|
There seem to be a lot of threads about the problems with 4.0 edition, even though it actually hasn't even come out yet.
I thought I'd start a thread to talk about the issues with 3.5. There are many, I believe. I recently switched from SWRPG to SWSaga and found the things fixed there to be great.
Some of my common issues with 3.5 gameplay:
Grapple
Spell casters quickly run out of things to do at low levels
Multiple-attacks become cumbersome at higher levels
Save or Die
The bloat of classes and prestige classes
New classes/prestige that are so specialized they don't fill the "core" necessities of a balanced party
Cleric's out of spells, time to go home
ramp up of new players
mapping is cumbersome and serial between GM and just one player
Players/GM cannot begin to try to remember all the various supplements that have been released.
Too much reading rules at the table, not enough playing.
Skill points too watered down to mean anything since all the checks are broken down on +5 increments (DC10, 15, 20, 25, etc.)
This is just a start off the top of my head. Please feel free to add.
Classes
Levels tied to classes.
Races that require weird level requirements to play.
Vancian magic.
Skills that are honestly nothing more than an afterthought.
Abilities, Feats and Spells that are basically arbitrary and seem to follow no simple nor consistent game design.
Hit Points.
Armor Class or more specifically, how armor affects Armor Class.
I feel I should dissect your post, and prove why you are wrong on all points...
But I won't. What I will do is point out that this:
mapping is cumbersome and serial between GM and just one player
has nothing to do with 3.5.
It is the same for any game. And there isn't a RPG rules system out there that requires mapping in any way (although, if 4.0 is going to try to integrate mini's more - it might be the first to do so). Groups may require it, but that is something else entirely.
|
|
What I will do is point out that this:
mapping is cumbersome and serial between GM and just one playerhas nothing to do with 3.5.
It is the same for any game. And there isn't a RPG rules system out there that requires mapping in any way (although, if 4.0 is going to try to integrate mini's more - it might be the first to do so). Groups may require it, but that is something else entirely.
One of the things that changed over time with DnD is the addition of more and more "battlemat" rules with the miniatures. Remember, there didn't use to be alot of those. To me this at times bogs down the role-playing aspect and turns a DnD session into a tactics war game. And because of those rules, players always want to know the layout of the room.
I wouldn't mind a "battlemat-free" version where you simply say "I swing my scimitar with a mighty yell and charge the orc shaman!" that doesn't involve having to worry about the 3 Attacks of Opportunity et al to be worked out. Or at least a better ability to have that option.
Other RPG's support this better. Feng Shui can be played pretty map free. The same for Microlite20, the rules lite version of D20 that was put together specifically for this purpose.
One of the things that changed over time with DnD is the addition of more and more "battlemat" rules with the miniatures.
I do have to concede this.
But, maybe it is just my group, we don't use a battlemap unless one of two things is happening:
1) There are more than a dozen units on either side
OR,
2) The group actually needs the tactical aspect to stand a chance.
All other times, we handle it with "I swing my scimitar with a mighty yell and charge the orc shaman!"
(Side Note: If you are looking for less "map rules," I am afraid that 4th Edition is moving in the opposite direction for you. I have no proof of this, but I have this nagging gut feeling that all distances will be in squares. And if you are lucky, the sidebar for conversion will be in the PHB rather than the DMG.)
|
Wayfinder, PaizoCon Founder
|
The bloat of classes and prestige classes
New classes/prestige that are so specialized they don't fill the "core" necessities of a balanced party
Vancian magic
These I agree with greatly. When leveling up in a recent game, I downloaded a list of all the Feats out there, because I simply don't have even a quarter of the books I'd need to see all the Feats. It's like they need another supplement "Feats Compendium".
I also highly dislike metamagic feats. Makes Vancian magic even more complex. I avoid them entirely, and often just stick to sorcerors, warmages, and the like to simplify the whole magic management.
Upon hearing the announcement of 4th Edition, the 1st thing I did was try not to pass out thinking of all the time I'd "wasted" on trying to come up with rules to fix the things I didn't like about 3.5.
Now?
Well I'm rather hoping that whatever is "new and improved" in 4th Ed will save me time and sanity. (Yes new books will cost money but being as contract work pays by the hour the less time I spend messing with re-engineering D&D, the more time I have to make money.)
Since the announcement, I've rolled back my party to pretty much straight 3.5 rules except for the use of Recharge Magic — no sense in playtesting and tweaking rules that are now obsolete...
Anyway, things I felt were "broken" that I was trying to fix:
* I dislike the whole Armor Class system. Whether or not You land a blow should be different from whether or not it deals damage. i.e. In my changes, everything resolved as a touch attack and all characters had a Damage Threshold rating based off of physical toughness, divine favor and armor.
* Skill Points: You either had them or You didn't. Why is it that the classes with the fewest skill points were further penalized by having to pay 2× for most of the skills? I increased the # of skill points for all classes and made cross-class skills cost the same as normal (though You had to still respect max cross-class ranks). Even so, this was still a lot of work for both players and DMs.
* Feats: Compared to what I know RealLife™ martial artists and soldiers [who are no where near 20th level] are able to accomplish, it seemed absurd that classes gain so few feats. To counter-act this, I employed the martial arts rules from Oriental Adventures and supplements such as (Green Ronin's?) d20 Martial Arts Mayhem. Basically, this provides a synergy system for feats. While this addressed the lack of feats, it increased the complexity of character creation a bit too much.
