Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MadScientist!! 04-05-05, 08:05 PM	Let me start off by saying that I am not trying to get information about when 4th edition is coming out, or what it is going to be like. I am just trying to see what people do and don't like about 3.5, and what they would like to change. First off, I personally don't like the class system too much. I think that d20 modern has a better system for that, with more flexible characters, and that it could be adapted with some fairly significant changes to work for dnd (main thing is they need first level casters). The other thing I want is fewer terms. HD, level, LA etc. If they can bring them down, then it will make it more friendly to newer players, and a little bit easier to keep track of everything.
DwarvinJedi 04-05-05, 08:28 PM	Actually using the D20 Modern class-idea would be awesome, I would like to see a non-vancian spell system(that doesn't use spell points), also I would rather see monsters that have less racial HD, and more class HD(basicly get rid of racial HD)
Garkahn 04-05-05, 08:29 PM	I gotta say, I think they need to eliminate the point buy system, besides the fact that I HATE IT, it really doesn't make any sense to use it when you are trying to make the game "realistic" because when i was born i really didnt have a choice in how strong i was gonna be or how smart i got what i got. and my dam dm insists on using the blasted thing :mad:
webgear68 04-05-05, 08:31 PM	i would like to see some new prestige classes for clerics for standard setting (greyhawk) and some new interesting spells and more attention to gishes as they rock ,and maybe some adventures that are easier to find, other than that i probably feel like everyone else and want stuff cheaper, but hey thats life stuff cost money
Jell_Moo 04-05-05, 08:36 PM	I'd like to see them get rid of rolling for stats completely. Point Buy is so much better. It allows the entire party to start off on the same foot, without some people getting hosed, while others shine simply because of a few rolls of the dice.
weasel fierce 04-05-05, 09:00 PM	If I was the one in charge, it'd look at awful lot like AD&D 1st edition, with some slight updates ;) Failing that, ditch all the redundant prestige classes and replace it with actual campaign and play advice. Make the rules modular. No more descending attacking modifiers. An orc shouldnt be worth 150 xp to a level 3 fighter. Seriously CR's gone. Barbarian gone. Paladin as a prestige class Druid as a prestige class Bard using druidic magic. Recommended restricted classes for Greyhawk games. No "treasure charts" More optional rules in the main books, in a chapter clearly marked for such. Multiclassing restricted to 2 classes at the most. More open class system, with more options and choices of flavour (ala Blue Rose or the UA generic classes) Alignment gone Vancian magic preserved, but numbers of spells castable reduced. Clerics given options to pick another granted power, than just turn undead. Rogue's having a bit more flexibility. Something similar to the profession system from D20 modern. Raise Dead severely restricted. *waits for the cries*
Escef 04-05-05, 09:03 PM	I believe there is already a thread just like this in the Future Releases section of the boards.
Draco Strang 04-05-05, 09:09 PM	I'd wish for people to stop drawing up these threads.
Deacon Liadon 04-05-05, 09:15 PM	*waits for the cries* :weep: I'm pretty neutral about the point-buy/dice-roll thing. They both have their strengths and their weaknesses. The point-buy system should be used if you have the picture of the char in your head andd want to make the stats match the picture. Rolling the dice gives you a set of stats that you create the char around. In 4th ed. I think I'd like to see more fluff in thev DMG (what can I say, I like fluff). It would be useful if it had more information on world and campaign creation. Also, I'd like to see the re-introduction of character strongholds from the earlier editions of D&D, that is, once your char reaches a certain level, you have to build a stronghold of some sort.
MadScientist!! 04-05-05, 09:19 PM	I believe there is already a thread just like this in the Future Releases section of the boards. This is that thread. It was just moved here. I'd wish for people to stop drawing up these threads. No offense, but if nobody wants these, and whenever somebody posted one no one replied to it, they would go down to the bottom of the list pretty fast.
LordHell 04-05-05, 09:26 PM	The day they drop the class system or magic system is the day I drop D&D for good. Im sorry, but these systems as currently implimented are the major reasons I play D&D and not some other RPG. I like the of giving monsters 'classes', but I feel there still should be a 'monster' class that is HD as it's currently implimented - for things like oozes and 'monsters' in general that don't really fit a class.
MadScientist!! 04-05-05, 09:42 PM	I am not talking about dropping classes. I am talking about using d20 modern style classes, which are more flexible and allow for things like a dex fighter who doesn't use nature magic and isn't proficient with heavy armor. It would have to be reworked to be used in a dnd style game, but I think that it is ultimately better. The basic premise is 6 base classes for each stat, so there are fast, strong, tough etc base classes. These have 10 levels, and are fairly flexible. Then there are advanced classes, like mage and bodyguard. These have 10 levels and are fairly focused. Prestige classes have five levels, and are generally fairly powerful for a specific build.
LordHell 04-05-05, 09:44 PM	I am not talking about dropping classes. I am talking about using d20 modern style classes, which are more flexible and allow for things like a dex fighter who doesn't use nature magic and isn't proficient with heavy armor. It would have to be reworked to be used in a dnd style game, but I think that it is ultimately better. The basic premise is 6 base classes for each stat, so there are fast, strong, tough etc base classes. These have 10 levels, and are fairly flexible. Then there are advanced classes, like mage and bodyguard. These have 10 levels and are fairly focused. Prestige classes have five levels, and are generally fairly powerful for a specific build. Id have to check up on it but I don't like the sound of it so far. I play D&D for the way the class system is implimented right now. If you want to use the D20 modern system, play D20 modern? :) Any future changes to D&D should not change the basics of how the game works in any significant manner. We already have the foundations of D&D that have been succesful for over 30 years, and there is no reason to mess with that.
thasis 04-05-05, 09:47 PM	I think that they should increase the power of wizards *waits for the numereous blows comming from wizard haters* I also think that magic should either be the way it is or a skill based system. It would be easier on my part if they kept it the same so it would be easy to translate the magic Prc's from 3.0 and 3.5 to 4.0. I wouldn't mind if they did more on the epic system. They have the Epic Level Handbook (which is realy good) but it's pretty broken and overpowered at some parts and in the 3.5 they don't realy cover epic level stuff much. A little bit of psionics should be in every 4e book. Not a whole lot, just enough. They don't do enough psionic stuff and that pisses me off :banghead: . I also think that they should make the books more newbie friendly. The books don't realy explain the game to you much. They just kinnda give ya the rules and a brief explination. Not realy newbie friendly (now yah see why they had to make a D&D for Dummies). I could probally think of more stuff but I'm not realy looking forward to 4e cause I don't have the money to realy upgrade to 3.5 (relying on the SRD sadly) let alone a whole new system.
Two_Piece 04-05-05, 09:50 PM	I personally would not like their to be a fourth edition, just a 3.6. It should be the same rules, but with more "fluff". LIke a beefed up description chapter in the PHB. It's one half of your character, yet it takes up like, 1/10th of the book. If you didn't change the core rules then the newcomers and people who still play 3.5 can still play together. And in terms of the money problem, I think a lot of people would upgrade to this new "3.6". This has probably been posted somewhere, but whatever, it's my two cents. :twocents: Two_Piece
LordHell 04-05-05, 09:54 PM	I think that they should increase the power of wizards *waits for the numereous blows comming from wizard haters* Im A Wizard lover and I think Wizards are probably one of the most powerful classes across all the editions :D Wizards dont need a boost in power.
MadScientist!! 04-05-05, 09:55 PM	Id have to check up on it but I don't like the sound of it so far. I play D&D for the way the class system is implimented right now. If you want to use the D20 modern system, play D20 modern? :) Any future changes to D&D should not change the basics of how the game works in any significant manner. We already have the foundations of D&D that have been succesful for over 30 years, and there is no reason to mess with that. I guess we just have to agree that there isn't a one size fits all thing for this. I really do not think that it changes it in a meaningful way, except for the class defense bonus (which would be changed for a dnd version). Here is the srd (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/msrd). Take a look at it. The character classes are pretty similar, they use BAB and saves mostly the same way. I just think it works better for more complex characters.
