Earlier this week I typed up a bunch of suggestions and will gradually post them. I hope whomever is reading this will add some ideas of their own.
I am not going to suggest overhauling any of the major systems of the games: the core mechanic, skill checks, feats and powers. The core mechanic is great, and it would take a while to come up with a system to replace the power system.
Ability scores
What I am suggesting are some things that could be play tested to augment the system.
I am going to start with suggesting breaking a foundation of the game: ability score generation. The game has been using a 3-18 (3d6) system from the beginning, though the relevance of different scores has varied. What I don’t like about the system is twofold: the scores are rarely themselves used, and the modifiers that are used take two steps to get to (subtract 10, then divide by 2) and only change every other ability score change. I find level 4 a bit boring because normally the two scores being increased were at even numbers so at best I might qualify for a new feat. As such I would like to suggest a 2-12 (2d6) system. A standard array could be something like 12, 11, 10, 8, 7, 6 and rolling would use rolling 3d6 and adding the top 2 results. The ability scores would then be used as the modifiers (though, much like in the current game) sometimes half the modifier might be used. (As an alternative, the old 3-18 system could be kept with the modifiers being ability score – 10, but that means there will still be negative ability score modifiers.)
drop Enhancement bonuses
This first change leads to a lot of the other changes I am going to suggest. For example, enhancement bonuses should be dropped. The bonus system was cleaned up nicely for 4th, leaving only three items that regularly need upgrading: tool (weapon or implement), neck slot and armor. I would prefer players not feel they need to upgrade a specific subgroup of items to stay competitive, particularly if they like what they have, and instead allow them to focus on filling out their item slots or replacing what they want to replace. An example of why this could work: in the thirty levels of play, tool enhancement bonus increases one’s primary attacks by 6 while the 8 ability score upgrades will normally increase them by 4, for a total of 10. Under the new system the eight ability score increases would increase the attack roll by 8, meaning only two short of the 4th edition system.
The downside is several things, like damage, might scale quite differently. For example, at-will power die damage went from about 5 (1d10) to about 10 over 30 levels, while modifier damage went from 3-5 (ability modifier plus mayby a feet) to about 14-18 (total would then be about 9 to about 26). If, for the suggested system, half-ability scores are used for the damage modifier, and dice are increased at both 11th and 21st level, the new system would have starting damage of 5+7=12 and end at 15 +13 =28, not that different from the old. Using whole modifiers that would be about 20 damage to start and 40 to end, which is also usable but might require a greater revision of hit points and resistances, especially at 1st level.
1) I think that the idea of cantrips (minor effects that are not as cool as 1st level powers at will) should be expanded... maybe making them 0th level utilitys...that way every class gets 1 or 2.
2) go back to the orginal idea of 'race matters' make level 1-10 class + race progression, then 11-20 class + Paragon path, then 21-30 class + epic destiny. Give each race 1 more encounter power at like 4th, and add +1 to both atttributes at 8th.
3) Give classes other then mages a reason to use non magical implaments.
4) At the 1/2 way point (15th level) open up a new set of at wills for everyone. meaning that humans will end up with 4 non humans with 3. maybe even get to chose a 1st level encounter power and make it at will...I am still thinking about this one
5) make powersource only powers...you still have wizard, warlock, and sword mage powers...but also a small list of 'Arcane' powers that any arcane character can take.
Give the classes a little more overlap or make multiclassing a little more easier/useful for groups that don't have enough players to fill all the slots.
Agreed on the matter of ability scores. Seems the 3-18 range is another sacred cow that should have been butchered. Either that, or make some abilities that actually take the entire score into account (my homebrew d20 has a few).
I like points 3 (you meant wizards, not mages, right) and 4, and had a similar notion. Point 5 is cool, too.
On point 1, some classes besides the wizard do get class feature powers. It's really a class-by-class thing.
As far as the race thing, I really don't think I would like my race getting abilities for 10 levels and then stopping. The current system, where feat slots allow you to advance if you so choose, and each race has some abilities relevant at any level, is better. There might be other ways to keep race relevant and give race specific options during advancement, but I hope they are not just a 10 level thing.
I wouldn't surprise if we see a couple more race specific options during 4th. Race specific paragon paths, epic destinies, equipment and powers (or boosts to powers) wouldn't surprise me.
Thanks for the support on ability scores, and multiclassing. I really haven't payed the system enough to know how well it helps cover for a missing role at low levels.
I also agree on the flavor text. In particular, I miss the descriptions of 3.5, and don't find more pictures a replacement. A lot of the new MM monsters seem more like something to just throw at the party like in a video game RPG, and I'd rather understand why seemingly unrelated monsters would work together.
I'm not quite with you on the monsters. While I wish ability scores were double checked more, the monster mostly seem to follow a formula based on role found in the DMG. As far as creatures under a common heading being mechanically related, a decent number of them are, just in small ways.
Example: Demons all have variable resistance and favor the brute role.
All angels fly, have immune to fear and resistance to radiant damage.
All ghouls immobilize prey.
All gibbering beasts are controllers with auras, all-round vision and the gibbering power.
I'm not saying that the link is always there or that it's easys to spot when it is. 3 Foulspawn get boosts when they get bloodied, the other two do not but share teleportation and dazing attacks, so they sort of follow two seperate paths. It would probably be better if monster families had a little more in common.
new Defense score system
The next suggestion is a bit wacky. I really do like how 4th edition switched from defenses based on three ability scores to being based on the better of three pairs. This allows for more parity between ability scores as one has less reason to give Wisdom a higher score than Charisma (aside for class relevance). However, this negatively impacts possible race and class ability score preferences. For this reason, Eladrin got a bonus to Will saves to compensate for both ability scores modifying the same defense, and they are the only race in the PHB that have both ability scores modifying the same defense. Similarly, most class builds have the two highest ability scores (the ones most likely to be increased) applying to different defenses. Therefore I would suggest making all ability scores relevant to defense. Instead of using the better of an ability score pair as a defense modifier, add the pair up (but don’t add 10 like is currently done). After the two +2 ability score bonuses from most races applies, this would yield a +14 attack bonus and average defenses of 20(12+6+2)/20(11+7+2)/18(10+8). This yields an average to hit chance of about 75% instead of the 50% the game strives for. At first I thought this wasn’t so bad since it meant the effect of encounter powers on an encounter could be predicted more reliably. Then again, I am also a fan of the rock-paper-scissors systems. So I suggest the class would give +5 to two defenses, making the odds be about 50/50 for two and 75/25 for the other. The paragon path would give +5 to one more defense (probably one of the two the class gave the boost to), leading to either odds of hitting be about 25/75, 50/50, 75/25, or possibly to about 50% across the board (normally through multiclassing or using a multiclass paragon path). Monsters would mostly follow similar defense patterns to allow for a similar find-the-weakness puzzle for the PCs. Of course, this would allow some players to overload on a defense, making it almost untouchable at the cost of being very vulnerable elsewhere.
dropping AC
You might notice I kept to a three defense score discussion, and assumed I was ignoring AC. The reason is I would like to drop AC and make defense a 3 score system. While I get the concept of AC as is simplifies some math it also makes for some funny results. For example, I get how some rogue attacks can focus on fortitude or will instead of one’s ability to physically dodge the blow (reflex or AC), but to claim that armor has no effect on so many attacks with a normal blade seems silly. The math of the game also comes into play here, as weapon attack modifiers and AC are often two-three points above implement attacks and the other defense scores. Instead I would suggest armor be used as resistance to physical damage (plus other types based on armor type or magic property). And yes, I am suggesting a physical damage type. This would not just be used for weapon attacks, but also for falling damage and spells that hit you with things like rocks.
