(con't) I think that the game does need to reward both good Character Building AND good Party Building. I mean, it is fun sometimes to make a special group that breaks from the norm, but part of the reason that is fun is because it does in fact make the whole concept more challenging. A group of all fighters is great in straight combat, but the lack of the other 3 archetypes makes it harder to avoid traps, handle swarms, counter magic, and heal magically, as well as repel undead. A party of all...
View full comment(con't) I think that the game does need to reward both good Character Building AND good Party Building. I mean, it is fun sometimes to make a special group that breaks from the norm, but part of the reason that is fun is because it does in fact make the whole concept more challenging. A group of all fighters is great in straight combat, but the lack of the other 3 archetypes makes it harder to avoid traps, handle swarms, counter magic, and heal magically, as well as repel undead. A party of all Clerics is a little more rounded, especially if each is a cleric of a different God/Domain so they are better able to sub for missing archetypes, but still, their not quite as good at AOE as if they had a Wizard type, they aren't as good at trap-finding than if they had a Rogue, etc... A group of all Wizards is drastically hurting in the AC and HP departments. Much weaker in toe to toe fighting, however, with properly diverse spell selection, they can handle a lot of situations. They are still shy on healing.
Reward good Role-playing, reward good Character Building, reward good Background/storytelling, and reward good Party Building. Simple as that!
I love playing clerics, but I also like the option of DMing a world inspired by Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones - both settings with lower magic and less healing. Just as Mike Mearls likes to run an all day castle siege, and Chris Perkins a new campaign with lots of political intrigue, I think the basic rules should allow for an easy to use option for non-magical, or more rare, or slower forms of healing. Keep up the good work, Mike - and thanks as always for listening!
Sorry, coming to this discussion a bit late, but I've recently come back to this site after a few years away. For me art makes a huge difference in how I see a product. Poor art makes me see a product as low quality, while really good art contributes to a positive feeling about the product. What do I like in game art? I think it's good to have variety, both in characters and scenarios depicted. It's good to depict heroic characters, but it's also nice to mix in characters looking...
View full commentSorry, coming to this discussion a bit late, but I've recently come back to this site after a few years away.
For me art makes a huge difference in how I see a product. Poor art makes me see a product as low quality, while really good art contributes to a positive feeling about the product.
What do I like in game art? I think it's good to have variety, both in characters and scenarios depicted. It's good to depict heroic characters, but it's also nice to mix in characters looking scared, weary, covered in dirt, or things that are common in games - carrying backpacks or travelling, for example. Best of all for me, though, are the landscapes. Someone above mentioned ruins, and I also love sweeping vistas, dark forests and deep caves - anything that conveys a sense of mystery and excitement.
Some of my favourite pieces of D&D artwork are:
* The cover of the old D&D companion set, with the armoured warrior with a two-handed sword taking on a dragon. It looked like an epic fight was about to kick off, and the outcome was far from certain.
* The double-page picture on page 148/149 of the 4E DM's Guide, with a party of adventurers looking out on a moonlit, desolate landscape.
* The cover of the "Adventurer's Guide to the City", one of the books in the old FR "City of Splendors" boxed set. There's a dark, dirty alley, and two adventurers are about to get mugged by a gnoll lurking out of sight.
* The cover of a couple of old AD&D Dragonlance modules:
* Chaos Spawn, showing a battle between dragons and riders
* Dragons of Desolation, showing a floating citadel with fleeing riders below
I don't think that inclusive and cool are mutually exclusive - though I can appreciate that there could be an extra challenge in making a wide range of character types look exciting. For me having a wide variety of subjects for the game art works well, and depicting diverse characters fits into that.
Hi Jon, Thanks so much for having this discussion. I have been out of the loop for the last few months with a growing family, but look forward to adding more specific posts to the articles that follow! I am the kind of D&D player that looks at the art first, maps second and lets the adventure flow from there. Cheers, Cobbler
View full commentHi Jon, Thanks so much for having this discussion. I have been out of the loop for the last few months with a growing family, but look forward to adding more specific posts to the articles that follow! I am the kind of D&D player that looks at the art first, maps second and lets the adventure flow from there.
Just write a good story to match your attributes and then have Skills as background you came up with. For instance if you were raised on a farm, then kidnapped by bandit to be sold into slavery, then you escaped and lived in the wilderness for a few months yon now have a set of skills to match that story. You have made a background story and given yourself a few skills in the process.
By and large I like the way 4E has handled Skills. The problem with pick your own skills is that you can't stick that in a published adventure because the publisher does not know your party intimately. The result was that 3.X published adventures only really used the skill system at low levels (when the checks where reasonable even if you had not put any skill points into them) and then the whole skill system vanishes. Even the homebrewing DM is not really using the skill system - what he is...
View full commentBy and large I like the way 4E has handled Skills. The problem with pick your own skills is that you can't stick that in a published adventure because the publisher does not know your party intimately. The result was that 3.X published adventures only really used the skill system at low levels (when the checks where reasonable even if you had not put any skill points into them) and then the whole skill system vanishes. Even the homebrewing DM is not really using the skill system - what he is doing is throwing a bone to a player - the lock that is nearly unbeatable exists only because the DM read your character sheet and put that in there specifically for you to beat. If you die on your way to this part of the adventure the lock suddenly vanishes because no other player can open it. In other words you don't use your skills to overcome the adventure - instead your DM gives you ata boys.
In 4E everyone generally has a shot of pulling off a skill check and character design usually see's a wide variety of skills in the party - the result is that its much easier to design an adventure that uses lots of skills even at higher levels because the group as a whole has a good chance of getting past any skill check, you need to include a back up plan, sure, but its still about the party as a whole overcoming their environment instead of an individual being rewarded with a spotlight moment.
View full comment