Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Humanophile" data-source="post: 410777" data-attributes="member: 1049">While I'm tempted to say less emphasis on flavor mechanics, I have to say I'd like it a lot if WOTC gave a clearer idea what different skill ranks, DC's, levels and the like meant for a "basic" campaign.  That'd help gauge how skilled someone should be to fit their role, and discourage certain modes of thinking that you need to have a skill maxed out/need an 18+ stat in order to be "good at it".  Plus, it'd be nice for those of us who like making real-world analogues.I would like to see a three-class system (fighting guy, skill guy, and magic guy), with high degrees of flexibility for each and PrC-like systems for people who prefer to focus for a little more power, as well as the ability to "buy" a skill or feat with raw XP if the need arises.  (One of the things that irks me about 3e's skill system is that your character can't get any better at noncombat skills over downtime, and proficiencies were even worse.  You could spend years with a primitive tribe your character just discovered, and unless you went up a level, you wouldn't be able to actually learn their language, religion, the area around them, or anything like that.)  But those, as well as smoothing out little problem spells and the like, will have to wait for 4e.  The current system works well enough for me without having to re-do it all from the ground up.And finally, I'd like to see more "behind the curtain" stuff, but that belongs in its own book, rather than spread over everything else.  I just hope WOTC gets to it sooner rather than later (or never), as if they wait too long, memories will have faded and we'll miss out on some of the really tricky bits and hard choices they made hammering things out.</blockquote>

Verification