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

[reanjr]

But D&D is about characters rising from wimpiness to superheroic Epic-level awesomeness. So D&D should have levels.

Having levels and having uber-powerful characters are mutually exclusive. You can have levels that grant skill points only. That's not going to make anyone uber-powerful. On the other hand, you can increase your strength and BAB to epic numbers and not use levels to do so.

Levels are all about packages (usually quaintly referred to as archetypes). Not having levels makes it so that your hand is not forced into making archetypes. And yet a non-leveled system can still support archetypes. So that's certainly not a downfall.

 

[Sanackranib]

what I would most like to see is a MANDATORY 5 year period before a concept is even come up with followed by a 5 year EXTENSIVE playtesting of said concept prior to an actual release date.

3.0 had problems - way to many problems - it shouldnt have even been released until they were fixed. now we have 3.5 which basicly is D&D 7.0 (if you started back with basic d&d like I did). thats a lot of cash in obslote books . . . . 2nd ed (skills & powers) to 3.0 was a long time coming. AD&D to 2nd ed. even longer.

designers take note: there are a lot of us out here who dont wanna have to learn a new d&d system every couple years.

 

[ptolemy18]

That's easy enough. When you cast another charm person, the old one dispels automatically. Fly can simply be increased in level and require concentration of some kind. Teleport can take a long time to cast. Wall of Stone has a non-instantaneous duration.

Ugh. I'd rather cast a limited number of cool, weird, interesting spells per day than cast an infinite number of lame, excessively game-balanced spells. They already nerfed way too many of my favorite spells in 3.5 (Polymorph Other-->Baleful Polymorph, Haste, Fly, the Summon Monster lists...) :/

I think Vancian memorization systems, sorceror systems, and point-based psionics systems can coexist peacefully. That's how they're coexisting now, after all. There's something for everybody.

What I DON'T want to see is all spells reduced to some kind of generic pool of magic effects with no "flavor." Gag me with an "Evard's Black Tentacles."

An interesting poll would be to see which is the most-played (and thus presumably most popular) spellcasting classes.

Jason

 

[ptolemy18]

Having levels and having uber-powerful characters are mutually exclusive. You can have levels that grant skill points only. That's not going to make anyone uber-powerful. On the other hand, you can increase your strength and BAB to epic numbers and not use levels to do so.

Levels are all about packages (usually quaintly referred to as archetypes). Not having levels makes it so that your hand is not forced into making archetypes. And yet a non-leveled system can still support archetypes. So that's certainly not a downfall.

Don't you think the improved multiclassing rules in 3.0/3.5 sort of eliminates the old "restrictiveness" of levels? When I look at all the classes and prestige classes that are available, and all the different combinations that are possible, I'm always impressed by how much can be done with the existing system. The very distinctness and specificness of the different classes and prestige classes, while sometimes verging on the ridiculous, is a toolbox of inspiring ideas to use in building your character. While some inexperienced players will think that every Oozemaster is alike, an experienced player can probably come up with several different character backgrounds using the Oozemaster prestige class...

Here's another, and I think better, argument. Levels are a convenient way of measuring, well, power level, frankly. D&D has always been, and I think should always be, a game where there are clear distinctions between different power levels. It's not the kind of game where you can have a generic adventure module that's suitable for either beginning or experienced characters (like you find in, say, Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu). A 13th level D&D party is going to be handling vastly different things from a 1st level D&D party -- probably in terms of general mood and role-playing opportunities, as well as sheer toughness of monsters.

Aside from that, though... I think non-level-based systems appeal primarily to more experienced role-players who have been around the block and like to experiment and tinker. If you look at the majority of computer RPGs, video-game RPGs and online RPGs, most of them use a level- and class-based system. Granted, that's only one of many reasons that EVERQUEST (for example) is more popular than ULTIMA ONLINE (for example). But it's something which is familiar and successful. I mean, there's nothing stopping D&D from branching out into something entirely different and experimental, but I don't know if the appropriate reaction is "Everyone is imitating us, so we must be doing something wrong!".

jason

 

[Plane Sailing]

3.0 had problems - way to many problems - it shouldnt have even been released until they were fixed.

Interesting that is your feeling about it. Personally I think the large amount of playtesting which did happen (more than any version of D&D before or since) helped make the large number of changes (we sometimes forget just how vast the change were) pretty smooth. Sure there were some bugs in the system, but way too many problems? Sure wasn't my experience!

Cheers

 

[The Sophist]

Just thought of another thing I'd like to see changed (but won't).

10) big reduction in unnecessary complexity.

....

I agree 100 percent: both that I would like to see this (and that it won't happen).

 

[Turanil]

I want before all a new layout and whole new artists, with art which looks less "vanilla fantasy" (i.e.: a paladin looks like a real Arthurian knight, not what they have done with this ranger looking cartoon like girl). I want a style, a feel, something special.

And I also want "big reduction in unnecessary complexity."

 

[Sammael]

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.

 

[Ranger REG]

designers take note: there are a lot of us out here who dont wanna have to learn a new d&d system every couple years.

If you're referring to the revision, then I agree with you.

 

[Kanegrundar]

If you're referring to the revision, then I agree with you.

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.

Kane