|
1 year ago ::
Jan 26, 2012 - 6:40AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2012
|
To make this compatible with the 5E design for a basic play choice, we just present each choice with a default. Any options chosen if the game is playing with more options, represent replacing the default choice with your own choice. So, in order: Background. Rather than worry about making one, I like the look of Regaining Families Honor. This has no associated mechanics, so I just write it down. Race. Well, the writeup on Dwarves seem like they care about honor, so Dwarf. I write down the 5 or so things that gives me, or better yet the DM hands me a pre-printed something with that already on it. Class. This is kind of a hard choice, I think I might be leaning Martial or Divine. After talking it over with the group, I go Martial and write down the default mechanics for that and choose sword as my weapon. Expertise. That's an easy one, I choose Noble and mark down the 2 or so abilities and the default skills. Ability Scores. There's 4 choices of stats, and then I have to arrange them. So Str 14, Con 14, Dex 10, Int 14, Wis 10 and Chr 14 are what I go with. I figure I need Str and Con for fighting and Int and Chr for noncombat. Theme. This is the last choice. I decide that Knight is best fit. That will give me a +2 on skills in court and a +2 on riding skills. Even though I don't think I'm going to be riding, so I might talk to the DM about an alternate, but I'm happy with it as it stands. Feats. We aren't playing with these, so I just note down the +2 to initiative everyone gets at 1st level when not playing with feats. Time to grab some equipment and hit the tavern!
So, in about 15 minutes of time for character creation, I have a Dwarven Knight who is very noble and fights with a sword seeking to regain his family's honor. If we use pre-printed sheets or cards, the character creation time is down to 5 minutes.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 26, 2012 - 5:13PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Jan 20, 2012
|
Love the notion of essentially pre-genned characters that you can spec out with changes here and there. My D&D Next would feature just this: each class has a class default, which lays out its advancement level by level. You roll up your stats, copy down the stuff for first level, compute some basic derived stats, and you're gaming, in 5 minutes or less.
Here's the part I love: each class would also come with different "kits", to hearken back to 2nd Ed: the kits would just be different specs for the class that focused on different iconic elements. For example, the default fighter would be the sword-and-shield cavalier: longsword, heavy shield, heavy armor. But if that didn't turn you on, there would also be an "archer" kit, maybe a "warlord" kit, etc., to represent some other ways that a fighter can be played.
Each kit would be fully modular: you could swap out this skill training for that one, and still have a perfectly legal, playable character. No guarantees that such changes would be beneficical or make all subsequent kit choices still legit, though hopefully the kits could be set up without too many dependencies.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 26, 2012 - 6:55PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Jan 14, 2006
|
Just wanted to say that I see many, many things I hoped for DnD Next, and that @Numbed had already invented skillfully... Come true!! Check out the transcript of the first seminar!- It seems we're having the skills/out-of-combat aspects separated from class, belonging to theme (apparently, Themes will be Numbed's "interactive class"!!) - We're having the focus I was asking for on different "adventuring aspects". There's talk of "exploration-focused rogues" and "combat-heavy fighters". And adventures that use and mix the "social module, exploration module and tactical module"... Seems taken from my thread!! - We'll have many, many different levels of complexity within the same classes. I'd say (combat-wise), at least one "complexity style" for each edition of the game. EDIT: Read just now the latest post by Numbed, above, and it really seems that the "fall back to defaults" way will be the "basic complexity level" they're offering to starters! Just merge expertise with theme (after all, each theme has more or less an associated expertise!), and we could say Numbed was in the developing team!  Also, no kidding here, the pre-gen fighter at some table today was a noble too, with some social focus. I think he was half-orc, but still, I smiled at the similarity when reading Numbed's example character! - What else can I say, it's my dream edition come true for now. A pity that I still feel I won't get my only-physical-stats-using sorcerers able to shape spells on the fly from few spell-seeds "imbued in their blood". Perfection is not of this world! 
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 27, 2012 - 12:15AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
I'm... kinda skeptic. But this seems to be far better than I imagined it would. It's still the heads of the project selling it to us, but still...
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM! Spoiler:
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 5ESpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 28, 2012 - 6:23AM
#35
|
Date Joined:
Jan 22, 2012
|
I'm going to walk away from my computer now. After looking over the slight info we have so far, I am tempted to just delete this thread and walk away from online boards. I could not be more disappointed. Unless WotC has an October surprise in mind, I don't see why I should shell out hundreds of dollars for 1E with a new tires and stereo.
