Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Merlion" data-source="post: 1769050" data-attributes="member: 10397">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.. 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. 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. 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. Exactly. 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. 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. 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'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.</blockquote>

Verification