Post/Author/DateTime	Post
necrosnoop110 01-16-07, 10:03 PM	List things you would like WotC to know before they set out on a 4E. 1) Give up the all powerful Druid fetish 2) Boost the Sorcerer (rate of spell level attainment on par with Wizard for starters) 3) Give more abilities per level to the naked classes (Cleric, Sorcerer, etc.). Even if they are simple and not powerful they give a reason to stay with a class. 4) Make Psionics explicitly core 5) Fix Alter Self/Polymorph/Shapechange
Milo HoBo 01-16-07, 10:17 PM	6) Give up the all powerful Cleric fetish. 7) Give up the 'I'm better than you because I'm a conjurer' fetish. 8) Lose Vancian casting. It's Sci-fi, annoying, and doesn't do the Dying Earth's spells justice (those spells were much more powerful). 9) If they do keep Vancian casting, make it actually special and powerful (and for PrCs only). 10) Stop full caster PrCs (the the explicit exception of Mystic Theurge style PrCs). 11) Base classes should be more versitile, PrCs should be more focused. Neither should be more powerful than the other, just different (the the explicit exception of Mystic Theurge style PrCs). 12) Give Clerics a cool iconic character. 13) XPH style Psionics should be the basis for spellcasting. Augmentation, Power Points, the works. 14) Editors, nuff said.
Azar_of_Faerun 01-16-07, 10:20 PM	15. Be released in 4 years, no sooner.
necrosnoop110 01-16-07, 10:28 PM	14) Editors, nuff said. QfGT (quoted for great truth) Also, 16) ALL books should have BOTH a table of contents and an index - these are rule books after all.
egospite 01-16-07, 11:03 PM	ALL books should have BOTH a table of contents and an index . . . Absolutely. It always annoys me when I turn to the final pages of a reference book and find no index. I cannot recall a DnD book without a table of contents, but indexes are usually missing. As for the waiting four years: I hope 4.0 is not so different from 3.5 books that the current line of books would be incompatible. I would rather have subtle rule changes to refine current systems.
Milo HoBo 01-17-07, 08:12 AM	...16) ALL books should have BOTH a table of contents and an index - these are rule books after all.I can't believe I forgot that one :embarrass. The lack of an index has always bugged me. I would prefer less art if it meant we had an index. Now, don't get me wrong people. I think that 3.5 still has some good mileage left on her, but she is showing wear and tear from splat books that make the original problems worse. I want 4.0 edition to be playtested for many years before it comes out. That means that if they want something solid and balanced, then they need to start working on it now while collecting info and suggestions. I don't want to see 4.0 edition for many years. When I do see it, I want to be sure that they have playtested the material in ways that would make the Optimization Boards blush. I like d20. I know the rules for this system better than any other. It isn't that it is the easiest system to learn, it was just my first. Other systems are (IMHO) better designed (in terms of real life probability and smoother bell curves, etc.), but I think that d20 is the best. I'm not actually sure why I think it's the best, but I do. I want to see it be the best it can be.
Zumarai 01-17-07, 08:24 AM	17) The game balanced around per encounter, not this 4 encounters a day malarkey. I for one can't wait for 4th edition. I don't know why people get their panties in a bunch. I'm sure it will be similar as to what 3.5 was to 3.0. …A patch. And in case anybody is wondering – of course they are already working on it. Design/play-testing for 3rd edition started soon after 2nd edition came out.
necrosnoop110 01-17-07, 09:12 AM	For you and every other 4.0 nut to shut up. This nonsense has been going on ever since 3.5 was released. It is not being released tomorrow, you psychotic tinfoil-hat freaks. That kind of thinking won’t get you to see the New World, won’t get you to the moon or mars, won’t get the US it's the first black president, etc. :D
Findail 01-17-07, 09:24 AM	I don't know how this would be achievable, but it would be nice to have a mechanism which somehow removes the need for a whole bunch of PrC's whose only function is to make various multiclassed spellcaster combos viable (Mystic Theurge, Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, Cerebremancer, Sacred Fist, Enlightened Fist, Fochluchan Lyrist, Bladesinger, Spellsword, Warpriest, etc etc etc)... Maybe a better way of integrating and balancing the Gestalt.
