Legends and Lore - Uniting the Editions, Part 3

Legends and Lore
Uniting the Editions, Part 3
by Monte Cook

Over the last couple of weeks, I've written about why we might want to try to unify the editions, and how we might pull it off...

Talk about this column here.

astralArchivist.com - 4e D&D house rules, homebrew, and story hours - now featuring ENWorld's Zeitgeist adventure path! Will Thibault is a winged, feathered serpent rarely found anywhere except in warm, jungle-like regions or flying through the ether. Due to his intelligence and powers he is regarded with awe by the inhabitants of his homelands and is considered to be divine.
My Yes-clicks: Feats, Skills, Non-Vancian Magic, PCs creating magic items, Healing Surges, Action Points, Kits, Exotic Weapons, Prestige Classes
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Feats and Skills yes
I would like to see options for both Vancian and non-Vancian magic preferablly at least 3 or 4 in the core book release
Saving throws yes.  I would rather roll my own fate than have the DM do it

Never missing magic missile - couldn't care less do whatever

PCs creating Magic Items - absolutely and not just the Spellcasters.  If my Dwarven Fighter makes an Axe out of Meteoric iron and Dragonbone and uses the fires of the Mountain of the Gods to forge it, It better damn well be magical.

Healing Surges - Don't care either way but if you include them Don't call them that.  Using the word Healing reinforces the misconception that HPs = Physical Health and makes it difficult to convince players that they are an abstraction of your ability to keep fighting.

Action Points - Don't care
Critical Hits and Fumbles - Optional with varying degrees of complexity.  Everything from Crit dose Max dmg to Roll on the chart to see what limb you hack off.  (my group likes using Paizo's Crit Cards)

Kits - Yes please.  Take a look at Paizo's Archetype system.  That is a great version of 2E's Kits.  Take a base class, swap out different abilities to make it fit some specific image.

THAC0 and descending ACs - God no, never again.

Racial Limits - no.  Culture Class restrictions I can accept because that's about customizing your own settings.   But built in limits like "Dwarves can't Wizards" restricts creativity and world building.

System Shock - ...probably not.

Gender Based Ability maxs: hell no

Exotic Weapons, Weapon vs. Armor and Weapon Speed - Yes I would very much like to see these back.  Especially if you give fighters abilities to make better use of such traits.

Lots of Bonus Types - As an Option not as Core.  Keep things simple for the core with everything being non-type bonus.  Make multiple types of bonuses an optional DM component.

Prestige Class - Yes with a But.   These were done Wrong in 3E and their descendants in 4E were better but they were wrong as well.  The original intent of Prestige classes was to give the DM a tool for customizing his world as well as provide players with Heroic Careers to work towards.  The intent was that Players had to Earn their way into a Prestige class, not that they were entitled to have one as soon as they hit the mechanical requirements.   As 3E progressed we got drowned in Prestige classes many of which served no other purpose than to provide Archetypes that should have been doable within the core classes themselves.  I would like to see something closer to the 4E Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies but not something automatic just for being the right level with a bit of the 3E Prestige class thrown in  Make them really small classes (3 to 5 levels) that are used to define parts of the world or to lead players to greater destinies.  They should be something Earned in Game through effort and role-play and Most importantly the DM should have a nice set of rules for making his own to populate his setting with.  The list of premade ones in the Core Books should be very very small and used as examples to inspire the DM to make his own.

My Yes-clicks: Feats, Skills, Non-Vancian Magic, PCs creating magic items, Healing Surges, Action Points, Kits, Exotic Weapons, Prestige Classes


I picked exactly the same ones!  Smile
My Yes-clicks: Feats, Skills, Non-Vancian Magic, PCs creating magic items, Healing Surges, Action Points, Kits, Exotic Weapons, Prestige Classes


I picked exactly the same ones! 



Brohoof!
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
 Also picked the exact same ones! 
 Also picked the exact same ones! 



