Discussion:What Do You Want to See in 4E?

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

What Do You Want to See in 4E?[edit]

Sledged-20070817135545

Sledged (talk)
2007 August 17 13:55 (MDT)

The title says it all, but specifically what changes would you like to see (no matter how realistic or unrealistic it may seem)?

I'd like to see psionics be more than just a point-based spellcasting system of mechanics. I miss the feel of 2E psionics, and so far the d20 system has yet to fill that void. However, Green Ronin's The Psychic's Handbook has come pretty damn close.

Also, I've never cared for the seemingly arbitrary assignment of spells to classes. Every supplement that introduces new spells only does it from the perspective of the core spellcasting classes. If I make a wu jen, there's no readily available mechanic for me to determine what spells in the Draconomicon are appropriate for the wu jen's spell list and what level they should be. I'd like to see the categorization of spells by class disappear and be replaced with categorization by arcane and divine. From this point each class would explicitly write out the criteria that a spell has to meet in order to be available for that class. Example: For the bard class I'd say something like:

A bard casts arcane spells from schools X, Y, and Z that have verbal components, they also cast cure spells, which, even though they are listed as divine spells, are cast as arcane spells. A bard cast spells with the language-dependent descriptor at a +1 caster level.

What would you like to see in 4E?

There's no better laugh than the one that you're ashamed to share with your mother.
Stephen Notley, creator of Bob the Angry Flower

MorkaisChosen 06:54, 19 August 2007 (MDT)[edit]

I want to see what they've done to make fighters worthwhile for something more than "a couple of levels for some extra feats before I hit [INSERT PRESTIGE CLASS HERE]." I know they're doing something, but I just hope it's good...

Mkill 08:15, 19 August 2007 (MDT)[edit]

I agree that class-specific spell lists should be a thing of the past. There should be only general spell descriptors, and for example the cleric is able to cast all spells with descriptor A, B and C, the bard with B and D, and the wizard all spells with C, F and G. Or something like that. So when there is a new spell, and it's a "C" spell, you know it's for clerics and wizards.

Asian-themed classes, weapons and other stuff

What I'd be interested in is what they planned with the monk class, and with all other Asian-themed material that is scattered somewhere through the book. For my tastes, they should gather it all and create one "Asian-themed" sourcebook, with appropriate classes, weapons, monsters, and some more general ideas to give a campaign or a part of a game world some Asian flavor. That's better than having a Ninja here and a Wu Jen there.

Pirate-Sorcerer 22:21, 19 August 2007 (MDT)[edit]

Here's some stuff I would like to see in 4th edition:

  • More Invocation-using classes: I want at least one core class that can use invocations and some 4th edition supplements that are dedicated to invocation-users, adding more classes (base and prestige), feats, monsters, races, and invocations (examples could be: The Expanded Eldritch Handbook, The Complete Innate, and The Invocation Compendium).
  • At least one core Warrior/Arcane Spellcaster hybrid base class: The addition of a core class that can fight good and use arcane spells would be a nice to see in 4th edition. They could probably make the duskblade and/or the hexblade core, or make a new class altogether.
  • A two-weapon fighting fix: The rules for two-weapon fighting needs to be reworked so that it is just as viable as other styles of fighting and takes up less feats to do effectively.
  • Reworking of several races: There are several races in Dnd that are underpowered, such as the half-orc and the half-elf, that do need to be reworked. In addition, I would like to see nonstandard races (such as goblins, kobolds, orcs, gnolls, and hobgoblins) built from the ground up as viable races rather than cannon fodder, and races with a level adjustment be actually worth the level adjustment given.
  • More guidelines/formulas for creating custom-made magic items: It would be nice to have more guidelines and formulas for setting the price for homebrewed magic items.
  • A free, online SRD for 4th edition: After all the core books come out, Wizards should make a online SRD just like the one they made for 3.5th edition so people can get the jest of the rules and see if the books are worth buying.
  • And finally, an end to:
  • Multiclassing penalties: Xp penalties for multiclassing should have been abandoned in 3rd edition. Enough said.
  • The whole idea that Necromancy/Undead/Negative Energy use is inherently evil: In Dnd, the current idea is that creating, summoning, or becoming undead is evil, regardless of the intention or the result of doing so. Frankly, I find this to be idiotic, so I want the following changes to happen:
  • 1) All spells that create/summon undead to lose the Evil descriptor unless they specifically summon/create an evil-aligned undead.
  • 2) Allow sentient undead to be of any alignment they want to be, and change the alignment of mindless undead to true neutral
  • 3) Have it so that whether a cleric channels negative or positive energy (and thus determining rebuke/turn undead and spontaneous casting of inflict or cure spells) be determined on the deity worshiped rather than alignment. For example, if a cleric of a god of death would channel negative energy, rebuke undead, and spontaneously cast inflict spells, even if the cleric is good-aligned, and a cleric of a god of healing would channel positive energy, turn undead, and spontaneously cast cure spells, even if the cleric is evil.
  • Alignment restrictions for classes: Frankly, I find that they tend to restrict roleplaying, and should be removed for all classes except the cleric.

