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

[jasper]

drop AOO since people have so much trouble with them.
make elves sleep 8 hours and get rid of the trance flavor.
add more campaign building info for new dm
All abilites explain in the correct book
Ex.
Improved Evasion being nixed in tight quarters from DMG 2 bullet on the subject should be in the PHB
the katana just another name for a bastard sword.
Open up the skills charts at little infact just have all the skills be one piont and keep the skill pt gain by class
add some of charts from 1e wildness/dungeon guides into dmg
Pages edges change color by chapter Ex odd chapters are brown even chapters white

 

[Victim]

Well, I suppose the thread has hit the point of diminishing returns....

But,

If I could just change one thing, it would be this:

I would take 3E back OUT of the dungeon.

In other words, I would have, from the beginning, designed 3E around the idea of city/world/all-inclusive campaigning, rather than balancing the spells, classes, feats, etc., around the idea of dungeon adventures, as it says they did in the DMG.

I think doing that would cure a lot of the so called "balance" issues that people come across, in terms of things like Teleport or Polymorph.

That's my one thing.

I disagree. Polymorph is actually most imbalancing when you can use it with no restraint. If you put all the combat encounters in a dungeon, then people can turn themselves into annis hags and such to fight. You can't go walking around town like that, and even in the wilderness there would be enough chance for normally non-hostile encounters for rampant use of polymorphing to show its downsides.

And, IMHO, Teleport is fine balance-wise. It fits fine as a 5th level spell. Some people just don't like it.

The real problem with the focus on dungeons is that Back to the Dungeon assumes back to back resource using encounters. If you don't have fights in rapid succession because the party can rest between them, then a spell caster can dump all their spells every fight and a warrior's strength in long term "free" damage doesn't come into play.

 

[mmadsen]

The real problem with the focus on dungeons is that Back to the Dungeon assumes back to back resource using encounters. If you don't have fights in rapid succession because the party can rest between them, then a spell caster can dump all their spells every fight...

Well said. Most of the restrictions spellcasters face are only really restrictions in a dungeon. Being "only" able to cast a dozen spells per day isn't much of a limit if you think about it.

 

[Geoffrey]

Would the following work for both those who want classless and those who want the traditional archetypes?

Make the system classless. Make it a point-buy system so you could make any type of character you want. ("Hmmm. I want a sword-wielding mage who is expert in healing spells.")

Then, in the rulebook, give several examples of completed characters. Four of these examples would be the traditional D&D archetypes: cleric, fighter, magic-user, and thief. Those who like classless have classless. Those who want the archetypes have them. They can use them as is or can tweak them.

 

[EarthsShadow]

keep AofO

No matter what, they should definately KEEP Attacks of Opportunities. It makes sense and it solves the long time problem of player characters running past bands of orcs guarding the wizard in the back field with the Orcs not having any chance at all in intervening. Taking that game mechanic out alone will make 3E a AD&D game, regardless of anything else.

The only confusion in Attacks of Opportunities are those people with the non-capacity to understand them. Just because some people can't understand them doesn't mean they should get rid of them. If they worked that way, they would change their magic system also and a bunch of other things, and then you would have a bunch of people claiming that the new D&D isn't D&D at all.

 

[Nine Dragons]

If I could change one thing, it'd be the prohibition of expending exp points, either to create magic items or for casting certain spells, if the lost exp would drop you a level. I can understand why self-induced level losses would be a bad idea, but it seems hard to justify why a spellcaster a few points over the min exp for his current level can no longer perform certain actions he could have a level earlier. I'd prefer a revision which allows the exp loss (or some alternative mechanic) without allowing players to abuse the system (namey, "Damn, I only rolled a 1 for my HP... guess I'll write a few scrolls, drop a level, and hope for a better roll when I regain the exp.").

 

[mmadsen]

Make the system classless. Make it a point-buy system so you could make any type of character you want. ("Hmmm. I want a sword-wielding mage who is expert in healing spells.")

Then, in the rulebook, give several examples of completed characters.

There's another, simple, alternative, and we're almost there: make the classes themselves flexible enough -- following the model of the Fighter and the Expert -- that designing new classes is trivial. Provide everyone's favorite classes, but use one of a few simple formulae under the hood.

