What scale of changes and changes themselves would you find acceptable?

[Roman]

Regardless of the timing, there will eventually be a 4th Edition of D&D. So my question is what scale of changes would you be willing to accept (or perhaps even wish for, depending on your point of view) in the switch to 4E? If you wish to specify the specific changes feel free to do so. (I have a special question on ability scores, since it is an interesting topic and I am not sure where to peg it in terms of significance.)

Here are the poll options:

(Note: Option 'no changes' is purposefully not included, because there will definitely be some changes in the switch to 4E.)

Ability Scores: Special question - change the number of ability scores (e.g. split wisdom into perception and willpower; split dexterity into agility and dexterity)

Insignificant Changes: Few balance tweaks here and there (e.g. changing the bonus some feats and abilities provide)
Miniscule Changes: Addition/removal of new standardly addable elements (e.g. addition of new feats and/or prestige classes)
Minor Changes: Some rebalancing of but without change, removal or introduction of major concepts (e.g. switching BAB progressions or hit dice of classes)
Small Changes: Addition/removal of relatively significant abilities (e.g. removal of rage ability from the barbarian)
Moderate Changes: Addition/removal of relatively important elements to the game (e.g. addition or removal of certain classes; a new skill/proficiency system
Large Changes: Addition/Removal of significant elements of the game (e.g. the removal of the feat system; or the introduction of a new major system)
Huge Changes: Transformational change to the core mechanics of the game (e.g. switch from the d20 mechanic to a 3d6 mechanic...)
Enormous Changes: A change that changes the fundamental nature of the game (e.g. rescaling of the game [e.g. ability scores go from 30 to 180 instead of from 3 to 18]; switch from a class-based/level-based system of character creation and advancement)
Ultimate Changes: Anything goes (Anything at all can be changed)

 

[pogre]

Ultimate changes - just be creative! I can always go back to 3E, just as others have returned to earlier editions of D&D today.

 

[A'koss]

I'm willing to tolerate a fairly significant amount of change (let's call it 'Large/Huge Changes') if WotC were to come up with something truly innnovative and groundbreaking. However, I would still like to be able to recognize it as D&D. If it were a completely different game - go ahead and publish it, just don't call it D&D.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I voted large changes.
There seems little point just making cosmetic changes. However, a lot of the design philosophy should be kept as it's right on the money in my opinion. Get rid of feats, skills and class abilities and just replace them with "abilities". Simplify, modularize but empower.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[A'koss]

Regarding Ability Scores, I do agree something should be done to better balance their value, I just haven't seen a solution yet I'm really sold on.

 

[Nyeshet]

3E was basically a Large change - bordering on a Huge change. The Vancian magic is still there, the skills have a precedent in the proficiencies system, etc. The move to 3.5e, however, was more of a Minor change (although I would not be too surprised if some stated it to be a Small change instead). I think I can take another change within that range / continuum, so I marked both and all in-between.

I would not mind a complete removal of the Vancian system for a system akin to Elements of Magic - either Revised or Mythic Earth (ie: mana point based or skill based). I would not mind if combat became opposed skill checks using weapon groups and a Dodge or Parry skill. I would not mind if armor became a combination of low DR/- and a low deflection bonus (thus not stacking with other such deflection bonuses - just providing the benefits of DR/- in those instances). In fact, I wouldn't mind if Natural Armor either became that - or became akin to a barbarian's DR/-. I wouldn't mind a change in the classes akin to what is found in d20 modern - ultimate customization without penalty but still including / requiring levels. I wouldn't mind if the saves were increased - splitting Fort into Endurance (str) and Fortitude (con) and Will into Perception (wis) and willpower (cha). I wouldn't mind moving into a Wound / Vitality system (although a bit different from what is in the UA) or adding a sanity save (a la Ravenloft - not eh d% sanity point system from CoC).

Those are about the limits of what I am willing to accept. I do not want a pure point system; I do not want a removal of the level(ing) system. I do not want a scrapping of the feat or skill system. I do not want to remove / add abilities (such as splitting Wisdom or removing Cha) - although as already mentioned I wouldn't mind it if the saves made more sense in where they were placed or were even expanded in number to underscore this sense.

I can accept another revision - a change little greater than the difference between 3.0 and 3.5 - so long as notable and understandable changes are made to the system, something too major for a mere rules update in a faq or erratta (such as with polymorph).

I can accept a large revision that uses many elements of the current system but keeps an intact core, such as the revision from AD&D 2nd to 3.0E - especially if it utilizes the changes suggested in the first paragraph above, but a complete change - for instance to a levelless point based system - would be far far too much. At least keep the d20 mechanic, the skill and feat system, the core ability scores, and at least the three current saves (although some alterations / additions to the last is permissable).

 

[EyeontheMountain]

What I would like to see changed

No classes, but arc hetypes and suggested skill sets that simulate classes.

A new magic system. It is the oldest part of the rules now, and the least changed.

More freedom in character making, especially for spellcasters. They get the short end of multiclassing now.

But hey, no new ideas here

So for the most important change, it needs to ahve soem new ideas. I would be satisfied with a 2E-3E change, but not a 3E-3.5E change. I would prefer a larger change than 2E-3E though

 

[Li Shenron]

I voted Moderate, Large & Huge.

If 4E only does lesser changes than these, then it means it's another revision, and not a new edition, and as such it would be largely unnecessary (not that a new edition is necessary...).

