I Want the Essence of D&D in D&DN.


 In the post TSR era of D&D (2000+) there has been a lac of the D&D feel or essence in D&D. It is not so much the mechanics as I have just recently bought an AD&D retro clone with d20 mechanics. Here is my opinion of mechanics, the balance brigade and numbers in general.

"Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing"

pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989. 

 Put simply I do not really care if they use an attack matirx, THACO, BAB, weapon proficinecy etc, not to worried if they have NWP, skills, ability checks etc. Put simply I care more about the fluff and the feel of previous editions and as long as the mechanics are not completely awful and they do not repeat CoDzila I'm not to fussed. The essence can be hard to nail down so I will try and define a few things.

 When I open up the PHB I want a +5 holy avenger to land on my left foot. A real holy avenger and not the watered down post TSR versions of one. I want elves with dark vision. When I open the DMG I want a +3 frostbrand +6 vs fire using creatures that functions as a ring of fire resistence to land on my right foot. If the PCs kill a Drow and take their weapons I want them to have to worry about them falling apart in sunlight. Beholders with anti magic central eyes, Yuan-Ti slithering through the jungles, Githyanki gish riding red dragons through the astral plane perhaps getting ready to invade the prime material. Fireballs dealing 1d6/level would also be nice regardless of the other mechanical changes.

 The ghost of Gygax guiding the d20s also works. A game that pays tribute to Gygax, Dave, Frank Metzer. Also other designers, artists, and  writers of years past. Hickmann, Weiss, Elmore, Easley, David 'Zeb' Cook, Eric L Boyd, Greenwood, Brom, Sean K Reynolds, Monte Cook, Salvatore, Elaine Cunningham, Roger E Moore, Troy Denning and numerous others whose names elude me. Sure there is an AD&D bias there but that I feel is the essence of D&D- its history, legacy, monsters, spells etc. I do not care so much about the AD&D mechanics except maybe as far as iconic things like magic missile, fireball, and certain magic items are concerned They do not have to be 100%  clones of AD&D mechanics as something like the effects of a ring of fire resitance can change between the editions. If you find the Sword of Kas one should have a reasonable idea what the sword will do because it is the friggin Sword of Kas and not some generic +6 sword. Not that I am opposed to a generic +6 sword but a +5 one still evokes earlier editions. A +5 sword used to be special.

 Bounded Accuracy, not a bad concept to reign in the number porn of 3rd and 4th ed but I want a +5 holy avenger. Stretch it please to make it work. a +3 one doesn't feel the same. Not to worried if a cleric or priest can fire laser beams, not to worried if you have a non Vancian Warlock or a sorcerer. Not to worried if a high level fighter can cut peoples heads off without a vorpal blade but has been trained at court and has social skills.  Not to worried if "Spells and Magic 2.0" has an AEDU wizard in it or if the Warlock is AEDU, the 3.5 version or something else. I prefer monstrous races to be kept out of he PHB but if one is going to add the Tiefling and Dragonborn in there may as well throwin a few more races as well like Aasimar and Genasi. I'm not even that worried if the Ranger can dual wield or not or have an archer build or has 2d8 hit dice at level 1. The classes have to feel familiar though so nothing to weird (Paladins growing wings and lobbing fireballs, a multclass tiefling or aasimar one though maybe). 

 And thats more or less it and it is what I am looking for.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

Ink infused with ground Gygax?
Ink infused with ground Gygax?



 Worked for KISS right ;)

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

 And thats more or less it and it is what I am looking for.


What?
Here:  You can have a +5 Holy Avenger exactly as it was in AD&D.


Nothing is stopping you.




The game would probably work better with this Holy Avenger (+1 to attack, +5 to damage, other powers).


But if you really want a +5 weapon in your game, you can put it there.


Aside from that - I agree with much of your general idea.  I just think you are mistaking (what I see as) trivial mechanicals (+5 weapon) for the actual essence (which has more to do with Gygaxian Naturalism and Players as survivors rather than superheroes).


