Brennin Magalus
First Post
Actually, there is no "spell memorization" in 3.x edition. Casters prepare spells in the current edition.
D&D 4E What I'd Like to See in D&D® 4e
- Thread starter mythusmage
- Start date
spider_minion
First Post
A base defense bonus, and AC that isn't so reliant on magic items. Perhaps include rules for other defensive actions, like parries.
Less magic item slots, and items that are more interesting / potent. Limit things that increase stats, AC, and saves. (In my experience, players load up on these and ignore everything else).
Condensed skills, and a smaller skill list.
Classes that are more flexable. I'd like to see them resemble the classes from d20 Modern or Arcana Unearthed in the way that you can choose some of your class abilities. New power choices could be introduced instead of making a prestige class for everything.
A totally revised magic system. I'd like to see the save-or-sink spells limited by hit dice (like how sleep works) so that really tough monsters arn't taken out with a single failed save. I'd also like high-level casters to be more managable--maybe smaller lists of prepared spells, but the spells themselves could be scaled up for more powerful casters. I think the Expanded Psionics Handbook system would be a great place to start.
Given that I love Arcana Unearthed, though, I can certainly wait.
Less magic item slots, and items that are more interesting / potent. Limit things that increase stats, AC, and saves. (In my experience, players load up on these and ignore everything else).
Condensed skills, and a smaller skill list.
Classes that are more flexable. I'd like to see them resemble the classes from d20 Modern or Arcana Unearthed in the way that you can choose some of your class abilities. New power choices could be introduced instead of making a prestige class for everything.
A totally revised magic system. I'd like to see the save-or-sink spells limited by hit dice (like how sleep works) so that really tough monsters arn't taken out with a single failed save. I'd also like high-level casters to be more managable--maybe smaller lists of prepared spells, but the spells themselves could be scaled up for more powerful casters. I think the Expanded Psionics Handbook system would be a great place to start.
Given that I love Arcana Unearthed, though, I can certainly wait.
Personally, I think I'd like a few more years to play around with 3.x before I even consider what I want to see in 4.0. I think I definitely have to agree with what I saw earlier in references to 2010 and 2012.
(OT: I remember playing a few games in the past where 2010 was in the title and was referencing a year way off in the future. Wow. What a smash on the ego realizing that was coming up soon that was.)
(OT: I remember playing a few games in the past where 2010 was in the title and was referencing a year way off in the future. Wow. What a smash on the ego realizing that was coming up soon that was.)
Tav_Behemoth
First Post
Mouseferatu said:"© 2012, Wizards of the Coast."
Also, "By BLAH, BLAH, and Ari Marmell."
Dude, you're not squeezing nearly enough points from your Megalomania disadvantage!
Here's what I'd like to see:
"D&D 4E is a registered trademark of Wizards of the Coast. Wizards of the Coast is a registered trademark of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. Hasbro, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Behemoth3, Inc."
We will, of course, be benevolent rulers, implementing all the suggestions in this thread (even the contradictory ones) and offering Mr. Marmell a contract the likes of which are rarely seen outside of professional sports.
(The plan to make this happen is via blackmail with Supernova Man, whose one-shot power is balanced by the disadvantage of being brain-dead and completely dependent on life support...)
FireLance
Legend
Spell access. A Clr10/Wiz10 will only have access to 5th-level cleric spells and 5th-level wizard spells. It's the difference between raise dead and true resurrection, or dominate person and dominate monster. Rather, to be exact, it's the difference between raise dead plus dominate person and true resurrection or dominate monster.broghammerj said:
If you'd like to discuss the balance issues further, we could start another thread instead of continuing to hijack this one.