* "Vancian" Magic: I find it curious that I've been able to play D&D for 15 year now and haven't heard of this term for "spell-slot-based casting" until after 4th Edition was announced but that's neither here nor there. At any rate, I highly disliked having low-level casters become useless after a couple rounds. To combat this, I switched the magic system over to Recharge Magic (as detailed in Unearthed Arcana)...
* Recharge Magic: Better than Vancian magic but there's simply too much record-keeping required to figure out when creatures' spell levels are ready again. Specific recharge times weren't much of a problem during play, but it was a real pain in the a$$ having to go to the trouble of listing all these times out on the character sheets. Also, the fact that a creature can't cast multiple high-level spells in successive rounds proved problematic. I was about to undertake a project to find some kind of a middle-ground (probably would have involved a regenerating pool of spell points or perhaps a vitalizing magic system) but then 4th Ed was announced and I just shrugged.
* "High Explosives" Magic: I kind of dislike that magic in D&D basically equates to heavy artillery. It *is* possible to achieve a magic system that can be used to have a more subtle feel (like in Middle Earth) by tweaking what schools of magic are available but the effect this has on class balance really fouls up the game. In order to get around the problem of clerics and wizards only preparing BOOM-type spells, I allowed a mechanism for ad hoc casting that didn't require hours of down-time to rememorize spells. It worked well and didn't require bulky rules but perhaps tipped the class-balance a bit in the favor of the casting classes...
* Races: The standard elves and dwarves just seem weak and pathetic compared to their counterparts from literature. For my campaign world, I revamped all of the races to reflect more of the power and grandeur they have in myth and even Tolkien's stories but it was a lot of work and required the ever-hated Level Adjustments.
* Level-Adjustments: Nothing botches the joy of advancing a character like having them never advance because they require too much XP and fall behind their comrades. This is particularly a problem when they aren't gaining spells of the level their party needs. This was dealt with by having a lot of the racial abilities gained over the course of the character's career ala bloodlines and racial levels. Worked pretty well but again a lot of design work had to go into this. :-\
* Experience Points: I never was able to figure out how much XP was supposed to be awarded by Encounter Level vs. Party Level save by using the Encounter Calculator on d20srd.org. I won't get into the annoyance of Challenge Rating determination for new creatures.
* Favored Classes: Who thought up these anyway? I can understand wanting to curtail rampant multiclassing silliness but having only ONE favored class per race was just foolish. I myself broadened this to include classes with particular features (i.e. Elf: Arcane-casting classes). Even then it still seemed unnecessarily invasive to dictate what sort of character a player is free to imagine.
* Book Indices: Nothing spells DM frustration like trying to find a rule amidst 31 hard bound WotC rulebooks with fewer than 50% of them actually containing an actual index at the back. >:|
* Classes: "Dead levels" suck and no one likes going up a level when You don't get some new ability to try out. Also, a lot of classes (base or prestige) just seemed to be either too lack-luster or too rigidly defined. Nearly all the classes I designed myself ended up including Talent Trees (ala d20 Modern) so that the player could decide (for example) what sort of Monster Hunter they wanted to play... without having to require 20 different classes.
* Multiclass saves, BAB, etc: The whole +2 at 1st level and then following the progression charts was broken when 3rd Ed came out and it was never fixed in 3.5. Why in the world 3.5 didn't just decree that classes with a "good" save grant a feat that gives a +2 bonus to the base save and then a flat +0.5 increase at every level I'll never know. In any event, I corrected this oversight in my game so that there wouldn't be any morons creating 5th level characters with +10 base saves and a BAB of +0. *rolls eyes*
* Magic Missile: I've always hated anything that can always hit or that always has an effect regardless of the skill or defenses of the target. Make it extremely accurate and I won't fuss but for anything short of deity level to be able to always hit is innane. (Granted this was mostly problematic in Neverwinter Nights but the underlying logic is what perturbs me.)
* Save or Attack: If the caster is already having to make an attack roll on the spell, why exactly does the target get a Reflex save?
* Attack rolls & saving throws: Just like in 2nd Edition how sometimes it was good to roll high and sometimes it was good to roll low, there's an inconsistency in 3rd Edition too. When making a physical attack, the attacker rolls the d20, but when it's a spell, sometimes the attacker rolls (i.e. touch attacks, checks to overcome spell resistance) and sometimes the defender rolls (saving throws). I'd prefer for this to be constant with the the constant value always belonging to the defender/target. Why? Because I just love it when players attack a monster with a spell and ask, "OK, what do I roll now?" and I have to answer, "Nothing yet, I have to roll first." The confused looks speak for themselves.
* Dump Stats: Considering that the word's roots imply a gift of divine favor, it took a while before people and even rules started acknowledging Charisma as force of personality rather than how pretty someone was. (The exception being the paladin but I haven't had many good-aligned parties who would tolerate one player having a character who basically had to complicate missions and boss the others around.) Even so, it was pretty obvious what the dump-stat was more often than not. In my game, I ruled that Charisma was in fact a form of divine favor and allowed characters to add their positive Charisma modifier as a bonus to AC/Defense when an enemy tried to confirm a critical hit against them. Suddenly there were 6 viable ability scores for non-divine/spontaneous casters.