Which is ironic since you claim to be unconcerned with mechanics.


  


Carl      
 And thats more or less it and it is what I am looking for.


What?



"Quick, Sherman, to the Wayback Machine!  Set the controls to 1974 ..."
 And thats more or less it and it is what I am looking for.


What?



"Quick, Sherman, to the Wayback Machine!  Set the controls to 1974 ..."


Actualy, what he's describing is closer to the D&D of the 80s
In 1974, magic weapons used to go to +3 ;)

I think what Zard is trying to convey is that there is flavor in mecanics, or at least in the language we used to describe the mecanics.
a "level 15 lawful good Paladin" is something everyone understands: it is a staple of the game, even my dad who never played anything understands. It's a good thing for the game that, although the paladin has changed mecanicaly over the editions, we can still refer to that level 15 pally as what it is.

But there are things that resonnate just as much with the flavor of the game that have dissapeared due to changes in the mecanics.

The appeal of a +5 weapon was something every player could understand, yet we don't get those anymore, it's a bit of a paradigm shift that we have to retro-fit our deeply-ingrained assumptions about the power of magic items to once again be awed by +3 weapons.

Another example was the simplified alignments in 4e, where a "neutral good" character was not part of the rules. I'm not saying one way of doing alignments is better than the other, just that there are things that are part of D&D that will no longer exist in next, and as the flavor of the game begins to change drasticaly, there is part of the D&D folklore that will be lost, for better or worst
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
True.  Of course, that's his opinion of what the 'essence of D&D' is, which is going to vary from person to person.
 And thats more or less it and it is what I am looking for.


What?



"Quick, Sherman, to the Wayback Machine!  Set the controls to 1974 ..."


Actualy, what he's describing is closer to the D&D of the 80s
In 1974, magic weapons used to go to +3 ;)

I think what Zard is trying to convey is that there is flavor in mecanics, or at least in the language we used to describe the mecanics.
a "level 15 lawful good Paladin" is something everyone understands: it is a staple of the game, even my dad who never played anything understands. It's a good thing for the game that, although the paladin has changed mecanicaly over the editions, we can still refer to that level 15 pally as what it is.

But there are things that resonnate just as much with the flavor of the game that have dissapeared due to changes in the mecanics.

The appeal of a +5 weapon was something every player could understand, yet we don't get those anymore, it's a bit of a paradigm shift that we have to retro-fit our deeply-ingrained assumptions about the power of magic items to once again be awed by +3 weapons.

Another example was the simplified alignments in 4e, where a "neutral good" character was not part of the rules. I'm not saying one way of doing alignments is better than the other, just that there are things that are part of D&D that will no longer exist in next, and as the flavor of the game begins to change drasticaly, there is part of the D&D folklore that will be lost, for better or worst



 Ding ding this man gets it. I do not want an AD&D clone and I do not care about most mechanics. I would not bring back level limits or racial restrictins or gender restrictions form AD&D for example.

 Have a look at the modern Drow. Spell resistance: Advantage on saving throws. Big whoop use a spell on them with no save.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

I think the missing element is the element of mystery.  Previously, each monster tended to be its own challenge  and its own puzzle.  
Remember the rules for busting through a prismatic wall?  Those wierd quirky monster specific rules that couldn't be sidestepped were actually part of the charm.  The same was true of magic items.  They were... unique.

Magic items used to be more like Tolkien's magic items.  Each had its own story and powers and mystery about it.
Monsters recalled greek myths.  Perseus killing the gorgon etc.

The mental challenge has been reduced to numbers in a lot of areas.  Immunities have disappeared.  Powerful abilities have vanished.  And magic items have become standardized stat boosters.

There is a fine line to tow here though.  Too much arcane wierdness can go beyond flavor and into the realm of the frustrating.  But, yeah, I think some of this stuff needs to return.  I really liked 3.X, but these aspects were largely missing.

 


 Ding ding this man gets it. I do not want an AD&D clone and I do not care about most mechanics. I would not bring back level limits or racial restrictins or gender restrictions form AD&D for example.