Millennium 01-17-07, 09:27 AM	π) Anything but spellpoints. Preferably retain Vancian casting, but at any rate don't give in to empty, flavorless video-game magic. e) Move to UA-style generic classes and ditch PrCs. i) Clearer rules for statting out new types of weapons. φ) Clearer explanation of alignment. An alternate 4.0... Nothing but a list of links to GURPS, BESM, FUDGE, Tri-Stat, the various White Wolf games, and so on so that the various evangelist "I want to mutate D&D beyond recognition but still keep the name" types can go explore the other systems out there, many of which are more suited to the type of game they want anyway, and leave our system alone.
DigitalMage 01-17-07, 09:59 AM	Make classes more discrete building blocks. For example make Ranger a purely outdoorsman scout type class. If a ranger wants magic let him multiclass into Druid or Wizard or something. Same with Cleric, remove the combat abilities and focus on the divine spellcaster aspect, if you want a warrior priest multi class with Fighter. Get rid of the numerous conditions many of which are simialar to one another. Just stick with a few types. Get rid of all the Feats that just add effective skill points and simply have one that allows you to add 2 ranks to any two related skills, or better still just allow each character to nominate one or two skills that have a higher max rank limit. Give every class more skill points. Just off the top of my head
Critical_Failure 01-17-07, 11:46 AM	to give pigs a fly speed (30056257.57346689ft)
Boraxe 01-17-07, 12:01 PM	As for the waiting four years: I hope 4.0 is not so different from 3.5 books that the current line of books would be incompatible. I would rather have subtle rule changes to refine current systems. Do the opposite of this. Fourth ed, when it comes (some time in 2012 one hopes), had better be different and improved enough from 3e to justify a new edition. "Subtle rule changes to refine current systems" are simply not good enough.
Leo 01-17-07, 12:11 PM	Hey, wizards is only human, you know? And altough the books are expensive, I think asking for the game to be COMPLETELY balanced is somewhat asking too much. Games like starcraft have trouble keeping balance between 3 factions with very limited rules. Wizards has to keep balance between about an HUNDRED, with rules easier to bend than butter, not counting feats, spells, skills and equipment. You think that's easy? If wizards was to playtest enough to cover all possbilities all classes could do from level 1 to 200, the material would be 100 times as expensive, and probably 100 times more boring,a s every possibility of a good combination would be crushed and destroyed from birth to stop abuse.
GreyEagle 01-17-07, 01:07 PM	continue ignoring people who clamour for 4.0 when WE ALL SPENT A FORTUNE ON THE BOOKS WE ALREADY HAVE!
Silmon 01-17-07, 01:13 PM	17) I for one can't wait for 4th edition. I don't know why people get their panties in a bunch. I'm sure it will be similar as to what 3.5 was to 3.0. …A patch. . Hmmm, thats what a lot of us thought about 3.0. Boy were we ever wrong :P
Sleepwalker13666 01-17-07, 04:36 PM	:nonono: Look, a 4th edition is not going to fix things, at best it will fix some things and bring an entirly new set of beefs to the table. The system is highly customizable, the new rules in each book are just options. The Core rules are just options. Everything is designed to be highly modifyable. All you have to do is crunch som numbers if you want something fixed, I for one don't want a 4th edition, 3.5 was expensive enough.
necrosnoop110 01-17-07, 04:56 PM	Does anybody know the time between all the editions? (i.e. any one care to post a quick easy to read summary)
darth_borehd 01-17-07, 08:14 PM	List things you would like WotC to know before they set out on a 4E. 4) Make Psionics explicitly core No! I hate psionics and I'm sure I'm not alone. Make them a strictly optional component only.
necrosnoop110 01-17-07, 08:20 PM	No! I hate psionics and I'm sure I'm not alone. Make them a strictly optional component only. You do realize that psionics was explicitly core in AD&D 1E.
darth_borehd 01-17-07, 08:24 PM	You do realize that psionics was explicitly core in AD&D 1E. Yes and making them optional is one of the best things the later versions have done.
necrosnoop110 01-17-07, 08:25 PM	1974 (Original) ↑ 3 years ↓ 1977–79 (1st Edition) ↑ 10 years ↓ 1989 (2nd Edition) ↑ 11 years ↓ 2000 (3rd Edition) ↑ 3 years ↓ 2003 (3.5) ↑ ? years ↓ 2XXX (4.0)
darth_borehd 01-17-07, 08:31 PM	1974 (Original) ↑ 3 years ↓ 1977–79 (1st Edition) ↑ 10 years ↓ 1989 (2nd Edition) ↑ 11 years ↓ 2000 (3rd Edition) ↑ 3 years ↓ 2003 (3.5) ↑ ? years ↓ 2XXX (4.0) I think 3.5 came out in 2003. So if you view 3.0 and 3.5 as a single version number, then they have been out 6 years. I say we got another 2 to 4 years before 4.0 Sure there was no 1.5 or 2.5 officially but there were a lot of revisions in the rules with those version numbers that were similar in scope to the differences between 3.0 and 3.5. The Player's Option rules for 2nd edition comes to mind as an example.
