My Thoughts on DnD, and the next Edition (Long, rambly)

[Belen]

OK, lets have the following three characters... (as examples)

Bob, Fighter 20.
Bill, Wizard 20.
Baz, Fighter 5/Wizard5/Eldritch Knight 10.

Baz, is now more powerful than he should be because he has the best of both worlds. True, he doesn't have the feats that Bob has, but he has all the spell power of Bill.

And its worse when you look at the Mystic Theurge.

At the end of the day, I don't consider a multiclass fighter/wizard to be inefficient. He has decided to weaken himself slightly by gaining the skills of a second class. The game balance is in that detail.

You used as PrC. Now try:

Bob: 20
Bill: 20
Baz: 10/10

Baz dies. Next.

 

[glass]

No, it isn't.

Because you say so?

No, things like disarm, grapple, trip attacks, full defence, bull rush, etc.. are what allow for combat tactics. AoO primarily seems to allow for D&D players being forced to use miniatures so Hasbro can sell them to us.

I see it stated all the time that you need miniatures to play D&D, and it is just not true. You know how I know? I play in a fairly combat heavy campaign, completely devoid of miniatures, every Thursday!

So if AoO are intended only to sell miniatures, then they are failing horribly. If, on the other hand, they are intended to mitigate some of the problems with turn based systems, then they are doing very nicely thankyou.


glass.

 

[Belen]

I see it stated all the time that you need miniatures to play D&D, and it is just not true. You know how I know? I play in a fairly combat heavy campaign, completely devoid of miniatures, every Thursday!

Well, in earlier editions, my players never used minis. Now, they refuse to game without them. I'll bet a lot of older players require minis these days and an even greater number of new ones who have started with third edition.

Therefore, I need minis to play DnD, otherwise, I would not have a game.

 

[glass]

Yep, that's about the size of it. I have DMs who house rule armor as DR, and it's exquisitely lame.

So because a couple of people have done it badly, it can't be done well?

Obviously, it is difficult to do without changing a few other things within the system, otherwise we wouldn't need to ask for it in a new edition, we'd just houserule the current one.


glass.

 

[glass]

OK, lets have the following three characters... (as examples)

Bob, Fighter 20.
Bill, Wizard 20.
Baz, Fighter 5/Wizard5/Eldritch Knight 10.

Baz, is now more powerful than he should be because he has the best of both worlds. True, he doesn't have the feats that Bob has, but he has all the spell power of Bill.

Baz is 6 caster levels behind Bill. How is that 'all the spell power'. And his bab and hp will be behind Bob. Baz is still paying a heavy price for his lack of focus, but is a viable character.

If hewere simply a Ftr 10/Wiz 10, he would be a liability rather than a help against CR20 opponents.


glass.

 

[glass]

Well, in earlier editions, my players never used minis. Now, they refuse to game without them. I'll bet a lot of older players require minis these days and an even greater number of new ones who have started with third edition.

Therefore, I need minis to play DnD, otherwise, I would not have a game.

If people are refusing to game without them, then that is there choice, and has nothing to do with what is actually needed. The very fact of their refusal demonstrates that it is possible to play without: otherwise there would be nothing to refuse.


glass.

 

[Belen]

If people are refusing to game without them, then that is there choice, and has nothing to do with what is actually needed. The very fact of their refusal demonstrates that it is possible to play without: otherwise there would be nothing to refuse.


glass.

Actually, their argument is that the rules cannot be properly applied without the use of miniatures. Therefore, they will not play DnD without them.

Thus, in my case, they are required to game.

 

[Nisarg]

If people are refusing to game without them, then that is there choice, and has nothing to do with what is actually needed. The very fact of their refusal demonstrates that it is possible to play without: otherwise there would be nothing to refuse.


glass.

It is of course possible to play D&D without miniatures.

That is, however, entirely beside the point.

You are simply clinging to that point to avoid the point I was making, which is that Wizards has made rules adaptations (in 3.0 and then far worse in 3.5) designed to make it HARDER to play D&D if you don't go and buy their miniatures.

My attached point is that AoO are one of those things that make it harder to run miniature-free combat. Aside from that they serve little purpose. I have been running my D&D AoO free since 3.0 came out, and its been able to work just fine... so I must conclude there are no "problems" that AoO fixes, it only creates unneeded complexity.

Nisarg

 

[glass]

Actually, their argument is that the rules cannot be properly applied without the use of miniatures. Therefore, they will not play DnD without them.

And my argument is that they can, because I have done it.

Thus, in my case, they are required to game.

And if they had insisted on playing 2e with miniatures, would that mean that 2e required miniatures too?

It is of course possible to play D&D without miniatures.

That is, however, entirely beside the point.

