Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Anaxander 08-16-07, 07:50 AM	This thread isn't about discussing the validity or relevance of a 4th edition. Neither is it about discussions whether one's 3.5 books are suddenly rendered obsolete or not. This thread is about what you, as a DM, want to see in 4e as an improvement over 3.5. Imho, one of the most important aspect of 4e should be less prep time: being able to make complex NPCs much faster than what is now possible. Replacing skill points, skill synergies and the myriads of small skill bonusses by a skill system à la SAGA could be advantage. A second improvement could be the transfer of ALL (but secret) dice rolls to the player. This means less work for the DM rolling dice, adding this and that modifier, and more fun for the players. (E.g. a players rolls to hit the monster's AC, but the monster has a static attack against which the player rolls a defence roll (1d20+modifiers), a roll of one on the player's defense roll is a critical hit for the monster). A third improvement should be the simplifying and streamlining of special attack options like grappling, multiple attacks, spells with touch attacks, saves, percentile miss chance and spell resistance, etc. What do you want to see as a DM in 4e?
Shaggy_Shaggs 08-16-07, 07:56 AM	Whether DMing or playing, Turn Undead needs to be rethought and rebuilt, or removed entirely. It's totally unusable vs the big undead, and by the time you can reliably use it on the small ones you could bash them down with weapons or spells just as quickly or even more so. That and the rolling and modifiers are needlessly overcomplicated. Useless sometimes + unnecessary the rest of the time + clunky = garbage, throw it out.
Pegasos989 08-16-07, 08:07 AM	You already have the mechanics for what OP described. Combine the variant of ac rolling each turn (your ac being 1d20 + modifiers instead of 10 + mods) to ruling that monsters can and do take 10 on attacks. PC just tells when he got AC over the number. That said, I don't think you would want to do it. Complicates too much. Now just DM needs to know the situation, know rules applying and roll, if player rolled all they would need to know all of that as well or DM would need to tell them how special attacks affected, etc. instead... which takes a lot more time. What I would like to see, be it 4th ed or sooner... A system for creating monsters. Kinda similar to magic item creation guidelines "For melee based monsters, use this kind of pointbuy for attack rating, damage, special attacks, hp, ac, count CR like this, rise it by this if the monster can also do this..."
Suavo 08-16-07, 08:09 AM	I would like to see a more active combat system that used something along the lines of opposed rolls for attack and defense rather than attempting to hit a single unchanging number.
Pegasos989 08-16-07, 08:38 AM	Oh, and I would definitely want to see called shots. In 3.5 it is hard (not impossible but complicated) to have rules on having harder to hit but more effective targets to hit due to... Rogue: "I want to pierce his eye with my rapier, reach his brains and kill him instantly" DM: "Haha. Sure, what's you attack modifier? +15? Well... his brains have AC of 34. If you hit it, you kill him and if you miss, you do nothing." Wizard: "Hey! great! I cast true strike and scorching ray his brains." DM "D'oh." But I want a proper, in-built mechanic for called shots.
Steely_Dan 08-16-07, 08:46 AM	-Completely rebuild, from the ground up, the antiquated, overpowered, pseudo-Vancian, Gygaxian magic/spell system. It's basically a cut & paste from 1st/2nd edition anyway. -Clean up the Skill system. -No critical confirmation rolls. -No XP penalties for multi-classing. -Fix TWF. -Drop the 5 ft. step and iterative attacks to stop the whole standing there very unexcitedly swinging away until you or your enemy drops. -Fix blindness/invisibility/concealment etc.
heffroncm 08-16-07, 08:49 AM	Whether DMing or playing, Turn Undead needs to be rethought and rebuilt, or removed entirely. It's totally unusable vs the big undead, and by the time you can reliably use it on the small ones you could bash them down with weapons or spells just as quickly or even more so. That and the rolling and modifiers are needlessly overcomplicated. Useless sometimes + unnecessary the rest of the time + clunky = garbage, throw it out. There is a flip side to Turn Undead. If you build for it, by level 7 you can instantly destroy any level-appropriate undead you will ever encounter. By level 15, you can do it to creatures up to CR 30. Either way, it's a gamebreaker. It is either entirely useless and used just to fuel Divine feats and metamagics, or it turns Undead into E-Z Mode and the DM has to decide between not putting any more undead into the campaign (and potentially alienating a player who really wanted to be the ultimate undead killer) or handing out oodles of practically free experience.
gixanthrax 08-16-07, 08:57 AM	I would like to see a more active combat system that used something along the lines of opposed rolls for attack and defense rather than attempting to hit a single unchanging number. Word! Will give all those power-attacking 800 damage maniacs a hard time to consider by how much they dare to lower their attack! For Defense i would use: BAB+ Dex + d20 Armor should work like DR so a heavy armoured fighter is easier to hit, but less damage penetrates his armor. A " lightfooted" Rogue is harder to hit but takes more damage. i would also kick out all those " Save or die" - effects, because the DM is always the ******* if he uses them, but players may utilize them randomly. Foe casters, I'd prefer asystem similar to that of psions, where they have an certain amount of "mana"(or whatever you may call it) to spend per day for spellcasting, and I would even give them Nonlethal damage when casting spells.
Pegasos989 08-16-07, 08:58 AM	Regardless of effectiveness of turn undead, I hate how it works. If it succeeds, enemy runs away. Fight is over. The anticlimaticness boggles the mind. If it fails, nothing happens. Either way, it adds no fun IMHO. It can work when undead are a small part of the encounter enemies but other than that, good clerics turning undead never add fun.
Steely_Dan 08-16-07, 09:03 AM	-Less reliance on gear, I'm sick of characters dripping with magic items like a bloody Christmas tree!
Mistress_Alexis 08-16-07, 09:32 AM	Personally I enjoy Saga for a Star Wars setting but I am dreadfully opposed to the idea that PC are that more powerful than NPC in D&D to the point I wouldnt update to the system. The way I DM I basicly tell the PCs "Your a Dude, in the world" just because they are PC they arnt any better than other adventurer or trained people, they are often worse cause some of my players dont optimize their character and I treat every NPC with PC class levels (1 in 10 people in my setting have PC class levels) like they were a character I had to play. Its the only way for a world to function, if things go in the derection of SAGA in D&D PCs will be default rulers of the world in almost all cases, in the ones they arnt they will be contenders for it without realizing. PS: As a DM I dont do anything that just makes it work, if a part of the world doesnt hold up to its own internal logic it doesnt hold up (hence why elves are extinct in all my setting).
nastynate 08-16-07, 09:55 AM	I agree that the system should be simplified for DMs. It takes me hours of prep every week to stat out my villains and they drop dead in about 3.5 rounds. Hmm...some options. 1. Flat skill progressions = blessing for the DM (figuring out NPC skill modifiers gives me fits). Each class gets max ranks in their class skills, half ranks in cross class skill, and high intelligence grants additional class skills (of your choice). 2. Simplify the rules for grappling, polymorph, and turning undead. 3. Either make counterspelling better or completely drop it. 4. Drop iterative attacks and 5-foot-steps 5. Cut the number of classes down, and use talent trees (aka alternate class features) to make similar classes. In other words, have a divine caster with a cleric talent tree and a druid talent tree. 6. No more prestige classes. Publish additional talent trees if you want to expand the character options. 7. No more vancian spellcasting. Fewer spells with unlimited uses, or spells that refresh after 10 minutes of rest is much better. 8. No more assumption of 4 encounters per day. I would much rather balance encounters on an individual basis, so I can run 1 encounter a day or 100 encounters a day as I please. 9. Simplify skill DCs. No more 1d20 + ranks + ability score + synergy bonuses + circumstance bonuses/penalties + various other modifiers to make a single check. Flat DCs with integers of 5 (5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, etc) or simple opposed rolls should be the rule of thumb. 10. Get rid of minions. No more animal companions, familiars, or sidekicks. These should be acquired with feats so you don't have to use them if you don't want to. Also limit all summoning spells to a single minion (maybe concentration to command them). I get nightmares trying to make NPC druids with animal companions, wild shape, and spontaneous summoning magic. If I think of anything else, I'll toss it in here.
Steely_Dan 08-16-07, 10:02 AM	1. Flat skill progressions = blessing for the DM (figuring out NPC skill modifiers gives me fits). Each class gets max ranks in their class skills, half ranks in cross class skill, and high intelligence grants additional class skills (of your choice). 2. Simplify the rules for grappling, polymorph, and turning undead. 3. Either make counterspelling better or completely drop it. 4. Drop iterative attacks and 5-foot-steps 5. Cut the number of classes down, and use talent trees (aka alternate class features) to make similar classes. In other words, have a divine caster with a cleric talent tree and a druid talent tree. 7. No more vancian spellcasting. Fewer spells with unlimited uses, or spells that refresh after 10 minutes of rest is much better. 8. No more assumption of 4 encounters per day. I would much rather balance encounters on an individual basis, so I can run 1 encounter a day or 100 encounters a day as I please. 9. Simplify skill DCs. No more 1d20 + ranks + ability score + synergy bonuses + circumstance bonuses/penalties + various other modifiers to make a single check. Flat DCs with integers of 5 (5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, etc) or simple opposed rolls should be the rule of thumb. 10. Get rid of minions. No more animal companions, familiars, or sidekicks. These should be acquired with feats so you don't have to use them if you don't want to. Also limit all summoning spells to a single minion (maybe concentration to command them). I get nightmares trying to make NPC druids with animal companions, wild shape, and spontaneous summoning magic. I totally, completely, 100% agree with all of that.
Pegasos989 08-16-07, 10:10 AM	I totally, completely, 100% agree with all of that. Thirded.
Onikani 08-16-07, 10:20 AM	i would like to not see it. I've played through 1st, 2nd, 'Basic', 3.0, and 3.5. And while i will admit that the game gets better with every revision, i just think its too soon, and don't really have any problems with 3.5. I really don't want to buy all new books (again). Honestly, if 4.0 comes out before 2010 my options will probably be either find a group stuck in 3.5 or quit dnd.
calvinNhobbes 08-16-07, 10:31 AM	1. A more generalized skill based system. For example have four DEX based skills: agility, coordination, flexibility, and balance. The player states an action and the DM decides which skills are appropriate. Example, hiding and moving silently would require agility and under some circumstances balance. 2. Drop Vancian spell casting system. I prefer points and a recharge rate (X points/hour). Spells can be balanced better with longer casting times, expensive material components, and XP rather than restricting per day uses. 3. Fix the mess that is now unarmed strikes vs natural attacks. Attacks should just be attacks. 4. Get rid of trip and meld it into the grapple rules. Weapons that trip by entangling or hooking should give an improved grab type feature. Also include rules for throwing an opponent while grappling. 5. Add a parry type bonus to weapons and shields. In actual sword fights and cinematic movie fights it is about blocking attacks not standing toe to toe wailing on each other, drawing blood until one person drops.
pres_man 08-16-07, 10:37 AM	While there are aspects of the SAGA skills I like, the fact that you have to burn a feat just to train 1 addition skill truly, utterly sucks, especially if you decide to multiclass. Heck the SAGA rules don't allow you to even get an extra one when you raise your INT (unlike how you can get additional Force powers by raising your WIS).
Anaxander 08-16-07, 10:42 AM	While there are aspects of the SAGA skills I like, the fact that you have to burn a feat just to train 1 addition skill truly, utterly sucks, especially if you decide to multiclass. Heck the SAGA rules don't allow you to even get an extra one when you raise your INT (unlike how you can get additional Force powers by raising your WIS). Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the SAGA system you get a feat per two levels, so burning a feat for a +5 (!) bonus won't be such a problem.
pres_man 08-16-07, 10:45 AM	Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the SAGA system you get a feat per two levels, so burning a feat for a +5 (!) bonus won't be such a problem. You are right and you are wrong. Yes you get a CLASS feat every two levels, but those feats have to be spent on class specific feats. The only feats you can use to freely choose with are the ones you get every 3rd level (the normal feats).
