I want to see skill disparity gone. Everyone is a dedicated adventurer, having certain classes given more skills just doesn't make sense. Fighter's the easiest example to pick; somehow, a Fighter gets fewer skills (points and class skills) than anyone else in 3E/4E because.... uh... wellllll.... DAMN JOCKS!
Adventurers, at this point, are just assumed to be the top tier of humanity when they're level 1, in 3E and 4E. Why should some classes get more skill points and better skill pools?
This ties into skills linked to stats irrevocably, especially since stats are really abstract while skills are far more concrete. I'd like to see something like 4E's defense system, where you can use one of two stats for each skill. Perception could be int or wis, for instance, or Intimidate could be str or cha.
I want to see skill disparity gone. Everyone is a dedicated adventurer, having certain classes given more skills just doesn't make sense. Fighter's the easiest example to pick; somehow, a Fighter gets fewer skills (points and class skills) than anyon
But since you can always write your own fluff, it doesn't really matter if the fluff is crap.
Being in the process of converting Palladium's Rifts to what I consider a more mechanically sound system, my experience is that it goes both ways. I can always write my own fluff when the fluff is crap. I can always write my own mechanics when the mechanics are crap.
Where does that leave us?
Minus thousands of playtesters? Fluff has to suit you. Mechanics should suit you AND avoid things like infinite action/wealth loops, instant kill combos, plot-breaking abilities, and so on. If you're really good at avoiding that stuff, you could be a professional game desiger.
Yes, the skills I have acquired in my education and career are far closer to professional game designer than they are to professional novelist.
I expect 5e to have rock solid mechanics and inspiring fluff. The dominand RPG in existance with some 40 years of development should have both.
Being in the process of converting Palladium's Rifts to what I consider a more mechanically sound system, my experience is that it goes both ways. I can always write my own fluff when the fluff is crap. I can always write my own mechanics when the
I want to see skill disparity gone. Everyone is a dedicated adventurer, having certain classes given more skills just doesn't make sense. Fighter's the easiest example to pick; somehow, a Fighter gets fewer skills (points and class skills) than anyone else in 3E/4E because.... uh... wellllll.... DAMN JOCKS!
Adventurers, at this point, are just assumed to be the top tier of humanity when they're level 1, in 3E and 4E. Why should some classes get more skill points and better skill pools?
This ties into skills linked to stats irrevocably, especially since stats are really abstract while skills are far more concrete. I'd like to see something like 4E's defense system, where you can use one of two stats for each skill. Perception could be int or wis, for instance, or Intimidate could be str or cha.
THIS.
At most, I could see a couple classes getting the equivelent of one extra trained skill, using 4e terms, or like...4 extra skill points at first level and 2 per level afterward [?] in 3.5.
Mostly, the rogue and bard. Although I could see the bard instead having an abillity to move skill points or retrain skill training between levels.
In fact, I really like that idea.
THIS. At most, I could see a couple classes getting the equivelent of one extra trained skill, using 4e terms, or like...4 extra skill points at first level and 2 per level afterward [?] in 3.5. Mostly, the rogue and bard. Although I could see the ba
'Mechanically sound' is first and foremost an undefined clause. Any definitions of it will be inherently biased, which therefore necessitates it as a subjective statement. Following established rules and paradigms of math in no way makes a game better or worse, unless we first agree that such should be a goal of the game.
Not if mechanically sound is the same as structurally sound. It means working as intended. Thus a game system that is mechanically sound would be clear and simple enough to run the way it was intended to run, regardless of it's ability to adopt in each person's subjective opinions on if the game lets them do everything they want to do. Oblivion, for example, is (minus a few programing bugs) a sound mechanical system. It doesn't mean I can't be annoyed that I can't climb things within the game; I just can't blame the system for not letting me do something that clearly is not within the game to be done even if it would make sense within that world, because as a game, it does what it set out to do. It is sound; that does not mean it is a game for everyone. Now, trying to make a mechanically sound game that alsoallows for every iteration of what any player would want to do ever?
That game does not and will never exist as a set of predefined rules. Unless you count, "if there are rules that get in your way or aren't there, exclude those rules or make them up" as a rule. Which, strictly speaking that is not a rule, it's a guideline.
Not if mechanically sound is the same as structurally sound. It means working as intended. Thus a game system that is mechanically sound would be clear and simple enough to run the way it was intended to run, regardless of it's ability to adopt in
'Mechanically sound' is first and foremost an undefined clause. Any definitions of it will be inherently biased, which therefore necessitates it as a subjective statement. Following established rules and paradigms of math in no way makes a game better or worse, unless we first agree that such should be a goal of the game.
Not if mechanically sound is the same as structurally sound. It means working as intended.
Ok, but then it shifts the subjectivity to 'as intended'. As intended by whom? When? Why? How?
Did 1st edition AD&D work 'as intended'? Who can we ask? Why do they get to answer exactly? Did their opinion change over time? See what I'm driving at here?
Thus a game system that is mechanically sound would be clear and simple enough
What if it wasn't intended to be clear and simple? You can't tell me old school Traveller/Mega-Traveller was intended to be clear and simple. It was intended to be understood by a certain type of person and potentially enjoyed by that sub-set. That's about it.
to run the way it was intended to run, regardless of it's ability to adopt in each person's subjective opinions on if the game lets them do everything they want to do. Oblivion, for example, is (minus a few programing bugs) a sound mechanical system. It doesn't mean I can't be annoyed that I can't climb things within the game; I just can't blame the system for not letting me do something that clearly is not within the game to be done even if it would make sense within that world, because as a game, it does what it set out to do. It is sound; that does not mean it is a game for everyone. Now, trying to make a mechanically sound game that alsoallows for every iteration of what any player would want to do ever?
That game does not and will never exist as a set of predefined rules. Unless you count, "if there are rules that get in your way or aren't there, exclude those rules or make them up" as a rule. Which, strictly speaking that is not a rule, it's a guideline.
I completely agree with this part. My primary complaint has been using the term 'mechanically sound' as if it had the same objective meaning to everyone. That's simply not possible. It is either mechanically sound to do what you want/wish it to within your warrants and parameters or it isn't, but that's a SUBJECTIVE operating standard, not an objective one.
Not if mechanically sound is the same as structurally sound. It means working as intended.[/quote]Ok, but then it shifts the subjectivity to 'as intended'. As intended by whom? When? Why? How?Did 1st edition AD&D work 'as intended'? Who can we ask?
Not if mechanically sound is the same as structurally sound. It means working as intended. Thus a game system that is mechanically sound would be clear and simple enough to run the way it was intended to run, regardless of it's ability to adopt in each person's subjective opinions on if the game lets them do everything they want to do.
I hate to be the one saying this, but not everyone believes rules should have any intention. Maybe I'm misrepresenting (this isn't my view), but I'm pretty sure some people care more about the content of rules than their mathematical effect or the incentives they create.
For example, some people want to roll defenses versus every attack rather than letting monsters attack a static AC. The "intention" in that case is the content - that is, the die roll. The results (slower combat as well as increased randomness and therefore increased swinginess/lethality) are not the point. Instead, people who advocate this seem more interested in the sense of agency they feel when rolling dice. Other concerns are secondary or irrelevant.
One of the tricky things about this game is that we aren't all measuring it the same way!
I hate to be the one saying this, but not everyone believes rules should have any intention. Maybe I'm misrepresenting (this isn't my view), but I'm pretty sure some people care more about the content of rules than their mathematical effect or the in
What I truly don't want to see are 2h+ combats like those from 4ed, and this is a consequence of inflated numbers and too much micro-management of effects, bonuses and penalties.
What I truly don't want to see are 2h+ combats like those from 4ed, and this is a consequence of inflated numbers and too much micro-management of effects, bonuses and penalties.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I completely agree with this part. My primary complaint has been using the term 'mechanically sound' as if it had the same objective meaning to everyone. That's simply not possible. It is either mechanically sound to do what you want/wish it to within your warrants and parameters or it isn't, but that's a SUBJECTIVE operating standard, not an objective one.
First, things can be more or less subjective than other things. mechanically sound, and balanced, are good examples.
Second, the fact that something is subjective is a worthless objection, in anything but science/math.
The Law is subjective. Interpeting any Holy Book ever written is subjective. Language is subjective.
Even Logic is, to some extent, subjective.
It's like interjecting in a conversation about man made vs natural materials that technically anything that exists is a part of nature, and thus natural. It doesn't matter that it's correct, it is nothing more than a distraction from the debate. It isn't a valid contribution to the debate.
Maxperson: I was actually going to say the precise opposite.
I don't want 5e to be like 4e in the sense of lacking guns and gunpowder. I think that was a mistake in 4e, and would be a mistake in 5e.
Don't use it if you don't like it. Others want to play gunslingers in fantasy land, and/or have their artificer be a gunsmith, or whatever.
First, things can be more or less subjective than other things. mechanically sound, and balanced, are good examples. Second, the fact that something is subjective is a worthless objection, in anything but science/math. The Law is subjective. Interpet
What I truly don't want to see are 2h+ combats like those from 4ed, and this is a consequence of inflated numbers and too much micro-management of effects, bonuses and penalties.
yikes. I can't imagine a 2 hour combat.