darth_borehd 01-17-07, 08:39 PM	For a preview of what 4.0 could be like, check out the Saga Edition Star Wars coming in March. The Wizs on that board have said that many concepts for revisions in the SRD are going into the new Star Wars rules.
necrosnoop110 01-17-07, 08:43 PM	For a preview of what 4.0 could be like, check out the Saga Edition Star Wars coming in March. The Wizs on that board have said that many concepts for revisions in the SRD are going into the new Star Wars rules. revisions in the SRD? Where are these?
Grod_The_Giant 01-17-07, 08:53 PM	continue ignoring people who clamour for 4.0 when WE ALL SPENT A FORTUNE ON THE BOOKS WE ALREADY HAVE! AMEN! Maybe they could release (online) some proposed fixes to commonly found problems (polymorph [although they've been working on that], CODzilla, Planar Sheperd, weak fighters, and so on) and let their army of loyal fans playtest it for them. Also, let us get official fixes without having to pay for entirely new books.
Dracomortis 01-17-07, 09:02 PM	---Polymorph subschool from Complete Mage adapted and expanded as a final fix to polymorph and similar spells. ---Less focus on alignment. It's a vague concept that can't really be set into concrete rules. Stop trying. ---Psionics folded into the core books. ---Races that are balanced against each other (I'm looking at you half-orc). ---Down with the color-by-numbers effect on dragon alignment. This isn't a Crayola crayon box, this is D&D. ---Spell point system for spellcasting. Maybe not as the "official" system, but at least provide it as an alternative in the core books. ---Balance of certain spells, like magic missile and polar ray. ---Wider varieties of deities. More of a flavor thing, but a one-line description under a monster's entry and a list of three domains doesn't cut it. ---Compatability between separate sourcebooks. There should be no confusion as to whether my ninja's sudden strike stacks with sneak attack or not. ---Higher-level feats, because level 12 should not be when you stop paying attention to prerequisites. ---A better distribution of spell schools - anyone with common sense knows that cure light wounds should be necromancy and cause fear should be an enchantment. Make them consistent with each other.
necrosnoop110 01-17-07, 09:02 PM	For all you screaming about the evils of 4th Edition (i.e. ostriches with their heads in the sand) at what intervals do expect new editions to come out? Historically it looks like around every 10 years for a new one. That being the case 2010 is not that far away.
darth_borehd 01-17-07, 09:16 PM	My predictions for 4.0: (Not all of these are things I want, just predictions based on current trends in supplements.) One System to Rule Them All: D&D and D20 Modern will move close together. Expect crossovers between the two systems and supplements that will work easily with both. Skills Reduction: Skills will start to be combined together and thus become less specialized and more useful. More Feats, less class features: Expect the feats to be expanded. The lines between classes will become more blurred. Fighters could pick up a little magic here and there, wizards could be swordplay experts, etc) Vance-light flavour: Spell prepare/fire mechanic will be similar but a little more flexible. Regular spells might have casting DCs like the Epic Spells but can still be prepared to reduce/eliminate DCs. Casters may have some kind of point and talent system in tandem with revised Vance system. Computer Code Rules: The rules will become more "modular" in that different sections can be replaced or "upgraded" with new or different rules with little impact to something else. Campaign worlds could point to different combos of variants in core rule books and contain less such rules themselves. Class features/feats like "Hide in Plain Sight" will work the same for all characters across the board. Minis in my RPG, RPG in my Minis: Miniature combat rules will be adopted as core D&D mechanics. Miniatures and RPG will share many of the same sourcebooks and adventures. Minis will come with more RPG content. Pick a level, any level: It will be easier to calculate levels and make higher level characters right away. There will be little or no skill points to calculate. Most abilities will be level-dependent.
darth_borehd 01-17-07, 09:20 PM	revisions in the SRD? Where are these? They are not here yet. But according to Wiz-O, et. al., some of the current concepts that may go in are appearing in Star Wars Saga Edition coming later this year.