Ranger REG
Explorer
Well, unless you allow such spellcaster to cast as many spells as a fighter could swing a sword, otherwise, with only limited use, they have to use the spells sparingly. IOW, they have to find the opportunity to cast it or else they would have waste it. Hence the Spells per Day need changing.Tarrasque Wrangler said:
Ranger REG
Explorer
Depends on which size? Human-size? They do 1d8 upon a successful non-critical hit, plus Str bonus x 1.5. Just difficult to swing them.broghammerj said:
This eliminate the unnecessary weapon proficiencies for say a Titan wizard. I mean, what is colossal equivalent of a simple Dagger? That martial Greatsword?
In fact, they should expand the weapon table to include other damage by size, even though the core rules allow only small and medium-sized PC race options.
Last edited:
reanjr
First Post
I don't want Wizards assuming something about how my campaign works. This is for things like [Good] and [Evil] descriptors, the fact that magic must be prepared, that wands are designed to hold multiple charges of a single spell, that there is a single language all evil outsiders share, that my campaign involves extraplanar locations, etc.
I'd also like a better toolbox approach. The current approach is to have a drill available at one store, while the bits are available at another, the power adapter at a third, and the bolts only available by mail order.
I'd rather see packages of rules that could be chosen for a particular campaign to create a certain flavor. For example, if one were to do this with spells:
You might have a core spell list, another one including spells that were flashy (in case you would like an invisible magic system), a small set for teleportation magic, another one for uber-divination spells, etc. Each of these spells would have a difficulty and a list of optional material components to decrease the difficulty if you would like to use that rule. May of them would have variations which increased or decreased the difficulty (I've heard Arcana Unearthed has something like this, but from what I've seen, I'm thinking a bit more elaborate, like sleep being the same spell as nightmare).
No assumption would be made about how spells are learned, prepared, or cast. There would be no read magic, because magic might be able to be read by all or there may be no written form, or it may simply require years of study (a feat). They would not have a level because then you are telling me how they are cast and prepared. The magic system I choose will detail how to treat the difficulty levels, caster levels, DCs, etc.
Every subsystem of the game (armor, weapons, combat maneuvers, class abilities, hit points and dying, etc.) would have similar option packages with information on how to integrate them. The hit points and dying rules might have the healing spells in them, for instance. You wouldn't find them on the core list because they may not apply to the game as you play it.
This is not as hard as it may seem at first. I'm working on something right now that integrates many of these ideas, though mine isn't designed for a class system.
Campaign Settings could give you a 1 page brief on which rules packages define the setting.
I also want to see more book integration, and better reference design principles. If I get a book detailing new skills, I want it retrofitted with all the other books you've produced so far, not just the books that are supposed to have temporal synergestic marketing (Expanded Psionics Handbook and Eberron for instance). This would have an added benefit of making the books more focused on their topic and giving us an extra assurance that the developers actually have read the rules of the game they are working on (not something I'm too sure about sometimes). Since everything is in packages, errata for something never needs to appear for multiple books. Just the book the rule came from. I want a set of icons that quickly sets off what I am looking at. If I am reading a spell that is designed to work with the traditional hit point subsystem, I want there to be an icon that indicates that this spells use is determined by choice of health system. Or have the spell have the icon bullet off the sections that apply to each health system.
Basically I want a game that I couldn't produce due to its absolute polish and integration. Something I would never have the time to do. Because otherwise, why wouldn't I just do it myself?
And I want books that have an organizational level that exceeds that of the Word documents sitting on my hard drive. Because I can take those any time, mark them up with a bit of XML and get a reference that is leaps and bounds beyond anything Wizards has ever produced.
Why is it that I have the tools and time to do these things and they don't? I want a 4e that can answer that question.
I'd also like a better toolbox approach. The current approach is to have a drill available at one store, while the bits are available at another, the power adapter at a third, and the bolts only available by mail order.
I'd rather see packages of rules that could be chosen for a particular campaign to create a certain flavor. For example, if one were to do this with spells:
You might have a core spell list, another one including spells that were flashy (in case you would like an invisible magic system), a small set for teleportation magic, another one for uber-divination spells, etc. Each of these spells would have a difficulty and a list of optional material components to decrease the difficulty if you would like to use that rule. May of them would have variations which increased or decreased the difficulty (I've heard Arcana Unearthed has something like this, but from what I've seen, I'm thinking a bit more elaborate, like sleep being the same spell as nightmare).
