-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 4E What would you want to see in 4e?
- Thread starter Ghostwind
- Start date
Aldarc
Legend
- I would want "core classes" to be broad like Grim Tales (six for six attributes) with enough optional abilities that allows for players to be able to customize the archetype that they want without having to create a pointless new variant class or unbalanced PrC.
- A Defense & Armor as DR system
- A universal magic system. There would be no separation between "divine" or "arcane" there would simply be magic. The player would simply roleplay the source of their magic (innate, study, deity). Spellcasters are not defined by their spell-lists, but by their abilities and niche's (i.e. Arcana Evolved). For example, the innate manifester of magic (witch), studious mage (magister), support through runes (runethane), nature mage (greenbond), warrior-mage hybrid (mage blade).
- Less reliance on magic items. I want to be defined by what I can do, not by the items that I carry.
- Revision of the skill system. I'm not sure how, it just feels incomplete and not necessarily a portrayal as to strengths players want for their characters. I think that backgrounds (d20 Modern, Black Company, Grim Tales) and skill groups (Iron Heroes) has helped alleviate some of this problem.
- Skills that allow characters to actually do stuff and be more involved (i.e. Iron Heroes).
- No save or die spells. I am not sure about the mechanics of the spell-system though. While I prefer the more feat-based magic with hazards (Grim Tales, Iron Heroes, Black Company), I know that it is not for everyone.
- A Defense & Armor as DR system
- A universal magic system. There would be no separation between "divine" or "arcane" there would simply be magic. The player would simply roleplay the source of their magic (innate, study, deity). Spellcasters are not defined by their spell-lists, but by their abilities and niche's (i.e. Arcana Evolved). For example, the innate manifester of magic (witch), studious mage (magister), support through runes (runethane), nature mage (greenbond), warrior-mage hybrid (mage blade).
- Less reliance on magic items. I want to be defined by what I can do, not by the items that I carry.
- Revision of the skill system. I'm not sure how, it just feels incomplete and not necessarily a portrayal as to strengths players want for their characters. I think that backgrounds (d20 Modern, Black Company, Grim Tales) and skill groups (Iron Heroes) has helped alleviate some of this problem.
- Skills that allow characters to actually do stuff and be more involved (i.e. Iron Heroes).
- No save or die spells. I am not sure about the mechanics of the spell-system though. While I prefer the more feat-based magic with hazards (Grim Tales, Iron Heroes, Black Company), I know that it is not for everyone.
mhacdebhandia
Explorer
Eberron does this a tiny bit - the majority of half-elves are members of a true-breeding race who call themselves "Khoravar", the children of the continent of Khorvaire, where humans from Sarlona and elves from Aerenal came together.FireLance said:
Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
Catavarie said:
Can you say bookkeeping nightmare?
mhacdebhandia
Explorer
I only have a few suggestions. Some of the other elements I have in mind are likely to come with a revision anyway, such as simplification of attacks of opportunity.
A. Full 20-level support for any class presented in the Player's Handbook. The fighter is very dull at high levels unless she masters multiple fighting styles; there are no worthwhile high-level warrior feats in the core rules whatsoever. Similarly, sorcerers have nothing to keep them out of prestige classes - not even the bonus feats of a wizard. Sure, how you roleplay a character can provide enjoyment even when they're mechanically dull, but why not have a mechanically-interesting character and roleplay them well?
B. If there are to be races which are more powerful than the "baseline", then they need to actually be more powerful than the baseline. All playable "monster" races should have "Level Adjustment"-type abilities firmly tied to racial Hit Dice - in essence, there should be monster classes with Hit Dice at every level, not every two or three as they are now. This necessarily entails a redesign of these races' power, but that's no big deal - drow have always been more powerful than normal elves, it's just that Third Edition quantified that power into level equivalency. What I'm proposing is true level equivalency.
C. Magic does not have to be unified into a single type - and I feel it shouldn't be - but there needs to be a way to make multiclassed magic-users effective in a way which goes beyond just "+1 caster level" or the like. This ties back into the previous point: races more powerful than the baseline with an affinity for a spellcasting class ought to actually unify with the class they're supposed to be good at, so as to prevent the foolishness of a wizardly race with a Level Adjustment which means they're always looking like lower-level, weaker wizards. To use the drow as an example: give them spell-like abilities which would be useful to non-spellcasters, but have those abilities exchangeable for effective levels in an appropriate spellcasting class, explaining it as a refinement of their innate gift for magic away from the uncontrolled manifestation of their roguish or warlike peers and into a mastery of the full scope of magic. These should be truly effective levels - think of them as substitution levels for the class in question! Give them different class features, which differentiate them from (and balance them against) "baseline" races.