OTOH, changes that would alter the nature of D&D would be unacceptable.

 

[Nyeshet]

Regarding Ability Scores, I do agree something should be done to better balance their value, I just haven't seen a solution yet I'm really sold on.

Hmm, I hadn't really thought about rebalancing the ability scores. It would be difficult, as they are abitrary demarkations of often abstract aspects of our bodies. Constitution, for instance, grants bonus hit points - a purely arbitrary and abstract form of 'health.' It may reflect our immune system, our ability to hold our breath, our resistance to system shock (ie: Fort saves), but Concentration really has nothing to do with it and should instead be relagated to Will saves or perhaps made a Wis or Cha based skill. (Of course, I think Will saves should be Cha based unless being used in for disbelieving illusions or other perception based saves.)

Thus, I can see de-powering rather than a more "balancing" em-powering of it.

Dexterity deals with movement; I often view it as dealing with the Nervous system. Most physical skills utilized by humans deal with movement in some form. Only those purely of movement - whose 'skill' might perhaps be considered more a measure of prolonged endurance - such as climbing, swiming, etc - are typically granted to Strength (muscle based). Otherwise I cannot see granting strength any more skills. As it is, Strength's dominance in melee combat is questionable at best. I would go so far as to state that except for two handed weapons one should perhaps use whichever is higher - which would in effect increase the power of Dex at the expence of Str.

Cha is often seen as useless unless you are often using social skills (intrigue campaigns, for instance), a sorcerer or other innate magic user, or often utilize special abilties that make use of Cha (such as turning, divine grace, etc). All in all, it is the will power, stubbornness, "I will wrest control of my environment by sheer force of will!" type of ability.

I think that - as they currently stand - Cha, Wis, Dex, and Str are about balanced with each other - with Str perhaps falling slightly behind, maybe. Int is nearly in balance - its utility in determining skill points is of notable importance, although now that in 3.5e magic items no longer affect skill point gain unless permanent (such as a Tome or a Wish, I think) its utility is somewhat diminished. Con is the only ability really falling notably behind, but I do not know what can be done to fix that. Moving towards a Wounds / Vitality system would enhance its power notably (at the cost of Str, so then we would need to find a way to increase the utility of Str - perhaps giving it its own save? an Endurance save, thus weakening Fort slightly, but would that notably reduce the power of Con? I don't think so, but this may need some more consideration . . .). All in all, a shift to a Wounds / Vitality system would aid Con, but perhaps replace its lower position with Strength (oddly enough, as it is considered one of the most potent by developers - requiring a sacrifice of two mental ability scores).

 

[Nyeshet]

What I would like to see changed

No classes, but arc hetypes and suggested skill sets that simulate classes.

Sounds a bit like Iron Heroes - or perhaps Castles and Crusaders (I think it is called, as I have not played it nor read its book, yet). You might want to consider giving those 3rd party books a glance.

A new magic system. It is the oldest part of the rules now, and the least changed.

More freedom in character making, especially for spellcasters. They get the short end of multiclassing now.

Elements of Magic, Revised (a point based system) or Elements of Magic, Mythic Earth (a skill based system) might aid you in this.

I agree with your thoughts on the vancian magic system. In a couple different threads recently it was pointed out that technically - considering its power - Protection from <alignment> should be a third or fourth level spell - and the others its its series (magic circle against <al>, <al> word, <al> shield, etc) should similarly be bumped up a level or two. Another recent thread (still on going, I think) has pointed out that Magic Missile should perhaps be bumped up a level. The problem is that there is no set system for spell creation (as would be the case in a point based or a DC / skill based system). As such, balance is entirely guess-work, and when spells make the transition from one system to another, sometimes they are placed at the wrong level, as the change in mechanics makes some of their aspects too strong or too weak in the current system.

If I recall correctly, 3.5e changed the levels of several spells. It also tried to 'balance' the 8 schools of magic - often with arguable results. Healing is now conjuration (although transformation or necromancy - its original school - better suit it). I once did a major survey of the divination spells, and I found that less than a half-dozen could not be readily placed in another school - meaning that a bit of minor DM house-ruling could completely knock out an entire school of magic - placing arcane eyes in conjuration, for example. Then there is the fact that at high levels two of the schools are more or less non-existant anyway: Illusions and Enchantments. Both can be stopped by a single continuous active magic item (True Seeing, Mind Blank). The whole magic system is out of wack and needs major revision, but many of the developers seem to like it - or at least consider it a sacred cow, not to be dismissed as then the game would not be 'true' D&D.

On the other hand, we've seen their (poor) attempts at creating other systems: the point system in UA, highly limited / focused Warlock, etc. Only - arguably - with the psions are they coming closer to a true point based system, but I can see them using that specific arguement against forming a magic point based system (ie: it will be too much like psionics, no longer really magic). That's not true, but I wouldn't wonder if I saw that arguement.

A skill based system - to compliment the d20 system - would be nice, but short of copy right enfringement against "Elements of Magic, Mythic Earth" I don't see that happening either. The latter has been put to the test, various minor changes made here and there to better make it work and in balance, etc. Creating another skill based system similar to it without being too similar would be difficult - and if you risk balance or simplicity just to avoid being too similar to a system that already works then you're sabotaging the concept before it has a chance to take off.

I wouldn't mind a new system of magic for 4e, but I doubt we'll see one.