* Magic Items: I found that my players really liked the introduction of items that leveled up as their characters did. Sadly, there are very few of these in 3.x unless You get into legacy items or item familiars. More thoughtful and inspired item design would help to counteract this.
* One armor fits all: No I'm not speaking of the silly (albeit mechanics-based) ability of armor to resize to fit a new wearer. I'm talking about the fact that there are no rules for customizing armor so that You can have plate armor on Your torso, scale on Your legs and a chain coif — or whatever strikes Your fancy. Just having a single armor/armor class over the entire body is rather boring and takes a lot of the fun and imagination out of dressing Your character for battle. Of course, there were never any rules for called shots either...
* Called Shots and Criticals by Body Region: You know in movies when the baddie has on such kick ass armor that the only way to beat them is a rapier thru the arm-pit or an arrow thru the visor of the helmet? Sometimes it's worth taking a difficult shot in order to do more damage. Since my game was using a damage threshold system, I implemented regional armor and called shots for this very purpose. It worked pretty well and wasn't complicated.
* Wound Points: The wound point system in Unearthed Arcana was just about worthless as published. Maybe it worked in Star Wars but the only way I could run an honest yet interesting fight with it in D&D was to implement the Damage Threshold system I've alluded to. I sank a lot of time and playtesting into getting this right which was where most of my 4th Edition angst/rage came from. However, I suppose if 3.x had worked better for me maybe I wouldn't have spent so much time trying to "fix" it rather than just playing and working on my campaign world...
|
Wayfinder, PaizoCon Founder
|
I agree with many of your points, Laithoron, if not all. Your damage threshold sounds interesting...it sort of sounds like the concept used in Cyberpunk 2020. But, CP2020's damage system was a object of heavy discussion/disagreement in my game. My take was that armor, and even cover (like a table) took up the first layers of damage. Anything not soaked up by the armor/cover, you took. Then a player asked whether "you wear the table, or does the table wear you", and the whole game devolved into a discussion on how that worked.
I also like the concept of body area damage. So, if a hit is taken in your shield arm, then your AC advantage is reduced. A hit to the leg...movement penalty, or bonus to hit if the enemy attacks from that side. The problem is tracking the amount of damage taken to a specific body area. What % of your HP constitutes significant damage to your arm, so much so that a penalty is incurred? No, the rules and combat would just slow to a crawl. I hope 4e has a better way....
Another aspect of magic I HATED was the spell resistance suite of spells. I'm not entirely sure if this was more 2nd edition crap, but I hated having to even consider filling my slots with "resistance reduction" spells to even have a chance at defeating a creature with high magic resistance. It became more spell "strategery" and less spell combat. So un-fun.
I'd love to see the spell resource be something like leylines, something that is a very common concept in many fantasy novels. A caster's ability and efficiency to "tap" the lines, recharge their 'battery', and even harness and direct their power would increase with level, and some races (elves) would have a natural ability. Shaman of tribes would be similarly gifted or trained. Of course, this is probably going to require a whole new setting instead of a new edition....
|
|
I don't expect to see Armor Class changing in the fundamental way that it works for 4th edition. Honestly, the basic concept of 'Hit or Miss' predates all the way to Basic Set and 1st edition.
All of the mechanics you've been proposing have a serious disadvantage when compared to AC - they're more complex. It's key to remember that the mechanic isn't really intended to simulate how things work in the real world, but to provide a mechanic that's reasonably easy to understand but still creates some sense of tension.
If this bothers you, then you are of course free to come up with something of your own that works for you, but remember that one of the stated goals for 4th edition is streamlining. I doubt AC's going to change that significantly in how it works, since it is one of the more straightforward systems in the game (excepting the Dodge feat and bonus stacking).
All of the mechanics you've been proposing have a serious disadvantage when compared to AC - they're more complex.
An excellent point. However, in my own personal experience, determining if you hit then determining if you punched through armor were never complex enough to slow down game play noticeably. The added realism to added time and complexity ratio was worth it. This is an example of what I am concerned about when they say they are going to 'streamline' the system. There are plenty of other streamlined (read rules light) games out there that, in my opinion, are far superior.
|
|
I've played with enough new players who have a hard enough time just figuring out what their AC -is- to realize that there are advantages of a less complex system.
And I admit, part of me cringes when people bring up 'punching through armor' because I played the Palladium Fantasy RPG. The mechanics of which still make me shudder.
I think in the end it's a matter of taste - I happen to prefer the AC system to alternative systems I've encountered, and I've found that the basic concept is easier for players to grasp. It's also relatively 'transparent' when it comes to describing what happens in the fight, allowing me to be descriptive in interesting ways that more explicit rules tend to wrap up into a die roll.
And as I mentioned before, nothing in 4th edition is going to prevent you from devising house rules that work for you. Yeah, they'll require development. As for other systems doing simpler better? Maybe so - but I play one system, and that system is D&D. Why? Because a lot more people play it, so finding a group is much easier.
|
Wayfinder, PaizoCon Founder
|
I think in the end it's a matter of taste - I happen to prefer the AC system to alternative systems I've encountered, and I've found that the basic concept is easier for players to grasp. It's also relatively 'transparent' when it comes to describing what happens in the fight, allowing me to be descriptive in interesting ways that more explicit rules tend to wrap up into a die roll.