 Have a look at the modern Drow. Spell resistance: Advantage on saving throws. Big whoop use a spell on them with no save.



Obviously you care about some mechanics to a degree or you wouldn't have cited the drow. But targeting drow with spells with no save has been a useful technique even since 3E so I'm not seeing the problem here (in that specific regard).

I guess that if the "D&D feel" is sourcebooks filled with 145 pages of lore, and short stories, and backstory and "fluff" and 4 pages of mechanics then I'll be happy to let this edition pass me by.     

The game would probably work better with this Holy Avenger (+1 to attack, +5 to damage, other powers).   



I really like this idea.  A +5 sword does +5 damage.  All magic weapons are +1 to hit regardless of bonus.

Then you could have +X weapons with much less worry about destroying bounded accuracy.

The essence of D&D is playing with friends and sharing a story, the down side is when the game starts to lose its luster and mechanics become a primary focus. The rest is history.
The essence of D&D is playing with friends and sharing a story, the down side is when the game starts to lose its luster and mechanics become a primary focus. The rest is history.



Some people prefer that, though, so their essence of D&D is different from yours, and mine, and everybody else's.  People play the game for a variety of reasons, and have a variety of things they consider vital to the game.  This is why Next is trying to be so inclusive.
Shrugs his shoulders... Zardnaar you have all that. It's called Advanced Dungeons and Dragons bud. This is all relevant to my own prefered playstyle. Hence I have been playing AD&D for 25+ years now and watching the editions pass me by. Why the hell do you want to even attempt to bend 5th edition to this concept as an official playstyle when the poor 4th edition fans are getting their playstyles literally impaled by these devs.
   As for me why would I buy another retro clone? I have Pathfinder to scratch this itch if I want it. I kind of feel like you are kicking puppies here just to see if they squal out in pain. No more right way wrong way. Our D&D is dead and buried.. scratch that! Wotc just posted the reprint of  2nd edition premium.Foot in Mouth
 And thats more or less it and it is what I am looking for.


What?




Wether Zard is skillfull at building proper sentences is irrelevant in analyzing the message he is trying to convey to his readers. It's not because you don't understand what he's saying that his point is "stupid" as you put it.

 
I think what Zard is trying to convey is that there is flavor in mecanics, or at least in the language we used to describe the mecanics.
a "level 15 lawful good Paladin" is something everyone understands: it is a staple of the game, even my dad who never played anything understands. It's a good thing for the game that, although the paladin has changed mecanicaly over the editions, we can still refer to that level 15 pally as what it is.

But there are things that resonnate just as much with the flavor of the game that have dissapeared due to changes in the mecanics.

The appeal of a +5 weapon was something every player could understand, yet we don't get those anymore, it's a bit of a paradigm shift that we have to retro-fit our deeply-ingrained assumptions about the power of magic items to once again be awed by +3 weapons.

Another example was the simplified alignments in 4e, where a "neutral good" character was not part of the rules. I'm not saying one way of doing alignments is better than the other, just that there are things that are part of D&D that will no longer exist in next, and as the flavor of the game begins to change drasticaly, there is part of the D&D folklore that will be lost, for better or worst  

 

Does that makes it more clear?
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
Armor Class, Hit Points, Levels, Magic Missile, Longswords, d20, claw claw bite, Find/Remove Traps, Flametounge, Alignments.
This is the Essence of D&D. I prefer the d20 concept over the charts of olds, and I can debate if we should call it Disable Device or Thievery, True Neutral or Unaligned, but some of what makes it a shared experience is some of these basics that should not be excluded.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

Let's see if I can paraphrase the OP correctly. Zardnaar wants D&D to feel epic, for high level characters to have crazy powerful items to make them feel like mystical heroes.

In a way I think he has a point this is what sold D&D. People didn't buy D&D thirty years ago because of the battle mechanics, they bought it to shoot fireballs at dragons and go toe to toe with a hill giant in melee.