Double brohoof!
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Feats - Yes. I enjoy customization.
Skills - Yes. See above.
Vancian Magic - Yes. I like it, and it's very D&D.
Non-Vancian Magic - Don't care.
Saving Throws - Yes.
Magic Missiles that Never Miss - Yes. For the love Pelor, yes!
PCs Creating Magic Items - Yes.
Healing Surges - Don't care.
Action Points - Don't care.
Critical Hits - Yes. I liked 3e's method.
Critical Fumbles - Yes... As an option.
Kits - Yes. Again with the customization.
Exotic Weapons - Yes. But if they require a feat to use, they need to be mechanically worth it.
Morale Rules - Sure, as an option.
THAC0 - No. Please, no.
Racial Level Limits - No.
System Shock - Don't care.
Gender-Based Ability Score Maximums - No. I ignored it in 1e, I'd do it again.
Weapons Versus Armor Table - Don't care, but I'd never use it.
Weapon Speed Factors - Meh. Used those for a while in 2e... and then stopped.
Lots of Bonus Types - If there's a good reason for it.
Prestige Classes - Yes. But let's not over-do it.




Prestige Class - Yes with a But.   These were done Wrong in 3E and their descendants in 4E were better but they were wrong as well.  The original intent of Prestige classes was to give the DM a tool for customizing his world as well as provide players with Heroic Careers to work towards.  The intent was that Players had to Earn their way into a Prestige class, not that they were entitled to have one as soon as they hit the mechanical requirements.   As 3E progressed we got drowned in Prestige classes many of which served no other purpose than to provide Archetypes that should have been doable within the core classes themselves.  I would like to see something closer to the 4E Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies but not something automatic just for being the right level with a bit of the 3E Prestige class thrown in  Make them really small classes (3 to 5 levels) that are used to define parts of the world or to lead players to greater destinies.  They should be something Earned in Game through effort and role-play and Most importantly the DM should have a nice set of rules for making his own to populate his setting with.  The list of premade ones in the Core Books should be very very small and used as examples to inspire the DM to make his own.





I agree very much with this sentiment. As a DM, I always wanted my characters to work for certain prestige classes. Heck some actually did have non-mechanical prerequisites, such as Outlaw of the Crimson Road or any of the Shadowmagic classes. I was lucky that my group was not at all opposed to my feelings on these issues. I like the idea of kits in the style Paizo is using, as they allow players to tweak their characters a bit without such major changes that I feel story justification is required. 

Feats, Skills, Prestige Classes and Kits are all things my group are big on. I have a couple of skill junkies in my group that love the versatility of the 3E skill lists vs. the streamlined 4E list.

Yes to both Vancian and Non-Vancian magic. I have one player who I think would feel lost and alone without a Vancian Wizard. On the other hand, another of my players vastly prefers the non-vancian system and what he calls "a more comfortable" magic.

Saving Throws, yes. I would be unhappy to lose that right as a player.

Magic Missile, yeah keep it as infallibly accurate. Its the first spell most people ever hear about, why tinker with a harmless tradition.

Ugh, THAC0. No, just...no.

 Healing Surges. Ditch 'em, not a fan.

Action Points, Morale Rules, Critical Hits and Critical Fumbles I feel should be mentioned in the DMG as "optional" content. I personally like them, but I know that it can be a divisive issue, even amongst my party. I feel that offering them to the DMs while keeping them "hidden" from the player allows the DM to make that call without any pressure of published expectations.

I dislike any written rules that limit any race or gender. If the DM chooses to do so in the process of worldbuilding, that is their decision, but as a groundrule for all campaigns across the board, no.



It is actually unbelievable to me that they have gender-restricted anything, especially something like abilty scores, on the list as though they would ever legitimately consider them. Then again, with the recent Dryad and Satyr sex restrictions, I guess that I shouldn't be surprised.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
It is actually unbelievable to me that they have gender-restricted anything, especially something like abilty scores, on the list as though they would ever legitimately consider them. Then again, with the recent Dryad and Satyr sex restrictions, I guess that I shouldn't be surprised.



As recently as last year, someone was proposing just that on the House Rule forums; gender-based stat adjustments.  Needless to say, the vast majority of responses were 'Did you go to school to learn to be this stupid, or is it natural talent?', but apparently there are a small number of people out there who would be in favor of such a travesty.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Every day brings a new horror. I posted this on the blog page:
Is there some early-edition D&D-playing girlfriend that some WotC bigwig is trying to woo back, despite the ten years and two restraining orders since she dumped him? That's what I get from this: "I'll bring back THAC0, baby, just please let me within 500 feet of you!"