Those are things that I hope to see in 4th edition.

Mkill 06:52, 20 August 2007 (MDT)[edit]

I do agree that 4th edition should see invocation classes. But they can keep their status as an alternative to arcane magic and be published in one of the first supplements, I don't want the PHB to be too stuffed. Since the Warlock fulfills the Skirmisher role now, it would be nice if they complement him with a melee invoker (kind of like my Overlord class and a party supporter invoker (like a Marshall with invocations). I'd also like to see a good-aligned version of the Warlock.

As for the 4.0 SRD, that was already confirmed.

I'm a bit iffy on the neutral necromancy thing. While this might be an interesting concept for a campaign / gameworld, in standard D&D Necromancy is evil. The sourcebooks should explain this better, but the general concept is okay. After all, most undead feed on the living (ghouls, vampires), spread disease (mummy) and they are generally a perversion of life. Btw., for an alternative "positive energy undead" see the Eberron Deathless.

What I do like to see is alternative powers to Turn Undead for clerics. Turning Undead just does not fit every deity.

Sam Kay 08:32, 20 August 2007 (MDT)[edit]

I also disagree with the neutral necromancy thing. Do you know what necromancy is? BLACK MAGIC essentially it IS THE black magic. Change that, and its not really the same if you make it neutral. There is a type good necromancy, and that is destroying undead. That is how things are, that is how this will always be...

I want a better name for "vermin". Its alright in game terms, but it is kind of derogative towards Arthropods. perhaps their type should be Arthropod? not that it matters much, its just a personal thing that I find annoying due to my spider-thing. I also want more accurate monstrous spider rules. You cannot have a trap door spider or a jumping spider, two of the coolest spider types anywhere!

I also want an end to drow level adjustment. I like Drow PCs, and I like to play them, but I don't thing any of their abilities are really important (apart from the ability scores, darkvision and elfy stuff) or the 2 level penalty.

I would like a PrC refinement, so only things like "dragon-slayer" exist. Things that are cool, and give your character a specialty. Having PrCs like "insidious corrupter" (Drow of the underdark) and "arcane archer" and "Dragon Disciple" (DMG) are really pointless.

I want an end to multiclass XP penalties (limits on multiclasses taken should work instead) and an official limit to 1 prestige class per PrC. I don't like it when players take PrCs just because of powerful class features. Instead they should be more thought out.

Some alignment restrictions for classes are okay. want to be lawful? Well, you are not a barbarian. Barbarians cannot actually follow laws. Want to be chaotic? Well, you are not a monk, who think laws are everything. Want to be a Lawful Good Cleric who worships lolth? you are out of luck: that is like a Christian worshiping Abbadon.

Sledged-20070820115310

Sledged (talk)
2007 August 20 11:53 (MDT)

Almost forgot the one thing I wanted the most: MORE DRAGONS!!!

