D&D 4E What I'd Like to See in D&D® 4e

[s/LaSH]

I agree that's a problem, but I think it's less strange than the 15th level wizard who takes a level in fighter and suddenly learns how to use every armor and shield type known, and most weapons as well.

The 15th-level wizard who's been involved in vicious melee for most of his/her professional life, probably ambushed by thugs several times, likely caused some large amount of death just with a dagger, and spends most of his/her time hanging out with some of the most skilled warriors in the land? Personally, I find it stranger that a 1st-level fighter has all that knowledge with so much less experience.

No, seriously. It occurs to me that this would change the flavour in some ways, but it might very well fix some other things:

Everyone starts out with simple weapon proficiency. Some classes get light armour proficiency.

Thereafter, there are feat chains available to upgrade your proficiencies, and fighters get plenty such bonus feats. But everyone starts off only capable of using weak weapons. The fighters will eventually be able to use longswords, then greatswords, then maybe mercurial thingamajiggers - but they'll need to work towards it rather than getting it all at the very start. Presto, tangible character growth from small-leagues to big-leagues. It makes learning to use your first real sword a proper game moment, rather than an aspect of backstory.

There'd need to be some rebalancing, of course, but it's not as bad as it sounds; at higher levels, especially, a fighter will still be getting multiple attacks with unspecialised weapons, and still have the highest AB in the party.

Well, that's just an idea I got while responding... how's it sound?

 

[Romnipotent]

an odd similarity to Gurps 3rd Ed

Classless system with all manners of stuffs

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Memorize loads of spell information? Have you never heard of note cards or anything?

I can somewhat see how a person could have a problem, but how many spells do your players use that you have to look things up constantly? How many spells does each player use?

Here's an example. Seven players, level 14-16, facing a major combat.

The party had a wizard, a druid and a sorcerer. The sorcerer (15th-level) knew 33 spells, mostly PHB with a few Forgotten Realms ones that suited her specialty (shadow magic), the wizard (14th-level) knew a good portion of the PHB sor/wiz spells, and the druid (14th-level) knew both the PHB spells and the Complete Divine spells. The boss enemy was a wizard.

Player one (Ranger/d20 Modern Soldier) directs the offense with his tactical aid, +4 bonus to hit for the party. Time: 0:05
Player two (Barbarian) rages and charges the nearest enemy, a construct. Time: 0:10 seconds.
Player three (Sorcerer) casts shadow conjuration, but wanted shadow evocation, heightened, and looked it up to tell the difference, and then how it interacted with non-mindless constructs. Then cast, getting a fireball effect for partial damage. Time: 1:55
Player four (Fighter/Rifleman) uses a full attack against a construct. Time: 0:20
Player five (Wizard) casts Cone of Cold. Calculates its area. GM recalculates its area. GM calculates four different damages (one for construct that doesn't save, one for construct that saves, one for non-construct that doesn't save, one for non-construct that does). Time: 1:20
Player six (Druid) wants to cast Fire Seeds. Looks it up. Casts it. The GM freaks out at its effects and demands to see it. He looks it up. Rereads it. Says it'll never be allowed again, relents after argument. Druid player mutters about using Quill Blast instead Time: 2:00
Player seven (Rogue) tumbles past the constructs to get in AoO range of the enemy wizard. Time: 0:05

The next round, the spellcasters started using non-direct-damage spells and things got even more complex. I'd estimate that in a typical encounter, between eight and sixteen different spells are used, usually with varying effects on multiple targets, often with lingering effects.

The longest I've seen a non-spellcaster take is a ranged full attacker with a lot of buffs, a miss chance and two pistols (rapid shot, haste, two-weapon fighting), just because of the number of attacks that had to be rolled and the different plusses for the two weapons. And that still probably took about half as long as the AVERAGE spellcaster's turn.

 

[Kanegrundar]

I gotta go with Moogle on this. Spellcasting can get to be an arduous task to keep up with. However, it's been like that since 1E, so I've learned to cope. Still, sometimes it makes my head hurt!

Kane

 

[Ranger REG]

I agree for the most part. The revision to 3.5, while a pain at the time did clean up some areas of the game that needed it. Therefore, I hope that when 4E does appear, it's more of a revision that a total reworking. I barely get a chance to play enough to warrant buying book for the game that I do play, so I'm not interested in a buying rehashed books of what I already have for a system that I may not even play.

I don't question the content of the revised material, for the most part. I just question the timing. Personally, by this year 2005, would be appropriate to release a 3.5e revision, not 2003.

In fact, I couldn't calm my conspiracy theorist's mind that wonders if WotC already had the revised material drafted just before the ink in the 3.0e PHB dries.

I can't help but be fearful that we will see 4e next year. If that is the case, I have no choice but to retire my PnP RPG hobby, because it is much cheaper to buy CRPG. I mean, if WotC dishes out new version of the D&D every 2 years or so, then it's no different than videogame releases.

 

[ptolemy18]

Here's an example. Seven players, level 14-16, facing a major combat....The party had a wizard, a druid and a sorcerer. The sorcerer (15th-level) knew 33 spells, mostly PHB with a few Forgotten Realms ones that suited her specialty (shadow magic), the wizard (14th-level) knew a good portion of the PHB sor/wiz spells, and the druid (14th-level) knew both the PHB spells and the Complete Divine spells. The boss enemy was a wizard.

[lengthy rundown of spellcasting characters' long turns deleted]

The next round, the spellcasters started using non-direct-damage spells and things got even more complex..

