D&D 4E What Rules Do You Want to See in 4E?

[KarinsDad]

Ya know, a lot of the stuff people are mentioning could be fixed by expanding and unifying the skill system, bringing in more of the disparate systems in play and making them skills.

For instance, caster level. Let's kill it and make it a skill, roll it into concentration. Whenever you cast a spell, you roll your concentration skill to determine how awesome the effects are. Since it's the same skill, it stacks between classes.

While we're at it, kill the BAB and turn it into a set of separate skills for a handful of weapon groups. Most or all weapon skills are cross-class for the wizard, several are class for the rogue, and all are class + a class bonus for fighter types. Obviously this requires some balancing and testing, at the very least fighters are going to need more skill points to cover a range of weaponry as needed.

Possibly even a dodge and toughness AC bonus could be granted by skills, perhaps rolled at initiative once per combat, in place of the flat DEX to AC that's currently in place, allowing defense to more easily keep pace with offense simply because they both work off exactly the same system, skills.

Actually, I think the game already has too many skills.

And, it has too many feats.

It's possible that mine is a perception based on the fact that most PCs do not get very many feats or skill points in the current rules.


I prefer more combat maneuvers instead of more skills.

I prefer more generic feats (as opposed to the plethora of specific feats we currently have). For example, let's create one called Combat Fighting. The PC gets +1 which he can add to offense, or add to defense. Improved Combat Fighting could be +2 to offense, +1 to offense and defense, or +2 to defense. This type of feat could replace Point Blank Shot, Dodge, Weapon Focus, etc. One consistent feat tree as opposed to five disparate feats.

 

[Nail]

I said:

Put off 4e as long as possible, please.

To which you replied:

Why? you absolutely need new splatbooks every month?

......???? Huh??

This reply completely mystifies me. Are you responding to my post, or someone else's?

 

[Felix]

You are very abbrasive. I take high offence to this. No you dont have to agree with my opinion. But this is just a ridiculous statement!

Simply being entitled does not make an opinion well founded, or worthwhile.

I am entitled to the opinion that I should be King of Virginia and drive around in a car made from spinach. My entitlement does not make this opinion valuable; it must be judged on its other merits.

So when I say yes, you are entitled to your opinion like everyone is, it means that your opinion is still open to scrutiny. And when you accuse Hasbro of being "sell sell selly", and a major reason that Hasbro owns the franchise now is because TSR drove DnD into the ground with the exact same mindset (without the product quality), there seems to be an inconsistency.

And to insult my opinion because its not "well founded"? Thats overly ignorant!

It is "ignorant" to observe that you hate greed in Hasbro but let TSR greed go unnoticed?

And ignorant is't a very good word in this circumstance; not to mention its buzz-word characteristic these days. Presumptuous is more appropriate.

You may not have liked second edition,

This is not about me, it's about how you stated your entitled opinion.

How can you tell me my preference for playing one or another however, is unfounded?

I did not accuse your preferences of being unfounded. Nor did I accuse anything of being unfounded; I observed that entitlement does not guarantee well-foundedness, which it does not, and which you seemed to claim when you said, "My opinion, I'm entitled to it, you won't change my mind."

At which point I noted that your cited distaste for Hasbro was a quality possessed in remarkable amounts by TSR. If it is greed, or whatever, that you don't like, then it suprises me that you dislike it so much in Hasbro but disregard it in TSR. This inconsistency stands out.

If you'd like to resolve the inconsistency about why TSR greed was OK and Hasbro greed is bad, by all means; your argument may have merit.

Who are you to suggest that my opinion is not well founded when it is entirely based on what I find more entertaining to me?

You are free to enjoy skydiving; but to say that you do, and then say that you don't like jumping off the high dive at the pool because you're afraid of heights, seems fairly odd. For surely skydiving has more heights involved to be afraid of than a diving board. Perhaps there is an explanation, but until it is sounded out it seems inconsistent. As does an argument running: "Hasbro greed is bad, but TSR greed gets a pass".

If you'd like to clarify the difference between your feelings toward Hasbro and TSR greed, by all means.

 

[bestone]

If you'd like to resolve the inconsistency about why TSR greed was OK and Hasbro greed is bad, by all means; your argument may have merit.

Im not, nor did i ever try arguing anything with you, I stated my opinion and you insulted me for it, thanks. I never stated tsr was less greedy, I stated i dont like what hasbro is doing to the game because of thier greed.

My opinion is not all about greed vs greed, like i stated in my posts, it encompasses many other things. If you read my last post you'd see that. Besides, I never said hasbro was less greedy than tsr, thats an assumption you made. I simply stated I dont like thier corporateness, and what that has done to the game (ala, craploads of prestige classes). Tsr may have been greedy, but at least i found most of the information in the books they printed worthwile. While in the hasbro books you may end up buying a book for one or two pages of information (and this is all subjective and my opinion). Im not going to thread jack and argue with you about preference for entertainment about this.

And like i said, it mostly has to do with the fact, i dont like a lot of what they did with 3rd. The streamlining of the edition is excellent. Yay @ bab and not thaco!. But IF there has to be a new edition. I'd like to see what someone else could do with it.

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

The first rule of 4e is there is no 4e.

 

[Nail]

But IF there has to be a new edition. I'd like to see what someone else could do with it.

...I'm just hoping there doesn't "have to be" a new edition" anytime soon. How 'bout 2012? I could live with that.

 

[Umbran]

Certainly you are entitled to an opinion. So is a 5-year-old child. His entitlement does not mean his opinion is well founded, however.

You are entitled to an opinon. You are not entitled to express it in an insulting manner on these boards. Likening the opinions of your fellow users to those of five-year olds is not civil, and your opinion that it is okay, or even a strong rhetorical tactic, is not well-founded. Please reconsider it before you post in this thread again.

That goes for everyone - respect your fellow posters, and their opinions, even as you disagree with them. If you cannot do that, please don't post.

 

[bestone]

...I'm just hoping there doesn't "have to be" a new edition" anytime soon. How 'bout 2012? I could live with that.

Lol

Your right ,there doesnt have to be, this edition is not broken or stale to the point where something new is absolutely needed.

Its just massive rumours going around, wizards has even denied a new edition. I think if anything they might come out with a 3.x book, a rules revision book. They would probably stand more to gain from this too, pop out 2 new core books (a revised phb and dmg) and keep pumping out the splatbooks. They are still selling like hotcakes, so no point in making them invalid yet.

 

[Nail]

Your right ,there doesnt have to be, this edition is not broken or stale to the point where something new is absolutely needed.

Exactly.

But as you say, the issue isn't "the 3.xe system doesn't work". The issue really is "the 3.xe system isn't making enough money".

 

[Goblyn]

I am entitled to the opinion that I should be King of Virginia and drive around in a car made from spinach.

sigged.