I've run hundreds of 4e combat encounters, but never a 2 hour + combat.
yikes. I can't imagine a 2 hour combat. I've run hundreds of 4e combat encounters, but never a 2 hour + combat.
Seriously, though, it'd be an overreliance on long lists of charts and tables to mimic an experience that is best left to words and imaginations.
Combat. :)Seriously, though, it'd be an overreliance on long lists of charts and tables to mimic an experience that is best left to words and imaginations.
Guns and gunpowder. I would not mind if these did not make it into the next edition.
I would mind, very much, if guns didn't make it into DDN. I'm not saying they need to be core. They probably shouldn't be. But I want them in DDN as an option, and I don't want them to gimp guns as an option by sticking too close to historical firearms. I don't want a reload time. I want to be able to fire it every round. Now they can reduce the damage as a tradeoff (as long as they don't drop it so low it becomes a bad option). I don't need to do 2d8 or 2d10 every round. I'd rather have a 1d8 or 1d10 gun I can fire every round. Let them include a one round reload option that doubles the damage back to 2d8 or 2d10, for those who want greater realism, but that's not for me. I want guns that are useful every round.
I would mind, very much, if guns didn't make it into DDN. I'm not saying they need to be core. They probably shouldn't be. But I want them in DDN as an option, and I don't want them to gimp guns as an option by sticking too close to historical fir
Guns and gunpowder. I would not mind if these did not make it into the next edition.
I would mind, very much, if guns didn't make it into DDN. I'm not saying they need to be core. They probably shouldn't be. But I want them in DDN as an option, and I don't want them to gimp guns as an option by sticking too close to historical firearms. I don't want a reload time. I want to be able to fire it every round. Now they can reduce the damage as a tradeoff (as long as they don't drop it so low it becomes a bad option). I don't need to do 2d8 or 2d10 every round. I'd rather have a 1d8 or 1d10 gun I can fire every round. Let them include a one round reload option that doubles the damage back to 2d8 or 2d10, for those who want greater realism, but that's not for me. I want guns that are useful every round.
Sure. That's why I said I wouldn't mind if they didn't show up, not "Hells no! Guns must go!"
I would mind, very much, if guns didn't make it into DDN. I'm not saying they need to be core. They probably shouldn't be. But I want them in DDN as an option, and I don't want them to gimp guns as an option by sticking too close to historical fir
Guns and gunpowder. I would not mind if these did not make it into the next edition.
I would mind, very much, if guns didn't make it into DDN. I'm not saying they need to be core. They probably shouldn't be. But I want them in DDN as an option, and I don't want them to gimp guns as an option by sticking too close to historical firearms. I don't want a reload time. I want to be able to fire it every round. Now they can reduce the damage as a tradeoff (as long as they don't drop it so low it becomes a bad option). I don't need to do 2d8 or 2d10 every round. I'd rather have a 1d8 or 1d10 gun I can fire every round. Let them include a one round reload option that doubles the damage back to 2d8 or 2d10, for those who want greater realism, but that's not for me. I want guns that are useful every round.
Sure. That's why I said I wouldn't mind if they didn't show up, not "Hells no! Guns must go!"
I get that. I just like to be specific. There are plenty of people who want the historic guns because they are inherently inferior options. I even met one poster who said guns, even the gimped ones, couldn't be in any official D&D product because he couldn't bear to say no to his players.
For the record, I also want to get rid of the crossbow reload time.
I would mind, very much, if guns didn't make it into DDN. I'm not saying they need to be core. They probably shouldn't be. But I want them in DDN as an option, and I don't want them to gimp guns as an option by sticking too close to historical fir
Guns and gunpowder. I would not mind if these did not make it into the next edition.
I would mind, very much, if guns didn't make it into DDN. I'm not saying they need to be core. They probably shouldn't be. But I want them in DDN as an option, and I don't want them to gimp guns as an option by sticking too close to historical firearms. I don't want a reload time. I want to be able to fire it every round. Now they can reduce the damage as a tradeoff (as long as they don't drop it so low it becomes a bad option). I don't need to do 2d8 or 2d10 every round. I'd rather have a 1d8 or 1d10 gun I can fire every round. Let them include a one round reload option that doubles the damage back to 2d8 or 2d10, for those who want greater realism, but that's not for me. I want guns that are useful every round.
This.
I would mind, very much, if guns didn't make it into DDN. I'm not saying they need to be core. They probably shouldn't be. But I want them in DDN as an option, and I don't want them to gimp guns as an option by sticking too close to historical fir
No Healing Surges, ever. This is not a bloody PC game.
You know for all the times people claim this, I find myself unable to think of a single video game that uses the surge mechanic.
The surges are just a specific form. I detest the concept of free self-healing, like when you go to "the town" in any PC game, just wait a bit and you are brand new.
You know for all the times people claim this, I find myself unable to think of a single video game that uses the surge mechanic.[/quote]The surges are just a specific form. I detest the concept of free self-healing, like when you go to "the town" in
No Healing Surges, ever. This is not a bloody PC game.
You know for all the times people claim this, I find myself unable to think of a single video game that uses the surge mechanic.
The surges are just a specific form. I detest the concept of free self-healing, like when you go to "the town" in any PC game, just wait a bit and you are brand new.
Like with Wand of Cure Light Wounds?
I dunno, it seems to me that 4e is the only system that actually limits healing.
Pretty much every game ever: As you've said, wait around, or spam heal til your magic returns, or buy like 99 potions. 3.5: Have the cleric spam heal, or pick up a wand of cure light wounds, or buy like 99 potions, or pay a bunch of low level clerics to follow you around and heal you. 4: You run out of healing surges, you're done for the day.
You know for all the times people claim this, I find myself unable to think of a single video game that uses the surge mechanic.[/quote]The surges are just a specific form. I detest the concept of free self-healing, like when you go to "the town" in
OD&D: racial level caps AD&D: %-based thief-exclusive skills 3rd ed: Advancing non-NPC-monsters with class levels (it takes days to craete statblocks) 4th ed: Multiclassing requiring multiple feats to gain alternative powers
Gomez
OD&D: racial level capsAD&D: %-based thief-exclusive skills3rd ed: Advancing non-NPC-monsters with class levels (it takes days to craete statblocks)4th ed: Multiclassing requiring multiple feats to gain alternative powersGomez
No Healing Surges, ever. This is not a bloody PC game.
You know for all the times people claim this, I find myself unable to think of a single video game that uses the surge mechanic.
The surges are just a specific form. I detest the concept of free self-healing, like when you go to "the town" in any PC game, just wait a bit and you are brand new.
Like with Wand of Cure Light Wounds?
I dunno, it seems to me that 4e is the only system that actually limits healing.
Pretty much every game ever: As you've said, wait around, or spam heal til your magic returns, or buy like 99 potions. 3.5: Have the cleric spam heal, or pick up a wand of cure light wounds, or buy like 99 potions, or pay a bunch of low level clerics to follow you around and heal you. 4: You run out of healing surges, you're done for the day.
Wands and potions and ll that stuff can be easily limited by the DM. You have a point about the Priest but still, it's the player's decision (and endless discussions have been made as to what is the fate of a player playing a Priest). In 4E the surges were not the only methods of healing. Other characters could heal you as well. What I want is: slow recuperation if you do not have access to magic, because indeed, you might not have. I have had several parties without a Priest or 99 potions (no money, not enough at the merchant etc.) and it has been a great source of RP to survive as your wounds slowly heal in the midst of danger.
You know for all the times people claim this, I find myself unable to think of a single video game that uses the surge mechanic.[/quote]The surges are just a specific form. I detest the concept of free self-healing, like when you go to "the town" in
In 4E the surges were not the only methods of healing...."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />
Surges on their own are only a resource. I think what you oppose is not so much healing surges, but the second wind action and the short rest mechanics.
Gomez
Surges on their own are only a resource.I think what you oppose is not so much healing surges, but the second wind action and the short rest mechanics.Gomez
In 4E the surges were not the only methods of healing...."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />
Surges on their own are only a resource. I think what you oppose is not so much healing surges, but the second wind action and the short rest mechanics.
Gomez
Hmm... OK, you probably have me there.
Surges on their own are only a resource.I think what you oppose is not so much healing surges, but the second wind action and the short rest mechanics.Gomez[/quote]Hmm... OK, you probably have me there.
In 4E the surges were not the only methods of healing...."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />
Surges on their own are only a resource. I think what you oppose is not so much healing surges, but the second wind action and the short rest mechanics.
Gomez
Hmm... OK, you probably have me there.
I would add to this that surges are, from a certain perspective, a way to limit in-combat resistance. A classic 4E character effectively has got Surges x HP total "Health" (which is about 10 to 20 times what a normal character had in previous editions). However, he is still limited to 5/Surges parts of that Health in every combat, barring healing but including Second Wind. Once that is burned through, he's done for the fight.
I would say that if extended rests allowed you to regain only one healing surge or two, then the game would get a lot more pleasant for many healing surges detractors. Some might still feel the PCs have got too many hps, but it would be just a mathematical proportion to adjust rather than a whole subsystem to overhaul.
