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

[J. A. Garlock]

I can't really say much about the rules that I would change except it would be nice if they put a more varied type of art in the books it seems like only one style is presented. I would like to see more of a mixture of the traditional and the new. Also it would be nice if they had Elmore and Easley contribute.

 

[mirzabah]

I can't really say much about the rules that I would change except it would be nice if they put a more varied type of art in the books it seems like only one style is presented. I would like to see more of a mixture of the traditional and the new. Also it would be nice if they had Elmore and Easley contribute.

I agree, but I'm thinking more the other direction. I really miss all the cheesey art from the first edition books

 

[Theuderic]

I'm curious. What "other" direction are you going in?

 

[kibbitz]

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.

Well, considering the nature of Armor Class already, I'm really wondering how this would be implemented, without a significant change as to how AC works. I had several thoughts once, but most D&D people who I threw it to pointed out that it's more like this or that other RPG, and that the nature of AC is an abstraction, and some other stuff which I can't remember

 

[mmadsen]

And speaking of classes, we could tweak some of them, certainly, but I'm not a big fan of shrinking the number of classes down to four or even three. If you're gonna do that, you might as well chuck all the classes and go completely skill-based.

I disagree. D&D has separate mechanics for combat (BAB, Hit Dice), skills, and spells. Those naturally lend themselves to three separate classes. Going completely to a skill-based system is a much bigger change that shifts many of the underlying mechanics.

 

[mmadsen]

I like the HP system. Its abstract and fast. Same goes with the current armor system. "Armor= DR " would be more realistic, I suppose, but the current system plays quicker- last thing I wanna do is add more number-crunching at high levels when the system is already sagging under the weight of 1000 feats.

If someone proposed an equally fast & easy system, one that's more plausible/realistic/whatever without being too gritty, you'd be up for that though, right?

 

[Urbannen]

If I would change ONE thing:

I would create a means to increase AC based on fighting skill rather than on magic items. Consider this: A 9th-level fighter is fighting a golem with an attack bonus of +14. The fighter is wearing half-plate +1, and has a medium shield. His Dex bonus is +2. His AC is 22. That's a decent AC, right? Wrong. The golem needs to roll an 8 to hit the fighter. The golem will hit the fighter 65% of the time. The golem does, what, 1d10+6 damage? That's an average of 11.5 hit points of damage. If the fighter has average hp and a +2 Con bonus, he has 72 hp. In three rounds (18 seconds), considering the golem misses on its extra attacks, on average the fighter will lose 32% of his hps.

In D&D, attack bonuses go up more quickly than armor class bonuses. Melee fighters must rely on powerful magical armor AND divine healing magic just to continue. An unarmored 15th level fighter, no matter how many hps, will soon fall to an armored one (and vice versa, realistically). Hit points are a precious resource, and at high levels, it is too hard for characters to hang on to them. This slows down play, since characters must seek out healing after every battle. One player must dedicate most of his energy to being a support character, the healing cleric.

I advocate either giving all characters access to the Improved Expertise feat as a normal combat ability, or giving characters inherent Dodge bonuses based on their class and level (such as in Ken Hood's Grim and Gritty system).

 

[aNenuphar]

We haven't played that many sessions (our DM is still getting used to 3E rules), but two things that we've noticed are:

1) Many spells seem less... dangerous to their users than they used to be (e.g. teleport no longer beaming low; passwall collapses neatly ejecting people rather than embedding them in rock)

2) DC checks for many tasks seem low; it's almost too easy to accomplish basic things.

So, I'd like to see spells that have more repercussions for misuse; and more difficult tasks.

My two centimes.

 

[demadog]

My thoughts on this whole AC vs. Definsive Roll thing, it seems to me that in DnD the defender does get a roll, but they always roll a 10. The 10 coming from the initial armour class. The 10 points seems to imply some dodging, blocking, parrying, or whatever.

I mean, if you were standing naked in front of your significant other and they got mad enough at you to try and hit you (or maybe you just enjoy that kind of thing), then I can't really see them missing. However, in DnD a level 0 character needs to roll a 10 to hit another 0 level character with no armour or other bonuses, so roughly only 55% of the time. The only way I've been able to reconsile the other 45% is with the defender actually trying to defend themselves.

You certainly could remove the base 10 points of AC and have the defender roll a d20, but that would only be randomizing another random number (the "to hit" roll), which may only serve to muck things up. Another option that would make things a little more fun for the players is to let them make the offensive and defensive rolls by assuming the monster rolls a 10 (or 11) on thier attack roll, which the defender would then have to beat. But that takes away all the fun/fudging from the DM, and darn it I like to roll dice too!

Still, AC doesn't seem to take into account a characters increased ability to defend/dodge/parry. Oh sure, there are feats and skills and stuff, but they don't seem to equate to the "to hit" bonuses characters get by level. ("Ah" proclaim the aged ladies, "You are sure to be misunderstood" rwe) Thats where Hit Points come in. Fighter types have double, triple, or more the amount of hit points of magey types. Could that represent their better ability to parry, block, get out of the way, or have the sense not to get in the way. I think so.

The DnD combat system is a genuinely eloquent system in my opinion, but I'm certainly open to suggestions.

 

[mirzabah]

I'm curious. What "other" direction are you going in?

Instead of "fantasy art" (yawn) I'm thinking lo-fi illustrations and cartoons like the stuff that is peppered through the 1st edition books. Kinda reflects the fact that the game should be fun. The art in the 3E books make it look like the game should only be played by tossers ... IMNSHO