Whatcha gonna do? Any class with any kind of "spell-like abilities" -- arcane spellcasters, divine spellcasters, and psionicists -- naturally takes more time than a character with less options. The more options you have, the longer it takes to play it out. Just because some characters have complicated rules doesn't mean you should reduce the number of options -- like saying "All wizards should only be able to cast one spell" or something like that. :/ Wow, sounds like a blast. :/

Anyway, in my experience, *all* high-level combat takes a loooong time, unless the DM is intentionally rushing things along with a time limit. True, it's especially bad for spellcasters, but it's that way even for fighter types. It's all an endless succession of "But if I take a 5-foot step HERE, I'll be able to do THIS... hmm... no, wait a minute... no, I'll put _2_ points in Power Attack..."

Jason

 

[Tetsubo]

If the class-based system is to remain (and I have no doubt that it will), I'd like to see the reinforcement of archetypes that those classes represent.

The Barbarian is fine. The only change I'd make is to rename the class to Berserker instead. Sure, they could switch some abilities around, but nothing major is needed, because the class works.

The Bard got better with 3.5E, but it's still not clear that the class represents a "jack of all trades" archetype. I'd increase the HD to d8, remove all alignment restrictions, and find some way to allow bards to mimic other class abilities (similar, but not the same, as the recently presented chameleon prestige class).

The Cleric needs to loose Heavy Armor Proficiency. As far as spells go, I'd like to see both clerics and wizards utilize a system similar to AU. To stay in line with their current abilities, cure/inflict spells would always be considered "prepared."

The Druid archetype needs to be reinforced by adding the wildshape ability from 1st level. To balance it out, each druid would have a limited list of shapes he can turn into. Also, the druid should probably be a spontaneous caster with a limited list of spells known (excluding all summon nature's ally spells, which they'd get for free).

Nothing wrong with the Fighter other than the lack of high-level feats. There should be a feat chain that allows a fighter to be as good in unarmed combat as a monk (if not better).

Monks need to loose the unnecessary alignment and multiclassinjg restrictions.

Paladin. Ugh. Although my first impulse is to drop the class altogether and make it a PrC (as I have done IMC), I understand that many people like the archetype and think it is fit for a base class. Rename it to Champion, and allow Champions of different alignments, with slightly different abilities and flavor.

The Ranger is currently not a master of wilderness combat, which is what he should be. Something needs to be done, perhaps along the lines of incorporating some Complete Adventurer Scout abilities into the ranger class (such as the bonus to AC when on the move). Spontaneous spellcasting (as druids).

The Rogue is fine as a master of skills and stealth.

Sorcerer is the most controversial class of 3.x. To divorce it even further from the wizard, I'd take the Complete Arcane Warlock, drop the alignment restrictions, and rename it sorcerer.

Wizard: see cleric.

These are some great ideas. Thank you.

 

[fusangite]

I would like to see change in four areas:

1. Alignment: This is an embarassing relic from 1E that desperately requires either elimination or radical reform.
2. Armour Class: Again, an attempt to preserve a 1E term and concept that is really out of date and again, internally inconsistent. We need to separate the landing of blows from the damage those blows do within the mechanics of the game.
3. Hit Points: Once again, D&D's heritage focus is keeping a really inappropriate relic in the rules. In this respect, 3E is worse than 1E with absolutely no diminishing returns as characters' hit points increase to utterly inhuman levels.
4. Skills: The 3E skills system is excellent so why not use it to run combat as well as non-combat actions? There is no reason that weapon use, grappling and other combat skills cannot be rolled into this mechanic.

 

[Verequus]

Here's an example. Seven players, level 14-16, facing a major combat.

The party had a wizard, a druid and a sorcerer. The sorcerer (15th-level) knew 33 spells, mostly PHB with a few Forgotten Realms ones that suited her specialty (shadow magic), the wizard (14th-level) knew a good portion of the PHB sor/wiz spells, and the druid (14th-level) knew both the PHB spells and the Complete Divine spells. The boss enemy was a wizard.

[lengthy rundown of spellcasting characters' long turns deleted]

The next round, the spellcasters started using non-direct-damage spells and things got even more complex. I'd estimate that in a typical encounter, between eight and sixteen different spells are used, usually with varying effects on multiple targets, often with lingering effects.

The solution is a universal damage mechanic for all spells, at least for the main parts. You need mostly the number of damage dice, the range, the area of effect and the saves to know what the effects are - the distinction of the spells are the flavor descriptions.

"You feel the searing flames on your skin, where they leave only burned flesh."

"You feel coldness fueling your soul, trying to rip it apart."

The difference between the spells? Two different damage types, nothing else. Elements of Magic Revised does it already.

 

[Kanegrundar]

I don't question the content of the revised material, for the most part. I just question the timing. Personally, by this year 2005, would be appropriate to release a 3.5e revision, not 2003.

In fact, I couldn't calm my conspiracy theorist's mind that wonders if WotC already had the revised material drafted just before the ink in the 3.0e PHB dries.

I can't help but be fearful that we will see 4e next year. If that is the case, I have no choice but to retire my PnP RPG hobby, because it is much cheaper to buy CRPG. I mean, if WotC dishes out new version of the D&D every 2 years or so, then it's no different than videogame releases.

I agree. While I don't really think that 3.5 was already penned when 3.0 hit the shelves, I think the idea was to release the game, let us really dig in and find the stuff that needs to be changed and then hit us with 3.5.

I'd like to see them wait until at least 2008 - 2010 before the release of 4E, and maybe not even until then. If they do come out with a whole new edition that isn't really compatible with 3.5...well, I guess I've got more than enough to keep me gaming for a long time to come.

Kane