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

[tx7321]

Merric, I don't see how 4E could be a fix for 3E, to merit a jump to 4 it will need to change more drastically. People will demand something fresh, even historically so.

I can't see 4E getting more complex (as so many have pointed out, its not easy for everyone to understand 3E, and combat can be long and alot of work. If it gets even more complex, forget it.


1E would be something to reach back to though. It was a quick system, and with a few tweeks here and there (maybe a new magic system) I could see this old pig fly.

I wouldn't expect to see the tables though (but I'll bet its not going to be D20 only).

 

[Prime_Evil]

1. Classes. I like them. Nice and easy. I'd like a nice variety of classes, with optional rules in the appendix on how to build your own. If you had that , I think it would be safe to dump the prestige class concept too.

I'd like to see a wider range of base classes that represent classic fantasy archetypes. In addition to the existing classes from the PHB, this would include the swashbuckler, the assassin, the warlock, and stuff like that. If a class isn't built around an archetype strong enough to sustain a full 20 level progression, IMHO it doesn't deserve a spot in the core rules.

3. New Magic System. In fact, an end to the whole rediculous "spell effect x amount per day" mechanic. No slots. No spell points, which is just a more granular slot system. True20 has the right idea with the skill check concept. Even Wotc is headed in the right direction with the Warlock class.

I think that everyone agrees that the Vancian magic system is starting to look dated. But it's one of the classic features of D&D...so should be offered as an option for those who want to use it.

4. Revamped experience system. Something easier, more intuitive. Less "H&R Block". Allow for more story awards rather than monster corpses. New CR system would be nice, too.

I'd love to see this too.

5. New magic item concepts. Without magic items, it wouldn't feel like D&D to me - but I was never too fond of wands that were basically fantasy ray-guns, complete with "ammo". Maybe wands and staffs could give you a bonus to your MAB instead, much like magic swords boost your BAB. Hmmmm.

Didn't Rolemaster have items that gave the equivalent of a MAB bonus?

6. Refined Skill System. Some consolidation would be nice; we've seen it in True 20, and we're getting it in Star Wars Saga Edition. Maybe we can ditch cross-class skills? The character's ability scores and skill point total should keep things balanced enough. It would make character generation faster too, with or without software.

I'd also love to see things like synergy bonuses dropped. They don't add much to the game and make character creation more complicated.

We're all hitting some similar notes here, but its obvious 4e won't please us all. I feel really sorry for the poor sap who has to design it.

It's interesting that a consensus about what is needed is starting to emerge. Maybe it's time to start thinking about 4e after all.

So when will WoTC start to send out playtest NDAs....

 

[Droogie]

As for cross-class skills, I don't think they need to be ditched. The class/cross class distinction is still useful for determining cost or max rank limits. What needs to be changed is the mechanics for cross class skills- none of the current half rank per skill point garbage.

How about we change the definition of a class skill?

Lets say a class skill gives you a one-time +3 bonus in that skill. Characters wouldn't need to start 1st level with 4x skill points, and the max ranks for any skill could = character level. If you multiclass into something that already has that skill bonus (stealthy rogue multiclassing into stealthy ranger, for example) they won't stack.

Of course, I can already see some abuse- a player multiclassing until he gets +3 in everything, for example- but hey, its a start.

 

[Greg K]

How about we change the definition of a class skill?

Lets say a class skill gives you a one-time +3 bonus in that skill. Characters wouldn't need to start 1st level with 4x skill points, and the max ranks for any skill could = character level. If you multiclass into something that already has that skill bonus (stealthy rogue multiclassing into stealthy ranger, for example) they won't stack.

Of course, I can already see some abuse- a player multiclassing until he gets +3 in everything, for example- but hey, its a start.

Are you saying that a character gets a +3 bonus in every class skill? If so, no. I prefer the x4 skill points at first level and the freedom to define just how good my character is at each skill including being unskilled and unfamiliar with a given skill

 

[DeadlyUematsu]

Pared down improved rules and an adventure path in one or two volumes.

 

[T. Foster]

While I was being facetious when I previously mentioned a reprint of the OD&D OCE (I do want to see that, but separately from 4E) I would like to see the game move back towards that style/approach -- a complete-in-one-volume ruleset that's simple enough that a complete newbie can start playing in 5 minutes, that emphasizes creative thinking (from both players and GM) over number-crunching, that is deliberately open-ended and not only allows but expects each individual group/GM to customize the game to their particular tastes. Trying to compete with computer games and MMORPGs on their own terms is a losing battle, IMO. So is any "collectible" model that emphasizes/requires multiple/repeated purchases -- the game should, I think, be made more, not less, accessible to casual players (which isn't to say it should become more like a traditional board or computer game, rather just the reverse -- I think D&D should emphasize and use as its primary selling point its interactive, social, and creative aspects of the game -- what set it apart from other games in a good sense).

