What NON-OBVIOUS stuff would you like to see in Revised?

[Shard O'Glase]

Quasi realistic hopes

1. sorcerer better skill list, no need for components.

2. min of 4 skill points for a class.

3. remove paladin/monk multiclass restirciotns

4. remove druid weapon/armor restricitons.

My pipe dream hopes.

1. bring more and more into the skill system, including BAB.

2. remove generalist spellcasters, make all the spellcasters extremely focussed.(you are necromancer, you cast necromancy spells and that's it for example.)

3. remove many of the spells that duplicate other classes abilities, like knock. If a mage wants to get through a door, he/she should teleport past it or blast it off its hinges.

4. improve every classes class skill selection, with a large list of skills that are class skills for everyone.(bare min of profession/craft/perform), make a few more skills exclusive.

Absurd crack dream:which might invalidate some of above.

Drop the game down to 3 classes. Fighter, skill master, spellcaster. Show some classic D&D archtypes, using these classes, through a combinaiton of feats, skills, and multiclassing.

 

[DDK]

I strongly disagree. Spot and Listen are substitutes for the old "reaction adjustments" -- they directly affect surprise. This is one of the keys to the current Ranger's competency.

Cross-class is functional enough when compared to most monsters' and opponents' Hide and Move Silently modifiers. But a Rogue or Ranger (or Bard or Barbarian for Listen) are the ones that will likely spot the really sneaky opponents.

Yeah, I have to go with you on this one. I've heard the arguments for Spot and Listen as class skills dozens of times from players and I always come back at them with the below two responses:

1) A fighter is a fighter, not an adventurer. He is trained to fight, not to look around and to listen. A fight involves an obvious enemy, you don't need to know where he is because he's in front of you, hacking you to pieces. Your job is to hack him back before you fall.

The same goes for every other class without this skill as a class skill. Their focus is not adventuring, but rather their chosen field of excellence, which is why the get what they get and don't get what they don't get.

2) I allow skill swaps. It's in the rules. As long as you justify it in the characters history and tell me which skill your swapping for which skill. My limits are that you shouldn't get a better skill for a lesser skill, so that swapping out Profession for Decipher Script simply won't happen, but swapping out Decipher Script for Scry, is ok.

So what are you whinging about? You want Spot, swap it for Spellcraft... oh, you NEED Spellcraft you say? Gee... what a surprise...

 

[DDK]

I'd like to see some information on creating new spells, spell research, better information about tinkering and making Altered Core Classes.

A better fleshed out CR system. Or, a more indepth way of telling us how to handle CRs. What if you have more then 4 players? Less then? What if your PCs are more stronger then the average 4 players? Weaker?

Yeah, I definitely agree with this one.

 

[maddman75]

I have personally done away with Monk and Paladin MC restrictions and it did not bring my game crashing to the ground. All those restrictions do IMHO is limit interesting character concepts.

What about a Church Inquisitor, searching for corruption in the heriarchy (paladin/rogue)
Or a monk who has magic style abilites from his ki powers?(Monk with sorcerer, psion, or psychic warrior)

I also got rid of the stupid oath for druids. It smacks of 2e. Druids are proficient in the listed weapons. They have spell failure chance in metal armor.

I certianly don't want to see the cleric toned down. Even with all the power they have, most people won't play them. They don't like being toadys to a god.

 

[Fenros]

Heh heh...

I would like to see the weak equipment art removed and replaced with better art.

 

[Xarlen]

Yes, I am. Why should they be different? Unless you have a spell that raises a different type of undead or some sort of background reason (this place is one of ancient power, blah, blah), then there is no justification for a difference.

Because the skeletons in the MM SUCK. You should not have to spend 50gp and a 5th level spell to get a 1/3 CR creature. No. This is too much like 2e's 'All Skeletons are the same, all damage from weapons in a skeleton's hand is the same'. From the way the thing is set up, a 4th level party could mow down a small army of Large Skeletons. There's really no sense in spending the money to animate skeletons, if they're So Easy to take out.

When you animate the skeleton of a Dragon, it should be as Bad Ass as all possible, not the same as a giant's skeleton. A dragon's bones would be tougher, the claws bigger, the teeth nastier. An Umber Holk's claws do more damage, purely due to the SIZE of them.

