Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Holy_Beholder 07-03-07, 09:33 AM	1. Ability scores are now just modifiers, +2 items are +1, +4 items are +2, +6 items are +3. The ability scores change to: 0=-5 2=-4 4=-3 6=-2 8=-1 10=0 12=1 14=2 16=3 18=4 20=5 2. Having a weapon will affect your AC. 3. Level will affect your AC. 4. Spells are built more like powers, you alter the level by adding dice and effects. Now go.
Steely_Dan 07-03-07, 09:59 AM	-Charge is a standard action. -Withdraw is a move action. -No 5 ft. step. -No iterative attacks -No confirmation rolls for critical hits. -Half character level as bonus damage on attacks. -No Skill points/ranks. -Spell-like abilities per encounter, rather than per day. -The magic/spell system based on per encounter like ToB. -No dead levels. -No death from massive damage. -No save or die spells. -Rework the grapple rules.
B4_life 07-03-07, 11:07 AM	for the record, i disagree with two thirds of what steely dan said. anyways, only two suggestion: -make money less common, so that weaker weapons but with a smaller price tag are more attractive. Also makes crafting a more interesting option. -when/if 4.0 is out, ban 4.5 or 5.0 threads from the forums until they are out.
Leo 07-03-07, 11:13 AM	Do you realize making spells usable by encounter means throwing 90% of the good spells out the window? The following all must be removed: Self buffs, Teleport Anything that summons/creates stuff Nova spells Basically, everything that currently makes magic fun. Broken maybe. But still fun. Making them doable per encounter means an huge huge power nerf. And no confirmation for critical hits hurts you more than your oponents, since the monsters don't care a lot if they take a crit, but everytime sombedoy crits you it's probably 500 gp worht of diamonds to the bin and a level loss.
Steely_Dan 07-03-07, 11:16 AM	Basically, everything that currently makes magic fun. Broken maybe. But still fun. Making them doable per encounter means an huge huge power nerf. Exactly. The antiquated, overpowered, Gygaxian magic/spell system needs a major facelift. Almost every aspect of this game has evolved and moved on, except for the travesty of a mockery of a sham that is the D&D magic system. And the game has got to get rid of this assumed 4 encounters a day malarkey.
Steely_Dan 07-03-07, 11:20 AM	for the record, i disagree with two thirds of what steely dan said. Which two thirds and why?
tankschmidt 07-03-07, 11:31 AM	-Rules that discourage multiclassing. -No prestige classes. -Get rid of the skill/rank system. -More background/fluff-related sourcebooks. -Make feats into combat maneuvers available to anyone with successful check. -No iterative attacks. -No attacks of opportunity. -No templates/monstrous characters. -More openness to houseruling. -Monsters should not follow the same creation rules as PC's. -Lower bonuses for high ability scores. -Make grappling, overbearing, disarming, tripping easier to understand - perhaps treated with the same mechanic as feats. -No players purchasing/creating magic items. -See ya later, CR system! Make monsters worth set amount of experience, which may decrease for characters of certain level. -Characters stop gaining hit dice at level 9-10. -A PI (print initiative) that results in Dragon Magazine available on paper -Pudgy halflings with hairy feet. -Find Erol Otus, and give him a contract.
Fabius Maximus 07-03-07, 11:34 AM	A bit more radical: Get rid of the classes.
Steely_Dan 07-03-07, 11:41 AM	-Characters stop gaining hit dice at level 9-10. Old school, baby!
Steely_Dan 07-03-07, 11:43 AM	A bit more radical: Get rid of the classes. And replace with? Some sort of point system to buy your abilities? Some sort of Talent Tree and Feat action?
B4_life 07-03-07, 11:43 AM	Which two thirds and why? i should have said half, really. -5 foot step. If you want to remove it, fine, but we need a similar mechanic that allows for a player to move without getting AoOed to death. if there is none, keep it. -confirmation rolls for critical hits. if you fail it, you hit the creature anyways, and it gives you the chance to get a double or triple critical. -damage bonus equal to half the character level. i see where you are coming from, but high-level characters already have other means of being insanely more powerful then low-level characters, namely by better weapons (masterwork), magical weapons, weapons of legacy (which are in a class of their own), etc. -i think skills are fine as they are. it is the base of a D20 system: roll a D20, add modifiers (ranks+the rest) and give the result. why should they be removed, and more importantly, by what would they be replaced? only the roll of the dice, so a lvl 20 character has as much chance of trying to hide behind a lamppost as a lvl 1 character? -some spell like abilities just cant work that way. for instance, there are races that can speak to animals as a spell-like ability; wouldn't be really useful in an "encounter" unless encounter is now every time you meet something or someone, and not just combat. -as mentioned earlier, magic/spells in encounters means none outside, which IMO makes no sense. -No death from massive damage? so that means that a dragon shouldn't be able to kill you if you are lvl 1? If your DM pits you against a creature that can one-shot you, then its his fault, not the game's. and if your complaining about dieing from simply taking a lot of damage, well... i agree with the rest though. especially dead levels.
Steely_Dan 07-03-07, 11:52 AM	-confirmation rolls for critical hits. if you fail it, you hit the creature anyways, and it gives you the chance to get a double or triple critical. I think they should get rid of threat ranges and confirmation rolls, so when you roll a natural 20 it is an automatic critical for double damage.
B4_life 07-03-07, 11:58 AM	I think they should get rid of threat ranges and confirmation rolls, so when you roll a natural 20 it is an automatic critical for double damage. the thing with threat range is that they enable a weapon, with otherwise low damage, to have an advantage; for instance, a rapier or a scimitar have 1d6 dmg, but have an 18-20 threat range, which makes them significantly more powerful. as for confirmation roll, well, i think you have a point, but i guess you can always house-rule it so that the second roll is only see if you have a double critical, and so on.
zzo38 07-03-07, 12:19 PM	-The antiquated, overpowered, Gygaxian magic/spell system needs a major facelift. -And the game has got to get rid of this assumed 4 encounters a day malarkey. -Charge is a standard action. -Withdraw is a move action. -No 5 ft. step. -No iterative attacks -No confirmation rolls for critical hits. -Half character level as bonus damage on attacks. -No Skill points/ranks. -Spell-like abilities per encounter, rather than per day. -The magic/spell system based on per encounter like ToB. -No dead levels. -No death from massive damage. -No save or die spells. -Rework the grapple rules. -Rules that discourage multiclassing. -No prestige classes. -Get rid of the skill/rank system. -More background/fluff-related sourcebooks. -Make feats into combat maneuvers available to anyone with successful check. -No iterative attacks. -No attacks of opportunity. -No templates/monstrous characters. -More openness to houseruling. -Monsters should not follow the same creation rules as PC's. -Lower bonuses for high ability scores. -Make grappling, overbearing, disarming, tripping easier to understand - perhaps treated with the same mechanic as feats. -No players purchasing/creating magic items. -See ya later, CR system! Make monsters worth set amount of experience, which may decrease for characters of certain level. -Characters stop gaining hit dice at level 9-10. -A PI (print initiative) that results in Dragon Magazine available on paper -Pudgy halflings with hairy feet. -Find Erol Otus, and give him a contract. -Ability scores are now just modifiers, +2 items are +1, +4 items are +2, +6 items are +3. The ability scores change to (x-10)/2 rounded towards zero rather than towards negative infinity. -Having a weapon will affect your AC. -Level will affect your AC. -Spells are built more like powers, you alter the level by adding dice and effects. -make money less common, so that weaker weapons but with a smaller price tag are more attractive. Also makes crafting a more interesting option. -when/if 4.0 is out, ban 4.5 or 5.0 threads from the forums until they are out. -Self buffs -Teleport -Anything that summons/creates stuff -Nova spells I will tell you which ones I agree, and which ones I disagree, and which ones I half agree and half disagree, and which ones I don't know.
tankschmidt 07-03-07, 12:24 PM	I think they should get rid of threat ranges and confirmation rolls, so when you roll a natural 20 it is an automatic critical for double damage. Agreed.
Bhaelfur 07-03-07, 12:35 PM	How about no changes? Well, I guess that doesn't qualify as a change.
Leo 07-03-07, 12:58 PM	-More openness to houseruling. Even more? How exactly the game can be even more open to house ruling when the PHB and DMG both suport the players change the rules to fit their playstile? And I don't know if you noticed, but with auto critical hits on 20, it's the PCs who get more screwed. And honestly if this all happens what's left? A system where 90% of the game is focused around battle, since you never need to rest or retreat due to be low on special abilities, and every character is the same(since the optimizers will find 2 or 3 uber builds in classless featless skilllless system in some months and everybody will play those uber builds only)? And the CR is a necessarry evil. Let's put things like this: New group. Everybody set at lv1. Newbie DM opens MM... Hmm, Ogre, looks nice. Ups, the party died. Maybe a red young dragon...crap, you guys died again...You know, if at least the book at least sugested wich kind of monsters I should throw at you at this levels...
Aaarrrgh 07-03-07, 01:16 PM	And the CR is a necessarry evil. Let's put things like this: New group. Everybody set at lv1. Newbie DM opens MM... Hmm, Ogre, looks nice. Ups, the party died. Maybe a red young dragon...crap, you guys died again...You know, if at least the book at least sugested wich kind of monsters I should throw at you at this levels... Just because there is no CR, doesn't mean a DM has no idea how powerful a monster is in comparison to the party. There could still be tips, and guidelines. "This is a powerful creature" gets the message across without using CR. There are games without CR, you know... Do you really think every party in those games have 3-4 TPKs before they learn to play?
