Why do YOU want a new edition

[howandwhy99]

My favorite thing out of all of this is Online RP Gaming. It is certainly not my favorite way to play. I want to socialize with my friends first. But I cannot deny that free time and scheduling are our (and many others) two greatest hurdles to playing D&D. So if 4E is what it takes to play D&D more often, I'll take it.

Just as an afterthought. What would folks think if Wizards went to a strictly online business model for the game? One where the only fee is a monthly fee? Take it with a grain of salt for a second. Here are some of the potential advantages:

1. No more "Editions" as revised rules are simply published online whenever the company is finished.
2. No more "official rules" as the OGL means various iterations of online community rule sets are created and played online as well.
3. No more "splatbooks" to buy. All new options are published online and the cost is included in the monthly fee.
4. No more buying books for 3 pages of use. Printed books are Print on Demand with the rules you want in them. Including your House Rules. Just like burned CDs, DVDs, and MP3s.

Unfortunately, my fear is:
1. No more need to ever leave your house to go play D&D. Face to face? Why?

 

[Grog]

Magic Items: I hate hate hate the expected current treasure/level mechanic. It drives me crazy that in long adventures, PCs end up getting dozens of +1 longswords. "Oh look, another one, throw it in the barrel..!" I would like a game system in which the default assumption is that PCs (and villians) don't have them, more importantly don't NEED them.

I agree, but more than the "every enemy has a +1 sword" syndrome, I hate the fact that, in 3.x D&D, high-level characters are nothing without their gear. IMO, high-level characters should be natural badasses. They shouldn't have to strap on a dozen magic items just to be able to do cool things and fight powerful foes.

Magic items will always be a part of the game, so I don't know that any edition of D&D will ever fix this problem completely, but if 4E is at least moving away from the "you are your gear" mentality, that's the best thing I've heard about it.

 

[Green Knight]

Majority of them I do. Sometimes I get in a quick game and roll something up quick or sometimes I decide to change my mind. You seem to like rigidity and seem to like being a rat in a maze and punished for not finding the cheese. I want to be presented with options and if I decide to take my character in a new direction I can do so without the need to redo the whole thing.

Completely agree. I hate the idea of planning out 20 levels of advancement as you're writing up your 1st-level character. Especially since you can't account for what happens in a campaign. For instance, let's say I create a character with the intent of going into the Cavalier Prestige Class. So I start taking Feats like Mounted Combat, Ride-By Attack, Spirited Charge, and Trample as I level. Great... right up until the campaign takes an unexpected turn and all of a sudden your adventures which occured in open country now occur in dungeons, and all your planning just pigeonholed you into a role which makes you completely useless in the new setting. That's why I'm ecstatic about hearing that the Retraining rules from PHB II will be made core in 4E. It'll be great to have the option of getting rid of all those mounted feats when my character is busy delving into the depths of Undermountain. Or learning Elven in place of Orcish when the campaign has yet to produce a single Orc encounter, and the PC's are now heading to Evermeet. Or to take Diplomacy instead of Knowledge: Geography when the campaign appears to be more social, etc.

 

[SeRiAlExPeRiMeNtS]

I agree, but more than the "every enemy has a +1 sword" syndrome, I hate the fact that, in 3.x D&D, high-level characters are nothing without their gear. IMO, high-level characters should be natural badasses. They shouldn't have to strap on a dozen magic items just to be able to do cool things and fight powerful foes.

Magic items will always be a part of the game, so I don't know that any edition of D&D will ever fix this problem completely, but if 4E is at least moving away from the "you are your gear" mentality, that's the best thing I've heard about it.

I hate it too, and the problem is greater with the non caster classes (the rogue and the fighter in particular) are completly awfull without the suggested npc weath and are weak with it... Because of it I made a table with the approximate bonus from the big six each level and give that bonus to every npc or pc, lowering the suggested wealth per level by 75%.

 

[Beckett]

Because 3E/3.5, while a good game, still has some flaws that need fixing.

Because I find that 3.5 is a bit too numbers-heavy for my taste.

Because stat blocks should not occupy 1/3-1/2 the length of an adventure.

Because I'd like alternatives to the magic item-reliance of 3.5.

Because I like the notion of giving all classes interesting choices to make, like wizards have.

Because I like the notion of a more solid social interaction system for those times when RP isn't sufficient.

Because anything that speeds up play, and makes things simpler for the DM, is probably a good thing.

And finally, because of all we've heard about 4E so far, I like almost all of it, and the few aspects I don't like are fairly minor.

Ari, if WotC doesn't hire you at some point, I hope they send plenty of freelance work your way, as I haven't seen you post anything in a 4E thread that I disagreed with.

