I'd make the Paladin class open to any alignment, as per the character's deity, so that there would be holy champions for any alignment (or unholy, in the case of evil Paladins...) Why should only Lawful Good deities have these holy warriors available to them? Yes, there's the Blackguard in the DMG, but that still leaves no champions for Neutral and Chaotic Good, Lawful and Chaotic Neutral, and True Neutral deities! The justification for other classes' alignment restrictions are soddy, too... I'd get rid of them all, except for Divine spellcasters having to have a suitable alignment for their deity (THAT makes sense, since why should a deity give out spells to folks who don't see things his/her way?) No inteligent, free-willed creature should be listed as "always" a certain alignment, either (why is EVERY vampire Chaotic Evil? Can't one be Neutral or Lawful Evil? Liches get a choice, so why not vampires?)
What would you include/change in a 4th Edition...?
Paladins should always be lawful good. They're based on King Arthur and Charlemagne who always fought with honour and a code of conduct.
Of course, there could be other classes that would exemplify a particular alignment. I think 1e had an idea very similar to this with the alignment restrictions for the other classes.
As for other things I would change with 4e:
Expand the default races to include full orcs, goblins, kobolds, and some other creatures that are popular.
Use Star Wars Saga edition skill system. No more "ranks". Either you're trained to do the skill or not. No more "can't use this skill untrained." You can take a penalty, but you always have a chance to do something. I would also consolidate the skills so there are lot fewer of them.
More diversification options in character classes. They did a good job of this in 3.5 with rogues and fighters. You'll hardly find any two alike, but other classes suffer from "cookie cutter" stereotypes. (ie Aren't all Barbarians alike?)
Armour should provide damage reduction bonuses, not AC.
A far less complicated combat system. I know wizards is just itching to integrate their miniature combat system with D&D. I don't mind so much as long as it makes combat faster and less complicated. I hate sitting around waiting for my initiative turn to come up. I would also want rules for no-minis combat, but WOTC is very unlikely to do that.
Reduce the number of spells. Make a smaller selection of spells more adaptable and more multi-purpose. Make all spellcasting work more like epic spells, with seed spells that creative players can invent things with.
Change item creation rules so that you can gain XP instead of lose it when making items.
Start with the 1e Monster Manual I and redo the stats for all monsters that have ever appeared in any other editions before they make any more creatures with class levels and templates passed off as new ones. Release at least 1 mini for each creature.
Re-release Planescape, Dragonlance, and Dark Sun. Make Mystara the default campaign world again with full maps in the core books. Dump Forgotten Realms (admittedly a complete fantasy).
And last but not least, I want Dragon and Dungeon Magazines back in print.
How would this work, and why do you think it's a good change?
I think what realy needs working on is diplomacy mechanic: becaouse only characters with this class skill have chanse to influence NPC in any way. This puts bards in spot light but discurage other clases from Roleplaying. Becaouse whatever clever agument or idea party fighter or wizard hawe his only chanse to influence NPC is natural 20.
Also the way the books are written should be changed. I mean there should be more fluff in the writing of books, (WoTC books are specialy dry), and bring back soul and personalyty to NPCs who are now just Stat blocks with preety pictures.
That is why conversations with anyone you're trying to influence should be roleplayed first and roll-played second. If the fighter or wizard characters have something useful to offer a conversation - so long as it isn't based on knowledge they don't possess - they should feel free to share it, rather than relying on a die roll to tell them if they can. (and the npc should react as the GM considers appropriate) I say take diplomacy out entirely - if the players aren't capable of reflecting the eloquence of their characters, then resort to charisma checks ... but only after they've made the IC effort.
-420
Where can I find this prestige class (what book)?
I use diplomacy checks sparingly, preferring to rely on the roleplaying part and let players talk their way through. When I *do* use them, it's never as simple as 'you roll high, you win'.
The way I do it is as follows:
When a players conversation with a NPC isn't entirely convincing then - I'll have them roll to make up the difference. Or based on a roll I may allow them a 'do over' if they flubbed the last few lines or a 'hint' when they get to a critical point.