Does this mean D&D shouldn't have working battle mechaincs? Of course not, fighting is a fun and integral part of the game. But they're not the only part. 
The Oberoni fallacy only applies to broken rules, not rules you don't like. If a rule you don't like can be easily ignored, it should exist in the game for those who will enjoy it.
 And thats more or less it and it is what I am looking for.


What?



Wether Zard is skillfull at building proper sentences is irrelevant in analyzing the message he is trying to convey to his readers. It's not because you don't understand what he's saying that his point is "stupid" as you put it.

 
I think what Zard is trying to convey is that there is flavor in mecanics, or at least in the language we used to describe the mecanics.
a "level 15 lawful good Paladin" is something everyone understands: it is a staple of the game, even my dad who never played anything understands. It's a good thing for the game that, although the paladin has changed mecanicaly over the editions, we can still refer to that level 15 pally as what it is.

But there are things that resonnate just as much with the flavor of the game that have dissapeared due to changes in the mecanics.

The appeal of a +5 weapon was something every player could understand, yet we don't get those anymore, it's a bit of a paradigm shift that we have to retro-fit our deeply-ingrained assumptions about the power of magic items to once again be awed by +3 weapons.

Another example was the simplified alignments in 4e, where a "neutral good" character was not part of the rules. I'm not saying one way of doing alignments is better than the other, just that there are things that are part of D&D that will no longer exist in next, and as the flavor of the game begins to change drasticaly, there is part of the D&D folklore that will be lost, for better or worst  

 

Does that makes it more clear? 



Not really. Do you you realize that in OD&D the alignment system was just law, neutrality, and chaos? In other words, your "history" doesn't start with the actual beginnings of the game, just where you started. So when you talk about things "every player can understand", you are just talking about yourself apparently, because you are ignorant of the game's actual history. I don't think you have really clarified anything other than the fact that you are another poster that doesn't know the history of the game. If anything, 4e alignments took it back closer to the game's origins. Now that is actual reality; we will see what you do to twist it.
The essence of D&D is playing with friends and sharing a story, the down side is when the game starts to lose its luster and mechanics become a primary focus. The rest is history.


Ever considered how mechanics define and allow you to share the same story?  I mean, whenever we talk about "alignment", "Vancian magic", and most other mechanical aspects of D&D, are we not only talking about the mechanics, but also the dynamics that those mechanics create and the aesthetics evoked by those dynamics?

Case in point:

Have a look at the modern Drow. Spell resistance: Advantage on saving throws. Big whoop use a spell on them with no save.



Zaardnar isn't complaining about the mechanics per se, but rather the implications of how those mechanics would work, and the feel those dynamics give to him.


  • The objective of spell resistance -- to give a mechanical advantage against spells -- is met

  • The dynamics of spell resistance -- preventing only spells that initiate saves from affecting the Drow -- is jarring to someone who expects spell resistance to literally resist spells (as per pre-3E reading)

  • The expected aesthetics of spell resistance -- the Fantasy of playing a spell-resistant drow and the Challenge of fighting spell-resistant creatures -- fails to materialize


A lot of the issues of 5E (and 4E, and 3.x) involve mechanics, not story, and the novelty of 2E and earlier also involve mechanics, not story.
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
I Want the Essence of D&D in D&DN.

Yeah, so does everyone, problem is, no one agrees on what that Essence is.   And most think the next guy's "Essence" stinks.  

What we /could/ come up with, is "what do all eds of D&D have in common?"

And that's, well, hit points (but not how many or what they mean), levels(but not how many or how much exp they require), 6 stats (but not the range of stats nor bonuses associated with them), the concept of classes (no class has been basically the same in every ed, not even the fighter),  the human, elf and dwarf races (but no details of what they're like) and a bunch of smaller details like "longswords do 1d8 damage (mostly)."  And actual dungeons you go into and dragons you fight, of course, though, again, no consistency on the mechanics thereof.





