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

[Merlion]

Well some very interesting responses, and some much less so ones. And thank you P.C. for stepping in to head off any unpleasantness.

However I want to add also that if you have no issues with 3.x and/or you dont care to discuss what may or may not happen in 4th edition, dont bother posting. I dont want to be rude but flying by and saying "I dont really care about 4th edition" or something to that effect is just sort of a waste. What I am looking for is discussion of issues with 3.x and how a 4th edition might solve them, along with prognostications of whats likely to actually happen in 4th edition.

Now lets see begining at the begining..

Some of the other things that you mentioned... like armor as damage reduction. I have been tempted to try that variant out, but I see nothing really wrong with the standard AC system. It is true that armor class doesn't scale well with attack bonuses... but that makes sense when you factor in hit points. Can a 20th level character really take 20 times the amount of damage as a first level character before dying? No, they both die with the same amount of damage and hit points work more like percentages. A first level character takes one point of damage and is left with 9/10 of her original health. At level 20 she would basically ignore that one point of damage. Anyway, my point is... I am not sure how that would play out if you allowed armor class to increase too much. If armor class properly scaled with attack bonuses, I would be more tempted to give everyone a set amount of HP's that don't increase with level.

Well as I mentioned, many people would love to see hitpoints go as well. They dont really bother me, but they are abstract to the point of near sillyness any way you slice it. This is basically how I see it:

Class defense bonuses first of all make sense. You get better at attacking as you gain levels...so it seems you would also get better and defending yourself. The maximum bonus, for fighter types, is +12, the same amount of AC as, say, +4 full plate. So, I think it nudges things up just enough to be of help in the AC versus attack bonus area, without throwing things off big time.


Armor as DR just makes SO much more sense. Wearing metal doesnt keep you from getting hit, it keeps you from getting hurt. Its not a super drastic difference mechanically, especially past low levels...its just a whole lot more logical.

I'd like to see the core classes stripped down to basics. Eliminate and classes that can be duplicated by multiclassing or feat selection. Rangers, Paladins and Bards eg, have more in common with prestige classes than core classes. Just make a Fi/Cl, Fi/Ro, or Ro/So. This ties in with your comment about increasing the scope of feats to help define a character. Ideally I'd like to see the classes more akin to d20 modern, but I think that's just a bit to much sacred cow slayage to hope for.

Yea...this isnt something I ever see happening in core. Paladin and Ranger have been core, base classes since 1st edition. And Bard was there too...and its been a base class since 2nd edition.

I agree with this. They are all archtypes plenty strong enough to warrant classes, and cant really be adequately duplicated with multiclassing.

And note that when I spoke of expanding feats, I specfically excluded supernatural features...Bardic Music, Woodland Stride, spellcasting of all types...and I tend to think things like Bardic Knowledge as well are, and should remain abilities of specfic classes.

I'm not really worried about what gets tweaked. I'm far more interested in what completely unforseen designs might be created.

As I said in the initial post and someone else reiterated, I dont think there are going to be a lot of really big changes. Largely because that would require either changing to a new core mechanical engine, or making big changes like altering how classes work or some such. The first the arent going to do 1) because the d20 core engine is about as good as it gets and 2) because WOTC is too legally emeshed in the d20/OGL stuff legally to do much else. The second I dont see them doing with a new edition of DnD, because it would kill to many sacred cows.

D&D 4th will be similar to Call of Cthulu, Wheel of Time, or d20 Modern -- a stylistic change that doesn't mess with the learning cuve that WotC/hasbro has going for them. AD&D had to be altered; there were people not playing AD&D simply because of the rules. No one's doing that with D&D.

Exactly.

If we're talking 4th ed. using UA variants, I'd use the level = skill rank rule, or some variation of it. Anything to save me time when creating npcs.

I only really find this a problem with multiclass characters, because you have to keep track of what points they spend in what way. And with a multiclass character who raises Int its even more annoying.

I think a solution to this would be either eliminate the whole class skill/cross class skill thing, or at least have it be that a multiclass character always has all class skills of both/all classes.

What I would like to see is the eliminate of feats, or at least a severe narrowing down. Feats have turned D&D from a roleplaying game (admittidly one that has more than a fair share of combat) into the breeding ground for powergamers.

This shocks me. I see Feats as one of the best things to come out of 3rd edition. Finally, something to help define a characters abilities apart from the set abilities of their class. Something to allow them to improve their class abilities, or to aqquire new capabilities.

