[sblock=Ability Scores Are Not King]
Ability scores seem to be an arms race. PCs need those 18s, so they stuff them in there. And because of this, you do not make a well rounded character, and you are quite lopsided. Or, you choose to make a well rounded character, and since the system assumes you put your 18s where they go, you are not good. Furthermore, because you are putting all your eggs in one basket ability score wise, multi-classing into another class that does not use your primary score is just not going to work out.
What I would like to do is then de-emphasize the need for those high stats. Stats would not influence attack scores or spell DCs or what have you. Stats would influence secondary things: Damage, Skills, and Misc thematic things (i.e. Int = languages known, Con = HP)
So to-hit would be created via a flat score that is equivalent to assuming a PC has an 18-20 in that stat. Thus, every attack's formula is something like:
5 + Proficiency bonus (if at all) + Magic bonus + Misc bonus (feat, class feature, etc)
This way, everyone has an equal chance of succeeding in landing an attack. That wizard with his staff can connect with an opportunity attack with the same frequency as that fighter (setting aside class bonuses, etc). However, the difference between them comes with how much damage that attack does, what powers can play off that attack, and other misc things. Namely, the fighter - when he connects - is going to mess you up much worse than the wizard.
It also means that you won't have only one or two races as the "best" choice for a class. And that if you multi-class, you are as likely to at least connect with any attack you make from your second class.[/sblock]
[sblock=Build Your Own Class is standard]
As it stands, when a character is created in D&D, there are two big choices: Race and Class. Race is a package. Class is a package.
I would like to break Class down into three separate packages or building blocks, so that you mix and match to create your character.
The first two encompass the "Combat" part of the Class, and the third takes care of the "Non-Combat" part of the class.
1: Role.
I like roles. And I think that they help an emphasis on what a class does well, and help a player conceptualize what they want to do. Attached to the Role is the basics. HP/Defense adjustments, and the basic tenants: for a Defender, you get a mark. For a Leader, you get a heal. Etc.
2: Class Features.
I think that in 4e, the biggest thing that separates one class within a role from another class in the same role are the class features. A fighter's mark feels so much different from a Swordmage. A wizard with his Cantrips.
Class Features in this system would either 1) Modify your Role's basic ability (So your mark would be modified to a Fighter mark or a Swordmage mark, your Healing ability would get some sort of modification like Healer's Lore), or 2) Grant a misc ability (the Wizard's cantrips, Ritual casting, AC boosts).
Skill Package
I really dislike that D&D attaches Skills to Classes. I think that an individual with a Skill set has as much an archetype/role just as much as there's the combat Archetype.
So, you would end up with a non-combat theme or role. These themes would be something like:
Athlete: Athletics, Acrobatics, Endurance
Tough Guy: Intimdiate, Endurance, Streetwise
Social: Diplomacy, Bluff, Insight and Intimidate
Sneak: Stealth, Perception, Thievery
Scholar: Arcana, Religion, Nature,
Expert: Dungeoneering, Crafting, Something Else I can't Think Of
This way, you can have a Wizard who, instead of being a scholarly nerd, can be an intimidating thug with magic. Your Fighter can be a social butterfly, and your Rogue can be a booksmart archaeologist.
Furthermore, non-combat utilities/powers would play off your Theme. This would be the place for things you can do that are not combat focused, but still powers. Here your stealth modifying utilities go, your jumping or so on utilities are collapsed into.
Now, this needs to account for the fact you want to mix and match just a little; what if you want your ranger to be a sneak with nature, or you want your fighter to be a tough guy who's good at running/jumping/climbing trees? So there needs to be a bit more fine tuning, but this is the general idea.[/sblock]
[sblock=Social and Mental combat]
My favorite system is Fate. In Fate, a conflict is either physical, mental or social. And the conflicts follow the same rules. An attacker uses X skill vs. the defender's Y skill. Stress (damage) is dealt. It's more complex and sexy than that, but the system treats a gun fight and a tense negotiation the same way mechanically.
In D&D, when you compare the amount of options and robustness of Combat versus say, a tense negotiation, there is no comparison. In every edition of D&D, it's been a paper rock scissors of Bluff vs Insight/Sense Motive, etc, while you have a multitude of options for slinging spells and swords.
Instead, I would like to see a tactical element to a social competition. Interrogations and real negotiations are conflict of wills and words and personalities, and they shoudl reflect that. Someone's biting insult could be parried with a witty remark or a stiff upper lip. You could even module this to handle physical things like a foot race, or a "We are gripped in a wrestling match of minds to see who overpowers the other, the possessing spirit or myself". It could even handle things like intensive research or a court case.
Here you would not necessarily have Hit Points for Social stuff, but you would have something that lets you track a progression, and an ability to either boost yourself or hamper your enemy. Conditions are a good example - if you just got your debate enemy flustered or if he's insulted, he's likely at a disadvantage for his next roll unless he has some sort of counter.
And is where some or many of your non-combat utility powers would be used to enhance what you can do in these situations.
Of course this would mean that monsters/NPCs would need a Non-Combat statblock, or non-combat powers/stats in their statblock.[/sblock]
[sblock=Modular Powers]
This last bit is something that occurred to me as I wrote this. But bare with me.
In 4e, powers are pretty set in stone. And many powers are very similar. So how about an idea like this:
Instead of creating a whole swath of powers, merely create building blocks similar to page 42. This way, each time you get a new power, you have a budget of certain blocks you can build. You build it. Then there's likely a kicker for your Role. So, let me give you an example of what I mean:
Level 3 Encounter Power A
Blocks: 3
Range: Melee or 10
Attack: vs AC
Hit: 1[W]+Stat or d10+Stat
Duration: Any effect end of next turn.
Level 3 Encounter Power B
Blocks: 2
Range: Close Burst 1
Attack: Vs Reflex
Hit: +1[1]+stat or 1d6 + Stat
Sample Blocks
Cost
1: +1[W] or d10.
1: -[Stat bonus] to (Defense, Attack, Damage)
1: Multiple Target attack (2)
1: Pull/push/slide target x squares.
1: Character (Shifts x squares, Teleports y squares, self or ally gains +[stat] to [defense, attack, damage]
1: Area 1 within 10
2: Condition (Immobilize, Ongoing Damage (type))
2: Duration (Save ends)
3: Condition (Dazed, Blinded)
Kicker:
Controller: You push/slide target x, or Increase Burst size by 1.
Striker: The target takes additional damage equal to your [stat].
Leader: Choose a bonus effect an ally benefits for this power (+[stat] to defense, attack, damage, or ally can move]
Now one problem with this is that it takes away the opportunity for many cool/interesting powers that we didn't anticipate. Like Flaming Sphere or stances, attacks that make a target attack someone else, etc. WotC could thus create powers like they do now - a power Package that has unique effects that one couldn't build for, etc.[/sblock]