It is not beside BelenUmeria's point. Indeed, it seems to be the entirety of his point.

You are simply clinging to that point to avoid the point I was making, which is that Wizards has made rules adaptations (in 3.0 and then far worse in 3.5) designed to make it HARDER to play D&D if you don't go and buy their miniatures.

I am 'clinging to the point' because I see this 'D&D as a wargame' naughty word all the time on other RPG forums, and I really saddened to see it here.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your argument:

Like the fact that when 3e D&D was being designed, WotC's strategy for selling miniatures was the separate 'chainmail' game.

Or the fact that Monte Cook, on of the lead designers of the third edition is on record as saying that he usually prefers to play D&D without miniatures.

Or the fact that dice, tidily winks, coins, pencil marks on paper, or miniatures from other manufacturers work just as well for rules adjudication as do WotC miniatures if you can't keep track of where everything is in your head.

My attached point is that AoO are one of those things that make it harder to run miniature-free combat. Aside from that they serve little purpose. I have been running my D&D AoO free since 3.0 came out, and its been able to work just fine... so I must conclude there are no "problems" that AoO fixes, it only creates unneeded complexity.

Different things damage different people suspension of disbelief. Characters not having to take any account of other characters in their movement hurts mine. If it doesn't yours, then best of luck to you, but please do not put problems in inverted commas just because it is not a problem for you. It is insulting.


glass.

 

[iblis]

Its recently come to my attention that my desire to play standard Dungeons and Dragons isnt very high. There are just to many things I don’t like about it, and to many things I feel that have been done less than well. Overall, as far as playing, I’d rather play Arcana Unearthed.

I can sympathise. I haven't tried AU though, so I have no idea what that's like.

I am currently running a campaign that I have heavily houseruled…I am using many of the variants in Unearthed Arcana, and many of my own houserules. Even though I would rather play, I was unable to find any group willing to make even slight changes to the basic rules to fit character concepts…and there are in core so many things I dislike, and so many rigid things that just a slight bending would really make the game more enjoyable.

Ditto, regarding the running a heavily houseruled thing, and some of the rest, like using UA variants.

<SNIP>
I tend to think, as some others do as well I believe, that much of the material in Unearthed Arcana may well be a sort of test run. I think we may well see a number of things from that book either become the standard, or become “official variants” presented somewhere within the core rules.

I see Class Based Defense Bonuses, and Armor as Damage Reduction quite possibly becoming core. Many people have negative feelings about things like hit points, armor class, and the overall extremely abstract nature of DnD combat. While they are never going to remove hit points and armor class from Dungeons and Dragons, I think these 2 mechanics could bring a lot of realism to combat without severly stepping on any sacred cows. I feel that it would also be more balanced overall (as it stands armor classes and attack bonuses are not, in my opinion, always terribly well balanced with each other…with class defense it seems to be somewhat more so).

When 3.5 was in the works it was mentioned that they considered revamping the metamagic system but that they felt it was too great an undertaking for the revision. But along comes Unearthed Arcana with a number of excellent variations on the concept of metamagic. If anything like metamagic as we know it is kept in 4th edition, I foresee it being like one of the Spontaneous Metamagic variants from UA.

I think UA will stay where it is, in terms of book category and content type.

Now, theres lots of things big and little that I would change about DnD. Some of them (such as the removal of the Cleric class) aren’t ever going to happen. But heres a few things I would like to see happen in the next edition, in addition to what I have mentioned above, that I think do have some chance of taking place.

D&D - Cleric != D&D. I'll expand on that (in a minor way) in a bit.

Remove the Arcane/Divine terminology: I would like to return to 1st edition in this respect, and have spells be categorized by class alone, without casting classes being put into groups. In other words, let Wizards and Bards just cast Wizard and Bard spells, rather than as it is now where yes, they cast wizard and bard spells, but they are also “arcane spellcasters”. The terms have little mechanical effect, and mostly just create problems in my experience.

What problems? Could you specify? And if you have, and I've missed the post, my apologies.

Remove Alignment And Roleplaying restrictions: In 3rd edition they did away with racial class and level restrictions, and ability score requirements for classes…I deeply hope 4th edition will do away with having restrictions on alignment and roleplaying for classes.

Restrictions on roleplaying? Eh? Could you clarify that one for me too? Maybe I'm being obtuse. Sorry, if so. :\ As for classes and alignments, they're pretty open at the moment I'd say (not that I particularly care, as I mostly ignore alignments where possible). It's a very easy to get around 'problem' anyway. Just ignore what it says! Works a treat, as I'm sure you're aware already.

