How so you want a hundred classes? or you want a lot of options with no organization? builds allow individuals to quickly pick from the lot of options in a more stylized way. I am missing how that is a problem. Who cares when the options are introduced. Anyone limiting there analysis to day one of a game release? and comparing it to things released and compiled over many years ought to re-examine ther thinking. I dabble from multiple builds all the time and use hybriding to go even further. Hybriding also frees up skill selection.
I want options to stand on their own, not to need to be prepackaged in builds, because prepackaging means that each build takes a dozen pages, which in turns means at day one you'll have only one or two builds for each class, and few classes in PHB1.
Options always interact standing on there own is nonsensical at some level. The need to prepackage is Is exactly why we have classes or subclasses or builds... they are groupings and structuring they carry both flavorful elements and functional combinations. What is needed may be more versatile options useable in more contexts not bound by specific attributes for instance rather like how themes work. I am at odds as I dont necessarily like the idea of sorcerors drawing ALL there spells form the same spell list as wizards it doesnt even make flavor sense to me really, you mean you eat a spider to climb walls just like him? I see some of the trend towards grouping of spells/maneuvers outside of class as potentially having a flavor of its own like in the Bo9s, so it may not be such a problem.
Which indeed is another problem, because, if you didn't notice, D&D Next will be judged by the customers on day one (or even earlier -- heck, there's people here limiting their analysis on pre-release material!), not in 5 years. G.
Problematic isnt it... I admit I really wasnt even aware of 4e until it was a year in to its release, at which point it was far more robust and versatile all around ( avoiding rushed release schedules so the game feels more completed couldnt hurt). The number of people saying you cant do this with 4e when it was either mentioned in the phb or introduced already in subsequent updates was astounding, so yes I get where you are coming from.
Builds are nothing more than thematic combinations of available options. To claim that they are inherently problematic is to not understand their purpose.
A cleric with 150 options...
This is how a priest might be built... EXAMPLE.
This is how a paladin might be built... EXAMPLE.
This is how a cleric might be built... EXAMPLE.
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.
My basic argument is that rogues shouldn't be the only ones to do sneaking, activating magic items, backstabbing, or social stuff (because they are the only ones with enough skill points). Fantasy heroes do all of that, and the next edition of DnD should recognize this fact.
The Wizards site blog post is here if you want the full argument.
Your thoughts?
Hmmm I hear what you are saying, but I disagree. Quite a few classes can do most of the stuff you described. Certain classes are not made for it, a heavily armored knight is rarely going to do any sneaking, for example, nor would he have been trained for it. And by your logic, most adventurers have to fight and attack at some point, so all classes should have a very good base attack bonus.
The rogue is just what you personally associate an "adventurer" with, but adventurers come from many different backgrounds, at least in D&D, and it wouldn't make sense for everyone to be stealthy crafty types. Anyone can do it. The rogue is just one class that is very good at it, but again, not the only one who is good at it.
Screw this "intimidating presence" crap as the extent of a fighter's contribution to a social situation. How about the player opens his mouth and talks to the NPCs and the DM can just like, respond, without rolling a die?
They should really define diplomacy and other social skills in super specific terms rather than vague so people aren't going through a dice in every social situation. A conversation isn't a skill challenge. An NPC can just like a guy because it would make sense. "I saw you beat up all those guys that was awesome let's be pals" kinda stuff.
Or, let's look at the use of diplomacy, primarily. It's to end a fight. Fighters are also for ending fights. It's just a lot messier when a fighter does it.
Well, for starters I disagree on the use of diplomacy. It is mainly used to convince others. Fights have nothing to do with it in many occasions.
And secondly, this is an old debate that one could make in any D&D iteration. I have two things to say about it: first, that I personally would like to have more rules for out-of-combat situations rather than less, and social situations are one of those. I like having guidelines and base mechanics because it allows people who don't like or are not able to talk well to play characters that can. You don't have to do pushups to be a fighter, you shouldn't have to be a politician to have a diplomatic character. Nor should your resource expenditure be voided by the guy with 8 Cha who just happens to be gifted in oratory IRL.
And so without that resource expenditure I can never talk to anybody ever? There's a million ways to make friends, you don't force people to be your friend by force of personality. If I rush in and save a guy from a mugger then he's going to like me just fine whether my cha is 8 or 20, and the muggers are going to be cross with me regardless of cha score. If an NPC is suuuuper into dogs and my ranger has a dog as his animal companion they could be all "Oh my what a loooovely dog is he yours?" and I'd be all "Yes he is!" and now we're friends even though my cha is only 9 or whatever.