What you have to do is not just make a game capable of emulating any edition's "feel", but you have to do it even better than the original manages to, because THAT is what you're competing with. This is "Scott Fifth Edition vs. The World", except Ramona never broke up with any of her Evil Exes.

Look at yourself: you are considering making rules for weapon speed factor, weapon vs armor, and THAC0, because a handful of internet strangers said they like such things once. Our thoughts are numbered, and there's a thousand better ways they could be directed.


And I'll stand by it.

D&D isn't the set of rules you play by, it's the people you play with, and the stories you tell. Does fragmenting the market really help you or I to find and play the games of D&D that we want to play? The rules are there to create a consistent reality for our characters to explore, but they are not the core of the experience, just a part of it.

I'm not saying not to make a new edition, but recognize that, if this is to happen, move forward. There's some good ideas squeezing out here and there, and I can only hope it's not simply because they've escaped. Just have an actual reason for a rule, instead of a "will you like me then" pleading.
As recently as last year, someone was proposing just that on the House Rule forums; gender-based stat adjustments.  Needless to say, the vast majority of responses were 'Did you go to school to learn to be this stupid, or is it natural talent?', but apparently there are a small number of people out there who would be in favor of such a travesty.

Yes, but that was just some random idiot. This was a professional adult game designer, one that presumably works with other people and has editors take a look at what he's about to post. I cannot believe that nobody looked at that and said "No, Monte, that's stupid. Take that out this instant."

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
5E's going to be so Classic you'll think you're back in the 50s.
Fire Blog Control, Change, and Chaos: The Elemental Power Source Elemental Heroes Example Classes Xaosmith Exulter Chaos Bringer Director Elemental Heroes: Looking Back - Class and Story Elemental Heroes: Complete Class Beta - The Xaosmith (January 16, 2012) Elemental Heroes: Complete Class Beta - The Harbinger (May 16, 2012) Check out my Elemental Heroes blog series and help me develop four unique elemental classes.
As recently as last year, someone was proposing just that on the House Rule forums; gender-based stat adjustments.  Needless to say, the vast majority of responses were 'Did you go to school to learn to be this stupid, or is it natural talent?', but apparently there are a small number of people out there who would be in favor of such a travesty.

Yes, but that was just some random idiot. This was a professional adult game designer, one that presumably works with other people and has editors take a look at what he's about to post. I cannot believe that nobody looked at that and said "No, Monte, that's stupid. Take that out this instant."



The fact remains, that WAS part of the game rules at one point.  Yes, it was stupid when it was printed and yes, it's stupid now.  However, I think that question was just there so, when we see the results, we can see just how unpopular the idea is and to 'weight' the poll.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
The fact remains, that WAS part of the game rules at one point.  Yes, it was stupid when it was printed and yes, it's stupid now.  However, I think that question was just there so, when we see the results, we can see just how unpopular the idea is and to 'weight' the poll.

Yeah, I'm going to go with one commentor's theory that it was just a control option so they know which voters were just trolling.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
I genuinely do not want someone who would even in jest add the gender based attribute modifications to their poll working for WotC.

The only time it should be brought up is to point at and say "This was wrong, and D&D was wrong for having this."

By lending this even the faintest air of legitimacy, all you've done is broadcast to every female fan that you do not want them in your game.

So congrats.
at least they aren't even considering putting Percentile Strength back on the table.
at least they aren't even considering putting Percentile Strength back on the table.



Hush, please don't give them any ideas....


-Polaris   
at least they aren't even considering putting Percentile Strength back on the table.



Or it's already in and they're not interested in feedback. Surprised
Fire Blog Control, Change, and Chaos: The Elemental Power Source Elemental Heroes Example Classes Xaosmith Exulter Chaos Bringer Director Elemental Heroes: Looking Back - Class and Story Elemental Heroes: Complete Class Beta - The Xaosmith (January 16, 2012) Elemental Heroes: Complete Class Beta - The Harbinger (May 16, 2012) Check out my Elemental Heroes blog series and help me develop four unique elemental classes.
Feats - Yes  
Skills - Yes - although I want a better system than in 4e.  And I never want to see the # of skills/pts etc determined primarily by ones class again.  I HATE that.