I think saying a certain thing has created a "breeding ground for powergamers" is...incorrect. A given thing...a class, a spell a feat, can be unbalanced, but if people are going to "power game" they are going to do it regardless. Thats about people, not the rules.

I'd leave the classes, AC, hit points, and spells alone. Theres nothing wrong with them

Well if by classes you mean the having of a class based system, no theres nothing wrong with that. There are things wrong with a minimum of 2 DnD classes...the Cleric and the Sorcerer.

AC and Hit Points have nothing "wrong" with them per si, as mechanics. But many do seem to see them as unrealistic and sub-par. I dont personally neccesarilly agree with that entirely across the board. However, Armor Class and attack bonuses dont scale very well. The fact that your ability to defend yourself comes primarily from equipment seems silly to me (and many others including many designers). If theres Base Attack Bonus, why should there not be Base Defense Bonus?

And lastly, wearing metal should keep you from being hurt (taking damage), and have nothing to do with wether an attack lands (being hit).

Spells are in a pretty deccent state now, IMO, save for 2 things. I think the nerf of utility magic in 3.5 should be undone, and a few spells should be somewhat more widely avaible...Wizards should get Spell Resistance for instance.

I would drop things like AoO's (far too fiddly in my mind, you can't do jack without someone getting a swipe at you! ).

I've been paying close attention to AoO's in the game I am running and I see no problems so far, mechanically at least. But, the number of things that cause one might be a trifle excessive.



Anyway, keep the thoughts coming. I would really like to see some more of what other people would like to see happen, and what you think actually will happen.

 

[Merlion]

One thing I would REALLY like to see (but I think some others' comments about it messing with some people's sacred cows are accurate) is a completely CLASSLESS system - everything for classes done with skills and feats. The ultimate in custom configurable characters. And that big area of the PHB previously absorbed with classes? Well, obviously part of it would be taken up with the extra feats and skills necessary, but I'd like to see a large section put in on acting, ROLEplaying, and a bit of discourse on the importance of the tone of the campaign - how some campaigns emphasize the STORY the characters and the DM are trying to make together, while others are more about the racking-up-the-score, metagaming, munchkining and kicking butt aspects of the game. And both are okay, but that it is important to know what kind you are getting into and play accordingly.

I very rarely say this but yes, that would not be DnD. I think with the d20 system something like this is feasible, and even has a certain appeal, but they will never do that with DnD. Its been stated many times, among sacred cows certain ones will never be slaughtered...classes usualy being the first, followed by Hit Points and Armor Class.

 

[Imagicka]

Greetings...

Anyway, this got me to thinking about the eventual next edition of DnD

Well, your post on D&D 4.0 has gotten me thinking about it...

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.

I don't think so. As much as I am a fan of Class-Based Defense Bonuses (CBDB) and have really never liked the HitPoint system, I don't think it's going to be changed anytime soon.

What I would like to see is a better Hit Point system. One where characters start off with a fair amount, and they don't end up with oodles of points down the road. Because as it stands, when hit points go higher and higher, things like AC and feats like Dodge and shields and bonuses on magical weapons become less and less significant. I would like to see a system where at higher levels a +1 means something, not just a 5% bonus to hit. Should a +1 sword be less effective in the hands of a skilled fighter than in the hands of a skilled thief?

Now, if this means that characters' hitpoints or BaBs won't rise so fast. Then so be it. I think that it would be a system where having a +1 actually means something.

Also, ideas that come from such places, as Monte Cook's AU, I don't think are going to happen. They might be good/nice ideas. But of course, their source is MC, and not the brain-trust that is WotC. Of course MC is/was part of the brain-trust, and could definately help to make such things a rules reality in D&D 4.0. But you have to ask yourself one thing: "Is WotC going to radically depart from 3.5?" -- I don't think it will. After all, RPGs are a 'business' now, and not a hobby as far as WotC The Company is concerned. I'm sure that WotC is going to ask themselves: "Can we make a radically new D&D ruleset and have a viable market for it?"

The things I would like to see in a new D&D?

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.

AC should increase with levels, so yes...use the CBDB. It just stands to reason, if I can get better at hitting someone, why can't I get better at avoiding being hit?

Armour as Damage Reduction? It's an interesting idea, but I can see combat working with or without it. Higher AC, or DR? Either one will do.

Arcane/Divine Terminology and division of spells? I would agree with you. Have spells categorized by class, and if some spells fall into the sphere of influence of both wizard, cleric, bard, etc. then so be it.