Surges on their own are only a resource.I think what you oppose is not so much healing surges, but the second wind action and the short rest mechanics.Gomez[/quote]Hmm... OK, you probably have me there.[/quote]I would add to this that surges are, fro
No Healing Surges, ever. This is not a bloody PC game.
No, it's not. And healing surges don't turn it into one.
You're not fully healed if you don't have healing surges. Period.
Apparently some folks never played any of those computer games in which you spam click the red potions until your health comes back. Or maybe they come from a country where "health potion" is translated into "healing surge." The world is a big place, I guess.
No, it's not. And healing surges don't turn it into one. You're not fully healed if you don't have healing surges. Period.[/quote]Apparently some folks never played any of those computer games in which you spam click the red potions until your health
No Healing Surges, ever. This is not a bloody PC game.
No, it's not. And healing surges don't turn it into one.
You're not fully healed if you don't have healing surges. Period.
Apparently some folks never played any of those computer games in which you spam click the red potions until your health comes back. Or maybe they come from a country where "health potion" is translated into "healing surge." The world is a big place, I guess.
Diablo healing potions and healing surges are not at all the same thing.
No, it's not. And healing surges don't turn it into one. You're not fully healed if you don't have healing surges. Period.[/quote]Apparently some folks never played any of those computer games in which you spam click the red potions until your health
1. 4th edition some races just don't fit. Touchy subject. There are those that prefere the basic races elf dwarf human Halfling. Those that prefere a few more like drow gnome. Some that include Eladrin dragonborn tiefling. Others that include warforge genasi. Some that want every race. Hey I want to play a skeleton. Why not. I want to play a medusa. Why not. If your allowing so much then you open pandora box I'm not looking for a debate here on my choice. List your one thing you don't want to see from any edition.
1. 4th edition some races just don't fit. Touchy subject. There are those that prefere the basic races elf dwarf human Halfling. Those that prefere a few more like drow gnome. Some that include Eladrin dragonborn tiefling. Others that include warforge genasi. Some that want every race. Hey I want to play a skeleton. Why not. I want to play a medusa. Why not. If your allowing so much then you open pandora box I'm not looking for a debate here on my choice. List your one thing you don't want to see from any edition.
Level Adjustment for "monster" pcs.
Yes. A thousand times yes.
Level Adjustment for "monster" pcs.[/quote]Yes. A thousand times yes.
No Healing Surges, ever. This is not a bloody PC game.
No, it's not. And healing surges don't turn it into one.
You're not fully healed if you don't have healing surges. Period.
Apparently some folks never played any of those computer games in which you spam click the red potions until your health comes back. Or maybe they come from a country where "health potion" is translated into "healing surge." The world is a big place, I guess.
Diablo healing potions and healing surges are not at all the same thing.
Sorry, my sarcastic remarks are all turning out to be cryptic remarks nowadays. Diablo potion spam is exactly NOT healing surges. It's old school D&D. Yet healing surges are labeled a video game mechanic, and therefore bad, even though tons of video games use the old D&D bag o' potions mechanic, which gets a free pass and is considered good for idk wtf reason.
More simply, yes, what you said is what I thought I was saying.
No, it's not. And healing surges don't turn it into one. You're not fully healed if you don't have healing surges. Period.[/quote]Apparently some folks never played any of those computer games in which you spam click the red potions until your health
1. 4th edition some races just don't fit. Touchy subject. There are those that prefere the basic races elf dwarf human Halfling. Those that prefere a few more like drow gnome. Some that include Eladrin dragonborn tiefling. Others that include warforge genasi. Some that want every race. Hey I want to play a skeleton. Why not. I want to play a medusa. Why not. If your allowing so much then you open pandora box I'm not looking for a debate here on my choice. List your one thing you don't want to see from any edition.
Level Adjustment for "monster" pcs.
Yes. A thousand times yes.
Seconded.
Level Adjustment for "monster" pcs.[/quote]Yes. A thousand times yes.[/quote]Seconded.
Funny, this is hands down one of my top 10 favorite things in the entire D&D franchise. No matter what edition/version we play this gets put in every time.
Funny, this is hands down one of my top 10 favorite things in the entire D&D franchise. No matter what edition/version we play this gets put in every time.
Funny, this is hands down one of my top 10 favorite things in the entire D&D franchise. No matter what edition/version we play this gets put in every time.
Do you mean %-based just for the thief or for all skills? It does seem odd to me to give the %'s to just the thief. If one was going to both with %'s, it kindof makes sense to go that route with all the skills.
Funny, this is hands down one of my top 10 favorite things in the entire D&D franchise. No matter what edition/version we play this gets put in every time.[/quote]Do you mean %-based just for the thief or for all skills? It does seem odd to me to gi
Funny, this is hands down one of my top 10 favorite things in the entire D&D franchise. No matter what edition/version we play this gets put in every time.
Do you mean %-based just for the thief or for all skills? It does seem odd to me to give the %'s to just the thief. If one was going to both with %'s, it kindof makes sense to go that route with all the skills.
We don't see the thief 'skills' as skills, but abilities. That's why he's a thief. We never agreed with the 3rd edition choice to move them to skills so we keep em pre-3rd. When we use skills (which is about 50% of the time) they usually stay d20 based since they're tied to attributes.
Funny, this is hands down one of my top 10 favorite things in the entire D&D franchise. No matter what edition/version we play this gets put in every time.[/quote]Do you mean %-based just for the thief or for all skills? It does seem odd to me to gi
Funny, this is hands down one of my top 10 favorite things in the entire D&D franchise. No matter what edition/version we play this gets put in every time.
Do you mean %-based just for the thief or for all skills? It does seem odd to me to give the %'s to just the thief. If one was going to both with %'s, it kindof makes sense to go that route with all the skills.
We don't see the thief 'skills' as skills, but abilities. That's why he's a thief. We never agreed with the 3rd edition choice to move them to skills so we keep em pre-3rd. When we use skills (which is about 50% of the time) they usually stay d20 based since they're tied to attributes.
I agree. The thief should have thief abilities. I like the % type in 2nd edition. the worked well, the thief could increase them each level, and they were unique to the class. Like the Paladin's lay on hands. We don't want THAT as a skill. Why can't the CLASS of thief have unique thief abilities?
Funny, this is hands down one of my top 10 favorite things in the entire D&D franchise. No matter what edition/version we play this gets put in every time.[/quote]Do you mean %-based just for the thief or for all skills? It does seem odd to me to gi
The rogue (NOT thief) should have unique abilities, sure. But they should be abilities that make sense to be exclusive. It always, ALWAYS, bothered me that, in 2e and previous, only thieves could climb, or hide, or sneak, or anything else. It made no sense. Better at it than most folks, sure, but anybody can attempt those tasks.
The rogue (NOT thief) should have unique abilities, sure. But they should be abilities that make sense to be exclusive. It always, ALWAYS, bothered me that, in 2e and previous, only thieves could climb, or hide, or sneak, or anything else. It made
The rogue (NOT thief) should have unique abilities, sure. But they should be abilities that make sense to be exclusive. It always, ALWAYS, bothered me that, in 2e and previous, only thieves could climb, or hide, or sneak, or anything else. It made no sense. Better at it than most folks, sure, but anybody can attempt those tasks.
I agree people should be able to attempt them, but not really specialize in them. That's the purpose of class based games. You do what your class does, not what everyone else does. As soon as anyone can do anything there's no longer reason to have a class game at all. Switch to skill or power based games. I have no problem with other types of games, it's just not what I prefer in D&D.
We just treated everyone else as if they were attempting an untrained nwp check (when we used skill systems at all), or defaulted to background and attibutes otherwise.
Oh, and I've looked through my games real quick, and in all but one edition of D&D it says Thief, not Rogue, so I believe I was correct in my word choice. 8-)
I agree people should be able to attempt them, but not really specialize in them. That's the purpose of class based games. You do what your class does, not what everyone else does. As soon as anyone can do anything there's no longer reason to have a
The rogue (NOT thief) should have unique abilities, sure. But they should be abilities that make sense to be exclusive. It always, ALWAYS, bothered me that, in 2e and previous, only thieves could climb, or hide, or sneak, or anything else. It made no sense. Better at it than most folks, sure, but anybody can attempt those tasks.
I don't think it says anywhere that only thieves can do those things. Where was that?
I don't think it says anywhere that only thieves can do those things. Where was that?
"Rogue" as a class has never sat well with me. It just seems to me to be either a really poor version of a fighter, or a poor version of a thief. To me the word rogue is synonymous with Wizard or Warrior. It is a class heading, not a class in and of itself.
I never did get why the game went to the "rogue as a class" view rather than have subset classes under the rogue heading.
"Rogue" as a class has never sat well with me. It just seems to me to be either a really poor version of a fighter, or a poor version of a thief. To me the word rogue is synonymous with Wizard or Warrior. It is a class heading, not a class in and of
"Rogue" as a class has never sat well with me. It just seems to me to be either a really poor version of a fighter, or a poor version of a thief. To me the word rogue is synonymous with Wizard or Warrior. It is a class heading, not a class in and of itself.
