D&D 4E What 'new' rules would you like to see in 4e?

[xnosipjpqmhd]

A rules-lite or "basic" version of the game that's just as balanced and well-integrated, such that published modules can be run rules-lite or rules-heavy and still be 4e either way.

 

[The Ubbergeek]

Flaws, background benefits, and stunts.

It's hard to balance and not min-max a flaws/qualities system.

 

[WayneLigon]

Some means for wizards to duel each other with magic.

 

[Grossout]

A rules-lite or "basic" version of the game that's just as balanced and well-integrated, such that published modules can be run rules-lite or rules-heavy and still be 4e either way.

QFT

Amen.

 

[Hella_Tellah]

Vehicle/Steed/Engine rules for those of us who don't do 90% of our adventuring in dungeons. I'd love for mounted combat to be something that could be treated as a -normal- thing to do for all classes. Obviously, rogues wouldn't be at their best on horseback... until they started leaping from their saddle into the enemy's saddle for sweet sweet stabbing. And, of course, gotta have a wizard riding golem-back for a drive-by Fireball.

3D combat. We have flight, we have swimming, we have things somewhere in between, like mobile terrain (there had better be mobile terrain). When I first saw the virtual tabletop, the first question I asked was "Will this be 3D for aerial combat?" and I was greatly saddened when the answer was no. But the rules need to support it and plan for it.

Seconded. 3D battles and mounted combat are two things that are simultaneously incredibly sweet (conceptually) and incredibly tedious (mechanically). I want to run a really good mounted combat so flippin' badly, and at higher levels, every battle is a 3D battle.

 

[Rechan]

Some means for wizards to duel each other with magic.

This would be sweet.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I'd like a more unified and simple mechanic for distinguishing maneuverability than the flight maneuverability system from 3E.

Overall, it just bugs me that the old flight maneuverability system was both unique to flight (why not have swimming maneuverability, or even ground maneuverability?) and overly complex (that table was a nightmare). There are two solutions: either get rid of maneuverability altogether (and assume that all flight works the same for all characters), or make it so the same rules can be applied for maneuverability for all kinds of movement. Either way, differing levels of maneuverability should add something to the game, not just add complexity.

I'd make it so that there are at most three or so maneuverability types (clumsy, normal, and agile), and create simple rules for how they work. Maybe it would be something like this: clumsy can only move in straight lines, normal works like current ground movement movement, and agile enables movement both before and after an attack.

Based on the Pit Fiend entry having a maneuverability rating on his flight speed, though, I am not hopeful. I just hope the nightmare chart isn't back.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'd like a more unified and simple mechanic for distinguishing maneuverability than the flight maneuverability system from 3E.

God yeah. Another terrible copy + paste job from previous editions.

I'd simplify it further. There are really only two kinds of flyers - those that can hover in place like insects and hummingbirds and those that can't. You don't need to distinguish between manticores and pegasi. Those that can hover have the feat Hover. Flyers that lack this feat have to spend at least a move action flying each round they want to remain airborne. That's it. Bin turn modes and anything else.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Nice one, Lackhand.

 

[Clavis]

Once and for all, shield rules that really reflect how valuable shields actually were in hand-to-hand combat.

The historical fighting style of an otherwise unarmored warrior with a shield should be a reasonable choice under the rules.