Biggest new thing I want to see in Next

Arcane magic for all!

My experience of 2nd ed. was, that wizards simply couldn't wear armor or use good weapons.
This changed in 3e.

In the other directions, wizards have EXCLUSIVITY in magic, but they can still fight using mundane ranged or melee methods, they're just not very good at it.

So here's my suggestion: Everyone with the prerequisite intelligence should be able to cast spells.
Now, naturally, they shouldn't be as good in it as wizards.

Let's take a look at a wizard's advantages when it comes to spell-casting:

First, they have spell slots, meaning they can memorize spells.
Second, they can just DECLARE they're casting a spell, without any sort of a die roll.

So, here's my suggestion:

Allow any character, who has access to a spell book they have acquainted themselves with, cast a spell from it, IF they have the necessary intelligence, AND they succeed in an intelligence check. (DC 15 seems appropriate for most cases).

In fact, I think this should be a general rule --- instead of classes giving EXCLUSIVE abilities to characters, they should instead make them BETTER at them.

Not anyone can succeed in a forward flip without training, but anyone with the courage may ATTEMPT it. And those who are fit and agile, WILL succeed at least some of the time.

So, a particularily pious and wise character, who is NOT a cleric, might with an appropriate roll, succeed in channeling the divine, for an example. And anyone who succeeds in stealth and maneuvering, should be able to attempt a sneak attack.

Now, this is NOT as important as just having good, functioning, relatively light-weight core rules, but I think it's a good principle to adhere to, if possible.  
sounds like it'd be a mess, and frankly, not something i'd want to ever see within spitting distance of the standard dnd game.
sounds like it'd be a mess, and frankly, not something i'd want to ever see within spitting distance of the standard dnd game.

Why?
So here's my suggestion: Everyone with the prerequisite intelligence should be able to cast spells.

Isn't that concept currently covered by a feat?

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
Allow any character, who has access to a spell book they have acquainted themselves with, cast a spell from it, IF they have the necessary intelligence, AND they succeed in an intelligence check. (DC 15 seems appropriate for most cases).

In fact, I think this should be a general rule --- instead of classes giving EXCLUSIVE abilities to characters, they should instead make them BETTER at them.

I like the philosophy, in general, but I'm not sure it works for arcane/divine magic.  Fluff-wise, it takes a lot of work to learn just the basics.  I would compare it to computer programming, where most people just have no chance of getting it right unless they've had training.

That's a setting-specific thing, though.  There's no reason every world has to have magic be that difficult.

Out of curiosity, how does the wizard work into the whole "cast a spell by reading a book" thing?  I mean, wizards are normally constrained by their spell slots, and this mechanic can't require spell slots from classes that don't have them, so do wizards just have unlimited out-of-combat casting?

The metagame is not the game.

sounds like it'd be a mess, and frankly, not something i'd want to ever see within spitting distance of the standard dnd game.

Why?



there's no precedent for it in the game, and it's just not very interesting to give magic to everyone for no real reason.

dnd is a class based game, and you lose a lot more than you gain when you dillute each class's identity more than you need to. options to break the mold should exist, but they should be opt-in things like multiclassing and feats, 
@Slayer_of_all_that_breathes: 
You can't do PROPER software work without training, but you can pick up the basics of scripting and start doing SOME things within a single day, easily. So....

Regarding unlimited casting, I was thinking the constraint could be a character's intelligence bonus - I originally thought a character with, say, +3 intelligence bonus, could cast a single 1st-level, a single 2nd-level and a single 3rd-level spell per day.

Another one I thought of was time restriction - to cast a spell directly from spell book, you need to read the spell, do all the work that would be required to memorize a spell, AND then cast it. 

in 3e, spell memorization had a minimum time of 15 minutes, just to get into the right mind-set, beyond that memorizing was relatively fast, as a high-level wizard could memorize over 50 spells in the remaining 45 minutes.

Since the spell is not memorized, I think a minimum casting time of, say, one minute, might also work as a limitation.

Now, if there's no per-day limitation, this does indeed give unlimited utility for wizards, which does seem tricky - it also means, no wizard will memorize utility spells, for the most part, with some exceptions.

That might work, actually, but it does seem like a sticking point, so some artifical limitation would probably be good,
such as a HP burn cost, or intelligence bonus limit.  
Regarding unlimited casting, I was thinking the constraint could be a character's intelligence bonus - I originally thought a character with, say, +3 intelligence bonus, could cast a single 1st-level, a single 2nd-level and a single 3rd-level spell per day.

