airwalkrr said:
I1. Multiclassing
AD&D was too strict. 3rd edition is too permissive. In AD&D you couldn't change professions unless you were human; that was a problem. In 3rd edition you can't help but change professions many times, including certain prestigious professions; this is also a problem.
Potential Solution: There needs to be a significant drawback to multiclassing while keeping it viable. Currently, the only drawback (XP penalty) is easily circumvented. Even when it isn't avoided, XP loss isn't fun.
Multiclassing largely sucks compared to how it was THE way to play in 1st/2nd edition. Dipping keeps non-casters on par with casters, I know, blasphemy to whining grognards everywhere, but its true. This is design. The MC rules are fine as is. What isnt fine is the odd prestige class, but thats dealt with on a case by case basis.
2. Free Metamagic
Metamagic as an idea is great. But there is a reason the designers gave it an opportunity cost in the form of a higher level spell slot. Wizards were not meant to maximize fireballs at 5th level and clerics weren't meant to chain greater magic weapon at 7th level. The current trend of metamagic rods, sudden metamagic feats, and other "free" metamagic effects gives spellcasters too much power.
Potential Solution: I think this aspect just needs to be removed from the game. Metamagic is fine. "Free" metamagic is not.
The metamagic rules blow right now. Its almost never worth the spell slot trade-off. AE did it right by introducing the concept of ladening spells (spending double the slots for the desired effect). I'd recommend those.
3. Synergy
I'm not talking about synergy bonuses from skills. I am talking about unintended consequences of mixing and matching sourcebooks. For example, if a dread necromancer (Heroes of Horror) takes the Tomb-Tainted Soul feat (Libris Mortis), he gets unlimited healing. Taken separately, neither of these abilities is overpowered. Taken together, they have synergy that is far greater than the power of their individual components, likely an oversight because the books had different development teams.
Potential Solution: Allow each player access to one sourcebook ONLY outside of the three core rulebooks. This prevents most forms of synergy. Of course it reduces player options so it is not an ideal solution.
If the game was balanced around every possible combination, every feat and spell would be considered overpowered. Skill focus is now broken due to the Emmisary of Barchiel and what not. SKILL FOCUS. Think about that. Limit powerful combos as the need arises. Just be aware that fighters SHOULD be ruling combat. Its all they do.
4. Two-Handed Weapons
Because of the double bonus from Power Attack, floaty shields, and more beneficial Strength modifier, two-handed weapon wielders have become the staple of melee combat. Forgive me, but this is trite. Two-weapon fighters and sword-and-board style have become comparatively worthless relics in the game.
Potential Solution: (and this is vague) The game needs to support multiple fighting styles by providing viable options for each that don't heavily overshadow the others. Player's Handbook 2 goes a long way towards rectifying this problem, but I don't know if it goes far enough.
It helps fighters. Nothing wrong there except the other options arent as good as two hander and floaty shield. Let shield users actually wearing their shields block incoming attacks with an opposed attack roll. Fighters should be combat gods. Nothing should outdamage or out tank them until they get non-combat utility on par with scrying, contact other planes, teleport etc. Since this isnt happening this edition, fighters need to be embarassing casters in terms of combat effectiveness.
5. Balancing Per Encounter Instead of Per Day
This is a horrible idea because it propagates the notion that the world conforms itself to the power level of the player characters. Some encounters are meant to be tougher, and those encounters require greater resources. Others are meant to be more menial and require fewer resources. Properly gauging the difficulty of an encounter and balancing your resources is part of the strategy of D&D. Leave "per encounter" balancing in MMORPGs and keep D&D a strategic game, like it was meant to be. Or at least publish two versions.
Potential Solution: (another vague one) Characters should not be able to use their most powerful abilities without limit.
Decent idea, this problem isnt new to 3rd edition. You always needed a ton of encounters to prevent the mage and cleric from dumping meteor swarm, finger of death, creeping doom etc every meaningful encounter. One encounter per day works if you dont have casters.
6. Neverending Buffs
Yet another thing that removes an element of strategy from the game. Clerics are particularly fond of these. Spells like magic vestment, greater magic weapon, and heroes' feast are virtual must-haves for clerics because they last practically all day, especially with extend spell. "Forget situational spells. Just memorize the ones that keep you perpetually powered-up!" That's bland.
Potential Solution: Reduce durations of spells like this, or add costly material or XP costs to reduce their frequency of use.
Ugh. you actually LIKE tracking durations? These are the only ones I dont mind, because they are fire and forget.
7. Combat Expertise and Power Attack
These kinds of feats make the game a bit too complicated because of the constant calculation required. A 10th-level fighter with Power Attack has 11 attack options representing the various penalties he can take. A 10th-level fighter with Power Attack AND Combat Expertise has 66 attack options! And he is expected to quickly decide which course of action is best?
Potential Solution: Simplify these kinds of feats with a flat penalty and flat bonus. The decision for the player then becomes merely to use it or not.
My players are too dumb for simple math, for one of the classes with the fewest options out there. Sorry, I thoroughly disagree.
8. Point Buy
As if we needed more excuses for players to focus on character creation as opposed to actually playing the game. The world isn't that fair. I don't know why we would expect our characters to be "equal" either (as if that ideal were even possible). Besides, it ruins the excitement of rolling up a really nice set of scores.
Potential Solution: Roll ability scores.
Rolling anything duri9ng character creation is a bad idea. HP, stats, etc should all be fixed. Or we could do it your way, and roll to see if your saves, skill points, spells/day, BAB increase. I mean, why should people want a fair shake. Oh, because its a game, thats why.
9. Rerolls
Various class abilities that allow rerolls greatly reduce the amount of chance in the game. You aren't likely to roll very many 1s during a game session, and if you have one or two reroll abilities (luck domain, luck blade, fatespinner, etc.) you don't need to worry about them. As long as your character is powerfully built, you will almost never need to worry about pesky automatic failures. Additionally, these abilities are greater still in the hands of NPCs, who only usually need them for one battle.
Potential Solution: Don't allow rerolls to change the result of automatic successes or failures.
Not that common. I like re-rolls personally.
10. Magic Item Creation
It costs XP to make magic items. So my character unlearns things for succeeding at a task. How on earth does that make sense?
Potential Solution: Just drop the XP cost for magic item creation. It already costs your character a feat. Or make the creation of magic items difficult by requiring rare components that must be quested for.
[/quote]
Magic items are finally out of tightwad DM's control. Thank god for small favors, because the game is actually admitting its balanced around certain expectations. No, and double no.