Aucturos 08-16-07, 10:46 AM	Firstly, I mean no offense, but from some of these replies, why not just play a different game instead of making D&D into something else? >.> Secondly, so many of these things are things that you could easily house-rule (Rule 0 anyone?), or that ALREADY exist in an alternative rule format officially supported by WotC (like the alternative spell systems available) that changing the system to the extent some would like seems... unnecessary. Again, no offense, but I suppose I'm just nitpicky. That being said, there are a few things I'd like to see streamlined: 1) Turn Undead. 2) Temporary Bonuses (Really just a minor distinction in the description, instead of saying "1d4+X Str", why not just go, "Adds 1d4 to your Str Modifier" and cut out the middleman?) 3) Fine-tune a few classes, whether it be in mechanics or flavor (Fighter, Sorcerer, Cleric, etc.). I think, if nothing else, the CORE classes should be very balanced, even if a few PrC's are not. 3.5) At least test-drive the PrC's before putting them out. -_- 4) Fix Counterspelling. Don't use it now, didn't use it then, probably won't use it until it doesn't require me to give up something greater than I'm stopping. Maybe just make it an actual spell that will negate the enemy's spell using opposing Spellcraft checks. 5) Streamline synergies between skills or take 'em out, along with streamlining a few skills themselves (just lump together a few, like Knowledge Arcana and Spellcraft, Disable Device and Pick lock, etc.). 6) Adjust the whole mess of EL's and CR's or get rid of it. 7) Streamline new monster creation (seconded from above). 8) Better define their alignment system. 9) I'd like to NOT see 4e for a very, very long time. That's really about it for me. I have some gripes about the endless supply of "Core" material out there as well, but that's easily fixed by me (as the DM).
Steely_Dan 08-16-07, 10:55 AM	Heck the SAGA rules don't allow you to even get an extra one when you raise your INT Yes they do, when your Int modifier increases you may gain a new trained Skill.
Steely_Dan 08-16-07, 10:56 AM	Honestly, if 4.0 comes out before 2010 my options will probably be either find a group stuck in 3.5 or quit dnd. It is coming out before 2010; they have officially stated that the 4th edition PHB will be released in May 2008.
Forgarn 08-16-07, 10:58 AM	I honestly have to say that those of you who are complaining about the "standing toe-to-toe hitting eachother until one drops" combat have really not read about it. It states in the PHB that cambat is not standing there giving and taking damamge. You are constantly moving, hence the reason that you threaten all the squares around you 5 feet out. As for 4e...I agree with Onikani. I also have played Basic, Expert, 1e, 2e, 3.0 and 3.5 (started in 1979). If anything, I would like to see a simpler game similar to the old Basic for younger kids (7-10) that allows you to play an elf (which is a fighter magic user), a gnome (which is an illusionist), a dwarf (fighter/cleric), etc. Other than that, I think that everything in 3.5 is just fine. I have no problems playing it or DMing it. And for the turn undead haters, they just don't run away and the encounter is over. They are only scared for a certain number of rounds, so they come back. "Fearing" them is just a temp fix. Besides, everything is based on the number of hit dice so you may not beable to fear them all and you still have to fight some of them. Or you may not be able to fear any of them and you have to fight them all.
StSteven 08-16-07, 11:00 AM	I personally won't buy 4e unless it is easily compatible with 3.5. I have spent too much money for that. What I would like to see is a better way to calculate EL and CR for parties with varying levels and varying numbers. I don't think that 4e is needed for that though.
Forgarn 08-16-07, 11:03 AM	I agree. I would love to see WotC come out with a feats compendium so that all the feats are in one book with an updated fighter's bonus feat listing. That, to me, would be far more useful than some of the useless books that have come out lately.
Dungeonrenter 08-16-07, 11:03 AM	The first thing is that I think the idea of static monster attacks is terrible. Whats the fun of being behind the screen if you are not actually playing the ferocious monsters and villians and getting to have your fun in combat to. The "gamey" parts of dnd need to emphasise fun and the simulationist parts need to emphasise the simulation. 1) Skill DC creep. Saga addresses this nicley. The D&D skill system very quickly causes DC's for skills to grow so huge to be even moderatly challenging for a skilled pc that non skilled pc's have no chance. Additonally skills like climb, swim, jump etc need to be rethought. They are currently mostly just frustrating. 2) Combat changes. I agree with getting rid of the rules on standing still for iterative attacks. Itterative attacks are the only thing that keep combat classes even close to casters in terms of viablility. If you can't move and use them whats the point at all? Also, AC needs to be rebuilt bad. Armor class althugh mechanically fine is totally unsatifing. A high armor character who gets hit feels like their armor didn't do anything. A monster who has a decent chance of hitting a high armor character (say 33-50%) is incredibly frustrating for that character because they feel like they are sacrificing damage output for no gain. Damage reduction at least makes that not so much an issue. 3) Turn undead/the whole paladin class. The most useful thing you can currently do with turn undead is power divine feats. Turn undead should just become another divine feat that is purchasable after the one that allows you to psend a TU attempt to cause damage instead. The paladin should loose his spells and have all his abilties work off his "turn undead" attemtps. 4) Assisting rules for things like chases and other "high drama" events that pull in more skill usage. Thats what i can think of for right now.
pres_man 08-16-07, 11:04 AM	Yes they do, when your Int modifier increases you may gain a new trained Skill. O'rly? ..., but the only way to gain new trained skills after 1st level is to take the Skill Training feat (page 88).
Steely_Dan 08-16-07, 11:06 AM	I honestly have to say that those of you who are complaining about the "standing toe-to-toe hitting eachother until one drops" combat have really not read about it. It states in the PHB that cambat is not standing there giving and taking damamge. You are constantly moving, hence the reason that you threaten all the squares around you 5 feet out. Am I missing something – that didn't make any sense to me? So what if you threaten all the squares around you, you are still not moving. Half the time warrior types (ToB classes excluded) still look to just shuffle over 5 ft. when they need to and get a full attack, round after round…after round…
Steely_Dan 08-16-07, 11:08 AM	O'rly? Yes, I'm at work so I can't quote a page number, but trust me, it is in there – ask the Star Wars forum if you don't believe me. …You also get to learn a new language.
Millennium 08-16-07, 11:13 AM	What do you want to see as a DM in 4e? For it to be something other than a video game on paper: preserve Vancian magic, realistically-split skills, class-based progression, and basically everything else that people have been complaining about. Which I suppose means I really don't want another edition at all. 3.5 is all but perfect.
RobbyPants 08-16-07, 11:14 AM	Actually, a lot of these proposed variants are already printed in Unearthed Arcana. They can be implemented sooner than 4E.
pres_man 08-16-07, 11:17 AM	Yes, I'm at work so I can't quote a page number, but trust me, it is in there – ask the Star Wars forum if you don't believe me. …You also get to learn a new language. Ok, found it. When a character's Intelligence score permanently increase or decreases, its number of trained skills and known languages also changes. Hmmm, well that is a direct contradiction to the other quote I posted above. Ok, so I'll change my statement to I hope they write the rules more consistently for skills, since you can only gain trained skills in SAGA through gaining a feat or raising your INT (or maybe not depending which rule you use). EDIT: I might also point out from the skill section on Trained Skills vs. Untrained Skills it says: Trained skills are selected from the character's list of class skills at 1st level, and a character may acquire new trained skills by taking the Skill Training feat (page 88). The fact that it is silently on gaining a higher INT seemed to indicate that wasn't a way to acquire new trained skills when I read it. I would say not gaining them is more consistent with the majority of the statements about skills, but I guess it depends which you take as the final rule, the Skill sections or the Int section.
trapspringer 08-16-07, 11:19 AM	I love 3.x. The only things I want: -a more developed and CORE flaw/trait system -multiple legitimately distinct, non-vancian spell casting systems; keep vancian in there but let's have some options, 'ey? -more class variants like those presented in the most recent run of published material
Steely_Dan 08-16-07, 11:21 AM	Hmmm, well that is a direct contradiction to the other quote I posted above. Yeah, I know, there are some serious editing problems. Check out Cleave, part of the description says you cannot make a 1 square adjustment before making your second attack… …Oops.
calvinNhobbes 08-16-07, 11:46 AM	I honestly have to say that those of you who are complaining about the "standing toe-to-toe hitting eachother until one drops" combat have really not read about it. It states in the PHB that cambat is not standing there giving and taking damamge. You are constantly moving, hence the reason that you threaten all the squares around you 5 feet out. Yes, the PHB has fluff stating such. How about some crunch now to back it up. Also, AC needs to be rebuilt bad. Armor class althugh mechanically fine is totally unsatifing. Totally agree. I was playing around with the idea of armor giving both AC and DR. AC would be the chance of bypassing the armor completely by finding a weak spot. The DR would be the protection granted when the armor is hit. Example, padded armor might give +10 AC since if would be hard to completely miss hitting a padded suit going from neck to feet, but it would only provide DR 1, so it would still not be very effective. Breast plate (with greaves/helmet/bracers) might provide +6 AC since it leaves more openings, but give DR 10. Also, I think in this type of armor system, DEX should be used to hit and STR for damage. That way a dextrous creature would try to bypass the armor by finding a weak spot (as they would realistically) while a strong creature would try to just smash through (also realistic). It would seem easy to implement with the d20 system. You just would require a table listing the order AC is applied. Example: deflection -> dex -> dodge -> shield -> armor -> natural armor, etc. EDIT: Armor Magic enhancements would then just boost the DR and HPs of the armor instead of AC. But then you might be able to overlap multiple pieces of armor, like a magic breastplate over a magic padded suit.
Anaxander 08-16-07, 11:51 AM	from http://www.icv2.com/articles/home/11123.html: 'D&D 4th Edition' Announced at Gen Con Online Component Added August 16, 2007 Wizards of the Coast is announcing at GenCon today that it will release the 4th Edition of its category-leading Dungeons and Dragon roleplaying game in 2008, the first full new edition in eight years. The three core books will be released next summer on a monthly schedule: Player's Handbook in May, Monster Manual in June, and Dungeon Master's Guide in July. Pricing and page counts of the new products will be consistent with current packaging. Graphics have been updated, art will be used on the covers, and interior design has been opened up to make the books less intimidating to new players. Lead-in products, Wizards Presents: Classes and Races and Wizards Presents: Worlds and Monsters, will be released in December. An April release, Keep of the Shadowfell, will include a set of quickstart rules for 4E. While there are changes in play (such as incorporating "epic-level play," with 30 levels instead of 20), they are described as "evolutionary" rather than "revolutionary." Other changes include new power sources, changes in resource management, and new encounter design, and more clearly defined monster roles. Changes will speed play, make the game easier to learn, and make DM-ing easier. Concepts for 4th Edition gameplay were tested in the new Star Wars RPG, and the Book of 9 Swords. What the company does describe as revolutionary is the method of product delivery, which will incorporate online play for the first time. WotC is incorporating online components into the game through a new Website, DnDInsider.com. Each paper product will include codes to unlock digital versions on the site for a "nominal" activation fee. Players will also be able to use DnDInsider tools and access regular new content similar to the material that was previously released in Dragon and Dungeon magazines (see "Interview with Liz Schuh") for a monthly fee (as yet undetermined) greater than the old subscription price, but less than a MMORPG subscription. Magazine-style content will be added to the site three times a week and compiled into digital "issues" monthly. Gameplay features on the Web will include a digital D&D game table, and voice chat and text messaging, to allow online players to communicate with each other. The online play is designed to "supplement, not replace" meatspace play. The Open Gaming License will continue as it has in the past, allowing the use of the rules in other publishers' games. Work on the new edition began in 2005, with the major work all accomplished in the last year. D&D products released between now and the launch of 4th Edition will fall into three groups. Edition-proof products (which are mostly story) will not include mechanics that are edition-specific. Some products will be "enhanced" to 4th Edition mechanics after release through DnDInsider, and a couple of series will end as 3.5 products. The setting for the core books are campaign neutral. Forgotten Realms will be the first campaign setting to be updated (in August 2008). Other campaign settings will be updated at a rate of one per year. Marketing support will initially focus on migrating the existing player base, and then move to an acquisition strategy to re-activate lapsed players and acquire new ones. Midnight launch parties will be used to kick off sales of the first new release in May.
gixanthrax 08-16-07, 12:14 PM	Listen and spot as Class Skills for every class
Archangel62 08-16-07, 12:24 PM	What I want as a DM is the following 1) To avoid the glass cannon/iron wall issue that pops up in many games. Because D&D and the D20 system in general promotes specialization it tends to lead to the guy who ramps his initiative and leap attacks in to destroy but really has a glass jaw, or who holds back and can take anything short of a godling trying to knock him for a loop. The problem is that if the saga rules are being used I am concerned the problem will get worse instead of better. 2) I would like a magic system that is more logical than the vancian system, spell points aren't necessary but they might help. 3) When I see the phrase 'ease of play' I get a little nervous, the main reason is that making it easier either means that there are fewer bonuses around or that many options have been removed or scaled back or that they have streamlined heavily, the problem is that I don't rightly know what they could have streamlined to make it faster without removing tactical options. 4) If their design model is based off of the saga edition I have to ask if they consider the differences between the D&D and Star Wars universes in terms of styles of weaponry, styles of play, and material that is available. 5) I would like some work done on the AC system, if only to deal with the problem of the roller coaster that it has become. At low levels good AC in incredibly useful, as levels go up you tend to be better off with concealment and other ways to have miss chances.