Most often I've used a roll when a player is feeling out of their league and nervous - I'll have them roll to give the player him/herself the confidence that they need, in order to do what they can do. It's like a safety net for the nervous (not that it necessarily will have any other effect on the outcome realistically).
I have a player who can't speak well or think well on his feet, so instead I've taken to allowing him to describe how he speaks and what he intends. I let him work to convey his intent rather than force him to speak the words themselves, then - if I feel it necessary - I allow him to make a skill check and modify the result by how much effort he put into the scene. Naturally he still doesn't succeed all the time - particularly when the story doesn't require he do so - but it gives him some leverage, and thus confidence, when involving his character in social interaction.
I would still stick the patron deities name in however, "Divine Champion of Boccob" or whatnot.
The main difference is that their Lay on Hands only works on targets with the same patron deity and Smite ability works against anyone with a different patron deity.
However, in Planescape PC's aren't required to have a patron Deity. I would change Lay on Hands to affect anyone of the same alignment (or of no more that one alignment shift away) and Smite Infidel to affect anyone of a different alignment.
-420
How would this work, and why do you think it's a good change?
XP is supposed to represent experience you gain in practical application of abilities. But making a magic item is also a practical application of your magical abilities. So why do you lose XP when making it?
What I propose is revision of the system where the item to make has a DC that must be overcome. Succeeding on a Spellcraft check means you gain XP for making the item. It represents that you correctly applied your current knowledge to create something. Failure means you messed something up. The item still gets made but now has a drawback or restriction that you didn't intend. It develops one or more cursed item property, depending on how much you failed the check by. The DM determines what property it would have either randomly or by just picking something. It encourages magic item creation (since making the DC can gain you experience) and also introduces some unpredictability into them to discourage mass production.
What I propose is revision of the system where the item to make has a DC that must be overcome. Succeeding on a Spellcraft check means you gain XP for making the item. It represents that you correctly applied your current knowledge to create something. Failure means you messed something up. The item still gets made but now has a drawback or restriction that you didn't intend. It develops one or more cursed item property, depending on how much you failed the check by. The DM determines what property it would have either randomly or by just picking something. It encourages magic item creation (since making the DC can gain you experience) and also introduces some unpredictability into them to discourage mass production.
That does make sense. I was mostly concerned about the fact that costing XP is the main limiter as to why wizards don't churn out magic items.
I think 4e needs a big overhaul of it's magic system, spells, arcane/divine/druidic/psionic magic, monster spell-like abilities, spells specialties and lists/domains, there's a lot of things that should be changed though I suspect it wouldn't...
I'd say that much of the new developments in 3.5e have been WotC trying to figure out magic in a new edition. From things like the warlock, reserve feats, psionics powers with augmentations, psionic/focus and stances, pact magic, incarnum, martial magic, themed spellcasting classes and the list goes on...
For monsters, I don't like the lists of spell-like abilities where some are at will, or 3/day or 1/day. I rather monsters get things like "rulings" like clerical domains or related warlock like invocations.
Could you clarify what you mean by that?
What I want in a new edition is more synergy between abilities in classes so that multiclassing can work. I also want something akin to the "buying off level adjusdtment" rules to be standard; getting stuck with a level adjustment sucks.
Could someone elaborate on the SW Saga ed skill rules? From what I've heard it sounds too abstracted for my tastes, but I admit the d20 skill rules are in sore need of improvement.
Could you clarify what you mean by that?
Instead of: At will: Scorching ray, produce flame, minor image, invisibility; 3/day: fireball, wall of fire, mirror image; 1/day: phantasmal killer.
I want to see:
Rulings: Fire (intermediate), Illusion (intermediate)
Obviously the number of uses are going to have to be changed. And I know that they want it to be easier for DMs. There could be a point system for using spell-like abilities, or perhaps a tiered system of spell-like abilities were lesser spells can be used at will and greater spells used either a limited number of times or the once every 5 or 1d4 rounds.
