D&D 4E What would you want to see in 4e?

[babomb]

Here are the main things I'd want:

Make all magic spontaneous (and preferably point-based).
Better spellcaster multiclassing. For example, all classes get a good/medium/poor caster level progression.
Defense bonus (like D20 Modern)
Medium save progression in core (I think this was added in one of the splat books)
Fractional BAB/saves/etc (e.g., a Rog1/Clr1 shouldn't have a BAB of 0)
More high-level fighter feats
More skill points for everyone
More bardic music
Specialist wizards are prestige classes
Do a little more to differentiate clerics of different gods
Edit: and paladins should get domains too

 

[shadow]

Hmmm...

1.) Miniatures once again optional. I like minis, I really do, but I don't like having to use them for every battle. I would like to see miniature rules presented as an option rather than a requirement.
While at it, get rid of the square "fighting spaces" that 3.5 introduced. Although square spaces facilitates miniature wargaming, it leads to a lot of ridiculous situations by trying to shoehorn every monster into a perfect square.

2.)Get rid of the 3.5 weapon sizing rules. The new 3.5 rules lead to more complexity and create more problems than they solve.

3.) Give magic it's power back. In 3.5 many useful spells were sacrificed on the altar of "game balance".

4.) Keep the current classes (perhaps adding assassin as a core class). I don't think that eliminating core classes is a good idea. I'm all for diversity. If you have too few core classes, you might as well go classless.

5.) Add things such as mass combat, vehicular rules, and ship & naval rules to the core rules.

6.) Have a lot of options for unique campaign varients in the DMG. Of course high-fantasy adventure should be the default option, but there should be accessable rules for DMs wanting to create an unique campaign. For example, low magic worlds, different styles of magic, and of course, psionics.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

1) Group ALL of the BASE classes (those that form the non-PrCl classes in the various worlds) as CORE classes (included in the PHB)- all the Samurais, Artificers, Scouts, Warlocks, etc. should be in the base book. Yes, I AM willing to pay the big bucks such a tome would cost. To help out, they should release a setting overview that is globally comprehensive to illustrate where those classes originate and how they might interact in particular societies. That setting could be one that already exists- like Forgotten Realms. Classes that do not work as CORE classes should become PrCl's. Similar treatment should be given to the races of the game and magic.

Heck, I'd even accept them splitting the PHB into the Book of Races and the Book of Classes and the Book of Magic or some such. I just want everything conveniently grouped so that I don't have to pore through countless volumes to find and review the particular class, race or spell that someone wants to use.

One last note on magic- I'd like each spell to have a rarity stat, to help GM's of all levels of experience to better realize how powerful a particular spell is and to control access to them. That way "X's spell of Kaboom"- while a powerful, must-have spell, would not be ubiquitous to all characters and acquisition of it might even become the basis for a quest. Powerful, game-unbalancing spells could thus, still exist, without breaking the game open.

2) Either eliminate Psionics or make it a CORE Class, doing all of the neccessary playtesting to make sure it works well with the other classes. This is a personal sticking point- while I have only once been denied the use of a CORE class (a Paladin in a party with a significant number of non-good PCs), I have often been denied the use of Psionics classes with the justification "its not in the PHB." Will that mean I'll be able to play a Soulknife in that edition? Probably not- a GM who doesn't like them doesn't like them and as has been often stated, all rules are optional- but I am particularly tired of that refrain. It will at least make that GM give me a good reason for the denial.

3) Eliminate the Monk as a CORE class, UNLESS (see above) the other "Eastern" classes are included in the PHB. It sticks out like a sore thumb- the sole "eastern" themed class among the obviously western or generic classes.

4) Races playable as PCs that are more powerful than the core races should have a class-style advancement chart so that you don't have to wait until the party is advanced in levels to play your Minotaur Wizard.

5) Increased flexibility within the classes. Example- Green Ronin's take on the Paladin in The Book of the Righteous is pretty good, and eliminates the need for various PrCls. Think of it as a D20 version of the 2Ed Player's Options stuff or a limited point-based system.

6) Nitpicky Stuff: Better proofreading (stop relying on spellcheckers!); making sure that graphic design elements don't obscure vital text; internal art that doesn't support only a single view of the fantasy elements- while I LIKE the "SMBD" style art in 3Ed books, I also miss the more "historically accurate" stuff (like the great "Paladin In Hell") and art that showed other fantastic themes...like faeries.

 

[Shellman]

I pretty much like 3.5 the way it is. Most of the suggestions here are just alterations that they have made rules for in Unearthed Arcana.

I wouldn't mind having a few more specific books like they did in 2E. Like a book of just PrCs, and a book of just Spells. It gets really difficult to remember which random supplement I got my prc/spell from, and I'd pay money for one handy source.

I fully agree with Xath. So far I ahven't heard of any suggestions that aren't already available in one pub or another.

I sent WoTc a suggestion around January requesting a source book of nothing but spells. I sure I am not the first to ask but its nice to know that WoTC is comming out with a combined spell compendium around Dec I think. Its supposed to have the more popular spells used by each class from the many Wotc source books.

I would like to see a source book of just feats, and a source book of nothing but prestige classes as well.

As far as 4E goes, I want nothing to do with it if it is going to be another radical overhall of 3.5 which isn't really needed in my book. Anyway any real 4E should be years away.