No assumption would be made about how spells are learned, prepared, or cast. There would be no read magic, because magic might be able to be read by all or there may be no written form, or it may simply require years of study (a feat). They would not have a level because then you are telling me how they are cast and prepared. The magic system I choose will detail how to treat the difficulty levels, caster levels, DCs, etc.
Every subsystem of the game (armor, weapons, combat maneuvers, class abilities, hit points and dying, etc.) would have similar option packages with information on how to integrate them. The hit points and dying rules might have the healing spells in them, for instance. You wouldn't find them on the core list because they may not apply to the game as you play it.
This is not as hard as it may seem at first. I'm working on something right now that integrates many of these ideas, though mine isn't designed for a class system.
Campaign Settings could give you a 1 page brief on which rules packages define the setting.
I also want to see more book integration, and better reference design principles. If I get a book detailing new skills, I want it retrofitted with all the other books you've produced so far, not just the books that are supposed to have temporal synergestic marketing (Expanded Psionics Handbook and Eberron for instance). This would have an added benefit of making the books more focused on their topic and giving us an extra assurance that the developers actually have read the rules of the game they are working on (not something I'm too sure about sometimes). Since everything is in packages, errata for something never needs to appear for multiple books. Just the book the rule came from. I want a set of icons that quickly sets off what I am looking at. If I am reading a spell that is designed to work with the traditional hit point subsystem, I want there to be an icon that indicates that this spells use is determined by choice of health system. Or have the spell have the icon bullet off the sections that apply to each health system.
Basically I want a game that I couldn't produce due to its absolute polish and integration. Something I would never have the time to do. Because otherwise, why wouldn't I just do it myself?
And I want books that have an organizational level that exceeds that of the Word documents sitting on my hard drive. Because I can take those any time, mark them up with a bit of XML and get a reference that is leaps and bounds beyond anything Wizards has ever produced.
Why is it that I have the tools and time to do these things and they don't? I want a 4e that can answer that question.
reanjr
First Post
On a different note, any rule I have to look up every single session (Grapple comes to mind most readily) simply has to be dropped. Sword and Fist should have fixed it. When that didn't happen, 3.5 should have picked up the slack. Lacking that, Complete Warrior certainly should have nipped that in the bud. I am now willing to spend at least $10 on any Wizards book that can actually fix that system. Even if it's only half a page and that's all it covers.
MoogleEmpMog
First Post
I would like to see:
10. Art from the 2e TSR cover artists, or from genuinely unusual line drawing stylists (like the concept artists for Warcraft). I hate the dungeonpunk look, and some of the art just seems technically poor. The latter could be a deadline issue, too, and isn't exclusive to 3e by any means.
9. No core setting influencing the mechanics... or at least options and clear ways to change it. This applies to the classes (paladin, RANGER!), but especially to the races (dwarven giant bonus).
8. A focus in the DMG on non-site-based adventures, or at least on creating more interesting sites. The DMG is the newbie DM's friend, or should be. What I'd call a Final Fantasy mindset as opposed to a Diablo mindset. Interaction, soaring vistas and epic combats, not dungeon crawling and stat mongering. There's a place for the latter, but it takes far less skill to DM well.
7. Base level limit higher than 20, with rules to match. Stretch it to 30, 40, 50 or even 100. Speed up levelling. Spread out the abilities. Just personal preference, here, and almost certainly the least likely of any of these suggestions to see the light of day.
6. If minis support is the way WotC wants to go, non-collectible miniatures of the D&D icons that aren't OGL: the beholder and ilithid, for instance. Also, an integrated scalable ruleset so PCs and NPCs could easily move from battlefield to skirmish to duel and have their individual abilities matter. Something like Suikoden's army battle-party battle-single battle system, but with more attention to the individual PC in army battles.