What about a number of spell slot levels equal to Int modifier? Someone with a +3 bonus could cast a level 3 spell, or a level 2 and a level 1, or three level 1 spells?  I guess it depends on how much you want to restrict it.  Either that many spell slot levels, or that's your maximum spell level and you can cast at-most one spell of each level you can cast.

In any case, I would probably also require you to be of the appropriate level - no level 1 rogues with 18 Int casting polymorph.



The metagame is not the game.

Yes. This is a good way to go. Minimum class level of spell level x2, with the exception of 1st level.

When there's a per-day limit, there's no need for a time limit, so if a character has spellbook they're familiar with in hand, and succeed in an intelligence check, they could cast even in combat. 

It's also a nice way to preface a class change in game.  
Every character in every edition of D&D has always been able to cast spells.  They simply use magical items to do it.


My experience of 2nd ed. was, that wizards simply couldn't wear armor or use good weapons.
This changed in 3e.





Well yes, you can wear armor with your 3ed wizard but with the heavy Spell Failure Chance, why would you?

And yes, you can take the Martial Weapon feat and learn to use a better weapon with your wizard, but with your poor base attack would you really waste a feat on that instead of something related to spell-casting?

3ed simply changed the "you can't do that" philosophy of AD&D to more like "you can, but you're better off without it anyway."


If it's some sort of "balance" that worries you, because wizards can also attack, and fighters can't cast, or something like that.
Then think of it this way: a wizard will run out of spells eventually. Those feeble attacks is all that's left for him in combat.
The fighter will never run out of attacks so that he needs to rely on "feeble spells."



That said, I would like to see a more unified casting system, that made (amongst other things) multi-classing between different caster-classes more interesting.
But I suppose the ability to cast spells at all should still require you to have at least one spellcasting class.

 
to me this would be sothing campaing setting specific.

In ebern for exaple a mudual doing somthing like that might not be out of place as in older editions it already had a npc class that craften normal items but knew a few minor spells to help them along.
 
maybe a modual nice and simple like :
each character with a positive inteligence modifyer knows 1 cantrip, and can cast this cantrip a number of times equal to their inteligence modifyer per day. 
You know, this is possible in 4e.  It's called ritual casting.  And it doesn't break the game or anything.

To deny other classes the ability to use magic in a limited manner is just another manifestation of "fighters can't have nice things because they're not wizards."

Not to take a shot at anyone, but I find it interesting how many suggestions for Next are things that are already present in 4e and work well, but people either seem to be unaware of that or don't think it's the same thing.  

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

(snip)



This is what multiclassing is for.



Well yes, you can wear armor with your 3ed wizard but with the heavy Spell Failure Chance, why would you?
 



Thank goodness 4e killed that particular sacred cow.
So here's my suggestion: Everyone with the prerequisite intelligence should be able to cast spells.

Isn't that concept currently covered by a feat?



This is true.  Already exists as a feat.  Done.


My experience of 2nd ed. was, that wizards simply couldn't wear armor or use good weapons.
This changed in 3e.





Well yes, you can wear armor with your 3ed wizard but with the heavy Spell Failure Chance, why would you?

And yes, you can take the Martial Weapon feat and learn to use a better weapon with your wizard, but with your poor base attack would you really waste a feat on that instead of something related to spell-casting?

3ed simply changed the "you can't do that" philosophy of AD&D to more like "you can, but you're better off without it anyway."


If it's some sort of "balance" that worries you, because wizards can also attack, and fighters can't cast, or something like that.
Then think of it this way: a wizard will run out of spells eventually. Those feeble attacks is all that's left for him in combat.
The fighter will never run out of attacks so that he needs to rely on "feeble spells."



That said, I would like to see a more unified casting system, that made (amongst other things) multi-classing between different caster-classes more interesting.
But I suppose the ability to cast spells at all should still require you to have at least one spellcasting class.

 



 There were ways around the armor rule in 3.5 but I'm leaning towards the 4th ed and D&DN proficient= cast spells in it anyway.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

You know, this is possible in 4e.  It's called ritual casting.  And it doesn't break the game or anything.

To deny other classes the ability to use magic in a limited manner is just another manifestation of "fighters can't have nice things because they're not wizards."

