D&D 4E What would you like 4E to look like.

[Arbiter of Wyrms]

consensus +

The only thing I can add to the "What Ari said" consensus is an idea I think many will hate, but which WoTC would love: AD&D.

Hear me out.

The basic "how to try out D&D for $20" game has proven to be a staple. The Core three are wonderful and I hope they're here to stay. I think that the game can also support an add-on AD&D at the same time as D&D.

Core Rules should be simple and should include fewer base classes, simplified resolution mechanics for the cases already mentioned (grappling, turning, etc) and fewer races. It should be a simple game for casual gamers with enough richness to extrapolate new stuff should you like it, but basically be ready to play, right from the box.

Optional AC systems, complex skill checks, gestalt PCs, prestige classes, stunts, action points and prestige classes should all be in the AD&D game, where warlocks and warforged and shadowcasters use custom-designed exotic spells ala Arcana Evolved and racial substitution levels.

I am one that would play AD&D 4th Edition. I've never complained of bloat. I like richness. I think that many consumers would be happier with a simplified, streamlined 4th edition with fighters, wizards, clerics and rogues. Dwarf optional.

 

[Ghostwind]

I asked this same question in August, 05.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=145208

I still maintain I want to see:
* Armor as Damage Reduction
* Spell point casting system
* Cutting back on the number of core classes
* Removing all half-races from the game
* Clean and concise instructions on how to create balanced game mechanics like feats, magic items, prestige classes, etc.

 

[Gundark]

I'd like it to look like Kate Beckinsale, nude and coated in honey.

QFT!!!!!!!!!!!

ooooo mental image

 

[Arkhandus]

I have to agree with Shades of Green and Li Shenron. 4th Edition should not be a 3.75 Revision, it should be different and justifiably a new edition, rather than just a tweaking. I'll gladly accept keeping much of the d20 System as a baseline and all, but it should entail significant changes and improvements. I didn't buy 3.5 because it's too much like what I already paid for with 3rd Edition, and isn't different enough, or superior enough, to warrant spending all that money again and then some. I certainly won't buy 4E if it's just more of the same with a bit of tweaking and streamlining (or if it's 3.75 with absurd levels of streamlining; I'll die before I spend money on an edition of D&D that uses D20 Modern's classes or Unearthed Arcana's 3 generic classes; such lazy, lazy design and untrue to what makes D&D, D&D; also, not so sensical).

IMHO 4E will have to be quite different from 3.xE to justify its existance - otherwise it won't be worth the cost of the core-books (which could mount up to 80$ or more). I mean, I have the 3.0E core books, and I haven't bought 3.5E - sure, the tweaks and errata fixes seem nice, but I'm not gong to spend top dollar on something very similar to what I aready have. If I were new to the game, then, by all means, I'd purchase 3.5E - but as I already have 3.0E I could get along with them and a few houserules.

4E needs, for the very least, a major streamlining and rebalancing to be truely attractive to players who already have 3.0E or 3.5E. The difference between 3E and 4E should be similar to the difference between 2E an 3E - it should break new ground.

 

[comrade raoul]

These are interrelated, actually. A new edition should address lasting, pervasive structural weaknesses in the current rules. Here are three changes I think of as especially important.

1. Defense bonuses. The fact that attack bonuses basically scale with a character's level, but defense bonuses don't has two harmful effects as a character's level increases: it becomes increasingly difficult to avoid melee damage, and a character's survivability is increasingly dependent on her equipment. Adding defense bonuses easily eliminates both problems, and helps facilitate...
2. Reduced dependence on magic items. This is a standard criticism for a reason. I don't think anything in the current rules is a larger impediment to players' sense of agency in the game world and identification with their characters rather than their equipment. Stripped of her magical equipment, a character should never be significantly less effective than a fully-equipped version of herself two or three levels lower.
3. Elimination of "necessary" character functions. Any configuration of character classes should yield a functional party, even if that party is suboptimal and not especially interesting. Necessary but unromantic dungeoneering activities--like the healing and environmental manipulation traditionally handled by clerics and rogues, respectively--should be modeled with a version of the skill system available to all classes.

I'd also like to see a change in the way the books are presented and distributed. The core rules might still include three books, but rather than having a Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual, I'd like to see books organized around low (1st to 5th), medium (6th to 15th) and high (15th+) level play, with information for players and DMs in each book. So the low-level book could have most of the core rules, character classes, basic gamemastering information, and low-to-medium CR monsters; the medium-level book would have all the prestige classes and most of the feats and spells (including all of the more complex ones); while the high-level book might have information about politics, mass combat, artifacts, high-level spells, and the toughest monsters (old dragons, the tarrasque, demon princes, etc).

 

[Greg K]

I certainly won't buy 4E if it's just more of the same with a bit of tweaking and streamlining (or if it's 3.75 with absurd levels of streamlining; I'll die before I spend money on an edition of D&D that uses D20 Modern's classes or Unearthed Arcana's 3 generic classes; such lazy, lazy design and untrue to what makes D&D, D&D; also, not so sensical).

Nobody says that you have to buy it. However, I have seen people ask for d20 Modern classess and I have seen people ask for the UA generic classes (although I think three is to few). So, there are people that would buy it.

 

[Sir Elton]

I'd like a 4e that works, thank you very much.

 

[Greg K]

I'd also like to see a change in the way the books are presented and distributed. The core rules might still include three books, but rather than having a Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual, I'd like to see books organized around low (1st to 5th), medium (6th to 15th) and high (15th+) level play, with information for players and DMs in each book. So the low-level book could have most of the core rules, character classes, basic gamemastering information, and low-to-medium CR monsters; the medium-level book would have all the prestige classes and most of the feats and spells (including all of the more complex ones); while the high-level book might have information about politics, mass combat, artifacts, high-level spells, and the toughest monsters (old dragons, the tarrasque, demon princes, etc).

I personally hope that format doesn't happen. Its definitely an impediment to campaign building.

 

[comrade raoul]

I personally hope that format doesn't happen. Its definitely an impediment to campaign building.

A-ha! But you need three books to build a campaign anyway! If you wanted to build a campaign world, you'd buy all three, same as you usually do. If you wanted to run a bunch of dudes in a dungeon and figure things out was you went along, you'd only need to buy one, and the one you bought would be simple and friendly. The real crunch--in the second and third books--would be there for you, but only when you wanted it.

 

[Greg K]

A-ha! But you need three books to build a campaign anyway! If you wanted to build a campaign world, you'd buy all three, same as you usually do. If you wanted to run a bunch of dudes in a dungeon and figure things out was you went along, you'd only need to buy one, and the one you bought would be simple and friendly. The real crunch--in the second and third books--would be there for you, but only when you wanted it.

Ok. I overlooked the part about currently needing three books for setting building. However, I still wouldn't like it. The players would have to buy three book for a high level campaign where they currently need one and, under your proposal, they would be paying for plenty of stuff that they do not need and do not need access to unless they are running the game.