I don't need diplomacy through the roof to convince the authorities that the duke is the villain if I have conclusive evidence proving it. I go "well we have his day planner saying 'usurp throne' and all these crimes are linked back to him" and they go "Oh snap you're correct we should go apprehend this scallywag." I can get information from people by simply asking if they're a gabby enough sort, and if intimidate is getting somone to comply under threat of violence, why not simply just apply the violence to get them to comply?
My basic argument is that rogues shouldn't be the only ones to do sneaking, activating magic items, backstabbing, or social stuff (because they are the only ones with enough skill points). Fantasy heroes do all of that, and the next edition of DnD should recognize this fact.
The Wizards site blog post is here if you want the full argument.
Your thoughts?
Hmmm I hear what you are saying, but I disagree. Quite a few classes can do most of the stuff you described. Certain classes are not made for it, a heavily armored knight is rarely going to do any sneaking, for example, nor would he have been trained for it. And by your logic, most adventurers have to fight and attack at some point, so all classes should have a very good base attack bonus.
The rogue is just what you personally associate an "adventurer" with, but adventurers come from many different backgrounds, at least in D&D, and it wouldn't make sense for everyone to be stealthy crafty types. Anyone can do it. The rogue is just one class that is very good at it, but again, not the only one who is good at it.
Oh, I fully want heavily-armored knights sneaking up on sleeping dragons and wounded wizards hiding in the woods from orcs.
"DnD-logic" says that only rogues/thieves should be doing it, but fantasy fiction is loaded with that kind of thing and DnD loses out when it can't be done.
The DnD trope exists because of the mechanics and the desire for role-protection, not because it makes better stories or more fun adventures.
My basic argument is that rogues shouldn't be the only ones to do sneaking, activating magic items, backstabbing, or social stuff (because they are the only ones with enough skill points). Fantasy heroes do all of that, and the next edition of DnD should recognize this fact.
The Wizards site blog post is here if you want the full argument.
Your thoughts?
Hmmm I hear what you are saying, but I disagree. Quite a few classes can do most of the stuff you described. Certain classes are not made for it, a heavily armored knight is rarely going to do any sneaking, for example, nor would he have been trained for it. And by your logic, most adventurers have to fight and attack at some point, so all classes should have a very good base attack bonus.
The rogue is just what you personally associate an "adventurer" with, but adventurers come from many different backgrounds, at least in D&D, and it wouldn't make sense for everyone to be stealthy crafty types. Anyone can do it. The rogue is just one class that is very good at it, but again, not the only one who is good at it.
Oh, I fully want heavily-armored knights sneaking up on sleeping dragons and wounded wizards hiding in the woods from orcs.
"DnD-logic" says that only rogues/thieves should be doing it, but fantasy fiction is loaded with that kind of thing and DnD loses out when it can't be done.
The DnD trope exists because of the mechanics and the desire for role-protection, not because it makes better stories or more fun adventures.
Well the heavily armored guys can choose to if they want to, but it stands to reason (at least imo) that sneaking isn't exactly their forte since they have been trained to fight in heavy, noisy armor - I can't claim to know too much about medieval tactics but I don't imagine sneaking would be a large part of a knight's training (if part at all) because of this reason and because how they are traditionally utilized on the battlefield. Sure they can do it sometimes if they so choose, but that doesn't mean they should be as profficient at it as everyone else. I don't remember much about 4e (played once a while ago) but 3.5e's "class skills" make sense to me because of this. If a heavy warrior wants to branch out into the realm of stealth and cunning and take serious ranks in it, he can always seek training in what you might consider "traditional adventurer", that is multiclass into Rogue or something else with those skills.
The way I see most D&D characters (personally) are an eclectic rag-tag group that has ended up on an adventure, not neccesssarily group that has all trained in stealth and cunning for the purposes of a professional adventuring career (although this can always be possible, just shouldn't be the requirement of what all adventurers are.) Some people can do more along the lines of what you picture to be stereotypical adventurers (rangers, rogues, bards) while others handle the more up-front violent situations that any danger-seeking group is likely to get into, your strongarms if you will (fighters, paladins, barbarians) and so fourth.
If we want to make everyone good at everything in the realm of adventure (dealing hits, taking hits, social and physical cuning etc etc.) we might as well do away with the idea of class altogether.
Sneaking up on sleeping characters? The DC for that should be notably lowered, or the sneaker should get a a notable bonus.
Well the heavily armored guys can choose to if they want to, but it stands to reason (at least imo) that sneaking isn't exactly their forte since they have been trained to fight in heavy, noisy armor - I can't claim to know too much about medieval tactics but I don't imagine sneaking would be a large part of a knight's training (if part at all) because of this reason and because how they are traditionally utilized on the battlefield. Sure they can do it sometimes if they so choose, but that doesn't mean they should be as profficient at it as everyone else. I don't remember much about 4e (played once a while ago) but 3.5e's "class skills" make sense to me because of this. If a heavy warrior wants to branch out into the realm of stealth and cunning and take serious ranks in it, he can always seek training in what you might consider "traditional adventurer", that is multiclass into Rogue or something else with those skills.
