D&D v3.75 [Ideas]

[Vorpal word]

In terms of current D&D versions, neither is perfect. v3.5 has a lot of flexibility an a wide range of material, but the gameplay is slow and many classes, feats and spells are unbalanced. v4, on the other hand, while being convenient, simple, and balanced, has much less flexibility and material and is in some ways more like an MMORPG, especially now that they're planning to make the D&D Game Table. At least, that's my view on things.

But this thread is not about arguing over which edition is better or anguishing over which to play. My idea is that out of the two, the best one is "both".

My plan is to combine the best features of v3.5 (a wider range of spells and powers, flexibility in character and item creation, etc) with the best features of v4 (allowing ability scores to replace each other for Defenses and other features, concise and straightforward rules, faster gameplay, etc).

Any ideas to start this off will be appreciated; I might note that I only own the v4 Player's Handbook so I don't know much about v4 traps, monsters, skill challenges, etc.

[lesser_minion]

I think it's a viable concept - I generally think 4e is good, and seems to have taken a sensible direction in some areas, but it cut way too much out of the game, even things that weren't irredeemable (some are being remixed).

A big problem is going to be getting the character classes to work. There are, however, a few changes that must be seen in the combat system and some other rules as well.

There are a couple of guides to 3e character classes on the fora - Fax Celestis posted a guide to the main points here (I've mentioned some ideas from that thread below)

• The class must fit a party role
• The class must fill a niche - every class must have at least something that cannot be duplicated without taking that class
• The class must reward ingenuity and uniqueness on the part of its players
• You should not have to pump more than two or three stats in order to be mechanically effective
• There must be a good reason not to take a prestige class (also partly a problem with prestige classes)
• A base class is there as a possible way for a player to model his character concept. Classes need to be adaptable
• The mechanical power of a class is independent of its overall quality.

For fixing problems in 3e, you may want to look at the gaming section on this website and the essays on The Alexandrian.

[Chas the mage]

I do not like 4e at all. I can understand using will saves to resist spells and fortitude to resist poision, but the 'defenses' thing is sort of loony...

[mr.fizzypop]

Have you ever thought of taking some aspects from the previous editions?

[Starscream]

Things I would borrow from 4E:

*Giving monsters levels instead of challenge ratings. CRs can be very misleading.
* Allowing players to put one of two ability bonuses to their saves (int or dex to reflex, for example)
* The skills (Why were open lock and disable device ever separate?)
* Epic Destinies (there is already a 3.5 version on the WOTC site)

Things I would change from 3.5:

* Fixes for the weaker classes like Monk. There are plenty available in the homebrew section of this site
* Tomb of Battle and Psionics are in by default.
* Druids use the shapeshift variant.
* Fighters use the dungeoncrasher variant
* Fix broken spells like polymorph.

[TSED]

Don't forget!:

*No Save or Dies.
*Save or Loses are mitigated somehow. (Save per round or the like).

[Vorpal word]

Things I would borrow from 4E:

*Giving monsters levels instead of challenge ratings. CRs can be very misleading.
* Allowing players to put one of two ability bonuses to their saves (int or dex to reflex, for example)
* The skills (Why were open lock and disable device ever separate?)
* Epic Destinies (there is already a 3.5 version on the WOTC site)

Things I would change from 3.5:

* Fixes for the weaker classes like Monk. There are plenty available in the homebrew section of this site
* Tomb of Battle and Psionics are in by default.
* Druids use the shapeshift variant.
* Fighters use the dungeoncrasher variant
* Fix broken spells like polymorph.

Definitely agree with you on the v4 stuff, but I don't have anything in v3 except the core rulebooks, the Faerun campaign setting, and monster manual 2 and 3. So I wouldn't know about most of this stuff.

One thing I DO want to keep from 3.5 is the old crits and such. I'm also thinking of maybe throwing in a "Fire Emblem" type weapons triangle (blades beat axes/hammers, axes/hammers beat polearms, polearms beat swords) but I'm not exactly sure how to represent that.

Also, it's a good idea to keep ability score values a little more balanced. They say in 3.5 that a race with +2 Strength can be balanced by a -2 to two mental scores (Int, Wis, Cha). But those mental scores can also make your character an extremely strong spellcasting character at higher levels, so they should not be undervalued.