Personally, I would like to see a 'generic' magic system. With spells laid on top of it. Combining aspects of a spell, such as the 'target choice', the 'energy choice' and so on and so forth. This way, you can have spell casters create their own spells. Then you can give examples of known or common spells, such as Magic Missile (A Damaging Spell using Anti-Life as the energy base, using an auto-targeting system [that hits without needing an attack roll], with no saving throw.)

As well as other types of magic systems, or ways to deliver magical effects. Magic runes, wards, circles, where magic is enpowered through the use of writing, symbols and rituals.

As I see it, D&D magic is a mismash of various magicks. I would like it all separated and then generalized so if I wanted to make a Spell-Caster, or a Ward-Sorcerer, an Elemental-Ritualist, I can.

Alignment is not a bad thing, per say. After all, in a fantasy world where there is true good, and true evil, then it's affects should be felt upon said world. But with that said, the alignment system should be an optional system, and expanded. Perhaps a point-based system so that we can measure how good/bad, lawful/chaotic a person is.

Expand Feats? Well, maybe give more feats to the classes. Class Features should be class-based feats, not features. Clean up the terminology. But there is no reason why say a fighter can't learn evasion, or slippery-mind.

Classes, I would like to see either four base classes, Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Mage, and everything else a prestiege class on top of it, or no classes at all. In the first case, Druids are Wilderness based Fighter-Clerics, Rangers are Wilderness Fighters, Paladins are Cleric-Fighters. Or better yet, do away with the whole class-based system. Allow characters to buy the BAB they want, the STs they want, the magic system the spells they are able to cast, the skills they want, the feats they want. So, if I envision a character concept of someone...let's say, a mystical bounty-hunter...I don't want to try and piegon-hole my concept to taking an Urban Ranger who also takes a couple levels of Sorcerer, that might be fine for some, but I find it messy. I want to again generalize the class system so I could design a character who is good at fighting, can cast limited magic spells, and can heal, and can track and fight with two weapons.

Increase Skill Points, I totally agree. Skills are largely a roleplaying tool, very true. Especially with feats now. You don't have to make some ability a skill, it can either be a feat, or a skill, or one of those 'abilities' that give you 'per day' usages. When 'Knowledge', 'Craft', 'Profession' and 'Perform' are such an open-ended skills, where you could come up with hundreds of knowledge skills alone, it only makes sense that the number of skill ranks that you give to characters should be plentiful enough to make characters dynamic and not as restricted as I see them now.

 

[Felon]

Another thing I would definitely like to see are shorter rounds. I think GURPS has the right of it: one round should be about one or two seconds, no more. Time to do one thing, and that's it. That also means less time everyone else spends playing statue while one character runs all over creation. No more charging 60 feet down a hallway and slicing down some poor slob with a loaded crossbow before he can even raise his crossbow to take a shot.

 

[DragonLancer]

Well as I mentioned, many people would love to see hitpoints go as well. They dont really bother me, but they are abstract to the point of near sillyness any way you slice it.

They are abstract, but not in such a fashion as to need a change in a 4th edition. Its a part of the game that really is just OOC, for lack of a better term. Its a game mechanic that does not need to simulate realism, because it is just a game mechanic. Same goes with AC. The DV system as used in D20 Star Wars or Babylon 5 works well, especially for a sci-fi D20 game, but the AC system works well for what it needs to be. At least it doesn't go backwards into negatives anymore.

Class defense bonuses first of all make sense. You get better at attacking as you gain levels...so it seems you would also get better and defending yourself. The maximum bonus, for fighter types, is +12, the same amount of AC as, say, +4 full plate. So, I think it nudges things up just enough to be of help in the AC versus attack bonus area, without throwing things off big time.

You make good points, but another thing I will say in defence of hit points and armour class is that they are and always have been part and parcel of D&D. I think to change that would be to take something away from the game.

I think a solution to this would be either eliminate the whole class skill/cross class skill thing, or at least have it be that a multiclass character always has all class skills of both/all classes.

The idea of certain skills (swim, climb, jump...etc) being considered class skills regardless of class would be a nice addition. It would mean Fighters would need a few more skills added to their class skill list, plus a couple more skill points per level. Fighters get feats though to compensate, so not too many skills or skill points.

This shocks me. I see Feats as one of the best things to come out of 3rd edition. Finally, something to help define a characters abilities apart from the set abilities of their class. Something to allow them to improve their class abilities, or to aqquire new capabilities.

Thats what one of my players says as well. However, D&D worked well for 20+ years without them and I don't know that we need to have them. Though they are a nice addition to 3rd edition, they do add more rules to remember whether DM or player. I prefer to keep things simple.