The way I see most D&D characters (personally) are an eclectic rag-tag group that has ended up on an adventure, not neccesssarily group that has all trained in stealth and cunning for the purposes of a professional adventuring career (although this can always be possible, just shouldn't be the requirement of what all adventurers are.) Some people can do more along the lines of what you picture to be stereotypical adventurers (rangers, rogues, bards) while others handle the more up-front violent situations that any danger-seeking group is likely to get into, your strongarms if you will (fighters, paladins, barbarians) and so fourth.
I really agree with this. There's bits about 3.5's skill system that caused problems but the class skills made a ton of sense.
I really like the "group of dudes that just kind of met up and now have something to do" ugliness to the story, as well.
If we want to make everyone good at everything in the realm of adventure (dealing hits, taking hits, social and physical cuning etc etc.) we might as well do away with the idea of class altogether.
I think people just don't understand the "class envy" design goal. A well-designed class system should make you wish you were a different class whenever you see them go because they're all so good at their specific thing. When this is achieved, we get a bunch of entitled people saying their Paladins should be as good at sneaking as a rogue and their Barbarians should be casting Fireballs. For the purposes of designing a game, these people should be ignored.
Sneaking up on sleeping characters? The DC for that should be notably lowered, or the sneaker should get a a notable bonus.
Add in an "ambient noise" stealth bonus for snoring and anyone should be able to get the jump on a sleeping dragon.
I think people just don't understand the "class envy" design goal. A well-designed class system should make you wish you were a different class whenever you see them go because they're all so good at their specific thing. When this is achieved, we get a bunch of entitled people saying their Paladins should be as good at sneaking as a rogue and their Barbarians should be casting Fireballs. For the purposes of designing a game, these people should be ignored.
Sneaking is all or nothing. Either the party sneaks around, or no one does, The party won't wait around while the Rogue solos stealth missions.
This means that in a game where the Rogue is the only one who gets to sneak, no one envies him because it never happens. Maybe he does some in-combat stealth stuff, but the very idea of the party sneaking into the enemy fortress or past a monster can't happen without everyone in the party doing it too at roughly the same proficiency.
Therefore, you can't do "class envy" with stealth since making it Rogue-specific just makes it someone that never happens. (Though I suppose some people might envy skills that are never used like the 3e Monk's ability to fight well in the "we've been captured and they took our gear" scenerios that never happen).
Sneaking is all or nothing. Either the party sneaks around, or no one does, The party won't wait around while the Rogue solos stealth missions.
This means that in a game where the Rogue is the only one who gets to sneak, no one envies him because it never happens. Maybe he does some in-combat stealth stuff, but the very idea of the party sneaking into the enemy fortress or past a monster can't happen without everyone in the party doing it too at roughly the same proficiency.
Therefore, you can't do "class envy" with stealth since making it Rogue-specific just makes it someone that never happens. (Though I suppose some people might envy skills that are never used like the 3e Monk's ability to fight well in the "we've been captured and they took our gear" scenerios that never happen).
I don't quite identify with the exact problem you are describing personally, because the rogue or anyone else with ranks in Stealth will at some point or another go solo in all the games I've played, never seen a GM rule against it. I think any reasonable GM allows it in my exerience, but I do see a problem in it, it does slow down the game and I understand how this can be troublesome. Generally its handled as a bit of a balancing act, a few rounds or actions are played out with the rogue, and then we go back to the party, and it goes back and fourth, but generally whenever a party is split up, the game can really drag. So the fact that it slows down the game, in that I see a problem.
This could be handled in a number of ways, but I don't think Stealth becoming a class skill/ability becoming completely universal is the answer, especially if there is no stealthy character in the party to begin with. Stealth is one element that pops up in adventure fairly often, but I think it kind of breaks things if it becomes too common. If there is a game where Stealth is bound to be used a lot, I suppose you could always houserule it anyways.
You've gotten me thinking though, is the rogue or even anyone with ranks in Stealth having a "Stealth-aura", that is he nows how to direct his allies in sneaking around quietly. Might feel a little meta-gamey though.
In any case, the party is bound to be split up or characters seperated from groups a lot in all the D&D I've played, it just tends to happen a lot in general. But I am for reducing how often it has to happen as games that begin to drag too much are less enjoyable. Just so long as we aren't trying to make all the classes equal in certain abilities where it isn't neccessary.