NobodyRemembersThis 07-03-07, 01:27 PM	-Spell level. Please, for the love of dice call it a tier in the next edition to stop confusing terminology. -Vancian Magic. Old, outdated, and impossible to balance with the current XP system. Making it a per encounter ability (say x spell tiers per encounter) and non combat/high tier spells deal temporary ability damage. - Psionics Core. Please, please make it Core - and make it and magic unique enough that the abilities work with and against each other. Please. - Institute a base class/advanced class setup from Modern/Saga. This would allow builds for every character design. More later.
Edymnion 07-03-07, 01:43 PM	An automatic board censor that prevents anyone from putting "101" or "1001" in a thread title.
Nihzlet 07-03-07, 01:48 PM	Posted by B4_life: -No death from massive damage? so that means that a dragon shouldn't be able to kill you if you are lvl 1? If your DM pits you against a creature that can one-shot you, then its his fault, not the game's. and if your complaining about dieing from simply taking a lot of damage, well... um... i think you misunderstand what he said. 'death from massive damage' is when you take 50 points of damage or more in a single hit and have to make a fort save or die instantly. personally i never use it since by the time you will a) get hit for that much damage in a single shot and b) actually be able to live through it by virtue of hit points, the fortitude save is so laughably trivial that theres really no point in even bothering. also, 'dieing' isnt a word. its 'dying'. i know im being nitpicky but that particular misspelling really irks me for some reason.
bobothechimp 07-03-07, 01:48 PM	Classes should gradually gain better class features and a useful capstone ability at 20th level. A good example of this is a barbarian. A good example of why we need this is the rogue, fighter, and paladin.
Fabius Maximus 07-03-07, 01:59 PM	And replace with? Some sort of point system to buy your abilities? Some sort of Talent Tree and Feat action? I don't care. The point is that I want to be free to choose how my character is made up. BTW: I'd like to know why you'd want an encounter based magic system.
Sajek 07-03-07, 02:41 PM	The ability scores change to: 0=-5 2=-4 4=-3 6=-2 8=-1 10=0 12=1 14=2 16=3 18=4 20=5 Isn't this how they are already?
tankschmidt 07-03-07, 02:41 PM	Even more? How exactly the game can be even more open to house ruling when the PHB and DMG both suport the players change the rules to fit their playstile? When compared to D&D, so many other games are easier to houserule. The problem with the current system is that rules on different topics are closely interrelated. Changing the rules for one thing - like including called shots, perhaps - results in a lot of unforeseen results down the road. ...and every character is the same(since the optimizers will find 2 or 3 uber builds in classless featless skilllless system in some months and everybody will play those uber builds only)? Just because two characters are mechanically similar does not make them the same. A fighter doesn't need a special feat to distinguish him from his fellows if he has a distinct personality. Nonetheless, you have a point there. I don't see a way that classless, featless, and skillless can be done at the same time. You can go the mostly skillless/featless route of C&C, or you can go the essentially classless route of True20. I'd be interested to see 4e go either way, but I'd prefer skillless/featless since D&D has always been a class-based game. Also, hopefully 4e will eliminate the word "build" from our lexicon when we're talking about constructing characters, possibly through greater restriction on multiclassing. And the CR is a necessarry evil. Let's put things like this: New group. Everybody set at lv1. Newbie DM opens MM... Hmm, Ogre, looks nice. Ups, the party died. Maybe a red young dragon...crap, you guys died again...You know, if at least the book at least sugested wich kind of monsters I should throw at you at this levels... Monsters of same or fewer hit dice than the party would be a good start? Here's a post from enworld on the subject: http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3609616&postcount=4 Many of us (you may have too) played AD&D for years without a CR system.
Leo 07-03-07, 03:32 PM	No, I started playing at 3.0. And HD, at least in 3.0, doesn't equal power. A zombie has 2 HD. But one zombie is little more than a speed bump to the party. A fairy has a single HD, but can prove a pretty tough challenge against a lv1 party. A tarrasque has 48 HD. A solar has 22. But the second is much stronger. As for the link you posted, it demands a great deal of work from the DM. Diferent party members have diferent abilities. The fighter may be able to hit reliably the monster, but if the rogue (lower BAB)can't keep up then things start to get ugly. A monster may have good AC and crappy will saves and vice-versa. A monster who uses saves or dies makes things even harder since everybody has diferent good saves. A DM will take twice as much work designing encounters if there is no CR to help him.
Grand Theft Otto 07-03-07, 04:17 PM	-Rules that discourage multiclassing. -No prestige classes. -Get rid of the skill/rank system. -More background/fluff-related sourcebooks. -Make feats into combat maneuvers available to anyone with successful check. -No iterative attacks. -No attacks of opportunity. -No templates/monstrous characters. -More openness to houseruling. -Monsters should not follow the same creation rules as PC's. -Lower bonuses for high ability scores. -Make grappling, overbearing, disarming, tripping easier to understand - perhaps treated with the same mechanic as feats. -No players purchasing/creating magic items. -See ya later, CR system! Make monsters worth set amount of experience, which may decrease for characters of certain level. -Characters stop gaining hit dice at level 9-10. -A PI (print initiative) that results in Dragon Magazine available on paper -Pudgy halflings with hairy feet. -Find Erol Otus, and give him a contract. Wow, just buy the crappy 1st edition books for a dime and be done with it.
Grand Theft Otto 07-03-07, 04:27 PM	My "wish list" No more alignment. Period. It causes more arguments than damn near anything else, and adds nothing. Add it in as a variant if you want, but ditch it from core. Better multiclassing system. Remove favored class, and provide a better system for caster multiclassing, be it something similar to Tome of Battle's martial adept multiclassing, or just a skill to replace caster level. Remove vancian casting as the default. I'm a fan of Monte Cook's proposed caster system, which melds the wizard and warlock. You have certain at will abilities, certain limited use draining abilities, and buffs that are always on. I hate tracking buff durations, and worrying about stat blocks if they are dispelled. If they keep the class concept, make most class features available as feats to prevent the need for MC'ing to realize a concept. Similarly, make all skills class skills (and up everyone to at least 4 skills/level). Simple turn undead rules. Preferrably an opposed roll to resolve everything in 1 step. Remove critical confirmation. If you hit in your threat range, you crit. Star Wars Saga Edition's status track. Nonrandom stat gen and HP gen as core.
Stormonu 07-03-07, 05:01 PM	CR changed so that a creature of the CR equal to your character level has about a 50% chance of killing the party, instead of taking 20% of your resources (i.e., a "challenge" instead of a "speed bump"). The Heal skill actually heals hit points (up to half) - rather than everyone relying on the healbot cleric. BAB and Saves are reworked to become skills. Certain classes have them as class skills, for others, they are cross-class. Rework skill points to account for the changes of these two into skills (For example, BAB would be a class skill for Fighters, and they get an extra skill point per level to put into it. Clerics get BAB as a class skill, but don't get an extra skill point, so they have to spend points that would otherwise be needed for other skills). Spells above 4th level have drawbacks to casting. Spells are reworked so Spell Duels don't have to have special rules. Metamagics have a per day use instead of actually increasing the spell level. Feats scale with level, like spells. It's about what your character can do, instead of what magic items you have/need. A creature with Damage Reduction is almost impossible to harm without the correct weapon instead of the slightly irksome DR 5, DR 10 numbers. And DR x/magic has levels (+1 to +5) and works against spells of a tier less than the "+". (For example, a creature with DR 5/magic +2 requires a magic weapon with a +2 bonus to bypass, and 0 or 1st level spells are affected by the DR - non-damaging spells that are affected give the creature a +4 bonus to saves for every level they fall short. In this case, a 0 level spell would give the DR 5/magic +2 creature a +8 against 0 level spells, and +4 against 1st level spells). Casting a spell requires a Spellcraft check to successfully cast the spell; Concentration checks are rolled into Spellcraft checks. Spellcraft uses the primary spellcasting modifier (Int for Wizards, Wis for Druids and Clerics, Cha for Sorcerers) There would be no more automatic spell completion. The DC to succeed on attack spells would be the target's AC for attack spells, or with spells that used to require a save DC 10 + opponent's save bonus. Certain spells (such as Summon Monster) would use complex skill checks). Thus, for example, to hit a troll out of the PHB with a Charm spell, it would be a DC 13 Spellcraft check. Roll some of the skills into existing skills (such as Use Rope & Concentration) or increase their usefulness (such as Appraise) Complex skill checks - performing certain actions, such as picking a lock, crafting an item, influencing an NPC or basically any skill check that takes longer than 1 round to complete require complex skill checks. To complete a complex skill check, you make a check each round and keeping adding your result up until you beat the DC. To keep people from doing infinite tries, their is either a minimum DC, opposed checks (Diplomacy vs. Sense Motive, for example) or have a time limit.
Holy_Beholder 07-03-07, 05:44 PM	Isn't this how they are already? No, what I'm saying is turning the modifier into the score.