I never did get why the game went to the "rogue as a class" view rather than have subset classes under the rogue heading.
Rogue has always felt like more of a personality trait than a class name to me. However, Thief doesn't really fit either because the Thief isn't necessarily a thief. More than anything, I'd define the thief a specialist. Unfortunately, that's to vague, and it's not really an evocative name for a class. I think infiltrator, spy, or sneak are all more appropriate names in that it defines their skill set while not relegating them to strictly criminal activities. I do think it's a moot point though. The class will likely be named either Rogue or Thief (or maybe have a different build for each) in DDN.
Rogue has always felt like more of a personality trait than a class name to me. However, Thief doesn't really fit either because the Thief isn't necessarily a thief. More than anything, I'd define the thief a specialist. Unfortunately, that's to v
I agree. The thief should have thief abilities. I like the % type in 2nd edition. the worked well, the thief could increase them each level, and they were unique to the class. Like the Paladin's lay on hands. We don't want THAT as a skill. Why can't the CLASS of thief have unique thief abilities?
because it makes less sense than dragons and beholders?
because it makes less sense than dragons and beholders?
if a Fighter can be a preist and a Cleric a knight, a Wizard a warlock and a Thief a monk, what, pray tell, is in a name?
if your class defines who you are as a person, i want none of it. if it defines how a person does what they do, i'm fine with it.
i don't want all Rogues to be thieves or vice-versa. i want to make a Fighter can call him a "thief" (of the break and enter kind). i want to make a Cleric and call him a thief (mimicing a preist of one god to steal tithes or followers to his deity). i want to make a Wizard and call him a thief (using magic to mask his deeds).
i don't want to be told "to be a thief you need to be a Thief".
what's in a name?and this is a serious questionif a Fighter can be a preist and a Cleric a knight, a Wizard a warlock and a Thief a monk, what, pray tell, is in a name?if your class defines who you are as a person, i want none of it. if it defines ho
if a Fighter can be a preist and a Cleric a knight, a Wizard a warlock and a Thief a monk, what, pray tell, is in a name?
if your class defines who you are as a person, i want none of it. if it defines how a person does what they do, i'm fine with it.
i don't want all Rogues to be thieves or vice-versa. i want to make a Fighter can call him a "thief" (of the break and enter kind). i want to make a Cleric and call him a thief (mimicing a preist of one god to steal tithes or followers to his deity). i want to make a Wizard and call him a thief (using magic to mask his deeds).
i don't want to be told "to be a thief you need to be a Thief".
This is the beauty of themes. Not only can you do these things but you can get bonuses from your theme that will make you even better at fulfilling the character concept you wish to fulfill. I especially like the break and enter fighter/thief thing you got going on. I would not want to run into that guy breaking and entering into my house. The names of the classes and themes just tell you what those options will be bringing to the table for your character.
This is the beauty of themes. Not only can you do these things but you can get bonuses from your theme that will make you even better at fulfilling the character concept you wish to fulfill. I especially like the break and enter fighter/thief thing
if a Fighter can be a preist and a Cleric a knight, a Wizard a warlock and a Thief a monk, what, pray tell, is in a name?
if your class defines who you are as a person, i want none of it. if it defines how a person does what they do, i'm fine with it.
i don't want all Rogues to be thieves or vice-versa. i want to make a Fighter can call him a "thief" (of the break and enter kind). i want to make a Cleric and call him a thief (mimicing a preist of one god to steal tithes or followers to his deity). i want to make a Wizard and call him a thief (using magic to mask his deeds).
i don't want to be told "to be a thief you need to be a Thief".
Which I think is a good thing, but it isn't what a 'class based' game is based upon. When I feel like doing those things I play skill based games, or anything besides a class game. In class games class defines what your character can do, not skills or powers. You can have hybrids that do some of each (which is really what D&D evolved into, a bit with 2nd and fully with 3rd and on), but not in a true game of classes.
In chess can you declare that in this game your bishops will move like a knight? Not and have it still be chess. Same is true in rpgs. AD&D started as a class based game, where only thieves could do thief things. The moment you change that, it's no longer D&D. Might be a better game, or more fun, or more popular...but it's not what it was. That was my only point.
Which I think is a good thing, but it isn't what a 'class based' game is based upon. When I feel like doing those things I play skill based games, or anything besides a class game. In class games class defines what your character can do, not skills o
Which I think is a good thing, but it isn't what a 'class based' game is based upon. When I feel like doing those things I play skill based games, or anything besides a class game. In class games class defines what your character can do, not skills or powers. You can have hybrids that do some of each (which is really what D&D evolved into, a bit with 2nd and fully with 3rd and on), but not in a true game of classes.
In chess can you declare that in this game your bishops will move like a knight? Not and have it still be chess. Same is true in rpgs. AD&D started as a class based game, where only thieves could do thief things. The moment you change that, it's no longer D&D. Might be a better game, or more fun, or more popular...but it's not what it was. That was my only point.
Arguing that other characters should be able to sneak or climb or listen at a door isn't *inherently* an argument against classes. It's an argument against the thief having a monopoly on those skills. While those skills did define the pre-3e thief, that doesn't tie them to the thief or its descendants forever. I absolutely agree that D&D should stay a class-based game, but that doesn't mean the classes are unworthy of examination.
Arguing that other characters should be able to sneak or climb or listen at a door isn't *inherently* an argument against classes. It's an argument against the thief having a monopoly on those skills. While those skills did define the pre-3e thief, t
Which I think is a good thing, but it isn't what a 'class based' game is based upon. When I feel like doing those things I play skill based games, or anything besides a class game. In class games class defines what your character can do, not skills or powers. You can have hybrids that do some of each (which is really what D&D evolved into, a bit with 2nd and fully with 3rd and on), but not in a true game of classes.
In chess can you declare that in this game your bishops will move like a knight? Not and have it still be chess. Same is true in rpgs. AD&D started as a class based game, where only thieves could do thief things. The moment you change that, it's no longer D&D. Might be a better game, or more fun, or more popular...but it's not what it was. That was my only point.
Arguing that other characters should be able to sneak or climb or listen at a door isn't *inherently* an argument against classes. It's an argument against the thief having a monopoly on those skills. While those skills did define the pre-3e thief, that doesn't tie them to the thief or its descendants forever. I absolutely agree that D&D should stay a class-based game, but that doesn't mean the classes are unworthy of examination.
I partially agree, and partially disagree. As I said earlier, there's no restriction on other classes doing those things that a thief does...they just don't get them as an ability that they can improve directly and specialize in. If they did, they would no longer be a 'thief' ability, but just an ability that everyone (or at least many people) could utilize. For the most part we call those things skills/nwp, not abilities. THAT does remove the class base of the system UNLESS the class has enough other unique abilities to define it through the loss of those abilities. I talk a LOT about uniqueness in the blog post.
Look at the 2nd edition Thief. Remove all of the thief abilities and make them skills. Now what does the Thief have left? Backstab, Thieve's Cant, Use Scrolls, and arguably Read Languages. That's it. And really, with language skills you can cross Thieve's Cant and Read Languages off that list. So you have a d6 low THAC0 leather wearing character that can read scrolls and maybe once a fight if they're lucky get a single high damage strike on one enemy. Be still my beating heart. No, the ONLY reason a Thief 'CLASS' exists is to be the ONLY one in the party who does thief things (well at least).
I realize many/most may not agree, it's just how we feel about it. ONLY the members of the target classes should be able to do 'X'. Anything else is an entirely different game system, and is NOT 'class based'.
Arguing that other characters should be able to sneak or climb or listen at a door isn't *inherently* an argument against classes. It's an argument against the thief having a monopoly on those skills. While those skills did define the pre-3e thief, t
if a Fighter can be a preist and a Cleric a knight, a Wizard a warlock and a Thief a monk, what, pray tell, is in a name?
if your class defines who you are as a person, i want none of it. if it defines how a person does what they do, i'm fine with it.
i don't want all Rogues to be thieves or vice-versa. i want to make a Fighter can call him a "thief" (of the break and enter kind). i want to make a Cleric and call him a thief (mimicing a preist of one god to steal tithes or followers to his deity). i want to make a Wizard and call him a thief (using magic to mask his deeds).
i don't want to be told "to be a thief you need to be a Thief".
This.
The rogue is the guy with the most skills, the dirty fighting mechanics, mobility and maybe some exploration based special abilities that make him better at certain things than other classes.
Being able to pick pockets, open locks and disable traps should be things any class can access.
AT MOST the rogue should have abilities that make him better than others at those things, but even those abilities should be options the rogue can take, not automatic class features.
A bit like all the skill based utility powers the rogue gets in 4e, making the rogue by far the best thief and trap monkey in the game.
This. The rogue is the guy with the most skills, the dirty fighting mechanics, mobility and maybe some exploration based special abilities that make him better at certain things than other classes. Being able to pick pockets, open locks and disable t
I would like to see feat trees (or skills) designed so that low level characters don't have to take the same ones to get better ones at higher level.
Example most every 3rd edition fighter taking power attack at 1st level
I would like to see feat trees (or skills) designed so that low level characters don't have to take the same ones to get better ones at higher level.Example most every 3rd edition fighter taking power attack at 1st level
I would like to see feat trees (or skills) designed so that low level characters don't have to take the same ones to get better ones at higher level.