Onikani 08-16-07, 01:03 PM	It is coming out before 2010; they have officially stated that the 4th edition PHB will be released in May 2008. Yeah i found that out after posting. *sigh* Well, i stick by my story. No new books.
Pegasos989 08-16-07, 01:13 PM	Yeah i found that out after posting. *sigh* Well, i stick by my story. No new books. I think that untill I hear there is a nearly full backwards compatibility, I won't buy any more 3.5 books. And if there is such, it propably means they haven't fixed any the major things... Well, back to the topic. I would also like to see the lowered dependency on magic items. EDIT: Not necessarily meaning low-magic, I have nothing against the current high-magic. Just that a barbarian or fighter without over half a dozen magic items wouldn't be crippled.
Aucturos 08-16-07, 02:16 PM	from http://www.icv2.com/articles/home/11123.html: Well that's just stupid. Particularly the online parts. I haven't even replaced the entirety of my 3e collection yet (I've only taken a 3yr break for Pete's sake, it's called college), and already my 3.5e stuff is out of date as of May '08. Keep it up Wizards, I'll just quit and find something a bit more palatable. I can always fix the rules I don't like myself, I can't afford another damn edition every few years. What I sincerely hope they'll do, is offer current owners of 3.x a discount on the 4e stuff. It'd be pretty much the only way I could buy any of it.
trapspringer 08-16-07, 02:43 PM	Broken Link. I call shenanigans. Also, I for one welcome our new hard-back overlords and wish them a pleasant stay on earth (now will the Wizo's buy me a new set of 4e?)
pres_man 08-16-07, 03:02 PM	Broken Link. I call shenanigans. Also, I for one welcome our new hard-back overlords and wish them a pleasant stay on earth (now will the Wizo's buy me a new set of 4e?) http://www.icv2.com/articles/home/11123.html There you go.
Ikyotojin 08-16-07, 03:21 PM	Well, that's all well and fine. I'll be able to get the e3 books dirt cheap. Works fine for me. All I'm missing is a couple of the race books and I got a couple of city books so I have a set of premade locations to flesh things out as I need. If something is busted, just house rule it to the liking of you and your players. The whole "it's broke, someone fix it for me" I find frankly, lazy. But that's just my opinion and not worth anything. So get the bandwagon ready! Make sure there is LOTs of room for people to jump on! ;)
ToxicWiz 08-16-07, 04:38 PM	What do I want to see as a DM? I want to see my players breeze though character creation, and ready to play in half an hour, yet still have a character so unique he probably could not recreate him. I want to be able to roll two/three dice a monster and get a nice flowing description from it, and get onto the players actions. Then, I'd like to see my players perform an amazing feat without diving into the books for five minutes. At the end of a session, I want my players to feel like their characters achieved something, through a true challenge, and do it fast. I want to look at the clock at the end of an adventure and say to myself "wow, that all it took? who's up for another adventure?" when before it would take all our session. High hopes, and Saga certainly was a step for SWR. Give this to me in D&D, without the need for a small truck of books, and WotC will have a happy DM, with cash to spend. Until then, I'm staying off the wagon. Keep a seat free though.
NightHawkFalconis 08-16-07, 07:24 PM	I agree with most of these posts. Counterspelling is definitely clunky and useless... I have a fix for it and might even post some of my ideas on the House Rules thread... hmmm... I'd like to see prestige classes done away with, or actually made prestigious. Dervish? Turn that into a bunch of Fighter feats. Archmage? Silly goose, those are feats, too, albeit ones that can only be taken at high levels. I'd think that the paladin should be a prestige class, since you are supposed to be a PARAGON of your alignment (and they should be able to uphold any alignment, though maybe restricted to ones without "neutral" in their descriptions). That brings me to alignment, which I have less of a gripe with than most people, because I just don't let it bother me. I think that the alignments could do to be better explained (and add in that LG people are allowed to be angry and have outbursts, etc, or be crotchety, and that even CE characters CAN have soft spots, just for those who don't already embrace that concept.) Some of the classes could be condensed into the same class. Stick Wiz and Sor into one class, but have two separate progressions, something like CLASS ABILITIES... and stuff. Feats: take out the feat chains that are 1,000 feats long and grant you a measly +1 to hit or damage per feat taken. This is assuming we need feats at all, if the classes each have enough nifty class abilities. I've got some other ideas rumbling about in my head, but these come to mind most readily.
seolfur 08-16-07, 07:44 PM	In 4e, the best POSSIBLE thing they could do is to reorganize the players handbook. It is completely out of useful order, and new players get lost and confused about how to creat their first character (I've been there.) Also, they could reorganize the matter in all the books so that a book like "Deities and Demigods" has ALL the deities and demigods, not just the ones available at the creation of the book. I would also like to see a new "Temple of Elelmental Evil" . . . :)
LifeIshFun 08-16-07, 07:53 PM	Oh, and I would definitely want to see called shots. In 3.5 it is hard (not impossible but complicated) to have rules on having harder to hit but more effective targets to hit due to... Rogue: "I want to pierce his eye with my rapier, reach his brains and kill him instantly" DM: "Haha. Sure, what's you attack modifier? +15? Well... his brains have AC of 34. If you hit it, you kill him and if you miss, you do nothing." Wizard: "Hey! great! I cast true strike and scorching ray his brains." DM "D'oh." But I want a proper, in-built mechanic for called shots. Seconded
seolfur 08-16-07, 07:53 PM	Yes, the PHB has fluff stating such. How about some crunch now to back it up. Totally agree. I was playing around with the idea of armor giving both AC and DR. AC would be the chance of bypassing the armor completely by finding a weak spot. The DR would be the protection granted when the armor is hit. Example, padded armor might give +10 AC since if would be hard to completely miss hitting a padded suit going from neck to feet, but it would only provide DR 1, so it would still not be very effective. Breast plate (with greaves/helmet/bracers) might provide +6 AC since it leaves more openings, but give DR 10. Also, I think in this type of armor system, DEX should be used to hit and STR for damage. That way a dextrous creature would try to bypass the armor by finding a weak spot (as they would realistically) while a strong creature would try to just smash through (also realistic). It would seem easy to implement with the d20 system. You just would require a table listing the order AC is applied. Example: deflection -> dex -> dodge -> shield -> armor -> natural armor, etc. EDIT: Armor Magic enhancements would then just boost the DR and HPs of the armor instead of AC. But then you might be able to overlap multiple pieces of armor, like a magic breastplate over a magic padded suit. I would like the same thing, exept . . . Armor should have HP points also, and the damage avoided by the DR will slide into the armor's HP and hurt it, until your armor is unusable, and it no longer provides any bonus.
Ohtar Turinson 08-16-07, 11:51 PM	I don't know... a lot of things here don't seem likely or useful for playing... especially about armor. AC is, as far as I can tell, supposed to represent something preventing you from being hit. Armor takes the blow for you DR is a seperate idea, or at least was initially- it represents being stabbed and for whatever reason it not hurting you- you stab the vampire and when you withdraw your blade there's no wound, etc. It is different from Natural Armor- when their skin is thick/plated/whatever and the blade does not enter. Anyway, what I'd like to see- the death of Vancian casting, as I've said else where. Makes no sense, and never has expect for maybe in Vance's books (I wouldn't know, I haven't read them). It was picked to avoid offending people and still failed at that- it's time to forget "tradition" and keep moving. The other thing I really want seems likely to happen- fighters who have defining traits and fighting styles, and from the class stuff released on the main site when we could still reach it I'd say that we've got this. One thing I pray we never see is the swordsage and its ilk as core material. The day anime tropes become a core mechanic is the day I strike out to hunt for a new system (or, more likely, continue revising 3.x as I've been doing for the last year).
Callista 08-17-07, 12:03 AM	I want to see a DMG that is all I need to run a game, even if the players come with nothing but a set of dice apiece (and hopefully pizza money). That means: --Rules for creating balanced classes and races. --Rules for creating monsters. --Rules for creating new spells, feats, PrCs, talents, etc. As well as the usual rules of the game. With editions coming out every three years now, I can't afford to buy a full set of books.
Zerchai 08-17-07, 12:40 AM	I want to see my favorite gaming system not undergo drastic and unnecessary rules changes every three years which force me to purchase entirely new books and shelve my old ones because they are no longer usable without excessive overhauling on my part. If 4e is not d20, and is not backwards-compatible, I'm done buying D&D books for a long, long time. Considering I already own 40+ 3.5 books, I have more than enough material to last me many years. -Zerchai
CroBob 08-17-07, 12:48 AM	* I really don't see any reason for the iterative attacks only when you stand in the same general area. Originally, I could see to make the game more tactical, the rule's placement. However, now it's just plain annoying. Perhaps something as simple as a feat that allows you to make an iterative attack after moving up to your speed, and the feat stacks. Or something. * I hope there are zero per encounter abilities. They make attrition strategies utterly useless. Resources should have the ability to get used up, to go away after you use it. I wouldn't mind abilities taking tie to "charge back up", over several hours, maybe. A whole day might restore them completely. Per encounter abilities make the game mechanics more black and white. "They can either beat this enemy, or they cannot.", with no room for wearing them down over multiple encounters, no opportunity for bad luck or choices getting you in trouble. At the very least, if there are per encounter abilities, don't allow them to come right back within the same encounter. That makes it less "per encounter" and more "when the hell ever". * More fun magical items. I like interesting, not obviously useful, magic items. It gets players to think up unusual strategies using them. The items that give direct and obvious bonuses should cost more, proportionally, and be rare. * No more reliance upon gear. I like playing a hero who wins over his enemies because he's good at doing what he does, he's skilled and is actually a powerful person, not because he has enough money to afford things that will make encounters easier. * No items that emulate class abilities, besides spells. And then, only those capable of casting those spells can use them. What benefit is there to a rogue if anyone can buy a ring of evasion? What value does the class ability have to the class when he could just as easily buy it as an enchantment on a ring? He gets to save money? Wooo. * Staffs are the wizard's signature weapon. There should be something more than spells cast from it. perhaps they could choose a staff instead of a familiar? They can store some spells in it, or use it's charges to cast their spells, or something! Perhaps the "instead of familiar" thing is dumb, but why would anyone buy a staff that casts spells they can cast anyhow, instead of something that allows them to cast their spells better? For back-up? Nobody wants to pay that absurd amount for back-up spells. They just get scrolls or wands. Make staves worthwhile somehow. * Saving throws for multiclassed characters get stupid. Have saves advance at a rate depending on their class, not depending on which level of that class they take. Why should a Fight1/Barb1/Rang1 have a base save of +6 while the Fight3 only has a base save of +3? It makes no damned sense! Fortunately, I houseruled this into my games. Good saves advance at 1/2 per level, poor saves advance at 1/3 per level. If a save is good for any class and regardless how many classes you have, add 2 to it, only once. It exactly duplicates the saving throw progression of any single class, but avoids bumping saves up to dramatic highs for characters with multiple classes. * Make two-weapon fighting worth bothering with. Or, how about this, make sword and shielding worth bothering with! I'm sick of the stereotypical knight in shining armor, with his broadsword and shield, not stacking up compared to some dude who swings his big sword really hard. * Lower power curve. A whole crap-ton of goblins should be a threat even up to tenth level. Because there's so many of them! Mechanically speaking, why wouldn't a level ten fighter walk into the midst of a goblin horde and start laying waste? The goblins are just going to attack some innocent towns if he doesn't, right? The only reason he doesn't is because his player is a good RPer, and he acts like the volume of goblins is intimidating.
weasel0 08-17-07, 01:10 AM	So get the bandwagon ready! Make sure there is LOTs of room for people to jump on! ;) As long as it isn't the bandwidth wagon..... we see how that's worked out...
Braids 08-17-07, 01:34 AM	My main problem with 4e is that my players barely know how to play D&D as it is. I'm the one teaching them and if a new edition comes out it will probably be the end of my gaming group. If they could make teaching and learning easier 4e would be good.
CroBob 08-17-07, 02:22 AM	* My friend and I were talking about this just now, perhaps making not killing people easier. In D&D combat, you're either trying to kill someone, or you're doing something less effective to the outcome of combat. It would enrich the game if it made mechanical sense to not kill everything that fights you. I say make it easier to win a fight without killing anyone than to win a fight by killing them.
TacoClone 08-17-07, 02:41 AM	* My friend and I were talking about this just now, perhaps making not killing people easier. In D&D combat, you're either trying to kill someone, or you're doing something less effective to the outcome of combat. It would enrich the game if it made mechanical sense to not kill everything that fights you. I say make it easier to win a fight without killing anyone than to win a fight by killing them. Wow, yeah. Hit the nail on the head there. That's the main reason why everyone ends up dead in my groups campaigns. I myself generally forget about doing non-lethal damage when I'm a player just because I hate the -4 to my attack. I'm not sure if it was just house ruling, but the GM for my Star Wars Saga Edition campaign said that in the Saga Edition, you just have to tell the GM that you're not wanting to kill the thing, like you can automatically do non-lethal damage. Of course, I have no idea what exactly he was doing.
