-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 3E/3.5 Changes you'd like to see made to 3.5/4E?
- Thread starter Gothmog
- Start date
Thorvald Kviksverd
First Post
Re: Re: Changes you'd like to see made to 3.5/4E?
I think one of the main reasons the proficiency slot system has gotten a bad rap, is more due to an unfortunate choice of words. If they had instead been called "weapon preference slots", or some such, there would be a better appreciation of them.
Take your typical upper-level Fighter, he might have a THAC0 of 10 when using a weapon with which he is proficient, but a THAC0 of 12 when using one with which he is non-proficient. The thing is, his "non-proficient" THAC0 is considerably better than that of a lower level Fighter who is "proficient" with the same weapon, yet may only have a THAC0 of 19 with it. Would one say that the higher level Fighter is less proficient than the lower in such cases? ...Of course not. The higher level Fighter is certainly proficient with this weapon, he just isn't as skilled with it as he is with his preferred weapons.
3e, rather than changing the terminology and keeping the power level the same, instead chose to increase the power level by the inclusion of weapon related FEATS. Where general weapons familiarity for Fighters once was the Base THAC0 minus the Non-Proficiency Penalty, now the BASE THAC0 (BAB) is the baseline, with preferences and specializations adding to this value. In other words, think of the THAC0 for proficient weapons before as actually being the THAC0 for those weapons with which the Fighter had a weapon focus FEAT. There's nothing wrong with 3e's system, it's just another way of approaching things.
BTW, in BASIC D&D (if not using the optional weapon mastery rules--which I don't) a PC is proficient with all allowed weapons. So it hasn't always been the case that D&D has had weapon proficiency slots.
Might be a bit off-topic, but I thought I'd comment on this. . .Dark Jezter said:
I think one of the main reasons the proficiency slot system has gotten a bad rap, is more due to an unfortunate choice of words. If they had instead been called "weapon preference slots", or some such, there would be a better appreciation of them.
Take your typical upper-level Fighter, he might have a THAC0 of 10 when using a weapon with which he is proficient, but a THAC0 of 12 when using one with which he is non-proficient. The thing is, his "non-proficient" THAC0 is considerably better than that of a lower level Fighter who is "proficient" with the same weapon, yet may only have a THAC0 of 19 with it. Would one say that the higher level Fighter is less proficient than the lower in such cases? ...Of course not. The higher level Fighter is certainly proficient with this weapon, he just isn't as skilled with it as he is with his preferred weapons.
3e, rather than changing the terminology and keeping the power level the same, instead chose to increase the power level by the inclusion of weapon related FEATS. Where general weapons familiarity for Fighters once was the Base THAC0 minus the Non-Proficiency Penalty, now the BASE THAC0 (BAB) is the baseline, with preferences and specializations adding to this value. In other words, think of the THAC0 for proficient weapons before as actually being the THAC0 for those weapons with which the Fighter had a weapon focus FEAT. There's nothing wrong with 3e's system, it's just another way of approaching things.
BTW, in BASIC D&D (if not using the optional weapon mastery rules--which I don't) a PC is proficient with all allowed weapons. So it hasn't always been the case that D&D has had weapon proficiency slots.
Gothmog
First Post
Originally posted by Dark Jezter:
Nope, I am not saying one style is better than the other. Historically, D&D has always been more combat heavy, but if a DM didn't want as much combat, he could simply decide not lessen it. With 3E though, a much larger part of a character is built around combat, and 3E (through various aspects such as the Power Play articles) encourages the development of combat at the expense of other aspects of play. When was the last time you saw a rogue take the Athletic feat in preference of Dodge, TWF, or Ambidexterity; or spend skill points on Perform rather than Tumble? My guess is never- such a character under 3E is not as powerful, and therefore inferior and at a disadvantage.
Originally posted by Dark Jezter:
True, and I should have put in a few more details about the system I use. What I propose is that skill points be spent to learn how to use weapons at their full BAB. Related weapons that are not specifically known recieve a -2 penalty, while unrelated weapons recieve a -4 penalty. I simply find it ridiculous that ALL fighters know how to optimally use ALL simple and martial weapons, even though some of those weapons might not be common or even used in their cultures! Not to mention that historically all knights did not know how to use a longbow, halberd, or pike- those were traditionally the weapons of archers and footmen respectively, and a knight learning those weapons would be considered "low-brow".