My own version: 3.5 is a great game, but it's not perfect. There have been changes made over the years to help patch the problems, and by and large they do work. But at some point, it's better to rebuild instead of continuing to patch. Bo9S is a handy example. It's a great book that lets melee characters participate on the same level as casters. But for those existing melee characters, it's hard to integrate the new rules.

 

[outsider]

I want a new edition because I think D&D can be improved. 3.x was a huge step in the right direction, but it can still be done better. There are some things you just can't fix by patching the old system. To integrate certain things correctly, you have to do a new version.

Manuevers are a good example of that, I think. I believe every class except the primary casters should have something like them. However, if you just tack them on to the classes, you are risking serious balance issues and other unforeseen problems. Something like this is a major change, and should be designed as a core part of the base system. Same thing with talents.

Even if you did manage to successfully patch talents and manuevers into 3.5 ed, you can't really continue to build upon that base, because alot of people simply don't own the sourcebooks you printed it in. They wouldn't be able to start including a bunch of manuevers and talents and such in every new book. It's rather like psionics in current D&D. When psionics are in a book, there's usually very little of it.

As far as gnomes go, I don't see it as a big deal. I think I've had a gnome in my group maybe 3 times at most, and that's from dozens of characters. I've probably seen more tieflings in 3.x than I've seen gnomes in 2e and 3.xe combined. I can't see devoting space in the main book to gnomes simply because they've always been in D&D even though very few people seem to use them. Gnomes have always been a pretty niche option, thus it seems to me that it would be sensible to put them somewhere other than the phb.

 

[WarlockLord]

I think I have made my opinion on gnomes clear, so I'll address the other things.

1) 3.5 had too much stupid broken/confusing things. Polymorph (confusing), Divine Metamagic (broken), Invisible Spell (Free invisible summonings! Broken!), and Persistant Spell (broken) come to mind.

2) The magic item sacred cow that was mentioned before. Too many magic items, most of which are blah. Also, it doesn't make sense. If spellcasters have to give up parts of their soul to make items, you'd think that'd be painful and rarely done.

Tell that to the pile of +1 scimitars possessed by Steven Colbert.

Plus, buffing is BORING. Why should the fighter have to rely on buffs to be effective? Why should the wizard waste power he'll need later to buff? Why do they only last 1 round/level?

3) Fighters suck. Combat is boring (Stab stab stab stab stabbity stabbity). Maneuvers are more interesting.

4) The current pseudo-Vancian spell preparation system is probably the only one still in use today. It is inflexible, nonsensible (outside of Jack Vance, these systems are never encountered), takes forever to prepare, and needs to die.

5) Level Adjustment stinks. I will hold up the drow as an example. They are supposedly a race of wizards and clerics. Go play a drow wizard using 3.5 rules. My friends and I have tried to get drow mages to work. They don't, humans can easily defeat them. They are held back by a bizarre force not comprehended by the actual PCs. And, why does a race with a +2 int mod suffer from a learning disorder? I'd like it better if drow abilities were spaced out like the other 20-level races (SR at 12, maybe?) so their wizardry would be a force to be feared, not laughed at as in your 5th level party, where the drow sorc is still with 1st level spells.

6)Retraining. Yes, you can plan, but in 3.5, any character with an optimized level 20 build will eventually make choices that suck in the short-term. You fall behind. In short, any 'optimized' character, if played from the ground up, will eventually go through the valley of weakness.

Aren't you playtesting 4e, MoggtheGobb? I thought you posted a thread asking for playtesting advice.

 

[Moggthegob]

I have never ever seen anyone even want to play a tiefling. Our partys,however, usually have gnomes and halflings but actually rarely elves. should we cut elves?

Also, If maneuvers are in the edition and they arent smoother and less aggravating forget it.

 

[HellHound]

I want a new edition because it will help invigorate the game with a new core rules release cycle.

I won't be playing 4e most likely, but that doesn't mean I don't want to see a 4th edition released. I'll probably not even be playing any edition of D&D when 4e hits the streets. But the marketing leverage of a core rules release cycle is HUGE, and in my opinion as a marketing professional, that's good for D&D and for the industry as a whole.

So, in short, I want a new edition to make the biggest company in the RPG industry spend more money marketing the game and to do it with the right leverage and timing, which I feel only a new edition can provide. This is VITAL to gaming.

 

[Moggthegob]

I am playtesting I am one bizarre little goblin. I actually kind of didnt want to because I dont think I want to change. But I won the playtesting from a contest, not knowing playtesting would be the prize.

So I posted this thread to try and get int the new edition and im finding I dont really agree with almost any of the reasons for a new edition. SO therefore, 4e in playtesting will really have to knock my socks off for me to really be impressed but i still dont like what i hear so far.

yes i know most people will probably resent me for the position im in.