Nihzlet 07-03-07, 06:05 PM	Posted by Grand Theft Otto: My "wish list" No more alignment. Period. It causes more arguments than damn near anything else, and adds nothing. Add it in as a variant if you want, but ditch it from core.ive never seen an argument related to alignment, and i think it does add something--a way to have spells and effects hurt or benefit people of certain moral values. how do you do a spell like holy smite without alignment? Better multiclassing system. Remove favored class, and provide a better system for caster multiclassing, be it something similar to Tome of Battle's martial adept multiclassing, or just a skill to replace caster level.as far as caster multiclassing, have you seen the Magic Rating system from Unearthed Arcana? its very similar to the way initiator level for ToB stuff advances even with non-martial adept levels. Remove vancian casting as the default. I'm a fan of Monte Cook's proposed caster system, which melds the wizard and warlock. You have certain at will abilities, certain limited use draining abilities, and buffs that are always on. I hate tracking buff durations, and worrying about stat blocks if they are dispelled.i dont know Monte Cook's system, but that sounds pretty cool to me. If they keep the class concept, make most class features available as feats to prevent the need for MC'ing to realize a concept. Similarly, make all skills class skills (and up everyone to at least 4 skills/level).if they do that, why have classes at all? and no, i dont think they should get rid of classes. Simple turn undead rules. Preferrably an opposed roll to resolve everything in 1 step.the turn undead rules ARE simple. reducing it to one step would probably be handy though. really all you need is the second step, the first one just seems to be there to screw the cleric over. Remove critical confirmation. If you hit in your threat range, you crit. why does everyone want this? it makes the game more lethal, which is bad for PCs, and also makes combat go quicker. combat takes too few rounds as it is. Star Wars Saga Edition's status track.dont know what that is, so no comment. Nonrandom stat gen and HP gen as core.nonrandom HP gen i dont really care about, but i HATE nonrandom stat generation(which for the most part seems to mean point buy as far as ive seen). i have a lot of reasons for it, but the big ones are as follows: --nonrandom stat generation homogenizes every character. --nonrandom stat generation promotes min/maxing. min/maxing in certain things im fine with, but with starting stats, it just doesnt make realistic sense to me, since genetic engineering doesnt exist in D&D. --nothing signals a new character like grabbing your 4d6 and rolling up a set of scores. --lastly, point buy always seems to make characters that seem underpowered to me.
Radiun 07-03-07, 06:25 PM	Sorcerors with Class Features.
lord_zack 07-03-07, 07:04 PM	Sorcerors with Class Features. They do have class features: spells.
Mique 07-03-07, 07:16 PM	:rant:*******rant warning**********:rant: sounds to me like you want to play a card game like majic, or a table top game like warhamer,or its squad based varient, mordhiem. if you guys are that inisitint thnigs get simplified then simply play a simpler game. dnd has a certiain flavour and style to it, wich comes from the complete and utter descriptive power and rules and settings to govern all aspects of fantasy role playing life. if you dont like a few rules as they are, then buy the damn dmg, or make your own and play house rules with your own group. if the system aint broke dont fix it, and even if something IS broke, a whole scale change to the entirety of the game will just wreck it. if for whatever reason you dont like being hit by a critical hit, or get hit too often, well then dont go into combat. or just whine to your dm. and just cause you never can confirm or roll your own crits dosent mean you should change the whole mechanics behind the system. keep in mind critical hits are more of a hinderance to a pc then a help. (as your pc will be hit more often by a critical then any given single monster) the majic system could use some clarifying, especially in the saves department. (what save applies, whats the dc and any modifiers, for EACH spell) but again, a whole scale change might be uncalled for. psionics could also benefit from being included in the phb, and made as a core ruleset, since alot of people use them. stop whining about lvls....they exist for a reason to even and balence things out, hence why the cr system is in place. again to help balence encounters. you talk about how certian monsters always give the same xp...well thats effectivly what the cr system does. only it compares the monsters group size, power lvl and if aplicable, advanced types vrs your partys. that way an orc could be a cr 1, or even a cr 6 with enough advancment. it makes the game for varied and interesting. instead of a WOW, lineage 2 or other medevil mmorpg based system were "im 4th lvl so i should go kill x of y monster type untill i get 6th...then kill x amount of r monster untill 10th.." and so on. doing that will make the game boring, and monotinus, and will have real players reverting back to 3.5. dont like the system? go play one of the aformentioned mmorpgs. thats all i can think of to reply to at the moment. one last comment.....why do people insist on always finding fault with anything that dosent go there way? "i play a fighter and he got killed when i was 3rd level so fighters must be broken" or my friend plays a barbarian and hes 4th lvl and im a 6th lvl fighter but the barbarian does 3 times the damage i do, so both fighter and barbarians are broken" or my sorcerer cant 1 shot that baddie like the ranger can so the sorcerer is broken" or why should i loose a lvl when i die? thats stupid so dying is broken"...."i never roll a 20 on my dice so only criticaling on a 20 is broken" PLEASE!!!! stop the fcking whining!!!! ok? enough? stop it! stop.....just plain stop. enough. done. nadda. no more, nuff said, asta lasangna, adios muchuchos.
Radiun 07-03-07, 07:17 PM	They do have class features: spells. Yea, but 7/11 Core Classes have spells, 4 of those go up to 9th level spells, Clerics can fight well, Druids... are Druids, Wizards get some bonus feats + Scribe Scroll at first level, Sorcerors get... their spells one level later and Spontaneous casting (Ohh but I can't help prefering them to Wizards flavour-wise :) ) Edit: Oh, and they chose spells "for life", while everyone else adapts per day.
Ringmereth 07-03-07, 07:31 PM	Rulebooks with embedded explosives set to go off if anyone utters the phrase "5th edition" in a five-foot radius.
Radiun 07-03-07, 07:40 PM	Rulebooks with embedded explosives set to go off if anyone THINKS the phrase "5th edition" in a five-foot radius. Ameliorated :P
Mighty_Draco 07-03-07, 08:36 PM	-More vanilla support. (I don't mind multiclassing, but I'd like a reason not to on occasion) -Less errata (gets annoying to have to check the errata for every book I buy, they should get it right the first time :rant: -Less dead levels I think the system is fine for the most part though :D
Leo 07-03-07, 08:53 PM	Why so much hate against skills? It' actually one of the parts of the game that people don't claim being uber broken. And honestly, I see no reason why the carefull caster or the heavy fighter is as good as finding traps than the party's scout.
Antioch 07-03-07, 09:44 PM	I disagree with the "no-confirmation-for-crits". That basically means that versus some opponents you will either crit or miss.
myusernameis 07-03-07, 10:18 PM	nonrandom HP gen i dont really care about, but i HATE nonrandom stat generation(which for the most part seems to mean point buy as far as ive seen). i have a lot of reasons for it, but the big ones are as follows: --nonrandom stat generation homogenizes every character. --nonrandom stat generation promotes min/maxing. min/maxing in certain things im fine with, but with starting stats, it just doesnt make realistic sense to me, since genetic engineering doesnt exist in D&D. --nothing signals a new character like grabbing your 4d6 and rolling up a set of scores. --lastly, point buy always seems to make characters that seem underpowered to me.In my general experience with players, random stat generation only produces cheaters. I strongly disagree with the no confirmation for critical hits thing as well. I think the perday spell system should be revamped, I know it's an icon of dnd but in most cases it just creates problems. A per encounter spell system could work but alot of spells would be made useless by it (spells with long casting times in example) or overpowered, so perhaps a system of incantations and rituals. Incantations use the "per encounter" slots while rituals can be done whenever you please, but take time (at least a minute, likely much more), resources (sometimes, some could be free), and skill checks to complete.
Waldo_di 07-03-07, 10:52 PM	Only one thing change DR to the way it was for magic +1 through +5 and epic keep the materials too.
Archangel_James 07-03-07, 11:32 PM	These aren't suggestions for 4th Edition. Fourth Edition will more than likely be a complete revamp of the game, not another fine-tuning to the d20 system like 3.5. Most of these suggestions are more like "Here's a list of things I should houserule, but would rather force upon everyone else." Do you want to change the mechanics for critical hits? What's stopping you? Do you want to change ability scores and make them straight modifiers? Do it! If you want to make combat more like Tome of Battle, then play with Tome of Battle. If you hate the magic system, check out one of the dozens of fan-made magic systems! If 3.5 has one big problem, it's that players and DMs are too scared to change the rules to fit their games. But that's not a flaw in the d20 system, that's a flaw in the video game-fed demographic.
Ringmereth 07-04-07, 01:06 AM	Rulebooks with embedded explosives set to go off if anyone THINKS the phrase "5th edition" in a five-foot radius. Ameliorated Good call.
JacobZ1988 07-04-07, 01:12 AM	Make more than just the Barbarians illiterate, let's be realistic.
SilvercatMoonpaw 07-04-07, 03:41 AM	Do you want to change the mechanics for critical hits? What's stopping you? Do you want to change ability scores and make them straight modifiers? Do it! If you want to make combat more like Tome of Battle, then play with Tome of Battle. If you hate the magic system, check out one of the dozens of fan-made magic systems! If 3.5 has one big problem, it's that players and DMs are too scared to change the rules to fit their games. But that's not a flaw in the d20 system, that's a flaw in the video game-fed demographic. No, it is a flaw in the game. Not necessarily a flaw that the game has to change, just a flaw in the ease of changing it. Certain rules are tied in to the mechanics in a way that means simply removing them would create unforeseen problems down the line. Several posters have already mentioned that taking out crit-confirming rolls makes combat deadlier for PCs in a way that those who posted wanting that change may not have foreseen. There are suggestions such as taking out magic items or iterative attacks that change how effective PCs are and ultimately leads to the need to adjust combat and other encounters to compensate. It's this compensating that frightens some people because they know they aren't good at it.
Steely_Dan 07-04-07, 03:59 AM	A DM will take twice as much work designing encounters if there is no CR to help him. Not even, I have been DMing for about 18 years, and still to this day the best way to gauge an encounter's difficulty for your party is by comparing the abilities of the challenge (AC, hp, attacks, saves, spells, special abilities etc) against the abilities of the party (their AC, hp, saves, spells, special abilities) etc. A CR 13 monster against one party of four 10th level characters might be a breeze due to their makeup, but might be a nightmare for another party of four 10th level characters because of their makeup.