Originally posted by Dark Jezter:
Originally posted by Grazzt:
And D&D wouldn't be D&D without racial restrictions stating that dwarves can't be wizards either- but that restriction was broken with 3E. What I am wanting to encourage is the reward of role-playing rather than random killing of creatures. How does killing an orc make a bard a better musician, or a wizard a better spellcaster? I would argue that it is assumed that the bard or wizard would benefit from this because of the path they would have to take to the event leading up to killing the orc. But why not reward the methods used to accomplish a goal, rather than the killing itself. Same logic applies to random kills on the part of the fighter in regards to rewarding role-playing and accomplishing goals. Note that my points isn't saying that killing an evil necromancer animating bodies from a gaveyard wouldn't be worth anything, IF that was a goal in the adventure. I'd just like to reduce the incidence of "Ohh, I need 22 more XP to make next level- I'm going to go start a fight with that group of peasants."
Originally posted by Dark Jezter:
The way I work it, ALL clerics still have access to Cure Light and Cure Moderate Wounds, but higher level healing spells are the province of the Healing domain. Also, using a Wound Point/Vitality Point system takes a lot of the healing burden off the cleric, so they can be something other than healing dispensers. The Strength and War domains are only so powerful because of the cleric base spell list- with a restricted spell list those domains are not as overpowered as they currently are.
Originally posted by Dark Jezter:
Sorry, I'm really not picking on you here Dark Jezter- its just that you responded to most of my comments. Its fine to say a warrior has become more resistant to harm or learns to roll with the punches as he advances- that is what hit points represent. But it makes NO sense to say that he is more resistant to poison or disease- biological bodies simply don't work that way. You don't learn how to become poison resistant or immune to disease. Those are qualities that are determined by the innate toughness and resilience of the creature. Otherwise vets who saw heavy fighting in wars and navy seals (who I am assuming you would concur are higher level than most people) would be immune to poison and disease, which simply isn't the case.
Whew! Now for some other things I saw that I'd like to comment on:
Originally posted by Celtavian:
I'm in complete agreement with you here. But this is a problem that is easily solved by the DM- simply don't allow raise dead or resurrection spells.
Originally posted by Celtavian:
Yes! Yes! I forgot about that one! Maybe 1d6 for 10 feet, 3d6 for 20 feet, 5d6 for 30 feet, etc.- up to the character's terminal velocity based on size. It would be easy to do- just have a table with each size category and the max falling damage they can take.
Originally posted by Celtavian:
Yep, in agreement here as well. One thing I have thought of but not tried is 1/2 the AC bonus from armor or natural armor (rounded down) is DR, the other half is added to AC. Or alternately, DR 1 for light, DR 2 for medium, and DR 3 for heavy.
Originally posted by Celtavian:
Yep, I'm agreement here as well. DotF already has some feats like this, and FFG has put out some feats along these lines as well. I'd like to see this developed further, maybe giving each domain a special use for channeling divine energy. Hmm.... I think I might be busy for a while!
And I'll add one more of my own:
13) This one especially make sense if you use the DR suggestion Celtavian made above: instead of AC, use a stat called Defense. Defense is equal to: 10 + Dex mod + Reflex save + 1/2 AC bonus of armor. This would also help the BAB outstripping AC problem D&D has.
Nope, I am not saying one style is better than the other. Historically, D&D has always been more combat heavy, but if a DM didn't want as much combat, he could simply decide not lessen it. With 3E though, a much larger part of a character is built around combat, and 3E (through various aspects such as the Power Play articles) encourages the development of combat at the expense of other aspects of play. When was the last time you saw a rogue take the Athletic feat in preference of Dodge, TWF, or Ambidexterity; or spend skill points on Perform rather than Tumble? My guess is never- such a character under 3E is not as powerful, and therefore inferior and at a disadvantage.
Originally posted by Dark Jezter:
True, and I should have put in a few more details about the system I use. What I propose is that skill points be spent to learn how to use weapons at their full BAB. Related weapons that are not specifically known recieve a -2 penalty, while unrelated weapons recieve a -4 penalty. I simply find it ridiculous that ALL fighters know how to optimally use ALL simple and martial weapons, even though some of those weapons might not be common or even used in their cultures! Not to mention that historically all knights did not know how to use a longbow, halberd, or pike- those were traditionally the weapons of archers and footmen respectively, and a knight learning those weapons would be considered "low-brow".