Vancian Magic - 
Yes 
Non-Vancian Magic - Yes
Vancian is but one way to represent how magic works.  There's no good reason not to present a few options & simply have the group playing decide wich one to use. 

Saving Throws -
Yes.  I LIKE rolling my own fate vrs various effects.

Magic Missiles that Never Miss -
YES. 

PCs Creating Magic Items -
Yes.  It needs to be possible.  But it shouldn't be assumed/expected that they'll do so.  

Healing Surges - 
No.  Or if they must be present, re-name them & re-work the mechanics.  I really don't like these in 4e. 

Action Points -
No 

Critical Hits - 
Yes.  Everyone likes getting lucky. 
Critical Fumbles - Yes.  Because if you're rewarding good luck you should also acknowledge bad luck.... 
Kits - Yes.  I liked the 2e stuff.  I also like the PF archtypes & stuff.   

Exotic Weapons -
Sort of.  I can see this best being an option of some sort. 

Morale Rules -
Yes.  I liked that aspect of BECMI 

THAC0 -
No, I don't see any reason this should return as the standard.  I guess that you could include it in a side bar as an option though.  Afterall, it only takes a few lines of text to explain mechanicly.  More words could be devoted to explaining WHY such a system was ever used in the 1st place. 

Racial Level Limits - 
Sort of. 
One of the things I like about PF is the idea of fast/medium/slow XP charts. 
They use it to determine campaign speed.  I've implemented it on a Good/Nuetral/Evil axis instead.  Why?  Because I generally want to run heroic games.  But I don't want to ban any alignments because (most of) the people I play with can generate some really good stories with mixed alignments.  So I've simply made it more attractive to play "good".  Yes, it's a bribe.   The good characters are on the fast track, the nuetrals are medium, & the evils are on the slow.
It's worked pretty well.
Well enough that we've discussed applying it to races to encourage/discourage things.

Humans = fast, 
 ??? = medium,
Weird stuff = slow.
Could vary upon the setting as well.

System Shock -
Yes. 

Gender-Based Ability Score Maximums - 
No, I don't see a need for these.

Weapons Versus Armor Table - Yes?  But strictly as an option. 

Weapon Speed Factors - 
Yes. 

Lots of Bonus Types - Lots? 
No. Some, yes.

Prestige Classes -
No.  Not as they were in 3x, not as they are in PF, & not as they are in 4e.
Refer back to my comments about kits.



Non-Vancian Magic, and the option to exclude Vancian. I want alternate class features for a non-Vancian Wizard.

Skills, I would probably miss them.

Healing Surges and Action Points, help creating that fantasy hero feel. 
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM!
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept.
Ideas for 5E
I genuinely do not want someone who would even in jest add the gender based attribute modifications to their poll working for WotC.

The only time it should be brought up is to point at and say "This was wrong, and D&D was wrong for having this."

By lending this even the faintest air of legitimacy, all you've done is broadcast to every female fan that you do not want them in your game.

So congrats.




All I will say is that I find it funny (literally I lol'd) people accept "racial bonuses" but not gender based ones. We can accept different races are better at certain things, that not ALL player character races are "equal"....but between genders they are the same among all races? We accept that any male and female dwarf are equal, but not a dwarf and an orc?

In a fantasy city, the people could accept hiring or prefering certain races (to say nothing purely social prejudice)  to fill certain jobs (classes) because of their 'inborn abilities' as is currently. And mechanically speaking, they would be justified in that much. But...they could never hire a female over a male, or vice versa for 'justified' reasons because males and females of every race are the equal reguardless of biology, but the races themselves are not equal?

But is it necessary?


No. They could in fact do away with racial bonuses too actually. I wouldnt mind it if they did honestly.

Every race should be able to play every class JUST as well as any other.
All I will say is that I find it funny (literally I lol'd) people accept "racial bonuses" but not gender based ones. We can accept different races are better at certain things, that not ALL player character races are "equal"....but between genders they are the same among all races? We accept that any male and female dwarf are equal, but not a dwarf and an orc?