5. A removal of the "Improved" tree of feats (Sunder, Grapple, Bull Rush, etc.). Those actions should be standard to the combat system.
4. Stronger character abilities, weaker item abilities. Just personal preference: I like to level up fast because I love new abilities, but I loath the idea of getting those abilities from disposable, exchangable items.
3. Actions simplified so that a character gets only two actions per round - or even one action, with rounds becoming 5 seconds rather than 10. Also, attacks of opportunity folded into the action structure.
2. Ability scores removed in favor of ability modifiers. This is a simple way to make the game more intuitive for new players and easier for GMs to prepare, and not really an issue in terms of either the simplicity or complexity of the rules.
1. CHANGE THE MAGIC.
I hate everything about D&D magic, to be quite honest. I'd never play a full caster, and as a GM would at the least strongly, strongly discourage players from playing a full caster if I even allowed D&D magic.
My biggest gripe is that it slows down gameplay. I play with very experienced gamers, yet every spellcaster constantly bogs down combat and even non-combat encounters with reams of book-searching - even with just the PHB spells included. I don't blame my players. There's HUNDREDS of spells in the PHB, about 50% of which are irrelevant variations on the same theme (doing x dice of damage to target y). And those are the simple ones! No one should be expected to memorize or properly note the relevant information from a hundred, often complex, spells.
The arcane/divine divide is a sacred cow. I don't like it, since it doesn't gel with really any pre-D&D fantasy I can think of, but I can accept it. Throw psionics in, too. Personally, I'd like to see all three be purely cosmetic distinctions.
In terms of solutions, I would essentially scrap the existing magic in favor of the psionic system. The 3.5 psionics rules seem vastly more elegant; certainly the psions I've seen in have played smoothly, efficiently and effectively without the need to constantly reference their book(s). It's not the players, since they've also played spellcasters.
Now, from a flavor perspective, magic works in medieval settings; to many people (myself somewhat included), psionics doesn't. A 'psion' is a sorcerer IMC. He's an "arcane" spellcaster. He's decent even with his natural still/silent spell stripped from him, if that's your bag.
D&D's spellcasting sacred cows were also allowed to drive the power curve of 3e, although the other classes don't follow it precisely. Level 1 to level 5 isn't the same as level 10 to level 15. The magic item dependency (particularly of the non-casters) is yet another symptom of spellcasting driving the curve rather than conforming to it.
This is one area where 2e's level structure, god-awful as it was, actually did work better. Wish is still wish, shapechange is still shapechange. 9th-level spells are still the most powerful force in D&D, and they arrive relatively faster in the current XP structure. That means that, rather than getting more hit dice, more skill ranks and a better BAB (in 3e terms), fighters, rogues et al simply get better hit dice, (perhaps) more skill points and a better BAB progression - and some special abilities that are individually often not as good as spells.
I for one would like to see all spellcasting toned down. Clerics with a smattering of buffs and healing can handle themselves with d8 hit dice, good armor, domain powers and two good saves; I'd prefer it if the core arcane spellcaster could do the same. I'd prefer it even more if magic improved like feats and other class features: on a flatter curve, if not a straight diagonal.
10. Art from the 2e TSR cover artists, or from genuinely unusual line drawing stylists (like the concept artists for Warcraft). I hate the dungeonpunk look, and some of the art just seems technically poor. The latter could be a deadline issue, too, and isn't exclusive to 3e by any means.
9. No core setting influencing the mechanics... or at least options and clear ways to change it. This applies to the classes (paladin, RANGER!), but especially to the races (dwarven giant bonus).
8. A focus in the DMG on non-site-based adventures, or at least on creating more interesting sites. The DMG is the newbie DM's friend, or should be. What I'd call a Final Fantasy mindset as opposed to a Diablo mindset. Interaction, soaring vistas and epic combats, not dungeon crawling and stat mongering. There's a place for the latter, but it takes far less skill to DM well.