I agree. A good DM will throw in specific details as to where you hit, and what kind of damage it does....i.e., they "gorify" it. Just watch Nick Logue's video in the Paizoblog! Now THAT'S addin' flavor! Who needs rules when you have a far more entertaining method like storytelling?
In my Cyberpunk 2020 example, that was, by no means, a simple combat system. Oh, no no no. But it is attempting "realistic combat". I have to laugh at my own desire for "realism" in a D&D's combat system...it's a fantasy GAME. There is nothing real about it!
So, while it makes no sense to me that a character can keep going and be a real effective threat right up to HP 0 (out of 70, say), the alternative is a rules-heavy, chartmaster, consult-my-spreadsheets kind of game that would make players dread combat for an entirely different reason. So, the "chop 'til you drop" combat system is simple, and FUN. I think it would suck if my character got lamed halfway through the battle, and suffered for it the rest of the encounter. I remember TSR's Top Secret....you got hit ONCE, you were seriously dead or on your way there.
If 4e can make combat flow smoothly and stay fun, and keep complex mathematics and modeling out of the "to hit" process, then that's a definite plus.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
An excellent point. However, in my own personal experience, determining if you hit then determining if you punched through armor were never complex enough to slow down game play noticeably. The added realism to added time and complexity ratio was worth it. This is an example of what I am concerned about when they say they are going to 'streamline' the system. There are plenty of other streamlined (read rules light) games out there that, in my opinion, are far superior.
I always try to match my description to the attacker's roll and the target's AC. So, if they were fighting a lizardman (+2 Natural - I think) wearing chainmail (+4 AC) with a 14 Dex, I'd provide descriptions as follows depending on the attacker's roll:
<11: Complete miss, you weren't even close.
<13: You didn't connect because at the last minute, he ducked out of your way.
<17: You hit him, but his armor absorbed most of the blow.
<19: You found a crack in his armor, but his tough scales prevented you from inflicting any real damage.
I find it livens up the combat description from "you miss" without adding much complexity. If I can't figure out why they missed, I can always fall back on "you missed" without worrying about whether armor should be degraded or what not.
The alternative method described above sounds like running every encounter with *shudder* mirror image active.
Yeah, complexity and speed of combat were chief concerns alright. I went thru fully 5 revisions of Damage Threshold from the initial idea to where it was when 4th Ed was announced. Each revision saw at least 2 or 3 sessions worth of playtesting and it was interesting to note where the introduction of much higher CR or larger creatures mandated further adjustments.
The funny thing is, the actual design and layout of the character sheets had as much to do with speed of play and ease of resolution as anything. This led to quite a few interesting innovations I made such as creating a character/party database in Excel that (based on each character's max Wound Points, any Damage Reduction and their Damage Threshold) would generate a quick-reference chart showing how much Wound and Vitality damage was taken for a anything from 1 point of damage up to enough to 1-shot them. This was then mail-merged into the character sheet templates in Word.
It was then just a quick glance at the character sheet for each player to immediately see how much damage they took. All they needed to know from me was if a critical was confirmed and if the weapon was of a type that could bypass any DR they had. With that info they didn't have to perform any math beyond the normal subtraction of HP that we're all used to. No figuring out how much to subtract for Damage Reduction or figure out DR stacking/overlapping, no having to check to see how much a big hit exceeded their Damage Threshold and spilled over into Wound Points...
Also, since I used the computer to prepare stuff in advance, there was no reliance upon a laptop at the table and no tech distractions for me to contend with.
Anyway, this is all getting off-topic from the original post. I'm not putting any further play-testing into such an alternative system for 3.5 anymore since (to me) it's all essentially been worthless effort now that a new system is on the horizon. Depending on how 4th Ed turns out I may or may not revisit this idea. We'll see...
|
A number of my friends are interested in the underpinnings of games, design games or otherwise monkey about with rule systems. They seem to have played every sort of game system out there, from the very complex to the ultra-simple. One friend in particular decided he had had enough with the D&D system for many of the same reasons you list, Laithoron, and he decided to do something about it. He spent a great deal of time designing a new game system that solved the many problems with d20/D&D 3.x and included enough flexibility that it could be used to represent modern, superhero, post-modern and other settings. It was classless, free of "Vancian" magic, treated armor as damage reduction, used a modified wound/vitality system and all of those other great things. And we playtested it - a lot, mainly to streamline the mechanics so play would not bog down and to balance the game.
And then there came a day when he was ready to run some real scenarios. We used pre-generated characters he had made and got down to playing. The goal was for a band of adventurers to assault a mine infested with orcs and free some slaves. We played the game, the rules worked well for the most part and everyone was happy. It took 3 hours to play the scenario; I was the only one not overly familiar with the new rules he created (the others having worked far more closely with him than I on the ruleset). At the end of the session everyone commented on the rules and were quite happy with how they were able to handle the many issues that came up in the game without falling back to the ugly d20/3.5 ruleset. It would seem that the new system was a success.