Frozen Yakman 04-06-05, 01:47 AM	Changing DnD classes to the flavorless bland generic base classes of D20 Modern would be an immensly bad idea. The generic base classes of d20 Modern is the reason I won't even consider playing that system. Classes should be numerous and specific and full of flavor. This why I'm in favor of abolishing the fighter and splitting it into several different types of classes since the fighter is too generic. A class should describe two things, the qualities of a person and what the person does. d20 Modern base classes fail the second condition and the fighter fails the first. That said assuming 4e is fairly similar to the d20 system I really only want 4 things: 1) Feats that increase in power as their requirements that go up. 2) A new magic system usable by all that completely ambandons the finite use paradigm. It should not be skill based. 3) Fewer skills or more skill points per level and increased reward for higher skills 4) By-level benchmarks for important character statistics. This would make things so much easier.
Escef 04-06-05, 05:00 AM	This is that thread. It was just moved here. I don't understand why this was moved. I think the Wiz_O's should stop doing this stuff when they're on prescription pain-killers.
Harold DeVor 04-06-05, 05:54 AM	I'd like to see them get rid of rolling for stats completely. Point Buy is so much better. It allows the entire party to start off on the same foot, without some people getting hosed, while others shine simply because of a few rolls of the dice. I believe we have a winner in the "First rule to get ignored" catagory.
11d7 04-06-05, 07:07 AM	Any future changes to D&D should not change the basics of how the game works in any significant manner. We already have the foundations of D&D that have been succesful for over 30 years, and there is no reason to mess with that. Yes they should becuase some of the basics need improving. Core classes have to be either more flexable or we need 40 of them in the PHB so any concept can be played and not suck for it. As they are now Dex Fighters Suck, wanting to play a divine caster not tied to a god/nature sucks (adept only option), wanting to play a ranger who isnt a TWF or Bowman sucks, wanting to play a Martial Artist who isnt a Monk sucks, wanting to play a Rogue type sneak attacker but not wanting to be the parties trap monkey sucks (like trade all those skill points and trap stuff for better HD or BAB). Some concepts I want to play can't even be played with compinations of existing classes becuase the abilites I want arnt written into the rules. 4th Ed either needs more flexable tradeing in and out abilites or 40 of them in the PHB.
Aris Stormdragon 04-06-05, 07:25 AM	1. I can see making the Paladin a PrC, but I'm not so sure about the Druid. Bard could be a possibility for PrC. 2. Assassin, Cavalier, and Necromancer as Core Classess. 3. Subraces: Ok, this is something that I've been thinking about since viewing the 'Just Say No To Elf-itis' thread. In 4th Edition, I would like to see D&D adopt the background mechanic from the Wheel of Time RPG. Instead of giving two elven subraces, say Wood Elves and Grey Elves, two different sets of stat mods, give the Wood Elves the Hide, Move Silently, Survival, and Knowledge(Nature) skills as 'bonus' skills; that is, they are treated as Class Skills regardless of the Class the Wood Elf chooses. The Grey Elf would get two Knowledge skills (most likely Arcana and the Planes), Speak Language, and Profession (Note: The skills listed are just to illustrate the mechanics of the WoT background system). This mechanic would give Background Feats, Background Skills, Homeland Language, Bonus Language Choices, and Bonus Equipment suitabel to the PC's home region. Using this background system, IMO, would give the disparate sub-races uniqueness without changing the stat mods. The Favored Class mechanic would also undergo a slight change. Instead of all Elves having wizard as their favored class, the Wood Elf would have Ranger, while the Grey Elf would have Wizard. Granted, you could use this mechanic in any setting now, but it would require a bit of work. 4. More detailed guidelined for creating PrC's.
Lina_Inverse 04-06-05, 07:26 AM	I am not talking about dropping classes. I am talking about using d20 modern style classes, which are more flexible and allow for things like a dex fighter who doesn't use nature magic and isn't proficient with heavy armor. It would have to be reworked to be used in a dnd style game, but I think that it is ultimately better. The basic premise is 6 base classes for each stat, so there are fast, strong, tough etc base classes. These have 10 levels, and are fairly flexible. Then there are advanced classes, like mage and bodyguard. These have 10 levels and are fairly focused. Prestige classes have five levels, and are generally fairly powerful for a specific build. except d20 modern doesnt have 20 levels of spellcaster as a base class. d20 modern casters are worthless(10th level casting?lvl5 magic max?SOD THAT!) additionally un-armored fighters should never work without magical protection.if you were a unarmored soldier in the middle ages,you would be laughed at. heres what i want. take out max-dex bonus. take out or fix multiclassing. more spells/day at lvl1.a mage should not get 1spell/day at lvl1.he should get like 3+bonus spells. psions/psywarriors as core. lvl1 charecters need more hp.lvl1 monsters are fine. nerf broken spells. nerf clerics/druids. buff nukeing. add more/better feats to core,includeing usefull mage feats. make metamagic not suck. spell focus should be diffrent for each type of magic.conj focus should not give +1DC. boost spell focus too actully,if +2DC is overpowered add +1where is makes sense + stuff. make useing a full attack not have to-hit penaltys.monsters dont have them,its unfair to fighters. make full attacking a standard action.wizards can cast spells and move.why cant fighters attack+move. force combat more towards melee. MORE CLASSES,MORE MORE! take out the commoner.no one sucks THAT much.make the expert 10+intmod skillpoints d4hitdice mage BAB and all bad saves. remove all genericness and bonus feats from classes.
okaynowa 04-06-05, 07:34 AM	I want chapter tabs. You know, like the indentations they have on the larger dictionaries. If you view the core rulebooks as reference materials, that sort of detail would make them more convenient tools.
Archtyrant Terevoth 04-06-05, 07:47 AM	The other thing I want is fewer terms. HD, level, LA etc. If they can bring them down, then it will make it more friendly to newer players, and a little bit easier to keep track of everything. Less complexity is definitely at the top of my wishlist. One of the largest problems with D&D is the excessive amount of computation regarding substats. For instance, monsters start out with hit dice, creature type, size, natural armor bonus and a list of ability scores. The hit dice combines with creature type to derive BaB. Your strength score gets you a strength modifier, which then is added to your BaB to get your attack bonus. That's 3 computational steps to actually reach even a simple stat like a creature's attack bonus. And it only gets worse when you're factoring in NPCs with a bunch of class levels. The number of derived stats needs to go down drastically.