I'd divide the Monster Manual into two: one would have all the Prime-Material plane critters, and the other would have all the Inner/Outer Planar beings, including Yugoloths as a MUST, and ALL the Genie races! Psionics would be included in the core books for both monsters and player characters (the Psion and Psycic warrior or whatever they end up with in 4Ed)... Sigil would be detailed in the DMG as a sample Planar site (I'd use Greyhawk City for the sample Prime site; I like Greyhawk, so sue me...)
Oh, yeah, they need to SIMPLIFY the @#$%^&* rules! There are too darn many rules to remember, and building/improving a character should be made a lot easier... the charts give me a headache!
I would dispense with the outdated notion of classes altogether and use a skill-based system. (Of course, templates would be available for those who want to roll up a character quickly, but a skill-based system would beat the heck out of going through 200+ prestige classes looking for just the combination of skills and abilities you have in mind.)
I dislike the alignment system, but it's so firmly entrenched in D&D at this point that it'd be hard to remove altogether. Game mechanics (spells especially) and planar mechanics are based on alignment. It's just that lots and lots of characters don't fit easily into the L-N-C and G-N-E axes.
no problem with the rules and the classes and stuff
well, alright, the skills should be more percentage based
oh, and probably integrate all worlds into one, officially
but then again, I could pretty much mess around with numbers and stuff anyway (and I'm sure you could too, hehehehe)
First, I suppress 3rd edition that made it all even more complicated, while it was intended to simplify.
Second, I suppress every rule that can´t get an in-game rationnal explanation.
Third, i suppress every die roll I canm after all, it´s role playing, no dice rolling game.
And by the way, i get rid of the funky way wizards are stupidly forgetting a spell after casting it, and can memorize it twice 8how can you memorize twice??) and replace it by a spell points per day thing (or even rest points per day, used for every kind of action, at one point, you just too tired to cast anymore spell without fainting, or be unable to concentrate)
But these are my home rules anyways, and I´m already using them, the whole point being less game mechanics=more fun. My players don´t even have to know anything about the rules, i keep the character sheets and roll the dices.
I would dispense with the outdated notion of classes altogether and use a skill-based system. (Of course, templates would be available for those who want to roll up a character quickly, but a skill-based system would beat the heck out of going through 200+ prestige classes looking for just the combination of skills and abilities you have in mind.)
I dislike the alignment system, but it's so firmly entrenched in D&D at this point that it'd be hard to remove altogether. Game mechanics (spells especially) and planar mechanics are based on alignment. It's just that lots and lots of characters don't fit easily into the L-N-C and G-N-E axes.
Getting rid of the classes would be good, but hard with logic (being a wizard implies life-long study, a paladin an absolutely faithful dedication...) but nonweapon and weapon profiencies definitely must be the same, and even magic and psionics. (but not priestly magic)
For paladins, I think there shouldn´t be non lawful good paladins (maybe lawful neutral, yet that´s strange) How can you wholly be dedicated to the ursuit of a goal that is not your own interest if you´re not good? And how can you be righteous enough in the path of a power as to receive a special blessing as reward if you´re not lawful?
Non warrior paladins could be considered. though. But somehow I feel you are more deserving of blessing risking you life in melee fighting on the battlefield than throwing spells and sneaking into vilains homes to rob them. For all this I allow no modification to the paladin. (except from the sick powers of ravenloft, they just enjoy mocking goodness and making you feel you´re in the right while you´re just perverted all in all)
I still think the biggest weakness of 3rd ed (at least as I've experienced it playing Neverwinter Nights) is the feat system. Unlike in 2E, where the focus was on attempting anything you might think of during the game and the DM coming up with a means of determining success, feats created this giant paragon of power that ultimately leads to ridiculous power-gaming.
For example, in Baldur's Gate 2, you generally needed all 6 party members in any given situation. No one character could do it all. In Neverwinter Nights, I had a duergar cleric/fighter/dwarven defender (with strength and travel domains) who at 12th level took on 8 other PCs simultaneously, killed them all (two of them twice, stupid respawn) and never got below half life. And he didn't even have his damage reduction feats yet. By level 25 (max on that server) I reckoned him fairly indestructible, as he had Damage Reduction 12 (without buffs) and with buffs, approximately 70 AC and 600 hit points. Oh, and a minimum of 5 attacks per round, with the primary +35 to hit.