When it was my turn to comment, I had to admit the rules worked well. However, I also believed that the new rules did not do anything for the overall game play. I challenged everyone to re-run the scenario with d20/3.5 rules. The next week, we ran the session and it took.... 3 hours. Furthermore, the number of orcs killed/incapacitated was almost exactly equal (less than 5% difference between the scenarios) and the characters exited the scenario with about the same amount of resources remaining (as well as such things could be measured given the disparity between the systems). The point of all of this was that in the end, the game system, despite its radical departure from almost all of the d20/3.5 concepts, did not materially affect the outcome of the scenario or the playing time. In effect the new rules did a much better job of describing how certain things were possible or occurred, but it did not in the end change what occurred. The only real benefit derived by use of the new system was that it made everyone feel much better about the why of things. This benefit was offset by the loss of standardization and the loss of readily available supporting materials.
Perhaps 4e will fix 3.5's many (admittedly wonky) "features", but since the entire system will be re-balanced around these rules, I predict that the net effect will be that it will have little material impact on the outcome of a given scenario, cause a loss of backward compatibility with all that has come before it and (knowing WotC) introduce a number of new "features" that will set the many armchair game designers out there on edge, eventually driving them to create "4e is broken and I can fix it by..." threads.
To each his own. If you and your players are happier knowing how or why a rapier damaged a heavily armored fighter then I am happy for you and your group. For me though, it only matters to me that it did; I can roleplay the rest.
I always try to match my description to the attacker's roll and the target's AC.
I applaud you for adding visualizations. I have never seen this done in any D&D game I have played in. I have seen it done in other systems. Maybe that is why I found Armor Class so jarring to my sense of immersion.
I always try to match my description to the attacker's roll and the target's AC.I applaud you for adding visualizations. I have never seen this done in any D&D game I have played in. I have seen it done in other systems. Maybe that is why I found Armor Class so jarring to my sense of immersion.
Guess my group plays diffrently than most then. We always added visualization depending on how much you missed. I thought I had read to do that in a dmg, but then again it could have been another book.
That will be the intresting thing about edition switching. How many things will they add as brand new ideas that many dms have been doing for a long time.
Was critical hit and funble in 1st and 2nd edition? I remember always doing it but I forgot if they were both rules.
|
The point of all of this was that in the end, the game system, despite its radical departure from almost all of the d20/3.5 concepts, did not materially affect the outcome of the scenario or the playing time. In effect the new rules did a much better job of describing how certain things were possible or occurred, but it did not in the end change what occurred. The only real benefit derived by use of the new system was that it made everyone feel much better about the why of things. This benefit was offset by the loss of standardization and the loss of readily available supporting materials.
But what if those rules became the new standard, and started attracting lots of supporting materials? Would it be worth changing the rules system?
Hypothetical question, of course, with an eye toward evaluating 4e in the context of balancing loss of compatibility vs. improved rules. In your case, you had a new set of rules that seemed to work pretty well. If a lot of other people started playing by the same rules, and support materials were released, would it have been worth converting?
Interesting observations Lich-Loved. You are right of course that the "why" of things was a big motivator for me (and seemingly Your friend also).
Loss of compatability was fairly big consideration here too.(Which was why I didn't just make an entirely new system. ;) The goal I was striving towards was to publish my work as something of a cross between a multi-era campaign setting and an Unearthed Arcana-style rulebook. Part of it was going to include the software and templates I'd wrought so that custom or non-OGL monsters could easily be converted. Meanwhile I would have already done the re-working of spells and monsters etc. for OGL content.
To me, that was the one big failing of Unearthed Arcana — lots of great alternate rules but too much grunt work was left for individual DMs to trudge thru. Here's hoping 4th Ed. rocks so I won't feel the irresistable compulsion to waste another few years trying to make D&D do what I want it to HOW I want it to. ;)
Thanks for the thoughtful responses and shared experiences all. :)
My biggest fix to 3.5e? Advancement is WAY too fast. I make all characters pay the XP cost for all their magic items; this tends to cut down on junk collecting, and also slows advancement to a more manageable pace. There might be better systems, but that's the "quick fix" I use. I find that I just can't really get to like my character if I level up so fast I never know what his abilities are.
I always try to match my description to the attacker's roll and the target's AC.I applaud you for adding visualizations. I have never seen this done in any D&D game I have played in. I have seen it done in other systems. Maybe that is why I found Armor Class so jarring to my sense of immersion.
I do this too. I find it wierd that you've never seen it, I thought it was normal. Just saying "hit...miss...miss...hit" seems a bit boring.
My biggest problems are:
Classes - I'd like to see a system where you can make your own class out of a list of class features. Note that I said can - the traditional base classes should still be in the PHB for people to use, but they should conform to the same rules that a build-your-own class does, sort of like examples. This would get rid of bazillions of PrCs and let people get creative instead of relying on published material.
Dead Levels - Nobody likes em. It's just laziness.
Magic - Make spells about battlefield control not blasting stuff for high damage. Pretty much get rid of invocation-type spells so playing a mage means you use magic to manipulate the world and have to think creatively with your spells and overcome situations without violence. Playing a caster should be about cunning and intelligence, not being a fantasy artillery gunner. Hey, I can dream.
I'd like to hear more about this. Do you just charge them the xp cost as if they created the item? Interesting...
Exactly. They can find a wand or a potion during an adventure and use it free of charge for the time being, but at the end of the adventure, when I tally up xp and they go to level up, everyone has to subtract the xp value of the items they keep from their total xp from that adventure. This leads to several game ramifications, some more obvious than others:
(1) Gold loses most of its importance, which saves us a LOT of bookkeeping. If you think about it, gold and xp are the two main sets of numbers used for power balancing, especially at higher levels. I’ve just rolled them together.