Originally posted by Dark Jezter:
Originally posted by Grazzt:
And D&D wouldn't be D&D without racial restrictions stating that dwarves can't be wizards either- but that restriction was broken with 3E. What I am wanting to encourage is the reward of role-playing rather than random killing of creatures. How does killing an orc make a bard a better musician, or a wizard a better spellcaster? I would argue that it is assumed that the bard or wizard would benefit from this because of the path they would have to take to the event leading up to killing the orc. But why not reward the methods used to accomplish a goal, rather than the killing itself. Same logic applies to random kills on the part of the fighter in regards to rewarding role-playing and accomplishing goals. Note that my points isn't saying that killing an evil necromancer animating bodies from a gaveyard wouldn't be worth anything, IF that was a goal in the adventure. I'd just like to reduce the incidence of "Ohh, I need 22 more XP to make next level- I'm going to go start a fight with that group of peasants."
Originally posted by Dark Jezter:
The way I work it, ALL clerics still have access to Cure Light and Cure Moderate Wounds, but higher level healing spells are the province of the Healing domain. Also, using a Wound Point/Vitality Point system takes a lot of the healing burden off the cleric, so they can be something other than healing dispensers. The Strength and War domains are only so powerful because of the cleric base spell list- with a restricted spell list those domains are not as overpowered as they currently are.
Originally posted by Dark Jezter:
Sorry, I'm really not picking on you here Dark Jezter- its just that you responded to most of my comments.
Its fine to say a warrior has become more resistant to harm or learns to roll with the punches as he advances- that is what hit points represent. But it makes NO sense to say that he is more resistant to poison or disease- biological bodies simply don't work that way. You don't learn how to become poison resistant or immune to disease. Those are qualities that are determined by the innate toughness and resilience of the creature. Otherwise vets who saw heavy fighting in wars and navy seals (who I am assuming you would concur are higher level than most people) would be immune to poison and disease, which simply isn't the case. Whew! Now for some other things I saw that I'd like to comment on:
Originally posted by Celtavian:
I'm in complete agreement with you here. But this is a problem that is easily solved by the DM- simply don't allow raise dead or resurrection spells.
Originally posted by Celtavian:
Yes! Yes! I forgot about that one! Maybe 1d6 for 10 feet, 3d6 for 20 feet, 5d6 for 30 feet, etc.- up to the character's terminal velocity based on size. It would be easy to do- just have a table with each size category and the max falling damage they can take.
Originally posted by Celtavian:
Yep, in agreement here as well. One thing I have thought of but not tried is 1/2 the AC bonus from armor or natural armor (rounded down) is DR, the other half is added to AC. Or alternately, DR 1 for light, DR 2 for medium, and DR 3 for heavy.
Originally posted by Celtavian:
Yep, I'm agreement here as well. DotF already has some feats like this, and FFG has put out some feats along these lines as well. I'd like to see this developed further, maybe giving each domain a special use for channeling divine energy. Hmm.... I think I might be busy for a while!
And I'll add one more of my own:
13) This one especially make sense if you use the DR suggestion Celtavian made above: instead of AC, use a stat called Defense. Defense is equal to: 10 + Dex mod + Reflex save + 1/2 AC bonus of armor. This would also help the BAB outstripping AC problem D&D has.
G'day
1. I'd like to see paladins', rangers', and barbarians' class abilities replaced by feat chains, so that those three classes generalise out as special cases of a more versatile fighter. I'd like to see the monk generalised out too, but that would be harder.
2. I'd like to see the rogue class split into an interpersonal specialist and a thief. And the expert souped up enough that you might consider taking a level of it for technical abilities.
3. I'd like to see NPC classes that were not deliberately crocked, classes that a player might think of taking a level or two of to pick up a special ability. One of these ought to be a 'priest' class to represent non-adventuring ecclesiastics, because I find it hard to represent village priests and cathedral staff the way things are. In fact, I wouldn't mind at all if the current Cleric generalised out as a multiclassed fighter/priest.
4. I'd like to see the experience point penalties for multiclassing dropped, so that the admirable flexibility of the new system was less costly. They aren't necessary, since (except with some front-loaded classes), multiclassing is already enough of a setback.
5. I'd prefer to see a hexagonal rather than square combat grid, but it doesn't worry me much.
6. I'd like to see a more robust set of rules for social interactions: charm, lying, detecting liars, intimidation, etc. The game has made progress in this direction, I'd like to see more.
7. I'd like to see a system for chase scenes.
8. I'd like to see the spell list cleaned up, with fewer redundant combat spells and a few more useful spells that a commercial wizard might cast for fees. These are important becasue we ought to see their effects in the environment.
