Now that Wozards of the Coast has announced 4e, what changes would you like to see made between 3.5 and 4e?

Question

Ok, so I should have spell checked . . . Thats Wizards of the Coast . . .

Answer 1

Leaving aside the things I do not want changed, how about these:

- Online support. I should be able to enter character information online and project future level progressions, see the effects of feats in advance, and generally model my character throughout their life.

- Incorporate some of the flexibility of the core classes in the expansion books into the new set of core classes. For example, offer "spell preparation vs spontaneous casting" as an option for all spellcasting classes, with the appropriate adjustments for spells known and per day.

- Reduce the number of feats, but improve their quality. For instance, we don't need 30 feats that give a +2 to 2 different skills. Just one will be fine - pick 2 skills, and give them a +2 circumstance bonus. Prerequisite: come up with a good name.

Just a few thoughts.

Answer 2

Focus on roll playing - I like a combat-heavy games, but 3/3.5 are SO combat focused that it is hard to play any character except a combat oriented character. I know some of this is somewhat dictated by the GM and the story. But, in most cases, any XP not spent on combat skills/feats is usually a waste. There are systems (Savage Worlds for one) that provide both combat ease and more rounded character development.

Simplified/generalized magic - Right now, D&D just keeps adding more and more spells. The main problem is that the spells are inconsistent, to the point where some are game 'breakers', including some in the main books (Force Cage is a good example, it is banned in almost every game I have played). This is made worse by all of the splat books, that keep adding more and more (many times broken) spells. This is a real problem for players (who have too many choices) and GMs (who have to adjuicate unbalanced spells). There should FEWER spells, and higher level versions are only variations on that theme following logical rules.

(Edit) Use of a single D20 - This is a flat distribution. Which means that a 1 is as likely as a 20. Other systems use multiple dice, meaning that the distribution is a bell curve. It is annoying that if I have 15 or more ranks in a skill, and a 20 to succeed, I still have a %25 chance of failure. If I have 15 ranks in a skill, I am very skilled in that skill and should almost never fail (on a check vs 20), but using a single D20 you are much more at the mercy of luck. It also means that criticals and fumbles are much more likely (though, the Threaten rule for criticals does help this).

I have many more, but those are two of the biggest reasons I now play other systems.

Answer 3

How about if they just scrap 4e and let us continue on our merry way with 3.5? hehehe

Nah seriously, it would be nice if Sorcerers could specialize in a school just like Wizards can. I played a Wizard with 2e until getting into 3.5, and then ditched the spell memorizing for a Sorceress. But it sure would be nice to be able to specialize...

Answer 4

I personally really liked 3.5 in comparison to other versions. I fear, from the preliminary material that we've seen, that it will have less tactical depth and abandon many of the things that have been characteristically D&D. That said, what I'd like to see:

A retention of what makes D&D what it is, particularly with respect to the Vancian magic system.

A retention of the wealth of tactical options that are currently in the system.

A revision of the mounted combat elements to make it clearer how the relationship between rider and mount works, and how that changes if the mount is intelligent.

A revision of hand-to-hand combat (grapple) to make it less of a rock-papers-scissors type game.

A better balance in the core classes that limits the near requirement for multi-classing in order to optimize characters.

A reduction of "bang-you're-dead" type effects.

Answer 5

at gencon, they announce plans to move from a "complicated d20 system to a more manageable d6 based concept"
This was mostly to get younger players involved, I think. . .