prof. and shield bonuses
Now you might be wondering what would happen to the proficiency bonuses from weapons. I would keep them, and in fact increase the range to +1 (for a few simple weapons) to +4 (probably only one superior weapons). These bonuses are a great tool to differentiate weapons. I would probably also give all classes proficiency with all simple weapons. This might sound like I am short changing implements, but I actually want them to be treated the same as weapons. As the rules stand now, except for the wizard’s implement masteries implements are fairly interchangeable, except for their magical properties. I think it would be more interesting if, for example, wands gave a +3 attack bonus while doing d6 damage, and rods would give a +2 bonus while doing 1d8 damage, and staffs, being two-handed implements, would give a +2 bonus while doing 1d10 damage (implement powers would use a #[i] format for damage similar to weapons). Implements would also have properties like High Crit, Small (which I suggest for the Staff) and Melee (can be used as a melee weapon).
As a side not while mentioning tool properties, might I suggest a light melee property, so light blades can use dexterity for basic attacks instead of strength.
As far as a defense booster to counter these attack bonuses, I would suggest the arm/shield slot. Shields, after all, greatly resemble cover so if cover can boost all defenses so could a shield. Also, the shield slot could be used as a balance of offense (larger weapons) vs. defense for example:
Type Bonus to Defenses Usable Weapons Speed Check
Bracers +1 All 0 0
Light Shield +2 One-handed 0 0
Heavy Shield +3 One-handed -1 -1
Tower Shield +4 Off-hand -1 -2
As far as proficiency rules, I would also like a few changes. One is everyone is proficient with simple melee weapons. The wizard should not be at least as good swinging a bastard sword as he is a club. In fact, I also don’t think he should skip to bastard sword with one feet like a fighter can. I suggest the weapon proficiency feat be broken into three as such: a simple ranged proficiency feat that gives proficiency in all simple ranged weapons, a martial weapon proficiency feat that gives one proficiency with all martial weapons of a weapon group, and a superior weapon proficiency feat, also focused by group, but that requires martial proficiency in a weapon of that group first. Also, if implements grant proficiency it opens the door to superior implements.
See. Told you. Some crazy stuff. I'm about half way through stuff I typed notes for. I did not make any monster notes yet, though I might cover the trouble with minions (did you know there's a rod that lets Warlocks kill them when cursing, works twice a turn with twofold curse).
Other topics coming: class relation to ability scores, human, small races
skills and skill challenges
upgrading powers, retraining and character advancement
As for your idea about adding both ability mods to defenses, I have also been doing that. I've also been doing the same thing with attacks, so overall it tends to even out. It also makes it harder to dump certain ability scores, since after doing a lot of math I determined that it was actually better to have a decent score in all abilities than a few that were really high and a few that were dumped.
When it was a save, the idea was that you were avoiding the attack in some way, now it is a question of whether or not the attack hits you, which to me seems very similar to the reason you carry a shield etc.
A temporary fix is to add the armor bonus to all defenses. The only problem with that is running into a person with great armor. Of course they could solve this problem by making the armor price relative instead of cost/need based.
In the middle ages a sword may cost as much as a worker makes in a year, if it's one of the quickly made shoddy pieces it may cost a quarter of that. But armor,could exceed the price of a sword. Ring mail was as important to the military as the person wearing it. Most armies did not supply armor to it's citizens instead relying on them to either scrape together bits of metal or steal armor from a vanquished foe. The prices quoted from a couple of sources suggest that a trained warhorse as well as any armor might exceed 10,000 ducats, which is about 3 years of wages for the average person of the times. The average knights armor without shield could cost him as much as the amount he made in taxes each year. In previous games cost was less erroneous and closer resembled actual prices, now plate mail costs twice as much as leather, which is to say it costs very little. That doesn't even begin to make sense, less so when you compare that to the price of a weapon.
Anyways my two bits about defenses
C
1) I think that the idea of cantrips (minor effects that are not as cool as 1st level powers at will) should be expanded... maybe making them 0th level utilitys...that way every class gets 1 or 2.
4) At the 1/2 way point (15th level) open up a new set of at wills for everyone. meaning that humans will end up with 4 non humans with 3. maybe even get to chose a 1st level encounter power and make it at will...I am still thinking about this one
I definitely support both of these.
5) make powersource only powers...you still have wizard, warlock, and sword mage powers...but also a small list of 'Arcane' powers that any arcane character can take.
I'm hoping we see some of these in Martial Power and Arcane Power.
I was thinking this weekend of how to do armor/resistance/vulnerability. The way most special defenses in the last two additions have gone:
Seperate die roll: Incorporeal (3rd), Concealment (3rd), Spell Resistance (3rd) have mainly gone away to speed up the game.
% or multiplier: Vulnerability (3rd), Insubstantial (4th). This is good for computer games, or computer/calculator assisted D&D, but outside of hlaf and double, most players don't want to do the math, and it eats alot of paper.
Addition and subtration: Resistance and Vulnerabiltiy (4th).
Adjusting the DC or roll modifier: This is where concealment went in 4th. An intersting note is this is how Half-Giant fire resistance was done in 3.5, not as a subtraction.
I would propose the last option is the best way to handle resistance in D&D and makes it more consistent with immunity. If a creature has resistance to something, they get a bonus to all defenses against it and on saves. They also always get an immediate save, even against effects that require no roll (assuming those stay in. Alternately, they are immune to no roll effects they are resistant to). Vulnerability would mean a subtraction to all defenses and saves. Insubstantial would probably become a +5 to all defenses when it applies.
First off, this lends consistency. Dwarven resistance to poison would be no different than a medusa, as opposed to now where dwarves gain no benefit from straight poison damage, and medusa gain no protection from poisons that don't poison. Meanwhile undead immune to poison would treat poison keyword abilities just like they do now, they completely ignore them, regardless of what else the ability does.
It also makes relating resistance to players easier for a DM. You don't even have to say anything. If they can't hit an opponent with fire attacks, they'll stop using them. In the current system the attacks will hit, but unless the DM tells them players won't know the attacks are doing less damage than normal.
This also makes the game faster. You could have all your resistant adjusted defenses on your stat sheet so attack rolls are still one step and you don't need to do extra math for damage, just roll it normally.
As a minor benefit, this eases power write-ups. If a power has a keyword, you already know how resistance effects it. You don't need the keyword repeated in the power description. And you don't have to figure out how much of an attack is physical damag, how much fire and how much cold.
So after reviewing, I'm sadly saying resistance should work the same as armor (but only the best bonus applies), an addition to defenses. Any responses? Should we stay with the alphabet soup of common defenses or have just one system? And which one?
Adding to the AC discussion portion. In addition to the problems inherent in AC and the fact that everyone's powers tend to ignore AC, it also doesn't make sense that certain attacks that are magic based ignore armor but not cover. So fireball which is a short lived spell can go through my armor but not a hedgerow because it doesn't have line of effect. While I don't think there should be any removal of cover for that benefit I don't see a reason why armor does not present a quandary to line of effect especially a shield. In every heroic tale I can think of shields represent a defense against the magical powers of enemies. Beowulf used a non-magical one, St george used one, hercules even used one or two. Where is the benefit other than a shield to stop a sword (sometimes)
When it was a save, the idea was that you were avoiding the attack in some way, now it is a question of whether or not the attack hits you, which to me seems very similar to the reason you carry a shield etc.