Steely_Dan 07-04-07, 04:03 AM	My "wish list" No more alignment. Period. It causes more arguments than damn near anything else, and adds nothing. Add it in as a variant if you want, but ditch it from core. Better multiclassing system. Remove favored class, and provide a better system for caster multiclassing, be it something similar to Tome of Battle's martial adept multiclassing, or just a skill to replace caster level. Remove vancian casting as the default. I'm a fan of Monte Cook's proposed caster system, which melds the wizard and warlock. You have certain at will abilities, certain limited use draining abilities, and buffs that are always on. I hate tracking buff durations, and worrying about stat blocks if they are dispelled. If they keep the class concept, make most class features available as feats to prevent the need for MC'ing to realize a concept. Similarly, make all skills class skills (and up everyone to at least 4 skills/level). Simple turn undead rules. Preferrably an opposed roll to resolve everything in 1 step. Remove critical confirmation. If you hit in your threat range, you crit. Star Wars Saga Edition's status track. Nonrandom stat gen and HP gen as core. You're totally on my page. Can you point me in the direction of Monte Cook's magic system? Oh, and if you are looking for a simpler, more elegant turning mechanic, you should check out the variant in Complete Divine (1d6 per cleric level in a 30 ft. radius, Will save for half, DC 10 + cleric level + Cha modifier)
Leo 07-04-07, 06:23 AM	Not even, I have been DMing for about 18 years, and still to this day the best way to gauge an encounter's difficulty for your party is by comparing the abilities of the challenge (AC, hp, attacks, saves, spells, special abilities etc) against the abilities of the party (their AC, hp, saves, spells, special abilities) etc. A CR 13 monster against one party of four 10th level characters might be a breeze due to their makeup, but might be a nightmare for another party of four 10th level characters because of their makeup. Well 18 years of experience surely helped to achieve that. But what about begginners?
Steely_Dan 07-04-07, 06:35 AM	Well 18 years of experience surely helped to achieve that. But what about begginners? Beginner or veteran, we can all use the CR system to very roughly gauge an encounter's difficulty, but there are way too many variables to consistently rely on it. So just like I did when I first started DMing, do the old compare action I posted above. Nothing beats the intimate knowledge any particular DM has about his player's characters – use it.
mshea 07-04-07, 10:30 AM	Here are my ideas for 4th Edition changes or variants: Philosophy: D&D should be easy to learn for new players. Combat should be easy and fast to play. Previously simple classes like fighters should have more variants like those found in Tome of Battle. Previously complicated classes like Clerics and Wizards should be simplified like Warlocks. Here are some detailed changes I'd like to see: 1. Ability scores based on bonus instead of arbitrary number: Str +4 (instead of 18) Dex +2 (instead of 14) Con +3 (instead of 16) Int -1 (instead of 8) etc 2. Level-based skill system. 3. No iterative attacks. + 1/2 level to damage. 4. Crit on natural 20, no threat check roll needed. 5. A new magic system based on feats, spells per encounter, automatic buffs, and some more powerful spells that cannot be used in combat like teleport. I have some other more radical ideas too: - A variant that requires no die rolling for damage, just 1d20 for attack successes. - Flipping Saving throws to Save DCs and spell or ability DCs to a penetration roll. This way attackers roll to see if the spell succeeds instead of defenders.
Steely_Dan 07-04-07, 10:37 AM	Here are some detailed changes I'd like to see: 1.) Ability scores based on bonus instead of arbitrary number: Str +4 (instead of 18) Dex +2 (instead of 14) Con +3 (instead of 16) Int -1 (instead of 8) 2.) A variant that requires no die rolling for damage, just 1d20 for attack successes. 3.) Flipping Saving throws to Save DCs and spell or ability DCs to a penetration roll. This way attackers roll to see if the spell succeeds instead of defenders. 1.) What about feat prerequisites – Dex 13 etc? 2.) That's easy, all you do is figure out average damage: 1d8+9 = 13 etc. 3.) Unearthed Arcana has this very same variant.
Steely_Dan 07-04-07, 10:43 AM	Here are my ideas for 4th Edition changes or variants: Previously simple classes like fighters should have more variants like those found in Tome of Battle. Previously complicated classes like Clerics and Wizards should be simplified like Warlocks. 3. No iterative attacks. + 1/2 level to damage. 4. Crit on natural 20, no threat check roll needed. 5. A new magic system based on feats, spells per encounter, automatic buffs, and some more powerful spells that cannot be used in combat like teleport. I totally agree.
lord_zack 07-04-07, 10:44 AM	I'd like to see rules for vehicles, like ships in core. The Apparatus of Kwalish could also be a vehicle.
mshea 07-04-07, 11:10 AM	"1.) What about feat prerequisites – Dex 13 etc?" Feat requires +1 dex or +2 dex.
Steely_Dan 07-04-07, 11:15 AM	"1.) What about feat prerequisites – Dex 13 etc?" Feat requires +1 dex or +2 dex. The only problem is that ability score prerequisites for feats are always an odd number, so for Power Attack it's not enough to have a 12 (+1), but you don't need a 14 (+2), you need a 13 (+1). See what I'm getting at?
mshea 07-04-07, 11:21 AM	Round up or down =) I'd probably round down in favor of the player but I'm a softie. In any sort of 4th edition, they would just modify all attribute checks to an even number and replace with the bonus score instead.
Steely_Dan 07-04-07, 11:44 AM	Round up or down =) I'd probably round down in favor of the player but I'm a softie. In any sort of 4th edition, they would just modify all attribute checks to an even number and replace with the bonus score instead. So you would go for: POWER ATTACK Prerequisites: Str +1 That would be fine with me.
zzo38 07-04-07, 12:18 PM	I disagree with the "no-confirmation-for-crits". That basically means that versus some opponents you will either crit or miss. If 20+modifier isn't equal or exceeding the target's AC, then it isn't a critical hit.
mshea 07-04-07, 12:26 PM	Here's my example of a simplified pseudo-4th edition. I haven't played it out yet but I think it would work for a simplified, fast, and fun D&D game: http://mikeshea.net/simple_d20_rules.html And a simplified character sheet: http://mikeshea.net/simple_d20_char_sheet.pdf
Ogre4Hire 07-04-07, 12:47 PM	mshea, the problem with your suggestion on ability scores is that the odd numbers exist to provide a cushion against effects that damage/drain ability scores. A Shadow or a Ray of Enfeeblement is bad enough right now. Your way, they're devastating, and Con damage is worse yet. Personally, the only thing on the list I've seen so far that I actually want is easy to frakking use grapple rules.
Werral 07-04-07, 01:13 PM	Well the reason ability scores were that way is because before you checked your ability by rolling under it (okay, not until 1E AD&D Dungeoneers' Survival Guide). Under the D20 system it makes no sense really. Ability point damage makes little sense either - a stirge sucks your blood and you lose Con. What, you're not losing blood when someone hits and crits you with an Axe ? Less classes that are more customisable, PrCs are fine, Feats are fine but I think they should plump for either one or the other - why can't a fighter specialised in Whip be as good as a Lasher? More optional rules. Alignment still part of the game but not tied to DR/damage type. A Magic Level: None=0, Low = 1-3, Medium 4-6, High 7-9, Uber 10+) So you say, "I'm planning on running a campaign, it'll be Magic level 4..." That way if you want Magic shops, fine, play ML 6, if you want magic to be rare, cool, play at ML 3, if you want everyone to be a wizard/sorcerer then take Uber.
NobodyRemembersThis 07-04-07, 01:43 PM	http://mikeshea.net/simple_d20_rules.html Your idea intrigues me. IMO, each "class" should progress the following: HP Physical Attack Bonus Mystical Attack Bonus Physical Defense Fortitude (Poison, Harsh Conditions, Falling, Death Effects, etc.) Reflexes (Traps, Area of Effect Spells, etc.) Willpower (Mind affecting spells, Illusions, etc.) A fighter, for example, would look like so: HP: 9/level (180) PAB: +1/level (+20) MAB: +1/3 levels (+7) PD: +1/2 levels (+10) Fort: +2/3 levels (+14) Ref: +1/2 levels (+10) Will: +1/2 levels (+10) And a Wizard would be: HP: 4/level (80) PAB: +1/3 levels (+7) MAB: +1/level (+20) PD: +1/3 levels (+7) Fort: +1/2 levels (+10) Ref: +1/2 levels (+10) Will: +2/3 levels (+14) That way, not all of the classes are going to be the same. Additionally, with the relative ease of acquiring defensive abilities compared to offensive, having the offensive bonuses cap out higher than makes sense.
DoveArrow 07-04-07, 04:40 PM	I would like to see a rules system designed for creating your own spells. After all, we have a rules system for creating magic items, and a rules system for creating monsters, why not a rules system for creating spells? I don't want to see polymorph nerfed. It's a good spell, and it has a lot of utility. If you want to make changes to the spell, then limit the list of monsters that characters can change into, but don't change the whole description of the spel so that nobody wants to load it anymore. That's just plain stupid. I would like to see some optional rules for firearms that don't make me wonder why I'd even bother. I would like to see some reorganization of the core rulebooks that will make rules easier to reference. For example, put both the treasure and the experience tables back under the Rewards chapter in the Dungeon Master's Guide. Put the rules for exploding potions under the description for potions in the Dungeon Master's Guide. List the forms of AC bonuses that can't be penetrated by incorporeal touch attacks in the glossary description of the Monster Manual. I would like to see some clarification of the following rules: Can a creature do anything, by himself, to escape from being pinned by rubble? What is a 'regular' action? Are the rules for drowning described in the Dungeon Master's Guide correct, or should I use the ones described in the Player's Handbook? If I have a natural attack already, do I still need to take the feat Improved Unarmed Strike in order to take the feat Improved Grapple? Most of these can be houseruled, for sure, but I think it would be nice to have something official.