Example most every 3rd edition fighter taking power attack at 1st level
how would you feel about replacing feat trees with level requirements for some feats?
You still can't get spring attack at level one, but you don't have to take dodge and mobillity in order to get it. (or course, I rather like dodge and mobillity, but you get the idea.)
how would you feel about replacing feat trees with level requirements for some feats? You still can't get spring attack at level one, but you don't have to take dodge and mobillity in order to get it. (or course, I rather like dodge and mobillity, bu
I think that's his point. If you take the concept of refluffing, i.e. altering the cosmetics of the class to suit your desires, to its logical extreme, the name for a class is meaningless. Similarly, if you don't allow any reskinning, then a class becomes a straightjacket.
I think that's his point. If you take the concept of refluffing, i.e. altering the cosmetics of the class to suit your desires, to its logical extreme, the name for a class is meaningless. Similarly, if you don't allow any reskinning, then a class be
I would like to see feat trees (or skills) designed so that low level characters don't have to take the same ones to get better ones at higher level.
Example most every 3rd edition fighter taking power attack at 1st level
how would you feel about replacing feat trees with level requirements for some feats?
You still can't get spring attack at level one, but you don't have to take dodge and mobillity in order to get it. (or course, I rather like dodge and mobillity, but you get the idea.)
Yes, that would work and keep low level characters more interesting and varied as they won't all have nearly the same feats.
how would you feel about replacing feat trees with level requirements for some feats? You still can't get spring attack at level one, but you don't have to take dodge and mobillity in order to get it. (or course, I rather like dodge and mobillity, bu
I think that's his point. If you take the concept of refluffing, i.e. altering the cosmetics of the class to suit your desires, to its logical extreme, the name for a class is meaningless. Similarly, if you don't allow any reskinning, then a class becomes a straightjacket.
I would hate to see refluffing as a baseline ie a class called Defender A or Striker B.
I would much prefer to see a class called "Wizard" or "Fighter" and to allow refluffing if you want to.
If you want to discuss DnD with other people outside your immediate monkey sphere there should be some kind of shared vocabulary.
I would hate to see refluffing as a baseline ie a class called Defender A or Striker B.I would much prefer to see a class called "Wizard" or "Fighter" and to allow refluffing if you want to.If you want to discuss DnD with other people outside your im
What, exactly, is the Bad Thing™ in getting Spring Attack at level one?
Nothing. Nothing is bad about a game where you start with Wish or Shapechange either. Nothing is wrong with a game where you can't use magic to handle exploration or social either.
All these things help define the tone of your game though. Not everybody wants to play Marvel Superheroes.
Nothing. Nothing is bad about a game where you start with Wish or Shapechange either. Nothing is wrong with a game where you can't use magic to handle exploration or social either. All these things help define the tone of your game though. Not everyb
I would like to see feat trees (or skills) designed so that low level characters don't have to take the same ones to get better ones at higher level.
Example most every 3rd edition fighter taking power attack at 1st level
how would you feel about replacing feat trees with level requirements for some feats?
You still can't get spring attack at level one, but you don't have to take dodge and mobillity in order to get it. (or course, I rather like dodge and mobillity, but you get the idea.)
Or you could make the feats themselves get more powerful as you level up.
how would you feel about replacing feat trees with level requirements for some feats? You still can't get spring attack at level one, but you don't have to take dodge and mobillity in order to get it. (or course, I rather like dodge and mobillity, bu
I would like to see feat trees (or skills) designed so that low level characters don't have to take the same ones to get better ones at higher level.
Example most every 3rd edition fighter taking power attack at 1st level
how would you feel about replacing feat trees with level requirements for some feats?
You still can't get spring attack at level one, but you don't have to take dodge and mobillity in order to get it. (or course, I rather like dodge and mobillity, but you get the idea.)
Yes, that would work and keep low level characters more interesting and varied as they won't all have nearly the same feats.
I would like to see feat trees (or skills) designed so that low level characters don't have to take the same ones to get better ones at higher level.
Example most every 3rd edition fighter taking power attack at 1st level
how would you feel about replacing feat trees with level requirements for some feats?
You still can't get spring attack at level one, but you don't have to take dodge and mobillity in order to get it. (or course, I rather like dodge and mobillity, but you get the idea.)
Or you could make the feats themselves get more powerful as you level up.
I'd much rather be able to choose whether to go further down the line that starts with dodge, or just grab dodge and move on to something else.
The simplest solution is to have feats that do a thing, and generally don't change, and some feats have requirements, and one of those requirements might be character level.
how would you feel about replacing feat trees with level requirements for some feats? You still can't get spring attack at level one, but you don't have to take dodge and mobillity in order to get it. (or course, I rather like dodge and mobillity, bu
I’ve removed content from this thread because off topic disruption / baiting 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’ve removed content from this thread because off topic disruption / baiting 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, respectfu
1. 4th edition some races just don't fit. Touchy subject. There are those that prefere the basic races elf dwarf human Halfling. Those that prefere a few more like drow gnome. Some that include Eladrin dragonborn tiefling. Others that include warforge genasi. Some that want every race. Hey I want to play a skeleton. Why not. I want to play a medusa. Why not. If your allowing so much then you open pandora box I'm not looking for a debate here on my choice. List your one thing you don't want to see from any edition.
Level Adjustment for "monster" pcs.
Yes. A thousand times yes.
Seconded.
This is one of the things I just can't support; by my understanding, level adjustment allows for off-level characters because of power level difference. I much prefer the concept of on level races of equal in power at each level, much like the races of 4th ed. That said, I'd also prefer features (not feats) that would be gained by races as they leveled up, removing the need for level adjustment.
Level Adjustment for "monster" pcs.[/quote]Yes. A thousand times yes.[/quote]Seconded.[/quote]This is one of the things I just can't support; by my understanding, level adjustment allows for off-level characters because of power level difference. I
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" /> This is one of the things I just can't support; by my understanding, level adjustment allows for off-level characters because of power level difference.
Except for one thing ... it didn't work. At all.
First, if the game started at 1st level, you were SOL, because you were effectively a higher level. Secondly, if the game started at a higher level to accomodate you, you were still SOL because the 'level adjustment' ate your hit dice. Imagine a '3rd level' character with 1st level hit points and attack bonus and feat access and saving throws ... you were a sitting duck. Thirdly, whatever levels you lost to level adjustment meant you were screwing yourself out of your class's capstone abilities. This was, obviously, a bigger deal for some classes than others. But would you really rather have a few measly racial abilities than two more levels of game-breaking spells?
Except for one thing ... it didn't work. At all.First, if the game started at 1st level, you were SOL, because you were effectively a higher level.Secondly, if the game started at a higher level to accomodate you, you were still SOL because the 'lev
1. 4th edition some races just don't fit. Touchy subject. There are those that prefere the basic races elf dwarf human Halfling. Those that prefere a few more like drow gnome. Some that include Eladrin dragonborn tiefling. Others that include warforge genasi. Some that want every race. Hey I want to play a skeleton. Why not. I want to play a medusa. Why not. If your allowing so much then you open pandora box I'm not looking for a debate here on my choice. List your one thing you don't want to see from any edition.
Level Adjustment for "monster" pcs.
Yes. A thousand times yes.
Seconded.
This is one of the things I just can't support; by my understanding, level adjustment allows for off-level characters because of power level difference. I much prefer the concept of on level races of equal in power at each level, much like the races of 4th ed. That said, I'd also prefer features (not feats) that would be gained by races as they leveled up, removing the need for level adjustment.
I think there's been a mistake. I can't remember for sure, but I think we were supporting something else, because I detest level adjustments.
Level Adjustment for "monster" pcs.[/quote]Yes. A thousand times yes.[/quote]Seconded.[/quote]This is one of the things I just can't support; by my understanding, level adjustment allows for off-level characters because of power level difference. I
What, exactly, is the Bad Thing™ in getting Spring Attack at level one?
Nothing. Nothing is bad about a game where you start with Wish or Shapechange either. Nothing is wrong with a game where you can't use magic to handle exploration or social either.
All these things help define the tone of your game though. Not everybody wants to play Marvel Superheroes.
lets talk about rediculous superman with actual lower level spells. Gee flight and immunity to missiles and so on are aweful low level I dont want to see those. hey look its supermans actual powers.
Nothing. Nothing is bad about a game where you start with Wish or Shapechange either. Nothing is wrong with a game where you can't use magic to handle exploration or social either. All these things help define the tone of your game though. Not everyb
lets talk about rediculous superman with actual lower level spells. Gee flight and immunity to missiles and so on are aweful low level I dont want to see those. hey look its supermans actual powers.
Getting fly half-way through your adventuring career sounds about right to me, especially since you don't get it more than once or twice per day (you know, the levels where your number of spell slots actually matter).
These things are really not hard to fix though. One of us will have to adjust the level at which you get these kinds of abilities and I really don't care if I'm the one doing it.