A temporary fix is to add the armor bonus to all defenses. The only problem with that is running into a person with great armor. Of course they could solve this problem by making the armor price relative instead of cost/need based.
C
About the cost of armor: even in 3rd edition, after a few levels the extra cost of plate doesn't matter. This is a fantasy game, not a medieval simulation and I think the designers wanted people to where their class-appropraite armor as early as possible. You would have to make the cost exorbitant before it effected anything outside the heroic tier of play. Money should not be the answer. The current system pits heavy/metal armor vs. an ability score bonus to AC, and without it at low levels a rogue can do just as well taking blows as a typical low Dex/Int paladin, unless the paladin is given even more of a hit point lead than he currently is. And then, everyone should be either proficient or not proficient in the heavy armors, since it's more or less a standard upgrade everyon can access at about the same time, much like it is in some computer games (cough, Diablo 2).
I totally agree on the shield thing. I do find the arguement 3rd addition used on touch attacks still relevant for armor, but not shields. Using your fireball example, how 4th sees this is the shield (which boosts Ref) can block/deflect the fire away from your body. It is easier to dodge. However, heating your metal armor hurts alot. Same with freezing it. And the burst effects will probably find their way to the gaps in the armor as well. Of course their are times when a shield might do little good (an attack from under your feet, a psychic assault). It's a little hard to adjucate but it's probably best to establish a general rule and then exceptions.
Specifically
Racial Levelling - you could optionally level your race, so your giant could get bigger, your spryte could fly better ect
Spell System - I thought Monte had the best Spell system ever. Sure it was Vancian, but every spell could be modified ("heightened" or "lessened"), there were really good ways to exchange spells.
I know 4E just came out, but I figure it is never to early to start making suggestions for Wizards to try for the next edition. Who knows when they start playtesting?
Here's a suggestion: No 5e until 2020.
I think there was a lot to be learned from Monte Cookes Arcana Evolved. I really thought 4e was going to take a lot of the good things from that system.
Specifically
Racial Levelling - you could optionally level your race, so your giant could get bigger, your spryte could fly better ect
Spell System - I thought Monte had the best Spell system ever. Sure it was Vancian, but every spell could be modified ("heightened" or "lessened"), there were really good ways to exchange spells.
No, Monte later created the best spell system ever in Monte Cook's World of Darkness.
As for racial leveling, I think that was modeled better with feats anyway, although I still give Monte credit for breaking ground in that area.
If you read Monte's Book of Experimental Might, however, they did take a lot from that.
That said:
I have always had a problem with their AC system as well (as some posts above also seem to echo).
Heavier armor makes you harder to hit? I would think the opposite since it makes you slower. As noted above, armor should be subtracted from damage like the 3.5 DR system. Not harder to hit, but harder to damage.
links for further clarification:
1.) http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16494376&postcount=18 (my original post)
2.) http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16520302&postcount=32 (my follow up post)
I like the idea of a physical defense (as well as the others), and honestly, I have been doing this for years in my own rpg. There are quite a few similarities in 4e and my own rpg (which is great). It makes me want to use 4e as the base and then update it with my own system. My take on 'magic' is different as far as leveling, but the ideas of at-will, encounter, and daily are dead on (in theory if not in practice).
I have only just started playing 4e and have only read through the PHB once, so I am going to read through all 3 books and come back so that i have a bit more to offer.
Though I do have to agree that they should wait quite a while before they start on a new system. Let's kick the tires a bit more and see what shakes out.
Go Back to 3.5 PLEASE!!!!! 4th Edition is a joke.
Please stop thread-crapping, we all know what you are trying to do.
As far as spell/power systems, I wish you guys gave more details on those systems. Personally, I like that the powers chance to hit increases with level but I wish more of the powers had decently scaling damage as well.
one primary ability per class (2 secondary)
As far as key abilities for classes go, I prefer the following: Once key ability for attacks, and two secondary abilities that can apply to class features and powers. Imagine the rogue if the tactics choice did not alter the powers, but rather the powers had the benefits of the tactic choice built in. While some characters would lean to Ch powers and others to St, no one would feel like they were missing anything, and if a character wanted to keep the secondary scores even, that would work nicely, too. The single main score serves a similar purpose, so that one feels less constraint about how to build the class. Right now, if a Ranger wants to easily switch between melee and range they are giving up on getting a decent use from the wisdom modifier powers. I would probably make Dexterity be the sole primary ability for rangers (makes sense since the two-weapon style requires good coordination), making Strength be used as a secondary score mainly for the melee powers. This 1 primary ability/2 secondary ability set-up also makes multi-classing easier: One multi-classing would just use ability score increases to increase the primary ability scores from both classes. You could do that now, but if the classes don’t share a key ability score that is primary for at least one of them you are giving up a lot. For example: A Ranger/Warlock planning to use attacks from both classes would almost certainly exclude half of each class’ powers, and likely get little benefit from secondary ability scores besides. Under the suggested set-up, secondary scores will still give little benefit, but one would be able to use all of each class’ attack powers with a reasonable chance to hit.
humans
Next up for a simple revision is the human race. Instead of getting a floating +2 ability score and a +1 to the non-AC defenses, humans would get a +1 bonus to all ability scores. This would give them a +1 to attack with all powers and to all skill checks and a +2 to all defenses, compared to other races that would get +2 to certain powers and skills and either +2 to two defenses or +4 to one. This better shows human versatility: while they are never the best at a class’ main ability score, they are never far behind, and are more likely to use powers that take advantage of either secondary score.
Halflings and small races
If anyone was wondering about Halflings and the small drawback, I am uncertain as to what to do and am open to suggestions. As far as I can see here are the options: remove the drawback and let small races do the same damage, give all small races some benefit like a +1 to attack to compensate for the loss on damage, or just make each small race’s racial benefits a little better on an individual race-by-race basis. Under 4th, Halflings feel inferior for any build that relies on weapons except the rogue, which means everyone but Wizards, Warlocks, Rogues and some Clerics. And they don’t have the right ability bonuses for wizard or cleric.
Does anyone have a preference for how weapons are handled for Small races: same weapons and same damage, same weapons but only the smaller ones (4th and 3rd edition), or shrunken, less damaging versions of each weapon (3.5).
Warning to Cybermonkey: when you get to skill challenges in teh DMG, please note they are set up poorly. A 1st level character's max skill bonus (without aid) is 5(training) + 4 (ability) + 2 (race) + 3 (skill focus)=14 or 16 for mundane equipment (climbing, picking locks). A 14 means a 75% chance to succeed a moderate DC with an overpumped modifier. A complexity 1 skill challenge requires 4 successes before 2 failures, so at minimum you need to go 4 and 1 (80%) to succeed. Even if every player optimized a skill and its applicable to the challenge, they still need to assist each other for even odds of success. I would suggest ignoring what they say and use low DCs, at least to start.
Heavier armor makes you harder to hit? I would think the opposite since it makes you slower. As noted above, armor should be subtracted from damage like the 3.5 DR system. Not harder to hit, but harder to damage.
Heavier armor makes it harder to hit your soft flesh it encased, unless we're talking touch attack, which basically ignores your armor.