 

[Felon]

Only one change, huh? That's a tough choice. So I'm not going to make it

1) I'd like to see D&D find another system for replenishing character resources (e.g. spells, class abilities) than the 8-hours-of-rest system of recovery. Basically has characters stopping for 12-hour periods of R&R at the most ridiculous junctures in the most absurd locales--or worse yet, unable to stop for R&R at some prticular jucture due to time and danger constraints, resulting in a TPK.

2) The decrepit hit point system needs some fine-tuning so it isn't an all-or-nothing, fine-or-dead system, which is what people are talking about when they say a person can take an arrow in the throat (i.e. a critical hit) with no appreciable effect.

An "action point" system, (q.v. Spycraft) would have been useful for achieving both of these effects. Points can be spent to avoid wounds, or as alternate method for recovering ability uses while "in the field". Whereas hit points represent the benefit of experience, they do so only defensively. Action points could be used pro-actively--to power metamagic feats, for instance, rather than the wonky spell-level adjustment system.

3) I wish 3e's designers had devoted more commitment to the long-term issue of balance and playability, rather than all the emphasis that wound up being placed on the short-term value of backwards compatability with 2e. That would have eliminated a lot of the complaints about certain classes ("rangers suck"), races ("elves got the shaft"), spells ("Harm is broken"), and quite a few other 2e artifacts.

 

[hong]

1) I'd like to see D&D find another system for replenishing character resources (e.g. spells, class abilities) than the 8-hours-of-rest system of recovery. Basically has characters stopping for 12-hour periods of R&R at the most ridiculous junctures in the most absurd locales--or worse yet, unable to stop for R&R at some prticular jucture due to time and danger constraints, resulting in a TPK.

I find this is usually only a problem when you get into a dungeon so big it can't be cleared in one setting. However, if you do end up having to stop in the middle of no-mans-land, that's what spells like rope trick and Mord's magnificent mansion are for.

2) The decrepit system needs some fine-tuning so it isn't an all-or-nothing, fine-or-dead system, which is what people are talking about when they say a person can take an arrow in the throat (i.e. a critical hit) with no appreciable effect.

Still yakking on about hit points, Felon? You're beginning to remind me of certain other posters on this board.

Tell me where in the rules it says a critical hit implies taking an arrow in the throat. Under VP/WP a crit might mean something like this, but then VP/WP treats crits very differently to hit points.

3) I wish 3e's designers had devoted more commitment to the long-term issue of balance and playability, rather than all the emphasis that wound up being placed on the short-term value of backwards compatability with 2e.

Good lord. Have a look at the 3E rogue. Have a look at the 2E rogue. Tell me what was a completely useless class at high levels isn't actually _useful_ now. Look at the 3E wizard/sorc spell list and check how many spells have been wound back from their 2E counterparts (stoneskin, prot. arrows, haste [which has effectively become a 6th level spell], etc).

Look at how feats and iterative attacks mean everyone now has the ability to dish out lethal amounts of damage at high levels, rather than leaving it to wizards and their fireballs, meteor swarms et al. Look at how clerics have been powered up so that what was a blah class is now possibly the most powerful class in the game.

Heck, look at the tables for treasure by character level, and the detailed rules by which characters can make their own items. If it wasn't for magic items, the mundane classes would be left in the dust compared to wizards, which is what often happened in previous editions. 3E treats magic as an inherent part of a character's power, regardless of the source of that magic, and that's a major move towards balance.

Now go over to Dragonsfoot and tell the embittered grognards there that 3E is too similar to 1E and 2E. Tell me what reaction you get.

 

[MerricB]

Hey! Not everyone at Dragonsfoot is an embittered grognard!

Not even most of them. There's just one or three...

One more thing I'd like to see with 3E is an alternative system of XP that slows it down for longer-term players. Yes, I know you can make your own adjustments. I have! But having an actual 'official' system that supports campaigns of 5+ years in length would have been nice.

Here's my completely and utterly unofficial system:
1st-3rd level: XP awards as stated
4th-6th level: XP awards x 3/4
7th-9th level: XP awards x 1/2
10th-12th level: XP awards x 1/3
13th+: XP awards x 1/4.

Cheers!