I think saying a certain thing has created a "breeding ground for powergamers" is...incorrect. A given thing...a class, a spell a feat, can be unbalanced, but if people are going to "power game" they are going to do it regardless. Thats about people, not the rules.

Yes, and no. You can point that at players true, but it doesn't help that feats and the D20 system does encourage powergaming. You never really had powergaming under prior editions, because countless options were not available. Options are good, but only when balanced.

The debate for and against feats and how it applies to powergaming, is perhaps best left for a different thread.

Well if by classes you mean the having of a class based system, no theres nothing wrong with that. There are things wrong with a minimum of 2 DnD classes...the Cleric and the Sorcerer.

As I recall, at the time I was thinking about the various voices raised against the Cleric, Sorcerer, Bard and Paladin - all for different reasons. I would not want 4th edition to drop down to say just four classes. We had that in basic edition, and it needed to be expanded. 3rd ed has it about right, and with the 3.5 revision, the classes are about balanced enough. This is one of those cases where the options we have are enough IMO.

I've been paying close attention to AoO's in the game I am running and I see no problems so far, mechanically at least. But, the number of things that cause one might be a trifle excessive.

I find AoO's to be really an unnessecary part of the game. Do you really need these rules? No, not really.

During game, it slows things down whenever other actions taken either by an NPC, monster or PC, draws at least one AoO. I also find they take away a lot of the enjoyment of the game, either because it turns from a RPG to a game of chess trying to work out moves and actions that won't lead to an AoO.

Not to mention even I have trouble remembering what does and doesn't draw an AoO.

 

[Grayhawk]

I too believe that classes, HP and AC will remain - and I wouldn't want it any other way.

And while I can see the argument for armor as DR (and I think it works well in other systems), I don't think it meshes well with HP. A class defense bonus would be all right, though.

I'd like the feats to stay; and the skill system if simplified.

Personally, I'd like AoO's and the dependency on a battlemat to go, but I expect they'll be even more integrated into a 4th edition, to allow WotC to keep selling miniatures.

 

[Imagicka]

Greetings...

Its a game mechanic that does not need to simulate realism, because it is just a game mechanic.

Well, I have to disagree with you. I think it is the need of every RPG to have a ruleset that does simulate a certain amount of realism accurately. If it doesn't then the players do not have a frame of reference such as the 'real world' to be able to say "This is what would happen if I did this!". Now, D&D and most RPGs simulate a heroic/fantastical setting where combat is cinematic. That one hack of a claymore isn't going to take off someone's arm. That, I think we would all agree, is a little too realist.

But I want a system where I can have a pretty good idea what would happen if I jumped off a 20 foot bridge into a rocky dry river bed, or if I fell off the top of a castle wall. Even if we state: This isn't realism, it's fantasy. I still want to know where the boundries are. I want to know what I can expect from the 'reality'.

You make good points, but another thing I will say in defence of hit points and armour class is that they are and always have been part and parcel of D&D. I think to change that would be to take something away from the game.

Well, maybe it's time to slaughter some of D&D's sacred cows.

However, D&D worked well for 20+ years without them and I don't know that we need to have them.

I don't think D&D has worked well for 20+ years. I know countless people who left D&D because they thought it was 'too broken'. My idea of working well is a system where I don't have to houserule it, and you show me any group's game with 2nd Edition that wasn't HEAVILY houseruled. Heck, even show me a game with 3.5 that also isn't houseruled. I don't know of many D&D games nowadays that isn't houseruled as well. Perhaps that D&D as an aire about it, which people feel it's okay to tweak here and there. Or perhaps the idea of houseruling things just stems from the idea that players/DMs want to carry ideas over from 2.0 to 3.0 to 3.5, I don't know their reasons...but I do know a lot of people houserule D&D. Other RPGs, sure you get some houseruling, but not to the extent you see with D&D.

Is it the fact that people say 'what the heck?' and don't bother to houserule the problems that they might find with other RPGs, and just tolerate them? Or is it the fact that they find that they don't need to modify/houserule other RPGs? I would say it's more the latter. I've played lots of other systems and didn't feel I needed to houserule them to patch up glaring holes as I feel I need to do with D&D.

I find AoO's to be really an unnessecary part of the game. Do you really need these rules? No, not really.