Even though you're wearing armor, it only provide protection against your own skin.
I think DR should be a very rare thing in D&D, used only for certain monsters and such.
I would hate to see armor made to be DR. Its not fun to say "your sword attack hits for (rolls) umm... 0 damage!"
I think DR should be a very rare thing in D&D, used only for certain monsters and such.
Because your attack missing entirely is so much more fun?
Because your attack missing entirely is so much more fun?
You keep overthinking on the words "missed attack."
Yes, it sucks but it happens. I mean if you want to feel better like in those videogames, try and account for every melee swings and strikes you make in six seconds. Granted, it will take long but at least you'll be content that you're actually hitting something.
To me, it's pretty much the same thing. If fire resistance reduces damage, than so should armor. Conversely, if armor should not affect damage but affect chance to hit, so should fire resistance.
EDIT: Yeah, I think fire resistance as extra defense would be a good idea, although maybe just a few unique monsters would get true resistance. I don't mind the DR mechanic coming up only on rare occasions, but I wouldn't want DR to be a factor in every fight, or even many fights.
You keep overthinking on the words "missed attack."
Yes, it sucks but it happens. I mean if you want to feel better like in those videogames, try and account for every melee swings and strikes you make in six seconds. Granted, it will take long but at least you'll be content that you're actually hitting something.
If I want to feel better like in those videogames....
Wow, that doesn't sound condescending at all.
Ironically, I don't like most video game rpgs (they tend not to really feel like rpgs to me), so this really has nothing to do with that. Nor does hitting and not doing damage really feel better than missing (I was just pointing out the incongruity of stating that hitting and dealing no damage sucks when missing and dealing no damage is no different). What it does do is open up different options for characters.
Do you want heavy armor to reduce the damage, or will you go light so that you can dodge attacks easier? That twf ranger will do great against fast, lightly armored opponents, but when it comes to the big guys, maybe you should consider a two-hander. Weapons gain an extra level of depth from their ability to pierce armor (weapon X doesn't do very good damage, but if it ignores part of the target's AC, it suddenly becomes much more viable as a choice).
Oh the irony of the tittle of this thread....
Hey, now - this is a family-friendly site. Let's keep it clean!:P
Hang on to 3.5
4e won't last long. Neither will Wotc.
Well, that is pessimistic, and that's saying much from a world-class pessimist (i.e., me).
WotC can survive this. Granted, they introduced 4e too early, IMNSHO, but things will blow over.
Ironically, I don't like most video game rpgs (they tend not to really feel like rpgs to me), so this really has nothing to do with that.
I'm talking about the combat resolution between PnP RPG and CRPG. CRPG is more simulation where each swing or strike is taken at the push of the button, whereas in PnP RPG, one or few die roll determines whether you get one good hit (or more) in the course of six second of game-time (6 seconds is pretty long considering how many punches a professional boxer can unleash).
Nor does hitting and not doing damage really feel better than missing (I was just pointing out the incongruity of stating that hitting and dealing no damage sucks when missing and dealing no damage is no different). What it does do is open up different options for characters.
Perhaps, but for a knife-wielding rogue, he'd rather he miss on attack roll, so there is a possibility that he can hit and do full damage with a knife, rather than keep hitting and yet can't damage his opponent because of the heavy armor's DR.
I mean, please, medieval armor is not that effective against a knife. There is always a chink in the armor that he can slip through. There is a reason why they make the narrow-bladed dirk, to poke your eyes through the visor's slits.
For the 5th edition, restore the commoner, aristocrat, and expert classes that were originally in the D&D 3rd edition. I thought it was a mistake to drop those classes from the 4rd edition!!!
I think it was fine. You don't need a class if you are not going to get into combat. Those classes were just there to show average poeple have skill but little combat ability. Outside of combat, they probably just need a few skill modifiers for stats. In combat, you can do an NPC write-up or just use a monster manual entry.
It's like eliminating Craft and Profession skills. It's not that people don't have them, it's that it's not realy needed for the game.
I mean, please, medieval armor is not that effective against a knife. There is always a chink in the armor that he can slip through. There is a reason why they make the narrow-bladed dirk, to poke your eyes through the visor's slits.
And that's why a dagger has a high attack bonus, particularly for a rogue. It deals damage more often, but at a lesser amount. I just think fire resistance should be handled in a similar way to armor.
While I don't feel resistance should be rarer than it is (it makes damage type relevant) I also wish more monsters had vulnerability as well as resistance: it's frustrating to take the Wintertouched feat when you probably won't get to take advantage of it unless someone uses Lasting Frost. The Monster Manaul seems to say: radiant damage good, necrotic and fire bad. Also, having a weapon that can turn all the damage to fire seems like it more often hurts than helps.
humans
Next up for a simple revision is the human race. Instead of getting a floating +2 ability score and a +1 to the non-AC defenses, humans would get a +1 bonus to all ability scores. This would give them a +1 to attack with all powers and to all skill checks and a +2 to all defenses, compared to other races that would get +2 to certain powers and skills and either +2 to two defenses or +4 to one. This better shows human versatility: while they are never the best at a class’ main ability score, they are never far behind, and are more likely to use powers that take advantage of either secondary score.
Halflings and small races
If anyone was wondering about Halflings and the small drawback, I am uncertain as to what to do and am open to suggestions. As far as I can see here are the options: remove the drawback and let small races do the same damage, give all small races some benefit like a +1 to attack to compensate for the loss on damage, or just make each small race’s racial benefits a little better on an individual race-by-race basis. Under 4th, Halflings feel inferior for any build that relies on weapons except the rogue, which means everyone but Wizards, Warlocks, Rogues and some Clerics. And they don’t have the right ability bonuses for wizard or cleric.
Does anyone have a preference for how weapons are handled for Small races: same weapons and same damage, same weapons but only the smaller ones (4th and 3rd edition), or shrunken, less damaging versions of each weapon (3.5).
In your version, you sell human's short. hey, i would rather have +2 to any two abilities, cause then itd be very easy to be super cool guy in whatever class i picked, but that wasnt there intention.
they made it that the various races got two +2's in certain attributes as to favor them for certain classes. you wouldnt have to play them, but there would be a marginal benefit for doing so. if you want to be the paragon of your class, pick the race that matches it (you heard me). with humans, the extra at will power makes up for that lack of a +2 in spades. for some classes, like the warlord, its great because its so difficult (for me anyway) to decide between those at wills, and it makes a difference. for other classes, like the paladin or cleric, it sucks for right now, cause if you want to focus on a particular power set, there arent enough options to get them at first level, which we will hopefully see in future publications.
as for halflings and other small races doing less damage... um, yeah, thats the way it should be. lets face it, if you were val kilmer and warwick davis came at you with a halfling sword, you'd laugh at him. halflings are not meant to be brutes. theyre great at sneaking because theyre small. if they arent good at that, they're better off being a wizard or something because they're diminutive size makes it so that being a whirlwind of destruction isnt really possible. can you have a halfling engine of war? of course, but he will never be as effective as a normal sized man with the same abilities. you have to accept the fact that reepicheep lives only in Narnia, and that place is just an allegory for heaven.
as to what other people have said here, one was in reference to dragon born. sure, i didnt like em at first, but then i remembered a great book series i read as a kid. it was called dragonlance, and they had these cool guys called draconians. some would turn to stone when killed, others would explode into acid. instead of lizard men, why not go that route? some even had wings. you could do that whole exchange breath weapon for another ability.
