Five things that would change the game forever

[Klaus]

My point was that there's generally a divide between good magic (often not called magic) and evil magic, but there aren't typically two axes: good vs. evil and divine vs. arcane. In Christian mythology, anything coming from God is Divine, and thus Good; any sorcerous powers are not-Divine, and thus Evil.

But by D&D's definition of "divine" (i.e., granted by extraplanar powers), all magic in most real world mythologies would be divine magic. Even if a warlock made a pact with "Satan", the extraplanar origin of the magic would make it divine.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

My point was that there's generally a divide between good magic (often not called magic) and evil magic, but there aren't typically two axes: good vs. evil and divine vs. arcane. In Christian mythology, anything coming from God is Divine, and thus Good; any sorcerous powers are not-Divine, and thus Evil.

Actually, there was.

Divine magic sourced from God. You could smite thine enemies with His power before you, drive out unclean spirits, etc. This was good.

Evil magic came from false gods, fallen angels, etc. (after all, even Pharoah's sorcerers could do Sticks to Snakes...).

Then there were the mysteries man uncovered, usually termed "arcane" or "alchemical" secrets. (Yes- we now recognize this as the beginnings of the revival of science- but then it was called magic.) Some decried such studies as being Satan's work because it questioned God's creation. Christian alchemists
(some of whom were clergymen) claimed it was just discovering the previously undiscovered beauty of God's creation- like the work the ancients did discovering the principle of simple machines (levers, screws, etc) or more complex things like alloys of metals. That debate wasn't just about divine vs diabolic, it was whether the source of the knowledge was good, evil or neutral because no one could discern the hand of God or Devil in it- it was Man's quest for knowlege.

 

[mmadsen]

But by D&D's definition of "divine" (i.e., granted by extraplanar powers), all magic in most real world mythologies would be divine magic. Even if a warlock made a pact with "Satan", the extraplanar origin of the magic would make it divine.

Exactly.

 

[Mercule]

1) Alignment is eliminated once and for all

Nope. Too much change to too many assuptions. I'd like to see it made more like d20 Allegiences. This is, essentially what I do in my game.

2) Ability scores are no longer numbers but simply bonuses

I've heard this several times. I just don't like it. Honestly, I like the "bonuses at even values, prereqs at odd levels" method that's currently in place. That said, it's really just semantics. I don't think it'd have much of an impact on play and I'm amazed that it's a significant issue to anyone.

3) All spells, songs, and psionics are simply arcane magic (i.e. god's do not grant spells, magic is just magic)

Do you mean removing the cleric? Yeah, that'd change D&D, but I don't think for the best. Personally, I think the divine magic should have a different mechanism than arcane, but that'd be a pain.

4) Skills fall into one of 12 categories instead of the oppressive number that's out there now

Did you have 12 in mind, or do you just like that number? I agree that the skill list could use some tidying, but it isn't horrid. Really, changing the list wouldn't be that massive of a change. Hardly anyone noticed when they did it between 3.0 and 3.5.

5) Every prestige class can also be a core class

Oh, sweet lord of the dance, no! Getting rid of the glut of base classes that seemed to be everywhere in prior editions was a good thing. What I'd like to see are strong, but flexible, archetypes. We know they are all through fantasy literature. Woods/wildsman, knightly/professional warrior, cunning/light warrior, arcanist, divinist, rogue/guileful "player". Figure out what the big blocks are and build them from the ground up. Multiclassing lets you build the crossbreeds. Then, use the Prestige Class system to grow experienced characters into narrower archetypes with better definition. Paladin is a great example of a base class that should be a PrC. The Ranger and Barbarian are an example of an unnecessary and clumsy split of a stronger base archetype. The Swashbuckler is an example of an archetype that isn't well serviced by the RAW.

 

[painandgreed]

1) Alignment is eliminated once and for all
2) Ability scores are no longer numbers but simply bonuses
3) All spells, songs, and psionics are simply arcane magic (i.e. god's do not grant spells, magic is just magic)
4) Skills fall into one of 12 categories instead of the oppressive number that's out there now
5) Every prestige class can also be a core class

1) Since good versus evil (or law versus chaos) is sort of a basic thing in most heroic fantasy, I really don't see any reason to drop it, especially considering how much some of the people (around here anyway) really go for the goody two shoes heroic PC thing. If you don't want to use it, you simply don't use it or ignore it except for flavor.

2) Besides being aesthetically unpleasing, there is a certain level of ganularity that is gained from such stats. You don't gain a bonus with every stat increase.

3) I would just see this as making the system bland and tired. i don't doubt that there will be revisions in the magic systems, perhaps even makeing them more similar, but if they were all the same, then there would be no difference between a wizard and a cleric when they are two quite different concepts.

4) Might happen, might not. Combine the skills and you will most likely have to cut back on skill points. Just like the magic system, there will probalby be futre changes in the skill system but I doubt that it would change the game.

5) Prestige classes are an interesting idea but to change them to be core classes would change them so much as to make them totally different from what they are now. I really don't see the point especially with the new multi-classing rules.