Leo 07-04-07, 07:16 PM	Now this is start to geting contradictory: People want more flexibity but more simplicity. But they're oposed. The more choices you have the more complicated is to choose. People say the current system is too complicated. Then they present alternate systems where the player has to do twice as much work just to see what his character can do. So what exactly do the masses want?
SilvercatMoonpaw 07-04-07, 07:47 PM	So what exactly do the masses want? Flexibility in character creation does not mean the rest of the game has to be as complex. Perhaps you are reading too broadly (or people are stating too broadly).
Von_Harbringer 07-04-07, 09:34 PM	My 2 cents... Poison - should be done by doses. Base DC every time a PC gets hit with it the DC increases by 1 until they fail. Once failed they cannot fail again to the same poison until the effects were off. Also a vial of poison has a DC of base + 20. This will avoid dwarves with a high fort save from shrugging off poison attacks (auto save). Bard - no longer has spells, use Marshal auras. Ranger - remove spells, use a mix of ranger and scout abilities. Paladin - any good alignment, CoC is used for day to day life, and must have a patron deity (must be within 1 alignment step of deity and good), improve abilities for higher level (mix of prestige class abilities that simulate a paladin). Races - that have a favored class must have a prohibited class. Attacks of Opportunity - either remove or fix (prone is broken). Facing- should be added. Sleeping - have minuses for those who don't sleep. Classes - must have ability prerequisites in order to take (i.e. base classes rogue, fighter, wizard, and cleric have a less of a requirement other classes have a higher prerequisites will have better abilities). Multi-classing - must have a certain prerequisite before multi-classing. Specialist wizard - have better abilities but have prerequisites. Spell DC - 10 + spell level + ability mod + 1/2 caster level.
Leo 07-04-07, 09:41 PM	So you want the paladin to be forced to have a deity, wich makes no sense in my opinion since paladins fight for the greater good, and you don't want clerics to be forced to have a deity, even tough if there is one class that should be forced to have a specific deity it is the cleric?
Von_Harbringer 07-04-07, 09:47 PM	So you want the paladin to be forced to have a deity, wich makes no sense in my opinion since paladins fight for the greater good, and you don't want clerics to be forced to have a deity, even tough if there is one class that should be forced to have a specific deity it is the cleric? Sorry for the most part when I play DnD clerics have to have a deity by default. I should have made it more clear. I look at a paladin using the deity to form a good part of their philosophy. I also like to add... Level loss - get rid of it, I like to use an idea from a game. Experience debt: don't loss a level but sets the character back experience points (must regain before leveling).
Stormonu 07-04-07, 10:14 PM	People want more flexibity but more simplicity. But they're oposed. The more choices you have the more complicated is to choose. Not really. We want to have a myriad of choices, but not have to work through arcane formulas or time-consuming processes to implement them into a game. We may have to sift through a lot of choices setting up the character, but once we make those choices and get to the game table, we don't want to have to reference back to charts or books to instictively know how to work those choices in the game.
Salla 07-04-07, 10:22 PM	Eberron as the default campaign setting.
CaptainPicard 07-04-07, 10:47 PM	I want PC gold removed from the balancing mechanic. I'm sick to death of having to worry about PCs getting too much or too little treasure and at high levels people owe almost half their skill to artificial sources. In fact, I'd like to see the entire magic item system revamped. Magic items should be unconditional boons given to players without strings attached, not an integral component of gameplay balance. The skill system is annoyingly complex with multiclass characters. I'd like to see it made easier to work with. Open Lock is also a completely pointless skill that is not only about as useless as Decipher Script, but is repetitive with Disable Device. I don't like traps as they currently stand. Making the Rogue search for traps everywhere is not only a waste of the party's time, but it always puts the Rogue in undue danger for the sake of everyone else. I like the idea of traps, I just want them reworked.
mshea 07-04-07, 11:17 PM	I don't see any reason they can't lay out some fundamental rules and then add in variants to modify it. For example, the base game could have a simplified combat system with optional miniature use but a new miniatures handbook supplement could modify the core game into more of a tabletop game. A new Feat and Skill based spell system could be built that had a lot of flexibility for new classes and prestige classes. There's no reason they can't simplify the core game and release add-ons that expand it in all the directions people want it to go. Just mix and match your various variants to build the game you enjoy playing.
theplaidknight 07-05-07, 02:01 AM	Like everyone else, I agree with many points here. I could highlight them all in a nice fat post but what it comes down to is simple. The 3.5 rules are perfectly fine as they are. The number of choices a person has in character creation is absolutely staggering, but that's how it should be. The DM just has to have control over the game. Okay, I'll break my flow for one point - it's DM, not GM. Some things in the old school need to be kept. Finally, getting rid of the skill system is ludicrous. Yes, I agree that Open Lock is redundant when Disable Device is available, but the skill system, along with the way attacks, saving throws, spell resistance, turning undead, etc. are done are all central to the rules system we all use and to at least some degree love. And the alignment system is just misunderstood, but not by everyone. This wasn't as short as I meant it to be, so I'll say it in a few words: D & D is fine, nearly all of the problems that arise lie in the players and the DMs, not the game.
CCS 07-05-07, 02:16 AM	[QUOTE=tankschmidt;12946402- More openness to houseruling. [/QUOTE] Have I missed something? I don't seem to have ANY problems making houserules. In 3.5 or any other system. I've yet to encounter any armed WoTC rules police threatning to kill me, nor has God himself yet spoken to me on the subject.... And rouse rules are made with the consent of all around the table. So I really don't see anything stopping me.
Steely_Dan 07-05-07, 04:24 AM	I've yet to encounter any armed WoTC rules police threatning to kill me Well, the other night my group tried to implement a new house-rule, and before we knew what hit us, the WotC Ninjas repelled down from the ceiling and forced us to play properly.
Steely_Dan 07-05-07, 04:45 AM	My 2 cents... 1.) Bard - no longer has spells, use Marshal auras. 2.) Ranger - remove spells, use a mix of ranger and scout abilities. 3.) Paladin - any good alignment, CoC is used for day to day life, and must have a patron deity (must be within 1 alignment step of deity and good), improve abilities for higher level (mix of prestige class abilities that simulate a paladin). 4.) Races - that have a favored class must have a prohibited class. 5.) Attacks of Opportunity - either remove or fix (prone is broken). 6.) Facing- should be added. 7.) Sleeping - have minuses for those who don't sleep. 8.) Classes - must have ability prerequisites in order to take (i.e. base classes rogue, fighter, wizard, and cleric have a less of a requirement other classes have a higher prerequisites will have better abilities). 9,) Multi-classing - must have a certain prerequisite before multi-classing. 10.) Specialist wizard - have better abilities but have prerequisites. 11.) Spell DC - 10 + spell level + ability mod + 1/2 caster level. 1.) Totally agree. 2.) Totally agree. 3.) Totally agree. 4.) I would like to see the removal of favoured classes, XP penalties for multi-classing, and multi-classing restrictions for monks and paladins. 5.) My group doesn't seem to have a problem with the old AoO (yet). 6.) There is a variant for that in UA (and hex grid rules). 7.) Yeah, but don't you still get fatigued if you skip sleep? 8.) I'm so glad they got rid of ability score requirements for classes in 3rd edition. 9.) See point 4. 10.) See point 8 11.) Good idea, though I would prefer to replace DC's for spells with something like Magic Checks (UA) or a ToB like approach.
Leo 07-05-07, 06:34 AM	Well, the other night my group tried to implement a new house-rule, and before we knew what hit us, the WotC Ninjas repelled down from the ceiling and forced us to play properly. Well you got lucky. My DM had just announced he find a certain rule dumb and that he was chaning it when a spiked chain broke trough the window, strapped around his neck and dragged him screaming out on the night never to be seen again. When we contacted the police and we told that he had tried to do an houserule they told us it was best to forget about our DM.Nobody goes against wotc and lives to tell the tale. We still mourn him today but we never tried to houserule again.