If there was any one thing that got me interested in D&D, it was dragons. Some players may get tired of seeing 50 variations of one race, but I think true dragons should be the exception. There are never enough true dragons for me. The current count (including previous editions) is 101 true dragons.

As for level adjustments, WotC has definitely heard all the complaints, and from what I can tell in this article, it seems like they're doing away with it in 4E.

Also, I'd like to see is a mechanic for adjusting CR or XP based on equipment, both PCs' and Opponents'. Those that can overcome challenges with less magic items than others of the same character level should be rewarded more.

There's no better laugh than the one that you're ashamed to share with your mother.
Stephen Notley, creator of Bob the Angry Flower

Dmilewski 19:42, 20 August 2007 (MDT)[edit]

I want to see pretty much what we are getting.

  • More action-oriented adventure
  • Attention paid to the qualitative game
  • A separation between the opponent creation rules and the character creation rules
  • More rigorous equipment restrictions.
  • Regulating those things that are known abuses.
  • Make skills mean something
  • Reduce the magic-trumping everything and magic gating access to everything in the system.
  • Stop applying realism to some classes while other classes are not realistic.
  • Attempt to reduce or eliminate the paladin "oops, you fell" abuses. (Even if there are no rules for paladins falling, every wanking DM out there will create their own house rules to hose the class.)
  • Clerics reflecting the abilities of their gods. Perhaps having their abilities trees tied to the gods themselves.

Sledged-20070823123753

Sledged (talk)
2007 August 23 12:37 (MDT)
  • Clerics reflecting the abilities of their gods. Perhaps having their abilities trees tied to the gods themselves.

Sounds like you want the specialty priests of 2E. I wouldn't mind seeing spell spheres come back. Though I like how each domains has a special ability tied to it. I'd like to see spell spheres replace domains, but still have a special ability (or a package of abilities) tied to each sphere.

There's no better laugh than the one that you're ashamed to share with your mother.
Stephen Notley, creator of Bob the Angry Flower

Mkill 13:05, 23 August 2007 (MDT)[edit]

Character Backgrounds

I'd like to have something that works like a bonus feat at first level, but is called "character background". It could be anything from "raised by a wizard" (Spellcraft is class skill) to "veteran of the blood war" (reroll one attack or save against an outsider 1/day) to "son of a hero (start the game with a +1 sword), to "northland berserker" (free power attack feat, but you're illiterate regardless of class). It forces players to think about where the character comes from, what he has done before starting to adventure. It might even produce characters that do not have "orcs raided my village and killed my parents" somewhere on the charsheet.

The ability itself shouldn't be too powerful (maybe about half a feat, or a feat but some minor drawback, or some special weapon proficiency, or a bonus item).

The main purpose of it is to replace the Regional Feats from 3rd edition, which were always very flavorful but most of the time you needed your first-level feat slots for some other important thing.

Sledged-20070823131907

Sledged (talk)
2007 August 23 13:19 (MDT)

Along a similar vein, class skills could be determined by background as well as class.

A fighter raised in a sea-faring town should have Profession (sailor) as a class skill.

A sorcerer raised in the large city with a politician for a parent could have Gather Information and Diplomacy as class skills.

A tribal wizard might have Survival as a class skill.

There's no better laugh than the one that you're ashamed to share with your mother.
Stephen Notley, creator of Bob the Angry Flower

Dmilewski 14:36, 23 August 2007 (MDT)[edit]

No, not spheres. Just differences tied to the god, however that may end up looking. Tying abilities to gods, like tying abilities to weapons, should certainly be possible.

Sledged-20070823162433

Sledged (talk)
2007 August 23 16:24 (MDT)

Well, spells are one of the defining factors for full divine casters (i.e. druids, clerics, favored souls, etc...), if the class-granted abilities are to be changed to reflect their deities, spell selection should be the place to start.

