Post/Author/DateTime	Post
The_Black_Dragon 08-13-06, 05:31 PM	Now, I don't know if 4e is on the horizon or not. I still am not sure if this is a big rumor that has been fueled by overexaggeration and whatnot. However, I do know that if 4e does come, it will be different in more ways than one. So here's my question. In the 4e PHB, are there any races, classes, spells, rules, etc. that you would want added in to the core array? In the 4e DMG, are there any prestige classes, rules, magic items, dungeon features, etc. that you would want added in to the core array. In the 4e MM, are there any monsters that should go into a core monster book? Any that shouldn't?
emperor norton 08-13-06, 05:42 PM	I decree 4e blow-worthy.
Millennium 08-13-06, 05:45 PM	I don't believe that we're going to see 4e for a long time, if we ever do. But assuming that one comes, here's what I'd want to see: In the 4e PHB, are there any races, classes, spells, rules, etc. that you would want added in to the core array? More and clearer discussion of alignment: what it is, what it isn't, and (perhaps most importantly) how and why the paladin's code is not an alignment issue. In the 4e DMG, are there any prestige classes, rules, magic items, dungeon features, etc. that you would want added in to the core array. I basically want them to just wholesale merge DMGII into the DMG. In the 4e MM, are there any monsters that should go into a core monster book? Any that shouldn't? I'd like to see the Phoenix make it back into the MM, and maybe some yugoloths to round out the demons and devils. Other than that, I can't really say I'd change too much. Maybe bring back the flumph?
Drodain 08-13-06, 05:47 PM	i say they just put everything 4e into the core books, idc if theyre 1k pages long each, it will add to the helpfulness really, and you only have to pay once
Zalaz Mavi 08-13-06, 07:29 PM	I just renewed my subscriptions for Dragon and Dungeon for three years. As long as 4e waits until those subscriptions expire — in case I don't like 4e and want to carry on with the current version — then I have no problems...
whizz 08-13-06, 07:46 PM	Perhaps a stepback to previous editions where each race had a role - human all rounder, dwarf warrior,elf wizard, halfling thief, half-orc all round bad guy and had advantages to reflect there role (no more dwarven wizards, half-orc paladins or halfling barbarians) - I like the structure and the free multi-classing but bring back racial restrictions so each race has a role to fill. Like feats, give characters more feats (but perhaps tone some down for balance) - this way each character can be unique - more feats could mean more variety instead of identikit fighters for instance (power attack, cleave, great cleave blah blah blah - perhaps different styles - Tome of Swords?
Tobus Neth 08-13-06, 08:31 PM	Squashit
Jhaelen 08-14-06, 05:48 AM	In the 4e PHB, are there any races, classes, spells, rules, etc. that you would want added in to the core array? In the 4e DMG, are there any prestige classes, rules, magic items, dungeon features, etc. that you would want added in to the core array. In the 4e MM, are there any monsters that should go into a core monster book? Any that shouldn't? The easy answer: Yes, yes, and yes. The more complete answer: - The array of core classes should be chosen with a fresh mind: NO inclusion of classes that are just there for nostalgic reasons. - I want a small set of balanced classes with clearly defined roles and a multi-classing concept that doesn't result in significantly weaker OR stronger characters. - I'd much prefer it if the game rules were sufficiently different that there was no need for prestige classes. - Do away with the current feat system. It's overly complicated and doesn't scale. - One system for all kinds of supernatural powers (divine, arcane, psionic, maneuvers, etc.) - Release date: Not before 2010
theEaterOfShades 08-14-06, 10:33 AM	Make the druid class sound and self contained. No more look at page xyz and abc for wildshape but add this line in and disregard this wording. Spend the extra page space and have wild shape discussed on its own, not linked to spell descriptions. Also don't keep changing it in eratta so that nobody knows what the heck is going on. This class has been destroyed in this way, and it makes me angry. Also bring back the specialty priest concept from the 2nd Ed Realms Likewise, bring back Myrkul. Kelemvor, while I liked him in the Avatar Trilogy, is bland as a god of Death/the Dead A 1st/2nd/3rd/3.5 Ed druid enthusiast
Victor_Phoenix 08-14-06, 11:01 AM	I would like a complete over haul to the core D20 rules Some things I would like to see. A system some what like *White-Wolf, L5R,..Ect." In which your character start out the same and experiance is spent and is not level dependant. A overhaul on the combat system to make it clearer and quicker. " I have no idea how to acomplish this" A change in the spell system. Basically what I would like to see is same game new System completely new System
obrysii 08-14-06, 11:35 AM	I want a system that makes it easier to play monster races, and more support for said system.
