Rules in 3.5 that need fixing and what you'd do to fix it.

[Gort]

- I would return many spells to their 3.0 versions. In the case of Haste, I would cause it to allow an extra Standard Action (spellcasting included.) In the case of Heal and Harm, back to their original versions (people should be afraid of clerics!)
Edena_of_Neith

I disagree with much of what you've said here, but I've decided to keep the thread tidy and just address the point I disagree with most - the change to Harm from 3.0 to 3.5.

This spell was ridiculous in 3.0. Touch attack to reduce an enemy to D4 hitpoints with no save is completely broken. It would be broken as a 9th level spell, let alone at 6th where it currently appears. Do you really like every fight from 11th level onward to consist of "cleric approaches monster, casts harm and a quickened inflict light wounds, monster topples over dead."? "People should be afraid of clerics"? Well, they should be afraid of level 20 fighters as well, but with harm the 11th level cleric kills him in one round. Likewise for many higher level monsters. (barring SR)

 

[greywulf]

The is exactly like the PHB, with an incomplete assortment of monsters and spells tacked on. How is this desirable?

You've clearly never read the D&D Rules Cyclopedia

It's got world building, dungeon building, mass combat rules, siege, naval and aerial combat rules, stronghold building, a complete bestiary, treasure, an overview of a gameworld and lots, lots more than just "PHB" with incomplete stuff tacked in.

A resource like that would be very, very desirable. Especially to me

 

[VirgilCaine]

You've clearly never read the D&D Rules Cyclopedia

It's got world building, dungeon building, mass combat rules, siege, naval and aerial combat rules, stronghold building, a complete bestiary, treasure, an overview of a gameworld and lots, lots more than just "PHB" with incomplete stuff tacked in.

A resource like that would be very, very desirable. Especially to me

Then you were horribly, grossly inaccurate in your description of what you wanted. "Some DM advice" does not begin to describe the extent of that information. That's the DMG. And the MM. And if you also throw in the character generation, and spells...

How you expect to combine the DMG and the MM and the PHB and not have it stop bullets is beyond me.
Nothing is stopping you from carrying all three books at the same time.

 

[diaglo]

there needs to be an overhaul of the carrying capacity/encumbrance system
including container capacity


diaglo "always has infinite slings since late 1999" Ooi

 

[drothgery]

SR has always had my vote for 'silliest mechanic in the game'; what's up with making a saving throw to avoid having to make a saving throw?

 

[theredrobedwizard]

Make it into True20, but with HP instead of Toughness saves. Failing that, a completely classless system like Mutants and Masterminds.

I'm not directly suggesting that WotC should have Steve Kenson design 4th Edition. Here, see me winking? That's code for "They *should* have him design it, alongside Mike Mearls."

-TRRW

 

[WayneLigon]

Nothing is stopping you from carrying all three books at the same time.

The weight does that....
I just started a new D&D game at the game store. When I got ready to pack up to go there the first time, I almost changed games to True20 or Blue Rose simply because my first thought was 'I ain't packing this around every week'. And that's just the core three.

 

[KB9JMQ]

Make Turn Undead an opposed roll mechanic.

 

[delericho]

10) Also provide a one-book system which gives character generation, skills, feats, some spells, some monsters and DM advice. Make it like the D&D Rules Cyclopedia - a resource for experienced players rather than a newbie book so it's text heavy, stuffed full of rules and options and a perfect "Bible" for in-game rules decisions.

The problem with this is that unless it is the version of the core rules, I don't think it would represent a financially viable product. If it were to be the version of the core rules, it would only be possible by omitting large amounts of material, in the form of spells, magic items and (in particular) monsters.

I would strongly resist a move to reducing the core. Material that is not in the core rules is not fully supported by WotC (witness psionics), and in the particular case of monsters is problematic for the likes of Dungeon magazine. They have (correctly, IMO) adopted the policy that any non-core monster must have a full stat-block, which eats word-count to no good purpose. This leads to their high-level adventures necessarily reusing the same few evil outsiders over and over, which isn't ideal. Given that the best candidates for being dropped from a new 'Rules Cyclopedia' are the high CR monsters that don't see much use in most campaigns (which run in the low-mid levels), that just worsens the problem.

That being the case, if anything I want the 4e MM to be twice the page count of the current book, and to include a lot more monsters (and particularly high-CR non-Outsiders).

 

[JVisgaitis]

No, this is changes to rules for the sake of making the game easier.

So, adding more rules, and increasing the level of complexity and detail of the rules probably wasn't what the OP had in mind.

That was the intent of my post, but I don't mind if we deviate. Lord knows I'm rarely on point with my postings...