There's no better laugh than the one that you're ashamed to share with your mother.
Stephen Notley, creator of Bob the Angry Flower

Mkill 02:05, 24 August 2007 (MDT)[edit]

A fully customizable cleric instead of a walking healing robot... Oh I'd love that. Imagine they'd free the Cleric from the Cure and Turn Undead corsett he's been wearing since original D&D. You'd have a cleric of a thief's deity like Odilamarra that would play like a rogue, a cleric of a lawful good war deity would play out like a paladin, an evil cultist could cloak his faith and summon demons, a cleric of a deity of arts would play out like a bard, a nature cleric would work like a druid etc... The problem about Cure spells and Turn undead is that it fits only a few selected deities like Pelor or Ilmater. So while you have a colourful selection of deities, they're too alike when it comes to playing a cleric. Domains were a step in the right direction, but your deity should determine more: class skills, class feature paths, the complete spell list, channeling ability etc.

Banyan 13:19, 26 August 2007 (MDT)[edit]

You guys may completely disagree with me on this one, but I'd like to see them just drop alignment altogether. It's confusing and not particularly helpful. Things like angels being good and artifacts that can only be touched by evil people can all be a matter of role-playing, and need not be adjudicated by vague, meaningless terms. They said in the video that they'd be changing alignment a lot, so I know they're keeping it, but I hope they change it in a way to make it more fluid and realistic rather than so cut and dry.

MorkaisChosen 03:03, 31 August 2007 (MDT)[edit]

I'd like to see Paladins being a bit less restrictive, so you don't, for instance, find out the party bard is evil, challenge them to a duel and be killed by a Bat Swarm. Professions like in D20 Modern would be good, too, and I agree with the Cleric talents-based-on-Gods idea- perhaps an extension of the Domains to make it easier to manage homebrew deities. Domains adding class skills is OK, but I'd like to see some abilities that, rather than just getting the same ability but a bit better as you level, you get new, related abilities- so a level 1 cleric of Olidammara might just have a few extra class skills (Hide, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand) while a level 20 cleric might have Evasion, Uncanny Dodge and Slippery Mind, for example.

Pwsnafu  Pwsnafu 19:19, 4 September 2007 (MDT)[edit]

Personally I'd like to see an end to the Skills vs Feats division. They do the same thing but with different mechanics. Seriously, what was the point of having two rule sets? You can incorporate feats into skills by giving abilities at X ranks (eg Mounted Archery when you have Ride 7), or vice versa (skills become Yes/No). Mechanically a feat is just a skill which you can't use untrained.

Secondly paragon classes should be used instead of LA, or equivalently, use Savage Species rules as default instead of it being an alternative. If a player wants a drown at level 1, he should be allowed to.

Dmilewski  06:48, 31 August 2007 (MDT)[edit]

No matter what happens to alignment, I am positive that everyone will house-rule the paladin into oblivion. No matter how much they make clear that a paladin does swap alignments for every little nuance, DMs will still strip them of their powers in a hair-trigger frenzy. Even the current paladin isn't that bad in this respect, it's just that everyone assumes that it ought to be that way.

Tokara2132  19:29, 11 September 2007 (MDT)[edit]

Somethin I would like to see (from a historical standpoint, anyway) is the inclusion of Weapon groups in the place of the "oh look, I can use anything" style of weapon proficency in use. I was delighted to find this in "Unearthed Arcana 3.5" and was one of the only things I used in my home campaigns. The second is another thing from Unearthed Arcana: Monk Fighting Styles. Anyone who knows anything about the many different martial arts around the world know that six feats is nowhere near enough to represent the hundreds (if not thousands) of fighting styles around the world. Although I do realize that the monk may not be used enough to warrant the change, but if the change was put into place I believe more people would be more inclined to play monks.

Thats just me though.

Sledged-20071024135315

Sledged (talk)
2007 October 24 13:53 (MDT)
Posted by Pirate-Sorcerer

I want at least one core class that can use invocations

Looks like the warlock is going to be a core class.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20071012a

There's no better laugh than the one that you're ashamed to share with your mother.
—Stephen Notley, creator of Bob the Angry Flower
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
—Ford Prefect in "Mostly Harmless" by Douglas Adams



Back to Main Page3.5e HomebrewDiscussions

Personal tools
d20M
miscellaneous
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors