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

[ColonelHardisson]

What I would like to see is rechargeable magical items, and a system which would make recharging worthwhile.

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

I agree completely with making the flavor rules optional.

I would also like to have more cutomization possibilites with the classes....

I really like what you can do with a fighter and I feel it would be cool to do the same with, for example, paladins, rangers or monks.

I'd love to see that.

 

[Deadguy]

What I would like to see is rechargeable magical items, and a system which would make recharging worthwhile.

I am curious, ColonelH, why you think that is so important. Personally, I see no problem with the system as it stands - it encourages people who want to have ready access to rechargeable items to take the appropriate feat(s). If wands and staves could be recharged the 'spell-casting' route as they were in 2e, I fear that would undermine a significant element of the Item Creation system. Just my opinion, of course.

 

[Victim]

First of all, I'd like to see better balanced material, both for core rules and supplements. Remember the Harm! Remember the Persistent Spell!

Also, I'd see to fleshed out options for reducing the importance of magical items. Ways to modify the spells for a low magic setting. Ways to replace magical items with other boosts. Etc.

More expensive skill boosting items.

 

[Arnwyn]

*More* flavor rules. Too bland without them.

 

[GuardianLurker]

Higher Spell DCs.

10+Spell Level is awfully low, especially when compared to previous editions.

I personally think it should be more like 20+spell level (or maybe 15). As it is, I'm not going to bother with damage spells since the monsters will just save against them.

 

[apsuman]

You are all crazy.

g!

 

[Nikosandros]

Higher Spell DCs.

10+Spell Level is awfully low, especially when compared to previous editions.

Huh? In previous editions, once you were high level, it was almost impossible to fail a saving throw...

They even introduced auto fail on a 1,2,3 in the High Level Campaign book.

 

[med stud]

Re: Um, yeah, I already understand all that

Uh, folks, I get the abstract damage system. No need to explain it to me. I've read lots and lots of pages about it in rulebooks and magazines. That it leaves a gap in the rules still remains.

I agree that a 10th level fighter will be much better at dodging death-dealing attacks than a 1st level fighter. That is, indeed, in the spirit of the game. That's what this character has been training with for years.

However, I'd like to see some designation of where a weapon hits. It just rubs me the wrong way to simply say "You take 25 ponits of damage." Yes, I can (and have) made up the damage locations and types of wounds myself, but I see no particular reason that something like that couldn't be included as a variant.

The point remains that someone might, under certain circumstances, want to target a particular part of someone's body. The arrow through a 10th level fighter's neck fired by an orc is a bit tenuous because it would almost never happen. Most orcs would be woefully unskilled at making such an attack (I would assess a -12 penalty for that shot, providing the fighter was moving), and they'd know it. However, a 12th level halfling rogue ought to have some chance of pulling such an attack off. It would still be a difficult thing to do (especially if the fighter is wearing a great helm), but it shouldn't be impossible. For this particular case, I'd stipulate that a nat 20 doesn't automatically hit.

The main problem with that kind of actions are the spell True strike (3 lvl 1 sorcerers or wizards would kill of a lvl 10 Ftr easily) and assist actions. The penalty is pretty easily beaten even b y low CR monsters.

 

[Mistwell]

*More* flavor rules. Too bland without them.

I actually agree with you. The core books are supposed to be the Greyhawk campaign setting, and I wish there was more flavor inserted to develop that world more. However, I also wish it was explicitly optional. I understand that in Greyhawk, a Paladin is Lawful Good and does not multiclass. It should be just as obvious to any reader that it is GREYHAWK, and not rules balancing reasons, that causes these restrictions.