 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

I guess the thought in my head is there are basically two choices when you reach the point where rules become primary over the experience. The first it try to recapture the past (pick your edition of D&D), or try to move forward to experiece something new or different. I am sure it is a gross overgeneralization, but that is the vibe I am picking up from the forums. I fall in the try something new camp. My only problem is anything new is rarely supported to the extent of D&D.
Have a look at the modern Drow. Spell resistance: Advantage on saving throws. Big whoop use a spell on them with no save.


Hey, that's catching part of 3.x's essence. Seemingly strong sounding advantages that really aren't advantages at all(spell resistance was a joke even in 3.x)
 And thats more or less it and it is what I am looking for.


What?
Wether Zard is skillfull at building proper sentences is irrelevant in analyzing the message he is trying to convey to his readers. It's not because you don't understand what he's saying that his point is "stupid" as you put it.

 
I think what Zard is trying to convey is that there is flavor in mecanics, or at least in the language we used to describe the mecanics.
a "level 15 lawful good Paladin" is something everyone understands: it is a staple of the game, even my dad who never played anything understands. It's a good thing for the game that, although the paladin has changed mecanicaly over the editions, we can still refer to that level 15 pally as what it is.

But there are things that resonnate just as much with the flavor of the game that have dissapeared due to changes in the mecanics.

The appeal of a +5 weapon was something every player could understand, yet we don't get those anymore, it's a bit of a paradigm shift that we have to retro-fit our deeply-ingrained assumptions about the power of magic items to once again be awed by +3 weapons.

Another example was the simplified alignments in 4e, where a "neutral good" character was not part of the rules. I'm not saying one way of doing alignments is better than the other, just that there are things that are part of D&D that will no longer exist in next, and as the flavor of the game begins to change drasticaly, there is part of the D&D folklore that will be lost, for better or worst  

 

Does that makes it more clear? 



Not really. Do you you realize that in OD&D the alignment system was just law, neutrality, and chaos? In other words, your history doesn't start with the beginnings of the game, just where you started. I don't think you have clarified anything other than the fact that you don;t know the history of the game; if anything, 4e alignments took it back closer to the games origins than anything.


Fer crying out loud...

I know of the alignment on old school D&D thank you very much. (I did start with BEMCI) We could do without Ad Hominem attacks...
Do I realy need to find a flawless, perfect example or can you just try and be of good faith and actualy TRY to understand what the guy's saying?
"Neutral good" has been part of the game long enough that a lot of people know what it means. Dealing away with it is not a bad or a good thing.
But it does change our base assumptions of the game

I'm not asking to agree, only to try and understand
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
Have a look at the modern Drow. Spell resistance: Advantage on saving throws. Big whoop use a spell on them with no save.


Hey, that's catching part of 3.x's essence. Seemingly strong sounding advantages that really aren't advantages at all(spell resistance was a joke even in 3.x)



Yup and it was silly in 3rd ed as well. If MR/SR is to mean anyhitng make it mean something. You do not have to go back to AD&D's 50%, 70% etc but Drow could have balnket immunity to level 1-3 spells and advantage on saves vs magic. That menas somehting.

 They have dumbed the game down so much and catered to player entitlement so much that the concept of failure or an attack not working for some reason (SR, need a magical weapon to hit) is largely an anathmema these days. Red dragons getting hurt by fireballs is lol. PCs get bored if they are not challenged and edition cycles are getitng shorter and gamerrs vote with their feet.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  

I guess the thought in my head is there are basically two choices when you reach the point where rules become primary over the experience. The first it try to recapture the past (pick your edition of D&D), or try to move forward to experiece something new or different. I am sure it is a gross overgeneralization, but that is the vibe I am picking up from the forums. I fall in the try something new camp. My only problem is anything new is rarely supported to the extent of D&D.


I dunno about the "rules become primary over the experience"... don't the rules define and deliver the experience (see: reaction to 3E alterations to saves, 4E alterations to mechanics and dynamics)?