(2) Advancement is on the average slowed slightly; I always thought it was too fast in 3e though.
(3) People keep only the stuff they really want, instead of walking around bedecked like Christmas trees. Every magic item becomes a question of how badly they really want it. The decrease in gear is usually offset more or less evenly by the slower level advancement from the stuff they do keep, so there’s no real conflict there unless somebody refuses to keep any items, in which case he ends up higher level than everyone else. Which is fine; I keep that character with the rest of the party, because they lack the gear to be really overpowered. Obviously you have to ditch “Vow of Poverty” in this case, but I consider that no great loss.
(4) Item creation feats no longer suck, because the wizard can craft items “on spec” and the recipient pays the xp cost.
I should add that I also use the Action Points system, so that any slight lack of gear is made up for.
BeneathTheEarth, if you're reading this, click the button
I really like that plan Kirth Gersen.
I think it might take too much emphasis off of gold and other cash... (I can see higher level players dropping all their wealth on land, businesses, etc...)
But I really like what it does for party XP split.
It also adds a little bit to the power vacuum between Spellcasters and other classes... But not so much it should outright be discounted.
Also, side thought. If you really wanted to keep Vow of Poverty, you could "charge" that character the XP that would be spent to have a similar item. But, considering the amount of people that think VoP is broken, I doubt any of them would mind just dropping it.
I think it might take too much emphasis off of gold and other cash... (I can see higher level players dropping all their wealth on land, businesses, etc...)
Depends on the group. The people I've played with tend to assume that between fights with Demogorgon or whatever, you're entitled to live it up a bit. I have no problem with them assuming they can afford a manor and some servants when they're 15th level. Why not? None of us are accountants. For me personally, I absolutely love not having to keep track of gold, but by all means continue tracking it, if it bothers you not to!
It also adds a little bit to the power vacuum between Spellcasters and other classes... But not so much it should outright be discounted.
Yes, it does-- but that helps restore the balance, considering the edge that action points tend to give to the non-casters (who can use them to make saves vs. spells more easily, to make their attacks more likely to hit, and to make sure their crits are confirmed).
Heh. One of my groups party had a warcry: "There's money to be made!"
So, I am aware of what the "accountant" side can be like.
It does not detract from the XP for Magic Items plan, it is just something random DM's who might want to "borrow" it need to be aware of.
And the power vacuum needing Action Points won't be every one's cup of tea either.
Aw hell, let's just say that I am just pointing out areas others might need to keep an eye on.
I certainly wasn't trying to come off as challenging any point of it.
Thanks Kirth.
Any time. That's ideally what the boards are for: so we can share ideas. Thanks for speaking for us anti-wheelers over on the succubus thread, by the way!
Interesting indeed. And inventive. I'll keep this in mind as well.
Another example of what makes the Paizo boards superior to others! :)
Aw hell, let's just say that I am just pointing out areas others might need to keep an eye on. I certainly wasn't trying to come off as challenging any point of it.
Your points are valid, and to be honest, I like when people challenge my stuff. Anything knocked down by a challenge needs to be reworked, and I therefore profit from the challenge. (Can you tell I'm a scientist yet?) Anyway, think of it as a variant system: groups that hate keeping track of money, and want to be able to pull off outrageous gambits occasionally, will like it. Groups with a lot of use for wealth, and who don't like fiddling with the core rules, won't.
An excellent point. However, in my own personal experience, determining if you hit then determining if you punched through armor were never complex enough to slow down game play noticeably. The added realism to added time and complexity ratio was worth it. This is an example of what I am concerned about when they say they are going to 'streamline' the system. There are plenty of other streamlined (read rules light) games out there that, in my opinion, are far superior.I always try to match my description to the attacker's roll and the target's AC. So, if they were fighting a lizardman (+2 Natural - I think) wearing chainmail (+4 AC) with a 14 Dex, I'd provide descriptions as follows depending on the attacker's roll:
<11: Complete miss, you weren't even close.
<13: You didn't connect because at the last minute, he ducked out of your way.
<17: You hit him, but his armor absorbed most of the blow.
<19: You found a crack in his armor, but his tough scales prevented you from inflicting any real damage.I find it livens up the combat description from "you miss" without adding much complexity. If I can't figure out why they missed, I can always fall back on "you missed" without worrying about whether armor should be degraded or what not.
The alternative method described above sounds like running every encounter with *shudder* mirror image active.
I thought I was the only one who did that! I look at flatfooted and touch ACs in addition to standard ones to help me figure out if it's an utter goof, a skillful dodge, an ineffectual hit due to armor, or a real sinus-cleanser of a blow. And the critical hit deck helps.
I do not see how determining the difference between flatfooted and touch AC is any more difficult than hit minus DR, but to each his own.
Personally, I have always tried to be more descriptive in game; not just in combat. However, as I said before, in the D&D games I have played in or watched, it was pretty much "hit miss miss hit". Chalk it up to bad luck.
Your points are valid, and to be honest, I like when people challenge my stuff.
Oh good.
Your reply could have been taken as defensive, and I decided to err to caution.
Still, that system of yours is very good. But like any other rule, it isn't necessarily good for all groups. Users beware.