 

[Shellman]

Never mind

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Most of what I'd want in 4e is already covered by numerous rule variants, either in replacement PHBs or in Unearthed Arcana-- so I certainly don't feel any pressure to change.

Psionics: Generally, I want psionics in the core rules, even if presented as optional.

Artificer and Aristocrat as PC options: Rules need to cover these areas better, in my opinion.

Non-Monk Martial Arts: Monk needs to be a class in its own right, with its own niche, not simply the ony way for characters to become competent in unarmed combat.

Class/Gestalt System:I actually prefer the larger number of base classes, but I'd like each class to be more specific and focused on their role. (This is because I want Gestalt to become standard-- a kind of compromise solution for the point-buy crowd.)

More Distinct Classes: Yeah, this needs done. Saw the idea about making Weapon Specialization a Fighter class feature instead of a feat-- consider it yoinked. (Probably include Weapon Focus and Improved Critical-- though I'll maintain WF: Ray as an option for casters.) I've tried making Sorcerors and Wizards more distinct, and more distinction between Clerics and Druids, and so on.

Armor as DR: Heh. Preferably in a more elegant, functional form than I've managed to coax out of it. Don't need the complexity of different protection against different types, but I'd like to see some handling of certain weapons being more effective against armored or unarmored targets.

Monster Classes and ability development: Someone put forth the idea that more powerful races simply develop in their own time, and gain additional abilities as they level. I like it-- it makes sense to me. (Of course, LA buyoff works, too.)

No Randomness during Creation and Levelling: Character creation and development should be a function of choices and selections. Leave randomness for actual play.

Other than that, I'm really far more satisfied with 3.5e than my enormous House Rules document would suggest. I'm in no hurry for Fourth Edition, especially since I'm finally beating 3.5 into a near-perfect form.

 

[glass]

Another thing I have just thought of:

Ditch LA and find a better way for balancing powerful races for PC use, one that can tone powerfull races down without crippling them. Maybe a priority based system like (used to be) in Shadowrun?


glass.

 

[Zjelani]

Personally, the vast majority of the items listed here would make me NOT buy into 4e. I don't like to have my sacred cows slaughtered.

However, thinking it over, there's a few things I'd like done differently. But, looking at the list, every single one of them can be (or has been) applied to 3.5e:

* Background class skills for PCs (either based on race or region or "pick any 2" - we currently have a house rule for this)

* Metamagic on-the-fly (I've seen several similiar systems, but the one I originally saw and use is Jim Butler's where you get 2 free uses plus 1 for every additional metamagic feat.)

* Advanced combat options for doing fancier stuff than just "roll to hit", but shouldn't be required (Hey, sort of like what's in Book of Iron Might, in fact)

* At least 1 caster of each of the 3 types that can cast spontaneously, but from a different daily list (like in AU/AE)

* Weapon profieciency by groups (like in Unearthed Arcana)

* Weapon speed and other round-by-round initiative modifiers - optional, of course (Don't think I've seen that anywhere. Maybe I should get writing.)

* CR modifiers/explanations - Dragons allegedly have an artificially low CR because "it's assumed PCs won't stumble upon them randomly, but will be prepared" (I think Sean Reynolds said that, but don't quote me... or him, as the case may be). But I like the idea of having the CRs broken down somehow, or at least having some standard information on how to adjust them. Like "if your party doesn't include a cleric who can turn, all undead are +1 CR." or how much to adjust the CR based on whether the PCs have weapons that can overcome the DR. Yeah, it's all guidelines and suggestions, but some guidance on how to adjust them would be nice. Again, you don't need a new edition in order to do this.

So, pretty much all the modifications I'd make, I've already made to my own 3.5 games or could easily do so. And of course, other things like better advice on designing spells, feats, etc. would be good, but that's totally edition neutral.

I guess bottom line for me is, I really like 3.x, especially with some extra advice and variant rules applied. I have easily enough material and ideas to support playing for at least another 5-10 years without buying another book. Now, of course, I'll keep buying them, but if 4e is radically different, then I can avoid buying it and without any effort, I'm still supported for years to come. Hope that doesn't cross the "don't bash 4e line" - I'm just saying that if 4e uses even 1/4 of the stuff listed in this thread, it's a deal-breaker for me. So I'd prefer the system refined and improved, not overhauled and rewritten (which would introduce a ton of new balance issues that would have to playtested through, which would lead to 4.5e, etc.)


However, one thing I definitely would like 4e to be no matter what is OGL'ed!!

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

Metamagic on-the-fly (I've seen several similiar systems, but the one I originally saw and use is Jim Butler's where you get 2 free uses plus 1 for every additional metamagic feat.)

Where are the rules for this? I've been considering something along these same lines.

 

[Staffan]

Where are the rules for this? I've been considering something along these same lines.

There are rules for spontaneous metamagic in Unearthed Arcana, reprinted in The Year's Best d20. Those rules have two options:
1 - You can use each metamagic feat three times per day, applying it to a spell on the fly. You can not apply it if the normal rules would put the spell at too high a level for you (e.g. a wizard couldn't cast an empowered fireball until 9th level).
2 - You expend additional spell slots equal to the metamagic level modifier in order to apply a metamagic feat to a spell. These slots have to be of the same level as the original spell or higher (so a wizard casting an empowered fireball uses the fireball spell itself plus two more slots of 3rd or higher level).