I await to be proven wrong. By the end of XP, I expect I probably will delete this thread any other I started.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 28, 2012 - 6:49AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
Just wanted to say that I see many, many things I hoped for DnD Next, and that @Numbed had already invented skillfully... Come true!!
Check out the transcript of the first seminar!
- It seems we're having the skills/out-of-combat aspects separated from class, belonging to theme (apparently, Themes will be Numbed's "interactive class"!!)
The idea of characters being composed of a combat class and out of combat class role or approaches has actually been bouncing around a bit on the forum here (some big discussions with wrecan on that).... the connection with Themes hadnt clicked actually. In part probably because themes have a lot of combat elements currently.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 28, 2012 - 9:56AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Jan 14, 2006
|
I'm going to walk away from my computer now. After looking over the slight info we have so far, I am tempted to just delete this thread and walk away from online boards. I could not be more disappointed. Unless WotC has an October surprise in mind, I don't see why I should shell out hundreds of dollars for 1E with a new tires and stereo.
I await to be proven wrong. By the end of XP, I expect I probably will delete this thread any other I started.
How can you be so unhappy and me so happy when we have the same ideas? Are you sure you saw all the transcripts and info? Seen the enworld page? i think you should keep this thread anyway, remember they have a pre-alpha version as of now, lots of things could change, and we need talented designers like you to give them ideas, or we'll never get what we like...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 28, 2012 - 4:34PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Jan 20, 2012
|
I am tempted to just delete this thread and walk away from online boards.
I hope you won't!
I could not be more disappointed. Unless WotC has an October surprise in mind, I don't see why I should shell out hundreds of dollars for 1E with a new tires and stereo.
Color me curious: can you elaborate on your disappointments with what you've seen? Were you hoping for more of a departure from previous editions/classes/etc? Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that walking away is the wrong answer, but clearly you've given a lot of thought to game design of late, and what you've seen so far strikes you as a miserable failure. What are the pits that you think WotC has fallen into?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 28, 2012 - 4:44PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
The idea of characters being composed of a combat class and out of combat class role or approaches has actually been bouncing around a bit on the forum here (some big discussions with wrecan on that).... the connection with Themes hadnt clicked actually. In part probably because themes have a lot of combat elements currently.
I just wish I could make sense of your posts.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Jan 29, 2012 - 11:13AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Jan 20, 2012
|
This is a slight thread hijack, but it definitely builds on some of Numbed's ideas, and is partially inspired by them. I posted this elsewhere, but welcome any thoughts. In any party, each character has a role -- and usually at least two: one for combat, and one outside of it. The fighter may be the tank, but he's also often the "tough guy", the one who makes all the Athletics and Endurance checks. The bard may buff/debuff, but he's also the faceman. The wizard deals AOE damage, but is also the sage... you get the idea. Of course, it doesn't have to be this way. A fighter can learn to pick a lock, and a wizard can learn to jump high. Next should be flexible enough to accommodate all sorts of backgrounds. What I'm proposing here are essentially non-combat-related "kits" of the type briefly discussed elsewhere. These noncombat kits are assembled from feats and skills and exploits available to all classes, but are focused along certain pathways where they'll have the most synergy. I've seen several good notions on this on the D&D Forums, and the way that WotC is talking about character complexity Here are the noncombat roles I've thought of so far:
- Tough Guy - focused on endurance, athletic endeavors, resisting pain, etc.
- Sage - knows everything about anything
- Naturalist - she's the one you want when you're lost in the woods. Or the jungle. Or the swamp. Or the plains...
- Healer - while this borders on a combat role, managing a party's healing resources is about more than cleric spells. This guy makes potions and salves, and, frankly probably a little bit of poison on the side.
- Explorer - need a lock picked? Need a trap spotted? Need someone snuck somewhere? He's already done it.
- Faceman - we're, ah, having a reactor leak up here, very dangerous... [note: I wasn't so sure about Numbed's "noble" interactive class... that's more of a background than a functional area, but "faceman" fits it well]
These noncombat kits would essentially be like suggested advancement pathways, like the combat kits. You don't have to follow them, even if you call yourself a "faceman", but you'll be picking up traits of a second noncombat role at the expense of your faceman focus. Thoughts? Any additional party roles you can think of?
|
|
|