And there definitely SHOULD be stat penalties for every bonus (for Lvl Adjustment +0 creatures). The v4 "bonus only" system just makes everything unrealistically strong. The other racial abilities should probably be reworked and the entire base race list should be modified somewhat (adding things like centaurs [with less power] or kobolds [with more power] could be cool)

Anyway thanks for the input, I'll try to actually make something for tomorrow.

[Vorpal word]

To start off:

Base class roles (idea from 4e, but overlapping roles are good).

-Tank
-Healer
-Party Leader
-Trapper/Sneaker
-Striker
-Mage


The actual classes and what they do (feel free to add):

-Fighter(tank)
-Rogue(sneaker)
-Wizard(mage)
-Sorceror(mage)
-Cleric(healer/party leader)
-Favored Soul(healer/party leader)
-Druid(mage)
-<Spontaneous Nature Caster>(mage)
-Psion(mage)
-<Spontaneous Psionic Caster>(mage)
-Warmage(mage/striker)
-Warpriest(healer/striker)
-War<nature caster> (mage/striker)
-War<psionic caster> (mage/striker)

There will probably be more (or less) at the end, the first challenge is not to get clerics to overlap so many roles. I'm thinking of making cleric and druid magic separate types of magic. Not sure if every caster needs a spontaneous variant, maybe you can choose at lvl 1 between spontaneous and more spells?

Send in your ideas please!

[Vorpal word]

To start off, fighter idea:

d12 hit die

Builds: Weapon Master, Armored Destroyer, Cavalier.

Weapon Master:
1st Level: Weapon Type Specialization (+1 attack and damage with either polearm, axe, or blade)
2nd Level: Bonus Feat (choice of Improved Disarm, Improved Feint, Improved Trip)
4th Level: Weapon Focus with one weapon (stacks with Weapon Type Specialization)
5th Level: Free Two-Weapon Fighting
6th Level: Bonus Feat (choice of Cleave, Spring Attack, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting)
8th Level: Weapon Specialization with same weapon as before.
10th Level: Bonus Feat (choice of Whirlwind Attack, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Critical [with chosen weapon])

[lesser_minion]

I'd suggest making a variety of 'afflictions' - including poisons, diseases and maybe 3e's save-or-die spells, then use the 4e disease rules for all of them. It takes the sting out of save-or-dies a little, but at least they don't completely end the fight.

Save-or-lose spells definitely need to be toned down as well - possibly using a similar system to the diseases as well.

4e diseases:

• If you are infected, you suffer some effect
• Every so often, you make a check which could lead to you getting better or worse
• Each disease has a number of stages, ranging from being cured down to suffering a permanent effect.

The psion is a spontaneous caster - I don't think psionics need another one.

Personally, I think all divine casters should be spontaneous - that makes them a little different to the arcanists.

It makes sense for druids to be versatile and independent - they don't really fit into the 'roles' you've laid out. They shouldn't really beat anyone at their own game however.

[Southern Cross]

Actually,I think that Conjuration needs to be nerfed,as it was overpowered in D & D3.5.
Here are my suggestions:
(1) Put mage armor in the Abjuration school,where it belongs.
(2) If a spell does direct damage,it should be either an evocation spell ( i.e. the various orb spells),or (if it manipulates the target's lifeforce) a necromantic spell.

[BlueWizard]

Just go 1st or 2nd ed.

[lesser_minion]

As for spells, I wouldn't mind seeing more spells with a variety of effects - this could buff the 'useless carp' category of spells pretty nicely.

Keep things like "choose-a-damage-type" exclusive to psions though.

I wouldn't mind seeing weapons with energy damage becoming a bit more destructive, and it may be worth changing the slot system to work by type of effect - it might sound a little inelegant as balancing techniques go, but it could make a lot more thematic sense than banning players from wearing a magical shirt and a robe at the same time.

As for saves vs. defences - it's probably best to leave this to the DM's preference. They are functionally identical, but there may be DMs out there who appreciate using 'semi-diceless roleplaying'.

[Vorpal word]

Basically, the idea of using defenses vs saves is kind of the opposite of the defense roll variant in the 3.5 DM's guide, where you roll AC against attacks!

The things I'm definitely keeping from 3.5 are the alignment axis (I might even add more alignment options!), multiclassing (multiclass feats just aren't the same), and the stat penalties for races (v4 is just too powerful for everything).

As for v4, I like the idea of monster types (skirmisher, brute, etc) and levels, especially the minion concept. I'm not so sure about the class powers though. They're effective at balancing classes among each other (where as before spellcasters were obviously superior at high levels), but I'd like to find a different system. Also for spontaneous casting, it might be a good idea to give casters a choice between preparing a spell (which gives it a bonus) and spontaneously using it (which doesn't).