Salla 08-17-07, 02:51 AM	While there are aspects of the SAGA skills I like, the fact that you have to burn a feat just to train 1 addition skill truly, utterly sucks, especially if you decide to multiclass. Heck the SAGA rules don't allow you to even get an extra one when you raise your INT (unlike how you can get additional Force powers by raising your WIS). Uh, yeah it does. pg. 37 "For example, if you increase your Intelligence score from 13 to 14, you immediately gain an additional trained skill chosen from your class skills and an additional language."
CroBob 08-17-07, 02:52 AM	Perhaps both combatants in a grapple deal non-lethal damage to one another, instead of the rules as they are now (for starters)?
ZimTsu 08-17-07, 02:58 AM	If 4e sucks, I'll just go and make my own gaming system. Take all I can from 3.5 and make something good. My ideas: Trash the classes, just ask the players to give you a character concept, role-playing wise, and give them the abilities I want. Trash the feat system, and mix it in the character concepts. Trash the weapon proficiencies and order weapons in logical families, like swords, axes, bows, and the like. Trash the magic system and make it mana-based. Trash the AC, and make it a mix of bonuses on defense rolls and damage reduction. Trash the over-complicated skill system and mix it in the character concepts. Complete remake on psionics. Trash diplomacy and enforce real roleplaying. Trash the christmas tree syndrome and alter the magic items economy. Trash the multiple attacks, grappling and all that and make combat more dynamic and tactical. And in the end, you will get something completely not-DnD.
Someone 08-17-07, 03:04 AM	I second the "it seems too early" notion. Though it doesn't help that 3.5 will only have been out 5 years when 4th comes around. And that was different enough to seem like a new edition. Are we going to see 4.5 in 2011? (or will they release it December 21 2012?) Anyway, a couple things that could use work: -No spells that are completely independent of caster level. -Better magic item creation rules, especially magic items that duplicate spells. -No core class that prohibits more than half the alignments. And paladins should be like martial clerics, not some King Arthur wannabe. -Druids as something other than clerics-with-polymorph-and-a-big-familiar. The same goes for sorcerers, aka wizards-with-fewer-bonus-feats.
ItaraKoturo 08-17-07, 03:36 AM	I want to see a DMG that is all I need to run a game, even if the players come with nothing but a set of dice apiece (and hopefully pizza money). That means: --Rules for creating balanced classes and races. --Rules for creating monsters. --Rules for creating new spells, feats, PrCs, talents, etc. As well as the usual rules of the game. Won't happen. With editions coming out every three years now, I can't afford to buy a full set of books. You mean every eight years, right? Heck, even if you're talking about 3.5, it's five years, not three. Stop using exaggeration to excuse your complaints, people. Seriously, you're telling me that saving up $90 over the course of five years in order to support your hobby is too mammoth a challenge?
ArchonJohn 08-17-07, 03:46 AM	What do I want to see with 4e? I want to see a change in release date. I want to see that Wizards is more interested in making a good game than playing their 'Let's see how many books we can release in how short of a timespan' game. I want books that are balanced with each other, rather than only spewed out as fast as people can write them. In short, I want Wizards to do a good job. If all they are interested in is profit (releasing books as fast as they can then 'upgrading' so that everyone has to buy the books again) then I'm not going to support them. Which sucks because I really like DnD - but I don't have the money or patience to deal with that. I kow that they're a company and NEED to make money, but part of that need is fulfilling the customers expectations, and my personal expectation is that they start focusing on the game rather than the $ signs.
Oakes 08-17-07, 03:54 AM	What I want most: Flexibility. Undoubtedly, templates, monster variants, and sub-monsters were great strides in this direction, but after even 2 MMs and a splatbook, they can get too complicated. *Simple, viable tactical options; you've probably heard more players quip "grappling in 12 easy steps!" than "ha! I'm glad I took Improved Overrun!" *As promised, organization (in the form of suggestions) for monster archetypes or roles. Perhaps turning these archetypes and roles into the crunch itself and applying the "racial advancement" to specific monsters, similar to my understanding of future PCs? (Wow, I really like that idea. The difference between a Demon Smasher and a Giant Smasher of the same ECL? Where their ability adjustments are and whether they get giant rock projectiles or damage reduction. Not hit die and skills and a whole mess of other things!) And because I'm also a player, it can't hurt to note for my own characters' sakes: Fluid classes and class abilities; Multiclassing and PrCs seem to fix the wrong problem to me. Specialization is well and good, but having to mix and match classes because you'd like your Fighter to have access to the Rogue's Skill Mastery for Ride or the Wu Jen's Watchful Spirit (and associated feats) makes for sub-optimal and often unsatisfying characters. *Skill system. Skill Tricks were, in my opinion, great steps towards making special applications of skills available to everyone, not just characters with feats to burn. Ditto with the folding of skills from 3e to 3.5; simpler after the change.
mists_cloud 08-17-07, 03:57 AM	This is going to sound small, but: An ACTUAL guideline to making templates...there is absolutely NONE what so ever, what is the point of telling us how to make a CR for a monster but not one for a template? And also having it compatable with 3.5, I WILL not be going out to buy whole new books...I'm 19 and get less then $150 per week! How the heck am I supposed to afford new books?!?
ArchonJohn 08-17-07, 03:58 AM	Oh, and... Encounters that last more than 5 rounds (30 seconds) Prestige classes that you must continually meet prereqs for. For example, to qualify for level 1 you must have power attack, for level 2, you must have combat expertise and base attack of +7, for level 3 you must have whirlwind attack, spell focus necromancy, quicken spell, twin spell, improved toughness, and base attack +15. Well, that last one may have been a bit much, but my point stands. EDIT: And treat dragons as the immensley powerful and intelligent beings they are, with minds of their own - none of this 'always' alignment crap. Something that's over twice as intelligent as a human that lives for hundreds of times longer (Thus gaining more expiriences to shape their alignment) is NOT going to be forced into an alignment niche. It will be an individual and be different from every other dragon, in thought, word, action, HP, feats, and alignment. The RAW is RAR on this point.
shadzar 08-17-07, 04:00 AM	i can't remember where the thread was, somewhere in 4E forum....but Dave Noonan(sp) answered a question for me about prep time for games using his version of 4e they have been using for a while now. since the game moves quicker during the session and the DM needs less time to prep things it means the DM may need more material per session with 4th. this made me then wonder, if the DM wasn't creating this material but using a series of store bought and prewritten adventures... would the DM need to buy adventures more often in order to keep the flow of the game moving sicne they will fly by quicker? will the adventures have more content in them so compensate for the quicker rate of playing from 4th edition? will WotC have the adventures out in a timely fashion for groups to play them without waiting until the have purchased the entire series? will people be left wodnering what to do in a game because they have no material because the newest segment of the series was delayed?
ArchonJohn 08-17-07, 04:05 AM	And a pony... I want a pony.
TacoClone 08-17-07, 04:41 AM	And a pony... I want a pony. I second! *ahem* On topic, I'd like to see more charts. Charts for making different classes and races for NPCs. Charts for better city building. Just things that make it generally easier for DMs to wipe up the statistical aspect of the game so they can focus more on the storyline and role playing aspect.
steenan 08-17-07, 09:28 AM	Few things that I, from the DM perspective, would like to see in 4e: 1. EITHER: No magical equipment dependence. No magic items that grant numeric bonuses. No "wealth by level" tables. No random treasure generation, no magic item shops. OR: Precise, algorithmic rules (not "guidelines" that work less often than not) for pricing magical items. Reasonable rules for team crafting of magical items. Settings that really use the magic that is available (Eberron is a step in good direction, but it should go much further). 2. Rules for creating monsters and calculating CR. Working rules for determining CR of classed creatures. Published monsters that are kept in line with this rules ("add MM number to listed CR" is not a good rule). 3. Monster types that have sense, both in fluff and crunch (currently ant-like creatures are classified as humanoids, while creatures that differ from humans only by size or facial features fall into three different types - maybe someone sees a reason in it, I do not). Additionally, monster types should be tags, like subtypes are now, not disjoined cathegories. We already have undead oozes or planar humanoids, changing the type system would make describing them much easier. 3. Thought-out spells. I do not like spells that either cannot be used efficiently or cannot be used by NPCs because it would be auto-win against the party. I hate spells that may only be defended from by methods requiring much more power and/or cash than those spells themselves (only leaving the DM a choice between banning them, blocking by deus ex machina or letting a single spell win the story). 4. Good description of demographics and ecology, both in fluff and crunch. That includes answers for questions such as: "How fast do non-adventurers gain experience?" "How do forest-living races feed big cities without farms and fields?" "What prevents fast-spawning undead from swarming over the world?" "How it happens that most people encountered are low-level commoners, but till this day they somehow managed not to get eaten/possesed/turned into slaves by the creatures the party is fighting with?" 5. Good description of alignments. I feel the need for alignment, but I do not like the current one, because nobody really knows how it works. I would like a system that puts more weight on characters' relation to gods and their commandments. After all, clerics are only a small percentage of people that serve deities and for the rest the gods should mean something, too.
Senevri 08-17-07, 10:53 AM	2. Rules for creating monsters and calculating CR. Working rules for determining CR of classed creatures. Published monsters that are kept in line with this rules ("add MM number to listed CR" is not a good rule). Heh. 3. Thought-out spells. I do not like spells that either cannot be used efficiently or cannot be used by NPCs because it would be auto-win against the party. I hate spells that may only be defended from by methods requiring much more power and/or cash than those spells themselves (only leaving the DM a choice between banning them, blocking by deus ex machina or letting a single spell win the story). Frankly, while I understand the mentality of "gained advantages shall not be lost", spells need nerfing badly. Low-levels are too weak. high levels too strong. Actually, removing the strong spells and making everything per-encounter works quite well... 4. Good description of demographics and ecology, both in fluff and crunch. That includes answers for questions such as: "How fast do non-adventurers gain experience?" I can't stop myself... activating nonsense generator! - After reaching adulthood, everyone gains roughly 1xp/day. Thus, dwarves generally have a higher level than humans, and elves even higher. "How do forest-living races feed big cities without farms and fields?" Small personal gardens, bolstered by magical spells. (plant growth). Green dragons are also good to have, actually. ^^ "What prevents fast-spawning undead from swarming over the world?" Sunlight and common sense. Practically every fast-spawner has a daylight vulnerability, thus limiting them to crypts, dungeons and whatnot. Sometimes there are bigger problems, but gods and churches actively maintain vigilance over the most unfortunate incidents. "How it happens that most people encountered are low-level commoners, but till this day they somehow managed not to get eaten/possesed/turned into slaves by the creatures the party is fighting with?" Alchemists and mobs, my friend! Nine commoners, eight using aid another and one using a grenadelike (fire/acid) flask, means an attack roll of +16 vs. touch AC. Add to this a bunch of commoners with tower shields forming a wall. Also, do note that a group of archers shooting ballistic fields of arrows force dc 15 reflex checks, which is bad for most monsters. ... Of course, the above is all nonsense, invented on the spot. The commoner tactic above came from figuring out how a village could reasonably manage to defeat a clay golem, thus "Golem Grenadier Squad" was born.
pres_man 08-17-07, 11:26 AM	http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=welcome/conventions/gencon07 Where do we start with the new edition? Expanded online content? As long as it is not required, and ideally would not cost much more (I am thinking of Paizo's new adventure path where if you subscribe you not only get a hard copy but you also get a free pdf version to download). Character levels going to 30? Not overly impressed. I just finished a game where the party went from 5th to 20th, and by the time 20th came about I, as the DM, was ready to start a new campaign with new characters. 10 more levels? Not really overly interested. Of course it might even be worse, especially if they are taking things that changed every 2 levels and now making it change every 3 levels (sneak attack, spells, etc). More defined character roles? Shoehorning players into stereotypical roles? Yeah that sounds great :rolleyes: . What is wrong with an all cleric party or all bard party or anything? DM-ing made easier? As long as that doesn't mean cutting out a lot of options. The virtual gaming table and character generator? Free (or at least comes free with purchase of PHB)? The re-launch of Dungeon and Dragon magazines as online publications? Perhaps with an annual book with all of the articles for the year printed would be nice.
KillerGM 08-17-07, 11:36 AM	I'd love to see it take the shape of the Star Wars: Saga edition. Fewer classes, talent trees, more feats for everyone, more ability score raises, revamping of magic system entirely, simplified skill system. While there are some things in SW Saga that need to be addressed, I much prefer that version to any d20 game. I'd really like to see D&D in the same vein. *Dodges rocks*
Anaxander 08-17-07, 11:37 AM	Not overly impressed. I just finished a game where the party went from 5th to 20th, and by the time 20th came about I, as the DM, was ready to start a new campaign with new characters. 10 more levels? Not really overly interested. Of course it might even be worse, especially if they are taking things that changed every 2 levels and now making it change every 3 levels (sneak attack, spells, etc). Well they are trying to give each class something at each level, which is a good thing, although the class abilities could be stretched too thin over 30 levels. Perhaps the power of a level 30 4e character will be equal to that of a 20th level 3.5e character and the rules will assume faster levelling? Shoehorning players into stereotypical roles? Yeah that sounds great :rolleyes: . What is wrong with an all cleric party or all bard party or anything? Yes, I didn't like that part either. I thought they were trying to broaden the classes, making them more versatile and giving them more options (as to make for example a gish playable from lvl1 through lvl30 without exotic class combinations).
Malraux 08-17-07, 12:08 PM	Personally, I want loot heavily de-emphasized as an element of play. From both sides of the DM screen I hate tracking it. And in my experience players always want the same items anyway. If every fighter type is gonna pick up mithral full plate as soon as its available, make it so that the fighter classes automatically get those bonuses so that characters will be interested in unusual items.
trapspringer 08-17-07, 12:27 PM	I agree. I like character-centric advancement, not loot based power schemes.
Lykor 08-17-07, 12:49 PM	Although the current skill system needs some work with the higher DC skills, I think it is far superior to saga's skill system. I like the idea of being able to customize what skills you are good or mediocre at (say 10 points in listen and 5 in ride and 5 in jump) rather than being good or useless only (good at listen and ride, bad at jump). I second fixing polymorph, turning, crafting, and many of the other pains that you have to work with. Coming up with some way to fix LA/Racial HD (either with a buyout or a racial HD replacement) would be nice too. Adding some sort of DR to AC (maybe 1 DR for 10 AC, plus more for armor type) is nice. I applaud the decision to speed up combat. Removing iterative attacks is a good way to do so. Removing 5 foot steps and AoOs also; I sorta like them but won't be despondant if they go away. Fixing grappling, bull rushing, overrunning, tripping, etc is mandatory: they are too hard to use unless your character is build specifically for that purpose. Great pains should be taken to remove all opposed checks in combat. Make everything a d20 + bonuses rolled by the attacker vs a set number (probably 10 + bonuses) like the current AC system. Opposed rolls slow down combat considerably. Making the defender roll also slows stuff down considerably. Under no circumstances should AC be an oppossed roll.
Anaxander 08-17-07, 01:39 PM	Although the current skill system needs some work with the higher DC skills, I think it is far superior to saga's skill system. I like the idea of being able to customize what skills you are good or mediocre at (say 10 points in listen and 5 in ride and 5 in jump) rather than being good or useless only (good at listen and ride, bad at jump). With the SW SAGA system you can have skills in which you are very good (+5 bonus, rerolls). The difference is that any high level character has a decent competence in any skill. Although I could see some advantages of the current 3.5 skill system from a player point of view [like more customability], as a DM, using a SW SAGA like skill system for my NPCs would speed up things quite a bit. Making the defender roll also slows stuff down considerably. Under no circumstances should AC be an oppossed roll. True, but only if both the defender and the attacker roll. Watching a DM roll his dice for 5+ enemies isn't that exciting for players... Letting the players roll everything and the DM using static numbers reduces time lost behind the DM-screen.
Dag 08-17-07, 01:42 PM	Keep the core material as core material without adding nonsense to it. If I decide to purchase 4e (It better be 4e and not 4.0 which would imply that 4.5 is just around the corner) and I open the player's handbook and find the scout and warlock classes side by side with the other core classes then I think I will puke. I'm sure that plenty of people enjoy these crazy new classes that come out in the myriad of source books, but please don't promote them to core material. Also, fix the gnomes. One of the best improvements from 3.0 to 3.5 was to fix the dwarves and make them a race people actually wanted to play. Now do the same with the gnomes and we'll have all the core races being well represented. And get rid of that bard as their favored class. Who had ever heard of a gnome bard before 3.5? Better off with sorcerer or even jizard.
Anaxander 08-17-07, 01:46 PM	And get rid of that bard as their favored class. Get rid of favored classes... but that's probably more a player than a DM concern.
trapspringer 08-17-07, 01:52 PM	Although the current skill system needs some work with the higher DC skills, I think it is far superior to saga's skill system. I like the idea of being able to customize what skills you are good or mediocre at (say 10 points in listen and 5 in ride and 5 in jump) rather than being good or useless only (good at listen and ride, bad at jump). I agree in principle, but in practice I am an either-or skill distribution kinda' guy. Maybe a three category system would be ideal; full, half, or none.
revnk 08-17-07, 03:21 PM	The hints that have been dropped suggesting that 4e will draw heavily from Star Wars Saga Edition leaves me thinking that 4e will be starting with two strikes against it: 1) Although the SWSE authors have been a bit defensive on this score (over on Wizards' SW page), SWSE pushes the minis harder than any other RPG I've ever seen (including 3.x). No real-world measurements, only "squares." Tons of feats and abilities that only make sense in the context of miniatures gaming (i.e. per-encounter abilities that are defined wholly in terms of affected squares/proximity on a game-map--"advanced" versions of the kinds of abilities found on SW/D&D Minis stat cards in other words). While there's nothing to keep gamers from extrapolating from the rules to non-minis games (e.g. multiplying "squares" by 1m or 5', using "fuzzy" versions of the abilities, etc.), it tends to stick in my craw. (And the fact that the text repeatedly refers to the SW minis as "attractive pre-painted miniatures" with exclusive reference to Wizards' product line annoys a gamer who can remember when RPGs described mins as "optional," "manufactured by several companies" and as easily replaced by toys, spare dice, and bits of paper.) 2) SWSE is designed to make PCs very powerful very early. This is entirely appropriate to the Star Wars universe: in previous d20 editions, it was virtually impossible for a first-level character to survive a Tusken Raider ambush alone, stand down a squad of stormtroopers, evade hordes of TIE fighters to hit a small exhaust port, win a pod race, or blow up a Trade Federation command ship (accordingly, one had to assume Luke and Anakin Skywalker weren't first level characters when we first saw them, despite their apparent character backgrounds). Star Wars is epic space opera, though. D&D, on the other hand, might or might not be the fantasy equivalent. That is, even the 3.x rules allowed a DM to run everything from a low-magic, high danger campaign to an epic magidelic slasharama by the simple expedient of starting characters at a higher or lower level or throwing in appropriate rules from Unearthed Arcana. I don't see any good way to ratchet down a SWSE-type ruleset. (Please note: the problem isn't what kind of game is "better," the problem is flexibility. I like a good high-power game and usually run low-power games. But most of all, I like being able to play either kind of game without much trouble, and--despite what lots of people say about what D&D is "supposed" to be--3.x is actually capable of swinging all kinds of games at all kinds of power levels. SWSE doesn't and isn't supposed to.) _____ All that being said, no one is holding a gun to anyone's head. Anyone who wants to buy 4e can and will and should; meanwhile, I skipped from 1E to 3.5, I imagine I may just wait until Fifth Edition to consider any upgrades.:) On the other hand, looking at the way Wizards has been handling the release, the announcements, its consumers, and its licensees of late, I find myself remembering the way TSR splintered the D&D community in the late '80s. It wasn't good for the community and it wasn't good for the company. However Wizards proceeds from here, I hope for all of our sakes that they (and/or Hasbro) has the sense to learn from history instead of repeating it. Cheers.
KillerGM 08-17-07, 03:22 PM	I agree in principle, but in practice I am an either-or skill distribution kinda' guy. Maybe a three category system would be ideal; full, half, or none. I think you might be misinterpreting the skill system in Saga. All characters are at least "ok" with skills - you add 1/2 your character level to any skill roll automatically. So, you get better with time naturally. No high-level character will ever be "poor" at a skill - an 18th level character will at least get +9 to their skill roll. Then you can be trained (+5), and Focused (+5). So, there is a three-step progression on the skills: Untrained (which still goes up by level), trained (better), and focused (best).
trapspringer 08-17-07, 05:23 PM	No, I think I got that. I was responding to Lykor's post, in case that is the source of your confusion. Reread the two, see if you still see an inconsistency.
KillerGM 08-17-07, 06:07 PM	No, I think I got that. I was responding to Lykor's post, in case that is the source of your confusion. Reread the two, see if you still see an inconsistency. Oh right, sorry about that. I mistakenly responded to what you quoted. My bad. :)
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 08-17-07, 06:13 PM	All I want is for spellcasters to be hit with the nerfstick until their eyes bleed.
concerro 08-17-07, 07:50 PM	-Less reliance on gear, I'm sick of characters dripping with magic items like a bloody Christmas tree! Adventurers are all about the loot. It nice to think that they would brave dungeons for goodness sake, but I am sure that knowing when you get old and gray(I doubt if adventurers live that long) you have something to sit on, you can tell your grandkids how you outsmarted 2 ancient red dragons. I also don't think they could do a lot of the things they do without magical items, and magical items help keep classes even. I for one don't believe classes should be balanced in combat, not do I expect it to happen, but they should fill a role. I could care less about if the wizard does insane amounts of damage, because it is balanced by knowing that he cant take any, and once the caster is identified he will be targeted due to what he can do. Having a bullseye on your head is not a life to envy.
Malraux 08-17-07, 07:59 PM	Adventurers are all about the loot. It nice to think that they would brave dungeons for goodness sake, but I am sure that knowing when you get old and gray(I doubt if adventurers live that long) you have something to sit on, you can tell your grandkids how you outsmarted 2 ancient red dragons. Cool loot items are one thing, but in 3rd edition any loot found gets converted to basic equipment (armor, weapon, ability enhancement, etc). Moreover, 3rd edition gets weird if you stray from the wealth guidelines.
concerro 08-17-07, 08:06 PM	I agree that the system should be simplified for DMs. It takes me hours of prep every week to stat out my villains and they drop dead in about 3.5 rounds. Hmm...some options. 1. Flat skill progressions = blessing for the DM (figuring out NPC skill modifiers gives me fits). Each class gets max ranks in their class skills, half ranks in cross class skill, and high intelligence grants additional class skills (of your choice). 2. Simplify the rules for grappling, polymorph, and turning undead. 3. Either make counterspelling better or completely drop it. 4. Drop iterative attacks and 5-foot-steps 5. Cut the number of classes down, and use talent trees (aka alternate class features) to make similar classes. In other words, have a divine caster with a cleric talent tree and a druid talent tree. 6. No more prestige classes. Publish additional talent trees if you want to expand the character options. 7. No more vancian spellcasting. Fewer spells with unlimited uses, or spells that refresh after 10 minutes of rest is much better. 8. No more assumption of 4 encounters per day. I would much rather balance encounters on an individual basis, so I can run 1 encounter a day or 100 encounters a day as I please. 9. Simplify skill DCs. No more 1d20 + ranks + ability score + synergy bonuses + circumstance bonuses/penalties + various other modifiers to make a single check. Flat DCs with integers of 5 (5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, etc) or simple opposed rolls should be the rule of thumb. 10. Get rid of minions. No more animal companions, familiars, or sidekicks. These should be acquired with feats so you don't have to use them if you don't want to. Also limit all summoning spells to a single minion (maybe concentration to command them). I get nightmares trying to make NPC druids with animal companions, wild shape, and spontaneous summoning magic. If I think of anything else, I'll toss it in here. 1. I think you should have to choose skills, and I admit I only take hours on spellcasters. I cant make a meleer(if that is a word) in under an hour, and if I know a character is just a speed bump and not even a minor boss I dont always do all of their skill points. 2. Agreed. 3. I have never tried to use that one, and I have not seen to many post against it so no opinion at this time. 4. I might agree with the 5-foot steps, but I would need a reason. 5. I think this should be a second option for character making like the variants classes in UA 6. I disagree. I like them(the idea of them). They have special abilities that allow PC's to stand out more 7. I think the sorcerer's casting should be like the psions in that he can't automatically use more of his power to cast spells. I guess this would make metamagic feats automatic at certain levels. I hope they make CHA more useful or find another way to decide how sorcerers cast spells. I also would like them to cast without spell components(possibly?) 8. I never did that one anyway. It takes to many encounters to level like that. If it's a fight its either a big fight or it has a place in the campaign/seesion 9. Those are ok, and they allow for characters who excel in certain areas. I dont want the game to be so simplified I dont have to think. I just dont want to do to much math like with a clerics turning(which I do wish was more effective). 10. Nothing says you have to have sidekicks. Most of the players I know dont have them and some DM's give them another option in place of the animal so the class feature is not wasted. I always thought familiars were useless anyway.
concerro 08-17-07, 08:09 PM	Cool loot items are one thing, but in 3rd edition any loot found gets converted to basic equipment (armor, weapon, ability enhancement, etc). Moreover, 3rd edition gets weird if you stray from the wealth guidelines. That is on the DM to control that. I dont expect him to keep track of what everyone has, but he should know the major items the players use, and if they have to much stuff then scale back.
concerro 08-17-07, 08:20 PM	1. A more generalized skill based system. For example have four DEX based skills: agility, coordination, flexibility, and balance. The player states an action and the DM decides which skills are appropriate. Example, hiding and moving silently would require agility and under some circumstances balance. 2. Drop Vancian spell casting system. I prefer points and a recharge rate (X points/hour). Spells can be balanced better with longer casting times, expensive material components, and XP rather than restricting per day uses. 3. Fix the mess that is now unarmed strikes vs natural attacks. Attacks should just be attacks. 4. Get rid of trip and meld it into the grapple rules. Weapons that trip by entangling or hooking should give an improved grab type feature. Also include rules for throwing an opponent while grappling. 5. Add a parry type bonus to weapons and shields. In actual sword fights and cinematic movie fights it is about blocking attacks not standing toe to toe wailing on each other, drawing blood until one person drops. 1. I think skill groups like in Iron Heroes would be nice. That way one skill point buys 1 skill points for all ur class skills and non class skills are still one point but it only goes for that one skill. 2. I like the spells/ powerpoints per day because your caster wont just go blasting spells all day long. 3. I think the unarmed attacks thing was done for the monks. I guess they could just give them some kind of bonus, and I wish they would not have spread ability points across 4 attributes. I think that is one reason why it is so hard to build a good monk. I would allow them to add the dex mod to damage, and give weapon finesse automatically, so they only have to sorry about 3 areas. They dont really need a lot of gear so STR should not take to much away. 4. I have always wandered why trip and grapple had different rules. I think the weapons should just grant a bonus. 5.Actually I always saw D&D as the the kind of fight. I look it like the HP thing where HP represent ability to survive and not just how much damage you can take, because nobody can really take a fireball and keep fighting.
Malraux 08-17-07, 08:26 PM	That is on the DM to control that. I dont expect him to keep track of what everyone has, but he should know the major items the players use, and if they have to much stuff then scale back. Right, its something that the DM has to track and figure out how it affects encounters. Now all that extra work would be worth it if it got players doing cool stuff with magical items. In my experience, it doesn't. Players want to add another +1 to armor, add an extra bonus to their main ability, add natural armor, etc. And since the CR system is contingent on the players adding those bonuses to armor, abilities, weapons, etc, the bookkeeping has to get done.
concerro 08-17-07, 08:31 PM	This is going to sound small, but: An ACTUAL guideline to making templates...there is absolutely NONE what so ever, what is the point of telling us how to make a CR for a monster but not one for a template? And also having it compatable with 3.5, I WILL not be going out to buy whole new books...I'm 19 and get less then $150 per week! How the heck am I supposed to afford new books?!? I have noticed that nonsense also. I noticed that most templates go by HD to determine the CR, but that is not good either. They should go by challenge rating, and as for determining my own template's CR I usually have to playtest them:( . I dont have a big investment in bookds, maybe about 300. I know that is nothing compared to many others. I will do like I do for 3.5. I bought a book a month. If I don't spend the 30-35 on a book I will just waste it on something else that wont last me as long, however I wont buy one book until all three are out.
concerro 08-17-07, 08:47 PM	Right, its something that the DM has to track and figure out how it affects encounters. Now all that extra work would be worth it if it got players doing cool stuff with magical items. In my experience, it doesn't. Players want to add another +1 to armor, add an extra bonus to their main ability, add natural armor, etc. And since the CR system is contingent on the players adding those bonuses to armor, abilities, weapons, etc, the bookkeeping has to get done. The player has to be creative to know what to buy, unless they have to much money, then they start to buy things that may or may not get used like gauntlets of rusts. They can choose to get gloves of dexterity of a ring of protection. Each one has its advantages. The guy who survives is the one who is creative in combat, not the one who buys the item that nobody else ever buys, without the CR(and alnost every game has it in one form or another) how do you know how to challenge them. P.S. What do you mean by being creative with a magical item?
Malraux 08-17-07, 08:58 PM	The player has to be creative to know what to buy, unless they have to much money, then they start to buy things that may or may not get used like gauntlets of rusts. They can choose to get gloves of dexterity of a ring of protection. Each one has its advantages. The guy who survives is the one who is creative in combat, not the one who buys the item that nobody else ever buys, without the CR(and alnost every game has it in one form or another) how do you know how to challenge them. P.S. What do you mean by being creative with a magical item? So I'd say that interesting item would be something like gauntlets of rust. That does something cool and unusual. Rings of protection, gloves of dex, and the like that give static bonuses are boring. Sure there's the fun of accounting out which is better for a character, but not my kind of fun. I'd rather the magic item system make it so that boring static bonuses have little effect on characters so that there's a reason to pick up something like a rope of climbing before character wealth is at such a level that casting fly is easier. But under the current rules at around 5th level, I'd look at something like that as something to drag back to the magic shop to trade in for a +1 to my armor.
1red13 08-17-07, 10:03 PM	I wouldn't advocate a wholesale change. Tweak what are glaring errors In addition to a players handbook come out with periodic compilations. For players compile an edition that includes complete set of feats, skills and such. By all means produce indepth supplements but make the character creation more of a one stop shopping. In the same vein produce a volume composed of all the tables of d&d. Everything from xp, treasure, gem, art, class advancement to reacial height weight. This could be one volume dms could have instead of carrying every single book just incase one small portion has to be referenced. Other than that just tweak what is cumbersome and less than useful now as previous posters have po0inted out.
concerro 08-17-07, 10:18 PM	So I'd say that interesting item would be something like gauntlets of rust. That does something cool and unusual. Rings of protection, gloves of dex, and the like that give static bonuses are boring. Sure there's the fun of accounting out which is better for a character, but not my kind of fun. I'd rather the magic item system make it so that boring static bonuses have little effect on characters so that there's a reason to pick up something like a rope of climbing before character wealth is at such a level that casting fly is easier. But under the current rules at around 5th level, I'd look at something like that as something to drag back to the magic shop to trade in for a +1 to my armor. I see... You are just bored with people being predictable. I understand, but if you want them to keep the normal "throw away" items, then you have to start putting them in unusual situations, because as long as the situations stay the same so will the item choices. Most DM's have a certain style, and once players get used to it then they adapt. You may have to start throwing curve balls.
crashlogic 08-17-07, 11:42 PM	I was really hoping for generic classes like in D20 modern, with advance classes that are more definitive. Barring this, generic classes like in UA-I think the strongest part of DnD is its flexibility. Unlike most, hope the melee otions don't make fighter the mind numbing brain damage that tome of battle is. One of the nice things about the core classes in 3.5 is that the game is easy to balance on the fly. It makes it very easy to be a seat of the pants DM. I hope they don't lose this quality. Mostly though, what they have to compete with is the volume of material they have already produced. Ultimately they seem to be coming out with a lot of gimmicky things, like gleemax and dnd insider. If I wanted to play a gimmicky game, I would have bought into the monte cook books (Iron Heroes or Arcana evolved) Both of those were, I think good takes on the system. I stuck with 3.5 because of its flexibility. when I hear the words "more defined character roles" I worry about flexibility.
High Octane 08-18-07, 12:03 AM	-Completely rebuild, from the ground up, the antiquated, overpowered, pseudo-Vancian, Gygaxian magic/spell system. It's basically a cut & paste from 1st/2nd edition anyway. You can play with mana if you want. I wont. -Clean up the Skill system. Amen. Right now some skills are borderline worthless while others are sometimes redundant and still others take up WAY too many aspects to be rolled into one skill (Diplomacy) -No critical confirmation rolls. They would have to redo the entire crit mechanic then. It makes no sense that a character who is a lot harder to hit is just as likely to have a critical landed on them as the dunce. If critical chance worked outside the initial roll however, that would work. (Roll a d20 and a d100, the d20 is to hit and the d100 is to crit.) -No XP penalties for multi-classing. I can get behind this if they incorporate a different system of bonuses for saves and BAB for multiclassing. Taking a level in ranger when you are a fighter nets you +2 fort +2 Ref, and a favored enemy without losing any BAB, and justr a single hit point. Plus you get 4 more skill points. You also get track and wild empathy, but those wont be much help since you cant invest ranks from fighter in the appropriate skills. If Saves and BAB were fractional instead, then that would work better. -Fix TWF. What is wrong with it? -Drop the 5 ft. step and iterative attacks to stop the whole standing there very unexcitedly swinging away until you or your enemy drops. Changed to what? Do you really want to reduce a fighter to 1 hit a round? -Fix blindness/invisibility/concealment etc. What is wrong with them? Personally I hope they reduce the prep time needed for NPCs, expanded rules for social interaction (So the bard doesnt just roll diplomacy once and turn his enemies into "Helpful"), rolling knowledges in with other skills (that way you don't have to spend so many points in them when they generally have little use beyond monster identification. I would also like some work done on alignment. I think that all sentient free-willed creatures should not have set alignments. Why are elves dwarves and gnomes usually good? They should have the same amount of tendency for evil as the other races. Of course the DMG should also talk about their societies and their tendencies. The only exception should be outsiders, demons and angels and the like. They should delve a bit into the nature of alignments. They should mention that it is a DM's job to let the players know what affects it. Sociologically, we as a society no longer are able to understand the idea of good being good just cause it says so and evil being evil for evils sake and cause good says it is evil. The Saturday morning cartoon style of good and evil no longer truly works. Finally the paladin's detect evil should be easier to use. Right now, a standard action where you verbalize the spell and have to concentrate for 2-3-4 rounds in order to determine whats evil and what is not does NOT work since their main power being useful is dependent on identifying evil fast and easily.
Anaxander 08-18-07, 04:33 AM	I can get behind this if they incorporate a different system of bonuses for saves and BAB for multiclassing. Taking a level in ranger when you are a fighter nets you +2 fort +2 Ref, and a favored enemy without losing any BAB, and justr a single hit point. Plus you get 4 more skill points. You also get track and wild empathy, but those wont be much help since you cant invest ranks from fighter in the appropriate skills. If Saves and BAB were fractional instead, then that would work better. That's a problem with the fighter class, not with multiclassing an sich. In general, the only bonus when multiclassing characters is their increased saves (which, like you point out, don't make sense). Doing away with multiclassing penalties, favored classes and using fractional bab & saves would encourage people to multiclass rather than penalise them. On the other side, balancing the fighter to be fully worthwile on its own would reduce its function as a dip-class. I would also like some work done on alignment. I think that all sentient free-willed creatures should not have set alignments. Why are elves dwarves and gnomes usually good? They should have the same amount of tendency for evil as the other races. Of course the DMG should also talk about their societies and their tendencies. The only exception should be outsiders, demons and angels and the like. I agree. This would encourage DMs to move away from stereotypes.
highbulp 08-18-07, 11:37 AM	Note: I haven't read the whole thread, so I'm sorry if this was already posted. As a DM, I would like to have more options for challenges for my players. This does not mean more monsters. Giving me more monsters is the equivalent of just giving the players more PrC or Feats--sure it's more options, but it isn't worthy of a new system. What I would like is the capability to easily run encounters that I cannot run without massive house-ruling in 3e. For example, I would like the environment to play a much larger part in combat. Flip the table over and use it as a temporary shield. Swing from the chandelier in order to flank the troll. Preliminary announcements have suggested that there will be stuff like this (I can't find it atm, but there was a quote about fighting on a swinging bridge and stuff). So really I guess I just want that kind of stuff to be shared as "preview" material, in addition to all the options that player are going to get. Also, there should be fun and interesting mechanics to support these rules. I understand that combat is abstracted and so a lot of these actions can exist as fluff--I would like to see them as crunch in some way. How I have no idea though.
concerro 08-18-07, 09:37 PM	Note: I haven't read the whole thread, so I'm sorry if this was already posted. As a DM, I would like to have more options for challenges for my players. This does not mean more monsters. Giving me more monsters is the equivalent of just giving the players more PrC or Feats--sure it's more options, but it isn't worthy of a new system. What I would like is the capability to easily run encounters that I cannot run without massive house-ruling in 3e. For example, I would like the environment to play a much larger part in combat. Flip the table over and use it as a temporary shield. Swing from the chandelier in order to flank the troll. Preliminary announcements have suggested that there will be stuff like this (I can't find it atm, but there was a quote about fighting on a swinging bridge and stuff). So really I guess I just want that kind of stuff to be shared as "preview" material, in addition to all the options that player are going to get. Also, there should be fun and interesting mechanics to support these rules. I understand that combat is abstracted and so a lot of these actions can exist as fluff--I would like to see them as crunch in some way. How I have no idea though. These things can be done. The player(s) would just have to make a strength check to see if they can flip the table. There will never be rules for every possible situation, but if the DM understand game mechanics then he can figure out what rolls the players should have to make.