D. Make each class distinctive and interesting. The wizard and the sorcerer are too close together. Replacing the sorcerer with the warlock, with more "flavour templates" than the "chaos & evil" default, is a start.
E. For slot-based casters, use the Arcana Evolved simple/complex/exotic spell divisions, spell descriptors, and spell slot splitting/combining methods. This makes the third point above easier: better-than-baseline spellcasting races can be balanced in the "substitution level" fashion by access to some spell levels and not others. For instance, a drow's effective cleric levels could be restricted to certain drow-appropriate descriptors as a balancing measure. Provide a mechanic for "catching up" - say that a drow's highest two spell levels are always restricted to simple spells and complex spells dealing with poison, darkness, pain, whatever, but that their complex spell options open up at lower spell levels as their mastery of lesser magic increases. "Baseline" clerics will thus always have an edge to compensate, but drow clerics won't be underpowered.
Just some thoughts. Could be pretty complex, of course, but I don't think D&D needs to be super-simplified. Reward system mastery.
A. Full 20-level support for any class presented in the Player's Handbook. The fighter is very dull at high levels unless she masters multiple fighting styles; there are no worthwhile high-level warrior feats in the core rules whatsoever. Similarly, sorcerers have nothing to keep them out of prestige classes - not even the bonus feats of a wizard. Sure, how you roleplay a character can provide enjoyment even when they're mechanically dull, but why not have a mechanically-interesting character and roleplay them well?
B. If there are to be races which are more powerful than the "baseline", then they need to actually be more powerful than the baseline. All playable "monster" races should have "Level Adjustment"-type abilities firmly tied to racial Hit Dice - in essence, there should be monster classes with Hit Dice at every level, not every two or three as they are now. This necessarily entails a redesign of these races' power, but that's no big deal - drow have always been more powerful than normal elves, it's just that Third Edition quantified that power into level equivalency. What I'm proposing is true level equivalency.
C. Magic does not have to be unified into a single type - and I feel it shouldn't be - but there needs to be a way to make multiclassed magic-users effective in a way which goes beyond just "+1 caster level" or the like. This ties back into the previous point: races more powerful than the baseline with an affinity for a spellcasting class ought to actually unify with the class they're supposed to be good at, so as to prevent the foolishness of a wizardly race with a Level Adjustment which means they're always looking like lower-level, weaker wizards. To use the drow as an example: give them spell-like abilities which would be useful to non-spellcasters, but have those abilities exchangeable for effective levels in an appropriate spellcasting class, explaining it as a refinement of their innate gift for magic away from the uncontrolled manifestation of their roguish or warlike peers and into a mastery of the full scope of magic. These should be truly effective levels - think of them as substitution levels for the class in question! Give them different class features, which differentiate them from (and balance them against) "baseline" races.
D. Make each class distinctive and interesting. The wizard and the sorcerer are too close together. Replacing the sorcerer with the warlock, with more "flavour templates" than the "chaos & evil" default, is a start.
E. For slot-based casters, use the Arcana Evolved simple/complex/exotic spell divisions, spell descriptors, and spell slot splitting/combining methods. This makes the third point above easier: better-than-baseline spellcasting races can be balanced in the "substitution level" fashion by access to some spell levels and not others. For instance, a drow's effective cleric levels could be restricted to certain drow-appropriate descriptors as a balancing measure. Provide a mechanic for "catching up" - say that a drow's highest two spell levels are always restricted to simple spells and complex spells dealing with poison, darkness, pain, whatever, but that their complex spell options open up at lower spell levels as their mastery of lesser magic increases. "Baseline" clerics will thus always have an edge to compensate, but drow clerics won't be underpowered.