Aris Stormdragon 04-06-05, 07:50 AM	psions/psywarriors as core. The EPH is in the SRD, so doesn't mean that Psion/Psychic Warrior are considered Core Classes? :confused: MORE CLASSES,MORE MORE! Testify, Sister Lina! Testify! :w00t:
Lina_Inverse 04-06-05, 09:14 AM	The EPH is in the SRD, so doesn't mean that Psion/Psychic Warrior are considered Core Classes? :confused: i mean.i want them phb.yes they are core.i say this enough :P slip o the tongue. i rewrite my wish. dont make me pay 20$ for mana users,put psions/psywarriors in the phb. Testify, Sister Lina! Testify! :w00t: ^_^
Vanamir 04-06-05, 10:50 AM	Ok my wishlist for a 4th edition: Simplified system for classes, attributes and modifiers: As it stands right now GMs have way to much workload when they are creating NPC opponents. Way to many stats are interdependent on each other and slow down the creation process. Furthermore a leaner and less rules heavy system is less prone to abuse and errors. The amount errata for almost every new WotC product shows that 3E is a system that is on the verge of becoming to complicated for even the designers to handle. Common DC scale: One of the things that bother me most ist that there is no common scale what a high or a low DC is. Excluding modifiers level-dependant class bonuses to BAB range from 0 to 20, bonuses to saves from 0 to 12 and for skills from 0 to 23. Taking into account that the amount of modifiers you can get also depends on the type this means that a given DC may be rather difficult for a save but very easy for a skill check. This is just bad game design. Redesign turning undead: As it is now it is an useless class ability since you cannot turn undead with 4HD more than your own. Unfortunately undead have probably the worst HD to CR ratio of all monster types which either means that they have so many HD that they cannot be turned at all or that they are turnable but also are so weak that they don't pose serious threat to the party anyway. Balanced spell lists: The existance of certain spells and their levels in the game are mostly determined by the fact that they existed at these levels in previous editions. For instance it is quite queer that fireball and lightningbolt are way superior to second level spells in both damage capability and area of effect. I would prefer a staggered progression in which damage dealing spells cause either a lot of damage but are restricted to few or even a single target while the area effect spells deal only moderate damage. The ability of a sorcerer/wizard should steadily increase with spell level without the large bumbs you get in the present system. Less emphasis on dungeon crawls: I know it is Dungeons&Dragons but it would be nice if the game designers would also acknowledge the fact that not everyone plays exclusively in dungeons. Many spells are too disruptive in a wildeness or urban environment as the GM constantly has to counter spells like discern location or other spells that instantly solve problems at the expense of clever roleplaying. An awful lot of adventures are mostly made impossible or implausible because the GM has to work around specific spells and class abilities. Less magic: The amount of magic items suggested by the rules is just riduculous. It doesn't even fit a single one of their own published campaign settings (except perhaps for Eberron). Furthermore it is quite annoying that at higher levels a character is mostly defined by his equipment and not by his stats. When 3E came out in 2000 i had the slight feeling that i had a pen&paper version of the Diabolo computer game before me. This feeling has become stronger. Reduction of bonus types: As it stands 3E is one of the most powergaming friendly system out there and the reason for this is that there are way to many types of bonuses that can add to a roll. I would suggest to reduce the types to magic, equipment and inherent bonuses. Furthermore unnamed bonuses should not stack with anything else unless specifically noted. Reduced power levels: The difference in power between a high and a low level character is so great that lower level NPCs simply don't make good opponents especially if you don't give them unreasonable amounts of magic items to boost them a bit. Characters should be heros not superheros. This has always been a problem with D&D in all its editions but in §E it has reached ridiculous hights. Less emphasis on tactical combat: I know very well that a well defined and flexible combat system is very important to D&D but i am a bit peeved that WotC is apparently trying to convert D&D into a tabletop miniatures game. :mad: After all it is still a roleplaying game. Incorporate VP/WP directly into the game. Ok, you may flame me now. :mage:
dulsin 04-06-05, 10:52 AM	My wish list. 1. Never publish a 4th edition. WoTC has enough of my money.
Hogre 04-06-05, 11:13 AM	Actually using the D20 Modern class-idea would be awesome, I would like to see a non-vancian spell system(that doesn't use spell points), also I would rather see monsters that have less racial HD, and more class HD(basicly get rid of racial HD) I want that, but I don't think it would be DnD. I think WotC needs to come out with a "D20 Fantasy" game. It would be a lot like DnD, but because it is using mostly d20 Modern rules, it would be better for low magic settings. So, DnD would become the high magic setting game, and D20F would become the low magic setting game.
AmanitaEata 04-06-05, 11:17 AM	My wish list. 1. Never publish a 4th edition. You beat me to the punch. I have no need for a 4th edition. I'd rather WOTC focus on creating new and useful supplements for both players and DMs.
Nidair 04-06-05, 11:30 AM	Reduction of bonus types: As it stands 3E is one of the most powergaming friendly system out there and the reason for this is that there are way to many types of bonuses that can add to a roll. I would suggest to reduce the types to magic, equipment and inherent bonuses. Furthermore unnamed bonuses should not stack with anything else unless specifically noted. Bonuses to skills span the absolute top, as so many bonuses added to skills are unnamed. Also, they should put some more thought in making PrCs instead of blindly making something groovy. For instance, it should be a good idea to remove the 'dip-classes': classes that are worthy enough to take just 1 or 2 levels in, such as the Dragonslayer and the Frenzied Berserker. Most of the time that level is only used to make a character stronger than it's supposed to be. Other PrCs are pushed far over the limit (Ur-Priest), have too little requirements (Master of Many Forms), or are too destructive to the party (Forsaker). This gives me the idea that too little time has been invested in the making of Prestige Classes, or that they have not been tested, like, at all. And then I'm not even talking about the really broken feats...
Escef 04-06-05, 11:41 AM	Other PrCs are pushed far over the limit (Ur-Priest), have too little requirements (Master of Many Forms), or are too destructive to the party (Forsaker). The Ur-Priest was designed mostly as an NPC class by the looks of it. I don't recall the MoMF off the top of my head, and the Forsaker I used as elite warriors for a warlike country that bordered a magic heavy country, called them The Null Guard. What many seem to forget is that PrCs are all optional, to be allowed at the DMs discrection. Too many people feel entitled to them. Same with driver's licenses in the States, we call it "your" license, or "my" license, even before we get them, as if we had an actual right to them instead of it being a permit to operate a dangerous piece of equipment in areas where it is possible to deal incredible damage and/or kill people.
11d7 04-06-05, 11:47 AM	Ok my wishlist for a 4th edition: Simplified system for classes, attributes and modifiers: As it stands right now GMs have way to much workload when they are creating NPC opponents. Way to many stats are interdependent on each other and slow down the creation process. Furthermore a leaner and less rules heavy system is less prone to abuse and errors. The amount errata for almost every new WotC product shows that 3E is a system that is on the verge of becoming to complicated for even the designers to handle. Common DC scale: One of the things that bother me most ist that there is no common scale what a high or a low DC is. Excluding modifiers level-dependant class bonuses to BAB range from 0 to 20, bonuses to saves from 0 to 12 and for skills from 0 to 23. Taking into account that the amount of modifiers you can get also depends on the type this means that a given DC may be rather difficult for a save but very easy for a skill check. This is just bad game design. Redesign turning undead: As it is now it is an useless class ability since you cannot turn undead with 4HD more than your own. Unfortunately undead have probably the worst HD to CR ratio of all monster types which either means that they have so many HD that they cannot be turned at all or that they are turnable but also are so weak that they don't pose serious threat to the party anyway. Balanced spell lists: The existance of certain spells and their levels in the game are mostly determined by the fact that they existed at these levels in previous editions. For instance it is quite queer that fireball and lightningbolt are way superior to second level spells in both damage capability and area of effect. I would prefer a staggered progression in which damage dealing spells cause either a lot of damage but are restricted to few or even a single target while the area effect spells deal only moderate damage. The ability of a sorcerer/wizard should steadily increase with spell level without the large bumbs you get in the present system. Less emphasis on dungeon crawls: I know it is Dungeons&Dragons but it would be nice if the game designers would also acknowledge the fact that not everyone plays exclusively in dungeons. Many spells are too disruptive in a wildeness or urban environment as the GM constantly has to counter spells like discern location or other spells that instantly solve problems at the expense of clever roleplaying. An awful lot of adventures are mostly made impossible or implausible because the GM has to work around specific spells and class abilities. Less magic: The amount of magic items suggested by the rules is just riduculous. It doesn't even fit a single one of their own published campaign settings (except perhaps for Eberron). Furthermore it is quite annoying that at higher levels a character is mostly defined by his equipment and not by his stats. When 3E came out in 2000 i had the slight feeling that i had a pen&paper version of the Diabolo computer game before me. This feeling has become stronger. Reduction of bonus types: As it stands 3E is one of the most powergaming friendly system out there and the reason for this is that there are way to many types of bonuses that can add to a roll. I would suggest to reduce the types to magic, equipment and inherent bonuses. Furthermore unnamed bonuses should not stack with anything else unless specifically noted. Reduced power levels: The difference in power between a high and a low level character is so great that lower level NPCs simply don't make good opponents especially if you don't give them unreasonable amounts of magic items to boost them a bit. Characters should be heros not superheros. This has always been a problem with D&D in all its editions but in §E it has reached ridiculous hights. Less emphasis on tactical combat: I know very well that a well defined and flexible combat system is very important to D&D but i am a bit peeved that WotC is apparently trying to convert D&D into a tabletop miniatures game. :mad: After all it is still a roleplaying game. Incorporate VP/WP directly into the game. Ok, you may flame me now. :mage: This is also my list.
