I'm ready for Fourth Edition now (a brief manifesto)

[D+1]

Also, I agree that a lot of my ideas reflect campaign style rather than rules. But the fact is that the rules are playtested using a particular campaign style. The number of expected combats per session, for example, is reflected in how many spells you give to a spellcaster, how many hit points you give to a fighter, how much experience points you earn from combat, and many other facets of the system itself. Challenge ratings are designed with a certain level of magical equipment in mind. So there's a lot more system re-writing than you might think, just based on a change in campaign style.

That really makes no sense to me. There is nothing in 3E that dictates that you ought to have x number of combats per session - only x number encounters per LEVEL (and that only assuming that all those encounters are PC LEVEL=CR). If anything there are VASTLY more complaints that people can only GET IN one combat per session. The higher the levels of PC's the more complex their options in an encounter and the lengthier the combats get. If you only want one combat per session it should be simple to engineer by just making the encounter more complex, especially if you can pace out the supply of new enemies entering combat so as to keep up the flow without overwhelming the PC's with sheer numbers.

Most of what I want to re-write is the feat system, the combat system and the meta-magic system (and to a certain extent the skill system), I still love D&D and I think that most of it is very well done. I just think it could be made better.

Feats and prestige classes are, IMO, the key elements to adapting 3E D&D to a particular campaign flavor or play style. But if that's what you want you're talking about House Rules, not an all-new Edition.

 

[The Sigil]

You make some good points, here are my responses:

1) I don't want long periods of dullness, I want opportunities for roleplaying! Which is where the less combat oriented characters will get to shine. With four encounters per session, most of them combat oriented, this isn't the case. On the other hand, I don't see why you need boring combats. Fighting kobalds doesn't give people the opportunity to stretch their abilities or to roleplaying. It's just dice rolling.

I'll pipe in with some disagreement here... I think lots of small combats are a good thing... as already has been mentioned, it gives you a chance to "try out" various tactics, maneuvers, and generally learn from your mistakes in scenarios that won't kill you if you flub up. In other words, these encounters are the "testing ground/learning ground" where you learn what you can and can't do when you face the BBEG and the chips are down. You have to leave that in to get some realism - that way, when the players hit upon an appallingly bad... or outstandingly good combination, they know to use it against the BBEG... and you have the "realism" of a combat-tested veteran making good decisions due to "hard-earned" experience.

It's the same reason I *always* start my campaigns at first level... you have to give the players those "formative experiences" to really help them define their characters and party tactical style. Not doing so robs them of that opportunity.

Oh, and it makes you feel good when you can kick the tail of a bunch of mooks.

HOWEVER, I do have one caveat... multiple small combats can tend to get too drawn out... trying to account for AoO's, special maneuvers, a bonus from X and a penalty from Y gets things too bogged down in bookkeeping and slows combat down a lot. "Small encounters" should also be "short encounters" - by which I mean the pace needs to be kept up. I have tried to streamline things in my campaigns; I have a sheet in front of me with each player's BAB for ranged and melee attacks, as well as saves. I impose a "5 second rule" - when your turn comes up, you have 5 seconds to be well into your explanation of what you're doing or you lose your turn and stand inactive. Usually, it's "I move here and attack X with Y" or "I cast spell X at Y" and dice are rolled and combat continues.

This also forces my players to watch each other and be thinking of their actions in advance... and keeps them from concocting convoluted tactics "on the spot" - which means they spend "downtime" fomenting tactics so they're ready for their next encounter and then everyone has to try to execute their role - which, incidentally, is not unlike real combat.

I am a little more lenient with BBEG encounters, but you get the idea... keep things moving and make it clear that combat is a "secondary" thing that, while it's not glossed over, isn't allowed to become the centerpiece of the evening either (except for the occasional "super-BBEG slugfest" every few months or so where pretty much the whole episode is one large, long, epic battle).

4) The DM has control over what equipment goes into the game, right? So why can't this be achieved?

In my campaigns, it was... I was stingy with all permanent items I gave out, which made the characters more "Ability-based" than "item-based." I also made an effort to give permanent items a history and personality.

