What do you wish was in D&D that isn't?

[Intense_Interest]

small pumpkin man, you may be the catalyst that is finally letting me crystallize a notion that's been at the back of my head...

3.X = MtG

4Ed = Portal

What?

No, no, please, go on.

 

[Darrin Drader]

For starters:
- Barbarian, Bard, Druid and Monk in the PHB

I don't really miss them and I'm fairly happy they were dropped. Barbarian was a misnomer. It was more of a berzerker. Druids were nothing but an ongoing rules argument that lasted for years, and the monk (at least for me) seemed kind of out of place. I feel that it would have worked just as well as a custom build of another class.

- Gnomes and Half Orcs in the PHB

I never really got the gnome, but I totally agree about the half-orc.

- d20M style talent/bonus feat trees

That would be a real turn-off for me, frankly.

- More starting bonus feats based on the initial class with starting armor and weapon profiencies taken as player choices rather than assigned.

The explosion of feats is actually something I'm glad they toned down with 4E.

- Book of Iron Might style maneuvers and build maneuvers system

Again, that would have been a real turn off for me. It was a neat idea, but I didn't like how it actually played. I'm glad they left that out.

- Daily Use Item rules that make sense logically

That wouldn't bother me much.

- The lack of +1/2 level bonus

I actually like that mechanic because it tones down the BAB explosion we saw with some classes in 3.x.

I think what this shows is that you and I are probably on the opposite ends of the spectrum in terms of what we enjoy in RPGs, which means that Wizards might have actually gotten a few things right by taking the happy middleground approach that they took.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What?

No, no, please, go on.

Portal was a rules-light version of MtG, quite playable in its own right, but somewhat truncated in certain ways.

4Ed strikes me the same way- its a decent game, but some of what I'm looking for (as a player and DM) is simply not there.

In no way am I implying, though, that 4Ed will die with a whimper like Portal did. Portal was designed as an entry level version of MtG, with minimal marketing, etc. In contrast, 4Ed was designed from the word "Go!" as a full-on 3.X replacement, complete with a full arsenal of marketing tools thrown behind it (including the cessation of production of 3.X).

 

[Intense_Interest]

Portal was a rules-light version of MtG, quite playable in its own right, but somewhat truncated in certain ways.

4Ed strikes me the same way- its a decent game, but some of what I'm looking for (as a player and DM) is simply not there.

In no way am I implying, though, that 4Ed will die with a whimper like Portal did. Portal was designed as an entry level version of MtG, with minimal marketing, etc. In contrast, 4Ed was designed from the word "Go!" as a full-on 3.X replacement, complete with a full arsenal of marketing tools thrown behind it (including the cessation of production of 3.X).

Man, I thought you were talking about "the Cake is a Lie" Portal.

And Portal had a swath of rule-follies (such as special-use sorceries to act like MtG instants and the like) that 4E took pains to kill (Turn Undead-like subsystems). Which is why it died and was useless, because it was trying to be both a simpler game on its own and an introduction to a more complex game that the design's Point of View was based on (Giant Growth surprises, Fog to halt combat, Counterspell).

Its more like 4E is the Basic Set (like alpha or beta), and you're waiting for them to come out with expansions (like Arabian Nights).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Man, I thought you were talking about "the Cake is a Lie" Portal.

Whoooooooo!

I can see how that would be confusing!

Portal had a swath of rule-follies

Some would say 4Ed has its own that may not survive into 5th.

When I brought my 4Ed Core 3 to my game group of the past decade, I passed it around. Most of these guys are veteran RPG gamers (12+ years experience) and computer gamers (and programmers- some for game companies) to boot.

One of the first questions asked was whether 4Ed had an "Aggro" system, which I asked them to define. When I read them the text of the Fighter's and Paladin's "marking" systems, the response was a chorus of "blech." Some even refused to crack the books after that.

Its more like 4E is the Basic Set (like alpha or beta), and you're waiting for them to come out with expansions (like Arabian Nights).

Mmmmm- not from my perspective.

Besides the obvious stuff- classes and races that are being shunted to later products, alignment, multiclassing- I'm looking for stuff that was in the core of previous sets that is simply absent, like unique item creation rules.

And those were extant in each previous edition's DMG, but completely lacking from 4Ed so far. The Ritual in 4Ed merely lets you create items analogous to those already in print- there are no guidelines to go beyond that point.

Including some simple guidelines (not actual rules, even!) in an area like this would have gone a long way towards helping players like me- those involved in long-running campaigns- make the transition. Especially when you consider how many unusual or unique items can accumulate in a campaign of even modest length.

 

[Intense_Interest]

Some would say 4Ed has its own that may not survive into 5th.

Well of course. Ladyhawke's synth-soundtrack was considered cutting-edge and the future of film scoring at one point as well.

Mmmmm- not from my perspective.

Besides the obvious stuff- classes and races that are being shunted to later products, alignment, multiclassing- I'm looking for stuff that was in the core of previous sets that is simply absent, like unique item creation rules.

And those were extant in each previous edition's DMG, but completely lacking from 4Ed so far. The Ritual in 4Ed merely lets you create items analogous to those already in print- there are no guidelines to go beyond that point.

Including some simple guidelines (not actual rules, even!) in an area like this would have gone a long way towards helping players like me- those involved in long-running campaigns- make the transition. Especially when you consider how many unusual or unique items can accumulate in a campaign of even modest length.

Yet some Magic players would consider things like "Cantrips" or "Hybrid" or "Phasing" (okay not phasing) to be core to the greater Magic experience, but you'll never see that in the Serra Angels and Shock sets.

Basically, things like creating new traps and new magic items are expansions to a game that is in a distilled form of "Kill things and take their Stuff." Same goes for creatures like Slivers or mechanics like Echo- when really the game is about "dueling your opponent with magic", additive concepts are something to be sold extra instead of spliced in.

Yeah, there are a lot of widgets and guidelines that could be included in a larger DMG for an even greater experience, but you have to sell those later books somehow. And unless we can prove that certain concepts are intractable, the conversation becomes a taste-based conclusion, like choosing your favorite edition or your favorite Dr. Who series always is.