9. I'd like the price lists thoroughly revised and considerably expanded, so that PCs might buy furniture for their homes and presents for their wives. I'd like to see real estate prices considered. I'd also like better guidelines on wages and salaries, such that PCs might actually get jobs.
10. I'd like rules like Bushido used to have that allowed players to run manors and fiefs, schools of martial arts and magic, temples and religious movements.
11. I'd like rules like Bushido used to have for characters to take part in battles and sieges. But please! let some of the choices not be no-brainers.
12. I'd like to see the monster lists revised, keeping the 'dungeon classics' and monsters from actual fantasy literature, but cutting back on a lot of the pointless and deliberately wierd inventions. I'd like to see vampires turned into something more like a traditional vampire and less like a combat encounter.
13. I'd like to see a maritime version of the druid.
14. I'd like gnomes expunged.
15. In interior art, I'd like less decoration and more illustration. And I'd like the artists to do a modicum of research.
16. I'd like colour-coding on the edges of the pages to identify the different sections of each book.
17. I'd like fighters to become more alert and observant.
18. I'd like rules for PCs finding wives and raising families (such as Bushido had, but compatible with PCs marrying NPCs who have already been introduced into the campaign.
Regards,
Agback
1. I'd like to see paladins', rangers', and barbarians' class abilities replaced by feat chains, so that those three classes generalise out as special cases of a more versatile fighter. I'd like to see the monk generalised out too, but that would be harder.
2. I'd like to see the rogue class split into an interpersonal specialist and a thief. And the expert souped up enough that you might consider taking a level of it for technical abilities.
3. I'd like to see NPC classes that were not deliberately crocked, classes that a player might think of taking a level or two of to pick up a special ability. One of these ought to be a 'priest' class to represent non-adventuring ecclesiastics, because I find it hard to represent village priests and cathedral staff the way things are. In fact, I wouldn't mind at all if the current Cleric generalised out as a multiclassed fighter/priest.
4. I'd like to see the experience point penalties for multiclassing dropped, so that the admirable flexibility of the new system was less costly. They aren't necessary, since (except with some front-loaded classes), multiclassing is already enough of a setback.
5. I'd prefer to see a hexagonal rather than square combat grid, but it doesn't worry me much.
6. I'd like to see a more robust set of rules for social interactions: charm, lying, detecting liars, intimidation, etc. The game has made progress in this direction, I'd like to see more.
7. I'd like to see a system for chase scenes.
8. I'd like to see the spell list cleaned up, with fewer redundant combat spells and a few more useful spells that a commercial wizard might cast for fees. These are important becasue we ought to see their effects in the environment.
9. I'd like the price lists thoroughly revised and considerably expanded, so that PCs might buy furniture for their homes and presents for their wives. I'd like to see real estate prices considered. I'd also like better guidelines on wages and salaries, such that PCs might actually get jobs.
10. I'd like rules like Bushido used to have that allowed players to run manors and fiefs, schools of martial arts and magic, temples and religious movements.
11. I'd like rules like Bushido used to have for characters to take part in battles and sieges. But please! let some of the choices not be no-brainers.
12. I'd like to see the monster lists revised, keeping the 'dungeon classics' and monsters from actual fantasy literature, but cutting back on a lot of the pointless and deliberately wierd inventions. I'd like to see vampires turned into something more like a traditional vampire and less like a combat encounter.
13. I'd like to see a maritime version of the druid.
14. I'd like gnomes expunged.
15. In interior art, I'd like less decoration and more illustration. And I'd like the artists to do a modicum of research.
16. I'd like colour-coding on the edges of the pages to identify the different sections of each book.
17. I'd like fighters to become more alert and observant.
18. I'd like rules for PCs finding wives and raising families (such as Bushido had, but compatible with PCs marrying NPCs who have already been introduced into the campaign.
Regards,
Agback
I agree completely. In fact, almost all the class abilities could be and should be Feats. (This would make it trivial to create new classes.)
Frankly, I think just about all weapons should be Simple. It's not hard to use a sword; it's certainly not significantly harder than using a club.
The only weapons that seem difficult to simply use would be slings, bows (esp. longbows), flails, maybe pikes, maybe polearms, etc.
I'm not sure this warrants the added complexity.
Yes, a Feat is "expensive" for a weapon proficiency.
I think we can side-step the issue by making most weapons usable by almost anyone (Simple, as I mentioned above) but much, much more useful with the appropriate Feats (that apply only to mounted combat, or ranged combat, etc.).