7. Base level limit higher than 20, with rules to match. Stretch it to 30, 40, 50 or even 100. Speed up levelling. Spread out the abilities. Just personal preference, here, and almost certainly the least likely of any of these suggestions to see the light of day.
6. If minis support is the way WotC wants to go, non-collectible miniatures of the D&D icons that aren't OGL: the beholder and ilithid, for instance. Also, an integrated scalable ruleset so PCs and NPCs could easily move from battlefield to skirmish to duel and have their individual abilities matter. Something like Suikoden's army battle-party battle-single battle system, but with more attention to the individual PC in army battles.
5. A removal of the "Improved" tree of feats (Sunder, Grapple, Bull Rush, etc.). Those actions should be standard to the combat system.
4. Stronger character abilities, weaker item abilities. Just personal preference: I like to level up fast because I love new abilities, but I loath the idea of getting those abilities from disposable, exchangable items.
3. Actions simplified so that a character gets only two actions per round - or even one action, with rounds becoming 5 seconds rather than 10. Also, attacks of opportunity folded into the action structure.
2. Ability scores removed in favor of ability modifiers. This is a simple way to make the game more intuitive for new players and easier for GMs to prepare, and not really an issue in terms of either the simplicity or complexity of the rules.
1. CHANGE THE MAGIC.
broghammerj said:
I hate everything about D&D magic, to be quite honest. I'd never play a full caster, and as a GM would at the least strongly, strongly discourage players from playing a full caster if I even allowed D&D magic.
My biggest gripe is that it slows down gameplay. I play with very experienced gamers, yet every spellcaster constantly bogs down combat and even non-combat encounters with reams of book-searching - even with just the PHB spells included. I don't blame my players. There's HUNDREDS of spells in the PHB, about 50% of which are irrelevant variations on the same theme (doing x dice of damage to target y). And those are the simple ones! No one should be expected to memorize or properly note the relevant information from a hundred, often complex, spells.
The arcane/divine divide is a sacred cow. I don't like it, since it doesn't gel with really any pre-D&D fantasy I can think of, but I can accept it. Throw psionics in, too. Personally, I'd like to see all three be purely cosmetic distinctions.
In terms of solutions, I would essentially scrap the existing magic in favor of the psionic system. The 3.5 psionics rules seem vastly more elegant; certainly the psions I've seen in have played smoothly, efficiently and effectively without the need to constantly reference their book(s). It's not the players, since they've also played spellcasters.
Now, from a flavor perspective, magic works in medieval settings; to many people (myself somewhat included), psionics doesn't. A 'psion' is a sorcerer IMC. He's an "arcane" spellcaster. He's decent even with his natural still/silent spell stripped from him, if that's your bag.
D&D's spellcasting sacred cows were also allowed to drive the power curve of 3e, although the other classes don't follow it precisely. Level 1 to level 5 isn't the same as level 10 to level 15. The magic item dependency (particularly of the non-casters) is yet another symptom of spellcasting driving the curve rather than conforming to it.
This is one area where 2e's level structure, god-awful as it was, actually did work better. Wish is still wish, shapechange is still shapechange. 9th-level spells are still the most powerful force in D&D, and they arrive relatively faster in the current XP structure. That means that, rather than getting more hit dice, more skill ranks and a better BAB (in 3e terms), fighters, rogues et al simply get better hit dice, (perhaps) more skill points and a better BAB progression - and some special abilities that are individually often not as good as spells.
I for one would like to see all spellcasting toned down. Clerics with a smattering of buffs and healing can handle themselves with d8 hit dice, good armor, domain powers and two good saves; I'd prefer it if the core arcane spellcaster could do the same. I'd prefer it even more if magic improved like feats and other class features: on a flatter curve, if not a straight diagonal.
Similar Threads