I do not see how determining the difference between flatfooted and touch AC is any more difficult than hit minus DR, but to each his own.
Personally, I have always tried to be more descriptive in game; not just in combat. However, as I said before, in the D&D games I have played in or watched, it was pretty much "hit miss miss hit". Chalk it up to bad luck.
The challenge, I think, would be for the crazy DMs who attempt to include damage reduction for regular armor along with AC bonuses.
Your reply could have been taken as defensive, and I decided to err to caution.
Re-reading it, I can see how it might come across that way. Sorry. I was just trying to respond to each of your points.
Still, that system of yours is very good. But like any other rule, it isn't necessarily good for all groups. Users beware.
Amen. It's all a matter of taste.
Interesting observations Lich-Loved. You are right of course that the "why" of things was a big motivator for me (and seemingly Your friend also).
Loss of compatability was fairly big consideration here too.(Which was why I didn't just make an entirely new system. ;) The goal I was striving towards was to publish my work as something of a cross between a multi-era campaign setting and an Unearthed Arcana-style rulebook. Part of it was going to include the software and templates I'd wrought so that custom or non-OGL monsters could easily be converted. Meanwhile I would have already done the re-working of spells and monsters etc. for OGL content.
To me, that was the one big failing of Unearthed Arcana — lots of great alternate rules but too much grunt work was left for individual DMs to trudge thru. Here's hoping 4th Ed. rocks so I won't feel the irresistable compulsion to waste another few years trying to make D&D do what I want it to HOW I want it to. ;)
Thanks for the thoughtful responses and shared experiences all. :)
Not sure that it can rock for both of us. I went through your list and I think I disagree with a little over 50% of what you felt was wrong with 3.5. It seems clear that one of us is gping to be disappointed.
My biggest fix to 3.5e? Advancement is WAY too fast. I make all characters pay the XP cost for all their magic items; this tends to cut down on junk collecting, and also slows advancement to a more manageable pace. There might be better systems, but that's the "quick fix" I use. I find that I just can't really get to like my character if I level up so fast I never know what his abilities are.
I somewhat agree in that I too have had players speed through levels at a pace that seemed insane.
still with adult lives and the diversions that causes it seems that on average it takes about two years to play a pre-set campaign from 1st-20th. I'm not actually sure I want it to be the default that it takes 4 years to run a full campaign. 4 years is a long time - hell 2 years is a pretty long time.
Something I'd like to see in 4.0 - Stepped Fear Effects
I think Heroes of Horror offered the advice first; that is, start failed fear saves off at lower levels (shaken), and advance them through the various fear effect types as they continue to fail saves.
As an alternative, set a fear DC save - say for example 30. If the hero saves, great...it looks like she has nerves of steel. If she fails, check the result she failed by and compare it to the chicken chart:
Failed by less than 5: Shaken (-2 everything)
5-9: Scared (-2 everything, cumulative): total -4
10-14: Frightnened (-2 everything, cumulative): total -6
15+: Panicked (exactly as the DMG currently reads)
Also, unless a hero is Panicked, being afraid, shaken, scared, frightend, etc. should NOT remove you from usefulness from a game. That just hurts the game for everyone. Instead, just escalate the negatives to account for the shivering bottom lip and knocking knees.
I've implemented these changes in my game, and it was exceptionaly useful in Age of Worms. There's nothing worse than a player watching the game.
<11: Complete miss, you weren't even close.
<13: You didn't connect because at the last minute, he ducked out of your way.
<17: You hit him, but his armor absorbed most of the blow.
<19: You found a crack in his armor, but his tough scales prevented you from inflicting any real damage.
Thats exactly the way I describe hits and misses. It takes some time for a DM to wrap their mind around the AC bonuses, set an order of priority, and apply it to an attack roll.
That said, I hope 4.0 goes with armor offering Damage Reduction instead of "AC". In fact, they should just use Star Wars new Reflex defense system.
When it was my turn to comment, I had to admit the rules worked well. However, I also believed that the new rules did not do anything for the overall game play. I challenged everyone to re-run the scenario with d20/3.5 rules. The next week, we ran the session and it took.... 3 hours. Furthermore, the number of orcs killed/incapacitated was almost exactly equal (less than 5% difference between...
I'm inclined to agree with Lich-loved on the futility of screwing with the ruleset excessively. Besides spending a lot of time rewriting and playtesting rulesets when you could be playing, you also lose the standardization that allows me to move to a new town, join a new group, and have no problem playing the game.
A lot of the seemingly wonky things, like a rapier damaging a guy in plate armor, aren't that wonky in reality, especially if the DM thinks about how to package them descriptively. Rapiers, BTW, were actually designed specifically to pierce the weak spots in heavy armor. They are lightweight and accurate enough to dart in and pierce armpits, groins, backs of knees, the eye-slits of visors, etc. Only later did the rapier become the weapon of choice for unarmored 3-musketeers-style swashbuckling.
Really, you could tweak the game for six more editions and its still not going to be enough of an improvement to be worth buying all those new rulebooks. Except that we'll need to play the current edition to move to new groups (see argument about standardization above). That would be the main reason I'd think about "upgrading" to 4e.
I like the way Champions handles damage the best.
I make a roll
I hit the guy
He applies his defense (armor) and subtracts that from the damage taken
He take the excess (if any) in damageIt makes the most sense to me.