This sort of problem isn't just feat related, it's also to do with the crazy buffing system 3rd ed introduced. Granted, 2E had buffs, but often not more than 1 per spell level. And they had negatives (like haste's aging factor)
Anyway, I like the skill system in 3rd ed, but I think they should back weapon proficiencies for fighting instead of the bizarre feat system for learning weapons. How is it you can learn every weapon of the Martial type for one feat? And why should not having said feat make picking up a weapon of that type impossible?
Guess I'm done ranting now. I will say, though, that 3rd ed can be thanked for the creation of Sarn Kellfrock, my awesomely evil duergar villain 
As far as experience goes, have you seen the essay purporting to prove that nobody in our world and few in fiction get past fifth level?
I don't mean to pick on you, but what is this obsession with Good and Evil as 'selfless' vs. 'selfish' behavior? Even Chaotic Evil types might care more about destruction than their own interest (revenge-seekers come to mind). As for LE, why do I even have to point this out? (pdf) Please read the whole Posse section.
1. You can't.
2. It doesn't.
I am for a tweak in 3.5 edition not a whole change. With the change a lot of people stop playing dungeons & dragons.
I change the fighter for the warblade, tweak the feats, add the psionics clases and common races such as orc and kobolds to the core books, make the rules more easy, add better descriptions to the monsters and everything.
And merge all worlds in a way you can play all in one if you wish so.
And well make a way to make more role and less roll dice mechanic.
1. You can't.
2. It doesn't.
Well, that's good then.
Like I said, my 3rd Ed experience is from Neverwinter Nights (where it did work that way)
4e has been announced. It's official.
Better start working on the update guys.
Here's hoping for some yugoloth love.
I don't mean to pick on you, but what is this obsession with Good and Evil as 'selfless' vs. 'selfish' behavior? Even Chaotic Evil types might care more about destruction than their own interest (revenge-seekers come to mind). As for LE, why do I even have to point this out? (pdf) Please read the whole Posse section.
You´re right, I just (as many often do) mixed up good versus evil with law versus chaos, (and eventually high charisma/wisdom versus low charisma/wisdom)
After all, a ss soldier could be close to an anti-paladin.
Let´s say only lawful paladins, then.
3.X D&D, in its attempt to consolidate and streamline, gave up some of the variation that made the game interesting. In particular, spellcasting is more videogame-like. For me:
Sorcerers are out. That's what psionics are for.
Psionics and magic *are* different.
Summoning is riskier. And requires material for elementals.
Wizards have enormous spellbooks full of specialized spells, not one-size-fits-all. (Remember "breathe earth"?)
Numerous similar nostalgic bits.
Oh, and giths have +2 Int, Dex, -2 Str, Wis, not +6 Dex, +2 Wis, -2 Int.
As far as monster alignments go, you have to realize that these are a) the stereotypical creature of that breed and b) based upon the perceptions of the prevelant humanocentric races which invariably rule the worlds in question.
Since alignment is highly subjective to the culture and society involved, I would tend to imagine each invidual of a monstrous race has two alignments - one as perceived by the prevelant manish races and another as perceived by its own culture. I played a kobald witch doctor whose behavior would have set him easily in the Neutral-Chaotic Evil category so far as the regional human/demi humans were concerned, though he was a hero among his own people and would have been considered Chaotic Good by their standards.
The alignments listed are merely typical of each creatures observed behavior.
As to allowing a champion class for each god, I see no reason why not to. However, the Paladin, as conceived by DnD, is not merely a champion of his or her god, but a paragon of virtue - the "knight in shining armor" stereotype ... rather than removing the alignment restriction on paladins, one would do better to generate a "religious champion" class, somewhat modifiable for any religion. (the 2E Priests' Handbook did something like this, allowing one to devise kits to represent the followers/champions of any particular god)
But, just because it isn't in the rules doesn't mean you are restricted from doing anything you desire as gm. You want neutral good orcish paladins? Make it so - you are the final word on what is and is not acceptible in your games. (2E encouraged this sort of loose gming more than 3+ tends to)