Sleepwalker13666 01-18-07, 12:04 AM	For all you screaming about the evils of 4th Edition (i.e. ostriches with their heads in the sand) at what intervals do expect new editions to come out? Historically it looks like around every 10 years for a new one. That being the case 2010 is not that far away. 2nd edition came out because they did an overhaul on 1st, basiclly like 3.5 did to 3rd, but in the case of secound it actually dumbed it down. 2nd edition was heavily flawed, 3.5 is not, there are some glitches here and there but overall it is a very stable system, and every thing you dont like is much easier to fix than it was in 2nd. Don't like the druid becuase you find it too powerful? Shave down a few abilities. Want a spell point system instead of vancian, use unearthed arcana, want an unlimited magic supply use a warlock, want an unlimited magic supply with some restriction, use a truenamer. The supplements dont just serve to expand the games options, they serve as way to put a face to your game, you could easily decide to outlaw druids in your game and replace them with the OA shamans, or some other trade. The system itself is very simple, the D20 system can be as customized as you want, unlike 2nd where the rules where sort of in limbo and subject to interpritation.
LordHell 01-18-07, 01:00 AM	Removing the current spell casting system, classes, alignments, and so forth will just turn D&D into Just-Another-RPG. These things are part of D&D and have been there since the beginning, and in a way make it unique. If they do it, and if that's what most people seem to want, then great. But I probably won't move past 3rd edition. It would really have to be something special. I don't think a new edition is needed. The current trend of releasing billions of splat books to expand and create new rules seems to be working so far.
Stormonu 01-18-07, 02:20 AM	You do realize that psionics was explicitly core in AD&D 1E. What have you been smoking? In 1E it was a tossed-in afterthought. More skill points, and all features (feats, class features [with a healthy dose of alternate class features for each class], BAB, saves) are purchased from a pool of skill points. Base classes are stripped down to the classic four (Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric) and the expanded classes (Bard, Sorcerer, Ninja, Samuria, Wu Jen, Shugenja, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Barbarian, Scout, Knight, Duskblade, Beguiler, Specialist Wizard, Dragon Shaman, Spirit Shaman, Favored Soul, Warlock, Binder, Shadow Caster, Truenamer, Incarnum Wielder, etc.) are created by selected approriate class features in place of the 'core' class features and maybe a little bit of multiclassing. Prestige classes are done away with in favor of special feats/class features you can purchase at different levels. You still have to meet qualifications, but now you don't have to "dip" into multiple classes.
Zumarai 01-18-07, 09:29 AM	Skills Reduction: Skills will start to be combined together and thus become less specialized and more useful. Apparently in d20 Star Wars Saga they are folding more Skills: Listen + Spot + Search = Perception Forgery + Disguise + Bluff = Deception Hide + Move Silently = Stealth What do you all think?
Raptorial 01-18-07, 12:58 PM	Apparently in d20 Star Wars Saga they are folding more Skills: Listen + Spot + Search = Perception Forgery + Disguise + Bluff = Deception Hide + Move Silently = Stealth What do you all think? In truth, I don't really like that. Forging a letter isn't the same as disguising yourself and having both rolled into the same skill means that you aren't getting the variation of things that don't work the same.
Bill Bisco: Average Adventurer 01-18-07, 01:39 PM	I love it, simplicity FTW! Also, it seems like they're testing that in Star Wars before streamlining it into D&D
DoctorRomulus 01-18-07, 02:49 PM	Make the game actually playable by someone who's never played before. Setup character creation so it doesn't take a whole session to generate characters. Decide on a pronoun, he OR she. I actually read one book recently where she and he were applied to the same character.
Boraxe 01-18-07, 03:06 PM	You do realize that psionics was explicitly core in AD&D 1E. So?
Boraxe 01-18-07, 03:13 PM	Apparently in d20 Star Wars Saga they are folding more Skills: Listen + Spot + Search = Perception Forgery + Disguise + Bluff = Deception Hide + Move Silently = Stealth What do you all think? I like it. Yes it is not really "accurate" per se but it is faster and simpler and helps the game flow. And no, before anyone goes off on some ridiculously hyperbolic rant, I don't support combining "BAB + + AC + STR Bonus = Fight" or anything stupid like that.
Amaril 01-18-07, 03:35 PM	Apparently in d20 Star Wars Saga they are folding more Skills: Listen + Spot + Search = Perception Forgery + Disguise + Bluff = Deception Hide + Move Silently = Stealth What do you all think? Thanks, I just stole this idea and changed it a bit as a house rule in my Eberron game. My version Perception: Listen/Spot/Sense Motive Deception: Disguise/Bluff Stealth: Hide/Move Silently Perception opposes Deception and Stealth. I left Search and Forgery as separate skills. Edit: Maybe Forgery should be Craft (forgery). Nah, it needs the opposed roll.