another comment was made about scaling damage. damage does scale in the whole paragon and epic destiny paths, and the rest of the stuff within the tier is actually a great way to do it. encounter powers in tier one tend to do 2 [w] damage, and daily's do 3 [w]. as you gain more encounter and daily powers, they do the same basic damage but with more interesting/tactical effects. i love that because it makes pitting a part of low level guys against a higher level guy in the same tier more interesting. he doesnt blow them away, he just has a larger and more varied deck to draw his cards from. it makes tactics and choices made in the heat of battle, more important than the level on the character sheet. i love that. also, it makes it so that your level 1 and 3 encounter powers arent useless by level 7 or 9... or 11 for that matter
and as for armor granting damage reduction, great way to do it in 3.5, not so sure about 4th. with scaling attack roles and defensive stats, it no longer makes armor as irrelevant as it did at medium to higher levels, where a dragons attack would only miss on a botch regardless of your accoutrement and that DR would be more welcome. now, giving DR to armor gives the heavy armored guy an unfair advantage, and the whole point of this system was to give every class the chance to be equal in damage and defense, leaving it to the players to figure out how.
i'm not really about equality, and i miss the wizard being the most powerful class as it was in 2nd, but thats a matter for debate. i never played a wizard in second edition, and only played it once in 3.5. i favored the paladin and fighter classes, cause for me it was more about my character than my character sheet. i didnt mind there being an imbalance against me compared to the rest of the party because we worked together, and i was interested in advancing the story, not my stats.
it was a different time back then, and yeah, the game has changed, but that doesnt change the fact that ive been the favored DM of every group ive been a part of over the years, because when you write a good story, and use the rules/abilities as a tool for telling it instead of them becoming the primary focus, that's when you see the real difference between D&D and video games, and its more rewarding than having a thousand SOJs.
While I don't feel resistance should be rarer than it is (it makes damage type relevant) I also wish more monsters had vulnerability as well as resistance: it's frustrating to take the Wintertouched feat when you probably won't get to take advantage of it unless someone uses Lasting Frost. The Monster Manaul seems to say: radiant damage good, necrotic and fire bad. Also, having a weapon that can turn all the damage to fire seems like it more often hurts than helps.
In the new edition, resistences and vulnerabilities have gone the way of 2nd eds +2 weapon or better to hit. I believe they did so because this way, if you want to make a wizard bent on taking all the fire powers, you can do so without feeling like a schmuk half the time.
To me, the challenge of being the DM is a never ending one, but very rewarding. If you want to make the monsters more interesting, you can do so by also resolving the whole pesky players know what theyre fighting because they read the monster manual problem.
You give your monster increased resistence, vulnerability, or added immunity as you would like, but have an ingame way for a player to overcome it. the purpose of the new system was to make everyone equally effective, and in doing so you can lose a bit of the flavor that creatures once had. dont hesitate to modify them to make them cool again, just make sure you dont have a frustrated player who's powerless to do anything in that combat. there's no worse feeling than sitting at the table as a player, and just holding your initiative as everyone else participates in the battle because youre chosen abilities are ineffective in this situation (like a rogue fighting a vampire, you gotta give your players the proverbial wand of grave strike). just dont give them the solution for free, make it something to be obtained before hand, something to be bartered for, perhaps a quest to find it or as a favor to its current owner to secure the loan, or it could be something to be knocked away in combat, and hazardous to retrieve. all those options and more are there so that there is a reason why the players had to attain this silver bullet to overcome the resistence rather than just play without the resistence as normal.
players hate feeling useless, and the new edition took care of that, for the most part, try not to ruin that with careless retrograde thinking. you can go back again, just tread carefully to avoid the pitfalls that have been removed for your benefit.
As for the change to humans, that is based on an earlier suggestion I made where the ability score and defense system were changed so every ability point is relevant.
As per Halflings, if they got a racial bonus to all defenses or to attack rolls I wouldn't mind the weaker damage. I'm not even sure if Halflings are the best rogues. My problem is they aren't compensated for it. They are a weak race stat wise. Oh, and based on your size logic, no human should be able to compete physically with a dragonborn, no woman with a man (assuming average size), etc.
As for your damage scaling comment, would you seriously be satisfied with Masterstroke (Kensai 11) at level 30? Or a 7th level power (if you paragon multiclassed)? And believe me, the higher level powers don't always do cooler things. In fact sometimes they are strictly weaker than lower level powers (probably mistakes, but still). Here's an example: figher powers Steel Serpent Strike, Dance of Steel, and Talon of The Rock. Even if you have the right weapon, the level 1 is better than the level 3 and the only thing the level 13 adds is 1 damage die. I'd rather just have Steel Serpent Strike with an increase damage line to 3 dies at 11th and 4 at 21st. At least then you don't just automatically update to Paralyzing Strike at 21st, and if you want to take both you canwithout sacrificing power.
As I said, I like the power system. There are a few tweaks I would suggest that, though they make the system a little more complicated, also make it more robust and worthwhile. First off, I think powers should upgrade. Right now only the At-Will attacks and a few select powers upgrade automatically (Dragonborn Breath Weapon, for example). Most powers, though, lose value as other powers that do more damage come up. Some powers are easy to replace, a wizard’s fireburst with combust (did I get those names right) springs to mind, but some powers don’t have a good upgrade, and some, like Paragon path powers, cannot be replaced at all. I would simply suggest letting powers get automatic upgrades every 10 levels, mostly just damage dice but certain powers might desire a different upgrade.
Oh, I am also suggesting trying a different damage scale for the game. Instead of ending at 2d for at-wills and about 6d for dailies, I would suggest that be the end scale for paragon and epic use 3d and up to 9d, respectively. No, I have not tested this, but is seems to make sense. The current scaling of damage for those that do scale seems rather uneven. Warlock and Ranger class feature damage bonuses scale evenly by tier, but the rogue’s is weaker at the paragon tier, dragonborn breath scales evenly, but class at will attacks only upgrade at epic. There are enough places where things scale every 5 or 10 levels that damage dice can do the same. One just has to set HP, healing and monster damage output around that.
Retraining and Character Advancement
As for retraining, I would like to allow more of it, but part of that has to do with a more customizable character advancement system. I would like to think of feet and powers as taking up slot. For example: instead of saying at 8th level a character has 2 At-will attack power, a 1st, 3rd, and 7th level encounter power and a 1st and 5th level daily power, we’ll say a character has 2 at-will attack slots, 3 encounter slots and 2 daily slots. At each level the character can learn up to 2 powers, either by filling an unused slot or replacing an old power. The only restriction is that if the character learns two powers they must be of different levels. Similarly, at each level the character can learn or retrain up to 2 feats and one skill (not or like the current rules). This allows for more flexibility, and makes it possible for a character to have two powers of the same level without being unable to undo it next level.
To explain that last note, look at the retraining section on page 28 of the PHB. It says you can replace a power with one of lower level. So let’s say instead of learning (or alternatively, keeping) a 7th level encounter power a character wants to try a combo between two 3rd level powers. At next level he decides that’s not his thing, and wants to try a 7th level power. He can’t. He can only replace the 3rd level power with a 1st or 3rd level power, even though he has no 7th level power. In fact, he will probably continue having a 3rd level encounter power until level 23. That’s a long time to pay for what he thought was trying something for a level. And yes, I know my system means a 9th level character can have three 7th level encounter powers, but not everyone will want to, and I don’t see what’s wrong about that. At 11th level, when I suggest 1st level powers should upgrade damage, he might decide to switch back one power, and options get a lot more diverse and interesting.