Edit: In case it isn't clear, the issue here is that mass bigotry against women is a real thing and even jestingly calling back to D&D doing that is a mistake on such a grand level that I can't imagine anyone edits Cook's posts because I'm optimistic and would like to think that literally everyone else at WotC would see that and think "HAH HAH NO, THIS IS A BAD IDEA."  This especially goes for ttgs which has long struggled with being a "boys only club."

There is one and pretty much only reason to bring up the old gender limits or attribute changes, and it's to go "D&D was wrong to do this.  It was objectively wrong.  We don't want to glorify or give testament to this, we want it to be forgotton as the wrong-headed garbage that it was."
    I've removed content from this thread because inappropriate language is a violation of the Code of Conduct.  You can review the Code of Conduct here www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...

Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
I voted for feats, skills, non-Vancian magic, PC item creation, and healing surges.

Everything else falls into the "don't care" or (mostly) the "kill it and burn the corpse!" categories.
Pardon my lack of understanding, but I don't understand what Vancian means?

Otherwise, I am mainly interested in:

Feats
Skills
Vancian and non-Vancian magic (e.g. it can be houseruled as to what is chosen)
PC chacacter Creation.
Healing surges.

Exotic Weapons (preferably tied to race, or as a group of weapons so feats make be given up to take all exotic weapons of X catagory. Pretty low down in my list of things though. I don't want elves and dwarfs merely having weapons to their class, but certain races having weapons designed largely for their use only, unless one is willingly trained to do otherwise.)


Anything else is purely optional or I don't care enough about it to include it in.
We don't want a new iteration of the game to be only a "best of" of the prior editions. If we did, there would be no reason to play it.

I find the irony of this statement awe-inspiring. Truly, I am humbled before this masterwork of self-contradiction.
-m4ki; one down, one to go

"Retro is not new. Retro-fit is not new." --Seeker95, on why I won't be playing DDN

|| DDN Metrics (0-10) | enthusiasm: 1 | confidence in design: -3 | desire to play: 0 | Sticking with 4e?: Yep. | Better Options: IKRPG Mk II ||
The Five Things D&D Next Absolutely Must Not Do:
1. Imbalanced gameplay. Any and all characters must be able to contribute equally both in combat and out of combat at all levels of play. If the Fighters are linear and the Wizards quadratic, I walk. 2. Hardcore simulationist approach. D&D is a game about heroic fantasy. I'm weak and useless enough in real life; I play RPGs for a change of pace. If the only reason a rule exists is because "that's how it's supposed to be", I walk. I don't want a game that "simulates" real life, I want a game that simulates heroic fantasy. 3. Worshipping at false idols (AKA Sacred Cows). If the only reason a rule exists is "it's always been that way", I walk. Now to be clear, I have no problem with some things not changing; my issue is with retaining bad idea simply for the sake of nostalgia. 4. DM vs. players. If the game encourages "gotcha!" moments or treats the DM and players as enemies, adversaries, or problems to be overcome, I walk. 5. Rules for the sake of rules. The only thing I want rules for is the things I can't do sitting around a table with my friends. If the rules try to step on my ability to roleplay the character I want to roleplay, I walk. Furthermore, the rules serve to facilitate gameplay, not to simulate the world. NOTE: Items in red have been violated.
Chris Perkins' DM Survival Tips:
1. When in doubt, wing it. 2. Keep the story moving. Go with the flow. 3. Sometimes things make the best characters. 4. Always give players lots of things to do. 5. Wherever possible, say ‘yes.’ 6. Cheating is largely unnecessary. 7. Don't be afraid to give the characters a fun new toy. 8. Don't get in the way of a good players exchange. 9. Avoid talking too much. 10. Save some details for later. 11. Be transparent. 12. Don't show all your cards. Words to live by.
Quotes From People Smarter Than Me:
"Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging..." -Foxface on Essentials "Servicing a diverse fan base with an RPG ruleset - far from being the mandate for 'open design space' and a cavalier attitude towards balance - requires creating a system that /works/, with minimal fuss, for a wide variety of play styles, not just from one group to the next, but at the same table." -Tony_Vargas on design "Mearls' and Cook's stated intent to produce an edition that fans of all previous editions (and Pathfinder) will like more than their current favourite edition is laudable. But it is also, IMO, completely unrealistic. It's like people who pray for world peace: I might share their overall aims, but I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for them to succeed. When they talk in vague terms about what they'd like to do in this new edition, I mostly find myself thinking 'hey, that sounds cool, assuming they can pull it off', but almost every time they've said something specific about actual mechanics, I've found myself wincing and shaking my head in disbelief and/or disgust, either straight away or after thinking about the obvious implications for half a minute." -Duskweaver on D&D Next
I like D&D N but this poll is just weird. Saving throws for example mean something different in 1E, 3E, and 4E for example.