New (revised) class list:

-Fighter
-Cleric
-Druid
-Psion
-Wizard
-Warlock
-Rogue
-Ranger
-Paladin
-Warmage
-Psychic Warrior
-Barbarian
-Monk
-Bard
-Knight

That's 15 classes in total.
Basically what needs to be covered is:
-Melee Attacker (Fighter)
-Ranged Attacker (Ranger)
-Mounted Attacker (Knight)
-Trapper/Skillmonkey (Rogue)
-Party Leader (Paladin)
-Nature Caster (Druid)
-Divine Caster (Cleric)
-Arcane Caster (Wizard)
-Psionic Caster (Psion)
-Mix of Melee with Caster (Warmage)
-Miscellaneous (Monk, Bard)

Primary casters (druids/clerics included) should all have lower health than the hybrid caster/warriors. Druids and clerics should have totally different magic, and all magic should be affected by armour to some extent (armour can mess up prayers too)

[erikun]

One thing I DO want to keep from 3.5 is the old crits and such. I'm also thinking of maybe throwing in a "Fire Emblem" type weapons triangle (blades beat axes/hammers, axes/hammers beat polearms, polearms beat swords) but I'm not exactly sure how to represent that.

Bad idea, or at least a bad idea the way you're phrasing it here. Some weapon differences could certainly be good, such as bludgeoning working better against light armors (which wouldn't really protect against a mace), but saying "you are more vulnerable because you're holding a spear" feels rather silly. Especially if dropping my weapon suddenly increases my defenses.

Also, it's a good idea to keep ability score values a little more balanced. They say in 3.5 that a race with +2 Strength can be balanced by a -2 to two mental scores (Int, Wis, Cha). But those mental scores can also make your character an extremely strong spellcasting character at higher levels, so they should not be undervalued.

And there definitely SHOULD be stat penalties for every bonus (for Lvl Adjustment +0 creatures). The v4 "bonus only" system just makes everything unrealistically strong. The other racial abilities should probably be reworked and the entire base race list should be modified somewhat (adding things like centaurs [with less power] or kobolds [with more power] could be cool)

The main difference is the distance between someone "good" and someone "bad" at something. In 4e, being good just means +2 to a stat (+1 to most checks), and being bad was just average. In 3.5e, being good meant a 4-point difference over someone who is bad at it. Good luck playing a rogue with a Dex penality, or a Dwarven Sorcerer, for example.

-Tank
-Healer
-Party Leader
-Trapper/Sneaker
-Striker
-Mage

Are you still using these, or did you dump them? If so, I'd recommend strongly stating what each one does.


One last thing: your Fighter looks noticably worse than the 3.5e Fighter, because one of the few advantages for the 3.5e variant - versality - is gone from yours. I suppose that if this is the balance you'd like in your game, go for it. However, as the link that lesser_minion provided points out, restricting a class into a narrowly defined roll tends to make people simply dislike playing it.

[Mando Knight]

all magic should be affected by armour to some extent (armour can mess up prayers too)

-1.

I don't see why armor of any sort should inhibit the ability to cast any kind of magic, but especially those from an external source (i.e. divine). Yes, you'll have to balance improved armor with magic, but you're already reconfiguring the balance anyway. Don't give squishy-mages free armor proficiency, but magic-knights should definitely not take a penalty for using their class features (casting spells and fighting in melee).

[Zovc]

-Fighter
Approve, archetype.
-Cleric
Approve, archetype.
-Druid
Approve, but how are you going to differentiate the Druid and the Cleric? Keep in mind a "nature cleric" could function as a druid.
-Psion
Approve, I like psionics.
-Wizard
Approve, archetype.
-Warlock
Approve, but make sure he isn't outshined by the Wizard, Psion, or Psiwar. What the warlock currently has going for it is his unlimited ammunition.
-Rogue
Approve, archetype.
-Ranger
Approve, but keep in mind that a ranger is more than a ranged attacker.
-Paladin
Approve, archetype, hybrid. I almost feel like a Paladin should be in between a cleric and a fighter, and that a cleric should resemble a wizard more (and perhaps be called a priest).
-Warmage
Appove, archetype, hybrid. The warmage (3.5) is an extremely weak class, this needs to be fixxed, naturally.
-Psychic Warrior
Approve, hybrid.
-Barbarian
Approve, archetype.
-Monk
Approve, archetype, I believe the monk needs improvement.
-Bard
Approve, archetype, I feel like the bard should be less of a hybrid class and more of a support/leader class.
-Knight
Do not approve, I've never liked the class, and I don't see why a fighter or any other melee class can't be a melee attacker. From an RP perspective, almost any (non-alignment-restricted) class can be a Knight.