Lina_Inverse 04-06-05, 11:52 AM	Ok my wishlist for a 4th edition: [list=1] Simplified system for classes, attributes and modifiers: As it stands right now GMs have way to much workload when they are creating NPC opponents. Way to many stats are interdependent on each other and slow down the creation process. Furthermore a leaner and less rules heavy system is less prone to abuse and errors. The amount errata for almost every new WotC product shows that 3E is a system that is on the verge of becoming to complicated for even the designers to handle. then we have people complaining its not customizeable. see skills and feats shut those point system junkies up(mostly).and allow fighters to not be absolute clones of eachother. Common DC scale: One of the things that bother me most ist that there is no common scale what a high or a low DC is. Excluding modifiers level-dependant class bonuses to BAB range from 0 to 20, bonuses to saves from 0 to 12 and for skills from 0 to 23. Taking into account that the amount of modifiers you can get also depends on the type this means that a given DC may be rather difficult for a save but very easy for a skill check. This is just bad game design. i have no problem with this.each has its own reason. Spells with the 10+spelllvl system for DC this has to be a 1/2 progression as good. BAB,this allows the fighter types to grow in skill each level. skills,well untill they state,charecters begin at 3-5th level,people would complain how unskilled there level one charecters are. Balanced spell lists: I would prefer a staggered progression in which damage dealing spells cause either a lot of damage but are restricted to few or even a single target while the area effect spells deal only moderate damage. The ability of a sorcerer/wizard should steadily increase with spell level without the large bumbs you get in the present system. you realize,asking for a nerf to the most underpowered aspect of casting is silly.FIREBALL IS A WORTHLESS SPELL AS IT IS! Less emphasis on dungeon crawls: I know it is Dungeons&Dragons but it would be nice if the game designers would also acknowledge the fact that not everyone plays exclusively in dungeons. Many spells are too disruptive in a wildeness or urban environment as the GM constantly has to counter spells like discern location or other spells that instantly solve problems at the expense of clever roleplaying. An awful lot of adventures are mostly made impossible or implausible because the GM has to work around specific spells and class abilities. *Smack* complaining spells ruin your urban adventurs is claiming you suck as a dm.use magic to beat magic. i dont bring a knife to a gunfight. Less magic: The amount of magic items suggested by the rules is just riduculous. It doesn't even fit a single one of their own published campaign settings (except perhaps for Eberron). Furthermore it is quite annoying that at higher levels a character is mostly defined by his equipment and not by his stats. When 3E came out in 2000 i had the slight feeling that i had a pen&paper version of the Diabolo computer game before me. This feeling has become stronger. logic dictates that D&D worlds should be as saturated with magic as earth is with technology. so theres actully not ENOUGH magic items going around.think about how much people on earth do with technology.
Escef 04-06-05, 11:59 AM	FIREBALL IS A WORTHLESS SPELL AS IT IS! I take it you realize the irony of someone with your screenname saying this, yes? :P
TrothgardtheMad 04-06-05, 12:05 PM	- I would like to see the three core books released all at the same time like they did with 3.5, unlike 3.0's release which was PHB, and then a month later DMG, and then a month later the MM... - Racial HD rather than class HD, although with caveats. I would suggest putting halflings and elves at d4 minimum, gnomes and humans at a d6 minimum, and dwarves and half-orcs at a d8 minimum... So your half-orc thieves would have a d8 for a HD rather than an elven thief who would get the normal d6. For you half elf lovers, I'd probably put them more on par with humans at d6. - A better multiclass system, wherein a spellcaster that doesn't go straight winds up being only a few steps behind. Kinda like 2nd edition where if you went straight mage, with X experience points, and had another character who got the same X experience points but played say a fighter/mage, they would only be about 3/4 as good as the straight mage, but still effective. - A definitive guide to bulding your own races/monsters, PrC's, feats, and perhaps even core classes. This would have been helpful in the beginning as I think only Dragon Magazine ran those and I think that there was a lot more that could have been added to those articles that would've been helpful. I'd like to see a book like this surface not too far after the core material is released. - Epic. Lightly touched on now in the DMG which is good, because I think the epic level stuff needs its own book to be done right. If the Vancian magic system is kept then give us 10th level, 11th level, 12th level (probably cap off at 15th level) spells with the ability to learn how to scale to 20th level, 100th level, and billionth level spells. - Psionics. What grabbed me into psionics was the little addendum in AD&D 1e, from there they've just been that cool alternative to magic. I think the XPsiHB gave psionics just treatment and that they should be supported as they have been recently, with a few powers here and there in each new supplement. - More than enough change in the "right" direction to warrant me buying another $700 or so spent already on 3e/3.5e material. YMMV. Like for example, changes I thought were needed from 2e to 3e was the implementation of dex caps on armor, positive armor classes, BAB vs. Thac0, and the switching out of cure/inflict spells for clerics. They'd have to "wow" me to get me to continue on with 4th. - A release date of Friday, April 1st, 2011 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/dx20010401a) for kicks and giggles. Who says they never gave us fair warning? Trothgard the Mad
Draco Strang 04-06-05, 12:58 PM	As a counterpoint to everyone on this thread that says a new edition (Which shouldn't be released for years and years anyway...we need to stop wishing for 4th ed, because we just might get it) needs to have less emphasis on table-top miniatures combat with movement rules and the reach concept, let me offer this up for examination: Does anyone remember the hell that was AD&D combat? You had tons of combat rules (THACO, saving throws, spell effects, etc etc etc) and no rules to set up an infrastructure that would effectively back it. 1st ed. was great because it was a very role-playing type of RPG. Rules were minimal, arbirtrary restrictions were in place, and it was to the DM's discretion. My uncle played 1st ed. big time, and when he saw the rulebooks for today's editions, he said "Bah.....if we wanted to cut his leg off, we stated that as our action, and the DM imposed an arbitrary penalty based on what he felt the difficulty was." That's all well and good, but it only sufficed for the rules-light type of D&D that 1st ed. was. AD&D 1st and 2nd ed. tried to get more complex, and got half of it right. Weapon speed, bonuses and penalties versus certain types of armor, and the fact that electricity dealt more damage to metal wearing opponents were all steps in the right direction (even if needlessly complicated rules in and of themselves) that would have succeeded had they been backed by better movement rules. For example...guys with swords need to be right next to those that they're attacking. That's all well and good. But what about that polearm with a reach of eleven feet, or the dude with a speed of 8 feet? Way too arbitrary without any movement or distance rules to back it up. Things like flanking (which is a good idea) were pointless to try in 2nd ed. Do you see where this is going? Save freeform combat for GURPS and free-form RPGs. The combat system is only a part of Dungeons and Dragons. It's entirely possible to maintain a roleplaying element to the game, if you want to. Any reliance on numbers instead of imagination is your fault, not the games. Whew....I said it.
Stuntman 04-06-05, 03:31 PM	My wish list includes things they should not change from 3E. Keep the class based system. Fighters, wizards, clerics and rogues are what D&D is. If players want a classless system or a system without these specific classes, then there should be a separate d20 Generic system that players can use to make whatever they want. Keep the unrestricted class/race combos. When I first saw this in 3E, I thought it was weird. Then I realised how big an improvement this is compared to older editions. Keep options for both point-buy and rolling of abilities. Some players like the randomness. Others like having all PC's even in terms of abilities. Give them both options and let the players (DM) choose which one they want. Keep multiclassing. As imperfect as it is, I feel that multiclassing (along with the skills and feats mechanics) is a great tool for both character development and character optimisation. Sometimes it is too weak and sometimes it is too powerful. In any case, it is a simple mechanic that gives players additional flexibility to to customise their characters. The simplicity of the mechanic is its most important aspect. Everything is the same as gaining a new level, but just in a different class. I've seen other mechanics that seem to be better in some aspects, but are not as simple. D&D 3E is fairly complex, so having such a flexible game mechanic like multiclassing work almost as simple as gaining a level is important, especially for new players. As much as I like 3.5, there are things that I would like changed. First of all, I think the Ranger can use some tweaking. I think that the Ranger should not have the combat mastery stuff. It should be replaced with ablities similar to the Horizon Walker PrC. Terrain Mastery is an ability that I feel fits very well with the Ranger. I don't think that a Ranger should give up Ranger abilities to take Terrain Mastery. The Horizon Walker can just keep the Planar Terrain Mastery abilities. The Sorcerer could use some class abilities after level 1. I would like to see something less generic than bonus feats to be different than a wizard. Perhaps some draconic properties. I like how the Wilder is different than the Psion in the XPF and has interesting abilities. The Sorcerer should have some similar differences to the Wizard. The one great thing about D&D (and RPG's in general) is that it is a very open ended game. It leads to many playing styles from a heavy table top, war gaming style to a heavy role playing style, and everything in between and outside of these extremes. I would like to see some more emphasis on the fact that there are different gaming styles and that one style may be more suited to any particular individual than another style. This does not mean that one style is better or more correct than another. Players may find that with different groups, the emphasis may be on different aspects of the game. A player may need to find a group that suits him and/or compromise to adjust to the gaming style of the group he is playing with.