JolanthusTrel 07-05-07, 07:13 AM	My 2 cents... Poison - should be done by doses. Base DC every time a PC gets hit with it the DC increases by 1 until they fail. Once failed they cannot fail again to the same poison until the effects were off. Also a vial of poison has a DC of base + 20. This will avoid dwarves with a high fort save from shrugging off poison attacks (auto save). But Dwarves have a resistance to poison... don't they, Or am I back in Nostalga world again wih 2ed? Bard - no longer has spells, use Marshal auras. What are these Marshal auras you speak of... I see a marshal as a batlefield commander. Thats not a job for a bard. Ranger - remove spells, use a mix of ranger and scout abilities. Eh, couldn't care less, I don't use the rangers spells anyway. but some skirmish would be good for the ranger. I dont know why he doesn't have such an ability in wildernes reagions, at least, anyway. Paladin - any good alignment, CoC is used for day to day life, and must have a patron deity (must be within 1 alignment step of deity and good), improve abilities for higher level (mix of prestige class abilities that simulate a paladin). Races - that have a favored class must have a prohibited class. Hmm interesting. Attacks of Opportunity - either remove or fix (prone is broken). well turning your back on someone will open yourself up to an attack. trying to stand up from the ground while someone is standing over you with a great big length of sharpened steel is bound to draw a 'free hit' Facing- should be added. Yeah it should. Sleeping - have minuses for those who don't sleep. There already are, fatigue Classes - must have ability prerequisites in order to take (i.e. base classes rogue, fighter, wizard, and cleric have a less of a requirement other classes have a higher prerequisites will have better abilities). Yeah! Multi-classing - must have a certain prerequisite before multi-classing. Yes! Specialist wizard - have better abilities but have prerequisites. No, I'm not sure prerequisites are what your afer, but I'm not sure what either Spell DC - 10 + spell level + ability mod + 1/2 caster level. If you say so. And why is everyone so against save or die spells... I love them even when not the DM. Sure your character could die, could also live and nothing happens to your character!
memorax 07-05-07, 07:14 AM	-Spell level. Please, for the love of dice call it a tier in the next edition to stop confusing terminology. -Vancian Magic. Old, outdated, and impossible to balance with the current XP system. Making it a per encounter ability (say x spell tiers per encounter) and non combat/high tier spells deal temporary ability damage. - Psionics Core. Please, please make it Core - and make it and magic unique enough that the abilities work with and against each other. Please. - Institute a base class/advanced class setup from Modern/Saga. This would allow builds for every character design. More later. Agreed and seconded on all points. Espcially the Vancian Magic system which I'm starting to dislike more and more.
mathew99 07-05-07, 07:27 AM	make monk's stunng atk alot less helpfull for runnng away, being good in synch with thre unarmored seed bonus
Steely_Dan 07-05-07, 07:43 AM	make monk's stunng atk alot less helpfull for runnng away, being good in synch with thre unarmored seed bonus ...?
Leo 07-05-07, 07:53 AM	There is no room for psionics and magic in the same book. Each system is pretty heaby by itself.
Steely_Dan 07-05-07, 08:12 AM	There is no room for psionics and magic in the same book. Each system is pretty heaby by itself. Totally, that's one of the problems in 1st, 2nd and 3rd edition, is that almost a third of the PHB is taken up with spells. I want something smoother, tighter and faster (don't get too excited).
lord_zack 07-05-07, 08:22 AM	Wow, it says good changes people, no offence intended. I agree with like two things on this page. That being maybe a change in the Vancian system of magic abd traps being reworked. The paladin and ranger are pretty much fine as they are, at least conceptally, with the exception of having Paladins of different alignments. They could maybe be a little stronger maybe. The fighter definetly needs to be a better class. It does not need to be replaced with the Warblade. As for facing, no, no, no. If you want facing go out and buy the Unearthed Arcana book, but there's no way it's oing to be in core. And alot of these are just personal preference, so do it you're self. What I want to see is basically some of the changes from Saga implemented into 4e. That and make the fighter better anhd I'll basically be happy. But I'm happy now, because I like 3.5. It's fun, reasonbly easy, ect. And if I find a rule I don't like I can change it.
Steely_Dan 07-05-07, 08:42 AM	What I want to see is basically some of the changes from Saga implemented into 4e. I've already implemented the following changes from Saga into my fortnightly D&D campaign and everyone loves it: -Withdraw is a move action. -Charge is a standard action. -No 5 ft. step. -No critical confirmation rolls. -Half character level as bonus to damage. -No iterative attacks (replaced with feats such as Double Attack, Triple Attack, Cleave, Whirlwind Attack etc). -The skill system. -2 x Str bonus when wielding a weapon 2-handed. -Darkvision and low-light vision rules.
aotrscommander 07-05-07, 09:08 AM	Personally, I disagree with many of the suggestions. I have been decidedly underwhlemed by Saga Edition - whereas with 3.x I was going through and shaking my head going, "that's pure genious!", Saga I was more like "hmm." And that has nothing whatsoever with any 'loyalty' to 3.x, since prior to that my system of choise was Rolemaster. I think Saga simplified too much and 'balanced' to the point of nearly being too similiar. I have yet to see it in action, but right off the bat it didn't impress me like 3.x did (my mate is very scathing of it already.) What I would like to see, were I to right 4.0, would be: (some of these are already things I house-rule as a matter of course - other changes that would require re-designing the system from the bottom up). Get rid of Vancian casting, or at least provide a core alturnative that will work in tandem (this might be the better option, actually) - that is different to psionics. Material components should go (with the exception of ones that require particurly expensve ones); that joke has long since ceased to be funny. ToB effectively made part of Core (and for the detractors, toned down and re-(or even de-)flavoured). A shift towards per encounter instead of per day (with some sort of limitation to story-breaking effects (mainly magical, but some maneouvers too) which are open to abuse if effectively unlimited; disease cures/teleports et al). A close look at the possibility of replacing armour with DR. Graplling rules that are slightly more streamlined, but at the very least consider all types of creatures, rather than just humanoids. Death from Massive damage. Never used in AD&D, it was copied and pasted into 3.x without even thinking about it and really doesn't add anything to the game. Elimination of multi-classing penalites altogether; though I personally like the classes. I'm not enamoured of the D20 modern way of doing things, to be honest. Argueably, the elimination of odd- ability scores (though not really a major issue). They don't have any game effects aside from those deliberately included to give them some purpose (i.e. feat pre-reqs). You could easily re-write point buy (and/or rolling) without worrying about them. Sensible rules for diplomacy that do not equate to a "I win!" button if used by RAW such that a lot of DMs simply don't allow it to work. (This applies to Intimidate too, to a lesser extent). The Saga condition chart may well have merits. A proper fatigue system. Perhaps the best way to work spells with a 'per encounter' system, allow a per encounter system to 'push' the players in terms of resources on occasion. This would be in addition to maneouver/power/spell (etc) costs, meanign fighting several battles per day would be of no moment, but casting umpty dozen times per day wears the PC out. (This equally would apply to casters/manifesters/adepts and all the rest. As any of you who have been in exams will attest, even concentration wears you out). Better traps. 'Force' people to actually think about the trap, making them have a proper trigger et al and make it a proper encounter, not just a "bang, it's a 100' pit trap." I still do this myself. However, with a better front end for traps - one that made you think about it a bit, like in the lock picking or tap systems of some computer games, I'd actually be more inclined to spend time on them. Rather than have them as a thing that happens if the Rogue fails his Search and/or Disable Device check). Make them maybe a mini-game in and of themselves, like combat (but much shorter, obviously!) Better 'Epic' support (i.e. a more rounded progression overall, rather than the immediate jump; though I agree with the BAB/Saves progression for Epic, the rest of the system could use some work). And, for crying out loud, integrate this from the start such that certain monsters (dragons, for example) don't fragrently ignore the rules for no reason at all. I like the skills; Saga editions variants to me made the sacrifice of nuance of character for generation speed, which I thought to be a poor sacrifice (especially since in every other system - level-based or not - progression [I]was pretty much skill progression). Some of the skills could be condensed, however, (as Saga has done) and perhaps Skill Tricks integrated into the actual skills themselves (i..e at certain ranks you can do this thing or that thing with a skill check). Definately keep monsters and characters on the same generation method. It makes it So. Much. Easier. to design monsters and characters, because you only have to remember one set of information. Standardisation is always good; indeed without it, D&D would lose one of it's major draws for me. I also prefer a well-interlocked rules set. Yes, it might make it harder to change bits, but I'd rather have a well-thought out main chassis running on "this rule applies to everything unless it specifically says it doesn't" to lots of little rules that while individually are easier to change means you have to remember them - or simply not have as many rules in the first place (which I think is also deterimental in most of the RPG rules sets I've enountered.)
Steely_Dan 07-05-07, 09:13 AM	Get rid of Vancian casting A shift towards per encounter instead of per day (with some sort of limitation to story-breaking effects (mainly magical, but some maneouvers too) which are open to abuse if effectively unlimited; disease cures/teleports et al). Graplling rules that are slightly more streamlined, but at the very least consider all types of creatures, rather than just humanoids. Death from Massive damage. Never used in AD&D, it was copied and pasted into 3.x without even thinking about it and really doesn't add anything to the game. Elimination of multi-classing penalites altogether Sensible rules for diplomacy that do not equate to a "I win!" button if used by RAW such that a lot of DMs simply don't allow it to work. (This applies to Intimidate too, to a lesser extent). Yep.
tankschmidt 07-05-07, 09:50 AM	Have I missed something? I don't seem to have ANY problems making houserules. In 3.5 or any other system. I've yet to encounter any armed WoTC rules police threatning to kill me, nor has God himself yet spoken to me on the subject.... And rouse rules are made with the consent of all around the table. So I really don't see anything stopping me. Okay, let me shoot you one quick example: the unified experience system is in my opinion one of the worst changes they made for 3.0. If I want to design a homebrew class in 3.x, I have to agonize over how balanced it is. If I'm playing another game, however, I just slow the experience progression for more powerful classes, and I'm done.
Steely_Dan 07-05-07, 09:59 AM	Okay, let me shoot you one quick example: the unified experience system is in my opinion one of the worst changes they made for 3.0. If I want to design a homebrew class in 3.x, I have to agonize over how balanced it is. If I'm playing another game, however, I just slow the experience progression for more powerful classes, and I'm done. I think the 1st and 2nd edition method or requiring different classes to gain different amounts of XP to level was always a horrendous idea. You had parties with 10th level fighters and 16th level thieves or what have you. The classes should be balanced against each other at any given level.
Eater_Of_Souls 07-05-07, 10:13 AM	What I miss in D&D is a better synergy between skill points and ability scores. "Story telling"- system which is used in White Wolf's games is and exellent system on how you abilities and skills should work together. Example: You have Dexterity 2/5 and brawl 3/5, you determine you "dice pool" by adding 2+3 = 5x d10 to roll. Having a 4 or more "dots" in any ability / attribute allows you to roll any 10s (and 1's remove each success) again to see if you get more successes, this rewards high ability / skill scores better then current system we have in D20 imho.
