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

[Merlion]

Sorry, partly my fault. I just get frustrated when I hear that sort of stuff

I was actually refering more to the bashing of "powergamers", and stuff about removing classes, feats, and the like. This thread isnt meant as a discussion about what does or doesnt constitute "powergaming" or wether people like DM's or not.

That's three for three. How would you handle weapons and armour. Would they be their own feat still as in AU, or would you include them in constant items.

It would probably be its own feat I'd say. Creating magic weapons and armor is a tad different in that in its most basic form it is the only form of item creation thats more like item enhancement...the most basic function of "magicing" armor and weapons is giving them enhancement bonuses. That is to say, enhancing what they were made to do, rather than making them do something else.

I've never liked the idea of item creation in the hands of PC's, so I would hope (though it won't) it would be removed in a 4th edition.

......so....NPC spellcasters can create magic items....but PC spellcasters for some reason shouldnt be able to?


That doesnt really make any sense to me. I'm pretty sure since PCs have pretty much always had access to item creation its probably not going to change.

And...I'm saying this without rancor, I just really do wonder...why did you ever stop playing second edition (or if you havent stopped, why did you start and aparently continue to play anything else?) Since you seem to dislike most of what to me and many makes 3rd edition so much more fun than second?

Armor makes it harder to hit YOU (as opposed to IT).

No. In the current rules, armor raises your armor class, which makes you harder to hit. The rules make no discintion between hitting you and hitting your armor. Either an attack hits and deals damage, or it misses and doesnt deal damage.

You hit the armor, and the weapon bounces off, harmlessly. Your Base AC is 10, +2 DEX, +4 for armor, a roll of 13-17 hits (but doesn't penetrate) your armor. Rolls of 18+ do damage.

Yes yes....I've heard this all 9 thousand times. Nothing in the rules supports it except flavour text. And my point is, a more logical, elegant way to do it...so that it actually works like you describe both in our heads and in the mechanics, is to have armor having nothing to do with hitting or missing, and simply make it cause you to take less damage. Since in reality thats what it does.

 

[DragonLancer]

......so....NPC spellcasters can create magic items....but PC spellcasters for some reason shouldnt be able to?


That doesnt really make any sense to me. I'm pretty sure since PCs have pretty much always had access to item creation its probably not going to change.

And...I'm saying this without rancor, I just really do wonder...why did you ever stop playing second edition (or if you havent stopped, why did you start and aparently continue to play anything else?) Since you seem to dislike most of what to me and many makes 3rd edition so much more fun than second?

Well firstly and to make things clear, I don't stop characters making items.

One reason why I don't like the idea of characters being able to make permanent magic items (not counting potions and scrolls), is because as DM why should I include magical treasures if characters are going to make their own? I like to consider a balance issue with this as well.

Ah, 2nd edition... when we didn't have real powergaming and balance issues. I prefer 3rd edition for a better system than what we have had before. Doesn't mean I agree with everything in the 3.x system though.

 

[buzz]

Like I mentioned above, a revision of the Hitpoint/Combat system where you don't end up with characters who have +35 to hit. Where +1 means as much as it does at level 1 as it does at level 20.

+1 does mean as much as it does at 20th level as it does at 1st. It means a 5% increase in your chance to hit. This is one of the nifty side-effects of a linear dice dsitribution; you never get to a point in the curve where modifiers don't matter.

Now, if you're talking about that +1's effect on damage done, I don't see why it'd be logical for it to do more damage to a creature with 100hp than it did to one with 10hp. That'd be whacked.

 

[buzz]

More and Better options for High Level characters... there's a reason there are thousands of Prestige Classes around because being a 20th level fighter or 20th level ANYTHING has almost no pay-off.

I have yet to find a PrC I've felt compelled to play across three separate D&D campaigns. If anything, I've found that sticking with a single class is probably the most effective thing you can do in D&D. Maximum power, maximum flexibility.

 

[buzz]

Elements, Energies, and damage types disentangled. As it is, we have Air, Earth, Fire and Water subtypes for creatures, and even descriptors for spells, but we have nothing that does, say, earth or air damage or similiar things...in fact those subtypes and descriptors have little actual game effect.

Actually, if you look closely at the rules or read some of Skip Williams' excellent "Rules of the game" Web columns, you'll find they have a lot of game effect. I'd like to see them stay, personally.

 

[Belen]

Merlion-

You should really read Sean Reynolds thoughts about why Armor as DR is not worth the work: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/rants/armorasdamagereduction.html

Dave

 

[Nisarg]

Some form of representation != miniatures.

Some form of representation especially != WotC miniatures.


glass.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere.. you're finally admitting that the rules have been designed for use with some kind of representations. What I was saying is that AoO is one of those things that tends to make that "some kind of representation" more nescessary.

Now, as to your discussion with this other fellow, you may be right that it is not specifically nescessary that the "represenations" be little plastic fighters and wizards, much less WoTC's version therein... but at the same time, you could look at this sensibly from the point of view of marketing and figure that WoTC didn't make 3.5 more "representation mandatory" because they were hoping for a big boom in the tiddly-winks market. They did it because they want to sell their miniatures.

Nisarg

 

[buzz]

What do I want to see in 4th edition?

First off, some seriously improved information design.

Next, I'd like to see the sorcerer re-vamped. The spontaneous casting isn't enough; they need to be made more unique. Monte's sorcerer from BOEMII is a step in the right direction. More supporting infrastructure for them would be nice, too.

I'd like to see multiclassing restricitons for paladins and monks removed. It's stupid that they even survived the transition from 2e. Let the DM make that call for their world. Ditto alignment restrictions.

Clearer item creation rules. I think the designers know how they wanted them to work, but man, figuring out what they actually wrote is a PITA. Goes back to my first point about informaiton design.

No pokemounts.

Get rid of the +2/+2 skill feats. Repace them with one feat called Talented, which allows the player to choose any two skills and apply a +2 bonus to each. This would then make more room for other, more useful feats.

Fix metamagic.

Make some sort of Action/Hero/Drama Point mechanic core.

Provide an extensive section in the DMG on how to tweak the game so that it's not so dependent on magic items.

PIPE DREAM: Steal racial levels and the magic system from Arcana Unearthed.

 

[Belen]

Ok, now we're getting somewhere.. you're finally admitting that the rules have been designed for use with some kind of representations. What I was saying is that AoO is one of those things that tends to make that "some kind of representation" more nescessary.

Now, as to your discussion with this other fellow, you may be right that it is not specifically nescessary that the "represenations" be little plastic fighters and wizards, much less WoTC's version therein... but at the same time, you could look at this sensibly from the point of view of marketing and figure that WoTC didn't make 3.5 more "representation mandatory" because they were hoping for a big boom in the tiddly-winks market. They did it because they want to sell their miniatures.

Nisarg

Uh...I never said that it had to be WOTC minis. I only say minis.

 

[Belen]

Make some sort of Action/Hero/Drama Point mechanic core.

Honestly, I will probably not switch to any edition that makes action points core. I hate the entire concept.

I would like to see the sorceror reborn into something similiar to the 3.5 psion.

Bards should also be de-wussified. No class should have "support" as its entire purpose.