rogueattorney 04-06-05, 04:16 PM	Honestly, WotC probably couldn't make its next edition in a way that would satisfy me without ticking off pretty much all of the people who like 3.x e. And, in all likelihood, the changes made to the next edition will probably make me like the next edition even less than I like the latest edition. If I had any request, it would be that WotC at least look back at the older editions to see what was there that isn't in the new edition and at least try to emmulate it a bit. Continuing to move forward without at least looking back to see where you came from will only further alienate more and more old fans. Luckily, I still have my old OOP stuff, and there are enough other games coming out to scratch my itch to buy new stuff. R.A.
Denalin 04-06-05, 04:16 PM	They need to consolidate the core rules to one book, rather than the crazy book/page flipping seen now.
Seeker95 04-06-05, 04:52 PM	I would have three classes: Warrior Rogue Spellcaster You want a barbarian? Play a warrior with skills in nature and take a Rage Feat. Want a druid? Play a spellcaster. Choose Divine as your Source. Hug a tree. Want a wizard? Play a spellcaster. Choose Lore as your Source. Want a psionicist? Play a spellcaster. Choose Mind as your Source. This system makes specialized classes less of a straightjacket and more of a flavor path. This is not a "kit" system. You don't buy packages and dump them on the base. Build from the ground up. In the end, your barbarian, cavalier, paladin, ranger, gladiator, swashbuckler and knight are all just warriors with slightly different career development choices. Multi-classing is always possible -- within those three, the possibilities are endless. Oh yeah... dump prestige classes entirely.
11d7 04-06-05, 05:43 PM	I would have three classes: Warrior Rogue Spellcaster You want a barbarian? Play a warrior with skills in nature and take a Rage Feat. Want a druid? Play a spellcaster. Choose Divine as your Source. Hug a tree. Want a wizard? Play a spellcaster. Choose Lore as your Source. Want a psionicist? Play a spellcaster. Choose Mind as your Source. This system makes specialized classes less of a straightjacket and more of a flavor path. This is not a "kit" system. You don't buy packages and dump them on the base. Build from the ground up. In the end, your barbarian, cavalier, paladin, ranger, gladiator, swashbuckler and knight are all just warriors with slightly different career development choices. Multi-classing is always possible -- within those three, the possibilities are endless. Oh yeah... dump prestige classes entirely. I've been trying to make this fora year and its harder than you think when trying to to make some choices more that twice as good as others.
DwarvinJedi 04-06-05, 06:47 PM	They need to consolidate the core rules to one book, rather than the crazy book/page flipping seen now. Well, D20 modern, and Star Wars D20 have this, but Monsters still need another book in D&D or else it will be 600+ pages
Draco Strang 04-06-05, 08:26 PM	Well, D20 modern, and Star Wars D20 have this, but Monsters still need another book in D&D or else it will be 600+ pages And while those books are excellent in their own right, they lack the depth, content, and completeness that the PHB and DMG have as a set. (Never mind the MM, as you said). The SW core book is lacking in help for the DM, designing adventures, how to award loot, treasure, and all that stuff. The DM chapter could easily be about 10 times as long and still not hit on everything that a DM needs to be, do, and keep in mind. The StarWars d20 system is awesome, I love that damn game. However, it's different from D&D, and should stay as such. I believe D&D will always need the three core rulebooks to remain what it is.
ImmortalBlueMage 04-06-05, 08:33 PM	CR's gone. Barbarian gone. Paladin as a prestige class Druid as a prestige class Bard using druidic magic. Alignment gone Reminder: Don't sit down to the table if weasel is DMing. Just, don't. :P I hate to be argumentative, but right off the bat, I hate the idea of adapting d20 style classes. I look through the D20 Modern book and see things like "Fast Class" and "Strong Class" and my enthuisiasm goes SPLAT. That sort of thing is just too dull to be D&D, those sorts of bland classifications can be poison to the imagination. Personally, I don't see why everyone wants to get rid of so much stuff. Personally, I think we need more. More classes for starters. I fully agree that Assassin, Necromancer, and Psion could easily make it as Core classes. On top of that, a Knight (call it a Cavalier if you want) class would be nice too, for those who want to be an honorable warrior without the religious overtones of the Paladin. I know some people are going to say "Just play a Fighter who's a really nice guy on top of it", but you know what? I don't want to. A Fighter has a certain kind of image in fantasy gaming, a Knight has another. Hell, I'd even go one step further and suggest that some of the "extra" Core Classes out there, such as the Artificer from Eberron, the Ninja or Samurai from OA, the Warlock from Complete Arcane, etc etc, should be on offer in the Core Books. I mean, hell, why not? Players love to have more options, and if DMs don't like it, well, we already have DMs who don't allow Monks or Sorcerers in their games, so what's it matter if the list of "Classes Thou Shalt Not Play" gets a little longer for some people? Really, if you want to simplify things down to brass tacks, we only need two classes, Fighter and Spellcaster. Why bother having Rogues when you can just make a really sneaky Fighter instead? But I think it's rather dull to do things that way, and besides, it's a lot more trouble for people having to build their preferred class level by level with Skills and Feats. Some people might enjoy putting in that much work and I salute them for it, but the rest of us find it much more enjoyable if some of the more popular character concepts such as Druid, Paladin, and Barbarian are there for us. I'd like to see more NPC classes too. "This guy is an Expert Level 4 and this guy is an Expert Level 3". Yawn. How about instead of just Expert and Commoner we actually have NPC Classes that are useful? Something a PC might theoretically want to take? Blacksmith, Hunter, Alchemist, hell, even Farmer, these are all useful skills that would make not only more colorful and competent NPCs but might also appeal to certain PCs as well. True, you can just take the requisite Skills I suppose, but just like with Core Classes, it's much more fun if there's some flavor there for you. Bring back Greyhawk. Wizards is already supporting two different campaign settings now I realize, but it wouldn't take much effort to make the Greyhawk world substantial again, because there are already Greyhawk references scattered all throughout the Core Books, it would only take the effort to build on them. Here's a big one: More Races. Sure, there's lots of options for a player who's willing to take a hit on Level Adjustments, but for those who don't, the options can be pretty slim. Not to say that the seven core races don't provde more than enough to work with, they do, but some players like to have more options. Oftentimes I find that when someone asks me if they can play a Drow or a Bugbear or a Centaur it's not because they want Munchkin power, it's just because they want to play a creature that's a little more unique and exotic than a Halfling. I think 0 LA verisons of races such as Gnolls or Half-Ogres, as well as some version of Orcs, Goblins, and Kobolds that are actually worth playing as would really add a lot to some people's gaming experience. Heck, while you're at it, how about making Half-Orcs worth playing too?
MadScientist!! 04-06-05, 09:16 PM	Ok, I think that there is at least one thing from d20 modern you would like. Occupations. They are basically what your character did before he started adventuring. They do things like give you extra skills that are always class skills, so for example, a fighter who trained with the thieves guild and is excellent at staying in the shadows would take the criminal occupation, select move silently and hide as his skills, and be able to put points into them as class skills no matter what class he was (if he had it as a class skill, he gets +1 to it). I personally think that the d20 modern system of occupation, base class, advanced class and prc really adds more choices and flexibility to the game. With spellcasting trees added to the mental classes, it would be a lot closer to full casting classes. The system has real flexibility though, and with the way it is built for multiclassing it allows you to accurately create more character types. Indiana Jones type characters are fairly easy to make, which is nearly impossible in dnd without a specific class for him. If we were to make metropolitan dex fighters that didn't cast spells, it would be far easier and more accurate to use the modern system than the dnd core system.