Not to take a shot at anyone, but I find it interesting how many suggestions for Next are things that are already present in 4e and work well, but people either seem to be unaware of that or don't think it's the same thing.  



In a more general sense, 4ed gives everyone "magic" in the sense that everyone gets cool things to do. Beyond utility powers, a lot of classes (especially post-Essentials ones) get fun abilities at level one like Wilderness Knacks and Domain Utilities.

I think one of the problems of early D&D was that, when designers wanted to give fighters interesting things to do, they either gave them magic items or gave them access to spellcasting. Spellcasting already existed, so why not just use that? But then you create a paradigm of 'only magic can do cool things;, which is bunk.   

"Ah, the age-old conundrum. Defenders of a game are too blind to see it's broken, and critics are too idiotic to see that it isn't." - Brian McCormick


To deny other classes the ability to use magic in a limited manner is just another manifestation of "fighters can't have nice things because they're not wizards."



That "all things nice must come from magic" is merely your view, not a rule.

I, for one, find 3ed's fighter an awesome class. The possibilities you get from that many feats are endless.
To my taste, it is one of the most satisfying classes to play with, more than the wizard even.
Same can be said about the rogue, who is a swiss-knife of skills.

Both classes don't need any spells to be "nice".
And that's only 2 examples.

Maybe you don't like to play with anything that doesn't have spells, but that's just you.


To deny other classes the ability to use magic in a limited manner is just another manifestation of "fighters can't have nice things because they're not wizards."



That "all things nice must come from magic" is merely your view, not a rule.


Except when the rules explicitly provide players with a load of nice things, but only from magic, and not without it.

Then it stops being just one man's view, and literally is a rule. 
Seriously, though, you should check out the PbP Haven. You might also like Real Adventures, IF you're cool.
Knights of W.T.F.- Silver Spur Winner
4enclave, a place where 4e fans can talk 4e in peace.
(snip)



This is what multiclassing is for.

Multiclassing should be for being GOOD at it. 
Arcane magic for all!
So here's my suggestion: Everyone with the prerequisite intelligence should be able to cast spells.
Now, naturally, they shouldn't be as good in it as wizards.



great somebody else who wants MOAR MAGICS! and fantasy superheros... yeah, lets let everyone cast spells, let wizards wear full plate, heck lets throw out any restrictions what so ever...  
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." Gygax
It's about internal consistency. I'm big on Magic A is Magic A. 

You can learn arcane magic if you're smart enough,
so you should be able to learn arcane magic if you're smart enough. And ANY learning starts with a single action. 

You learn to write by writing. You learn to shoot by shooting. You should learn spellcasting by casting spells. 

You even learn to cook by cooking, although it's very helpful to see someone do it first, and perhaps assist the first few times. You _could_ just go through a long and arduous try-fail cycle.

It should be noted that settings in Conan and Lord of the Rings ARE, in fact, pretty high magic. It's just that the characters aren't the ones doing most of it.
So if ou want to cast a few spells take arcane dabbler if you want more multiclass into a spell casting class simple as that...you start giving everyone everything you may as well have one class "ADHD Man" and that would suck.

Sidenote: Arcanist clerics rock
"Everyone can pick up a little magic" is something of a deal from tradition and complexity standpoints, but it's more of a deal from a resonance standpoint. It's just not how fantasy fiction works for the most part, and where it is it's a highly specific setting choice. Giving a large chunk of the population the ability to alter reality under their own power even once each day is pretty hefty.

Granted, because D&D codified a lot of what fantasy fiction does, it's largely itself to blame for this, but there's something to be said (quite a lot, really) for meeting expectations in terms of resonance. (Of course, D&D has traditionally stuck with a powerfully, potently almost gaudily non-resonant casting system, for whatever that's worth.)
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
Lesp makes a good point. I do want to be able to run a game where only 'special' people can use magic. So, shunt my suggestion to a module or optional, then. 

Thing is though, in DnD, Wizards are the geeks who gain power through studying, but we also have Sorcerers who have an innate talent which tends to come forth whether they want to, or not.  

To deny other classes the ability to use magic in a limited manner is just another manifestation of "fighters can't have nice things because they're not wizards."



That "all things nice must come from magic" is merely your view, not a rule.


Except when the rules explicitly provide players with a load of nice things, but only from magic, and not without it.

