D&D 4E What do you want to see unchanged in 4e?

[Asmor]

We've gotten the thread already for what changes everyone wants to see... That raises the question, however, what changes do you not want to see?

Which rules do you think are perfect, or at least really, really good, in 3.5, and which you'd like to see make the jump to 4e almost entirely unchanged?

The only thing I can think of off the top of my head which isn't completely obvious (and it's still fairly obvious) are feats. I think feats are one of the best ideas of 3rd edition, and their only real problem is that you just never got enough of them. That's really more of an implementation problem than a problem with the rules for feats, though.

 

[frankthedm]

Death at -10 HP

 

[Moon-Lancer]

keep attacks of opportunity

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Skill Points for PCs. (SWSE works for SW, not D&D.)
Synergy Bonuses. (Because my wife likes them.)

 

[Destil]

The Rogue. Hands down the most well designed 3E class by a huge margin. Clearly changes to the system in other places will affect them, but the core design of the rogue is top-notch. Even with the huge number of skill points they get enough class skills that you can build all kinds of rogues. Sneak attack, evasion and uncanny dodge round out the special ability progression to almost always give something good when you gain a level. The high level special abilities which allow a rogue incentive to not need to multiclass or take prestige classes at high level.

This is the mold all other classes should be recast into.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

Level Adjustments and the ability to play monsters, though not the savage species route.
Unified xp table
All races get a ability point and a feat at a steady rate.
Skills
Vancian magic. Point based mana like stuff should be the psionic area in D&D.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

I noticed the presentation video made a very big deal out of two things.

1.) Re-emphasizing the class niches.

This tends to make me worried that the new edition may put more limitations there in a way I wouldn't be willing to accept in a ruleset. I wouldn't like to see that, it would be like taking a step back toward 2e.

2.) Talking about putting monsters in "appropriate roles"

That one is the one that most worries me the most. I like the 3e monsters, they're interesting and useful for many different roles. More than that if they're talking so much about niches and roles and making things more streamlined it makes me think 4e might use different mechanics for PCs and monsters. Which I just couldn't accept because I don't use the core races often. My settings are populated mostly be weird or monstrous races and if this new edition makes it harder to run monstrous PCs it would simply kill the deal for me.

 

[No Name]

They had better keep monks!

 

[Asmor]

They had better keep monks!

Ack! I don't have a problem with monks in theory, but I think the 3.0 and 3.5 monk classes are just horribly underpowered.

 

[wedgeski]

Ability Scores (not just bonuses), Armor Class (not DR), hit points (not wounds/vitality or any other)
Heavily class-based system (Gotta agree about the Rogue... awesome class)
Tactical combat (yes, mini's-based)