|
1 year ago ::
Mar 31, 2012 - 8:52PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
@lawolf
Whatever I think of your opinions, you are the first and only person who can follow directions on this board.
Here is some help for the others.
The question is -->
Name ONE thing you don't want to see from ANY edition
That means just one thing. Choose any edition to pick that one thing from. The fact that it is limited is the point. You have to pick the absolute worse thing you remember.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 31, 2012 - 8:54PM
#22
|
|
|
Extensive imbalance. It's probably the only thing that modules can't work around.
This would be the one for me, as well.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 31, 2012 - 9:01PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Nov 21, 2010
|
I would never want to see the ranger changed from the way it works in 4e now.
I would never want to see D&D turned into some idiotic CCG.
I would never want to see psions using a different system than any other spellcaster.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 31, 2012 - 9:07PM
#24
|
|
|
@lawolf
Whatever I think of your opinions, you are the first and only person who can follow directions on this board.
Here is some help for the others.
The question is -->
Name ONE thing you don't want to see from ANY edition
That means just one thing. Choose any edition to pick that one thing from. The fact that it is limited is the point. You have to pick the absolute worse thing you remember.
That's very hard to do in this case. It's very difficult to pick one problem from all previous editions because the circumstances of each edition make a problem worse or better. For example: I know you dislike AEDU. Now consider how different it would be if AEDU existed in 3e, AD&D 2e, etc. To cite one problem as the worst, without consideration of the surrounding system is nearly incomprehensible.
Perhaps the best analogy I can come up with to illustrate this point is food. Imagine that AEDU is chocolate frosting (or, if you like chocolate, a different flavor that you dislike). Chocolate frosting (AEDU), even if you dislike it, is less offensive on a cake (4e) than it would be on a roasted chicken breast (3e) or scrambled eggs (AD&D).
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 31, 2012 - 9:23PM
#25
|
|
|
rolling massive amounts of d6's for any reason at all
i personally work around this by halving the number and changing them to d12's, but holy crap either rolling that many dice or converting to my system it's annoying either way
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 31, 2012 - 9:26PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Mar 31, 2012
|
Okay, are we really going to throw a tantrum because people post more than 1 thing they don't want to see? Really? Is it that big of a deal? No, not to me.
Anyway, I don't want to see anything from 4e.......
I think we need to keep player choice a big thing, but make sure prestiege classes aren't super over powered. Even if some are slightly over powered then... whatever. It's better to have more things to do than to limit everything because you're afraid someone will get a class that gets a powerful ability. If you don't like it, simply don't allow it in game, but don't try and get them cut out completely. That's inane. D&D is about choice and freedom and being a badass and saving the world or whatever. Keep it that way.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 31, 2012 - 9:27PM
#27
|
|
|
rolling massive amounts of d6's for any reason at all
i personally work around this by halving the number and changing them to d12's, but holy crap either rolling that many dice or converting to my system it's annoying either way
If it helps, I was introduced to multiplying dice when I played Robotech (missiles often did Xd6x10 damage). Now, some people might find that approach too swingy as a single bad die roll has a much greater impact. If that's the case, I'd suggest turning something like 8d6 into 2d6x4. That cuts back on the implications of a single bad roll while also reducing the number of dice rolled.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 31, 2012 - 9:28PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Mar 31, 2012
|
Any monster description that takes up more than half of a page.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 31, 2012 - 9:30PM
#29
|
|
|
Okay, are we really going to throw a tantrum because people post more than 1 thing they don't want to see? Really? Is it that big of a deal? No, not to me.
Anyway, I don't want to see anything from 4e.......
You had me in the beginning, but that last part isn't terribly constructive. DDN will want to fold the fans of 4e into the new edition also (more fans = more money after all).
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 31, 2012 - 9:34PM
#30
|
|
|
Any monster description that takes up more than half of a page.
nope sorry some monsters really do require in depth descriptions with various abilities, multiple variations, rules for PC's, and suggestions for role playing
types that come to mind; sentient hominid types with societies, outsiders with no out-of-game frame of reference for use, dragons
|
|
|