We tried something like that once. Ended up in a low-level fight against a guy in plate mail, who turned out, in the new system, to be invulnerable to all harm. We quickly switched back to the "Armor as AC" standard.
I wouldn't mind a "battlemat-free" version where you simply say "I swing my scimitar with a mighty yell and charge the orc shaman!" that doesn't involve having to worry about the 3 Attacks of Opportunity et al to be worked out. Or at least a better ability to have that option.
Wht is stopping you. Whether you use a battle mat or not, that is style of play choice. There is nothing in the rules that say you are not playing D&D with out a mat.
I always try to match my description to the attacker's roll and the target's AC.I applaud you for adding visualizations. I have never seen this done in any D&D game I have played in. I have seen it done in other systems. Maybe that is why I found Armor Class so jarring to my sense of immersion.
Boy your DMS suck! I think any good DM would visualize attack roles in a D&D game.
There seem to be a lot of threads about the problems with 4.0 edition, even though it actually hasn't even come out yet.
I thought I'd start a thread to talk about the issues with 3.5. There are many, I believe. I recently switched from SWRPG to SWSaga and found the things fixed there to be great.
..,
Save or Die
..,
I always liked "Save or Die" in D&D. Despite the characters level, hit points and preperation, survival for that charcter boils down to this one moment, the out come of this die roll. Everyone on the game table is focused on the outcome of that one die roll. There is so much tention, the moment when a player picks up a twenty sider to make that "do or die" save. I just love it!
Roleplaying is about drama, few things are more dramatic than those "Save or Die" moments
Boy your DMS suck! I think any good DM would visualize attack roles in a D&D game.
I'm of the opinion that "visualizing" attacks as a DM style is the exception, not the norm. Only half of our group of 4 visualize when we DM. If you find a good DM, hang on to him/her.
But I wouldn't blame the DMs; I don't recall reading in the DMG about visualizing attacks. And this hit/miss style of DMing will seemingly worsen: we went from free-form description to miniatures, and now we will be going electronic.
Boy your DMS suck! I think any good DM would visualize attack roles in a D&D game.I'm of the opinion that "visualizing" attacks as a DM style is the exception, not the norm. Only half of our group of 4 visualize when we DM. If you find a good DM, hang on to him/her.
I would say half your group sucks at DMing.
One guy in our group Dms from time to time. He ain't that good. He'll roll dice, mumble to himself then say something like;
"You take 12 hit points damage"
"What?" "How?" "What hapenned?"
But I like him to DM, because that is my only chance to player in a D&D game. The other guy who GMs does Space Marines, realy good. but not D&D.
But I wouldn't blame the DMs; I don't recall reading in the DMG about visualizing attacks.
Chapter one; pages 6-7; Propelling the Game Forward "... That's when you rely on an evocative, exciting description. ... Throughout the game continually ask yourself: What exactly do the characters see? Do they hear anything? Are thier any noticeable odors?. .., keep in mind how it would all seem in some action movie or exciting book."
Chapter one; page 10; EXAMPLE OF PLAY "DM: [To the others] You see a sickly gray arm strike the halfling as she's looking arround at the floor where she stands, 10 feet above you. SHe utters a muflled cry, and then a shadowy form drags her out of sight."
I think there is enough in the DMG, starting with chapter one. for somebody to get the idea "visualize attacks" with out actually stating it directly.
And this hit/miss style of DMing will seemingly worsen: we went from free-form description to miniatures, and now we will be going electronic.
Only for DMs who SUCK!
Man I have been using minitures since 1st edition D&D. I have used a battle mat since 2nd edition. From what I Know of D&D lore, the game evolved from miniature game.
Get over it. Miniatures have been a part of D&D from the beginning.
If you don't like them, don't use them. The game will still work without them.
Boy your DMS suck! I think any good DM would visualize attack roles in a D&D game.
I strongly disagree that the only measure of the usefulness of a DM is how much time he spends describing the ins and outs of combat. In fact, I'd go so far as to say I've DMed for players who would have cheerfully lynched me if I spent half as much describing hits as seems to be expected here. A good DM needs to grasp the expectations of the players. If they want a play-by-play desciption of each blow ("Your swing barely grazes past Mook #1's shield; but his armor is just enough to stop it, although your second blow sheared through the armor and left a slight scratch along his upper left sternum... just a few more successful hits, and you'll be down to only 10 more mooks to kill. Hipe we can finish this fight before I have to leave in 3 hours!"), well, by all means give it to them.
Some people I've played with vastly preferred something along the lines of "Miss... hit... not hurt much. He misses you; go ahead and finish him off" so that we can finish the fighting quicker and get to the other stuff. Then again, these are players who wanted detailed mechanics for wine connoisseur checks. Atypical players? Maybe. But by running a game that everyone enjoys the hell out of, I hardly think that automatically makes me a DM that "sucks."
I would say half your group sucks at DMing.
Thanks, I'll inform them of the good news.
I stand corrected on the DMing examples in the core books. I don't mind being wrong - I'm wrong all the time! :)
Note that I never said that those DMs that do not "visualize" attacks didn't suck; I merely stated that in my opinion, these DMs were the norm and not the exception.
As for my evolution of the game theory, I think I'll end the post here: no need adding gasoline to the flames!