Anaxander 08-19-07, 04:30 AM	These things can be done. The player(s) would just have to make a strength check to see if they can flip the table. There will never be rules for every possible situation, but if the DM understand game mechanics then he can figure out what rolls the players should have to make. These things can be done in 3.5, but imo the mechanics of 3.5 don't encourage this type of flashy, creative combat (with the benefits of a full attack and the dangers of AoOs), neither do the PH & the DMG point players and DMs in this direction.
StSteven 08-19-07, 08:33 AM	Well...despite my initial anger at the timing, and the money that I have wasted (recently) on some new books, I really like what I am reading coming out of gencon about 4e. I would not be able to stand it if the vancian magic system were totally scrapped. It doesn't sound like it was. Just tweaked to keep the wizard working after his spell slots are gone. I like the idea of other characters filling the role of healer, and actually being able to do it. I like the idea that the classes have been cut down and flexibility has been added. I like that it sounds like monsters will be more varied, so that when the party comes up to some orcs, the will have no idea what they are capable of. I like the simplification of the cr crap. I still don't like the idea of paying monthly for the privilege of using the tool I should be able to buy. I don't like the implication that I can't let a player use something from a book that I don't own, or vice-versa. They gotta work that one out, or it will be a deal breaker as far as the online tools go. I also worry about the cost of the online portion of the service. Not for me, I can afford it. I was in college once though. I know that 10 dollars a month on top of the cost of the books on top of the cost of a cup of coffee can really add up. Not to mention the younger folks for which 10 bucks is a substantial amount of money. The have to work that out to some reasonable level. Maybe you should get the tool for the cost of the cup of coffee without the service. That really is an awful big bundle. The virtual game top with two subscriptions and the online tools for character generation. Seems like you should get the tools for the character generation with the cup of coffee without the subscription. You also should be able to give your DM a code to use it for the game.
concerro 08-19-07, 11:38 AM	I think that no matter when they would have done it there would be complaints. I was not happy at first, but I realized my 300+ dollar investment was nothing compared to what others had invested, and if they had waited that my investment as well as others would only have gotten larger, and then people would be saying why did they not do it sooner. As far as the conversion thing I could accept the loss of not being able to as long as they actually make the game a lot better,and enjoyable. I will most likely not buy forth edition until all the core books are out and/or it receives major praise from the board from people who have played other editions. I think players will still be letting other players borrow books to build characters, and there will be 3rd party software/online sites that will try to compete, especially if 4th ed is OGL, so if they don't get it right someone else will. If the cost of the online book is about 3 dollars then they should just add it into the cost of the hard book. The electronic book would be easier to find feats and spells when making characters due to the search feature. I hate it when I have to look through 10 books to find a feat because I cant remember what book it is in.
shadzar 08-19-07, 08:30 PM	what should DMs for FLGS tell new players that come to the store to learn? on one hand you could try to push 3.5 until the product line runs out in hopes to keep it moving fromt he store to keep profits coming in. on the other hand you would be dishonest to get people into it right at the end when the store only has 8 months to get product in before 4th comes out and may not be so easily able to get 3.5 and have it laying around in hopes people will come pick it up and not get 4th. then you have the fact that knowing people will want to get 4th how can you keep pushing 3.5 since the store itself may switch over to 4th. do you do any of this as a DM, or just push it off on the store saynig it is their decision what you do there? could you seriously and with a straight face tell players coming to a FLGS to learn D&D that they should invest in 3.x at this time?
concerro 08-19-07, 09:38 PM	what should DMs for FLGS tell new players that come to the store to learn? on one hand you could try to push 3.5 until the product line runs out in hopes to keep it moving fromt he store to keep profits coming in. on the other hand you would be dishonest to get people into it right at the end when the store only has 8 months to get product in before 4th comes out and may not be so easily able to get 3.5 and have it laying around in hopes people will come pick it up and not get 4th. then you have the fact that knowing people will want to get 4th how can you keep pushing 3.5 since the store itself may switch over to 4th. do you do any of this as a DM, or just push it off on the store saynig it is their decision what you do there? could you seriously and with a straight face tell players coming to a FLGS to learn D&D that they should invest in 3.x at this time? i would just tell them to use the SRD or buy the phb(only 30 dollars), and wait to see how 4ed pans out before they decide to stay with 3rd or go to 4th
StSteven 08-19-07, 09:48 PM	I'd just tell them what is going on. They can decide for themselves. The FLGS will make more money in the long run off a happy customer than someone who feels they were pushed into buying something worthless. Of course, if the FLGS is charging full retail for the books then I would tell them to go to Amazon. I know, some people think that is heresy, but if my FLGS doesn't support me, I won't support it.
Lootus 08-19-07, 09:49 PM	Things I'd like to see as a DM: Terrain - reduce/streamline/simplify all the terrain/obstacles/features that PC's move around on, or at the very least put all this stuff in easy-to-reference tables! Environment/hazards – now that I think about it, the above applies to these as well Book organization - if PC's are intended to 'shop' for magic items (as it now bluntly states in MIC), put them in the PHB instead of the DMG, except for some basic items and associated rules. PrC pre-req's - if PrC's still exist, rework/clarify the prereq system (maybe more generalized requirements, so a PC can fulfill a type of req in multiple ways that all meet the same general idea, firmly define RP requirements/expectations of character) Better/easier adventure/encounter design section - between the DMG and Adventure Builder articles, figuring out what the designers say are the "correct" formulas for designing encounters can be very painful Treasure distribution section - see above More emphasis on RP aspect of the game - I hope they enhance parts of the game that can't be otherwise experienced in an MMO/video game Tables - for NPC power figure titles (nobility, etc.), military titles/ranks, shops/locations within communities Online tools: SRD - having the SRD available to cut/paste is very nice, hope this exists for 4E as well, unless... Online tools - some officially supported/updated simple and easy online tools would be so nice (for example, a random treasure generator that also lets you select which sourcebooks to include items from, etc. etc.) I also agree with many of the other things that people have mentioned.
Zinegata 08-19-07, 10:32 PM	A simpler game with less math, less rolling, and less looking up rules in a book. Yet despite this there are more meaningful choices in the game. DMs who don't wish for a simpler game probably haven't DM'd enough, or have long since begun ignoring huge sections of the manual while doing so :D
Professorpain 08-19-07, 11:26 PM	Ways to improve D&D from a dungeon master's perspective: 1) Cheaper hardcover books 2) Less fluff 3) No splat books 4) Simplify combat 5) Don't change the game too much (i.e. do not be tempted to include popular monsters as core races or muck up the fighter by giving him a bunch of anime style special attacks) 6) Make the game enjoyable for literature and history geeks, not just computer geeks (i.e. create rules that discourage min/maxing and "builds") 7) Promptly fire the current head of R&D 7)
deathbane 08-19-07, 11:38 PM	Ways to improve D&D from a dungeon master's perspective: 1) Cheaper hardcover books 2) Less fluff 3) No splat books 4) Simplify combat 5) Don't change the game too much (i.e. do not be tempted to include popular monsters as core races or muck up the fighter by giving him a bunch of anime style special attacks) 6) Make the game enjoyable for literature and history geeks, not just computer geeks (i.e. create rules that discourage min/maxing and "builds") 7) Promptly fire the current head of R&D 7) 1. Wont hold my breath, unless they reduce the page number a lot. 2. A lot of people who are more into the role playing like fluff. I think the amount of fluff depends on the issue. 3. That would mean less money for WOTC, and less options for me as a player/DM other than to make my own classes and PRC's. I would not mind doing it, but I dont have the time. 4.I agree, but at the same time give it more variety. 5. I think the anime(TOB) was done to keep pace with spellcasters, due to the demand for balance. I see it like this, why waste my time learning spells if I can do the same damage just by swing a sword. I think the added ability of spell casting is offset by having to choose the right spells and knowing if you get hit 2 or 3 good times it is game over. 6. The reason why people play D&D is because they get to do things they could never do in real life. Nobody could defeat a dragon in real life, or outsmart one. Min/maxing has nothing to do with being a computer geek 7.The person who is in charge now may not have been in charge when 3.0 was made if that is your reason.
Someone 08-20-07, 02:43 AM	Something else I would like to see is fewer rules expansions, and more adventure modules. Having to get a sourcebook or two for a campaign setting is okay, but do DMs really need Complete Basket Weaver? The business model being you have lines of adventures going, and with each installment in the series being progressively higher level, so that groups could follow along.
Nidair 08-20-07, 03:50 AM	6. No more prestige classes. Publish additional talent trees if you want to expand the character options. I would kill for that....
Anaxander 08-20-07, 03:56 AM	then you have the fact that knowing people will want to get 4th how can you keep pushing 3.5 since the store itself may switch over to 4th. do you do any of this as a DM, or just push it off on the store saynig it is their decision what you do there? could you seriously and with a straight face tell players coming to a FLGS to learn D&D that they should invest in 3.x at this time? As a DM I'll finish my 3.5 campaign. When it's done, it's done. After that, I'll look into 4e and start with some adjustments to the 3.5 system so my players will gradually roll over in 4e and their books won't be obsolete overnight. Before I started the current campaign a couple of months ago, I was already pondering if I would incorporate the new SW SAGA skill system in my game. The revamped skill system and the streamlined rules for grappling and AoO will probably be the first elements I'll introduce in my "3.75". The current class setup and magic system will last somewhat longer I think.
Archangel62 08-20-07, 10:33 AM	As a DM I have several concerns about the game, not the least of which are issues that I have due to what I have seen in the saga rules. 1) A greater degree of personal versatility for designing PCs, a greater degree of options from levels 1 to 20 or however high the game goes. 2) More defensive options in the way of feats and items. A major issue that I have seen is that most feats are almost entirely offensively oriented and it leads to the glass cannon syndrom where the belief is that if you can get the first hit in and hit hard enough that it doesn't matter. 3) Related to 2, that the game doesn't become Rocket Launcher tag at the higher levels. 4) That martial characters get attacks and abilities based on schools and styles of combat in addition to the standard tripping and the like (a la tome of battle) 5) When I hear that they want to streamline, I have to hope that they don't intend for the game to become 'same song second verse just a little bit stronger and bigger' for each level. 6) I want to get out of the big-4 dynamic, sadly it seems that the designers are intending to chain us to it.
deathbane 08-20-07, 12:02 PM	As a DM I have several concerns about the game, not the least of which are issues that I have due to what I have seen in the saga rules. 1) A greater degree of personal versatility for designing PCs, a greater degree of options from levels 1 to 20 or however high the game goes. 2) More defensive options in the way of feats and items. A major issue that I have seen is that most feats are almost entirely offensively oriented and it leads to the glass cannon syndrom where the belief is that if you can get the first hit in and hit hard enough that it doesn't matter. 3) Related to 2, that the game doesn't become Rocket Launcher tag at the higher levels. 4) That martial characters get attacks and abilities based on schools and styles of combat in addition to the standard tripping and the like (a la tome of battle) 5) When I hear that they want to streamline, I have to hope that they don't intend for the game to become 'same song second verse just a little bit stronger and bigger' for each level. 6) I want to get out of the big-4 dynamic, sadly it seems that the designers are intending to chain us to it. I don't think the big 4 is needed for every campaign, but it is the most likely to succeed, unless the DM adjust the game to the players characters, no matter what they choose. Even in real life you have them 1.tank--->infantry 2.healer--->medical support 3.Skill monkey--->Military Intelligence, cooks, mechanics, and all other support that makes it so the tank only has to lay the deal with combat 4.blaster-artillery/air support, even though in D&D arcane casters can help in areas 1 and 3 with certain spells. My current group has no healer, why I do not know.
allencon 08-20-07, 12:35 PM	I have a concern regarding the relevence of 3.5 ed. material in the new edition. Though I concede it would be rather foolhardy to have a completely backwards compatible system in the new edition, but will WotC either through web content or through the on-line mag.'s provide steps for converting some of the information? I would really hate to see concepts as the warlock, tome of battle classes, to name a few, become completely obsolete - especially since only having existed in 3.5 ed. for less than 3 years. My other concern is time needed to "re-learn" the game. DM's by their job function have to be fairly grounded and versed in the edition system to ensure a better gaming experience for all invovled. Will there be familiar methodologies and systems from 3.5 - but perhaps in a new light - that DM's will recognize and be able to adapt to easily, or are the changes substantially radical and will require a more studious approach to become a compitent game manager?