As to gender-based ability scores, Wizards can't really say they would never publish a rule like that again and then reprint the AD&D 1E PH in two months. In 1E's defense, Mike Carr did say in the foreward that  AD&D was published for both female and male players. For the 70s, the staff at TSR certainly seemed to have a pretty modern appreciation of having a game shared by both female and male players despite the weird ability caps based on gender.

i voted for everything that isnt in 4e, such as racial level limits and weak women


i voted for everything that isnt in 4e, such as racial level limits and weak women



[Edited] When i hear someone talking about limits on PCs tho, all I can think of is how limited in their own abilities those people must be. You do not need to limit any PC from a mechanic or even fluff point to make interesting games and stories. you need to have an interesting story to keep the Players happy. 1st edition Is liked by many not due to any limits it put on characters, but because of how simple it was to learn and play. You should focus on the good points in each edition, not the bad/poorly thought ones.
All I will say is that I find it funny (literally I lol'd) people accept "racial bonuses" but not gender based ones. We can accept different races are better at certain things, that not ALL player character races are "equal"....but between genders they are the same among all races? We accept that any male and female dwarf are equal, but not a dwarf and an orc?




Edit: In case it isn't clear, the issue here is that mass bigotry against women is a real thing and even jestingly calling back to D&D doing that is a mistake on such a grand level that I can't imagine anyone edits Cook's posts because I'm optimistic and would like to think that literally everyone else at WotC would see that and think "HAH HAH NO, THIS IS A BAD IDEA."  This especially goes for ttgs which has long struggled with being a "boys only club."

There is one and pretty much only reason to bring up the old gender limits or attribute changes, and it's to go "D&D was wrong to do this.  It was objectively wrong.  We don't want to glorify or give testament to this, we want it to be forgotton as the wrong-headed garbage that it was."




to sort of play devils advocate here I gotta say in defense of TSR there is a reason that the olypmics are seperated by gender.  Both because there are things women can do better and because there are things that men can do better, and putting them both on the same playing field would be un-sporting.  Am I saying there are no exceptions to the rule? no. I have a friend from high school that has recently become a body builder.  I am guessing her strength is far higher than mine.  I'm not a body builder I am a Computer Science major.  Now is it unfair to say that if I put as much work in to my strength and physique that I would eventually cap out at a higher strength? no. It is basic physiology of the fact that she's a smaller person than I am and I can attain a higher muscle mass because my frame is larger.  To state that men and women are equal physiologically is in my mind fairly dumb.  There are a lot of things women do with their bodies that I as a man couldn't even think of doing.  women for instance can survive longer without food and water.  Also they do this crazy thing where they have another life form grow inside of them.  I, as a man, sure as heck can't do that.  So while I disagree with the rules, and did not vote to keep them around, I can understand where the original rules came from.

That stated I am almost dead sure those were inserted as a joke against themselves, sort of as an apology, saying look how dumb this stuff was.  Including it in the poll was, as someone has said, a way of discovering what the state of the player base is.  Like the questions you ask at the begining of a lie detector test to illicit both truth and un-truth so you know how to read it later.  It also alows for the contingent of the fact that while they are dead sure that no one wants these even as an optional rule some sadly might want them and they wanted to test and make sure they were right.
It is actually unbelievable to me that they have gender-restricted anything, especially something like abilty scores, on the list as though they would ever legitimately consider them. Then again, with the recent Dryad and Satyr sex restrictions, I guess that I shouldn't be surprised.