MadScientist!! 04-06-05, 09:21 PM	Also, in my opinion, less is more. The less classes I have to memorize to be able to build the character I want effectively, the better. Classes like necromancer or paladin are geared toward a very specific idea, and should really be prc's or advanced classes in a modern ruleset.
Lina_Inverse 04-06-05, 11:50 PM	I take it you realize the irony of someone with your screenname saying this, yes? :P yes.yes i do. and it pisses me off how much crap evokers are.
Vanamir 04-07-05, 06:03 AM	then we have people complaining its not customizeable. see skills and feats shut those point system junkies up(mostly).and allow fighters to not be absolute clones of eachother. I am not suggesting that you should take feats or skills out of the system. I just want a system in which building a NPC is quicker as in the current system. i have no problem with this.each has its own reason. Spells with the 10+spelllvl system for DC this has to be a 1/2 progression as good. BAB,this allows the fighter types to grow in skill each level. skills,well untill they state,charecters begin at 3-5th level,people would complain how unskilled there level one charecters are. Seperate DC scales for different kinds of checks are still bad game design since it increases the learning curve for novice GMs and makes it more difficult to set ad hoc DCs in an unforseen situation. It is much more difficult to develop an intuition for high or low DCs with the rules as they are now. you realize,asking for a nerf to the most underpowered aspect of casting is silly.FIREBALL IS A WORTHLESS SPELL AS IT IS! Maybe this is a difference because you prefer to play at different levels than i do (meaning usually below level level 10) but i have yet to see even a single sorcerer or wizard that does not take fireball or lightningbolt as one of his first 3rd level spells as soon as he reaches 5th or 6th level. Of course these spells may be much less usefull at higher levels but then they are only third level spells. They should be inferior when compared with high level spells. And just in case you are referring to save-or-die spells. Most of them are single target only so they are drastically less usefull against larger numbers of opponents. OTOH i don't like them too much either. :embarrass *Smack* complaining spells ruin your urban adventurs is claiming you suck as a dm.use magic to beat magic. i dont bring a knife to a gunfight. So meaning that i should turn every adventure in a harry potter style magicfest just because the designers when overboard with magic :confused: Furthermore i hate it when every BBEG has to be a high level spellcaster so that any plot may work. A roleplaying game that restricts your imagination has failed on a very basic level. logic dictates that D&D worlds should be as saturated with magic as earth is with technology. so theres actully not ENOUGH magic items going around.think about how much people on earth do with technology. And then i take a look at my collection of AD&D/D&D compaign settings and have a look which can be as magic heavy as they should be according to the rules and your opinion without completly changing the flavour of the setting: Compatible with 3E amounts of magic: Planescape, Spelljammer, Forgotten Realms (Arcane Age) Incompatible with 3E amounts of magic: Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms (present timeline), Kingdoms of Kalamar, Kara-Tur, Al-Qadim, Ravenloft, Birthright, Maztica, Dark Sun, Dragonlance, Rokugan Besides that not everyone wants to play in a world where magic is as common as technology IRL. Saying that i have to do so because the rules say so simply means that the rules are insufficiently flexible for a roleplaying game. Especially one that has a default setting that is in no way represented in the rules as written. :mad: Considering that i would like to add another wish for 4th edition: Don't use Greyhawk as a default setting. It deserves better than to be reduced to generic blandness and a garbarge heap for every ill-conceived idea the designers had.
Lina_Inverse 04-07-05, 07:37 AM	I am not suggesting that you should take feats or skills out of the system. I just want a system in which building a NPC is quicker as in the current system. well thats the only way to make it faster. lets see,most classes have 2+intmod skills.most classes have 7 feats by level 18.most classes have a goodly number of must have skills&feats.how hard can this be. but really,use the MM thats what its for. Seperate DC scales for different kinds of checks are still bad game design since it increases the learning curve for novice GMs and makes it more difficult to set ad hoc DCs in an unforseen situation. It is much more difficult to develop an intuition for high or low DCs with the rules as they are now. there are two kinds of check that you need to worry about adhocing.skill and stat.stat checks dont scale anyways.skill checks scale at 1/lvl,not counting bonuses. Maybe this is a difference because you prefer to play at different levels than i do (meaning usually below level level 10) but i have yet to see even a single sorcerer or wizard that does not take fireball or lightningbolt as one of his first 3rd level spells as soon as he reaches 5th or 6th level. Of course these spells may be much less usefull at higher levels but then they are only third level spells. They should be inferior when compared with high level spells. id rather take haste for gods sake.i dont use nukes unless im a psion. And just in case you are referring to save-or-die spells. Most of them are single target only so they are drastically less usefull against larger numbers of opponents. OTOH i don't like them too much either. :embarrass see you already have what you want.worthless damage to many,or mass damage to one.personally i hate save or dies on the idea heros shouldnt ever INSTANTLY die to something with only a single roll. So meaning that i should turn every adventure in a harry potter style magicfest just because the designers when overboard with magic :confused: Furthermore i hate it when every BBEG has to be a high level spellcaster so that any plot may work. A roleplaying game that restricts your imagination has failed on a very basic level. most ive seen COME WITH THE WORLD BUILT INTO THE SYSTEM.thats way more restricting. and if requireing LOGIC,ie humans will take every advantege they can to outproduce and outdestroy there neighbors.is restricting your imagination,well dont have sentient life. Besides that not everyone wants to play in a world where magic is as common as technology IRL. Saying that i have to do so because the rules say so simply means that the rules are insufficiently flexible for a roleplaying game. Especially one that has a default setting that is in no way represented in the rules as written. :mad: so,your saying.if earth had discovered D&D magic as the laws of physics and NOT the ones we have.we would not have used them just as much just because its magic and not technology :P because that is exactly what your asking for. i love low magic worlds.i ussually end up as benevolent dictator of them ^.^
Eliza_Stormwhisper 04-07-05, 07:51 AM	My wish for 4.0 if they make one: Go back to having four "basic" classes, and having other classes be sub-classes of the basic classes. A druid is basically a specialist cleric, and a paladin is a fighter with special abilities. On the other hand, I can play 1.0 and get that... I like the basic system to where I can alter it as I see fit and use it. I don't need a 4.0 to do that.
jukar 04-07-05, 09:58 AM	I'd like to see turn undead get a face lift, or have clerics gain a few options as abilities in lieu of always having turn/rebuke undead. Turning as it stands now is sort of dull from a flavor perspective, and also is so conditional that it rarely is of use. The tougher undead enemies aren't effected by it, the lesser are so weak that turning them isn't even nessecary. Plus, your DM can just sidestep dealing with undead altogether, and leave you with an utterly useless ability.
