D&D 4E What changes aren't being made in 4E that you think should be

[DamnedChoir]

I would say the Level and Class-Based system, but I know it's a sacred cow and I'll be flamed, so I'll tolerate that for now. (I personally would prefer a focus on roles or archetypes, where you can develop skills and abilities anywhere, but get a bonus for sticking to your role.)

However, the BIGGEST change I'd like to see made but haven't is the Armor/HP system. I've never really liked D&D's 'Armor makes you harder to hit' and 'You're completely fine no matter how much damage you take and then you suddenly fall unconscious/die' system.

I was really hoping something similar to the condition Track from Saga (One of the only decent things in it.) Would make it's way in, so that heroes will get wounded and have to be gritty even at higher levels.

As for Armor, I'd really like to have seen a major differentiation between 'I'm hard to hit because i'm swift and agile' and 'I absorb damage because I'm in full plate'. Having Reflex and AC and Fort are all a good direction to go, but I'd really have liked it if Someone could be Hard to Hit, or Hard to Damage, or Both, or Neither. You COULD have a fighter with High Dex, contributing in making him harder to hit, even though he has armor which reduces his dex bonus a bit, that armor also makes him harder to damage. Rogue would be easy to damage, harder to hit, Wizard easy to hit, easy to damage, Cleric easy to hit, hard to damage.

 

[Greg K]

Responding to Greg's wishlist for 4e. I have moved some elements around to more easily respond to them. I hope I haven't ruined the context or changed the meaning.

I really dislike the idea of generic classes. It is the main reason I don't play D20 Modern.

Which is cool. I prefer classes that are more customizable and not relying on multiclassing to meet many concepts which should be available at the start. I think WOTC introduced the start of a good idea with the 3 generic classes in UA, but True20 got it right between their treatment of the three classes and the introduction of hybrid classes in the Companion (which I felt was a glaring omission from the UA version and the the True20 core rules).

I like the idea of a martial artist class (non-mystical), but I can't say that any of your other suggestions do it for me.

Well, the shaman and witch are two fantasy archetypes that I don't think the 3.x current classes handle well nor do WOTC's class in the DMG or Spirit Shaman.

This is the second reason I don't play D20 modern. I much prefer the Superior Unarmed Strike from Bo9S.

Superior Unarmed strike is cool (one of the very few things I liked about B09S), but I love Blood and Fists for martial arts and want an easier time incorporating it into DND!

I believe that we're getting level based defense bonuses. This is assuming that AC is one of the defenses that gets +1/2 levels. I definitely don't want armor as DR (I've played too much GURPS and Runequest to think this is a good idea). I like the Bo9S rules for maneuvers better (although I believe they will be called martial powers in 4e).

I didn't mind GURPS (except for magic and superpowers). As for B09S, I can't stand the book. I like the goal, but I dislike the mechanics, the schools and having to rewrite a of fluff. I am a big proponent of Book of Iron Might's treatment of maneuvers and mechanics and how it provides mechanics for building your own maneuvers.

I'm hoping neither of these options make it into the 4e rules. The lack of hit points is my biggest beef with True 20. The second option makes for weak characters unless armor provides DR, which I also dislike.

I love the True20 save. I think it was one of the best innovations for d20.

I have to say that I am much more in favor of the at will, per encounter and per day system that has been hinted at in various previews, with rituals rounding out the other types of spells.

Based on Bo9s and Star Wars: SE, I am not a fan of per encounter at all, but to each their own.

 

[Greg K]

I would say the Level and Class-Based system, but I know it's a sacred cow and I'll be flamed, so I'll tolerate that for now.(I personally would prefer a focus on roles or archetypes, where you can develop skills and abilities anywhere, but get a bonus for sticking to your role.)

I don't think class and level is the problem. It's how WOTC treats class and level by building things like rage, sneak attack and armor proficiency into the classes.. True20 and Rolemaster are both class and level based, but both give much more flexability in chacter design, because they may give you options to choose those things, but they don't force them upon you.

However, the BIGGEST change I'd like to see made but haven't is the Armor/HP system. I've never really liked D&D's 'Armor makes you harder to hit' and 'You're completely fine no matter how much damage you take and then you suddenly fall unconscious/die' system.

Completely agree. If they are building in class defense bonus, then the skill in dodging aspect of hps are already being mechanically represented.

I was really hoping something similar to the condition Track from Saga (One of the only decent things in it.) Would make it's way in, so that heroes will get wounded and have to be gritty even at higher levels.

As for Armor, I'd really like to have seen a major differentiation between 'I'm hard to hit because i'm swift and agile' and 'I absorb damage because I'm in full plate'. Having Reflex and AC and Fort are all a good direction to go, but I'd really have liked it if Someone could be Hard to Hit, or Hard to Damage, or Both, or Neither.

I agree

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I would have preferred the True20 approach where you have 3 classes - expert, warrior, and adept (spellcaster). These broad class types could be developed to fit any archetype you wish.

Dungeons & Dragons hasn't worked like that for over thirty years. Versions of the game with more classes have always been more popular, so there's absolutely no reason Wizards of the Coast should ignore good business sense and cut the game down to a half-handful.

