If there was one thing about 3rdE that you could change, what would it be?

[mmadsen]

I do not think the idea of three or four or five core classes is truely viable, not and still have DnD.

Except that you could still fill a chapter of the Player's Handbook with classes -- they would just share many of the same underlying mechanics. They would have vastly different flavor text, and they'd have different Skill lists, Bonus Feat lists, and Spell lists, but it would be obvious how to make your own classes that fit the pattern.

But, I really like the idea of *EVERYONE* starting at level 4. Commoners, experts, NPCs, etc.

Thank you. It lets you simplify Skills (N Skill Points per Level, not N+3, etc.), and it lets you spread out the Feats and Special Abilities that define a class. A Ranger wouldn't necessarily get Track, Ambidexterity, Two-Weapon Fighting, and a Favored Enemy in one level, for instance -- but he could conceivably start with all those abilities as a quasi-fourth-level character. And spellcasters could start with as many spells as they currently do, but multiclassing into a spellcasting class would only get you one fourth as many spells (or whatever).

 

[RobNJ]

I would not get rid of alignment. It's D&D. If you don't want alignment, play Rolemaster. Or Dragon Knight.

"It's always been there," isn't a good enough reason to keep something. You need specifics. For example, some specifics on why alignment is bad:

a certain love of carnage is, IMO, evil

(snip)

rampant racism is evil IMO

If alignment were a good, useful, clearly defined and reliable rule mechanic, "IMO" wouldn't be necessary. What is good and what is evil wouldn't be open to interpretation, it would just be.

The precise problem with alignment is it wants to pretend that it is absolute and straightforward, but it's not. It's highly subjective. I dare you to start a thread here asking people something as simple as what is good and what is evil. There will be no clear answer.

In order for a rule to be useful, it must by definition be reliable. Reliability is measured by the same result arriving from multiple tests. If you have multiple tests of alignment (like asking 50 people, "What is evil?"), you do not get the same result. It is therefore unreliable. On the other hand, if you asked 50 people what a base attack bonus is, you'll mostly get the same response.

Furthermore, it fails on precision. Precision means, basically, that you do what you're trying to do. Alignment tries to accurately model/predict/explain the behavior of every living and non-living creature in Dungeons and Dragons, and it fails to do so.

If alignment is so good a mechanic, why does no other game use it?

 

[EarthsShadow]

I know of two other games that incorporates alignment into its system, Palladium game books and the Imagine game system.

In palladium, the alignments were split into three categories: Good, Neutral, and Evil...then within these it was split up into seperate distinctions, and with each distinction were major guidelines and points as to the average person with that alignment. It was better than D&D's alignment system, IMO.

I think the only reason why alignment has stayed is because of all the spells that relie on it being there. Protection from evil, good, things like that. Take out the spells, no reason for the alignments, ya know.

Imagine system had an even more detailed alignment system, and had a better explaination of what to do when a character does something different than their listed alignment. I can't remember to much about it, but I liked it more than D&D.

In resolution, if they took out alignment, all the hardcore D&D players out there would get upset because they took it out, and would consider it no longer D&D, right? If you keep it in there, people will use it grudgingly, but the majority will complain about it. After all, alignment does cause more arguments among players than any other game mechanic, well it does in my experiences.

To make everyone happy, I think they should keep alignments, then supplement it with a good personality system like the one in Alternity, which had the Motivations, Character Traits and Personality Quirks listed for each person. If they were combined, there would be no real arguments, or at least not as many arguments compared to how many we have now about it.

 

[RobNJ]

I know of two other games that incorporates alignment into its system, Palladium game books and the Imagine game system.

I know I should've disclaimered myself by saying, "Almost no other role playing game."

Anyway, the point stands. Hundreds of gaming systems, 3 (or maybe a few more) use alignment.

And an even stronger argument: As far as I'm aware no other d20 role playing games have included alignment. It's the same ruleset, more or less, so why hasn't alignment come along for the ride? It's not just tone, because Star Wars and Wheel of Time are both starkly good against evil (though WoT sometimes dips into neutral against evil).

I think the only reason why alignment has stayed is because of all the spells that relie on it being there.

That, and traditionalism.

Protection from evil, good, things like that. Take out the spells, no reason for the alignments, ya know.

There are a few magic items, and I think that some PrCs might be balanced with the idea that mostly only NPCs will take them, but generally, I think you're right.

Imagine system had an even more detailed alignment system, and had a better explaination of what to do when a character does something different than their listed alignment. I can't remember to much about it, but I liked it more than D&D.

