Community

DevinWren wrote:

No "Dead Levels". This means that characters have something to look forward to at every level.

Confirmed by development team.

Instead of hardwired class features, utilize the amazing talent tree system from Modern and Saga. This allows immense customization as well as makes it easier to add features or tweak classes with new abilities in future books.

Confirmed by development team.

Give classes a defense bonus. Whether you go the route of Saga, which gets rid of saves and you have 3 defenses, or go with the system of a different d20 system (Modern, Wheel of Time, older Star Wars d20 RPG's) with a Defense score (AC). I hate relying almost solely on armor, and the only real way of boosting that AC is through magic. If I have a rogue who has an aversion to magic, my AC should not have a capped max of 16 with an 18 Dex and light armor. What if I don't want to wear armor? This needs to change.

I've heard nothing on this so far, but I disagree that this needs to change. If you don't want to wear armor, you're going to be more vulnerable than someone who decides "Hey, wearing some kind of armor would be smart!"

The magic system needs to be redesigned. There are a variety of fantastic stories to draw on from for inspiration. The Vancian system needs to be thrown out.

It sounds like the magic system is either getting an overhaul or a significant extension in the form of non-daily resources.

Add the condition track from SWSE. This will open many avenues for gameplay options. Using magic wear you out? Move down the condition track!

I'd be surprised if they put this in.

jephlewis wrote:

concerning the D&D insider: depending on how much you charge, and what content is offered, I may or may not subscribe. I really don't like subscriptions, so again my socks must be blown off. As for Dungeon and Dragon magzines, if I can't store it on my hard drive and use it without an internet connection, i'm out.

$9.95 a month, and you get access to the Game Table app, the Character Creator, DM Toolbox, Dragon and Dungeon magazines and some other stuff.

samsael wrote:

To a certain extent, that's true. Encounters are (read: should be) designed assuming that each character will make appropriate use of his or her abilites. For most non-spellcasters, this means using every trick at their disposal. For spell casters, this isn't the case. It's not that hard for a caster to over-commit to a fight, making the encounter trivial, but expending too many spells which could result in a very difficult or un-beatable encounter later on when your principal damage dealer is essentially a bystander.

This holds up in non-combat situations as well. An overeager caster could expend a divination for something a rogue could've found out with some careful searching or a warrior could've gotten through interrogation leaving the party empty handed when that divination really would have been the only answer in a later situation.

One of the balancing factors for the entire DnD Vancian system has always been that casters have to use their spells with great forethought. I hope that a 'per encounter" system becomes more like the reserve feats in CM and leaves the Vancian-feel. Without the Vancian system it really won't be like DnD anymore, which might be preferable to many, but would leave grognards like me behind.

I am wary of the ToB feel combat and fighters in particular appear to be headed, but am encouraged by the design article discussing how to make weapon choice matter. An elegant system that allows for most weapons to have their historical niche (without going into sci-fi) has always been a dream of mine.

rutrow424 wrote:

I am wary of the ToB feel combat and fighters in particular appear to be headed, but am encouraged by the design article discussing how to make weapon choice matter. An elegant system that allows for most weapons to have their historical niche (without going into sci-fi) has always been a dream of mine.

Actually, I'm very excited about the way they seem to be taking fighters. I didn't like ToB in 3.5, but that was because it was too darned different. It took the idea of "I have sword, I slash monster" and threw it out the window...it became difficult to decide what a ToB character could be compared against classwise, since there was almost no precedent for them (I say that because someone would not doubt tell me "nuh-uh, there was this thing!").

If ToB-style becomes the norm for melee characters, then hopefully they won't be useless for the most part compared to casters after level 10 or so. :D

kaphremthefox wrote:

The two fundamental flaws of D&D are it's heavy emphasis on the "healer" character and the heavy weight of magic gadgets on the rules.

I don't think that either of these could be considered fundamental flaws. On what evidence do you base this?

Spells and powers are highly complex and take up so much page space because they are necessarily so explicit. By introducting a more modular, cellular system to spells and powers, you could not only increase the number of options for users, but decrease text load and unnecessary duplication. You already have descriptors and schools, just take it a step further and turn the system into one deriving from combinations of elements.

Won't happen, for the same reason that we won't see a class-less leveling system.

Also, I hope that while giving each of the classes their own particular abilities you will ensure that they are indeed heavily balanced against one another. I'm not a proponent of the "do everything character" as many on this thread are, but one class should be able to defeat another of equal level 50% of the time.

Totally pointless. D&D isn't about dueling characters. It's a team game, centered around a party mechanic.