I like True20 very much, but it ain't D&D.

 

[kennew142]

Which is cool. I prefer classes that are more customizable and not relying on multiclassing to meet many concepts which should be available at the start. I think WOTC introduced the start of a good idea with the 3 generic classes in UA, but True20 got it right between their treatment of the three classes and the introduction of hybrid classes in the Companion (which I felt was a glaring omission from the UA version and the the True20 core rules).

With the addition of talents and lots of bonus feats, and (hopefully) the removal of class abilities to the talent trees, I hope that 4e base classes are more customizable.

Well, the shaman and witch are two fantasy archetypes that I don't think the 3.x current classes handle well nor do WOTC's class in the DMG or Spirit Shaman.

As for the Shaman, perhaps. I've read a lot of fantasy and don't see the witch as a separate archetype from other magic-using characters. I feel pretty much the same way about the wu-jen, shugenja et al. The new emphasis on reusable abilities and magical implements should go a long way towards portraying a witch, unless I'm missing what you mean when you say witch.

I didn't mind GURPS (except for magic and superpowers). As for B09S, I can't stand the book. I like the goal, but I dislike the mechanics, the schools and having to rewrite a of fluff. I am a big proponent of Book of Iron Might's treatment of maneuvers and mechanics and how it provides mechanics for building your own maneuvers.

This isn't a GURPS forum so I'll leave my issues with GURPS behind, except to say that it convinced me that armor = DR is a very bad system. I prefer maneuvers to be pre-designed. Not only do I not want to do it in my game, I don't want the players to be able to do it in any game I'm running. There is too much room for abuse in such a system.

I love the True20 save. I think it was one of the best innovations for d20.

Innovative? yes. Fun? no (IMO). I have played True 20, and still play Mutants and Masterminds, but I would be so much happier if the game had a hit point system and the ability to roll damage. I prefer role-playing to roll-playing, but I do like to be able to roll some dice now and then.

 

[Greg K]

Innovative? yes. Fun? no (IMO). I have played True 20, and still play Mutants and Masterminds, but I would be so much happier if the game had a hit point system and the ability to roll damage. I prefer role-playing to roll-playing, but I do like to be able to roll some dice now and then.

My friends and I play Mutants and Masterminds regularly and love the Tougness Save. We think it is much more elegant and fun than using hit points. But then, fun is subjective.

 

[rounser]

Dungeons & Dragons hasn't worked like that for over thirty years. Versions of the game with more classes have always been more popular, so there's absolutely no reason Wizards of the Coast should ignore good business sense and cut the game down to a half-handful.

The class system also lends strong archetypes to the game. Cut down the classes to a generic minimum and you cut away a lot of D&D's flavour and "implied character building" (as in, if you're unimaginative, you can default to the stereotype warlock figure described by your class).

While I like how rules-elegant three classes would be, I have to agree that it would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It's lucky that the "lots of classes" model maps with WOTC's goal of selling more books.

That said, there's a limit. 3E saw a lot of things without archetypes that were forced into the mold of a class, because they wanted to implement some cool crunch. I think we're going to see a tonne of this, just like in 3E. And this time it'll be in the core (so-called "warlord", I'm looking at you).

 

[Voss]

I agree with most of that, but I think the warlord is a good example of a strong archetype thats been lacking. (yeah, yeah, the marshal, but the marshal was garbage)

And while I like the idea of a lot of classes, I do worry about about the archetype thing, because at this point, they aren't good universal archetypes. Quite a few only mean something only to people who play D&D (and specifically D&D, not fantasy roleplaying in general). And of course, the ones that mean something entirely different in D&D than they do in history and myth... and yeah, I'm looking at the bard and druid. (of course, they aren't really archetypes in any meaningful sense anyway).

 

[Rechan]

I agree with most of that, but I think the warlord is a good example of a strong archetype thats been lacking. (yeah, yeah, the marshal, but the marshal was garbage)

And while I like the idea of a lot of classes, I do worry about about the archetype thing, because at this point, they aren't good universal archetypes. Quite a few only mean something only to people who play D&D (and specifically D&D, not fantasy roleplaying in general). And of course, the ones that mean something entirely different in D&D than they do in history and myth... and yeah, I'm looking at the bard and druid. (of course, they aren't really archetypes in any meaningful sense anyway).

Although honestly, I think that you can pull off some archetypes you've not been able to before.

For instance, the Warlock might be able to pull off Constantine. You know, "He knows a few magical tricks, and he's a bad arse." The "I'm stealing power from some force so I can fight that force" archetype, too.

That's probably going to be my second character.

 

[rounser]

I think the warlord is a good example of a strong archetype thats been lacking.

For an orcish villain, maybe. The heroes neither need nor make sense with a military officer in the party (heck, it's not even named right). They're not an army or a warband. Nor is the warlord the "lord" of anything or anyone, and the idea of one of the party shouting orders to the others grates against D&D's hero archetypes as a whole (heroes are independent agents who cooperate, not soldiers under orders). It's just a nonstarter for me on multiple levels.