Just some thoughts. Could be pretty complex, of course, but I don't think D&D needs to be super-simplified. Reward system mastery.
mhacdebhandia
Explorer
Addendum: Arcana Evolved uses one type of magic and this allows different spellcasting classes to mesh; everyone uses the same spell list, but with different levels of access - simple, complex, exotic spells. Spellcasting levels stack for spell levels, but not for descriptors or complexity. It would be simple enough to disitnguish the classes with descriptors and spell complexity - the greenbond has simple spells, but complex (and exotic?) spells of the plant and positive energy descriptors (and maybe others, I'm working from memory). You can use this idea to balance multiclassed characters - a wizard 10/cleric 10 would still cast spells of 9th level, just as a single-class wizard or cleric could, they might just lack access to the wizard- or cleric-exclusive complex spells of the highest levels, like Mordenkainen's disjunction or whatever - while the very best spells would be exotic and available to anyone who wants to pay a feat for them - neither multi- nor single-classed characters would get them automatically.
Aust Diamondew
First Post
Fewer but more versatile core classes is my biggest issue.
Just for a start...
First, we keep classes and levels, hit points, 7 of the 11 core classes, armor as AC, and the arcane/divine split because a game that lacked these would not be D&D (the arcane/divine split would be dropped from Dave's d20 Fantasy, but belongs in Dungeons & Dragons).
Second, we get rid of multiple rules for the same thing. 3.x went a long way in this direction, and the job should be finished. So DR goes away entirely (replace with conditionally higher AC). So does SR (just use better saves for magic-resistant creatures). And sorcerers are getting scrapped by this principle as well, because we're making all casters spontaneous casters (as per point three).
Third, we'll make the core spell-casting mechanic spell-point based because everyone understands it (because nearly computer and console RPG in existence uses a point-based mechanic). And we'll fix multiclass spellcasters while we're revamping the magic system (as they shouldn't need PrC patches to be viable); I'm not quite sure how to do this (I think a unified spell point pool and caster level = character level probably would work).
Fourth, we'll get rid of the "you need this feat/class ability to use this skill to do this" mechanics, because they're just annoying. Is there any real reason why you shouldn't be able to track with just ranks in Survival or disarm traps with just ranks in Disable Device? Didn't think so. Instead we'll just have class abilities that grant bonuses to skills.
Fifth, some classes will be departing the core rules and show up in the supplements instead. Monks will disappear for Oriental Adventures (or its analogue). Druids and Barbarians will be banished to a wilderness book.
Sixth, I like tactical combat (even if I'm just as happy with a d4 on a battlemat as with a mini), but D&D needs some simplification and standardazation for non-attack manuevers.
Seventh, no one has enough skills in D&D 3.x except high-int rogues. Give everyone more and/or consolidate the skill list.
First, we keep classes and levels, hit points, 7 of the 11 core classes, armor as AC, and the arcane/divine split because a game that lacked these would not be D&D (the arcane/divine split would be dropped from Dave's d20 Fantasy, but belongs in Dungeons & Dragons).
Second, we get rid of multiple rules for the same thing. 3.x went a long way in this direction, and the job should be finished. So DR goes away entirely (replace with conditionally higher AC). So does SR (just use better saves for magic-resistant creatures). And sorcerers are getting scrapped by this principle as well, because we're making all casters spontaneous casters (as per point three).
Third, we'll make the core spell-casting mechanic spell-point based because everyone understands it (because nearly computer and console RPG in existence uses a point-based mechanic). And we'll fix multiclass spellcasters while we're revamping the magic system (as they shouldn't need PrC patches to be viable); I'm not quite sure how to do this (I think a unified spell point pool and caster level = character level probably would work).
Fourth, we'll get rid of the "you need this feat/class ability to use this skill to do this" mechanics, because they're just annoying. Is there any real reason why you shouldn't be able to track with just ranks in Survival or disarm traps with just ranks in Disable Device? Didn't think so. Instead we'll just have class abilities that grant bonuses to skills.
Fifth, some classes will be departing the core rules and show up in the supplements instead. Monks will disappear for Oriental Adventures (or its analogue). Druids and Barbarians will be banished to a wilderness book.
Sixth, I like tactical combat (even if I'm just as happy with a d4 on a battlemat as with a mini), but D&D needs some simplification and standardazation for non-attack manuevers.
Seventh, no one has enough skills in D&D 3.x except high-int rogues. Give everyone more and/or consolidate the skill list.