I would also suggest adding a few power slots (some other things might be moved around to make room). 1st I would like to add an at-will slot at 11th level and another at 21st. Whether that means adding new at-will choices at those tiers or making more 1st level choices I’m not sure (maybe both), but I think eventually people get sick of the same two options in a drawn out fight. You could even tie the 11th level at-will to the paragon path (or to the multiclass option, if one multiclassed). The other change I would make is to utilities. I don’t much like it when at-will, encounter and dailies butt heads. I also don’t like how there is only one level at which you get a class list during paragon and epic-tiers. So I would suggest reserving certain levels for certain types, and having three levels for each at each tier. For example: encounter at 2, 12, and 22; daily at 6, 16, and 26; and at-will at 10, 20, and 30. Whether this would include powers ascribed to paths and destinies, I don’t know. The very act of writing something as a feature or power sometimes seems arbitrary based on the slot used. For example: sneak attack can be written as a free action at-will power that can be used once per round, and a Demigod’s Divine recovery can be scripted as a daily power that can be used as an immediate reaction. Pretty much anything that isn’t continuous can be written as a power. And everything can be written as a feature (though it’s probably best to leave attacks in the power format as much as possible).
Sorcery Powers:
One other suggestion I would like to suggest is that powers work a little more like sorcery spells from 3rd: that if I want to use a particular encounter attack power twice in a fight, I can. I just won't be able to use another power. If I have a power that can slow or immobilize a skirmisher I might want to do it every round, and I'd rather not devote half my upgrade choices to make sure most of my powers can do that. If I teleport my group to sneak into a temple using Arcane Gate, I might want it to get them back out. I know there are some recharge methods in the paragon and epic tiers, but I rather have more versatility and use those options for the extra power they provide. It could make power balance in design a little trickier, but as a player I'd rather say "what can I do with my last encounter power attack" then "is my last encounter attack even relevant (like a power that slows against teleporters)".
Oh, in case you missed it, I am against things like damage or dazing on a miss, or without an attack roll, so no, I am not too worried about repeated use of a power guaranteeing shutting down of an opponent. (Sidenote, the sheer number of automatic damage moves makes minions a little too easy).
as for halflings and other small races doing less damage... um, yeah, thats the way it should be. lets face it, if you were val kilmer and warwick davis came at you with a halfling sword, you'd laugh at him.
I don't believe I'm still commenting on this, but Warwick Davis could probably kill an unarmed Val Kilmer with a sword. Most people don't know how to kick worth beans and he has to bend down to punch or grab him. In any case he's exposing a limb and reducing his mobility. For that matter, even if Val Kilmer had a sword, he might find it hard to fight someone that much smaller. In real life, I'd worry about my life against an eight year old with a knife, and so should you. I'm not a whimp, but one decent slice or stab in a variety of places and you will die or bleed out quickly. If you have a weapon or know how to fight, size isn't that big a deal. And in a fantasy setting, you can set whatever rules you want.
For example:
A level 3 encounter power deals 1d10 + ability modifier damage. (DMG p. 42, Normal Damage Expression)
You can add the following "at no cost"(1)
* Push opponent number of squares equal to your secondary ability score
* Slow opponent until end of his next turn
* etc.
You can add the following by reducing the damage to 1d6 + ability modifier damage. (DMG p. 42, Low Damage Expression) (2)
* Close blast 3
* Close burst 1
* Knock opponent prone
* Immobilize opponent until the end of your next turn
* etc.
(1) Once you reach a certain level, an effect would be a "no cost" ability. For example, "Push" might be a Level 1 Encounter effect. Because you exceed the level, it's a "no cost" ability.
(2) A "reduced effect" would be an ability that you have the minimum level to use, but not the frequency. For example, Close burst 1 might be a Level 3 Daily effect. You can use it on a level 3 power, but if it is an at-will or encounter, you have to take a reduced damage effect.
1) The "Powers" gone for good.
2) Monster "format" kept as in 4e, it's very easy to use and helpful for the DM.
3) Removing the "you slide your opponent 3 squares" rubbish. It's immensely annoying.
4) Removing Minions. It's an idiotic idea. Just think of it, it's just a statistical impossibility (imagine a minon going through childhood never suffering ANY injury, now imagine reching level 30 without EVER receiving any injury!). Then they meet the pcs...and they die in one hit! Who is the genious who thought about that? I'd say it's statistically impossible to hit them!
5) Restoring Magic. OK, make it more balanced than 3rd edition, but not as futile as 4e.
6) Adjusting monsters HP. No more 3rd level solo monster with 300 HP. People coming up with these ideas should be castrated (sorry for my french). :P
7) Making Classes independent of magical items (i.e. making them 100% functional without magical items, but having a magical item would mean you have something MORE than usual). I don't like the idea of a wizard needing his Harry Potter wand just to be able to hit a monster of equal level.
8) Removing Labels attached to classes. My Fighter is not a defender. My fighter is someone that pushes the wizard in front of the group of monsters because he wants to prove that mages are weaklings! And if the bastard is too injured he runs like a coward, he doesn't stay there to "defend" if he doesn't want to, nor he is taking aggro for the sake of others. Who do you think he is? A crash test dummy? And certainly he isn't getting orders from any WotC labeled "Leader" either!
9) Wizards are not controllers, but they can do everything. If they choose to be controllers, it should be because they developed their spellbook over many years in a certain way, not because it's in the class description.
10) No variable BAB for multiple attacks. Keep combat simple!!
11) Restore the 20 level system and then add some REAL Epic content. 4th edition just has stretched the 20 levels into 30. Epic content is certainly not there. (Shame on WotC for conning us on that!)
12) Put back in the Role Playing elements in the game. That would be...craft skills! and give suggestions (as in the DMG II v.3.5) for how to run magical and non-magical business ventures.
13) Release the package ASAP
))What I would like to see in the 5th Edition?
1) The "Powers" gone for good.
If you offer a better alternative, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I stick to my much more interesting 4E fighter, I got tired of non-caster characters being unable to do anything but the most basic things in combat (and out of it too, specially once the casters where high enough level as to start teleporting, flying, becoming invisible, etc. Ruining all the challenge the game could have)
2) Monster "format" kept as in 4e, it's very easy to use and helpful for the DM.
Agreed with that, stat blocks are extremely easy to handle.
3) Removing the "you slide your opponent 3 squares" rubbish. It's immensely annoying.
Hasn't bothered me at all so far, and I always found a "fluff" explanation to all he powers that do that, but I see how it could be annoying, so I don't mind if it's taken away.
4) Removing Minions. It's an idiotic idea. Just think of it, it's just a statistical impossibility (imagine a minon going through childhood never suffering ANY injury, now imagine reching level 30 without EVER receiving any injury!). Then they meet the pcs...and they die in one hit! Who is the genious who thought about that? I'd say it's statistically impossible to hit them!
You just don't understand the mechanic of minions, don't you? It's not that they really have 1 hit point, hit points are an abstraction, not a measure of how much blood or chunks of meat you can lose before being killed.