As to why would a Minotaur gore? Well, why do Humanoid skeletons claw and bite? If a skeleton has a natural tail, with a stinger, would it not use that stinger? Why not? Why are you basing everything off of a Humanoid skeleton, which just has hands and teeth? A hydra doesn't use it's claws because it needs balance, does that mean that a skeletal hydra would use it's claws?

I don't know how you run your games, but Necromancers, and Undead, even Skeletons, should be something to atleast be slightly worried about. Unless you prefer your PCs to yawn at the sight of them.

 

[Kilmore]

Eliminate the need to have items of "masterwork" quality for magical weapons and armor. It would sure be nice to be able to put a 'chantment on that ol' longsword I took into that first dungeon with me when I was just a sprout, but the idiot mage tells me it just won't hold. He says he can blow up a castle, but he can't make my sword magical? (shakes head).

And what the hell good does +1 armor do? It's gotta get a +1 bonus from being masterwork anyways. Not like you get a damage bonus or can use it on damage reduction creatures.

BTW, I'm not sure I'd like to a crossbow.

 

[Oni]

And what the hell good does +1 armor do? It's gotta get a +1 bonus from being masterwork anyways. Not like you get a damage bonus or can use it on damage reduction creatures.

Masterwork armour doesn't provide a +1 to AC, it only reduces the armour check penalty for armour of that type by 1.

 

[Ravellion]

Definitely NOT. Paladin's and monks are powerful and by taking away the one restriction that is based on the system and not the DM's adjudication (which alignment and ethos restrictions are), you're essentially giving players a free-ticket to munch out by taking a few levels of the class for the best benefits.[/]

The fact that they are powerful has nothing to do with it. So are almost 90% of all prestige classes, and they don't even garner XP penalties. But, discounting that even, it doesn't matter because you can already take two levels of paladin then go all the way fighter but get better saves and immunities. The only thing the rules don't allow you to do is multiclass Paladin/cleric 1 for 1 for instance, which would mimick the votary of the old paladins handbook very well. Or the aforementioned rogue paladin - who could be a duelist, using his rapier to uphold the best virtues in an urban renaissance centre. Why not?

Rav

 

[fuindordm]

Very good question, and it's generated a good discussion. But let's be realistic. We already know that the changes have to be minor and backwards compatible--this means adding, not subtracting.

Here's my wish list, although I think that only a couple of these fall into the 'unobvious' category.

1) Make the classes more customizable. Most classes, especially the ones that are very generic in flavor, should have some options for the players to choose from to tweak it a bit.
1a) An option for a scholar-cleric rather than a war cleric (light armor only, more skill points?)
1b) Archer-rangers and urban rangers
1c) Paladins without mounts
1d) Monk abilities --> bonus feats and a menu of high-level powers to select from.

2) Very Minor Tweaks:
2a) Ranger favored enemy damage bonus works for all categories
2b) Monk BAB stacks, but number of unarmed iterative attacks limited by monk level
2c) Druids allowed all hunting weapons (spears, bows, etc.)

3) Rule Changes:
3a) We could use a better grappling system--anything that takes several successful contested rolls is too hard to pull off to be worth trying. Maybe simply allow Improved Grapple as a PC feat?
3b) Bluff (feint) should be opposed by the player's BAB or Sense Motive, whichever is higher.
3c) Tweak a few problem spells

4) Expansions?
4a) Add some pole arm feats (Hold at Bay, Choke Up, Mighty Blow)
4b) Add a Noble class (heroic Aristo), a social-skilly leader with some good fighting skill makes a really good unfilled niche.
4c) Expand the utility of counterspells

If I had my druthers, I would sacrifice the principle of simplicity above all and do the following:

5) STR bonus to hit is only half the bonus to damage, STR can then be put on an equal footing with other stats. It also helps avoid the wierdness that all really big monsters have an easy time hitting the PCs. This would moderate all the attack rolls somewhat, and also bring them closer to the typical AC levels.

6) Make medium and heavy armor more worthwhile by adding small amounts of DR, resistance to critical hits, or some such thing. As it is, the only characters that I see in heavy armor are the ones who have decided to make Dex a dump stat--and there's not much difference between the AC of the tank and the rogue. I also like the sound of Monte Cook's ideas for Arcana Unearthed, that there should be a way to specialize in and get extra benefits from heavy armor.

--Ben