Of course, in "baseline" D&D, this puts the PCs at a considerable disadvantage. The way I offset this was to make most opponents human or humanoid with the same stripped-down equipment levels... and undead (since the party had a pair of clerics and a paladin, they often could "avoid" such encounters altogether).

This actually made for a very effective campaign because when I threw an opponent that had high "natural" abilities and didn't rely on equipment for its power - demons or dragons, for instance, it made the foe that much more powerful and terrible... which REALLY enhanced the atmosphere of the campaign!

And why can't the rules of the game be modified so that you don't _need_ all that equipment? To give an example, change the combat system so that AC is not as important as defensive maneuvers. Defensive maneuvers are based on a character's skills, while AC is usually based on magic items.

There's my next homebrew project.

 

[kigmatzomat]

1) I don't want long periods of dullness, I want opportunities for roleplaying! Which is where the less combat oriented characters will get to shine. With four encounters per session, most of them combat oriented, this isn't the case.
On the other hand, I don't see why you need boring combats. Fighting kobalds doesn't give people the opportunity to stretch their abilities or to roleplaying. It's just dice rolling.

Sounds like a problem with the DM (or modules) and not the system. I run a by-the-book (12-13 encounters/level, wealth matching the DMG chart, etc, etc) and every combat either a) advances the story, b) sets the tone, c) is a repercussion from PC actions. But I also use encounters where combat is not the intention; powerful, frightening oponents that they have a chance to communicate with and "success" is measured by avoiding being eaten.

You *need* those encounters so the players can stretch their new abilities. Sometimes I use specially tailored encounters just so the players have more opportunities to use their new 15th level shiny special.

2) There are a lot of good third party books with respect to fighting styles and such. I plan to steal from them and incorporate it into the core system

3) First, I kind of want to get away from the "massive dungeon" paradigm.

I like the clean, fairly simple combat rules of 3.x vs most of the more convoluted systems. Sometimes options are clutter.

Massive dungeons are a module choice. Just say "no." I have without any complaint from players. I've been running a 3.0 campaign for 4 years (? has it been that long?) and there's been no massive dungeons. I had a small one as a starter module to ease into 3e and a few "castle crawls" but those were all 1-session events. I ran 2e for many years and yes, a few pre-packaged modules did have sizeable dungeons, but I only used two or three that ended up multi-session encounters.

Second, traps are a big part of D&D, I just don't want the corrolary to that rule to be that there must be at least one rogue in the party. Same with healing. Parties without clerics tend to die really fast, but not because of a single nasty villian, but because of attrition. They have to go into the big fight with only half their hit points and they die. But not every party should _have_ to have a cleric.

Both are situation design choices. Make trap construction difficult and emphasize simple-but-effective over the more convoluted. Accept that some traps will be unstoppable by PCs; make those traps blatant enough that the PCs see them and find other options. Many historical fortresses had massive "traps" where giant boulders would pound the only road and the invading army would decide it was easier to wait for them to starve than deal with the traps.

4) The DM has control over what equipment goes into the game, right? So why can't this be achieved? And why can't the rules of the game be modified so that you don't _need_ all that equipment? To give an example, change the combat system so that AC is not as important as defensive maneuvers.

Sounds like what you really want to do is slow down BAB. Make fighters 3/4, rogues/clerics 1/2 and wizards 1/3. If it takes at least 8 levels to get an extra attack you can get by with less AC. By the same token, up the HD size and CR of creatures without DR and immunities. Make animals d10 and magical beasts/abherrations d12 so they have enough hps to be a decent challenge.

IMC creatures with DR only appeared when the party spent weeks of travel time leaving the beaten path. Things with DR are scary and locals will move away if there aren't enough to kill the monster.

Before you spend a fortnight in the tower scribing a new edition try to design a new campaign first.

 

[Remathilis]

Ok, you want "Fix" 3.X edition? Grab a copy of UA and your Core Books and you these variants.

1.) Generic Classes.
2.) Defense Bonus based on level. Make Armor DR.
3.) Vitality/Wound. Heal quicker, combat more lethal/less wanted
4.) Free Form XP
5.) Leveled Weapons (Check out Kensi from Complete Warrior or the Samurai for OA, but universalize it)

Now, build a campaign based around politics and intrigue, not dungeons and combat.

You don't need a new edition, just a few tinkers.