Zumarai 01-19-07, 04:30 AM	Thanks, I just stole this idea and changed it a bit as a house rule in my Eberron game. My version Perception: Listen/Spot/Sense Motive Deception: Disguise/Bluff Stealth: Hide/Move Silently Perception opposes Deception and Stealth. I left Search and Forgery as separate skills. Edit: Maybe Forgery should be Craft (forgery). Nah, it needs the opposed roll. I'm glad you dig it. I too am implementing these changes in my current Planescape campaign.
Amaril 01-19-07, 09:00 AM	Come to think of it, Open Lock should be folded into Disable Device, too. They both deal with disabling, bypassing, or dismantling a mechanism. Going back to the idea of a magic system similar to the psionic power system in Expanded Psionics Handbook, I completely agree. After using the augmentable psionic power point system, I find the spell slot system and lesser/greater spell versions to be ridiculously limiting. I'd also like to see a system where characters can gain feats at each level. I think there are too many feats and not enough slots. I've considered it as a house rule, but have been reluctant to because I use too many NPCs from published materials that would need revamping. Additionally, I recall my days at the beginning of 3e where I used to get frustrated by the notion that I needed a feat to do something that I thought would be a creative tactic that a skill check should handle. I really like the idea of skill tricks in Complete Scoundrel, and I think that's a step in the right direction. Also, class skills need to be revamped, and all classes should have an equal number of skill points. Why can't a fighter, who has light armor proficiency, tumble just as well as a rogue or monk?
Zumarai 01-19-07, 10:36 AM	Come to think of it, Open Lock should be folded into Disable Device, too. They both deal with disabling, bypassing, or dismantling a mechanism. Definitely. Should we call it Mechanically Inclined? I also think the social Skills, Diplomacy/Gather Information/Sense Motive, should be folded into one Skill. …Mac Daddy?
Amaril 01-19-07, 11:04 AM	Definitely. Should we call it Mechanically Inclined? I also think the social Skills, Diplomacy/Gather Information/Sense Motive, should be folded into one Skill. …Mac Daddy? I think Disable Device is acceptable as a name. Think of it as what happened when Intuit Direction was rolled into Survival. Diplomacy and Gather Information could be rolled into a new skill called "Social" or even Diplomacy (just have different uses for Diplomacy like you do for Survival), but I'd prefer to keep Sense Motive within Perception.
necrosnoop110 01-19-07, 11:11 AM	Why don’t we fold all skills into three categories: Physicality Mentality Luck And three classes Fight-Man Heal-Man Skill-Man And then we can have each player at the table be replaced by a TV and game console! OMG teh new simplified rule are teh roxor!
Zumarai 01-19-07, 11:23 AM	Why don’t we fold all skills into three categories: Physicality Mentality Luck And three classes Fight-Man Heal-Man Skill-Man And then we can have each player at the table be replaced by a TV and game console! OMG teh new simplified rule are teh roxor! …Cute. You forgot: Magic-Man
Aliquid 01-19-07, 11:41 AM	It is interesting how people don't really understand the concept of game versions. If a D&D 4.0 comes out it will be substantially different than 3.x, and it will not be compatable like some people are suggesting. Otherwise it wouldn't be version 4.0, it would be 3.6 or something silly like that. If you don't make a major overhaul to the system, you are not creating a new version of the game. With that in mind, 3.5 is not a new version of D&D, it is simply a few modifications to the 3.0 system. So when you are counting years between systems, i.e. appx 10 years between systems for 1e, 2e and 3e, you do not include 3.5 in that calculation. If you follow the trend, then it is 10 to 11 years from 3.0 before 4.0 is released.
necrosnoop110 01-19-07, 11:48 AM	With that in mind, 3.5 is not a new version of D&D, it is simply a few modifications to the 3.0 system. So when you are counting years between systems, i.e. appx 10 years between systems for 1e, 2e and 3e, you do not include 3.5 in that calculation. If you follow the trend, then it is 10 to 11 years from 3.0 before 4.0 is released. Which is exactly why I mentioned that 4E would, if historical trends follow, appear in 2010-ish.
Aliquid 01-19-07, 12:03 PM	Which is exactly why I mentioned that 4E would, if historical trends follow, appear in 2010-ish.Unfortunately, some other posters seem to find this logic hard to follow.