I don't know. AoO are tricky and messy sometimes, but it's all part of having a combat system that allows for physical combat tactics. -- "Combat Tactics Mr. Ryan"

During game, it slows things down whenever other actions taken either by an NPC, monster or PC, draws at least one AoO. I also find they take away a lot of the enjoyment of the game, either because it turns from a RPG to a game of chess trying to work out moves and actions that won't lead to an AoO.

Should combat be a simple series of hit/damage - counter-hit/damage? Should it be a series of tactical moves? I think that answer should be left up to the individual DMs/players. If you don't like AoO, remove it from your game. There's nothing that says that you can't go back to the 2nd Ed. style of combat. But that option should be there. Personally, I like it...I want to know that the fighter who we all know has a horrible Will Save against magick, and is going to be turned into smoldering piles of clothing and burnt meat as soon as that arch-magus casts his spell, is going to have that OoA chance to cut off the magus' head with a swing of his trusty battle-axe, or at least, maybe disrupt his spell.

Not to mention even I have trouble remembering what does and doesn't draw an AoO.

Ahh...get yourself a little reminder list and paperclip it onto the back of your character sheet.

 

[Merlion]

Imagkica:

I don't think so. As much as I am a fan of Class-Based Defense Bonuses (CBDB) and have really never liked the HitPoint system, I don't think it's going to be changed anytime soon.

I agree that hit points wont be changed/removed. But including CBDB and/or Armor as DR doesnt change/remove them, it simply adds to them.

AC should increase with levels, so yes...use the CBDB. It just stands to reason, if I can get better at hitting someone, why can't I get better at avoiding being hit?

Thats what I'm getting at.

Armour as Damage Reduction? It's an interesting idea, but I can see combat working with or without it. Higher AC, or DR? Either one will do.

Armor as DR just makes sense. Its hard for me to envision my character putting on armor and having it make him harder to strike in combat. Thats not what armor does. It reduces damage.

Personally, I would like to see a 'generic' magic system. With spells laid on top of it. Combining aspects of a spell, such as the 'target choice', the 'energy choice' and so on and so forth. This way, you can have spell casters create their own spells. Then you can give examples of known or common spells, such as Magic Missile (A Damaging Spell using Anti-Life as the energy base, using an auto-targeting system [that hits without needing an attack roll], with no saving throw.)

Interesting. But I dont really think DnD will ever move away from the Vancian system...and if they do, it would probably be to something like Spell Points. I think DnD magic will always consist of specfic spells that characters learn. I'm ok with that. Something like the heighted/diminished system in Arcana Unearthed would be nice.

As well as other types of magic systems, or ways to deliver magical effects. Magic runes, wards, circles, where magic is enpowered through the use of writing, symbols and rituals.

I think maybe we could hope for more of this kind of stuff, at least as "official variant" options.

Alignment is not a bad thing, per say. After all, in a fantasy world where there is true good, and true evil, then it's affects should be felt upon said world. But with that said, the alignment system should be an optional system, and expanded. Perhaps a point-based system so that we can measure how good/bad, lawful/chaotic a person is.

I never said anything about removing alignment. Alignment restrictions on base classes should be removed, since in that context they are essentially roleplaying restrictions.

But both the mechanics and the roleplaying aspects of alignment could use more tweaking, and I think the mechanics could be scaled back a bit. Theres so very many alignment based spells, magic items feats, etc etc..

I also dont personaly like the law/chaos part of alignment. To me it covers things that are simply part of personality.

Well, maybe give more feats to the classes. Class Features should be class-based feats, not features

Whats the difference? If only a certain class can take them, they basically become class features.

But there is no reason why say a fighter can't learn evasion, or slippery-mind.

This is my thing. Also, I would like to see a lot more feats that effect spells and spellcasting.

Classes, I would like to see either four base classes, Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Mage, and everything else a prestiege class on top of it, or no classes at all. In the first case, Druids are Wilderness based Fighter-Clerics, Rangers are Wilderness Fighters, Paladins are Cleric-Fighters. Or better yet, do away with the whole class-based system. Allow characters to buy the BAB they want, the STs they want, the magic system the spells they are able to cast, the skills they want, the feats they want. So, if I envision a character concept of someone...let's say, a mystical bounty-hunter...I don't want to try and piegon-hole my concept to taking an Urban Ranger who also takes a couple levels of Sorcerer, that might be fine for some, but I find it messy. I want to again generalize the class system so I could design a character who is good at fighting, can cast limited magic spells, and can heal, and can track and fight with two weapons

I dont see this ever happening in D&D, and I dont think I would want it to. The flexibility would be nice, but most of the base classes we have now should be base classes. Druids are most certainly not "wilderness based Cleric-Fighters." they are Druids. They are nature-mages or nature-priests depending on how you want to look at it. And so on. I want to be able to start out as the type of character I want to be.