Then it stops being just one man's view, and literally is a rule. 



I'm not sure about your copies of the books,  in mine there are loads of magic weapons,  armor,  and items all geared towards the non-mage classes.  Depending on the edition,  they have extra attacks,  better saving throws in some areas,  and a boatload of feats.

Maybe your books are missing pages?  Because the only other explanation I can think of is that you've never played the game. 

To deny other classes the ability to use magic in a limited manner is just another manifestation of "fighters can't have nice things because they're not wizards."



That "all things nice must come from magic" is merely your view, not a rule.


Except when the rules explicitly provide players with a load of nice things, but only from magic, and not without it.

Then it stops being just one man's view, and literally is a rule. 



I'm not sure about your copies of the books,  in mine there are loads of magic weapons,  armor,  and items all geared towards the non-mage classes.  Depending on the edition,  they have extra attacks,  better saving throws in some areas,  and a boatload of feats.

Maybe your books are missing pages?  Because the only other explanation I can think of is that you've never played the game. 

Given what I (think) is the average age of posters here, there's a good chance I've been playing D&D longer than you've been alive.  So whatever.

The point remains that there are ways to give non-caster classes limited access to spells (4e rituals being a great example, 4e multiclassing being another) that don't break the game, so once again we have a case of Next needing a fix or fixing something that worked fine in the previous edition.  One could say that the whole game of D&D Next is just that ... a solution in search of a problem. 

Unless the problem is that WoTC needs more money, in which case I completely understand. 

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”


To deny other classes the ability to use magic in a limited manner is just another manifestation of "fighters can't have nice things because they're not wizards."



That "all things nice must come from magic" is merely your view, not a rule.


Except when the rules explicitly provide players with a load of nice things, but only from magic, and not without it.

Then it stops being just one man's view, and literally is a rule. 



I'm not sure about your copies of the books,  in mine there are loads of magic weapons,  armor,  and items all geared towards the non-mage classes.  Depending on the edition,  they have extra attacks,  better saving throws in some areas,  and a boatload of feats.

Maybe your books are missing pages?  Because the only other explanation I can think of is that you've never played the game. 

Given what I (think) is the average age of posters here, there's a good chance I've been playing D&D longer than you've been alive.  So whatever.

The point remains that there are ways to give non-caster classes limited access to spells (4e rituals being a great example, 4e multiclassing being another) that don't break the game, so once again we have a case of Next needing a fix or fixing something that worked fine in the previous edition.  One could say that the whole game of D&D Next is just that ... a solution in search of a problem. 

Unless the problem is that WoTC needs more money, in which case I completely understand. 



Actually,  the chances aren't good.  I'm 38,  so you'll be needing to be more than 76 years old to have been playing longer than I've been alive.

I'd also caution you on the assumption that 4e handled this issue well,  for many of us,  4e didn't handle anything well.  IMO,  4e broke the game.

D&DNext is a solution to a rather easily observed problem.  4e caused interest and participation in Dungeons and Dragons to drop significantly,  and they ceded a very large amount of market share to Pathfinder (D&D 3.5).  It's very possible that WOTC faced the decision of either 5th edition and trying to regain market share,  or retiring the brand at this point.   
Every character in every edition of D&D has always been able to cast spells.  They simply use magical items to do it.




Exactly, spell casters had direct access to magic.   Non spell casters just need other mechanisms like boons , spells that imbue such ability, magical items, etc.   My 13th level fighter with a ring of spell reflection, boots of flying, and a helm of teleportation won't be hapyy if his magical items get taken away.   .    

Even Perseus had some kick ass items.


 .    

Even Perseus had some kick ass items.


Perseus being an authentic Xmas tree hero.. yup , and yet why is that the only kind allowed? and similarly you might have an Elric or maybe Arthur who is defined ins some ways by their items... but their needs to be very real room and support for Lancelots and Beowulfs and Herakles and maybe CuCulaines, who'se awesome pretty much runs the other way they had magic items but there "awesome" was overwhelmingly theirs and not something they wore or carried.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 


Actually,  the chances aren't good.  I'm 38,  so you'll be needing to be more than 76 years old to have been playing longer than I've been alive.



The one thing I love about DnD is it inherently weeds out most of the morons...if your dumb its VERY hard to play DnD so age means less than say in..lets scrape the bottom of the barrel here..Call of Duty

I'm 26 but my regular players range from 10 - 35 and the 10 year old is a genius and actually one of our better role players.