A slightly different emphasis would be enough to achieve your goal, I think. The rules should emphasize overcoming obstacles. For people who enjoy pure hack-n-slash, overcoming obstacles might only mean killing monsters, of course.
Agreed, but most "good" alternatives to AC/hp would take some rescaling (in a game that's balance-obsessed right now).
There are a lot of great subjects that deserve at least a little space in the DMG.
I don't like the default treasure levels either, but I think they make perfect sense for D&D. The guidelines aren't there for free-thinking players and DMs; they're there for people who want a structured game.
Agreed -- as long as they work out the stats a bit, and the fumbles aren't over the top.
That's almost the same as 10 + spellcaster level (for many spells), by the way.
I'd like to see Clerics more like Sorcerers, with a small list of thematically appropriate spells, cast spontaneously.
Why is this better than having Bonus Feats again? (Feats already scale in power somewhat, with increasing prereqs.)
Poisons and diseases already scale with level, because Str, Con, etc. don't scale (much) with level.
This is in contrast to AC/hp, where AC doesn't scale much with level (only through magic), while Hit Points scale dramatically.
Last edited:
chthonic_bill
First Post
I'd like to see some flavour skills, or a 0-level that all players would get in addition to their class level. This would just be to cover background skills. Who takes ranks in knowledge (local)? Everybody should have it for their home, along with a couple of points in a craft, profession, or maybe some other knowledges ( unless you assume they're trained in a vacuum, or raised in a dungeon).
I'd like to see more prestige classes pegged at specific levels for entry (by bab or caster level, or something), rather than requiring a specific combination of skills and feats which pretty much require the player to start building for it at level 1. I like the idea that a player can be introduced to a guild or something through play and decide to join it. If there are many requirements, that isn't going to happen unless the player has planned it years in advance.
I'd like to see more prestige classes pegged at specific levels for entry (by bab or caster level, or something), rather than requiring a specific combination of skills and feats which pretty much require the player to start building for it at level 1. I like the idea that a player can be introduced to a guild or something through play and decide to join it. If there are many requirements, that isn't going to happen unless the player has planned it years in advance.
KnowTheToe
First Post
More diversity within the classes. Many high level character look too similar at higher levels.
Defense Bonus that goes up with level, similar to WoT.
Defense Bonus that goes up with level, similar to WoT.
Victim
First Post
I disagree on most matters.
A system should be all about mechanics. Otherwise you don't have much of a system. Mechanics are generally expressed in numbers. You can inject personality and life into characters whether they have a detailed list of quantified abilities or not.
Actually, I really don't like background feats. Feats, while new and cool, aren't the only tool for developing a character. You don't need feats for everthing. In fact, using feats to represent things can hinder character growth, because you may have to wait several levels for a feat slot to open up.
Maybe the reason no one takes Atheletics is that they don't feel that climbing and jumping ability is important to their character, don't often use climb or jump, don't need an additional bonus because they can climb or jump anything anyway, or because they feel that their good physical stats and skills already represent atheleticism. You can be plenty atheletic without taking the feat after all. On the other hand, you can't usually fight effectively with 2 weapons without taking a feat.
Without weapon or fighting style related feats, the fighter isn't really using the optimally, is he? A character with extensive training in a weapon (feats, possibly stat arrangement) will display far greater mastery than a guy who who just grabs it and starts going to town. Just looking a human War 1s for simplicity, consider an archer with dex as a prime stat, point blank shot, and rapid shot. Then imagine the knight (in training, depending on campaign standards) with some other prime stat, and mounted combat feats. Yeah, he's a real bow expert.
The problem with fumbles is that doesn't really seem be a good way to include them. A reflex save means bards and rogues are better at avoiding fumbles than fighters. There isn't really a base attack check, which seems most appopriate.
Grouping all cleric spells by domain wouldn't be so great either. Either most clerics would have very few spells, or you'd have to waste tons of space listing many common spells repeatedly. Also, you run into lots of implied flavor text based on how closely you see the gods being tied to their portfolios. The default view seems to be that even outside their areas of influence, gods are still, well gods, so they have a broad range of powerful abilities. So clerics drawing upon divine power get a broad range of effects. It might make just as much sense to limit arcane casters to only one school, or only one type of element.