Getting fly half-way through your adventuring career sounds about right to me, especially since you don't get it more than once or twice per day (you know, the levels where your number of spell slots actually matter).These things are really not hard
lets talk about rediculous superman with actual lower level spells. Gee flight and immunity to missiles and so on are aweful low level I dont want to see those. hey look its supermans actual powers.
Getting fly half-way through your adventuring career sounds about right to me, especially since you don't get it more than once or twice per day (you know, the levels where your number of spell slots actually matter).
These things are really not hard to fix though. One of us will have to adjust the level at which you get these kinds of abilities and I really don't care if I'm the one doing it.
Taking away is harder than granting.... always.
A DM going NO DAMMIT the campaign is supposed to have a Tolkein flavor not superfriends flavor...
Getting fly half-way through your adventuring career sounds about right to me, especially since you don't get it more than once or twice per day (you know, the levels where your number of spell slots actually matter).[/quote]Shrug ... sleep it off.Ta
1. 4th edition some races just don't fit. Touchy subject. There are those that prefere the basic races elf dwarf human Halfling. Those that prefere a few more like drow gnome. Some that include Eladrin dragonborn tiefling. Others that include warforge genasi. Some that want every race. Hey I want to play a skeleton. Why not. I want to play a medusa. Why not. If your allowing so much then you open pandora box I'm not looking for a debate here on my choice. List your one thing you don't want to see from any edition.
Level Adjustment for "monster" pcs.
Yes. A thousand times yes.
Seconded.
This is one of the things I just can't support; by my understanding, level adjustment allows for off-level characters because of power level difference. I much prefer the concept of on level races of equal in power at each level, much like the races of 4th ed. That said, I'd also prefer features (not feats) that would be gained by races as they leveled up, removing the need for level adjustment.
I think there's been a mistake. I can't remember for sure, but I think we were supporting something else, because I detest level adjustments.
I am also strongly in favor of never seeing the LA mechanic again. However, I also want the ability to play a race (dragons!!!) that are more powerful than the baseline, so I don't want to see a return of the 4E "you can only play the base races" again either; so a monster class or something else that works well would be good, or some other modular layer. It doesn't have to be the exact stat block out of the MM, but shoudl feel similar enough.
Hopefully, they cna get multiclassing and class design working better so that monster levels, if necessary, can merge well enough with all the classes, even the spellcasters.
Level Adjustment for "monster" pcs.[/quote]Yes. A thousand times yes.[/quote]Seconded.[/quote]This is one of the things I just can't support; by my understanding, level adjustment allows for off-level characters because of power level difference. I
I don't want it to be more difficult to move, hit someone, then move some more than it is to wiggle your fingers and cause trained soldiers to have seizures.
I don't want it to be more difficult to move, hit someone, then move some more than it is to wiggle your fingers and cause trained soldiers to have seizures.
I don't want it to be more difficult to move, hit someone, then move some more than it is to wiggle your fingers and cause trained soldiers to have seizures.
Seriously.
Your total movement speed should just be per round, and you can part of it, attack, then use the rest if you want.
Seriously. Your total movement speed should just be per round, and you can part of it, attack, then use the rest if you want.
I had an idea for the multiattack fighter. He has a max movement. So long as he has not moved his max movement he can combine a move with one of his attacks. Here is the scenario for a 4 attack fighter.
Total movement is 12
Move Action: move 4 feet next to enemy. Movement remaining is 8. Attack Action: Attack enemy and kill enemy. Move 4 next to another enemy. Movement remaining is 4. Attack Action: Attack enemy and damage enemy. Attack Action: Attack enemy again and kill enemy. Move 4 to an optimal position. Movement is 0. Turn over.
I had an idea for the multiattack fighter. He has a max movement. So long as he has not moved his max movement he can combine a move with one of his attacks. Here is the scenario for a 4 attack fighter.Total movement is 12Move Action: move 4 fee
Sidenote: This thread is proof that forum posters can't read.
But they can carry a proper conversation, which is about as important. "Did you see that sportball game last night?" "Yeah, the Sportland Sports were number one in points. Speaking of, did you hear about that Blitzball incident?" "WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SPORTBALL!" *Storms out*
But they can carry a proper conversation, which is about as important. "Did you see that sportball game last night?""Yeah, the Sportland Sports were number one in points. Speaking of, did you hear about that Blitzball incident?""WE'RE TALKING ABOUT S
1. 4th edition some races just don't fit. Touchy subject. There are those that prefere the basic races elf dwarf human Halfling. Those that prefere a few more like drow gnome. Some that include Eladrin dragonborn tiefling. Others that include warforge genasi. Some that want every race. Hey I want to play a skeleton. Why not. I want to play a medusa. Why not. If your allowing so much then you open pandora box I'm not looking for a debate here on my choice. List your one thing you don't want to see from any edition.
Level Adjustment for "monster" pcs.
Yes. A thousand times yes.
Seconded.
This is one of the things I just can't support; by my understanding, level adjustment allows for off-level characters because of power level difference. I much prefer the concept of on level races of equal in power at each level, much like the races of 4th ed. That said, I'd also prefer features (not feats) that would be gained by races as they leveled up, removing the need for level adjustment.
I think there's been a mistake. I can't remember for sure, but I think we were supporting something else, because I detest level adjustments.
I am also strongly in favor of never seeing the LA mechanic again. However, I also want the ability to play a race (dragons!!!) that are more powerful than the baseline, so I don't want to see a return of the 4E "you can only play the base races" again either; so a monster class or something else that works well would be good, or some other modular layer. It doesn't have to be the exact stat block out of the MM, but shoudl feel similar enough.
Hopefully, they cna get multiclassing and class design working better so that monster levels, if necessary, can merge well enough with all the classes, even the spellcasters.
The only reason I can see to attempt to make playable races above level 1 baseline is by giving baseline races their classic features as a function of level, thus meaning that by your reckoning, playing level 1 "dragons" should be, on the whole, less impressive than playing level 10 dragons. Any other way is just going to be annoying and cause balance issues. Level 1 needs to have a baseline that stretches across the races. Any higher level power level should not be a function of race, per se, but features gained through leveling, which then makes level, not race, the factor of deciding power.
Level Adjustment for "monster" pcs.[/quote]Yes. A thousand times yes.[/quote]Seconded.[/quote]This is one of the things I just can't support; by my understanding, level adjustment allows for off-level characters because of power level difference. I
I had an idea for the multiattack fighter. He has a max movement. So long as he has not moved his max movement he can combine a move with one of his attacks. Here is the scenario for a 4 attack fighter.
Total movement is 12
Move Action: move 4 feet next to enemy. Movement remaining is 8. Attack Action: Attack enemy and kill enemy. Move 4 next to another enemy. Movement remaining is 4. Attack Action: Attack enemy and damage enemy. Attack Action: Attack enemy again and kill enemy. Move 4 to an optimal position. Movement is 0. Turn over.
i do like atacks of opertunity so lets do a compromise. if the total movement is 12 the character can move half of that without provoking atacks of opertunity.
i do like atacks of opertunity so lets do a compromise.if the total movement is 12the character can move half of that without provoking atacks of opertunity.
I don't want to see spring attack, or any detailed move, attack, make this attack, attack that guy, move over here, drink a potion, count my actions, divide by 12, and then look at the list to see what else I can afford in the action economy this round.
That's an exaggeration. Hyperbole, for effect.
I want abstract combat that is a simple, quick determination: Did you succeed at hurting the other guy? GOOD! Next round!
I don't want to see spring attack, or any detailed move, attack, make this attack, attack that guy, move over here, drink a potion, count my actions, divide by 12, and then look at the list to see what else I can afford in the action economy this rou
I don't want to see spring attack, or any detailed move, attack, make this attack, attack that guy, move over here, drink a potion, count my actions, divide by 12, and then look at the list to see what else I can afford in the action economy this round.
That's an exaggeration. Hyperbole, for effect.
I want abstract combat that is a simple, quick determination: Did you succeed at hurting the other guy? GOOD! Next round!
I could not agree more on this subject this is how it was when i was growing up this is how it should be in the future editions leave movement based calculations for miniature gaming not D&D RPG
I could not agree more on this subject this is how it was when i was growing up this is how it should be in the future editions leave movement based calculations for miniature gaming not D&D RPG
Power sources & class roles - These were such a restrictive way to design classes, yes some of those features were kinda implied in earlier editons, but at some point it became a matter of filling holes in the matrix; "do we have an arcane tank yet?" and them give them a new list of genreric powers that filled much the same effect as other tanks. Which brings me to...
Powers, as the primary mechanic for defining classes - Some classes work with a few powers others with a lot and some with hardly any. At will powers is a wonderful addtion to caster classes, this lets you still do "magic stuff" even without spending your daily allotment of spells. But a fighter able to magically, or should I say "martially" pull a creature next to him from across the battlefield is just silly or him only being able to hit a foe a certain special way only once a day. I could see some things being handled by encounter powers, like trip, disarm and other combat maneuvers. And if they want a Warlord that heals by saying comforting things to people (or whatever it is he does to heal), they need to define hp as a combination of mental stress and actual physical injury or even track them as two serperate things.