I think if people would be more open to customizing existing classes and if the core rules supported it more, it would be even better though.

Dragon Lancer: I think maybe you are misunderstanding some of what I am saying, lets see what we can do here..

They are abstract, but not in such a fashion as to need a change in a 4th edition. Its a part of the game that really is just OOC, for lack of a better term. Its a game mechanic that does not need to simulate realism, because it is just a game mechanic. Same goes with AC. The DV system as used in D20 Star Wars or Babylon 5 works well, especially for a sci-fi D20 game, but the AC system works well for what it needs to be. At least it doesn't go backwards into negatives anymore.

I dont really have a problem with hit points myself. They are a little too abstract, and I like say the wound/vitality point system also, but its not a big beef with me. I dont foresee any change to it in 4th edition, save perhaps vitality/woundpoints being made an "official variant."

You make good points, but another thing I will say in defence of hit points and armour class is that they are and always have been part and parcel of D&D. I think to change that would be to take something away from the game.

And again, I am not saying anything about removing HP or AC. Class based defense bonus is simply something to add to/work with the Armor Class system, not replace it. It just seems strange to me that you get better at attacking, but never any better at defending yourself.

The idea of certain skills (swim, climb, jump...etc) being considered class skills regardless of class would be a nice addition. It would mean Fighters would need a few more skills added to their class skill list, plus a couple more skill points per level. Fighters get feats though to compensate, so not too many skills or skill points.

With that last part I was mostly refering to what one person said about the time it can take to do up skills for NPCs. Its particlarly bad with multiclass characters.

But in generall, I'd like to see (and wouldnt really be shocked to see) the base skill point number raised to 4, and at least some skills be made class skills for everyone. Physical and perception skills (swim, climb, jump, spot, listen) and things like Craft, Profession and Knowledge in particular.

Thats what one of my players says as well. However, D&D worked well for 20+ years without them and I don't know that we need to have them. Though they are a nice addition to 3rd edition, they do add more rules to remember whether DM or player. I prefer to keep things simple.

A big part of RPG design is balancing simplicity and ease of play with content and custimizability. 2nd edition had almost no way to mechanically customize characters, especially warrior types. Feats allow that. Now yea theres a whole bunch of feats, and I'm sure it can be bewildering for a new player. But the same is true of spells for instance. They are always going to take something like that and make lots of it, and a lot of it is going to be dreck. It comes with the territory.

Yes, and no. You can point that at players true, but it doesn't help that feats and the D20 system does encourage powergaming

How so? Especially, how so with feats?

You never really had powergaming under prior editions, because countless options were not available

Your the first person I've ever heard say that.

As I recall, at the time I was thinking about the various voices raised against the Cleric, Sorcerer, Bard and Paladin - all for different reasons. I would not want 4th edition to drop down to say just four classes. We had that in basic edition, and it needed to be expanded. 3rd ed has it about right, and with the 3.5 revision, the classes are about balanced enough. This is one of those cases where the options we have are enough IMO

I am very must AGAINST massive reduction in number of core classes. I find the whole "bards paladins and rangers should be PrCs" thing frankly ridcules. The only class that I see as realistically needing removal is the Barbarian.Now yea, on a personal level, I hate the Cleric with a burning passion, and would rejoice to see it removed. But setting that aside, the Cleric in its current form is overpowered, and suffers from severe archtype issues. I would like to see this repaired in a new edition. Same with Sorcerer...it needs its own identity, archtypally, and it needs to be equal to the other casting classes.

I find AoO's to be really an unnessecary part of the game. Do you really need these rules? No, not really.

Its an interesting idea, but probably is overdone/overused a bit.

So, what changes do you think will, and seperate from that what changes do you think should occur?

 

[rangerjohn]

One thing I would REALLY like to see (but I think some others' comments about it messing with some people's sacred cows are accurate) is a completely CLASSLESS system - everything for classes done with skills and feats. The ultimate in custom configurable characters. And that big area of the PHB previously absorbed with classes? Well, obviously part of it would be taken up with the extra feats and skills necessary,

/QUOTE]
But then you wouldn't have D&D, you would have GURPS. Not that there is anything inherently wrong with such a system. I have played GURPS, but it is not D&D.

 

[Dark Jezter]

Rangerjohn's got it right. If WotC were to listen to some of the suggestions in this thread, then D&D 4e would probably look like this...