Their single hit point, only means that the slightest damage from a PC kills them, I certainly can imagine a minion going through childhood, and even reaching level 30 (Which btw, is another abstraction, I seriously doubt monsters need actual xp to level up) without EVER receiving any injuries, from a HERO, which is just what PCs are.
5) Restoring Magic. OK, make it more balanced than 3rd edition, but not as futile as 4e.
Haven' used rituals that much in our games yet, so I couldn't say if it's borked or not. I prefer it to some of the 3.5 game-ruining magic anyways.
6) Adjusting monsters HP. No more 3rd level solo monster with 300 HP. People coming up with these ideas should be castrated (sorry for my french). :P
Again, we're talking about abstract game mechanics, if a monster has to be though enough as to put up an interesting fight against five 3rd level PCs, he has to last longer than just two or three rounds. If an ordinary party has two strikers, they can easily be dealing an average of let's say... 37 damage per round to the solo monster (assuming a ranger and a rogue, both with 20 in their damage-increasing stats, +1 weapons, and feats boosting their hunter's quarry and sneak attack features), you have three more chars adding some more damage to the mix, to be conservative, let's say a crappy average of 7 points each one. So you have a total of almost 60 points of damage per round, and just by using basic attacks, not even at-wills. That makes the Solo last an average of 5 rounds, against a party far less than optimized.
7) Making Classes independent of magical items (i.e. making them 100% functional without magical items, but having a magical item would mean you have something MORE than usual). I don't like the idea of a wizard needing his Harry Potter wand just to be able to hit a monster of equal level.
Would be good to have something like that some day, I think 4E s a big step in that direction since 3.5 anyways.
8) Removing Labels attached to classes. My Fighter is not a defender. My fighter is someone that pushes the wizard in front of the group of monsters because he wants to prove that mages are weaklings! And if the bastard is too injured he runs like a coward, he doesn't stay there to "defend" if he doesn't want to, nor he is taking aggro for the sake of others. Who do you think he is? A crash test dummy? And certainly he isn't getting orders from any WotC labeled "Leader" either!
If you want it, your character doesn't even needs to be a fighter, you can just call him a warrior, swordsman, or whatever you like. And as well just ignore altogether the role labels, that happen to be there just for reference, or do you see any place in your character sheet where hey make you write if you are a defender or a striker?
9) Wizards are not controllers, but they can do everything. If they choose to be controllers, it should be because they developed their spellbook over many years in a certain way, not because it's in the class description.
Again, it just says controller, it's not that you're forced to be one, there's quite enough variety in spells at each level (and that's just in the basic handbook) as to make your wizard a single-target ray-spamming striker-like caster if you don't like the controller label. And If you want even more variety and specialization, as to make it more obvious that your character developes his spellbook in a certain way, just check some of the articles that have been appearing in the Dragon magazine since 4E got published.
10) No variable BAB for multiple attacks. Keep combat simple!!
The old system didn't bothered me, but neither does the new one, so I'm with you, if both things are good, let's better keep the simpler one.
11) Restore the 20 level system and then add some REAL Epic content. 4th edition just has stretched the 20 levels into 30. Epic content is certainly not there. (Shame on WotC for conning us on that!)
I'll agree with you that the Epic about levels 21-30, isn't at all comparable to 3.5's Epic, but as I wasn't too fond of how exagerated things were at epic level in 3.5, I really don't mind that much.
12) Put back in the Role Playing elements in the game. That would be...craft skills! and give suggestions (as in the DMG II v.3.5) for how to run magical and non-magical business ventures.
Role playing has nothing to do with crafting IMO, and this is coming from someone whose 3.5 characters have entered one-day long fishing tournaments (with house-ruled skills), so it's not like I despise non-combat adventures. But if you're annoyed by the lack of craft, I suppose it can be easily solved with craft feats or something like that, within the current system.
13) Release the package ASAP
Aren't the release dates scheduled already?
Having said all that, I'll add that I hope 4E has a long lasting life of enjoyment before we even hear mention of a 5th edition (or a 4.5).
I was going to comment on just a few of your points, but I decided to give my opinionon all of them, so I wouldn't seem so negative about them.)
Thanks for your opinion, it's always welcome to receive new ideas/other points of view given in a nice way.
If you offer a better alternative, I'm all ears. Otherwise, I stick to my much more interesting 4E fighter, I got tired of non-caster characters being unable to do anything but the most basic things in combat (and out of it too, specially once the casters where high enough level as to start teleporting, flying, becoming invisible, etc. Ruining all the challenge the game could have)
I agree that it's always been boring to have a fighter before ("what do you do? I attack!!" being the only thing you could ever do), however the way the powers were presented in 4e left me with the impression that I somehow had to enter "combat-mode" to attack, and somehow I felt it restrictive. I know, it's somehow psychological, but I would have prefered, for example, to attach special abilities to my basic attack, rather than have just special attacks. [I hope this makes sense]
As for abilities "out of combat" these were somehow removed completely from the game thus making caster classes much less interesting (IMO).
Hasn't bothered me at all so far, and I always found a "fluff" explanation to all he powers that do that, but I see how it could be annoying, so I don't mind if it's taken away.
Ok, the "you slide the oppenent" thing is kinda personal. I just had to DM an encounter with loads of kobolds and the amount of processing it added to the combat was quite bad, and me and my group didn't like it at all.
You just don't understand the mechanic of minions, don't you? It's not that they really have 1 hit point, hit points are an abstraction, not a measure of how much blood or chunks of meat you can lose before being killed.
Their single hit point, only means that the slightest damage from a PC kills them, I certainly can imagine a minion going through childhood, and even reaching level 30 (Which btw, is another abstraction, I seriously doubt monsters need actual xp to level up) without EVER receiving any injuries, from a HERO, which is just what PCs are.
Hmm, ok, here is my explanation of HP:
HP indicate both damage the body can withstand from physical damage AND your ability to dodge (avoid) it. So basically, when you grow in levels, your HPs grow too, because you become more hardy (more used to be beaten, by a little bit) but also you become much better at avoiding being hit. So overall it's a mix of Fatigue and Physical Health.
And, as you might understand from this explanation the minion's 1 hp doesn't fit in. I guess a more appropriate thing would be to have them having HP = 1 hit (instead of 1 hp), but anyway.....
Haven' used rituals that much in our games yet, so I couldn't say if it's borked or not. I prefer it to some of the 3.5 game-ruining magic anyways.
I was talking more about how magic is organized in general (I mean spells, spellbooks etc) rather than specific spells. I agree with you, many spells were game breaking, and i agree with the 4e concept of removing certain things like "save or die". I just didn't like the final approach (i.e. transforming spells into powers, which is the thing that bugs me the most).
Again, we're talking about abstract game mechanics, if a monster has ....
Ok, i didn't want to repeat all your section. What I was trying to say, it's not only that Solo monsters have excessive HP, but that ALL monsters have excessive HP (including normals and Elites). This came from playing against many groups of normal monsters....it felt as if all monsters were very hardy, as if the difficulty level of the game was "a bit too hard", while I never had this problem in previous editions. I mention this because after killing a monster no-one in my group felt any satisfaction, but rather felt like it took an excessive amount of time and effort to kill a same level normal monster.
If you want it, your character doesn't even needs to be a fighter, you can just call him a warrior, swordsman, or whatever you like. And as well just ignore altogether the role labels, that happen to be there just for reference, or do you see any place in your character sheet where hey make you write if you are a defender or a striker?