Multiple attacks/static combat - As a DM for a Pathfinder game i notice every combat starts with the players and the monsters moving toward each other and then everyone just stand around slugging it out with Full Attacks. I have to go out of my way to get a bit of movement into the combat. The primary offenders in this are the full attack action and attacks of opportunity, this makes it so it is almost always better to stand still and let enemies come to you. These two need to go the way of the dodo or be at least severly reduced in power. And try to do it without the weird way every class has a "power" to scoot monsters and each other around the battlefield, a little of this is fine, but it gets silly when everyone is doing it.
Magic Items as a part of character progression - 3.x had an expectatation about the amount of magic items you had at any given level, and you NEEDED a certain +X bonus and bonuses to your ability scores to handle higher level monsters. 4th made it even worse it just put the magic items right there in players handbook and designed monsters to have defenses that had accounted for a given magic bonus on players attacks. I would like to see treasure be an actual reward not something that is expected, those charts of "a level x encounter needs to give x gp worth of treasure", those needs to go. Make it an event when you get a magic sword not an expectation.
Power sources & class roles - These were such a restrictive way to design classes, yes some of those features were kinda implied in earlier editons, but at some point it became a matter of filling holes in the matrix; "do we have an arcane tank yet?"
I don't want to see a lack of meaningful choices at each level.
I want to be able to create a unique character that fits my character concept and still be relevent in combat and out...
I don't want to see a lack of meaningful choices at each level. I want to be able to create a unique character that fits my character concept and still be relevent in combat and out...
The Powers System from 4th Edition. Character creation felt too much like "creating" a Dell computer. Sure, they give you X number of options that can result in hundreds of different variations but when all the options result in the same crappy result (I do ____ damage), you're not creating a character anymore, you're basically assembling a Magic deck.
Which, yes, some of the Feats from 3rd edition were obviously combat-centric without really buying you anything other than a different kind of combat bonus (ie Power Attack) but there were plenty that were not. And yeah, I know that utility powers and some of the additional effects of the Powers in 4th edition provided different flavors but they simply were not varied enough - while at the same time providing players with that sense that your Powers define what kind of character you have, and not letting what kind of character you want to play define what options you want to select.
One other complaint is that the division of Powers and Rituals for spellcasters, particularly wizards, was enough of a deviation that the concept of a wizard collecting spells from other spell books and scrolls was essentially negated.
There are a couple positives that I will mention about the Powers system, at least from my own perspective: 1) Better damage scaling for fighters as they gain levels / used higher "level" powers (ie At-Will vs Daily). One frustrating thing about 3rd was if you were a fighter with a longsword you were doomed to only rolling 1d8 with a moderately increasing +bonus, or relying on magic weapons to boost your combat effectiveness. 2) Allowing Wizards to have At-Will spells. But obviously, Pathfinder picked up on that as well, so it can exist outside the Powers system.
So, while the Powers system did improve some aspects of combat and attempted to add flavor to it beyond just "I swing my weapon" I think it A) was only an illusion of options / variability / flavor and B) was too central to character creation and thus made combat central to character creation. Combat is obviously a large part of the game, but when I create a character I try to create a complete character, one with backstory, motivations, etc. and (to me) the Powers system made it so I was less focused on my character as a person and more on my character as a mathmatical formula optimized for combat.
The Powers System from 4th Edition. Character creation felt too much like "creating" a Dell computer. Sure, they give you X number of options that can result in hundreds of different variations but when all the options result in the same crappy resul
The Powers System from 4th Edition. Character creation felt too much like "creating" a Dell computer. Sure, they give you X number of options that can result in hundreds of different variations but when all the options result in the same crappy result (I do ____ damage), you're not creating a character anymore, you're basically assembling a Magic deck.
Which, yes, some of the Feats from 3rd edition were obviously combat-centric without really buying you anything other than a different kind of combat bonus (ie Power Attack) but there were plenty that were not. And yeah, I know that utility powers and some of the additional effects of the Powers in 4th edition provided different flavors but they simply were not varied enough - while at the same time providing players with that sense that your Powers define what kind of character you have, and not letting what kind of character you want to play define what options you want to select.
One other complaint is that the division of Powers and Rituals for spellcasters, particularly wizards, was enough of a deviation that the concept of a wizard collecting spells from other spell books and scrolls was essentially negated.
There are a couple positives that I will mention about the Powers system, at least from my own perspective: 1) Better damage scaling for fighters as they gain levels / used higher "level" powers (ie At-Will vs Daily). One frustrating thing about 3rd was if you were a fighter with a longsword you were doomed to only rolling 1d8 with a moderately increasing +bonus, or relying on magic weapons to boost your combat effectiveness. 2) Allowing Wizards to have At-Will spells. But obviously, Pathfinder picked up on that as well, so it can exist outside the Powers system.
So, while the Powers system did improve some aspects of combat and attempted to add flavor to it beyond just "I swing my weapon" I think it A) was only an illusion of options / variability / flavor and B) was too central to character creation and thus made combat central to character creation. Combat is obviously a large part of the game, but when I create a character I try to create a complete character, one with backstory, motivations, etc. and (to me) the Powers system made it so I was less focused on my character as a person and more on my character as a mathmatical formula optimized for combat.
Ah, now I see where the disconnect is. You missed the rule that says you can refluff any power to do what you want it to do as long as mechanically it doesn't change. This in fact gives you more options.
If you go back and read your precious 3.5E rules you'll find that many of the spells and actions carried over to 4E, and if you played by the rules in 3.5E you couldn't do half of what people claim you could. Also people seem to gloss over rituals in 4E, which are literally a second set of spells that can be used outside combat to accomplish nearly anything you could in 3.5E, but in a balanced manner (i.e. no more wizards charming the entire town, or unlocking doors the rogue had problems with, no more showing the fighter up by killing everything in the room before the fighter could even get close).
Ah, now I see where the disconnect is. You missed the rule that says you can refluff any power to do what you want it to do as long as mechanically it doesn't change. This in fact gives you more options.If you go back and read your precious 3.5E rule
"refluff any power to do what you want it to do as long as mechanically it doesn't change"
Can you give me an example of that? (I'm a little unclear as to how "refluffing" without changing the mechanics solves the issue that I brought up. Whether I'm calling the spell a fireblast or a coldblast and it still has the endgame of doing 1d6 damage, have I really been given that big of an option? Maybe I'm misunderstanding what "refluffing" is.)
I will freely admit to glossing over rituals, but because that seems to be a common problem doesn't that speak to there being a problem with their presentation? In fact, that sort of supports what I was saying about the core of the game being too focused on Powers.
I've mentioned this in other posts, that my experience with 4th may have been marked by poor DMing not taking full advantage of all the mechanics (skill challenges were a rarity, and rituals were non-existent) but this was also an experienced DM that did a fine job running any / all of the previous editions - not just "precious" 3.5. So why were such large portions of the game so easily and unintentionally avoided?
I respect your difference of opinion, but could do without the snarky-ness.
"refluff any power to do what you want it to do as long as mechanically it doesn't change"Can you give me an example of that? (I'm a little unclear as to how "refluffing" without changing the mechanics solves the issue that I brought up. Whether I'm
Ah, now I see where the disconnect is. You missed the rule that says you can refluff any power to do what you want it to do as long as mechanically it doesn't change. This in fact gives you more options.
If you go back and read your preciouspreferred 3.5E rules you'll find that many of the spells and actions carried over to 4E, and if you played by the rules in 3.5E you couldn't do half of what people claim you could. Also people seem to gloss over rituals in 4E, which are literally a second set of spells that can be used outside combat to accomplish nearly anything you could in 3.5E, but in a balanced manner (i.e. no more wizards charming the entire town, or unlocking doors the rogue had problems with, no more showing the fighter up by killing everything in the room before the fighter could even get close).
jfriant didn't really seem say anything to warrant condescension, he was just expressing his view of the rules as he understands them. It isn't the first time you've heard the argument, I'm sure, but no reason to take it out on him. =)
That being said, with the opinion being repeated so many times, I wonder where "the disconnect" as you referenced it comes from. Something deeper has to be causing it. We should find out what that is and see if it can be fixed for 5e, or a simliar problem may occur even if the game were to meet everyone's expectations.
Please keep in mind that I may have misinterpreted the "precious' comment to sound condescending because I do enjoy 3.5 edition and haven't played 4e, so I do have a bias. If it wasn't how you meant it, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
-----
Ooop! jfriant beat me to it!
Actually that's one thing I'd like to see change in the next edition of D&D: I really wasn't crazy about the presentation of 4e book itself. The artwork was fine, but some of the information seemed to be cramed together and very textbookish in my few reivews of the book. If I had been more focused on creating a character I might have found more stuff within, but as I was just reading it I ended up glossing over things and having to read sections repeatedly out of a sort of boredom that befell me. (And I don't believe it was entirely the ruleset. Granted I will admit I went into the book the first time nursing a grudge over fluff changes they'd made to things like dragons, tieflings, and several of the D&D gods.)
:fix:jfriant didn't really seem say anything to warrant condescension, he was just expressing his view of the rules as he understands them. It isn't the first time you've heard the argument, I'm sure, but no reason to take it out on him. =)That being
Ah, now I see where the disconnect is. You missed the rule that says you can refluff any power to do what you want it to do as long as mechanically it doesn't change. This in fact gives you more options.