I'd also like to see a move back towards the aesthetic values of the early 1E era, both in terms of layout/design and art, but I admit that's more of a personal quirk/taste issue than something I think would actually improve or broaden the appeal of the game. It might be cool to see different "branded" versions of the rules though (something I remember mentioned as a considered-but-dropped idea at the time of the 3E launch -- so you could have a rulebook with the classic 1E look, a rulebook with the high fantasy (late 1E-2E: Elmore, Easley, etc.) look, a rulebook with a "modern" dungeonpunk/steampunk look, a rulebook with an anime look, etc. -- the rules themselves would be the same, only packaged differently to appeal to different markets/audiences). I have no idea how viable such a scheme would be (and, since WotC already decided not to pursue it once, I assume probably not very) but it's still something I'd like to see (mostly because I just really hate the way D&D books look now, and have looked for the past 20+ years...).

 

[Coplen]

Less collectible would be a good call. In terms of game mechanics, I'd like to see different costs for different skills. 2E designers already knew that they were not equal, current designers should accept this as well.

Cheers,

There's RoleMaster for that.

 

[airwalkrr]

I know this isn't going to reflect anything but wishful thinking. Whatever you suggest, keep it to something you think would have a chance.

Me 1E of course.

QFT!

*thumbs up*

 

[Shades of Green]

I think D&D should emphasize and use as its primary selling point its interactive, social, and creative aspects of the game -- what set it apart from other games in a good sense).

Amen to that, brother. You can't beat WoW and Guild Wars in their own game. IMHO the target market for D&D should be the causual gamers, and not hardcore collectors who are willing and able to spend hundreds of bucks on miniatures and fluff books. Sure, this is a market as well, but I don't think the varage parent looking to buy a new game for his or her kids (or gamer looking for a new game) will be attracted by something which requires multiple purcahses to properly play. In other words, make the core rules perfectly playable and customizable by themselves - and better yet, keep them in a single hardcover book and sell them bundelded with dice and several high-quaity-print character sheets. This will be far more likely to draw new people nto the hobby than a miniature-heavy ruleset. Ofcourse, once that will be done, you could always publish a miniature line (complete with sourcebooks) to cater to the audience which prefers minis.

What I'd like to see in a 4th edition:
1) Streamlining and ALOT of it. I want to be able to create a character in a few minutes; I also want combat to flow quickly.
2) Rebalancing. Every race should be at a similar power level; every class should be useful and interesting to play; no PC class should be relegated to a mere supportive role. Everyone sould get his share of the limelight, no matter what his choices were.
3) Class feature "trees" rather than feats; this will both allow greater variety without having too many core classes, and prevent the need to optimize feats selections.
4) Classic fantasy artwork rather than "dungeonpunk".
5) All classes should be useful both in combat and outside of it. For eample, I want my fighter to be abl to pick up several non-combat-related skills.
6) OGL.

What I WON'T like to see in a 4th edition:
1) Over-reliance on miniatures and/or other collectibles. Miniature support is fine, but I want my game to be playable with nothing more than the core books, dice, pencils and paper.
2) Over-reliance on magic items - this was one of 3E's greatest faults.
3) Overcomplex chargen and combat.

What I think must be present in ANY edition of D&D:
1) Staple races: Humans, Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings.
2) Staple classes: Fighters, Clerics, Wizards, Rogues/Thieves, Rangers, Paladins, Druids, Bards.
3) Staple monsters: Goblins, Kobolds, Orcs, Dragons, Beholders, Zombies, Skeletons, Vampires, Ghouls, Monsterous/dire spiders/rats/lizards/frogs/toads, Elementals, the 4 basic Golems, Lizardmen, Lycanthropes and so on.

 

[Frostmarrow]

I'm only speculating here but I think they will try to make the demand for feats and Prestige Classes higher. Feats and PrC are the two main successess of 3E. These two innovations sell books.

But the demand is still rather small. Every player keeps a character for one year. During this time that player will need some 20 feats and 1 maybe 2 prestige classes. Most of the feats will be taken from the core rules because they are generally better and more familiar than feats from other books.

But let's say there were categories of feats and that they were exchangable within the same catagory? A character might have three fighter feats and the player might be able to exchange them for other fighter feats at any time. If that was the case the demand for new feats would be higher and WoTC would sell more books.

We've already seen this happen with PrCs. In the beginning all PrCs had 10 levels. Nowadays they have 3, 5 or 10 levels. 10 levels, I guess becomming rarer.

All spells will be illustrated in order to encourage players to try out new spells - and thus buy books with new spells in them.