Most classes should be able to fulfill at least two party roles, even if they can only do so meagerly.

[Vorpal word]

Honestly, I would have made the last class on the list Dragon Shaman, but the problem is that if I keep dragonborn as a race (and I think I might) it would be useless to them. So if anyone has any ideas to offer instead of Knight (even something completely new), please post them for me to look at.

The Warlock I'm using will be more like the 3.5 warlock. The trick is making it balanced, perhaps by lowering base eldritch blast range (or damage) and adding more invocations to the list.

I know Monk as a class needs improvement, so it's definitely a priority. Ranger, I think, can double as a Nature caster; Overall, the hybrids will probably be the best ranged attackers, as they still don't have enough health for front-line fighting but can focus on attack spells easily.

Basically, the Hit Dice are as follows:
Wizard, Psion, Cleric, Druid: d4 (primary casters)
Warlock, Rogue, Bard: d6 (not fighting classes)
Paladin, Ranger, Psychic Warrior, Warmage: d8 (hybrids)
Monk, <last class>: d10 (I think the monk should toughen up a little as a striker)
Fighter, Barbarian: d12 (Fighters should also have more hp, but more finesse and less power)

I'm also eliminating all alignment restrictions for classes, though certain prestige classes may only be available to creatures of a certain alignment.

[lesser_minion]

Hmm... I wouldn't mind seeing every class come with a few things out-of-the-box:

• Competent melee, either ingrained into the class or obtained by supernatural means
• Some ranged combat ability (and that does not mean Weapon Proficiency: Crossbow)
• At least some out-of-combat ability
• Possibly a little healing ability
• Nothing should need a horrible investment to work - things like feats and skill choices should have at least some application to tailoring the other aspects of your build to your play style and character concept. They should not be a route to unsurpassed power or the only way to become effective
• At least a little resilience for all classes
• Distinctive abilities that reward clever play, give the class its own unique style and also give plenty of space for customisation.
• It might be worth making classes with Variable Ability Dependency, especially as a way of removing 'no-brainer dump stats' from classes.

I'd suggest that each class excels in at least one of these, but should generally hover around the 'reasonable/competent' level for the others - the player may also be able to improve some of these a little by investing other resources.

I don't really like the use of d4 hit dice, because I prefer squishy casters who die to a solid sword stroke as opposed to a gentle breeze.

Note that 4e does include all of these points, but the last one in particular needs to be massively improved - 'distinctive abilities' need to be more obvious and more explicit (although potentially more subtle as well), and they need to be worthwhile - there are a few 4e class features which I absolutely and wholeheartedly despise which appear to exist for the sole purpose of "giving the class a distinctive element", despite the fact that they can be quite interesting mechanics that make a significant difference to character play styles.

[Vorpal word]

I'll work a little more on classes later. For now I'm going to take a look at races to see if they're fully compatible with the classes.

Here are the ones I've thought of so far and their ability adjustments (based on 3.5 DM's Guide balancing guide):

Aasimar (+2 Wis, -2 Int)
Dragonborn (+2 Str, -2 Dex)
Dwarf (+2 Con, -2 Cha)
Eladrin (+4 Dex, -2 Str, -2 Con)
Elf (+2 Dex, -2 Con)
Gnoll (+2 Str, -2 Int, -2 Cha)
Gnome (+2 Con, -2 Str)
Goblin (+2 Dex, -2 Str)
Half-Elf (+2 Cha, -2 Con)
Half-Orc (+2 Str, -2 Int, -2 Cha)
Halfling (+2 Dex, -2 Str)
Human (n/a)
Kobold (+2 Dex, -2 Str)
Tiefling (+2 Int, -2 Cha)

Your input please!

[lesser_minion]

I think tieflings are long overdue a charisma bonus. I don't really see how one can be the distant descendent of an outsider and not be in some way more alluring and more mysterious than someone who isn't.

It also feels more important than the wisdom bonus in defining an Aasimar, for the same reason.

