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

[Agback]

See, I just don't understand this. D&D is about anything but moral relativism; it's about the struggle between good and evil if it's about anything.

D&D alignment system is what cripples any D&D campaign that is trying to discuss the struggle between good and evil. Because it makes 'Good' and 'Evil' completely unlike good and evil. The real struggle between good and evil is about trying to work out what is right and what is wrong. In D&D this is trivial.

Regards,


Agback

 

[reutbing0]

Where can I find the Colonel's rule?

And what does ME stand for?

You could probably find it somewhere on this page: http://www.d20reviews.com/ME/

ME stands for Middle Earth.

 

[Deadguy]

I don't think it's that important. I was simply answering the question with the only thing of significance I could think of. If you can provide a good, detailed argument as to why it would be so debilitatingly unbalancing, I'm willing to consider changing my mind on it. Either way, it's not anything I feel hampers the system by its absence.

Ahh, likewise, Colonel! It's not a really important point to me either.

To clarify the recharging rules I am thinking of the old 2e way, where you could cast spells back into a wand or staff to recharge it. With it, a spellcaster need only acquire one wand/staff with the desired spell. It can then be refilled essentially for free in downtime. Lacking such rules, a character has to make a choice over feat expenditure: if they are going to use a lot of charged items, then they need to acquire the feat(s) to create them. Alternatively, they can just commission/purchase/acquire a new wand/staff when the old one has run out. This trades money for feats and convenience effectively.

I just think the current mechanism creates a gentle encouragement for the acquisition of item creation feats. I think you could just extrapolate the 'Upgrading an Item' rules, to allow a partially charged wand to be recharged, and that wouldn't cause any real trouble - you still need the feat to use this option.

 

[BryonD]

Where can I find the Colonel's rule?

And what does ME stand for?

ME stands for middle earth.

You can find the rules by clicking the link in his sig.

The bottom line is just that all spellcaster classes can only be selected every other level. You can alternate wizard/cleric, for example, but you can't simply advance as a pure wizard.

So a L10 char might be a fighter10, fighter5/wiz5, cleric5/sor5, rogue10, whatever, but would not be casting spells greater than level 3 in any case.

 

[mkletch]

If I could change one thing...?

Every spell at each level would be balanced and 'equal' to all of the others. Then, you could easily have a magic item creation system that was balanced and all the whiners about haste and invisibility items being too powerful would vanish. Invisibility would be no better than any other 4th level spell, and improved invisibility would be no better than any other 8th level spell. Haste would last a minute/level, but be a 6th level spell; mass haste 9th. Then the magic items (like speed armor) would be 'balanced in the eyes of the masses.

Balanced spells, easy items. With the mechanics fixed, we can get back to gaming and roleplaying and stop quibbling over rules minutiae. Actually, we'll still have a lot to quibble about, since I could only change one thing...

-Fletch!

 

[Bragg Battleaxe]

There is far too much reliance on magic items to provide the PCs with their abilities at higher levels.

 

[Mortaneus]

My list of preferred changes has already been written up.

It's called Spycraft.

What they did with the combat system is a work of art.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

D&D alignment system is what cripples any D&D campaign that is trying to discuss the struggle between good and evil.

It "cripples" any such campaign? Not in my experience it doesn't. It provides a good basic guideline for roleplaying. Those who don't like it can either easily ignore it or find a game more appropriate to their style of play. If D&D isn't about the struggle between Good & Evil - not good and evil - then no game is.

Because it makes 'Good' and 'Evil' completely unlike good and evil. The real struggle between good and evil is about trying to work out what is right and what is wrong. In D&D this is trivial.

Regards,


Agback

To be honest, and I'm not trying to be insulting, this makes no sense. How does the alignment system do - or not do - any of what you say it does - or does not? Frankly, I think the problem you have with it is extremely subjective and easily handled on a local basis, rather than changing the game as a whole for everyone.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Accualy, I think I figured out something that could make nearly everyone happy:

More Variant Rules!

More behind the curtian guidelines. More examples of changing things to suit your game. Discussions of Alingment less D&D. Extrapolations about other magic systems. In short, make the game books all read more like the manual of the planes [Probibly the best 3E book to date, because it's so versitile].

Sure, these things should be kept out of the players handbook, just because it would be more clutter and would be too encuraging to get players to suggest changes just to become more powerful. But the DMG should have a huge chapter, dealing with how to change anything in the PH, including suggestions, alternate rules and explnations of why and how the existing rules work. More on building and altering monsters in the MM would be nice, as well.

There. The post I wish I'd made.

 

[mkletch]

There is far too much reliance on magic items to provide the PCs with their abilities at higher levels.

Aha! Excellent.

-Fletch!