Here is a new idea for high level characters because they do not get additional feats--give them feat swapping. That is, at higher levels you gain feats as normal, but for any given adventure/session you can only slot so many feat choices. That way a fighter could really practice his old tricks and start using them again if needed, and the wizard could prepare the ability to perform other, more archaic tricks. This gives the characters additional flexibility and planning possibilities for...
View full commentHere is a new idea for high level characters because they do not get additional feats--give them feat swapping. That is, at higher levels you gain feats as normal, but for any given adventure/session you can only slot so many feat choices. That way a fighter could really practice his old tricks and start using them again if needed, and the wizard could prepare the ability to perform other, more archaic tricks. This gives the characters additional flexibility and planning possibilities for high-level, and keeps the characters interesting. I wouldn't make it cost money or anything unless there is a more advanced mechanic developed such as spending experience points to gain abilities, which I doubt will be added to DnDNext (although I personally believe that's what should be done).
The argument would be that, the assumption of bounded accuracy is that a magic item will help a character, but it should not be necessary to defeat a monster. A +1 to hit and damage will not be the tipping point, nor would a similar bonus to AC, etc. In 4e, at higher levels you need magic items to keep up. The idea is to allow for low to high magic campaigns fit in the same system. Also, having the character be about his race, class, etc first, and his magic items are a nice addition, not a key...
View full commentThe argument would be that, the assumption of bounded accuracy is that a magic item will help a character, but it should not be necessary to defeat a monster. A +1 to hit and damage will not be the tipping point, nor would a similar bonus to AC, etc. In 4e, at higher levels you need magic items to keep up. The idea is to allow for low to high magic campaigns fit in the same system. Also, having the character be about his race, class, etc first, and his magic items are a nice addition, not a key component.
i'd be happy with basic monsters in the core rules, then a module for more detailed customisation, eg template for leaders, casters and scouts. i don't want the same rules for pcs as for monsters, i've found this leads to people making an arms race to beat specific class abilities/powers that monsters have.
View full commenti'd be happy with basic monsters in the core rules, then a module for more detailed customisation, eg template for leaders, casters and scouts.
i don't want the same rules for pcs as for monsters, i've found this leads to people making an arms race to beat specific class abilities/powers that monsters have.
I think wrecan is on the right track here for how to handle rules modules for assigning classes to monsters. On the other hand, I think raising this as some kind of huge problem the way it's being talked about here is a bit silly. It's nowhere easier to mix monsters and classes than in 1e, imo. You can decide at the game table that you want an orc to fight like a 5th level fighter because the PCs are carving through their foes too fast, and whamo. Want that goblin to pick pockets like a...
View full commentI think wrecan is on the right track here for how to handle rules modules for assigning classes to monsters. On the other hand, I think raising this as some kind of huge problem the way it's being talked about here is a bit silly.
It's nowhere easier to mix monsters and classes than in 1e, imo. You can decide at the game table that you want an orc to fight like a 5th level fighter because the PCs are carving through their foes too fast, and whamo. Want that goblin to pick pockets like a 4th level thief? Easy -- just look it up on the thief abilities table (which is on any decent 1e DM screen). Want either of them tougher? Roll extra hit dice before the battle starts, or even that first time they're hit with an attack, and scrawl the number on notepaper. The PCs are just going to kill them anyway, so why make such a paper trail out of it? The point is, there are quick tools to put some mechanical muscle behind the desired flavor.
The same tricks work with Next. There's very little you can't do with hit dice, ability scores, attack bonuses, skill dice, and spell-casting levels. If I want my goblin to resemble a 4th level thief, I simply assign the appropriate hit dice, skill dice, attack bonuses, etc. If I want my orc shaman to cast as a 9th level cleric, that's not so hard. The idea that giving class or class-like features to monsters is "not available" or even that it's particularly hard in Next seems absurd. It hasn't been officially talked about yet, but layering a monster skin over a class skeleton is as easy as ever. Just don't sweat the fiddly bits your players won't see anyway...
I would say that 3e made this way more difficult than it needs to be for 99% of monsters most of us are ever going to use, while 4e made it formulaic and lifeless to an extent. The main question with Next is if the numbers are balanced in the core. If they are, assigning classes to monsters shouldn't be that hard...
>2 / day is already at-will, effectively. The barbarian as-written is pretty much 100% uptime raging, especially past the first couple levels. This is yet another mechanic for which "per day" really doesn't work well. Maybe a recharge mechanic, or Pathfinder's "rounds / day," or some kind of build up/charge up, or something else is called for...
Instead of a /day or /encounter, I would rather see maybe an attribute check with modifiers based on things like damage taken, fear check result, intimidation or taunt from monster. The roll would be a reactive roll when the triggering action happens. If you want to try without triggers, make a roll with no modifiers. Make it so that it is hard to do unless provoked. Maybe give bonus modifiers based on level or something to simulate more control over rage.
Sudden Death was Awesome. I've spent the last 4-5 days (since last Wednesday) looking up the Article Archives for the next instalment of the DM Experience. Hope to see it soon, your stories and tips are just awesome. If not for being inspired by your Column, I would never have taken the step to become a DM.
View full commentSudden Death was Awesome. I've spent the last 4-5 days (since last Wednesday) looking up the Article Archives for the next instalment of the DM Experience. Hope to see it soon, your stories and tips are just awesome.
If not for being inspired by your Column, I would never have taken the step to become a DM.
Overall our take on the key features missing from clerics is stronger linkage to their patron diety. It is the real defining characteristic of the cleric and indeed the Paladin, that they are earthly representatives of a transcendant power. To keep things simple keep the core spells but up power the domain or domains and/or add a Dedicated to XXXX patch, or specialty that includes additional follow in the divine path options. Our local games have a strong sense of the presence of the...
View full commentOverall our take on the key features missing from clerics is stronger linkage to their patron diety. It is the real defining characteristic of the cleric and indeed the Paladin, that they are earthly representatives of a transcendant power.
To keep things simple keep the core spells but up power the domain or domains and/or add a Dedicated to XXXX patch, or specialty that includes additional follow in the divine path options. Our local games have a strong sense of the presence of the gods and we have done similar things in other systems and are looking at doing it here.
Admittedly we are old hand players (1970 and 1974 vintage GMs -- and yes I meant 1970 :) ) so we are used to it and we do have a rich world to match.
View full comment
View full comment