On the subject of Aasimar, why does being the descendent of a powerful force of good in the universe make your character stupid?

I'd suggest giving Eladrin a charisma bonus, no matter what 4e thinks, for much the same reason.

I'm also wary of handing out +4 bonuses (or, for that matter, -4 penalties) or larger in a player race - short of something like 'receives no saving throw progressions regardless of class' I don't think those could ever be balanced.

[Zovc]

First of all, races are (and should be) a lot more than just ability score bonuses, and you have to look at them as a whole. When we see a race with a +4 to one score (even with two -2's, but especially to physical stats) we have to know what else that race can do. Personally, I find races without abilities uninteresting, even if they have great ability scores.

Aasimar (+2 Wis, -2 Int)
I'm partial to simply a +2 Cha. Only problem is, you'd probably have to give them a LA.

Dragonborn (+2 Str, -2 Dex)
I suppose this makes sense, but I don't like a lingering dexterity modifier for "not being used to your body" after 10 "levels," you should be comfortable with the body you got there in.

Dwarf (+2 Con, -2 Cha)
I'm fine with this, it works.

Eladrin (+4 Dex, -2 Str, -2 Con)
I don't know what an Eladrin is, but my "educated" guess is some sort of fae-human. Definitely a +2 to Cha, not sure what to subtract from, but you could probably rationalize (but greatly weaken the race) a -2 Str or Con.

Elf (+2 Dex, -2 Con)
This seems to work, but elves are considered a weaker race, I believe.

Gnoll (+2 Str, -2 Int, -2 Cha)
This probably works.

Gnome (+2 Con, -2 Str)
I think this works.

Goblin (+2 Dex, -2 Str)
Halfling?

Half-Elf (+2 Cha, -2 Con)
What? Why? Neither humans, nor elves get a +2 to cha.

Half-Orc (+2 Str, -2 Int, -2 Cha)
I suppose so, Gnolls have these stats, too, an this is already a "munchkin" race.

Halfling (+2 Dex, -2 Str)
Goblin?

Human (n/a)
This seems to work.

Kobold (+2 Dex, -2 Str)
Halfling/Goblin?

Tiefling (+2 Int, -2 Cha)
I also don't believe that Tieflings deserve a -2 Cha, and I hate how Tieflings look in 4e. Probably another +2 Cha race, likely deserves a LA.

[Vorpal word]

The v3.5 DMG claims that a -2 penalty to two mental scores balances a +2 in Strength or Dexterity, and all other stats are supposed to be equal in value. Based on how orcs are built (+4 to Strength and -2 to all mental scores, plus Darkvision and Light Sensitivity), you would think that they are balanced. I have a friend playing an orc barbarian right now in a campaign, and his Strength is ridiculous...but the roll he put into it was a 17, so it's not surprising.
Anyway, some superstrong races could help.

What bothers me more is the possibility of multiple races having identical ability score adjustments, ie. goblins, kobolds, and halflings all have the same adjustment. I compiled this list specifically to avoid complaints about essential races (like pure orcs) not being on the list, but it will probably shrink before it's finalized.

For this same reason, I am not sure how to act with outsider races (aasimar, eladrin, and tieflings). The way they're built, they should get +2 to all mental scores, but as that is obviously unbalanced it may be better to drop them from the list entirely. Once again, penalizing Constitution makes them too elflike and dropping Strength or Dexterity (or both) just doesn't really make sense. As every race has some sort of defect, I would like to have both bonuses and penalties for LA +0 races (which works well for dragonborn, for example).

[Lappy9000]

The v3.5 DMG claims that a -2 penalty to two mental scores balances a +2 in Strength or Dexterity, and all other stats are supposed to be equal in value. Based on how orcs are built (+4 to Strength and -2 to all mental scores, plus Darkvision and Light Sensitivity), you would think that they are balanced. I have a friend playing an orc barbarian right now in a campaign, and his Strength is ridiculous...but the roll he put into it was a 17, so it's not surprising.

In my experience, the DMG lies on that respect. Orcs are one of the weaker +1 LA races. As a general rule, a +2 is balanced by a -2, plain and simple. Double penalties (+2,-2,-2) or a single penalty (-2) are better for races who have super-awesome abilities (something orcs lack).

What bothers me more is the possibility of multiple races having identical ability score adjustments, ie. goblins, kobolds, and halflings all have the same adjustment. I compiled this list specifically to avoid complaints about essential races (like pure orcs) not being on the list, but it will probably shrink before it's finalize.

