Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Man in the Funny Hat" data-source="post: 3765896" data-attributes="member: 32740">Virtually my entire list has already been mentioned, but...<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Chases Definitely.  It's overdue.  The encounter and adventure possibilities would really open up for me personally if there were a built-in, halfway decent chunk of chase rules. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Mass Combat This one, I think will really depend on a more precise understanding of what 4E will be.  The problem here, as I have seen it since 1E, is that D&D and Massed Combat are inherently incompatible.  D&D is and always has been designed specifically for FEW PC's to take on MANY and VERY powerful opponents.  It is designed for application to PC's quite specifically to be... Uber.  That IMMEDIATELY breaks down and creates problems when the system intended for application only to PC's is applied to EVERYTHING.  I'd LIKE it - but I hold no real hope that it might EVER work.  Still, there's always the vague possibility. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Dungeon/Adventure Design Paradigms/advice One of 3E's few genuine failures is this.  3E dungeon and adventure design did NOT change to appropriately fit the paradigms suggested by the rules themselves.  First they tried to simply follow the old 1E/2E standards and I personally had "issues" with the results immediately.  Then they slid to a penchant for MEGA dungeons and full-blown campaign settings that were merely masquerading as single adventures/dungeons.  Never really bothered with them as the results perpetrated upon inserting such into a "normal" campaign would have been clearly disastrous and effectively REPLACING that campaign with the single "adventure" until it could simply be stomached no more by players/DMs wanting the REAL campaign to show itself again. 4E designers need to look hard at this - to THINK about what the new system will REALLY suggest about how and why adventures and dungeons should be designed - and then communicate those observations to DM's to facilitate their adaptation to adventures that work WITH the system, not in spite of it. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Guns Well, _I_ like the idea of a little bit of musketry in my D&D.  I don't think it needs to be part and parcel of the new edition, but it would be nice to have some simple gunpowder weapons that are available for us afficionados already dialed into the system so we won't have to completely kludge them on later. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Vehicle combat Frankly this rather goes hand in hand with CHASES.  With VERY few exceptions vehicle combat involves one chasing another - NOT tanks just bludgeoning each other until one crumbles. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Naval Combat and Adventuring Ships can effectively be vehicles depending on their size so this might need to tie in with vehicle combat.  However, Naval ADVENTURING is a rather different, even specialized beast.  It can effectively alter the way the ENTIRE campaign is run.  The differences can be so dramatic that it really does scream for its own supplement - but with rules BUILT into the system from the start, not kludged on. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Flying combat (esp. air-to-ground attacking) I think I can count the number of air-to-air combats I've EVER run in D&D on half of one hand.  The reason is that flying combat rules were so lifeless, dull, tedious, banal, whatever.  HOWEVER, the number of times that I've wanted ready rules to cover bombardment of PC's and castles with rocks, spears, and so forth from significant heights I couldn't really count.  Many, even most of those times I avoided such encounters entirely rather than try to make such attacks work sensibly.  I think both aspects really need attention. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Baronies This one DEFINITELY belongs in its own supplement.  EVERY player I know always got the biggest kicks out of the old 1E thing of, "Well, now my PC is name level and it's time to go out and BUILD that base of power for him to operate from for his future."  Not GIVEN to him, not won as treasure of some kind, but an official indication by the game that your PC was now given tacit approval and some basic rules for refocusing his goals upon making himself a permanent fixture, a modification/addition to the DM's campaign. Players would have the idea of building that little tower, temple, or scrappy barony as THE single over-arching goal for their character.  Even with the vague, pathetic rules that 1E provided I saw it TIME after TIME being used as a driving force in a characters development and choices.  It's more than just constructing towers and castles, or calling followers, or collecting your own taxes - there was a very special cachet about a Fighter Lord founding that first speck of a hamlet of what they always hoped would become a new, powerful NATION as the campaign rolled on; a High Priest founding a new temple that could become the most influential center of religion in the world; or even a Master Thief founding the first vestiges of a Guild that would come to control a great city, or become a secret influence the world over. It's worth thinking about, but again, needs to be more than just an afterthought. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">No magical "Ding!" levelling up I CANNOT emphasize how destructive this particular little thing is to my verisimilitude and suspension of disbelief.  This, possibly more than every other factor COMBINED, is responsible for the not entirely undeserved accusations of the system being "video-gamey". Now, maybe some of this will go away with the new level spreads and such, but I ABHOR it.  I honestly feel that the game would be better off assuming training time and expenses for levelling up as the default and the instant "Ding!" approach as the DECIDEDLY optional one.  I'd rather structure the game around the incongruity and inconvenience of training time with each level (as I used to) than swallow that again. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Death and Resurrection magic Maybe this is being addressed in some specific way in 4E I haven't yet taken note of (I do vaguely recall seeing it mentioned), but it's a biggie for me.  I don't much care how you do it, but try SOMETHING to put this in its place.  Resurrection magic exists for PLAYER use - not CHARACTER use.  I believe that heart and soul.  It is problematic, even openly disruptive when DM's and players then naturally assume it MUST be applied equally to all NPC's thorughout the campaign.</li> </ul>That about covers it for me right now.</blockquote>

Verification