Ninja_Sensei 01-19-07, 12:10 PM	Why don’t we fold all skills into three categories: Physicality Mentality Luck And three classes Fight-Man Heal-Man Skill-Man And then we can have each player at the table be replaced by a TV and game console! OMG teh new simplified rule are teh roxor! Actually, Unearthed Arcana proposed just such a thing: the Expert, the Spellcsater, and the Warrior. It's even in the SRD. From the general tone of discussion, it sounds like many are suggesting stuff that is in UA. Perhaps UA was a format to float some "house rule" ideas out there? Personally I'm all for making sure abilities read the same in every iteration... but I also agree that I don't want to shell out $$$ for a new system when 3.0/3.5 suits my needs just fine. My two copper's worth... more module-type adventures (for those DMs of us without time or a subscription to Dungeon magazine).
Dracomortis 01-19-07, 03:57 PM	One System to Rule Them All: D&D and D20 Modern will move close together. Expect crossovers between the two systems and supplements that will work easily with both. Actually, d20 Modern and D&D are already extremely compatible with one another. The only real difference is d20 Modern classes max at 10th level, so spellcasting is lower level. D&D material can be used in Modern with little to no adaptation, although the reverse takes a little more time.
kinjojones 01-19-07, 04:49 PM	Maybe a delineation between Major and Minor feats. Where minor feats (things on par with skill/spell/ability focuses) can be taken at every or almost every level, and Major feats (Something like Whirlwind Attack, or Maximise) can only be taken at less frequent levels. Also the two groups should be intertwined in that it takes many minor feats to meet the pre-reqs for a major one. Also I think there should be more and stronger feat chains. Thinking about it I don't thinks what I said is all that helpful. Basically I think feats need to be reworked and looked at to be balanced towards eachother. There are too many feats that aren't prereqs for others but still don't have enough of a kick on their own to waste taking. Either every feat should branch to a feat tree worth taking or such incidental feats should be easier to acquire. I think it all boils down to I don't have the communication skills to really get across what I'm trying to say.
Undercover 01-19-07, 05:31 PM	Apparently in d20 Star Wars Saga they are folding more Skills: Listen + Spot + Search = Perception Forgery + Disguise + Bluff = Deception Hide + Move Silently = Stealth What do you all think? That's just great! Make the game actually playable by someone who's never played before. Setup character creation so it doesn't take a whole session to generate characters. Heh, many players I know complained that creating GURPS characters took too long, and now D&D takes twice as long. And what the heck are they thinking, *thousands* of feats and spells? *Hundreds* of PrCs??? And now we have to dig through it all to find something actually worth our time, unbelievable! Give us just a few, really good ones! Decide on a pronoun, he OR she. I actually read one book recently where she and he were applied to the same character. AMEN! And while I'm at it, I really think str inclined chars should be he and dex chars a she, at least it portrays me and my girlfriend :cool: I also think the social Skills, Diplomacy/Gather Information/Sense Motive, should be folded into one Skill. …Mac Daddy? And if you take Mac Daddy focus you have to pick between blonds and brunettes?
smoker 01-19-07, 08:23 PM	My twisted wanted list: Release 4.5 a year after 4.0 with only typos corrected. Switch to the d10, it's the IN dice now. Sell an artsy version at Indie Press Revolution under the name M.C. (Monte Cook) Hammer Create a system where characters aren't half anything -- just whole. We don't need characters sounding like milk selections. I don't need any 2% half dragons. Create a setting with none of the races in the PHB -- then release a supplement for each of those races. Require the collection of minis to fill in rule holes. Make the character creation process less time consuming then filling out a 1040-ez Add more alignments to confuse us even more And make the the spell descriptions far more vague, so we can argue about what they can really do. Release an OGL version with 100 files with only a paragraph or two for each file. :) :) :) :) :)
GraveDigger 01-19-07, 11:54 PM	Personaly I don't even want a new edition, if one has an issue with some of the rules or PRC then just house rule it into a balance that works for the group. I like 3.5 and it's versatility from a low power strict campaign to an obserded unbalanced mad house. Either way everyone should be able to get in there some where.