It would seem to me that any ruleset that tries to describe (and in this case, proscribe) behavior is going to be doomed to failure. The best attempt I've seen at a rules system that does this are the various advantages/disadvantages/quirks systems you see out there, but even then, these are only elements to include in your role play, not encompassing concepts of what your character is.

In resolution, if they took out alignment, all the hardcore D&D players out there would get upset because they took it out, and would consider it no longer D&D, right?

Well, some. I don't know about all.

If you keep it in there, people will use it grudgingly, but the majority will complain about it. After all, alignment does cause more arguments among players than any other game mechanic, well it does in my experiences.

Again, I don't know if I'm comfrotable saying, "the majority." Nevertheless, I think the benefits outweigh the detriments.

 

[EarthsShadow]

Off the topic of alignments...

I think the one thing that needs to be changed, beyond anything else, is Armor Class and how combat is handled. Sure you can have feats that increase your armor class, but its just not the same as when I get the chance to actually make a defensive action and control my character when someone attacks me. In other words, incorporate defensive or reactionary actions into the game and not just use Armor Class as a defunct, mundane, and boring defense game mechanic. I know the DMG has an option for optional defense rolls, which my groups use all the time...but if there was an official rule with optional defense maneuvers, and they can somehow make the game a little more cinematic than "I hit or miss, I do 14 pts damage," that would be awesome.

Sure, some of you will say that you can embellish it with descriptions, which we do and have lots of fun with, but it is just not the same. Period. Incorproate defensive actions, like a real parry or dodge game mechanic, make a defensive roll based on that, or base it off Reflex save, then you got a good game mechanic.

Everything else I mentioned above for changes would also apply, but if I have to limit it down to one single thing, its Armor Class and Defensive and reactionary actions to situations in combat, and to make combat more cinematic and fast paced.

 

[Gothmog]

Lots of good points have already been made, so I'll put forth an idea on something else.

The way poison and disease are handled in D&D make no sense. Why is a Fort save used instead of a Con check? How does knowing how to fight with a sword or cast potent spells make you more resistant to the effects of poison or the debilitating effects of disease? I think we all know that if you give even the most experienced and combat trained navy seal or similar expert cyanide or botulism, they are going to be one dead turkey. Historically, kings, popes, and notable people were always worried about someone trying to poison them or in mortal fear of diease.

I was thinking of maybe handling poisons and diseases by having characters make Con checks against the DC-5 listed in the DMG. This would mean most of the poisons and diseases in the DMG would have DCs of 6-15, which still leaves a reasonable chance of success to tough characters. The way it stands now, poisons are pretty much useless at higher levels (9+), because there is very little chance of failing the save. Also, this makes creatures that use poison more dangerous, and adventurers would be more cautious. You could even apply the bonus from the Great Fortitude feat to poison and disease saves. What do you guys think?

 

[MerricB]

Higher level (and thus better saving throws & hit points) indicate the favour and luck of the gods as much as anything else.

Saving throws against poison can be seen as a save to see whether the poison entered your system at all - especially when in 1E the save was "die or nothing happens at all!"

I prefer getting better at resisting stuff like that - it is why the PCs are heroes, and not just dragon fodder.

Cheers!

 

[mythusmage]

Joining in the Fun

I'd dump Feats as such. Change them to skills. I'd also do the same with Class Abilities, making them restricted skills. Certain "advanced" feats would be subsumed into the base feat in the tree. So Evasionwould be gained when a character has enough ranks in Dodge

 

[rounser]

I'd also do the same with Class Abilities, making them restricted skills.

From a statting standpoint, rip class abilities out of classes and you increase the amount of statting overhead in the system further, because your abilities are less subsumed by your class and level. Good for a higher degree of customisation, but bad for maintaining archetypes and keeping statting overhead to a minimum. Likewise, feats are quicker to choose than distributing points among skills.

So, while it's a nice idea in theory, and more elegant in game design terms, it would probably weaken the game significantly in practice.

 

[Grazzt]

In resolution, if they took out alignment, all the hardcore D&D players out there would get upset because they took it out, and would consider it no longer D&D, right?

There are already a lot of people out there that say 3e isn't D&D. That it is too far removed from the original rules. Check the internet, I can think of a few sites that scream and yell that d20 and WotC and 3e ruined D&D.

Granted it is a lot different than anything previous, but take for example, a car: a camaro. Look at the late 60's and early 70's camaros, then look at a 2002 camaro. Totally different, and whether ya like it or not...its still a camaro. Just like 3e is different than its previous models, and whether ya like it or not..its still D&D.