Ok, here I will not agree with you. I mean, given the way characters have been designed (in terms of abilities and powers) you are virtually forced to use the character in a certain way, because he can't do anything else. For example, the wizard, can you really use it in any other way but as a controller? ok, maybe for now there are not enough spells yet out there to see much choice, but in genereal i felt wizards as greatly underpowered, and not being able to choose powerful single target spells.
Role playing has nothing to do with crafting IMO, and this is coming from someone whose 3.5 characters have entered one-day long fishing tournaments (with house-ruled skills), so it's not like I despise non-combat adventures. But if you're annoyed by the lack of craft, I suppose it can be easily solved with craft feats or something like that, within the current system.
Ok, I was not confusing crafting with RPing ;)
It's just a general feeling I got from the game (4e i mean). It feels so combat oriented that I felt like play a complex version of chess rather than a proper RPG. This, plus taking away non combat spells and some non combat skills disappointed me.
Aren't the release dates scheduled already?
)) PS: I hope I said the word OK a sufficient number of times in my post
Nearly no player is interested in the price list anymore after he has earned his first 500g in 2nd level. In 3rd level after 1000g, he can easily buy a dozen plate armor or 15 chain armor. (not that this makes any sense but he could do it)
So I am asking. What sense makes standard item pricelists in 4e for non-1st level players?
In other roleplaying games like stormbringer or warhammer pricelists are really important. Not so in 4e. Was this the same in 3e?
Another question is: Because of the ridicolousness of price lists in D&D 4 for standard items like plate armor should they exist at all in 5e? Or should the players just pay a simple level based "flat-rate for dungeon equipment"?
What I would like to see in the 5th Edition?
12) Put back in the Role Playing elements in the game. That would be...craft skills! and give suggestions (as in the DMG II v.3.5) for how to run magical and non-magical business ventures.
Really?
You're that RP-challenged without craft skills?
Really?
You're that RP-challenged without craft skills?
RP elements....like craft skills...
You just have to ROLE-PLAY them. :rolleye2:
I think it was fine. You don't need a class if you are not going to get into combat. Those classes were just there to show average poeple have skill but little combat ability. Outside of combat, they probably just need a few skill modifiers for stats. In combat, you can do an NPC write-up or just use a monster manual entry.
It's like eliminating Craft and Profession skills. It's not that people don't have them, it's that it's not realy needed for the game.
I would like to see the NPC classes brought back... it was actually one of my favorite part of 3e. I never liked 0 level NPCs from previous editions. Maybe NPC classes that are REALLY weak and can only go up to like 5th level... Craftsman, Merchant, Scholar, etc... It helped me flesh out the campaign setting.
Also Stats on normal animals... probably all minions but still...
Heavier armor makes it harder to hit your soft flesh it encased, unless we're talking touch attack, which basically ignores your armor.
Even though you're wearing armor, it only provide protection against your own skin.
Well that would depend on your interpretation of what 'hit' means. When someone swings a sword and 'hits' a target, connecting with the armor (or any other part of the target) is what is meant by 'hit'. It most certainly does not mean that you missed. So then the armor, to quote you again, "only provide protection against your own skin." This would indeed mean that you are harder to hurt not hit.
I hope that clarifies what I (and others) mean when we say that armor should reduce the amount of damage you take from a 'hit'.
If this is beating a dead horse, please fell free to ignore.
I don't want to cross post so if you are interested in thoughts on this subject (mine and others) see my post here:
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=16617192&postcount=28
For example, a close wave 5 could start out aiming at a space on the character's right, then each additional spot could be either straight right, up-and-right, or down-and-right from the previous space (and blocking terrain would stop the blast). Much like pushing, the effect does not have to extend the full length.
The main reason for this rule version is to compliment the current rule set, avoid waiting time figuring out the area covered, and make avoiding hitting allies relatively easy. Also, it avoids using the very flexible wall rules, and having more grokable options that still set some limitations is good.
Any comments? Or does anybody else got any ideas for additional attack forms? Or conditions?
I will qualify now, by saying I don't really like 4th ed. It "seems" streamlined and all that, but really it should have been rebuilt from the ground up... rather than trying to put a nice Chevy body on a Dodge chassis (for those ok with "car" annologies- ?)
Anyways, before people were saying that the model for 4th ed. was Star Wars Saga Ed.... and I didn't particularly like Saga Ed. Now I'm wishing that DID make it more like that, because I find 4th ed. quite disfunctional as is. There's a lot less choice than before, and most of it superficial at best. Combat seems streamlined, but in truth still takes forever (at least in 3.5 I knew it well and combat actually went faster). For all the pluses that people spout off at me... I can point out as many faults. However, that has nothing to do with my suggestion.
I suggest that they start from scratch, and now - because it will take forever to come up with a good system. And then once you get it good, then publish it and sell it as fast as you can...
I mean, please, medieval armor is not that effective against a knife.
IOW, it doesn't really make any difference for a knifefighter if he fights someone in armour or not?
1) You have slots for your encounter and daily powers.
2) You are allowed to multi-class as in 3e.
Otherwise, I think that 4e is a good system, and shouldn't be replaced by 5e too soon.
Have the core rules release in only one book. Perhaps the best D&D core ruleset ever released is the Basic Rules Cyclopedia. Everything you need in one decently-formatted book.
Take it out of WotC's hands.
Once we see what that company does with 5th, then I might be able to supply ideas for 6th edition when a decent company has D&D.
Healing surge crap and overnight insta-heal crap must go completely.
If most non-combat spells could be moved to rituals that anyone could use but cost money, that other non-adventuring elements shouldn't be that hard to throw on the side.
I think to start off controller's need some core ability to tie them together. I've seen at least partial material on three leaders (cleric, warlord, artificer) and they all have a similar healing ability, all strikers (ranger, rogue, warlock)have a way to do extra damage to a single target, and all defenders (fighter, paladin, swordmage) have a way to mark foes. And all these core role abilities do not use a standard action, so they can be done in addition to attacking.
Controllers should have something similar. The role is supposed to cover area and control offense. It's a bit hard to make features focused on the damage output because then you have to be careful not to step on the toes of the powers and the striker role. It would most likely be an ability to do splash damage or make mini flame walls.There are several good control type options that are okay round after round. In fact, several of these suggestion are similar to monster powers.
A) The ability to slide 1 space any creature hit by a class power.
B) A class feature at-will minor action attack that slides a target one space on a hit (bigby's shoving hand). This could be used to get a creature in a better spot for an area attack, or place it where it will be flanked, or put an ally into a flanking spot.
C) Minor action that gives a target -2 on saves.
D) A minor action that changes a one turn effect into a save ends effect, or makes the effect last one extra turn.
E) A minor action that adds a terrain feature to 4 unoccupied spaces with 4 spaces or the controller. This is a pretty good one because the range, number of spaces, and type of terrain effect can change based on class and be modified by feats and paragon path features. One class might make terrain difficult and obscuring, another might make it slippery like ice, and another might make the ground sprout pillars that provide cover and are difficult terrain. A feat or paragon feature might make creatures in the square take damage, or slide them around, or make an attack roll to apply a condition like ongoing damage, blind or slow.
F) class feature at-will minor action attack that applies a condition like slow or dazed until end of turn.
I think if I had to choose I would pick option E for the controllers core feature, but the other choices make decent options for individual classes.