Everyone else was picking on your list, I might as well too
.
Gothmog said:
My gaming group was brainstorming last night, and wondering what kind of changes people would like to see in 3.5/4E. I was wondering what people thought of some of our ideas, and what they would like to see included. Here's our list:
1) A move away from the focus on numbers and min/maxing characters. All versions of D&D have been bad about this to some degree, but 3E is the worst by far. Its a role-playing game, not roll-playing.
A move away from numbers how? The game itself is not more centered on combat and min-maxing, only the way certain people play it. My group could care less about smackdowns and power plays. Not that they're the best roleplayers in the world or anything, just casual gamers.
2) Feats that have something to do with anything but combat. Background feats were a great idea- now run with it and give us some truly inspired feats.
Background feats - like the regional stuff in FR? Don't like it, you get the opposite effect. Players don't make a character from X area and choose Y feat, they want Y feat and so make the character from X area.
But in general more RP centered feats would be a good thing.
3) Get rid of the silly automatic proficiency with weapons per class. Just give fighters 2 extra skill points per level; clerics, rogues, paladins, barbarians, and rangers one extra skill point per level; and no extra skill points per level for wizards, sorcerers, druids, and bards. Then spend a skill point to learn a weapon, or 3 or 4 skill points to learn a whole group of weapons (like axes, or short blades). Spending a feat to pick up a weapon outside your suggested list is just a plain stupid thing for a character to do- end result is that all characters of certain classes take the same weapons. Boring.
Disagree completely. The old system was clunky and made no sense. I'm a master of the battle axe but daggers confuse me? Maybe you're putting too much into 'proficiency'. If you read 'has basic familiarity with' instead of 'extensively trained' it makes more sense.
4) Ditch the XP by CR thing completely and either go back to giving a set # of XP per monster, or better yet- don't reward killing things, but actually role-playing and overcoming obstacles, solving mysteries, etc.
That's how I like to play, but D&D stands on the foundation of casual gamers killing monsters and taking their stuff. The CR system works well for them. I could go with some more on using freeform XP instead.
5) A WP/VP optional system in the PHB/DMG. It wouldn't be hard at all to fit it in.
Nope. Don't like it, doesn't make things much more realistic IMHO. Grim n' Gritty hit points does this better.
6) Suggestions in the DMG for how to run low-magic or non-magic games, as well as horror based fantasy.
W3rd
7) Get rid of that silly treasure worth by level chart in the DMG, or at least clearly state it is optional. Its a nice guideline for DMs to use if they want to have the standard magic level, but players take that silly thing as gospel, and get irate if they don't have X much GP worth of items by Y level.
I'd have them note that this is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule. I'd also have them note that if you're using the CR system and not freeform, by reducing the amount of money and/or magic in the campaign you should increase the XP given for killing monsters.
8) We have rules for critical hits, why not fumbles? Maybe if a natural 1 is rolled, the character makes a DC 15 or 20 Reflex save or he is considered flat-footed, drops a weapon, etc.
I've found that a natural 1 provokes an AoO is quick, elegant, and gives the right feel.
9) Make the DC for spells 10 + spell level + 1/2 character level. Makes more sense that an experienced caster's spells would be harder to resist, rather than just taking into account the base stat bonus.
What, you think DCs aren't high enough already? An experienced caster is already taken into account, in the spell level addition.
10) Get rid of the base cleric list of spells, and instead group ALL cleric spells by domain. Right now, all clerics are identical except for 2 domain spells per level. Thats just boring. With a little work, 5-8 spells could be fit into each level per domain, making more specialized clerics that were much more interesting. I've done it in my house rules, and it works wonderfully.
INteresting idea. I think I'd rather see a couple alt.cleric classes in there. Keep the Knight Templar(cleric) and Nature Priest(Druid), add in the Barbarian Shaman(I hear OA has a nice one) and something for a cloistered holy man.
11) This would be really cool: every so many levels, allow each class to pick 1 of 3 or 4 listed abilities that are level dependent, so each class can be more personalized to the character. Not feats, but actual core abilities of the class. Some of the prestiege classes in FFG's Path of books already do this, and I think its a wonderful idea. This is also extra incentive for a character to progress to high levels in a core class.
The rogue does this, and with their free feats the wizards and fighters arguably don't need it. For the rest of the classes it would make a great addition.
12) Resisting a disease/poison should be a simple Con check, with the Great Fortitude feat applicable as well. Why does level have anything to do with how resistant a person is to disease or poisons? As it is currently, poisons and diseases have no bite except to low level characters.
Um, use stronger poisons (higher DC)? The 'no bite' IME comes more from easy access to cures than higher saves.
