Two other adventure solutions: First is to put a time limit on success of the mission. Second is to place the adventure location out in the wilds. Going back to town to rest isn't so appealing if it's a two day trek through monster infested swamp. One thing I do is give wizards the option for spells that do less damage but can be used at-will for very long times (8-12 hours). So instead of one big fireball, you can do lots of little fireballs throughout the day (like in Gauntlet)! I prefer...
View full commentTwo other adventure solutions: First is to put a time limit on success of the mission. Second is to place the adventure location out in the wilds. Going back to town to rest isn't so appealing if it's a two day trek through monster infested swamp.
One thing I do is give wizards the option for spells that do less damage but can be used at-will for very long times (8-12 hours). So instead of one big fireball, you can do lots of little fireballs throughout the day (like in Gauntlet)! I prefer this method to 5e's cantrips because it gives the player to choice to do it and it's easy to add to previous editions (I play B/X).
This is great, and couldn't agree more with most of it. I keep saying that I want the 1e/2e openness and abstraction of the rules with *some* of the streamlining of 4e minus its bloat and "everything's core" problems. In truth, if the themes/backgrounds/schemes work out as hoped, I can't wait to see more of Next. It feels so far like possibilities opening back up rather than all possibilities already defined and boundaried. Good read!
The idea of subsystems being placed on top of the core system is very appealing to me. I have been a heavy user of house rules across my D&D experience (Basic Set through to 4e). What I think would be an outstanding add-on to D&D Next would be a generic set of guidelines that allows DMs to develop their own subsystems in a controlled and balanced way... I'm excited about the developments occurring with D&D and look forward to hearing about developments...despite truly enjoying...
View full commentThe idea of subsystems being placed on top of the core system is very appealing to me. I have been a heavy user of house rules across my D&D experience (Basic Set through to 4e). What I think would be an outstanding add-on to D&D Next would be a generic set of guidelines that allows DMs to develop their own subsystems in a controlled and balanced way...
I'm excited about the developments occurring with D&D and look forward to hearing about developments...despite truly enjoying each iteration of D&D, I have to admit that I am eager to see something that is more reflective of the simplicity of AD&D...
I can see the narrative combat module becoming a mainstay in my group, however, are there plans to include spell options? I would like to see the return of 3E meta-magic feats (i.e. Enlarge Spell) and this would be a perfect fit for them. As spellcaster declares if they want to "enlarge" a spell and take the appropriate modifier to their attack; this makes spells more dynamic in combat.
The problem with capping D&D classes to 4 comes in when we have so many different ideas on what constitutes the attributes of a class from previous editions, such as the varying views on ranger in these posts. Another example would be the bard, which could be a warrior skald, arcane trickster, advisor and keeper of knowledge, roguish gypsy, and more. A general rule I would suggest is that a class with a wide variety of potential backgrounds is worth class and alternative classes...
View full commentThe problem with capping D&D classes to 4 comes in when we have so many different ideas on what constitutes the attributes of a class from previous editions, such as the varying views on ranger in these posts.
Another example would be the bard, which could be a warrior skald, arcane trickster, advisor and keeper of knowledge, roguish gypsy, and more.
A general rule I would suggest is that a class with a wide variety of potential backgrounds is worth class and alternative classes with less variation would be more suitable as a theme.
For example paladin and warlord seem like themes instead of classes to me. Bards and psions do not. Rangers do not. :)
I think that there should be more than 4 class options, but in the modular spirit of D&D Next, it should be possible to play with ONLY those classes and still have a good variety. With Themes you could make a Hunter/Stalker Fighter or Rogue. (Of Course, where the concept of Themes really shines is the possbily of Hunter/Stalker Wizards and other combination that are not obvious and cliche :)). I agree that Rangers should not be bound to one terrain, but have options to be from any environment. I...
View full commentI think that there should be more than 4 class options, but in the modular spirit of D&D Next, it should be possible to play with ONLY those classes and still have a good variety. With Themes you could make a Hunter/Stalker Fighter or Rogue. (Of Course, where the concept of Themes really shines is the possbily of Hunter/Stalker Wizards and other combination that are not obvious and cliche :)). I agree that Rangers should not be bound to one terrain, but have options to be from any environment. I am rather worryed that the only two styles mentioned for Rangers is the "Drizzt Double Weapon" and the Archer. There should be more options - or course the same goes for Fighters. As for Marking, there should be some way for "Defender" classes to Defend besides trying to stand in the way (can be tough with no Attacks of Opportunity) or hit the monster and kill it before it hits someone else. The Guardian Theme Shield Other effect is a good example.