Expand Feats/Change the Rogue: I think the Feat was the single most wonderful new concept in the d20 system, and that its potential is only just being tapped. In particular, I would like to see many things that are currently extraordinary class features become feats. Things like Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, Slippery Mind, and the like are things that anyone should be able to learn to do. We already saw some of this with feats like Track, Two-Weapon Fighting, and the like. But also feats that expand existing class abilities (like the Divine and Wild feats) should be expanded upon, and I would love to see more magical feats that affect spells and spellcasting.
And then for the Rogue, make them function much like the fighter, with a passle of bonus feats drawn from a list including all the former rogue class abilities, along with some “agile” combat stuff, and skill related feats.

Yes, that'd be nice. A bit like point-buy for nearly everything, just sans the point. Er. But I do concur.

Fix the Cleric: I can deal with the fact that the cleric is a “sacred cow”, but 2 things do need to happen with the Cleric. It needs to be balanced against the other classes properly, and in my estimation if there going to keep it despite its archetypal issues, they need to at least try to sort it out. Probably by either by making it “the Priest” properly and having its abilities actually based on its religion, or make it just “the Cleric” divorce it mostly or entirely from the idea of “the priest” and religion, and just have it be “the battle healer” class.

Hmm, dunno about the whole Cleric as opposed to Priest as opposed to Cleric thing here, but I agree that they could do with some toning down. Not every party should require one for survival's sake. Exaggeration aside, there's still a problem with this core class as it stands, IMO.

Fix or Remove the Sorcerer: The Sorcerer either needs to get its own archetypal and class-role identity separate from the Wizard, and be balanced within it, or it needs to be removed.

Yep. I've gone some way to doing this IMCs (taking the 'Fix' option that is). Ah, much better, i.e. fairly balanced

Increase Skill Points: Skills, to me, are largely a roleplaying tool, especially some of them. I think all classes should have at least 4 skill points per level. This may or may not also lead to a bump in the skill points of the “skill monger” classes.

Agreed. Add 2 or maybe even 4 to every class's Skill Points progression. Works much better, IME. Oh, and chuck in a few more skills for good measure.

And lastly…(that I can think of at the moment) I would like to see a 4th core rulebook released (or this matieral included in the existing three) consisting of “official variant rules” and/or advice on how to change things, swap class abilities etc. DnD has always been and will always be a pretty rigid, class based system, but with the modularity of the d20 system it should be possible, and both allowed and expanded upon in core, to change things around a bit. A system for changing the “magic level” (especially magic item dependency level) would be especially nice.

Something like the aforementioned Unearthed Arcana, then? Personally I imagine they will keep it as Unearthed Arcana, a supplement / 'optional corebook'.

Now, I would like to hear everyone else’s thoughts about future editions, and anything else that may spring to mind.

I hope they include a Defense Bonus in the core rules, and I believe it's got a chance at being there. My own 'special' way of utilising it is unlikely to see print...um, anywhere probably. I give all beings a Defense Bonus that does stack with armour bonuses etc., based on character level or equivalent. I just find it evens up the odds so to speak, for example when high-level fighters can normally hit pretty much anything all the blessed time.

I also like Spell Points (with a bit of tweaking here and there.) It's a smooth system, IME, though I am aware many do not like it. Fair enough. So we probably won't actually see that one in core rules. But then, I'm a sucker for the Psionics + Power Points system, and it's virtually identical. Hoola, why not make it 'even more identical'. Like, "Each additional Spell Point spent increases the damage by one die...", yada yada. Go, flexible magic!

Which brings me to the expansion on the D&D minus Cleric thing above. Insert any of the following in the place of Cleric, and the formula will (no doubt) still work : Wizard/Sorcerer/Mage/Magic User/Spellcaster, Fighter/Warrior, Rogue/Thief, Paladin, Bard, Ranger, Druid, Monk, Barbarian, Elf, Half-Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, Halfling, Orc, Helf-Orc, Drow, HP, AC, HD, Saving Throws, Levels, XP, Gold-Silver-Copper (100-10-1), Common, Magic Missile, Bigby's X Hand.....

...and the rest.

Too many iconic things there. At least until the 'old guard' are all dead or otherwise incapable of voicing public opinion, i.e. those who migrated from a previous version of D&D (like me, for example).

That's the catch really (or one result of it anyway) : It's genuinely great that WotC has listened to players and actually implemented some of what they heard was desired but at the same time (I believe) while keeping those same ears close to the ground, they must've heard overwhelming resistance to deleting/replacing some of the staples of D&D since prehistory.

Unless it was and is just a judgement call. But no, I really can't believe they don't listen to players...er, consumers. No reason not to. Another explanation is that the people involved in the makeover are themselves fans of some of the old staples. Or finally, maybe they are devoted worshippers at the shrine of Ifit Aintbroke, deity of data persistence.

*shrug* Whatever. Can't see them changing these things in a hurry, in any case.