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="Imagicka" data-source="post: 1769069" data-attributes="member: 4621">Greetings...  Well, your post on D&D 4.0 has gotten me thinking about it...  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.</blockquote>

Verification