I'd also caution you on the assumption that 4e handled this issue well,  for many of us,  4e didn't handle anything well.  IMO,  4e broke the game.



Yes and no...personally my only expereince with pre-3e is video games...awesome video games (drool...Baldurs gate..watching project eternity like a hawk) but not PnP so I don't really have much of an opinion on those beyond THACO was dumb. Now 3.xe and 4th edition I've played both extensively and OVERALL prefer 4e despite the fact it did quite a few things wrong (ie. Feats =/= multiclassing) which is why I'm striving to involve myself with the creation of 5e because a perfect blending of elements from both 3e and 4e with the few things I know and like from previous additions (ie. Kits from 2e) is a dream and IMO the next edition should not be called 5e that implies a sequel but this is more of a more flexible blending....DnD 40th Anniversary Edition has a nice ring to it (The 40th anniversary is 2014 IIRC) 


To deny other classes the ability to use magic in a limited manner is just another manifestation of "fighters can't have nice things because they're not wizards."



That "all things nice must come from magic" is merely your view, not a rule.


Except when the rules explicitly provide players with a load of nice things, but only from magic, and not without it.

Then it stops being just one man's view, and literally is a rule. 



I'm not sure about your copies of the books,  in mine there are loads of magic weapons,  armor,  and items all geared towards the non-mage classes.  Depending on the edition,  they have extra attacks,  better saving throws in some areas,  and a boatload of feats.

Maybe your books are missing pages?  Because the only other explanation I can think of is that you've never played the game. 

Given what I (think) is the average age of posters here, there's a good chance I've been playing D&D longer than you've been alive.  So whatever.

The point remains that there are ways to give non-caster classes limited access to spells (4e rituals being a great example, 4e multiclassing being another) that don't break the game, so once again we have a case of Next needing a fix or fixing something that worked fine in the previous edition.  One could say that the whole game of D&D Next is just that ... a solution in search of a problem. 

Unless the problem is that WoTC needs more money, in which case I completely understand. 



Actually,  the chances aren't good.  I'm 38,  so you'll be needing to be more than 76 years old to have been playing longer than I've been alive.

I'd also caution you on the assumption that 4e handled this issue well,  for many of us,  4e didn't handle anything well.  IMO,  4e broke the game.

D&DNext is a solution to a rather easily observed problem.  4e caused interest and participation in Dungeons and Dragons to drop significantly,  and they ceded a very large amount of market share to Pathfinder (D&D 3.5).  It's very possible that WOTC faced the decision of either 5th edition and trying to regain market share,  or retiring the brand at this point.   



You are making a lot of impossible to prove assumptions there. The WHOLE gaming landscape has changed. For one, D&D takes a significant money and time investment. It's also always been slow to run if you are playing by the rules and not some stripped down home brew version. World of Warcraft takes up millions and millions of people that would otherwise play other types of RPGs.

I've played D&D off and on for over 30 years now and from my perspective computer games are superior yet there is still a niche market for pnp. But it's a diverse niche market full of egotistical customers and that is going to make it harder to sell. Now the same people who want THEIR viewpoint heard of poo-pooing others for having a different view point. I think that class based games are anachronistic and I don't see any problem with blurring the boundaries for those who wish the option to do so. We are wanting to be all-inclusive of differing play styles arent we?    
Oh and Gatt I don't know what Wizards sales figures are and this is entirely anecdotal but in my experience gaming stores used to be few and far between and the amount of people who actually DnD was a small fraction of even that usually only 1 table but nowdays there are FOUR gaming stores in my city alone not to even bother mentioning Toronto and their packed with people playing 4e. I have feeling it has more to do wiuth video games and DnD leaving the realm of being associated with them must be accompanied by beatings than 4es ruleset but I doubt their making less money.

IMO 5e is to fix a community divided...3e enthusists hating on 4e players, 4e players wondering why so much vitriol is thrown at them 1e & 2e edition players holding on to their worn books like a mother bear protecting her young...5e is to be a flexible integration of all of them in an attempt to bring the community back under the same roof.
Oh and Gatt I don't know what Wizards sales figures are and this is entirely anecdotal but in my experience gaming stores used to be few and far between and the amount of people who actually DnD was a small fraction of even that usually only 1 table but nowdays there are FOUR gaming stores in my city alone not to even bother mentioning Toronto and their packed with people playing 4e. I have feeling it has more to do wiuth video games and DnD leaving the realm of being associated with them must be accompanied by beatings than 4es ruleset but I doubt their making less money.