Good idea.

For this same reason, I am not sure how to act with outsider races (aasimar, eladrin, and tieflings). The way they're built, they should get +2 to all mental scores, but as that is obviously unbalanced it may be better to drop them from the list entirely. Once again, penalizing Constitution makes them too elflike and dropping Strength or Dexterity (or both) just doesn't really make sense. As every race has some sort of defect, I would like to have both bonuses and penalties for LA +0 races (which works well for dragonborn, for example).

If a race ends up with just bonuses, you may have to get creative. I'd suggest boosting the power of every race to give yourself more elbow room. For the penalties, maybe initiative, weakness to a common energy type, skill penalties, or....something....else

[lesser_minion]

+1 for buffing every race, although I'd still suggest avoiding +4 and -4 adjustments.

You could take the Pathfinder route and give everyone a net +2.

Regarding the half-elf charisma modifier - 4e makes half-elves distinct from both humans and elves, which I actually quite liked.

3e also implied that they had all of the beauty/grace of elves without being arrogant jerks, which warranted at least a skill bonus, if not a full-blown +2 to Charisma.

I'd be tempted to give them the +2 Con, but the 'good at socialising' thing has been around longer.

Spoiler

Show

The main reason I'm suggesting to avoid +4 and -4 is simply that many classes have a few clear dump stats, meaning that -4 just looks like a decent mitigating factor even though it isn't. On the flip side, no matter where you put that +4 and how you try to balance it, I still think it is way too easy to exploit for +0 LA

[Vorpal word]

Judging by the comments I've seen, the outsiders (aasimar, eladrin, and tiefling) will have to go for now, at least until I can come up with something a little more concise for them.

For similar reasons, I guess I'll try the following:
a) Drop gnolls for the time being
b) Drop half-orcs, at least for a bit
c) Make orcs +2 Str, -2 Int, -2 Cha

As for the goblin and kobold issue, I'd like to give them something else but I really can't see how they might avoid a penalty to Strength as Small characters (and I don't want to give them any more bonuses/penalties). I guess kobolds are pretty distinct from other abilities (Darkvision, natural armor, maybe the "double shift" from 4e). But goblins...I really don't know what to do with them. Maybe drop them and make hobgoblin a base race, but that overlaps orcs.

Now, just to make sure this post contains more than empty chatter :

Dragonborn
+2 Str, -2 Dex (the penalty is not for "not being used to your body", it's just about being big and slow)
Darkvision 60ft
Breath weapon (15 ft cone of fire, acid, electricity, or cold, every 1d4 rounds, 1d6 damage/5 levels [I'd like some advice with the damage, don't really know how to make it work evenly])
Speed 20 ft
+1 natural armor

[Hadrian_Emrys]

There is a reason WotC went with the twinned +2 to atts method people. The core problems with the 3.x system were twofold: 1) Fluff went blindly before crunch in the planning phase, 2) The game was incompetently play-tested for balance throughout the rest of the creation process. With each race having natural strengths, and multiple races sharing similar aptitudes, there ends up being no single master race for a class/role (such as gray elves for non-LA wizards and half-orcs for barbarians). The lack of a positive modifier is penalty enough for power gamers while still not penalizing those who'd actually enjoy playing sub-optimal builds. Punishing creativity only encourages metagame thinking and rules lawyering.

From that point, I segway to request that the concept of half-x races having unique stats from their parent races be removed from the system on the grounds that the very concept is a poor idea (that drags humans into a sexual arms race with dragons in terms of which has the most inter-species reproductive prowess). A player of a half breed, if such things are to even be possible, should pick one parent race or another as the template by which they create their character. Even being flexible by allowing mixed and matched traits runs the risk of a glut of "mule" protagonists, which would get old in a hurry.

On that note, I wonder what kind of reception a classless point buy system would have if major aspects of characters were determined by stacking templates.

[Lappy9000]

(that drags humans into a sexual arms race with dragons in terms of which has the most inter-species reproductive prowess).

Humegolas: Final Count, forty two.
Dragomli: That's not bad for a round-eared Human princeling. I myself am sitting pretty on forty three.
Sick meta-humor, much?

[Hadrian_Emrys]

I suppose a peace treaty would end up being drafted by a half-dragon human weary of the parental bickering over mutual infidelity.

[daa18]

I have to say that i like the 4e stat bonus only method. It really allows someone to play a character like an orc wizard without having to worry about completely sucking.