If you go back and read your preciouspreferred 3.5E rules you'll find that many of the spells and actions carried over to 4E, and if you played by the rules in 3.5E you couldn't do half of what people claim you could. Also people seem to gloss over rituals in 4E, which are literally a second set of spells that can be used outside combat to accomplish nearly anything you could in 3.5E, but in a balanced manner (i.e. no more wizards charming the entire town, or unlocking doors the rogue had problems with, no more showing the fighter up by killing everything in the room before the fighter could even get close).
jfriant didn't really seem say anything to warrant condescension, he was just expressing his view of the rules as he understands them. It isn't the first time you've heard the argument, I'm sure, but no reason to take it out on him. =)
That being said, with the opinion being repeated so many times, I wonder where "the disconnect" as you referenced it comes from. Something deeper has to be causing it. We should find out what that is and see if it can be fixed for 5e, or a simliar problem may occur even if the game were to meet everyone's expectations.
Please keep in mind that I may have misinterpreted the "precious' comment to sound condescending because I do enjoy 3.5 edition and haven't played 4e, so I do have a bias. If it wasn't how you meant it, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
Nah, that's fine, I should have stated it that way.
The only thing I can think of is they put the rituals in the back of the book and didn't really point them out beyond saying wizards get one or two of them. If they had emphasized them more, then they probably would have gotten more face time in games.
The cool thing about rituals was that there were more than just spell rituals, there were rituals for other groups as well.
:fix:jfriant didn't really seem say anything to warrant condescension, he was just expressing his view of the rules as he understands them. It isn't the first time you've heard the argument, I'm sure, but no reason to take it out on him. =)That being
a lot of us want a game with more depth then "i attack X > roll > compare > damage Y/N > next" and adding depth to a game is a hell of a lot harder then removing it.
a lot of us want a game with more depth then "i attack X > roll > compare > damage Y/N > next" and adding depth to a game is a hell of a lot harder then removing it.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Ah, now I see where the disconnect is. You missed the rule that says you can refluff any power to do what you want it to do as long as mechanically it doesn't change. This in fact gives you more options.
But that is the same with all editions of DnD.
If you go back and read your precious 3.5E rules you'll find that many of the spells and actions carried over to 4E, and if you played by the rules in 3.5E you couldn't do half of what people claim you could. Also people seem to gloss over rituals in 4E, which are literally a second set of spells that can be used outside combat to accomplish nearly anything you could in 3.5E, but in a balanced manner (i.e. no more wizards charming the entire town, or unlocking doors the rogue had problems with, no more showing the fighter up by killing everything in the room before the fighter could even get close).
There is this cool new spell in 4e called Knock. Dont worry, a lot of people seem to gloss over rituals.
But that is the same with all editions of DnD.There is this cool new spell in 4e called Knock. Dont worry, a lot of people seem to gloss over rituals.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Ah, now I see where the disconnect is. You missed the rule that says you can refluff any power to do what you want it to do as long as mechanically it doesn't change. This in fact gives you more options.
But that is the same with all editions of DnD. That was my point. You can actually roleplay, but since you have more options than I attack it with my sword, then describe some huge role-play scene. In 4E you can attack in many different ways, but describe some huge role-play scene. In other words more options.
If you go back and read your precious 3.5E rules you'll find that many of the spells and actions carried over to 4E, and if you played by the rules in 3.5E you couldn't do half of what people claim you could. Also people seem to gloss over rituals in 4E, which are literally a second set of spells that can be used outside combat to accomplish nearly anything you could in 3.5E, but in a balanced manner (i.e. no more wizards charming the entire town, or unlocking doors the rogue had problems with, no more showing the fighter up by killing everything in the room before the fighter could even get close).
There is this cool new spell in 4e called Knock. Dont worry, a lot of people seem to gloss over rituals.
Yeah, but its balanced now because it takes a lot of time and there is a chance of failure for the wizard. Its no longer unbalanced like the rogue takes 1 minute and fails his roll, but then the wizard walks up and takes 10 seconds to cast a spell that's automatically effective...
But that is the same with all editions of DnD. That was my point. You can actually roleplay, but since you have more options than I attack it with my sword, then describe some huge role-play scene. In 4E you can attack in many different ways, but des
If you go back and read your precious 3.5E rules you'll find that many of the spells and actions carried over to 4E, and if you played by the rules in 3.5E you couldn't do half of what people claim you could. Also people seem to gloss over rituals in 4E, which are literally a second set of spells that can be used outside combat to accomplish nearly anything you could in 3.5E, but in a balanced manner (i.e. no more wizards charming the entire town, or unlocking doors the rogue had problems with, no more showing the fighter up by killing everything in the room before the fighter could even get close).
You'll have to show me how you can make your whole group Invisible, Charm a guard, put sentries to Sleep, use Silence to sneak into a castle, cast Fly or Levitate to reach places you wouldn't otherwise be able to reach, cast Disguise Self to impersonate someone or use illusions to create a distraction. I only have PHB1 and 90% of the campaigns I played in over the last 20 years never made it past level 13.
We really really tried but we never found a way to use spells to avoid a fight.
You'll have to show me how you can make your whole group Invisible, Charm a guard, put sentries to Sleep, use Silence to sneak into a castle, cast Fly or Levitate to reach places you wouldn't otherwise be able to reach, cast Disguise Self to imperson
If you go back and read your precious 3.5E rules you'll find that many of the spells and actions carried over to 4E, and if you played by the rules in 3.5E you couldn't do half of what people claim you could. Also people seem to gloss over rituals in 4E, which are literally a second set of spells that can be used outside combat to accomplish nearly anything you could in 3.5E, but in a balanced manner (i.e. no more wizards charming the entire town, or unlocking doors the rogue had problems with, no more showing the fighter up by killing everything in the room before the fighter could even get close).
You'll have to show me how you can make your whole group Invisible, Charm a guard, put sentries to Sleep, use Silence to sneak into a castle, cast Fly or Levitate to reach places you wouldn't otherwise be able to reach, cast Disguise Self to impersonate someone or use illusions to create a distraction. I only have PHB1 and 90% of the campaigns I played in over the last 20 years never made it past level 13.
We really really tried but we never found a way to use spells to avoid a fight.
Wall of fog, arcane gate, fly, sleep, silence ritual, levitate, mass fly, a bunch of powers that grant bonuses to social checks which is equivalent to charm person (makes people view you in the most positive light, but doesn't force them to be your slaves), mirrored entourage, obscuring mist, and walk between worlds. Most of these have sustain minor. Looks like you didn't really look into 4E...
You'll have to show me how you can make your whole group Invisible, Charm a guard, put sentries to Sleep, use Silence to sneak into a castle, cast Fly or Levitate to reach places you wouldn't otherwise be able to reach, cast Disguise Self to imperson
I want abstract combat that is a simple, quick determination: Did you succeed at hurting the other guy? GOOD! Next round!
Why not go play roll high wins - Who needs formal rules for that?
You seem to make a hobby out of excluding the middle.
Heh, it was rather where I went with it when my tastes were of that sort... I found my players were comfortable enough with my game mastering and we had established expectations between us and coming to the why not wing it conclusion, was very natural - ofcourse then I picked up Amber.
A quote from Gygax about the real secret of roleplaying games comes to mind.
Why not go play roll high wins - Who needs formal rules for that?[/quote]You seem to make a hobby out of excluding the middle.[/quote]Heh, it was rather where I went with it when my tastes were of that sort... I found my players were comfortable enou
1. 4th edition some races just don't fit. Touchy subject. There are those that prefere the basic races elf dwarf human Halfling. Those that prefere a few more like drow gnome. Some that include Eladrin dragonborn tiefling. Others that include warforge genasi. Some that want every race. Hey I want to play a skeleton. Why not. I want to play a medusa. Why not. If your allowing so much then you open pandora box I'm not looking for a debate here on my choice. List your one thing you don't want to see from any edition.
1E: Initiative segments
2E: Race/level restrictions
3E: Mandatory multiclassing (Also wouldn't mind restoration of THAC0)
4E: Skill challenge mechanic
1E: Initiative segments2E: Race/level restrictions3E: Mandatory multiclassing (Also wouldn't mind restoration of THAC0)4E: Skill challenge mechanic
I don't want to see Yugoloths or as they are also known Daemons left out of 5th Ed perhaps a Book of Fiends could be produced containing all Daemons, Demons and Devils
I don't want to see Yugoloths or as they are also known Daemons left out of 5th Ed perhaps a Book of Fiends could be produced containing all Daemons, Demons and Devils
I don't want to see Yugoloths or as they are also known Daemons left out of 5th Ed perhaps a Book of Fiends could be produced containing all Daemons, Demons and Devils
Yugoloths are my favorite fiends. All the evil, but none of the ravening psychosis or dogmatic obedience to brutal authority. They are evil untainted by an overarching ideology.
Yugoloths are my favorite fiends. All the evil, but none of the ravening psychosis or dogmatic obedience to brutal authority. They are evil untainted by an overarching ideology. :cloud9:
