Before I offer up comments and suggestions, I'm just wondering what sacred cows there are regarding the 3.5 rules? For instance, are Vancian magic and spell slots a sure thing, or is there wiggle room for a spell point system or something? Are you fixed on having only the core races & classes? Are alignments going to be the same? Will rangers be spellcasters as usual?
My personal opinion is that all of those things are sacred cows if the game is to remain as backward compatible as it aims to. The exception might be rangers, I can see a non-spellcasting ranger not being a dealbreaker (and in fact I prefer them). I do like spell point systems, but I think that'd be too big of a change.
|
The spell point system can always be offered as an optional rule, that is in no way a dealbreaker. Plus it would be a very simple conversion..use your current spells memorized as the ones you would have available for your spell points, then just add the spell point chart. The same way it was done in Unearthed Arcana. Then the players/GM can decide which method they prefer for their campaign (or might incorporate both?).
The spell point system as described in Unearthed Arcana is part of the SRD if I am not mistaken. That said, I expect Vancian magic to remain as the core mechanic for casters that prepare spells. If you prefer the spell point system, just use the one from the SRD.
Personally I want to see them do a lot of what they are doing already in the alpha. Keep the core classes and races, keep the core mechanics in tact, then add on some extra spice where appropriate. If the alpha is any indication, I am loving the direction they are taking the game. The places they have made changes like Turning Undead make TONS of sense. I am still less than halfway through the SRD, but I intend to keep at it so I can offer constructive criticism. So far so good though.
Spell Points from Unearthed Arcana are Open Game Content.
Mooo?
1. Largely backwards compatible. The most credible argument I've gotten AGAINST moving to 4th edition is our regular DMs not wanting to lose investments in 3rd edition material. If PRPG is backwards compatible with no work for DMs who want the stats to be "close" and some work for DMs who want the stats to be exact, that should be sufficient. As some benchmarks, I'd like to be able to port Karzog to PRPG in 2 minutes if I'm willing to lose some accuracy or in 10 minutes, tops, if I want an exact translation.
2. It should "feel" like 3rd edition to play so that transition periods are not long. A good benchmark is the benchmark set for hangul, the Korean writing system. With apologies to King Sejong, a smart person should be able to move to PRPG in 1 afternoon, a very slow person should be able to move to PRPG in 10. If it takes more than a night or two to get used to the rules, it doesn't have the same feel. The corrallary to this is that it shouldn't feel like 3rd edition but with some 14 year old kid's house rules tacked on.
3. It should be playtested, as should supplementary material. We have 2 powergamers in our group, and if their first characters out of the gates break the game, it's a failure. We didn't have broken campaigns until Monte Cook spellbooks started to become available. That guy's work is some of the most imaginative and interesting DM material out there, but he's the most respected munchkin in the world.
QFT my friend...QFT. In abstract terms, this would be a generic figure of about 85-90% backwards compatibility. Difficult to quantify, but it feels right.