Jovknee 08-14-06, 11:53 AM	More and clearer discussion of alignment: what it is, what it isn't, and (perhaps most importantly) how and why the paladin's code is not an alignment issue. Actually I'd rather see the alignment system thrown into the trash. Characters do what they wish when they wish to do so. However they have to understand that there are others that may not like their actions and try to thwart them. As for paladin's, with no alignment they are a bit more free to do what they want, however if they do something which would be considered bad/harmful to others (aka evil), then they lose their abilities. A system some what like *White-Wolf, L5R,..Ect." In which your character start out the same and experiance is spent and is not level dependant. I don't see why you want D20 more like White Wolf. If I want to play a White Wolf game, then I'll go play one. I wouldn't want to make D20 the same as it. Do away with the current feat system. It's overly complicated and doesn't scale. I wouldn't say do away with the feat system, but erase and start over. Make all feats as close to equal as you can get. Right now it seems that with every new book that comes out the feats get more and more powerful, and a lot of feats from previous books get more useless. When I see this happening I think of Paladium Games. With every book they came out with their classes and races got extremely powerful and would wipe away any class from the core book. Something I would like to see would be a reduction on the skill list. Would be easier to only have to make one stealth roll instead of one move silently and one hide. Then the enemy would make one alertness roll, instead of one spot and one listen.
babysamurai 08-14-06, 11:54 AM	Clearer, seamless Epic rules.
Thelandrach 08-14-06, 12:54 PM	Any revision to the game system that can be summarized as taking things from other books (already published) and adding them to the core rulebooks, or taking things from the core rulebooks and moving them to other supplemental books, is not enough of a change in the game system to warrant a new version of the game. It would not sell. If they came out with a set of PHB III, Complete Prestige and Complete Feats books in which the only content was stuff previously published, it wouldn't sell very well, and shouldn't be called a new version of the game. So, if they're going to come up with a new version of the game that justifies everybody spending another $400 so they can keep playing D&D, they will have to come up with something that is as much or more of a quantum change from D20 as D20 was from 2nd edition D&D.
jagggar 08-14-06, 03:01 PM	If they made 4e open game whatever like 3.x is, I would want to see D&D be a supplement. I would want to have one core book like d20 Modern. When it says basic classes, it means basic classes. It would include not just everything a player needs to play, but everything a DM/GM needs to run a game. Nothing in the book in way of gods or monsters would be Product Identity. The Core book would include "Campaign Models" the way d20 Modern does, providing abbrev. rules for Ancient/Past settings, Modern settings, Future settings, Fantastic settings, and how to combine them. Dungeons & Dragons would be a generic supplement. It would include more D&Dish resources, Races (including a variety of playable monster races), Classes (be they base, advanced, or PrC), Skills/Feats (or whatever else they do with this section), and Spells/Powers/Etc. The Monster Manual(s) would be a seperate book as would each campaign setting (And [monster]s in Eberron/FR would become web enhancements. MM IV type books would be released as "encounter complilations" or something.). Other supplements would include (GENERIC) Oriental Adventures, Modern, Future, and such. All of the books would include a section on GMing and play style. Play style would include a "standard" version of Alignment/Honor/Alligence as appropriate to the setting with some explanaition as to why it is, and on "alternative" systems. OA would get its own monster book, Modern might or might not, Future would probably end up with lots of aliens. 6 months to a year after launch, they should release a Unearthed Arcana type book that includes variant rules. It would include a section on combining the different supplements into one game. Maybe it would be a bit DMGIIish and include a "guide" to reflavoring released material and a stick with which to beat a player who complains about things not following the canon flavor of the current or previous editions. If it doesn't go open content, I'm probably not going to care too much.
UmbralKnight 08-14-06, 03:08 PM	*lovingly caresses pitchfork in anticipation* :fight!:
Amaril 08-14-06, 04:12 PM	* A single core rulebook with the core rules and guidelines. Let the campaign setting supplements handle deities, and put magic items within a player's reach instead of in a seperate book altogether. It doesn't make sense to have item creation feats in the PH and then magic items in the DMG. The same goes for monsters. Why should a player have to reference another book entirely to use a spell that is in the PH? * A point-based spell system that is augmentable like psionics. A lot of the spells can be reduced to one using this system.
