What would soften the blow?

People clamming up about how 4e is coming, just around the corner, no honest, and when it gets here I'm totally gonna say I told you so... just cramming a sock in all that would be a nice start.



Beyond that? Oh, say, taking pains to ensure that anything collectable about 4e (official miniatures, etc) remain strictly optional.

Oh, and there'd have to be plenty of lead-in time, playtesting, etc. No dropping the bomb sight unseen.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

For me, it would involve the following (in order of importance):

-Make Greyhawk a true campaign setting with support ala FR and Eberron in the 3e days.
-Bring back some of the best elements of 1st edition (fast and loose play where the DM is god, quick character generation, clearly defined class archetypes) without necessarily bringing back all the mechanics.
-Get rid of prestige classes or make them primarily flavorful options on par with the base classes rather than more powerful options than the base classes.
-Make the base classes more flexible so players don't feel the need to multiclass just to create a unique character concept (feats and skills were a step in the right direction, but not enough since multiclassing/dualclassing is more rampant in 3e than in previous systems).
 

I agree with mhacdebhandia, but I'll add a few thoughts of my own. On the one hand, 3e greatly simplified mechanics and made them more consistent. On the other, it added whole new layers of complexity. I played 2e for a while, and in a way I can't adequately describe, it had a certain flavor that 3e lacks, having replaced it with cold, hard logic. Now, I'm a programmer; cold hard logic has a special place in my heart, but I'd like to go back the other way a little. I can't cite anything specific that lost flavor, but the best I can say is that 2e felt more like "Here's what a role-playing world is like, and these are the rules used to describe it.", whereas 3e seems to take the approach "Here are the rules you use, and this is what you an do with them.". I'm not saying a good DM can't apply his own flavor and make a great game out of it, but I'm not a good DM; I'm a mediocre DM, and I'd like a little less technical manual and a little more top-to-bottom flavor.

As much as I revel in the rules-for-rules'-sake nitpicking over phrasing that appeals to my technical nature, I'd like to see a little more simplicity, a little less codifying, and a little more leeway. I understand the reasoning behind codifying things: to give consistency across DMs, in particular to reduce frustrations from arbitrary fiat of bad/inexperienced DMs because the rules have a definite answer. However, this also ties the DM's hand somewhat and makes it easier to get lost in minutiae. I'd like things to be a little bit looser and leave a little more room for interpretation, while simplifying things. I'm not saying undo everything, but put it somewhere in between. As examples:

  • Having listen and spot separate gives you more granularity, but why not roll them into a single perception skill and hand-wave or apply a modifier on-the-fly in cases where it makes a difference?
  • Do we really need to distinguish between animal, magical beast, and vermin? I found several dictionaries that list rats (animals in D&D) as example of vermin, and some even included coyotes and foxes. "Vermin" is sort of like the term "weed", but for animals: any animal that isn't wanted is a vermin. Should D&D have a weed type separate from plant?
  • When magic is codified, it feels less, well, "magic" and more "technological" (and, again, I like technology). "Any sufficiently advanced system of magic is indistinguishable from technology." as the converse to Clarke's third law.

In some ways, I like d20 Modern's approach to classes better. I wouldn't import it wholesale into D&D, but I'd consider a similar approach, with fighter, wizard, rogue, and priest as the base classes, and all others as advanced classes. That may run contrary to what I just said, though, making the rules more elegant but removing more flavor; plus, what if I want to be a bard from level 1? I'll have to think on it longer.

I wouldn't complain if they replaced spell slots with MP either.
 

My guess is WoTC think it's a good thing that grognards on the net are upset. They've learned the hard way that the vocal minority on message boards don't dictate how much they sell. (Thinking of the StarWars minis here. Gorgnards: "We don't want anymore Han-Solos!" -- Customers: "No Solos? I'm not buying this!").

So basically they only thing that can and will soften the blow is gorgeousity.
 

The best way to soften the blow would be to release conversion rules (if necessary) pre-published in a format much like the conversion to 3.0 rules were described in the special editions of Dragon magazine. Having a heads-up was invaluable to me when 3.0 came out as I hadn't played D&D in years previous to 3.0's release.

One uniform "FX" system. One system is more useful and easier to learn than two or three separate ones. IMO, one of the main reasons that psionics hasn't caught on is because of the system's differences from traditional D&D magic; it's too much effort to learn a whole new system just for one or two PCs.

More as I think of something. ;)
 

Ditch Vancian spellcasting in favor of Magic Points. Keep one class with mechanics that are pretty much Vancian to appease the groggies, but D&D needs a magic system that newer players don't run screaming from.
 

Kunimatyu said:
Ditch Vancian spellcasting in favor of Magic Points. Keep one class with mechanics that are pretty much Vancian to appease the groggies, but D&D needs a magic system that newer players don't run screaming from.
IMO, the cleric and wizard need to remain Vancian casters. I'd turn sorcerer into a warlock (with a wider variety of rules-supported flavor options for their innate powers), remake the druid with "nature" invocations (including their class-defining Wild Shape ability), bard with "music" invocations (combining bardic music and magic), and ranger into druid-lite (sans Wild Shape). Oh, and kill the paladin.
 

Arashi Ravenblade said:
For WOTC to come out and say your old books (3e/3.5 that is) are still good with no conversion necessary. Simply open them up and play. The new edition is just a re-vamp which you can use or not use, much like 3e > 3.5. Basically a 4e in name only.

That hits the nail on the head for me.
 

You'd have to do one of two things for me, either make it completely compatible with 3.x, as has been stated above, or make it such a grand improvement that upon reading, I can't imagine going back to 3.x, despite my thousands of dollars worth of investment.

That's what brought me to 3e. We were all happy playing 2e, oblivious to the 3e chatter on the web, but still aware a change was coming, and we were all very skeptical. One day one of the players showed up to the game with a 3rd edition PHB (it had just come out a day or two ago). I saw the to hit calculations, the level charts, the stat charts, and the higher rolling is better paradigm, and I was instantly sold. Remember I was perfectly happy with 2e just minutes before.

DJC
 

Gundark said:
4th edition is most likely coming. When it'll happen is all speculation until WotC sez something. There are those who are ready for 4th ed., those who aren't but would grudgingly buy, and those who would hold out. The question is for you people who would be upset with a 4th ed. release what would make you ready for 4th ed? Or at the very least soften the blow?


It really wont matter to me if they do or don't
I didnt go to the 3.5 bandwagon
I am plenty fine with 3.0/d20 Modern and I have not bought an actual WOTC Product (The latest Dragon with the China Melville stuff in it being the first piece of actual WOTC marked product) in several years. Could be 3 plus actually.

WOTC no longer makes products I wish to buy. So if they do or do not it no longer matters to me. Either I will buy the 3rd party products I like, get stuff from other fans, or make it myself.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top