eue 08-20-07, 12:50 PM	If 4e sucks, I'll just go and make my own gaming system. Take all I can from 3.5 and make something good. My ideas: Trash the classes, just ask the players to give you a character concept, role-playing wise, and give them the abilities I want. Trash the feat system, and mix it in the character concepts. Trash the weapon proficiencies and order weapons in logical families, like swords, axes, bows, and the like. Trash the magic system and make it mana-based. Trash the AC, and make it a mix of bonuses on defense rolls and damage reduction. Trash the over-complicated skill system and mix it in the character concepts. Complete remake on psionics. Trash diplomacy and enforce real roleplaying. Trash the christmas tree syndrome and alter the magic items economy. Trash the multiple attacks, grappling and all that and make combat more dynamic and tactical. And in the end, you will get something completely not-DnD. I totally agree with you. I really like the "trash the classes" idea. If you want help fixing 4e like this, you can count on me.
deathbane 08-20-07, 12:52 PM	I have a concern regarding the relevence of 3.5 ed. material in the new edition. Though I concede it would be rather foolhardy to have a completely backwards compatible system in the new edition, but will WotC either through web content or through the on-line mag.'s provide steps for converting some of the information? I would really hate to see concepts as the warlock, tome of battle classes, to name a few, become completely obsolete - especially since only having existed in 3.5 ed. for less than 3 years. My other concern is time needed to "re-learn" the game. DM's by their job function have to be fairly grounded and versed in the edition system to ensure a better gaming experience for all invovled. Will there be familiar methodologies and systems from 3.5 - but perhaps in a new light - that DM's will recognize and be able to adapt to easily, or are the changes substantially radical and will require a more studious approach to become a compitent game manager? No conversion
Alyss 08-20-07, 01:03 PM	Change the alignment rules. They are a big black hole of uncertainty, and while each group manages to carve out something that works, by and large, the core rules are still very unclear.
wrecan 08-20-07, 01:10 PM	The developers have said that there will be no conversion supplements (and feel -- properly -- that their attempt to create a conversion supplement of 2nd to 3rd was an utter disaster) The developers have also said that alignment is being reworked and will not have any hard mechanical aspects to it, so Alyss's desire will probably be fulfilled.
Mock26 08-20-07, 01:19 PM	Nothing needs to be changed. Yes, there are some problems with the game, but that is true of every game. There is no way to "fix" D&D because it doesn't need to be fixed. And if there are problems there is already a system in place to fix those problems, and it is called Rule 0. Nothing in D&D is so horribly wrong that it can only be fixed with a rewrite of the rules. So, don't implement anything. Don't change the rules. 4.0 sounds like nothing more than a lame attempt to make more money for the company. Well, it isn't exactly lame as there will be more than enough suckers ready and eager to fork over the cash to replace all of their books, and I'm sure that the RPGA will be forced to switch to 4.0, and that means that those who want to play in RPGA sanctioned events they will have to update. Given the almost instant update from 3.0 to 3.5, the countless official supplements, and now the upcoming release of 4.0, it is clear that Wizards of the Coast is "worse" at fleecing it's fans than TSR ever was!
Senevri 08-20-07, 02:11 PM	Nothing in D&D is so horribly wrong that it can only be fixed with a rewrite of the rules. ... Well, technically you're right. levels 5-10 work fine. However, why wouldn't you want to simply make it better? In the future, I see myself implementing some of the 4E ideas as houserules in my games, before I consider buying the new books. However, don't tell me you're not annoyed by: - zillion iterative attacks - first two level death rate - the time it takes to create higher-level characters - the fact that higher levels are incredibly slow to play, a single combat encounter taking hours - the fact that 60% of a character's power comes from it's equipped gear ... And so on and so forth. DnD 3.5 IS already a pretty good game. however it does have some glaringly obvious faults.
wrecan 08-20-07, 02:12 PM	Nothing needs to be changed. I've been saying that since that damned blue box set ("Original Collector's Edition", my ass), but does anybody listen to me? Nooo. I mean, sure, the old cream-colored rule book wasn't perfect (what game is?), what with elves as a race and class and only a few levels of spells, but it didn't need to be "fixed." Anyway, if it needed a fix, the DM could always change stuff. Heck, Strategic Review Magazine (the original D&D magazine before money-grubbing TSR decided to convert it into glossy admen-inspired shill publication "Dragon"), gave out optional rules all the time. The only reason TSR started publishing books like the "Players Handbook" or the "Dungeon Master's Guide" was to make a few bucks off all of us gamers in the 1970's. At $15 bucks a pop, that's the equivalent of about $50, when adjusted for inflation to today's prices. What a rip-off! And if there were problems there is already a system in place to fix those problems, and now it is called Rule 0. (Back then, we didn't need silly labels for all our rules.) Nothing in D&D was so horribly wrong that it could only be fixed with four successive rewrites of the rules. So, don't implement anything. Don't change the rules. Bring back OD&D! it is clear that Wizards of the Coast is "worse" at fleecing it's fans than TSR ever was! Hey, at least your corebooks only cost you $30 apiece. TSR books, adjusted for inflation, cost almost double that! Yes, I'm being facetious. But anybody who claims WotC is more money-grubbing than TSR really doesn't remember what TSR was like. TSR was just as money-grubbing. They also happened to be incompetent, which is why they went out of business.)
shadzar 08-20-07, 11:14 PM	Hey, at least your corebooks only cost you $30 apiece. TSR books, adjusted for inflation, cost almost double that! Yes, I'm being facetious. But anybody who claims WotC is more money-grubbing than TSR really doesn't remember what TSR was like. TSR was just as money-grubbing. They also happened to be incompetent, which is why they went out of business.) the thing that existed under LW was not TSR, but T$R and an attempt to ruin the RPG industry entirely. gallon of milk now. $4. # of gallons to equal one book 7.5 gallon of milk then $2. # of gallons to equal one book 10. guess i just got lucky at getting better retial prices then than now vs MSRP. but the problem is that now inflation has made it to whre that book cost may not be so much equivatavly, but the fact that so much more costs so much more than there isn't that excess of funds now that there was then. then min wage. @$4 now min wage. @$6 so 5 hours worth of work in either case would buy me a book. 4*5=20 6*5=30 but then the so many other things that costed less made the $20 more affordable. per gallon gas then 90 cents pre gallon gas now $2.80 so the books were actually more expensive than evrything else then yes, but having the money to afford them was much easier. and if you have to drive 30 minutes to get a book then those gas prices easier figure into the equation of how much each book costs. then $50 present money would get 2 books, set of dice and a blister of minis. now $50 present money will get one book, one booster of minis hoping you get something you need, and you could get a set of cheaper dice. adjust even for inflation of min wage and you get about maybe $75. that gets 2 books and dice, no minis. the fact you could get more with your money back then makes a big difference. how about this. will 4th edtion mean DMs move from DDM to Reaper minis in order to get what they want better, or will the DM still ened to buy the new smaller scale DDM because the reaper minis will no longer fit the maps that WotC may produce? 1" = 5' vs 1" = 10' you could of course just make bigger maps for the larger scale minis.
CroBob 08-21-07, 12:50 AM	I want more in depth alignments. It really is frustrating trying to explain to someone that being "CN" and "acting on whim" does not make someone who murders because it's his whim CN instead of CE. It seems an obvious distinction to me and most of my players, but there's at least one player who it simply will not sink in for. I want the alignment section of the book to describe the alignments, give examples, and go all-out. If someone doesn't like the description in the book, they can always houserule a change, no harm done.
CroBob 08-21-07, 01:00 AM	Other thoughts; * Spell ranges are extremely long. Close range makes some good sense, 25 feet + 5 per two levels. Then medium... 100 feet +10 feet per level? By mid-level, that reaches the opposite side of the largest battle grid me and my friends have! Long range... well, shoot anything anywhere on the grid. But wait, what about things that are retreating and are no longer on the battle grid, and the DM stopped tracking them because they weren't involved in the action. Are they still in range? There's absolutely no good reason to have ranges that go beyond even very large battle grid. My suggestions are; Close (25'+5'/3 levels), Medium (50'+5'/2levels), and Long (100'+5'/level). If one particular spell loses functionality within these ranges, give it a unique range. * Fly speed and maneuverability, like spell ranges, involve creatures moving off the battle grid just trying to come around for another attack?! Improve maneuverability (not the feat). I don't want to measure something off the grid. Why even use a grid instead of a tape-measure if something can't stay on the grid anyway?
Arcane Guyver 08-21-07, 02:01 AM	My wish list is short, as many of my 4e wishes have been addressed already: * I hope a few of the supposedly clunky elements remain. I don't know if the game would feel much like D&D without Vancian casting. * The core player races have a clear seperation of in-born ability and cultural ability. No more auto-weapon proficiencies or familiarities. * The game remains that - a game. I don't want bullcrap in the DMG about DM fiat "feel free to break the rules at will for the sake of the story." * The near-complete elimination of item micromanagement.
Someone 08-21-07, 02:27 AM	* Spell ranges are extremely long.Yeah, I second that. Make taking the increased range metamagic (can't even remember what its called) worth it. Though I might make the ranges 25 +5/2, 50 +5/1, 100 +10/1. Oh, and how about naming all the bonuses/penalties? Like calling a monk's AC bonus insight, or weapon focus competence, etc. On the other hand, they should reduce the number of types. You could do it with just three bonus types: "enhancement" (from magic), "empowerment" (from alignment or elemental power), and "enrichment" (competence, luck, insight). For example, a paladin's divine grace would be described as a "supernatrual empowerment (holy)".
Archangel62 08-21-07, 03:58 AM	I don't think the big 4 is needed for every campaign, but it is the most likely to succeed, unless the DM adjust the game to the players characters, no matter what they choose. Even in real life you have them 1.tank--->infantry 2.healer--->medical support 3.Skill monkey--->Military Intelligence, cooks, mechanics, and all other support that makes it so the tank only has to lay the deal with combat 4.blaster-artillery/air support, even though in D&D arcane casters can help in areas 1 and 3 with certain spells. My current group has no healer, why I do not know. I'm not saying that certain fields aren't necessary, my problem is that apparently the goal here seems to be to eliminate overlap if the stuff from the convention is to be believed. This could theoretically work well but I am highly, highly skeptical of it going well or even passably.
deathbane 08-21-07, 04:34 AM	I'm not saying that certain fields aren't necessary, my problem is that apparently the goal here seems to be to eliminate overlap if the stuff from the convention is to be believed. This could theoretically work well but I am highly, highly skeptical of it going well or even passably. I guess they are trying to make it so that player dont make bad party combos which ties in with a dumbing down DnD effect.
Archangel62 08-21-07, 04:55 AM	My concern is closer to auto-pilot designs, ones in which the character creation is pretty much shoehorned because there is only a few ways to build a character period. The big issue I see with this is that supplemental material is going to throw a lot in if they add anything to the basic design and since the assumption seems to be that each feeds into an advanced/prestige class it sounds almost like characters become less personal designs of rules and concepts and more a case of 'pregen number 3428-A'
wrecan 08-21-07, 09:01 AM	the thing that existed under LW was not TSR, but T$R and an attempt to ruin the RPG industry entirely. I'm sorry, shadzar, but I cannot figure out what you are saying in this post. Also your numbers are wrong. In 1978, the minimum wage was $2.65, not $4. It took 6 minimum wage hours to buy a book. Today, the minimum wage is $5.85. It takes only 5 minimum wage hours to buy a book today. In 1978, milk cost $1.71/gallon. A book cost about 9 gallons of milk. Today, it costs $3.73/gallon. A book now costs about 8 gallons a milk. Gasoline cost $.63/gallon in 1978. A corebook cost 24 gallons of gas. Gasoline costs $2.67/gallon today. A corebook costs 11 gallons of gas. By almost any measurement, the cost of a corebook today is less expensive than it was when the first hardcover D&D books were released. then $50 present money would get 2 books, set of dice and a blister of minis. That's wrong. $50 present money would get you one book in 1978. will the DM still ened to buy the new smaller scale DDM because the reaper minis will no longer fit the maps that WotC may produce? What are you talking about? Is WotC changing the miniature scale all of the sudden?
StSteven 08-21-07, 09:42 AM	What are you talking about? Is WotC changing the miniature scale all of the sudden? Yeah...where is that coming from. I have grown ok with all of this, so far. I am actually excited about some of it. The books are not overpriced by any estimation, but if they go and change the mini size that's going to annoy me. Just annoy because I will continue to use the ones I have. (Goblin? That's a lizard man, pay attention.)
ORC_Paradox 08-21-07, 09:48 AM	All 4th edition posts belong on the 4e board. Thanks. http://forums.gleemax.com/forumdisplay.php?f=686