BrotherDog 08-14-06, 04:22 PM	I won't be able to afford either way. I still can't really upgrade to 3.5 because of how much they upped the prices.
Tristan 08-14-06, 05:32 PM	Sounds like there are a bunch of people who want old stuff back, or complete changes that might alienate the entire community
Milo HoBo 08-14-06, 05:39 PM	I want psionics to be in the core rules. It's beautiful augmentation rules. I don't want vancian casting. I would like to step away from it and go with spontaneous casting or prepared spontaneous casting. I can deal with alignment, as long as they have a really good alternative system where spells with alignment descriptors still work or make sense. Scaling feats, or ToB's system. Druids use the PHII variant for wildshape. Core classes that don't rely on PrCing. Rules for converting your favorite 3.5 supplemental materials like MoI and ToM.
Valmanis 08-14-06, 09:51 PM	I hope they still goes with the 3.5e for realy long time because I Bought a lote of books of the 3.5 but I cant remake my collection every 5 years. if they go out with an other edition in the next 7 to 8 years I will stop playing D&D for ever. We all spend a lot of money and I think Wizard shouldn change the Ed. they juste have to make new books but not every month but they should be a little better than the one they put on the market (They are really good but they should be a bit better) But thats only my opinion so talking about a new ed. Hummmm. :( :weep: Id reaky like the 3.5 ed.
The_Black_Dragon 08-14-06, 09:59 PM	I hope they still goes with the 3.5e for realy long time because I Bought a lote of books of the 3.5 but I cant remake my collection every 5 years. if they go out with an other edition in the next 7 to 8 years I will stop playing D&D for ever. We all spend a lot of money and I think Wizard shouldn change the Ed. they juste have to make new books but not every month but they should be a little better than the one they put on the market (They are really good but they should be a bit better) But thats only my opinion so talking about a new ed. Hummmm. :( :weep: Id reaky like the 3.5 ed. If 4e were compatible with 3.5/3.0, then things would work out for many.
Millennium 08-14-06, 10:48 PM	Actually I'd rather see the alignment system thrown into the trash. Characters do what they wish when they wish to do so. However they have to understand that there are others that may not like their actions and try to thwart them. But that's how the alignment system already works. It only restricts your roleplaying if you're Exalted or metagaming. For Exalted characters, this restriction comes with the territory: if you're going to draw strength from your morality then you need to, you know, exhibit it. The third situation is the player's problem (or possibly the DM's) and no one else's: gross misapplications of alignment are not a sign that the system should be scrapped. Alignment is a barometer, not a straitjacket. Wizards could, however, certainly stand to make this more clear. I don't see why you want D20 more like White Wolf. If I want to play a White Wolf game, then I'll go play one. I wouldn't want to make D20 the same as it. Then why are you advocating exactly that? Would be easier to only have to make one stealth roll instead of one move silently and one hide. Then the enemy would make one alertness roll, instead of one spot and one listen. Despite the fact that these rolls represent completely different things, you mean?
Frozen Yakman 08-15-06, 01:39 AM	Changes I'd want to see: * Race becomes important across all 20 levels, that is as you level you unlock new racial abilities to keep the race you choose as statistically relevant at high level as it is at low levels. * Open up the magic system - Basically do to magic what was done to weapon combat and skills from 2e to 3e, make it available to all just make the caster classes significantly better at it than the other classes. The big reason there are so many problems with multiclass casters is because each caster class grants exclusive indpendent access to its spellcasting abilities and they don't synergize with the other classes.
babysamurai 08-15-06, 06:59 AM	I still think Skills are a little clunky. Not the way they are used, but the way they are chosen.
Nightwhisper 08-15-06, 08:35 AM	What I'd really look forward to in 4e would be balance per encounter/scene, not per day. Or, to put it another way, the system shouldn't need a "you need about 4 significant encounters per day" clause for it to be balanced. A bit less dependancy on magic items would also be nice, though not necessary.