Von_Harbringer 07-05-07, 10:14 AM	But Dwarves have a resistance to poison... don't they, Or am I back in Nostalga world again wih 2ed? Yes they do, I play dwarves all the time. There are 2 problems that I have. For the player, classes with low Fort saves get hit with poison attacks fail and fail again with the same poison. 2d6 pts of con dmg each time is brutal. For the DM side, having (in my character's case) a player with a +12 save against poison at level 8 is insane. With a save that high they are practically immune to poison.
tankschmidt 07-05-07, 10:23 AM	I think the 1st and 2nd edition method or requiring different classes to gain different amounts of XP to level was always a horrendous idea. You had parties with 10th level fighters and 16th level thieves or what have you. The classes should be balanced against each other at any given level. Then we shall just have to agree to disagree! ;)
Steely_Dan 07-05-07, 10:27 AM	Then we shall just have to agree to disagree! ;) Absolutely! What a boring world it would be if we all agreed on everything.
Lykor 07-05-07, 11:33 AM	Things that need to be fixed for 4th ed: Skill based feats - Need to be fixed. Right now they contribute so little as to be almost useless. Maybe increase the bonuses and make the appropriate feats always class based. Multiclassing - The move from 2nd to 3rd fixed a lot of the big issues, and my guess is that the remnants of this were kept around for power reasons. These can safely be removed now, as they don't add much beyond inconvenience. Turning - Either useless or overpowered. Change to a damage based (with maybe a will save for a fear). Feat/Skill prereqs for prestige classes - For the love of god, remove Skill Focus (X) and Endurance from the list prereq feats for classes. Also, make sure that the primary classes your PrC is geared for has the skill on it's class list. For example, the Blackguard, the ANTI-PALADIN, needs hide which is definately not on the paladin class list. Blackguard is a melee combat PrC, but is easiest to get into from rogue. Poison - make it work for an entire encounter, not evil, and cheaper. Not necessarily easy to acquire, just cheaper. Consumables/Material components - Make them cheaper. Most people don't like blowing 2k for a single shot item. Likewise, who ever casts Circle of Death at 500g a pop? Either make it a focus or lose the cost. The idea of a spell component is nice, but it fails massively when logic is applied. Crafting - I understand why the XP cost is in place (so people just don't sit around making stuff all day). This isn't needed, however, as people don't WANT to sit around and craft, they want to go out and kill stuff and take their loot. Removing this won't break the system. Also, tighten up the feats. Why is crafting a rod/staff so much harder than a wand or wonderous item? Polymorph - how does this work again? Add a low level, non-combat version (squirrels, cats, etc). Make the standard polymorph and baleful polymorth 6th level. Make shapechange able to turn into a single creature only. Make PaO 9th level and actually work without confusion. Spells - Mordenkainen's Disjunction, Finger of Death, even Otto's Irrestible Dance (and other save or die/suck/lose all gear spells). These spells can be game over for your character and are pretty much unpreventable. No Save spells have their place, but no save and die spells are bad. Likewise any spell that permanently harms a character should be removed or changed to be less effective (ie MD could just keep the artifact destruction properties but act as a single target dispel for 1 rd/level). See my rant about material components. To counterbalance this, make spell DCs scale better (but have less class/feat based options of boosting them). Ability/Level Damage/Drain - these should ALWAYS have a save. Make removing them easier. Base classes- monks need to be less MAD and scale better. Paladins need less restrictions and also less MAD. Fighters need to scale better past level 10(maybe more fighter only feats). Certain "must have" feats should be given to classes (Natural spell). Fix DMM. Remove dead levels. Give class features to clerics or sorcerers. Make Core PrCs suck less. Things that are fine now (or are harmless): Skills - Non-combat related options. They give your character something to do other than stab people. A few of the have-not classes could use a bump, maybe to a minimum of 4 per level. XP, classes, and levels- It's been this way for a while and probably won't change. If you don't like discrete classes, make your own or play a different system. HP - No, it's not 100% realistic, but it's better than called shots. Plus keeping track of multiple vitality regions gets annoying. Rolling for stats - try to make a playable paladin or monk with point buy. It doesn't work. If you have problems with your players cheating, try making them roll in front of you. If you want less power, use a less powerful stat generation method. Non-Core base classes - Swasbuckler, Warlock, Dread Necromancer, Duskblade, etc are all good classes, but aren't really needed in core. They are fine where they are now. Things that shouldn't be in 4th: Any rule that was left out for 3rd ed from 2nd ed. There is a reason it wasn't included. The rule is dead. Let it lie in peace. Facing - Add an optional rule in the 4th ed version of UA. Facing is usually a pita and contributes little. For all of the "well it's realistic" people, just watch any movie featuring lots of swordfights - you see people dodging/stabbing people behind them all the time and since you are the hero, you can do stuff like that. Psionics - Just like magic, but not. It doesn't add anything that magic can't do and just creates confusion. The optional XPH should work wonders. Plus some people just don't like psionics. Called shots - UA. This also could get annoying real fast when your eyes get mauled by every critter you come across. Fractional/Skill Based BAB/Saves/etc - UA again, if that. If you don't like how DnD does it, play a different system. Death from massive damage - a hold out from 2nd ed but easy enough to houserule away. Doesn't add much and doesn't cost that much either.
Steely_Dan 07-05-07, 11:43 AM	Turning - Either useless or overpowered. Change to a damage based (with maybe a will save for a fear). There's a great Turning variant in Complete Divine you might want to check out: Turn 3 + Cha modifier times per day, 1d6 per cleric level damage to all undead within a 30 ft. radius, Will save DC 10 + cleric level + cha for half damage.
Grand Theft Otto 07-05-07, 01:00 PM	ive never seen an argument related to alignment, and i think it does add something--a way to have spells and effects hurt or benefit people of certain moral values. how do you do a spell like holy smite without alignment? Smite infidel - target someone not of your faith. Holy smite - deal damage to undead and typed outsiders. etc. if they do that, why have classes at all? and no, i dont think they should get rid of classes. Classes are abilities, pre-packaged for convenience. You could, in theory, learn to do surgery without being a doctor or attending medical school. Classes get them faster/easier, but turning things into feat chains would prevent dipping. There should be some way to learn to shoot a bow in melee without being an order of the bow initiate. Someone with sneak attack should be able to learn death attack without being the assassin prc, etc. To me, most PRC's seem like piles of feats to begin with. the turn undead rules ARE simple. reducing it to one step would probably be handy though. really all you need is the second step, the first one just seems to be there to screw the cleric over. Also that undead are poorly designed. They have retardedly high HD compared to CR's. That you need to be 16th level to turn low CR zombies and skeletons is just stupid. why does everyone want this? it makes the game more lethal, which is bad for PCs, and also makes combat go quicker. combat takes too few rounds as it is. Largely its just an added PITA step. I'm for smoother resolutions all around. Some mechanics for crit reduction could be incorporated for players or something. Maybe I'm just annoyed at how long it took a dual wielder with blindfight to finish her attack sequences against an enemy with conceal and fortification in our last game session, but it seems that some stuff could be condensed. nonrandom HP gen i dont really care about, but i HATE nonrandom stat generation(which for the most part seems to mean point buy as far as ive seen). i have a lot of reasons for it, but the big ones are as follows: --nonrandom stat generation homogenizes every character. --nonrandom stat generation promotes min/maxing. min/maxing in certain things im fine with, but with starting stats, it just doesnt make realistic sense to me, since genetic engineering doesnt exist in D&D. Really? Like all those high strength low intelligence mages that are cranked out with random rolling? ;) Hehe, sorry, but both types promote about the same level of min-maxing. The whole concept of dump stat comes from the rolling days. Most importantly, you arent playing a "random guy", you are playing a specific one. The one with a 15 int, 14 dex, 14 con, etc. You dont roll for personality, background, etc. Or really anything else in character creation. Moreover, any organized play (the RPGA) assumes nonrandom character generation. Its a throwback to an older edition, nothing more.
Grand Theft Otto 07-05-07, 01:37 PM	You're totally on my page. Can you point me in the direction of Monte Cook's magic system? It was a post he made musing about a new era of magic, I think on enworld. Nothing concrete. Basically you'd have various at will powers, similar to a warlock's invocations. Perhaps with some kind of fatigue system, or just use the ToB's maneuvers known/readied type thing. This would let the casters do "magic guy" stuff in every encounter, even at a low level. Perhaps you could ramp these up with con damage or fatigue or expensive components. This would largely simulate how casters are portrayed in novels. Your second group would be rituals - long cast time, potentially expensive, and potentially dangerous. Your stuff you dont want people doing all the time would find its way here. Teleport, scry, powerful summoning, divinations, etc. These arent prepared like spells are - your character knows them and can try as long as they have the time and resources to pull them off. Last you have some manner of buff type mechanics (I think called weavings/blessings). They are always on, and scale with power. For the most part, stuff like mage armor is always on at upper levels, so just cut out the middle man, and let the mage keep it on at low levels too (perhaps at +2 ac at 1st level and scaling). Each character could have a limited number of these on at any time (say that the more auras on a person could interfere w one another) - this keeps your record keeping low. So your wizard gets his mage armor and the priest's bless, the fighter gets the bless and a ritual of strength, the rogue gets a blessing of shadows and the bless, etc instead of the buff parade (with... /shudder, durations) to keep track of now. Theres nothing inherently wrong with being able to augment yourself and others with magic, its just that the amount of buffs on tend to create book-keeping headaches currently. God forbid someone dumps a dispel magic mid combat, and the issues of stat block alteration that entails. Oh, and if you are looking for a simpler, more elegant turning mechanic, you should check out the variant in Complete Divine (1d6 per cleric level in a 30 ft. radius, Will save for half, DC 10 + cleric level + Cha modifier) Yeah, we're planning on trying that out in our games as soon as we pick up our regular campaign again. Complete Divine largely sat unread on my shelf since I bought it, so I'd mostly forgotten about the option.
lord_zack 07-05-07, 03:01 PM	Also stuff like Eldritch Machines, Magical Locations, Magic Events, ect. should be core.