striderII 04-07-05, 10:32 AM	A quick wishlist: 1. More roleplay-friendly scenarios, or at least more suggestions for proper roleplay in the book. All too frequently, it seems, the book advocates combat, with the huge assortment of rules for it and numerous examples of uses for it. 2. Less combat rules. Yes, the game is about combat. That's fine. The number of combat rules could presumably take up an entire book on their own, however. I would love to see the system tightened up a bit and made into a cleaner, leaner system. 3. Nit-picky request: fix the weapon weights. While some of them are okay, there are a great many weapons that are far heavier than they were historically. And yes, I've heard the "encumbrance" and the "the weight includes the scabbard/hanger/whatever" arguments before. Sorry, I don't buy it. 4. Less emphasis on magic. It's cool, it's fantastic, but really, when there's a shop in every good-sized town and magic becomes as frequent as technology is in the real world, it loses a great deal of the "fantastical" element. Make magic a (somewhat, anyway) rare and unusual thing. Make it, well, *magic*. 5. Enough with the PrC's in *every* damn book. Some are entertaining, some are broken, some are there just for "kewl powerz"....but having that many, and in every new book that comes out? Dumb. That's really it for the wishlist...I have no overwhelming issues with anything else, although a new magic system might not be a horrible thing. One other thing I'd like to comment on, however: Weapon speed, bonuses and penalties versus certain types of armor, and the fact that electricity dealt more damage to metal wearing opponents were all steps in the right direction (even if needlessly complicated rules in and of themselves) that would have succeeded had they been backed by better movement rules. I agree with all of this except weapon speed. Large swords *needing* to be slow is a fallacy. Quite often, a skilled user can wield something such as a bastard sword or greatsword with a good degree of speed and quickness. In fact, there were types of large swords of that nature that were very light, quick, and designed to get into gaps between armor plates. Weapon speeds simply do not bear out, realistically. strider
Vanamir 04-07-05, 10:38 AM	well thats the only way to make it faster. lets see,most classes have 2+intmod skills.most classes have 7 feats by level 18.most classes have a goodly number of must have skills&feats.how hard can this be. but really,use the MM thats what its for. No, it is not the only way to make it faster. Of course you would have to change the system somewhat more radically. For instance (and that is only an example not a specific new rule i would suggest) you could turn spell DCs, BAB, and saving throws just into ordinary skills like all others which are capped according to class, level and ability modifier. Also you could reduce the necessary amount of cross-referencing when building NPC. Besides that we had that already in another thread: Monsters are not NPCs. If i want a campaign where are horde of goblins and orcs ravages the country under the banner of an evil cleric the MM will be useless. What we would need would be a book of NPCs, meaning classed humanoids ranging from level 1 o 20. Unfortunately if it ever were to be published WotC would create about 90% of all NPCs with ridiculous templates applied and would as such be useless to me. there are two kinds of check that you need to worry about adhocing.skill and stat.stat checks dont scale anyways.skill checks scale at 1/lvl,not counting bonuses. Yeah but bonuses also increase with level due to the availability of magic items so the 1/level is moot. Maybe this has to do with the fact that IRL i am a physicist but the current system is mathematically speaking not elegant. 3E initially claimed to end the great numbers of entirely arbitrary rules of the games which it did but it failed to eliminate the also entirely arbitrary DC scales for different kinds of checks (attacks, saves, ability checks, skills etc.). id rather take haste for gods sake.i dont use nukes unless im a psion. I will not dispute that haste is a very useful (if somewhat problematic in 3.0E) spell but still fireball or lightningbolt have been taken by almost every mage i have met so far. see you already have what you want.worthless damage to many,or mass damage to one.personally i hate save or dies on the idea heros shouldnt ever INSTANTLY die to something with only a single roll. I have never seen the damage by area effect spells as worthless. Maybe you usually challenge parties only with one or two foes at a time but i tend to use more so these spells have never been useless in my games no matter whether i was a player or GM. Besides that i agree that save-and-die spells are horrific. most ive seen COME WITH THE WORLD BUILT INTO THE SYSTEM.thats way more restricting. and if requireing LOGIC,ie humans will take every advantege they can to outproduce and outdestroy there neighbors.is restricting your imagination,well dont have sentient life. Well the best selling point for D&D in any edition has been the campaign worlds for me. Unfortunately the rules are only marginally in sync with the worlds they are supposed to represent and i would like to have them more compatible. I personally love rather traditional campaign worlds and my favourite are Greyhawk (post FtA), Birthright and Kingdoms of Kalamar. I also like Ravenloft and Dark Sun and it really hurts me that my most favourite D&D worlds cannot be played very well with current rules. so,your saying.if earth had discovered D&D magic as the laws of physics and NOT the ones we have.we would not have used them just as much just because its magic and not technology :P because that is exactly what your asking for. i love low magic worlds.i ussually end up as benevolent dictator of them ^.^ This is a question of game philosophy. Apparently you prefer to adapt your campaign world to the rules system whereas i prefer to being able to adapt the rules system to my world (which has been the way with previous editions of D&D). Both are valid points and there is no use argueing about it since it is a matter of taste. I personally don't want to magic to be as prevalent as it is now i feel it restricts me in which way i can develop or detail my world. Given the rather generic nature of D&D (having only a token default setting) i would prefer it to be more adaptable.
Drachasor 04-07-05, 11:25 AM	I'd like the number of skill points for most/all classes increased. The number of skill streamlined (can't jump, swim, and perhaps balance be turned into athletics, for example?). And a recognition of the fact that there are some skills that are better than others...make those more expensive or in some other way balance that out. Change ability scores so that they are a number ranging from -5 to infinity or (better yet!) from 0 to infinity. When you do something involving this ability, you simply *add* your ability score. Basically change the scores so they are your modifier. This streamlines the system. I'd like most classes to get more flavor, but if Seeker's idea could be well-implemented (so you could basically make any class now existing as well as new ones), then I'd prefer that. -Drachasor
caeruleus 04-07-05, 01:13 PM	I gotta say, I think they need to eliminate the point buy system, besides the fact that I HATE IT, it really doesn't make any sense to use it when you are trying to make the game "realistic" because when i was born i really didnt have a choice in how strong i was gonna be or how smart i got what i got. and my dam dm insists on using the blasted thing :mad: You also didn't get to choose your race... should we roll that randomly for the game too? And let's say you want to be a fighter. Should we also randomly roll up your family's social class to see if you would have ever been trained to be something other than a commoner?
caeruleus 04-07-05, 01:14 PM	My wish is the if/when 4e comes out, that there won't be anyone talking about 5e for at least 10 years (if not longer).
Attila 04-08-05, 12:11 AM	1-Get rid of Vancian magic ("fire and forget") and replace with a spell points system. Wizards should be able to cast any spell they know provided they have the energy for it. Reduce the available energy (spell points) per day to compensate for the increased flexibility. 2-Simplify. Make a basic system and an advanced one. I'm not suggesting 2 different games, like the old Basic / AD&D. I'm suggesting a layered system (all within the existing 3 core books) with a complete set of underlying basic rules and a more complex layer of optional advanced rules for those that desire it. Make it easy to distinguish so you don't have to arbitrarily pick and choose (ie. do I want to use grapple, but keep AoO??). 3-Go back to the 4 base classes with Paladins, Rangers etc. being subclasses. 4-The classes are what makes DnD, D&D. Make the class structure more rigid, make multi-classing more difficult. Use optional PrCs to add the desired level of variety. 5-Make specialist wizards more interesting and unique. 6-Look back to the old D&D systems, look at other game systems and adopt the best elements from them while maintaining the flavor of DnD.
Lobo13 04-08-05, 01:28 AM	I don't want a 4.0...i don't want another "official" version of DnD at all...i feel this way for two reasons...first, i don't have any more money to spend updating my books...no one in my area uses 3.0 for anything anymore, so i bought some 3.5 stuff...i'm done buying, but these guys are WOTC marks so i just won't get to play...they are of the stingy "you gotta bring a couple of your own books to play, can't use mine" crowd... second, the problems many people have with 3.5 (and 3, and 2nd) can be solved by players/Dm with a bit of imagination, leniancy(sp), and the ability to put the d**n books down for a bit... ultimately this is a bandaid for my main problem...i want a better, more imaginative, more immersed, less munchkin, less WOTC mark group...Unearthed Arcana is arguably the most underrated WOTC product since 3.0 released, and if they must go with 4.0, i like that format...options...creativity...make the game your own... and now i am done...i know many will disagree, feel they need to respond, etc. but unless you just like typing, save it i don't read responses to my threads unless i ask a question...have a good night all, game well.-Lobo13
IceFractal 04-08-05, 04:04 AM	First, I don't want 4.0 right away, I want it to be a good while before they even talk about releasing 4.0. I definately do not want there to be a whole new edition, with new books, just so that minor changes like Favored Enemy -> Favored Terrain and Paladin as a PrC can happen. That's what houserules and books like Unearthed Arcana are for. I want 4e to be as different from 3e as 3e was from 2e, at least. That said, here's some things I'd personally like, but probably some people would hate them. * Skill Based Magic, with either spell points or regenerating magic (ala UA). More flexibility in choosing spell effects. A unified spell list. * Characters that are less item dependant. That doesn't mean there has to be low magic, but characters should be able to function at least somewhat competently if they lose their items, not turn pitiful. * A set of base classes that branch out into advanced and then eventually prestige classes. These should ideally be set up so that by choosing the initial base classes you can alter the whole campaign setup. For instance, if the players all started out in the Fighter, Expert (PC version), and Mage classes, they'd branch out into the traditional D&D class structure - Rogues, Druids, Wizards, Bards, etc. On the other hand, starting out with Brawler, Tradesman, and Noble base classes might lead to a more urban class set - and starting out with Investigator, Researcher, and Explorer base classes could lead to a more Cthuluesque class set. * More flexibility on how to use alignment. The rules should support both alignment heavy and no-alignment games, with, for instance, a list of which spells and class features to replace with what from sharply defined alignments to fuzzy alignments to no alignments. * Variable combat rules that would support different combat styles - heroic fantasy, cinematic, grim-n-gritty, and so on. * High level combat where you don't just die if you lose initiative.
