What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]

[jmbrown]

Just wondering, why did you put that in quotation marks? Makes no sense.

Because Jogi suggests improvements for the system but his suggestions change the system beyond recognition. It's easier to play a completely different system because D&D's rules are based around combat, classes, and level based progression.

At the heart of it, DnD is about explorative & cooperative adventure, teamwork, and fantasy. As long as the heart remains the same, it's DnD to me.
Don't get me wrong. I have my bones to pick with 4e DnD, but I won't say it isn't DnD.

"explorative & cooperative adventure, teamwork, and fantasy" may be the results of playing, but D&D's rules are about combat and encounters. The mechanics are based around combat, the classes are designed to overcome encounters, magic is designed to defeat or protect, and skills allow you to overcome challenges. Yes, there are utility abilities that don't directly affect combat, but such spells still serve a primary function for the party's survivability.

You're right about mecanics, but i belive that deep inside magic is no mere thing for "stick-wielders". In some scenarios it's feared by those who can't do it, and for a good reason: magic can be very powerfull. Additionally, I think that magic not being defined in the system gives brewers a hard time.

4E defines magic quite clearly. To cast a spell, you need to spend money and make a skill check based on the spell. It's easy to create a spell: set the level, set the cost, set the skill check, write the description. Done.

Keep in mind that magic no longer has a direct combat effect so it's easier to create utility spells that do things like move the earth, teleport the party or rip holes in the fabric of reality.

Hmm, I don't know. I do agree that combat has become a main figure in D&d but above all I belive it is about teamwork and roleplaying in a fantasy genre. Although Im not yet decided about no class-system.

I want something that makes you free in character creation, magic wielding and yet is simple enough to be played by normal humans. Thanks for your thoughts tho, they've been usefull.

A little history lesson, D&D originally began life as a table top war game. It required players to actually know the war game in order to play. Later, Gygax and Arneson wrote their own game specific rules but the combat mechanics still carry on.

Everything that you want exists in better form than D&D. As a suggestion, Savage Worlds has point based character creation, magic that's inherent to a caster instead of learned, and it's designed around fast combat with multiple characters that doesn't take 30 minutes to finish a single round.

This is needlessly restrictive, & indicative of the brain-drain problem that I just pointed out as a flaw. In the minds of WotC (& apparently yours as well), you can only create classes that fit within these narrow cookie-cutter party roles. You can only control, defend, lead, or strike. Classes that focus on anything different are "ineffective".

Key words: in combat. Characters that deviate from controller, defender, leader and striker are ineffective in combat.

Outside of combat, all characters are assumed to be average at every skill and useful at trained skills. This is a direct opposite of 3E's skill system which assumes all characters are terrible at everything and trained only in what they have skill points in. Because of the progressive system, only characters that specialize in a skill can hope to overcome a skill of their level. In other words, characters in 4E are more useful outside of combat than 3E characters.

Now tell me, which game is more restrictive?

D&D is a RPG, regardless of edition. In my mind, a RPG is a collaborative experience that can be customized to suit the player's tastes, including the DM's. If I made a new class that did something besides control/defend/lead/strike, why would that class be automatically ineffective or invalid, just because it didn't fit your predefined roles?

Yes, it's an RPG, and like every single RPG in existence the rules are established to define the game. When you customize the rules, you're building within the rules. There's no difference between this and every other RPG rule set. In 3E your class' balance is determined by his BAB, saves, skill points and abilities. In 4E your class' balance is determined by his role and how his powers directly serve his role.

What if my class was focused on summoning, or illusions, or animating objects? None of those fits neatly into the established roles, & any one of them could be very effective on the battlefield, if built well. But according to your strictures, my attempts are dismissed before I even start.

Your attempts at what? Building a character that doesn't conform to the mechanics? As I said, 4E's classes are designed to perform in battle. Here are some suggestions:

Summoner Striker: Summons monsters like dinosaurs that move quickly and deal high damage.

Summoner Defender: Summons monsters like bears that have high defenses and grant bonuses to allies that fight next to it.

Summoner Controller: Summons monsters like demons that charm enemies and have area attacks which debilitates them.

Summoner Leader: Summons monsters like angels that heal the party and grant bonuses for the party.

Illusionist Striker: Uses illusions to trick enemies into attacking themselves or each other.

Illusionist Defender: Creates illusory walls that protect allies or magical decoys that keep enemies from targeting the PCs.

Illusionist Controller: Creates illusory terrain that damages enemies as they walk through it.

Illusionist Leader: Creates illusory beacons that help PCs target enemies or inspire them with courage.

Animated Striker: Uses natural terrain or random objects to deal damage to enemies like causing roots to stab enemies or forcing an enemies' weapon to strike back at them.

Animated Defender: Morphs walls and terrain to cover allies or remove cover from enemies; animates ally shields to protect them (allowing them to use 2 hands or providing an AC bonus).

Animated Controller: Causes enemy equipment like weapons and armor to jump around or dislodge themselves (animate enemy's boots causing them to trip, etc.)

Animated Leader: Enhances ally equipment to deal more damage, increase reach, or fight by themselves.

Each of those class suggestions conforms to the rules while still using ideas unique to their design. With proper construction, the character will be unique while still doing their job in combat.

My chosen analogy is art. WotC says that the only art is painting, sculpture, textiles, & architecture. If I were to submit a poem, or a novel, or a movie, or a digital image, it would be considered ineffective, invalid, & Not Art. It doesn't matter if it's inspiring or insipid, resplendent or repulsive, sublime or sucktastic. My attempts are doomed from the outset. It doesn't matter if my art is awesome or awful, it is already deemed Not Art.

I don't know what you're talking about here. Are you speaking within the game world? If so, those aren't written in stone. They've never been. D&D has always supplied a built in ecology and multiverse but in 4E there are no inherent rules that restrict a character by class, race, or alignment.

I find this outlook sad & distasteful, & is yet another reason that 4E is anathema to me. You can sacrifice creativity, diversity, & realism on the altar of Unobtainable Balance, but I won't bow to the false idol of 4th Edition.

Like all RPGs, your input is equal to your output. If you think in restrictive terms you're going to end up restricting yourself. 4E is just as customizable as 3E but you still have to adhere to the rules. A 3E character that doesn't follow the poor/average/good progression of BAB or the poor/good progression of saving throws is just as useless as a 4E character that isn't a defender, striker, leader, or controller.