The problem with the "recapture the past" is that it basically was one of the objectives mentioned by Mearls, wherein he stated how you could have a 2E-esque PC playing alongside a 3E-esque PC while the DM is running a 4E-esque sort of campaign... or something to that degree.  Prior to that statement I was thinking that he wouldn't bother with the "emulate older systems" approach and actually create a modular system -- a sort of D&D Universale Role Playing System (DURPS?) -- wherein you only need a module or two to change the feel from 0E to something like 3E or 4E; something that required an intimate understanding of the dynamics created by the core and modular mechanics (a trait that could've helped the development of post-2E systems tremendously).

Funny enough, I get that feeling not in 5E, but in 13th Age, which actually divorces itself from being a D&D clone and instead cites itself as a "love letter to D&D" (so it radically changes a lot of mechanics relative to pre-3E... but somehow I feel it delivers the old school and new school experience far better than 5E's design).
Show

You are Red/Blue!
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

57047238 wrote:
If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
I dunno, advantage on all saving throws is pretty awesome and Drow are already pretty nimble, making them harder to hit with things like lance of faith or ray of frost. They have "resistance", NOT "immunity"......big difference there.
I dunno, advantage on all saving throws is pretty awesome and Drow are already pretty nimble, making them harder to hit with things like lance of faith or ray of frost. They have "resistance", NOT "immunity"......big difference there.


The thing is, drows used to have spell resistance expressed as a percentage. Both mecanics represent the same thing, but they do it in a different way.

Again, not saying one is better than the other, but it does feel different.
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
Funny enough, I get that feeling not in 5E, but in 13th Age, which actually divorces itself from being a D&D clone and instead cites itself as a "love letter to D&D" (so it radically changes a lot of mechanics relative to pre-3E... but somehow I feel it delivers the old school and new school experience far better than 5E's design).

Well, it is further along.  And Hiensoo certainly seems to know his stuff.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

I dunno, advantage on all saving throws is pretty awesome and Drow are already pretty nimble, making them harder to hit with things like lance of faith or ray of frost. They have "resistance", NOT "immunity"......big difference there.


The thing is, drows used to have spell resistance expressed as a percentage. Both mecanics represent the same thing, but they do it in a different way.

Again, not saying one is better than the other, but it does feel different.



Well it should feel different, it's a different edition of D&D. I think the current mechanic (Advantage) is a much easier thing to import in the game than %die. But that's just me.
Wether Zard is skillfull at building proper sentences is irrelevant in analyzing the message he is trying to convey to his readers. It's not because you don't understand what he's saying that his point is "stupid" as you put it.


I did not understand his point until you translated it. I wish he would use proper paragraph structure.  He posts a lot and I think his posts would be better received if he communicated his thoughts more clearly.
Have a look at the modern Drow. Spell resistance: Advantage on saving throws. Big whoop use a spell on them with no save.


Hey, that's catching part of 3.x's essence. Seemingly strong sounding advantages that really aren't advantages at all(spell resistance was a joke even in 3.x)



Yup and it was silly in 3rd ed as well. If MR/SR is to mean anyhitng make it mean something. You do not have to go back to AD&D's 50%, 70% etc but Drow could have balnket immunity to level 1-3 spells and advantage on saves vs magic. That menas somehting.

 They have dumbed the game down so much and catered to player entitlement so much that the concept of failure or an attack not working for some reason (SR, need a magical weapon to hit) is largely an anathmema these days. Red dragons getting hurt by fireballs is lol. PCs get bored if they are not challenged and edition cycles are getitng shorter and gamerrs vote with their feet.




I think the problem with advantage on saves/disadvantage on magic attacks is only a problem because advantage is thrown on for anthing that was a +/- 1 or 2 in previous edtions when it can in fact be anywhere from +1 to +4 depending on your to hit dice number. So if advantage/disadvantage were used sparingly and only in extreme situations it would work great with magic resistant creatures. Maybe throw in if they miss or make their save nothing happens instead of half or whatever. Basically its part of the bounded accuracy and simpler math of 5E that ruins those feels...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
With the current trend it should be +1 or +2 for static bonuses, then the skill die, and then advantage/disadvantage on top of it and used sparringly. They really run the risk of losing the novelty and benefit of advantage/disadvantage by using it too much.
With the current trend it should be +1 or +2 for static bonuses, then the skill die, and then advantage/disadvantage on top of it and used sparringly. They really run the risk of losing the novelty and benefit of advantage/disadvantage by using it too much.