Something that I'd change:
1) Revamp the XP system so that XP non-combat or traps would be less ad-hoc. The emphasis on XP for killing things and taking their stuff means that that is what the game centers on. While it is a good part of what makes D&D what it is, I'd like to see some other Xp methods factored into the game in a way that they are forgotten by DMs and so it can be more of a role-playing game and let each group find their own style of play without being happered by the rules.

2) Steeper XP cost for leveling. The new XP for levels have made 20th level characters a dime a dozen and I don't like how it has affected game play.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you really want to see what a fantasy game feels like when all "magic" effects are the same, try playing Fantasy HERO.

You just use your points to build your spells. Nothing is divine or arcane or psionic, unless the GM decides that it has to be so for his campaign.

It looks just like super-powers.

While I love HERO as a game system, I find that I don't like the resultant flavor the system creates for a fantasy campaign- its bland. Instead of there being a default dichotomy of Good and Evil, Arcane (the work of Man) vs Divine (the power of gods), the GM has to work overtime to generate the proper feel of a fantasy campaign.

 

[I'm A Banana]

My point was that there's generally a divide between good magic (often not called magic) and evil magic, but there aren't typically two axes: good vs. evil and divine vs. arcane. In Christian mythology, anything coming from God is Divine, and thus Good; any sorcerous powers are not-Divine, and thus Evil.

Then there were the mysteries man uncovered, usually termed "arcane" or "alchemical" secrets. (Yes- we now recognize this as the beginnings of the revival of science- but then it was called magic.) Some decried such studies as being Satan's work because it questioned God's creation. Christian alchemists
(some of whom were clergymen) claimed it was just discovering the previously undiscovered beauty of God's creation- like the work the ancients did discovering the principle of simple machines (levers, screws, etc) or more complex things like alloys of metals. That debate wasn't just about divine vs diabolic, it was whether the source of the knowledge was good, evil or neutral because no one could discern the hand of God or Devil in it- it was Man's quest for knowlege.

Worth repeating D&D arcane magic is generally this alchemy-style magic. Which makes it different than Piya or Kanaima, just like Philosophy was different than worshipping Hades or Zeus.

 

[Dave Turner]

Ugh. No, no, no, no....PC actions should never be dictated to them by the DM, IMHO. If that happens, they're NPC's, not PC's.

You can say "You are convinced, and you want to do it," but dictating their actions seems to cross the line, to me...

But the PCs were just as much in control of their actions as in a physical confict. In each case, they ask themselves if they are willing to risk the outcome of the confict before they initiate it (death or being convinced to something you wouldn't normally do). After that, the dice take over. In combat, the players risk the death of their characters. In social conficts, the players risk having their actions controlled by NPCs.

The better roleplayer is the one who can roll with the social defeat and make the story interesting after he or she loses the social conflict.

 

[William Ronald]

Quote:
The head councilman makes a Convincing roll against your Mental Resist. [Dice rolled]. You are convinced. You have to do the mission, the council rolled way over all your Resist so all of you are utterly convinced.

Ugh. No, no, no, no....PC actions should never be dictated to them by the DM, IMHO. If that happens, they're NPC's, not PC's.

You can say "You are convinced, and you want to do it," but dictating their actions seems to cross the line, to me...

But the PCs were just as much in control of their actions as in a physical confict. In each case, they ask themselves if they are willing to risk the outcome of the confict before they initiate it (death or being convinced to something you wouldn't normally do). After that, the dice take over. In combat, the players risk the death of their characters. In social conficts, the players risk having their actions controlled by NPCs.

The better roleplayer is the one who can roll with the social defeat and make the story interesting after he or she loses the social conflict.

I think most players make something of a distinction between combat, and their ability to make a decision as a character. I think that the approach of having people forced to respond to the results of a social conflict roll tends to remove player control of characters. People should be able to chose how their characters react to a given situation. Most of the players that I have known in 25 years of gaming would prefer to chose how their characters react to a situation, as opposed to following the dictates of dice. ("Sorry, your character is convinced to go on a mission. The dice say so.")

I would prefer to have the freedom as a DM to say that someone seems to be very persuasive and other people (NPCs) seem to be responding, but giving players a choice of how to respond --- instead of just following the results of a die roll. In some stories, one person is able to see through the well spoken words of another character. Perhaps in a D&D game, player characters are that sort of person -- the one person who does NOT cheer a dictator's speech. Or perhaps DMs can chose to judge how an NPC will respond, based on an NPC's nature and the result of a die roll. (You may not be able to convince a blackguard that he should repent and follow your god, but you may win his respect for your character's devotion.)

The current rules uses DCs for Diplomacy and Bluff. However, I have always required someont to try to make a statement even before allowing a die roll. You can still have rules to cover diplomacy and still have role playing. Also, a player should have the option of deciding his characters actions -- a diplomacy roll is NOT a charm spell. I agree that the current social rules are not perfect, but having rules determine how a PLAYER CHARACTER will respond will likely diminish many player's enjoyment of the game. I agree that a good roleplayer can choose how to react to a defeat, but should not the player not the dice determine how the PC will react?

 

[jeffh]

It stopped being D&D when they made elf a race instead of a class.

You know what really annoys me? People who talk about "the original D&D" as having rules like that, which was first introduced in a version of the game more recent than first-edition AD&D.

"Basic" D&D is NOT the original D&D.