin class for all alignments

4. Balanced classes. No more complete spell caster domination at higher levels.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

I can't believe how many people here want to see the number of core classes reduced.

You can't take away my beloved barbarian class! 2e took it away from me, and I had to wait until 3e to get him back!

I'm one of those who would like to see the core reduced to the standard four classes, but with a mechanism to then refine the individual character. A Fighter could end up being a barbarian, a ranger, an archer, a swashbuckler, etc. Right now, we have classes that WOTC has tried to differentiate with mechanics (class abilities), but their fundamental difference is concept (the woodlands hunter, the holy knight in plate mail, the unsophisticated fighter in furs, etc).

But don't worry: If 4.0 does reduce the number of core classes, I would bet money that the rules will still allow the creation of barbarians!

 

[Ranes]

There was a thread I joined in yesterday about nostalgia being more to do with lost youth than a particular game system. I think there is truth to that. I'll hit forty this year and I've been playing games all my life. Nevertheless, if Vancian magic was designed out of the system, I would feel some nostalgia for it.

When I came across D&D, I had wargamed. The concept that was really new to me, and which initially put me off trying the game, was magic use. However, I remember being bowled over when I read what I later learned was the adoption of Vance's ideas. I hadn't read Vance then; it was all new to me. I liked it.

I like it just as much now. Sure, I like other magic systems, too. But this one's D&D, so I'd like to keep it.

I'd also like any future edition to be written with the goal of making it the last one. It's my belief that, the longer the rules of D&D go unchanged - errata notwithstanding - the more likely it is that D&D will be accepted by future historians and anthropologists as the chess of our time, a classic game.

I know. I'm crazy.

 

[evileeyore]

The Vancian Magic is so inflexible that it has caused massive mechanical difficulties with multiclassed spellcasters in all editions of AD&D (1e/2e, 3.0/3.5). Just look at the weird PrCs they had to create to bandaid over the problem (Mystic Theurge, Arcane Trickster).

Ummm, perhaps you didn't realize that those 'weird' PrC's had nothing to do with Vancian Magic? They have everything to do with the way caster classes improve in Spellcasting (or don't improve) when multiclassing. My Sorceror has they same problem, and I hope you don't consider the Sorcerror a Vancian Mage...


TTFN

EvilE