Amaril 08-15-06, 09:22 AM	I still think Skills are a little clunky. Not the way they are used, but the way they are chosen. I agree, and I'll add that I don't think each class should have a different number of skill points. There's no reason why a fighter who chooses to wear light armor wouldn't be good at tumbling.
babysamurai 08-15-06, 09:27 AM	I agree, and I'll add that I don't think each class should have a different number of skill points. There's no reason why a fighter who chooses to wear light armor wouldn't be good at tumbling. Ah, so I'm not the only one. I like the way you think.
Amaril 08-15-06, 09:30 AM	Perhaps a good houserule (or 4e adoption) would be to grant all characters 6 or 8 (haven't decided which) skill points, select from the normal set of class skills, and choose three (or so) other skills of his or her preference as class skills.
babysamurai 08-15-06, 09:41 AM	Perhaps a good houserule (or 4e adoption) would be to grant all characters 6 or 8 (haven't decided which) skill points, select from the normal set of class skills, and choose three (or so) other skills of his or her preference as class skills. I normally don't house-rule, but I'm interested in this line of thinking. Maybe we can work on something together?
Amaril 08-15-06, 09:44 AM	I normally don't house-rule, but I'm interested in this line of thinking. Maybe we can work on something together? Certainly! Should we start a new thread or do you want to work on it via PM? I don't like house-ruling, either. I'm a stickler for RAW with very limited interpretation for the vague areas, but sometimes the rules just frustrate me to no end.
babysamurai 08-15-06, 09:48 AM	Certainly! Should we start a new thread or do you want to work on it via PM? I don't like house-ruling, either. I'm a stickler for RAW with very limited interpretation for the vague areas, but sometimes the rules just frustrate me to no end. PM me, baby! I'm at work at the moment, so be patient with me. It sounds like we're on the same page when it comes to the rules.
Izodor_Shadowcaster 08-16-06, 02:36 AM	Here comes my very long list of things I am not happy with in 3.5 and would like to see changed in 4.0. 1) Sorcerer works mecanically like the psion. No Sorcerer/Wizard spell list. Different spell list, different mecanics. 2) New magic systems. 2.5) maybe a system without prewritten spells. (just do not try to mix this with point 1) Just give the character the power to use some effects and use them. This also stops the millions of none core spells being produced. So this spelluser gains the ability to use "Electricity" or "Fire" and give him the ability to use it with a cloud-gaseous form. 3) Better use for races. Better idea for templates. 4) I want more use for the d12. Always wanted to use it , never got the chance. 5) Binder should be a core class. Paladin is useless and way to specialised. Make Paladin a PrC if they still want to keep Prcs. 6) Psionics should be core. 7) Better core material that allows you to play evil characters 8) Truenamers should be core, but balanced and fixed. 9) New Deity system (like in Deities and Demigods). I really want to see this. 10) New way of playing monster as characters. 11) Druids and Clerics should have a remake. Druids should be more focused on their wildshape and less on spells and wildshape should be less powerful. Clerics should have Divine Spell Failure with armor. 12) Away with the feat system. It just makes no sense and isn't balanced. 13) Remake of Skill system that takes over the roll of the feat system. Call it the Skill-feat system. ;) 14) No hitpoints. I know this sounds very very radical, but Consider this. No hitpoints. use something else. Like Health or something. I do not like the fact that you can say: Oh I still have 4 hit points. Hit points make no sense, we can do without it. (of course we need some other form of dealing and healing damage. I haven't really thought of this yet.) 15) Balance. I know this is very difficult and not what we are used to, but I think I am not the only one who wants some balance. :rolleyes: 16) A remake of incarnum for 4.0 And make it core if possible. 16.5) Maybe we could see a 1 try of each system. Wizards use the old spell slot system. Sorcerers use the psionic system. We also have just 1 Incarnum class (incarnate). I would like this, but it is not going to happen I think. 17) Difference between CHarisma- appearance and Charisma- personality 18) Less combat orientated and more roll playing friendly. 19) Size system (small, medium large) should be redone. It is to complicated and something like powerful build should never have existed. Maybe just weaken all the larger sizes and strengthen the smaller sizes. 20) No campaign only material. I do not want all those campaign stuff (although races of Eberron was good). Just make the campaign setting and that's it. 21) reread number 15 about balance.
Iuducium 08-16-06, 02:55 PM	Sounds like some of you should check out Green Ronin's True20 system. (also Blue Rose, but that's more genre specific). Many of the changes suggested here have been incorporated in some form in the True20 system.