Von_Harbringer 07-05-07, 06:43 PM	I am not sure if it was seen but I still think that xp debt would be better than loosing a level. I got the idea from Everquest when I was playing. If a player gets xp drained below their current level they would take minuses to saves, bab, and skill checks. I always get annoyed that I loose a level = loose spells.
mshea 07-05-07, 07:20 PM	Anyone else notice the Star Wars Core Edition plug in today's July Preview article? /ponder
lucianbear 07-05-07, 08:03 PM	ECL must go :D
NobodyRemembersThis 07-05-07, 09:06 PM	ECL must go :Dbut what would you replace it with? XP debt (as another poster suggested)? :plotting: That could work. Take a 1000 xp hit per ECL level? That would simulate the power level and allow the players to get a little bit ahead. Much to think on.
Stormonu 07-06-07, 12:02 AM	HP - No, it's not 100% realistic, but it's better than called shots. Plus keeping track of multiple vitality regions gets annoying. Ah, hit points. I hate how in the current game your fine, until suddenly you lose your last hit point and you fall over dead. It's like watching the black knight "Tis' only a flesh wound!" I'd like to see a "damage scale" put into the game. At 100% to 51% of your hit points, your fine. At 50% to 26%, your fatigued. At 25%-1%, your exhausted. The rest here would be a more optional change to the standard rules: At 0 hit points to a negative value equal to your Con modifier, your disabled. Below that up to your Constitution score in the negatives, your dying (and that would really make Con damage suck...). Once you get in the negatives exceeding a value equal to your Con, your dead. Monster/NPC stat blocks would already have the threshholds statted out - for example a 100 hp monster (with a 23 Con) would have hp: 100/50/25/0/-7/-24 (Fine/Fatigued/Exhausted/Disabled/Dying/Dead). Or just hp: 100/50/25. A chart in the PHB could break down the hit points from 1 to 100 - like the carrying capacity chart or the ability score chart in the PHB. Character sheets would have the same thing; wouldn't be more difficult that keeping track of AC, touch AC and flat-footed AC. Of course, you'd probably want to increase low-level hit points; perhaps add the character's Con score to his initial hit points or somesuch.
Eater_Of_Souls 07-06-07, 04:53 AM	Things that need to be fixed for 4th ed: Skill based feats - Need to be fixed. Right now they contribute so little as to be almost useless. Maybe increase the bonuses and make the appropriate feats always class based. Easy way to fis this would be to make feats like skill focus to give you ranks instead of skill points and enforce the 3+level for buying new skills- rule (as it is now very few GM's use this rule when buying skills). This way feats like skill focus would actually be worth buying them, since buying a rank in any skill for example at level 10 costs 13 skill points, unless you have a house rule for buying skills.
Steely_Dan 07-06-07, 06:06 AM	Ah, hit points. I hate how in the current game your fine, until suddenly you lose your last hit point and you fall over dead. It's like watching the black knight "Tis' only a flesh wound!" Have at you! Seriously, you might want to check out the Condition Track from d20 Star Wars:Saga Edition.
Manyfist 07-06-07, 06:11 AM	LA needs to go. 9/10 times it gimps the creature with un-needed LA which a non LA race could do better at such level or wasn't that much better than an LA:+0 race.
Steely_Dan 07-06-07, 06:13 AM	LA needs to go. 9/10 times it gimps the creature with un-needed LA which a non LA race could do better at such level or wasn't that much better than an LA:+0 race. And maybe a way to trade in racial levels/HD for class levels.
Aaarrrgh 07-06-07, 07:09 AM	How would a "spells per encounter" system make spellcasters more balanced? As I see it, one of two things would happen: 1) The caster is able to "go nova" in every encounter. This would make it extremely overpowered against weak opponents. 2) To avoid scenario 1, spellcasters are made weaker, so they can't "go nova". This would make them underpowered against strong enemies. The current system avoids these problems, at least partially.
Steely_Dan 07-06-07, 07:26 AM	How would a "spells per encounter" system make spellcasters more balanced? A lot of us want to see a magic system along the lines of ToB or the The Force rules from Saga. It would avoid the nova action, and a wizard would be able to contribute in every encounter, instead of being reduced to a schmuck with a crossbow because he blew his last spell in the previous encounter.
NobodyRemembersThis 07-06-07, 07:35 AM	How would a "spells per encounter" system make spellcasters more balanced? As I see it, one of two things would happen: 1) The caster is able to "go nova" in every encounter. This would make it extremely overpowered against weak opponents. 2) To avoid scenario 1, spellcasters are made weaker, so they can't "go nova". This would make them underpowered against strong enemies. The current system avoids these problems, at least partially.Please see >THIS THREAD< (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=880206) for a discussion on how/why per encounter could work with the current power level.
mkill 07-06-07, 11:49 AM	Before I write my take at 4th edition, a few general guidelines: * Simplify. The basic game, as outlined in the PHB, is too complicated. I'd say 20% of the rules can be thrown out without taking away the fun or the flavour. * Stop appeasing the "old schoolers". There is too much left in the game "because it has always been this way" or "this way it feels more like the old edition". I especially look at stuff like random rolls for character creation, elves detecting secret doors, XP penalties for multiclassing, Turn Undead and vancian magic. There are so many little bits that don't fit into the clean spirit of 3rd edition. Just finally get rid of it since you didn't have the balls for 3.5 ed. *Stop this "protect a classes niche" crap. There is no need to restrict Trap Finding to rogues or Weapon Specialization to Fighters. Multiclassing makes these niches superfluous anyway. * Use less space for spells in the PHB, a) by throwing out the high levels b) by using smaller type c) by finding a way to make shorter descriptions or c) by making individual spells more flexible, so you need less *Level increase should increase a PCs possibilities, not his numbers. In older D&D versions, classes like the fighter didn't learn anything new, they just had higher numbers for what they did (such as smash monsters). In D&D 3, this changed somewhat with more class specials and the feat system. Now a high-level fighter has more options in combat through feats that grant new maneuvers. For 4th edition, I want even less growth in numbers (BAB, hp, damage) and even more growth in maneuvers and options for high levels. *As part of the flatter power curve, fix the power of a spells and don't let them gain power with spellcaster level. This also simplifies the game. The only way to boost spells should be metamagic feats. The metamagic feats should be revamped, and they should be the base of a new, reformed magic system. KEEP There is also stuff that 4th edition should not touch. These are the basics of D&D. WotC could publish a game that does not include these cornerstones, but they shouldn't call it D&D and make it a branch line. *the D20 *classes and levels: I've played systems that use a point-based character generation and these have their own problems. The main advantage of a class/level system is that it is easier to balance *the iconic roles of fighter / thief / magic user / cleric, but with the possibility to freely mix and match
Sigurd van Norhusen 07-06-07, 01:31 PM	I want the metasetting back.
Stormonu 07-06-07, 01:34 PM	LA needs to go. 9/10 times it gimps the creature with un-needed LA which a non LA race could do better at such level or wasn't that much better than an LA:+0 race. I think LA needs to stay, but you should at least still get d6 hit points and bad save increases for LA (and maybe wizard BAB and 2 skill points/LA). That, or you should be able to pay LA's off. Several of the LA's are likewise artificially high for those creatures the designers didn't want people to be playing. I think they ought to be forced to throw their prejudices out the window and just give them LAs based on the true advantages , not on what they want to see played.
Leo 07-06-07, 01:47 PM	I think LA needs to stay, but you should at least still get d6 hit points and bad save increases for LA (and maybe wizard BAB and 2 skill points/LA). That, or you should be able to pay LA's off. Several of the LA's are likewise artificially high for those creatures the designers didn't want people to be playing. I think they ought to be forced to throw their prejudices out the window and just give them LAs based on the true advantages , not on what they want to see played. Let's put it this way: People like playing monsters. Monsters are cool. Problem is, they don't want to sacrifice anything for it. Yes, a dragon wizard won't be as good spellcaster as a human wizard. What, you wanted fullcasting capacity plus stat bonus+ special abilities+free flight+natural armor+ lots of other stuff for free? And then, the uber optimizers claim taking antyhing other than LA 0 for a caster is complete foolinesh since it will delay your casting ability, no matter how good bonus you may get. And it's a safety measure. If the La's weren't so high and we didn't apply the racial HD rule, we would now have threads discussing why wizards had made all the core races useless, and how monster class X and Y were so broken. Mind you, calculating LA's isn't easy. Spell like abilities, immunities, natural attacks, size, etc, they all come into account. Wizards just too the safest road.
Stormonu 07-06-07, 01:54 PM	Mind you, calculating LA's isn't easy. Spell like abilities, immunities, natural attacks, size, etc, they all come into account. Wizards just too the safest road. Like CR, LA is an art. But there have been places (books, articles or threads, I can't remember which), where certain monsters did have their LA artificially inflated to discourage folks from playing them as PCs. I think there may be sidebar in Savage Species or Unearthed Arcana to that effect, even.