My guess is they put that in there to confirm that it would get relatively few votes and put the whole notion to rest.  because I have seen people who don't like the "old-school" feel Next is trying to evoke seriously suggest that Next must have gender restrictions as part of that old school feel.
i dint like that have rules for 3rd and rules 4rd and rules for 1st editions.
please make one game, if i want to play some editions i buy it. I want something new.

i like to see in combat

30% aleatory
30% strategy
30% character build´s
10% master / player making his own rules/ criativity 
 
must have a way in the creation of the character you choose more strategic ''feats'' that grant powers, or mores simple feats that granst only bonuses.

that way the player choose their style of gamming. 
It is actually unbelievable to me that they have gender-restricted anything, especially something like abilty scores, on the list as though they would ever legitimately consider them. Then again, with the recent Dryad and Satyr sex restrictions, I guess that I shouldn't be surprised.


My guess is they put that in there to confirm that it would get relatively few votes and put the whole notion to rest.  because I have seen people who don't like the "old-school" feel Next is trying to evoke seriously suggest that Next must have gender restrictions as part of that old school feel.



In that case plainly state that gender based attribute modifiers are a bad idea and won't be coming back and stick with it.  Don't go namby pamby on us.  Frankly IMHO what I've seen so far DOES constitute pandering to the 'old school' crowd.  Not a nice thing to say I know, but there it is.


-Polaris
Prestige Class - Yes with a But.   These were done Wrong in 3E and their descendants in 4E were better but they were wrong as well.  The original intent of Prestige classes was to give the DM a tool for customizing his world as well as provide players with Heroic Careers to work towards.  The intent was that Players had to Earn their way into a Prestige class, not that they were entitled to have one as soon as they hit the mechanical requirements.   As 3E progressed we got drowned in Prestige classes many of which served no other purpose than to provide Archetypes that should have been doable within the core classes themselves.  I would like to see something closer to the 4E Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies but not something automatic just for being the right level with a bit of the 3E Prestige class thrown in  Make them really small classes (3 to 5 levels) that are used to define parts of the world or to lead players to greater destinies.  They should be something Earned in Game through effort and role-play and Most importantly the DM should have a nice set of rules for making his own to populate his setting with.  The list of premade ones in the Core Books should be very very small and used as examples to inspire the DM to make his own.



This reminds me ever so slightly of Burning Wheel's Lifepath system. I know that's a pretty alien concept for D&D, but I think it'd be a cool way to lead your character through his adventuring career. Instead of making it about race (character stock in BW), make it about class: Little slices of adventuring "life" counted in levels that determine what abilities and powers your character has, depending on what he spent those levels doing.

What I mean is, instead of making Prestige Classes or Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies a kind of separate template overlaid over each class, make them exist within each class, to represent both a background for that character's adventuring life and also provide some leads to other possible class paths (maybe that's a cool name for them; Class Paths). This would both help people who are making characters above 1st level, and for those starting at lvl 1 it provides a kind of built-in motivation for the character's adventuring career.
PCs creating magic items - I was about to select this one when I realized I was not missing item creation in 4e at all. After all, if the PC was able to just make any magic item, what's the impetus for adventuring?
I thought the gender thing was a joke, personally.  I'm not going to read anything into it beyond that.

Though if someone wants to make the poll look ridiculous, they could go hop over to 4chan's /tg/, start a "-4 Str" troll thread, link to the article, and horrible scew the results.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Ok, it's been a while since I've taken a statistics class - can anyone explain how the percentages in this poll are working? There isn't a single category over 9% and just looking at this thread there are things I agree with with posters I normally don't agree with so I know some of these things should be in double digits for inclusion. Surely Vancian/Non-Vancing should be running 50/50 (70/30, 20/80, whatever).

Veteran of The Transfer... Add 700 to my post count... 

Ok, it's been a while since I've taken a statistics class - can anyone explain how the percentages in this poll are working? There isn't a single category over 9% and just looking at this thread there are things I agree with with posters I normally don't agree with so I know some of these things should be in double digits for inclusion. Surely Vancian/Non-Vancing should be running 50/50 (70/30, 20/80, whatever).



I assume it's percentage of total number of votes for all options - so votes for Vancian magic are lagging votes for non-Vancian magic, but they represent only a few percent of all boxes checked in the poll.

 
Sign In to post comments