Seeking_Knight_of_Graves 01-20-07, 03:29 AM	Why don’t we fold all skills into three categories: Physicality Mentality Luck And three classes Fight-Man Heal-Man Skill-Man And then we can have each player at the table be replaced by a TV and game console! OMG teh new simplified rule are teh roxor! I have to get this off my chest now. Honestly this hate of video games needs to really stop. I play both table top and video games rpgs. Both are well suited for their niche in the gaming market. I dare say both even help each other out. I got into table top because of a video game. I admit once I learned the rules it was much different then the game but both supplied fun. In all seriousness stop playing games and just work for a living. It will sure as heck help your disposition. On topic I can wait for 4.0. Heck if things keep going as they are we may not see a 4.0 untill way after 2015. Book sales seem to be good and, by way of the forums, interest is up. Yes D&D has changed majorly from its past. For both good and bad. It is good seeing D&D incorperate other media and show new ideas then what was so bland in the past. Wizards accepts the fact that video games, anime, and other influences have come out. These influences have radically changed how gamers think. I cannot think of any changed for 4.0 to have. As a side note I have to say this much. For those who have a deep hatred or disgust with video games go play Suikoden for a deep story and good characters. Or buy rpg maker and mess around with designing a console rpg. Thank you all for listening to my little rant.
Lina_Inverse 01-20-07, 03:39 AM	Make the game actually playable by someone who's never played before. I take it you've never seen non-D&D rpgs. They can get much much worse in this regard. Setup character creation so it doesn't take a whole session to generate characters. It takes 10 minutes max to jam out a charecter. Roll Stats-Pick Race-Pick Class-Puck Int+2/4/6/8 skills-Pick Feat. Something wrong if you cant do that in 10 minutes.
Critical_Failure 01-20-07, 04:49 PM	It takes 10 minutes max to jam out a charecter. Roll Stats-Pick Race-Pick Class-Puck Int+2/4/6/8 skills-Pick Feat. Something wrong if you cant do that in 10 minutes. I see it differently. i try to tke as long as possible on character creation so i can make sure that i have selected everything that i want to for the character, invented a suitable backround, given him allegences, hopes, fears, etc. in short made him/her more than a bunch of numbers on a sheet. if you can doo what i do in two days in ten minutes my hat comes off to you sir.
Carmath The Pure 01-20-07, 06:36 PM	I see it differently. i try to tke as long as possible on character creation so i can make sure that i have selected everything that i want to for the character, invented a suitable backround, given him allegences, hopes, fears, etc. in short made him/her more than a bunch of numbers on a sheet. if you can doo what i do in two days in ten minutes my hat comes off to you sir. See the difference here is that you choose to take longer. You could make up a character in 10 minutes if you wanted to as well, you just prefer to take the long way around. Nothing wrong with that at all, but it's not the game's fault. Backgrounds, allegiances, etc. are not necessary to play a character in D&D. Yes, they make the experience much more rewarding, but they aren't required.
Amaril 01-20-07, 06:38 PM	See the difference here is that you choose to take longer. You could make up a character in 10 minutes if you wanted to as well, you just prefer to take the long way around. Nothing wrong with that at all, but it's not the game's fault. Backgrounds, allegiances, etc. are not necessary to play a character in D&D. Yes, they make the experience much more rewarding, but they aren't required. Don't forget that creating a 5th-level character with a particular concept and class/feat progression in mind takes a lot longer than creating a 1st-level character with nothing in particular in mind aside from the base class.
theplaidknight 01-20-07, 08:06 PM	Especially for new players, character creation takes a long time. Unfortunately, for this roleplaying game, not all those considerations mentioned are always taken into account during character creation. To that end I think software like the character generator that was released with the 3.0 Player's Handbook ought to become a standard thing, including only the core rulebooks' options but with options in place to add or change whatever the DM wishes. On a side note, is there anything online like that? It would be a big help even to this veteran player, who still takes a while to create a character he likes. I also like the skill combination system, but one needs to take blindness and/or deafness into account. Which is actually quite easy but almost merits Perception remaining two separate skills. It seems to me that the general consensus here is that certain things need to remain in the purview of the DM and/or the players, like psionics and vancian spellcasting. An overall rewrite, including changes to things like the experience system, is probably not needed, but the fact that that system is based on a 4-encounters-per-day system sounded like a good idea at the time but most DMs don't bother to include so many encounters in their adventures. Overland travel would get quite tedious and dangerous if PCs had 4 encounters per day. But one also needs to keep in mind that encounters don't always have to include combat. Sneaking past guards, escaping from prison, participating in a trial, etc., all encounters in which no one should swing a sword unless things go horribly awry. Going back to the central point, we don't need D & D 4.0. some groups prefer to change some rules and disallow some rules but a total revamping of all the rules is really, really not needed. I like my hundreds of dollars worth of books and I want to keep using them until I'm too old to open them myself.