WP/VP, IMHO, seems to have the same basic flaws as normal HP but with some more complicated effects because of its pseudo realism. After playing Spycraft at 10th level, I don't really see the benefit. Our soldier had more twenty WP, IIRC. Weapon damage is such that he could take multiple crits from small arms. In fact, most characters will be able to take a small arms hit and remain okay. However, because of the rarity of crits, fights usually work out the same as if HP were used. Shoot enemy guy, deal VP. Fly by enemy so that he's in the arc of a helo rotor -> VP. Crash copter on enemy -> more VP. Etc. Enemy runs out of VP, then shoot him and kill him. You could apply the same flavor text to normal HP and have pretty much the same effects. Sure, crits can be more dangerous, but most people playing DnD don't seem overly concerned about orcs with greataxes, even though they'll kill many mid level characters outright on a lucky crit.
Poison and disease are most effective against low level characters because those are the realistic ones. High level characters are larger than life. They aren't normal. When surronded by lots of soldiers, normal people don't think "Hey, now seems like the perfect time to test out my Bladed Whirlwind sword technique."
Customizeable, scaling class abilities, like the rogue's special tricks starting from level 10, are cool.
More campaign advice, from low magic, to same magic but fewer items, to more magic, etc. I think that a DMG should have lots of DMing advice and fewer random tables.
There's already support for your XP changes in the DMG. Alot of the sections are headed with variant though.
A system should be all about mechanics. Otherwise you don't have much of a system. Mechanics are generally expressed in numbers. You can inject personality and life into characters whether they have a detailed list of quantified abilities or not.
Actually, I really don't like background feats. Feats, while new and cool, aren't the only tool for developing a character. You don't need feats for everthing. In fact, using feats to represent things can hinder character growth, because you may have to wait several levels for a feat slot to open up.
Maybe the reason no one takes Atheletics is that they don't feel that climbing and jumping ability is important to their character, don't often use climb or jump, don't need an additional bonus because they can climb or jump anything anyway, or because they feel that their good physical stats and skills already represent atheleticism. You can be plenty atheletic without taking the feat after all. On the other hand, you can't usually fight effectively with 2 weapons without taking a feat.
Without weapon or fighting style related feats, the fighter isn't really using the optimally, is he? A character with extensive training in a weapon (feats, possibly stat arrangement) will display far greater mastery than a guy who who just grabs it and starts going to town. Just looking a human War 1s for simplicity, consider an archer with dex as a prime stat, point blank shot, and rapid shot. Then imagine the knight (in training, depending on campaign standards) with some other prime stat, and mounted combat feats. Yeah, he's a real bow expert.
The problem with fumbles is that doesn't really seem be a good way to include them. A reflex save means bards and rogues are better at avoiding fumbles than fighters. There isn't really a base attack check, which seems most appopriate.
Grouping all cleric spells by domain wouldn't be so great either. Either most clerics would have very few spells, or you'd have to waste tons of space listing many common spells repeatedly. Also, you run into lots of implied flavor text based on how closely you see the gods being tied to their portfolios. The default view seems to be that even outside their areas of influence, gods are still, well gods, so they have a broad range of powerful abilities. So clerics drawing upon divine power get a broad range of effects. It might make just as much sense to limit arcane casters to only one school, or only one type of element.
WP/VP, IMHO, seems to have the same basic flaws as normal HP but with some more complicated effects because of its pseudo realism. After playing Spycraft at 10th level, I don't really see the benefit. Our soldier had more twenty WP, IIRC. Weapon damage is such that he could take multiple crits from small arms. In fact, most characters will be able to take a small arms hit and remain okay. However, because of the rarity of crits, fights usually work out the same as if HP were used. Shoot enemy guy, deal VP. Fly by enemy so that he's in the arc of a helo rotor -> VP. Crash copter on enemy -> more VP. Etc. Enemy runs out of VP, then shoot him and kill him. You could apply the same flavor text to normal HP and have pretty much the same effects. Sure, crits can be more dangerous, but most people playing DnD don't seem overly concerned about orcs with greataxes, even though they'll kill many mid level characters outright on a lucky crit.
Poison and disease are most effective against low level characters because those are the realistic ones. High level characters are larger than life. They aren't normal. When surronded by lots of soldiers, normal people don't think "Hey, now seems like the perfect time to test out my Bladed Whirlwind sword technique."
Customizeable, scaling class abilities, like the rogue's special tricks starting from level 10, are cool.
More campaign advice, from low magic, to same magic but fewer items, to more magic, etc. I think that a DMG should have lots of DMing advice and fewer random tables.
There's already support for your XP changes in the DMG. Alot of the sections are headed with variant though.
