I'm wondering a few things about how D&D ought to be set up. I've got pretty firm opinions in some areas, but in others, I'm in a bit of a grey area. To that end, I thought I'd start a thread to find out what people think about certain issues, and where people can bring up similar topics of their own. Couple of things to keep in mind, though:
1. This thread is design philosophy only. At best, specific rules should only be brought in as examples of particular philosophy elements. You might, for instance, refer to Psionics as more balanced than Vancian casting, but only in the context of making a case for point-based systems for abilities in preference to slot-based.
2. This isn't a poll. It's about making rational arguments for one side or the other, rather than showing that one side has the largest fanbase.
3. Again, this is about making rational arguments for one side or the other, so I, at least, am going to ignore any poster who flames, uses the phrases "As I've already demonstrated" or "Stupid people don't deserve my respect" or any equivalents, or otherwise fails to actually put forth an argument or buries a logically sound argument beneath vitriol.
First two things I'm wondering about.
1) Base attack bonus advancement, as it stands, is a part of every class, no matter how inept at combat said class is supposed to be. The relevant result of this is that, by level 12, an Elf Wizard numbers amongst the best swordsmen in an area. Meanwhile, the Fighter is not amongst the best spellcasters in the realm. So, my question is this: should everyone become a better combatant, tougher, and overall harder to kill as they gain levels, or should an attempt be made to severely hamper non-combatant classes in these areas and balance things out elsewhere? Similarly, skill points are based on level, forcing people to become adventurers in order to become superior cobblers, or else the DM has to assign ad hoc XP rewards for each pair of shoes produced (raising the issue of why the PCs don't farm XP by making shoes). So, I guess what I'm asking is, should these facets that are currently tied to a character's level be that way? Assume that balance issues can be magically resolved regardless of the outcome.
2) Level itself presents a couple of questions. Should level be completely open-ended, allowing for a nigh-infinite character progression, or should there be a set cap with all challenges in the universe falling within that range (20 for D&D without the ELH)? With either result, how should the rest of the world measure up to a given level character? Should level 5 be just a pretty good duelist, or should it be the man feared the world over for singlehandedly facing an army?