RadicalTaoist 01-20-07, 11:00 PM	Create a system where characters aren't half anything -- just whole. We don't need characters sounding like milk selections. I don't need any 2% half dragons. :rofl: I want to create Skim Dragon and Homogenized Dragon templates now. I hate 4.0 threads on principle, but I figure I might as well fight them by offering as cynical and terrifying a vision of 4.0 as I can think up so as to scare as many people who read my post as possible away from these threads forever. What I would want from 4.0 if I were a WotC exec: Now, I've paid attention to 3e's rise and realized that while opening the game up to creative new mechanics and exploring new build- and play-styles makes it very popular and brings a lot of people into our customer base, it is also very divisive. Some like calculation-based mechanics (i.e. power points) and some people like list-reference-based mechanics (Vancian casting). People take what they like from the rulebooks, exclude what they don't like fiercely, and are capable of being self-centered enough to declare people with different tastes as a threat to their game. The numerous "not in my game" arguments in FLGSes and message boards are proof of that. I'm also not an idiot and realize that they won't pay for products that don't support their playstyle. So what do I do? I look at the alternative rulesets like Unearthed Arcana and Arcana Unearthed and so on, and make variants the base. I'd actually release 4.0 in at least three major streams. High Magic Stream: this is safe pasture for the sacred cows. Old-school rigid archetypal flavor takes priority over balance. Make a zillion caster classes, at least three for every casting system. There is only one warrior base class and it's completely modular like the UA Generic Warrior. That's only needed to craft low-level bodyguards, buff sinks, and gish components. Spells are numerous, flashy and suitably overpowered against non-caster threats. Caster threats are of course the real threats. Give mages the ability to read minds, summon alien beings, and design eldritch-powered spaceships and technology, but explicitly disallow anything with the Psionics name on it as that's too "sci-fi". Gritty Bleeding Stream: we want realism and harsh combat rules. Think Iron Heroes meets Call of Ctulhu run through the variant rules in Complete Warrior. Magic and magical weapons are rare, and fights hurt like hell. PCs can be killed easily. A minimum of caster classes, and all of them have utility or support effects. Something Progressive Stream: easy to use mechanics and balance are big. Spell point mechanics are the accepted norm for arcane magic, although streamlined even more than current XPH psionics. [Psionic] is a subtype applied to spells and feats, rather than a casting system of its own; [Psionic] spells get nifty benefits but also some drawbacks and you must be a [Psionic] character to cast them. Rework divine casting into a skills and feats (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=10795933#post10795933) system and vary healing and utility sources so game balance can be maintained across wider variation in party composition. Melee classes can specialize in various means to defeat their old foes: vast mobs, casters, ranged combatants, weird stuff like swarms or oozes, and monsters large enough to splat them easily. No longer will these guys make mockery of a wide archetype of characters. No class is allowed to be awesome at everything or completely useless at anything anymore. Now, each of these streams gets its own PHB. Gamers rejoice because they no longer have to 'share' their D&D with those dastardly types who play differently - until the other books come out. Since the rules and base mechanics are similar enough between the different streams, they can all share a DMG and a MM (monsters would have different CRs depending on what stream they're being used in). However, this also means that supplemental material like new PrCs and feats and spells can also be written in three different ways, one for each stream. So every splatbook spell has three entries, every feat has three incarnations, and every PrC has three game mechanics sections. Each splatbook's mechanical portion can be a third as long as before since any mechanics can be produced in three ways. So I can make splatbooks with one-third the author list and one-third the time and charge the old price - or, I can make splatbooks three times as long and charge proportionally more for the higher page count. Either way, we're looking at gamers getting used to a dozen splatbooks a month, each of which is 1/3 full of material they'll actually use, and accepting it because of how bad their NIMG reflex has pushed them to accept this new, segregated edition. WotC profits skyrocket. Hasbro's board of directors passes me a raise and sends me lots of cards every Christmas. What I would want from 4.0 if I were a gamer: A shoulder to cry on if it turns out like that.
WhiteRaven810 01-21-07, 01:04 AM	As for the waiting four years: I hope 4.0 is not so different from 3.5 books that the current line of books would be incompatible. I would rather have subtle rule changes to refine current systems. Wouldn't that be 3.75? Forth edition needs a more thought out Figher. If they continue with Feats they need to create a system, in Core, to make them buyable. We simply have too many feat options but not enough oppertunies to take them.