They could even say that your skill die can't raise your d20 past 20 or whatever.

My idea though would be to have different layers of advantage that used different sized dice and have adv and disadv cancel each other out on a 1 to 1 basis like this:

(Dis)Advantages     Die added or subtracted
1                           1d4
2                           1d6
3                           1d8
4                           1d10
5                           1d12
6+                         1d20

Now say you had advantage from 3 sources and disadvantage from 2 they would cancel out to 1 advantage and you'd add 1d4 to your d20 roll maxing out at 20.

That way you can get that equivalent +2 (1d4) for flanking, or you could get something that bumped you right up to 1d20 like magic resistance. Of course adding up the numbers would be different than taking the highest but it would add granularity back in and different things could add different amounts of advantage...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
 
Not really. Do you you realize that in OD&D the alignment system was just law, neutrality, and chaos? In other words, your "history" doesn't start with the actual beginnings of the game, just where you started.  


 Yup and did you know the very first action resolution was using rock paper scissors...  - Its not like d20s existed that far back. 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

 
Not really. Do you you realize that in OD&D the alignment system was just law, neutrality, and chaos? In other words, your "history" doesn't start with the actual beginnings of the game, just where you started.  


 Yup and did you know the very first action resolution was using rock paper scissors...  - Its not like d20s existed that far back. 



Actually the first action resolution was one person murdering another, but you probably mean the first D&d resolution mechanic...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
 
Not really. Do you you realize that in OD&D the alignment system was just law, neutrality, and chaos? In other words, your "history" doesn't start with the actual beginnings of the game, just where you started.  


 Yup and did you know the very first action resolution was using rock paper scissors...  - Its not like d20s existed that far back. 



Actually the first action resolution was one person murdering another, but you probably mean the first D&d resolution mechanic...



No adam and eve used rps... that was kids that invented homicide.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

 
Not really. Do you you realize that in OD&D the alignment system was just law, neutrality, and chaos? In other words, your "history" doesn't start with the actual beginnings of the game, just where you started.  


 Yup and did you know the very first action resolution was using rock paper scissors...  - Its not like d20s existed that far back. 



Actually the first action resolution was one person murdering another, but you probably mean the first D&d resolution mechanic...



 Probably more like. "Me man, you women, how about it? Ugh".

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 Fear is the Mind Killer  


The game would probably work better with this Holy Avenger (+1 to attack, +5 to damage, other powers).   



I really like this idea.  A +5 sword does +5 damage.  All magic weapons are +1 to hit regardless of bonus.

Then you could have +X weapons with much less worry about destroying bounded accuracy.




It was back in 1980 maybe that I decided that weapons having to hit bonus didnt make too much sense.. unless they were mind controlling (like how stormbringer and mournblade tended to wield there users) artifact class devices so I removed the bonuses to hit long long ago.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

 
Not really. Do you you realize that in OD&D the alignment system was just law, neutrality, and chaos? In other words, your "history" doesn't start with the actual beginnings of the game, just where you started.  


 Yup and did you know the very first action resolution was using rock paper scissors...  - Its not like d20s existed that far back. 

Is this a quote from somewhere? There would have been plenty of 6-sided dice available.

 
Not really. Do you you realize that in OD&D the alignment system was just law, neutrality, and chaos? In other words, your "history" doesn't start with the actual beginnings of the game, just where you started.  


 Yup and did you know the very first action resolution was using rock paper scissors...  - Its not like d20s existed that far back. 



Actually the first action resolution was one person murdering another, but you probably mean the first D&d resolution mechanic...Smile



And to think, all this time I thought it was Thumb Wrestling..........