IMO 5e is to fix a community divided...3e enthusists hating on 4e players, 4e players wondering why so much vitriol is thrown at them 1e & 2e edition players holding on to their worn books like a mother bear protecting her young...5e is to be a flexible integration of all of them in an attempt to bring the community back under the same roof.


I've never met anyone who likes 4e so I have a very different experience.  Of course most people I know feel that 3e is loaded with its own problems as well. 

I certainly hope that Next is flexible enough to give love to everyone.  I am still optimistic even though some bloggers have thrown their hands in the air and fled over minor changes to what they hoped for.

I'm 38,  so you'll be needing to be more than 76 years old to have been playing longer than I've been alive.
 



lol. This statement hurt my brain, just a little.  Why would he need to be 38 to start playing?? Maybe he is 50 and started playing when he was 11 (39 years).
 .    

Even Perseus had some kick ass items.


Perseus being an authentic Xmas tree hero.. yup , and yet why is that the only kind allowed? and similarly you might have an Elric or maybe Arthur who is defined ins some ways by their items... but their needs to be very real room and support for Lancelots and Beowulfs and Herakles and maybe CuCulaines, who'se awesome pretty much runs the other way they had magic items but there "awesome" was overwhelmingly theirs and not something they wore or carried.




Are you referring to the Beowulf that had to remove his armor or sink like a stone and drown?  Lets not also forget about all the realism that these characters had to deal with as well.  

In my opinon, in a fantasy setting there is no reason why a fighter couldn't aquire divine boons or the "favour of the gods"      

I'd only worry if fighters have magical powers that are passed off as non-magical martial abilities.   If the system requires fighters to have such powers then it should at least provide a default reason.     Is it a boon from the gods or has the surrounding magic of the world infused with their martial prowess?     Other classes provide an explaination for their magial/supernatural powers, so why wouldn't the supernatural fighter?


 .    

Even Perseus had some kick ass items.


Perseus being an authentic Xmas tree hero.. yup , and yet why is that the only kind allowed? and similarly you might have an Elric or maybe Arthur who is defined ins some ways by their items... but their needs to be very real room and support for Lancelots and Beowulfs and Herakles and maybe CuCulaines, who'se awesome pretty much runs the other way they had magic items but there "awesome" was overwhelmingly theirs and not something they wore or carried.




Are you referring to the Beowulf that had to remove his armor or sink like a stone and drown? 



There was a very definite morale to Beowulfs story it was one of being independent of ones items because sometimes they might hinder rather than aide you (it was both with arms and armor)... the same with slaying grendel... With grendel they use a blessing/curse on that beast man able to bite the heads off of armed thanes with a single chomp but which was immunte to his weapons (which I beleive may have been magical even). 

He NEEDED to be mighty without them...  
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 


I'm 38,  so you'll be needing to be more than 76 years old to have been playing longer than I've been alive.
 



lol. This statement hurt my brain, just a little.  Why would he need to be 38 to start playing?? Maybe he is 50 and started playing when he was 11 (39 years).

Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out that math, heh.  In the interest of full disclosure I'm 40 so no, I haven't been playing longer than he's been alive since I started at nine.    Just saying, don't tell me I don't know D&D since I've played every edition since the little brown books!  But there are a lot of folks in the under 30ish range here so it's a safe bet to make! 


And my contention is that Next would do well to learn more lessons from how well 4e worked.  It works very well and I can honestly say in over 30 years of playing D&D, it's my favorite edition.  

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

And this is why I don't use D&D as a ruleset, unless I want to play D&D. If I want to play a crappy, anachronistic, class-based system with wonky rules and a weird a$$ cosmology and setting... I'll reach for the D&D books. If, say, I want to play anything else... I'll use a better system. Trust me, there are a lot of systems out there that are cheaper and worlds better than any edition of D&D.

Don't get me wrong, I love D&D, but don't try to generalize it or make it into something that it's not. All you'll end up with is a crappy (-ier?) version of GURPS or... whatever.
Trust me, there are a lot of systems out there that are cheaper and worlds better than any edition of D&D.

Don't get me wrong, I love D&D



What.