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

What scale of changes would you find acceptable in 4E?


I voted Ultimate Change because I want things that I know I'm not going to get. Vancian magic and Alignments... gone! Perception and Willpower added as attributes. And a bunch of other things that might, or might not, show up. (Which others have mentioned.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I would say that if you[re not going to do at least Huge Change, don't bother with a new Edition. Anything else can be taken care of in optional rules or errata.
 


A minor change would just be annoying. 3 to 3.5 was annoying, doing it again would be more so. 4E should be sufficently different from 3.5 to be a recognisably different animal but at the same time it must still be D&D, which to me means: classes, levels, six ability scores, slot-based magic, arcane-divine magic split, magic items, xp for killing stuff, hp, and armour that makes you harder to hit.

I want to see it rethink things like 3rd edition did, but also retain it's essence.
 


I choose moderate to large, but I probably should have included huge. A new edition should offer something substantial to gamers to change, not really just a step change like we saw in 3.0 to 3.5, it should affect the way people look at the game again.

If they go for the ultimate change, then it's probably a desire to try and new formula, so release it under a new brand.
 

Hm... I'm surprised at the number of respondents that seem willing to put up with a brand new 4th edition that would only make Insignificant, Miniscule or Minor changes. Do we really need another "3.75" edition?

I voted for Huge to Fundamental changes myself. I think D&D is still dragging a lot of baggage around from its early days as the very first RPG. Kinda like a modern car with solid rubber tires and a hand crank. Time to update the system to the new millenium. There's a number of outdated features that most modern RPG's have left behind a long time ago, and a number of novel ideas that have been explored within the larger d20 community.
 

Mr Jack said:
4E should be sufficently different from 3.5 to be a recognisably different animal but at the same time it must still be D&D, which to me means: classes, levels, six ability scores, slot-based magic, arcane-divine magic split, magic items, xp for killing stuff, hp, and armour that makes you harder to hit.

With one exception, I agree very much with Mr. Jack here; that exception being slot-based magic and its corollary annoyance of spell pre-memorization, which is and always has been a very cumbersome way of handling spellcraft. I'd far prefer some sort of spell-point system with at least a part of the s.p. rolled at random a la hit points; the same rationale applies, that not everybody has the same capacity to cast spells even if their intelligence scores etc. happen to match. Then, you can cast x amount of y level spells per day from anything in your spellbook, much like a Sorceror works now except for the spellbook. (nice side-effect here would be that Sorceror could be ditched as a class and folded into Wizard; it's a redundant class if Bards are kept)

I also very much like that Mr. Jack did *not* include as essentials skills (too many, and available to too many classes), feats (annoying, but a powergamer's delight), and other 3.x inventions that have added complication that outweighs the flexibility they also add. Prestige classes are another reasonable idea that has grown into a complete nightmare; at last count there's over 1,000 been published, far too many!

One essential I'd add to Mr. Jack's list is saving throws. That said, the Fort-Will-Refl system is almost too simplistic...some saves should be based on Int. rather than Wis. (e.g. Illusions, charm effects, psyonic attacks, etc.). One basic mechanic that needs to be dug up from the grave is the idea of a save or check being to roll *under* a given stat., e.g. a Dex. check to avoid falling into a pit. Side benefit here is that every point in the stat makes a difference, rather than only even numbers mattering. If your stat is 20 or higher (another gripe; how can what starts as a 3-18 bell curve lead to so many characters constantly having at least one stat in the low-mid 20's?) then a 20 always fails.

One other thing that has slowly been becoming more important over time, and that needs to Go Away, is spell schools (the old-timer in me says "other than Illusion", but I'd like to see Illusionist become its own class again) particularly as applied to divine magic. By all means, though, keep spells somewhat deity-specific.

I could go on...and on, and on...but instead I'll simply congratulate you if you've read this far, and carry on ranting some other time. :)

Lanefan
 

Another ultimate vote. Don't restrict the creative process. A change in one area may make a change in another area that seemed good make more sense that before the first one was conceived.
 

Put me down for Ultimate changes. After investing years of my life and hundreds of dollars in 3.0/3.5 books, nothing short of revolutionary or ground breaking concepts will get me to buy 4.0 books. :)

If the changes from 3.5 to 4.0 are in the Insignificant to Moderate changes range, just call the new books “Revised and Updated 3.5 Edition” or “New and Improved, with the latest in errata, clarifications and updates 3.75 edition” and leave 4.0 for a real rules change. In my view going from 2.0 to 3.0 was a huge change (a positive improvement), and that is what I would like to see from 3.5 to 4.0, anything else is not worth it for me.

George
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top