Seeker95 04-08-05, 11:19 AM	Not aimed at anyone in particular... Has anyone noticed that a lot of people are quick to state they do not want to see 4.0.... but are equally quick to offer what they want it to possess?
caeruleus 04-08-05, 11:22 AM	Not aimed at anyone in particular... Has anyone noticed that a lot of people are quick to state they do not want to see 4.0.... but are equally quick to offer what they want it to possess? Good observation. I wish people would stop doing that. But if they did do it, I would want them to.... ;)
Lobo13 04-08-05, 03:24 PM	I believe those that say they don't want a 4.0 but then say what they wanna see realize that they, having no control whatsoever on any potential 4.0 release, just might get a suggestion heard by a rep that just might make it into 4.0. So, instead of wasting thread space by simply posting "i don't want it" and going home, they try contributing to the conversation. I'd much rather have that than less people posting. Just my thoguhts. have a good day.-Lobo13
GreyLord 04-08-05, 06:48 PM	One could say I'm of two minds on the subject. I'd either want them to get rid of the charade of the old D&D, and return to the REAL rules of D&D, OR, get rid of the Charade that they have any connection to the old D&D and do a much more massive revision. The first is easy, just do away with all the rules changes, and make it more like first Edition AD&D with some of the UA rules tossed in. It's the second option that if chosen would require more thought. First, ability scores. Get rid of this 3-18 junk. Go with it's either a -4 to 0 or a 0 to +4 arena. Make each point just a solid score. 3-18 is what? some abstract created just because it coincides with a d6. Make it more relavant to a D20. Perhaps have the scores between 1 and 20, then give them a bonus for everything over 10, and a penalty for everthing under 5. Hence it would be rather biased towards bonuses, as you could have a bonus of +1 to +10, and only a penalty of -1 to -4, but I bet it would keep the bell curve of penalties to bonuses to a slight degree, and even more effectively, probably do away with the rule of having to worry about whether someone has at least a +1 bonus in order to have a playable character. Second, do away with the class system. Classes mean what? So what if someone is a Ranger, it has no meaning except that it gives access to certain skills. Anyone and everyone could get those skills if they take a class of Ranger. And taking a class is easy, there isn't really any restriction on taking the class, unless your DM decides not to let you. There's nothing special about someone stating they are a Ranger. For powergaming, or just gaming in general, if you go for a PRC, you do what you need to in order to get the prerequisites, which could mean that you take several classes and have several levels. Do away with that. Just give characters a bunch of Speciality points, in which they can buy the special abilities they want, similar to feats (which when one looks at it, that's all the class abilities are now overall, special feats which one gets if they get a level in that class). The BAB, HD, and other items could be affected depending on what special ability one buys. For example, if there is a base of a 10 HD, +1 BAB, and +1 in each of the Saves, if one gets let's say a Spellcaster feat to cast level one spells, it would also mean they would get a -1 BAB, -3 HD sizes (from d10 to d4) to their class, and a -1 to a Fort Save. If at the next level they decide to take the Spellcaster feat to cast level 2 spells (and in order to take the feat they need to have a prerequisite of being able to cast level 1 spells) they once again get a -3 HD sizes, as well as a -1 to Ref, or whatever. Hence you keep the abilities, but it is more customizable to what the player decides. Very similar to what the classes are now...but without having it called a class system. The player would just have to train to get what they desired as like now, and be able to get the skills/special abilities, they just wouldn't be associated with a set class. Redo the spells. Come up with new names, instead of calling it Mordekainen's, make it non-specific to worlds. Currently, somehow, everyone on Krynn, Toril, and other locations somehow knew of this guy...and his spells in what most spellcasters would keep in a pretty secure place, somehow got known throughout multiple universes...Get rid of that, recreate the spells and make them more original. Put the core rules in a box with a grid and miniatures. Include that option from the get go as items that can be bought with the gamebooks themselves. Get rid of the CR system. Create an encounter system or something that makes it more in the DM's lap of how much Experience to award. Just some of the changes I'd like them to do for 4th edition if they wish to continue the trend they started with 2.5e and then 3e. PS: In addition to the above changes, Everything Ice Fractal said as well (minus his comments on the classes of course) which (like the magic) are also items I'd like to see.
weasel fierce 04-08-05, 06:55 PM	Greylord is a wise man. Listen to him
Escef 04-09-05, 09:25 AM	1-Get rid of Vancian magic ("fire and forget") and replace with a spell points system. Wizards should be able to cast any spell they know provided they have the energy for it. Reduce the available energy (spell points) per day to compensate for the increased flexibility. Maybe you should check out Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed. He has an interesting varient on the Vancian system. You prepare a set number of spells and may cast them from your available slots. Kind of like a sorcerer who can swap his spells known every day. You can even cash out a spell slot for 2 spells of the next level down (but no further subdividing), or combine 3 spellslots for 1 of the next level up. He also has a few more tricks hiding in the system (like spells that have altered effects if cast from a lower or higher level slot).
Drachasor 04-11-05, 10:37 AM	First, ability scores. Get rid of this 3-18 junk. Go with it's either a -4 to 0 or a 0 to +4 arena. Make each point just a solid score. 3-18 is what? some abstract created just because it coincides with a d6. Make it more relavant to a D20. Perhaps have the scores between 1 and 20, then give them a bonus for everything over 10, and a penalty for everthing under 5. Hence it would be rather biased towards bonuses, as you could have a bonus of +1 to +10, and only a penalty of -1 to -4, but I bet it would keep the bell curve of penalties to bonuses to a slight degree, and even more effectively, probably do away with the rule of having to worry about whether someone has at least a +1 bonus in order to have a playable character. The most relevent way to change ability scores is to make them equal to the modifier. If you have an ability score of 5 in strength, then 5 is also your strength mod, meaning you add 5 to your swim checks, jump checks, and the like. Other aspects of the system would need to be modified, but there is no reason not to go through this process. Think about it, how often does the fact your Strength is 18 or 19 really matter? What matters is that you have a +4 modifier from strength, nearly 100% of the time. Those few times when it *does* matter (ability drain it matters to a minor extent, encumberance) can be modified so that they don't matter. -Drachasor
Eliza_Stormwhisper 04-11-05, 10:55 AM	What happened to ability requirements for classes? A fighter with Str 5? No way! The 3.5 system allows this, but of course, you're an idiot if you're playing a fighter with 5 Str, unless you're a pure archer. Even then, being able to draw a 100 lb. longbow or 70 lb. shortbow with that low of a strength is stupid, regardless of what the rules say. A crossbow I could see, but crossbows are for rogues.
ArnimThayer 04-11-05, 11:55 AM	While I like the idea of the D20 Modern Classes for D&D (seriously... a Fast Elf!), the only things I would like to see are a class based advancement for AC, and the ability to empower magic items without being a wizard (like the Kensai or the Samuri PRCs). 2nd Edition had an ability in High-Level Campaigns to make an item a Signature Item, one that only optimally functioned in your characters hands. I always thought that was a neat idea.
Gilean 04-11-05, 12:36 PM	Keep class-based system, but make them akin to Szatany's ultimate classes, so they have different paths. That removes need of classes such as necromancer. I won't go into further detail but instead continue designing my myriad of homebrew RPGs. Continue good suggestions.