Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Merlion" data-source="post: 1768501" data-attributes="member: 10397">I would like to see things that represent special abilities that anyone can do made into feats. Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, Opportunist, Slippery Mind, Crippling Strike stuff like that.Mystical and supernatural abilities should, I think, be class specfic. Wild Shape, Woodland Stride, Ki Strike, Bardic Music, Divine Grace, Smite Evil etc.I dont think DnD will ever make things like that accessible via feats...and that I'm fine with. Fundemental class traits like base attack and save bonuses and spellcasting wont change, and I dont think they should for DnD. DnD has always been a strong, rigidly class based system, and thats one of those things I dont foresee them ever changing. I think 4th edition will still have the same base attack and save progressions, and each class will have a certain one. Spellcasting certainly will remain class specfic. I think a better answer(or one that is more likely to ever be implmented in the DnD game) to the debates you describe with classes like Ranger and Paladin, is to include some "official variants" of the class. Put them in the DMG, or even the PH, so that way if someone wants to play a spell-less ranger, they can do it without having to try and get DM permission for something from a non core source. Like I said, I dont foresee attack bonus/capability ever being anything but class-based in DnD. Some more feats and things for allowing non-melee types to improve their abilities with certain types of weapons certainly wouldnt hurt though. Multiclassing is kind of its own issue...but this is another thing I dont see ever changing within DnD. I foresee 4th edition keeping the Vancian fire and forget system. If it changes, it would probably be to a spell point system, or something similiar to the AU system. We are already seing some improvements as far as issues with multiclassed spellcasters. Things like the Practiced Caster feat, and the magic rating system in Arcana Unearthed could be implemented to make these combinations more effective. Personally, I favor a reasonbly rigid magic system...in the end, its a lot easier. I would love to see DnD switch to the Arcana Unearthed system though, as it has the simplicity and straightforward nature of the Vancian system, but with much greater flexibility so you feel more like your character is a magic wielder rather than a spell-flinger. Honestly, I am pretty happy with most of the classes. Barbarian should definitly go since as you say its just a fighter with a theme/background. Some would say the Monk can or should be removed, but I have always maintained that despite the strong Eastern flavour text given the Monk, the archtype of a physical and spiritual adept is one that is worthy of a class.Actually, the class I would most like to see removed or utterly revamped would be the Cleric. Of course, I know its never going to be removed.  However, in the next edition they must at least make the Cleric balanced, and it would be nice if they at least do some work on its major archtypal identity crisis as well.A lot of people seem to want a shift to a classless or nearly classless system based entirely on skills and feats. This isnt an inherently bad idea and certainly has merits, but its not something thats likely to actually ever happen with DnD. And I for one am ok with that...I dont really mind rigid class systems. Actually, what I would like to see is a lot of Unearthed Arcana stuff made core...and then I would like to see, in 4th edition, a 4th core rulebook that essentially consists of "official variants", and advice on altering the rules to fit different worlds and character concepts. It could include things like rangers with no spells, or a more western style Monk, or a more militant bard or what have you.</blockquote>

Verification