|
12 months ago ::
Jun 15, 2012 - 4:23PM
#81
|
Date Joined:
May 30, 2011
|
If certain themes and backgrounds don't fit my criteria, then they won't be allowed, plain and simple.
Then that is up to you to decide, for your table - not for the books to decide for every table.
Yeah I think they should. That would be the best route to take.
No, it would be terrible. If you want to ban something from your game, fine.. It should NOT be a core rule.
Think of it this way.
No restriction=You can ban what you want, we'll play our way=Everyone happy
Stupid restrictions=You ban what you want, we have to houserule=Only some people happy
They need to design based on what will make a majority happy, not just you.
Or you could simply lift the restiction. There would be nothing stopping you.
Door swings both ways you know.
Broad is better. Bring in a bunch of options and then allow the GM to chose what's allowed in his game; that is the best option. Forcing people to create their own themes/backgrounds for what they want would lead many inexperienced players into creating unbalanced characters.
You have to assume that the players are inexperienced, not the other way around. After all we are attempting to give the next generation of gamers a chance at playing this game are we not? Needless complication is something for adults and game designers to deal with, not new players.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 15, 2012 - 4:32PM
#82
|
|
|
I'd rather have a big toolbox. Just give the kids and the people who dislike treating the game as a hobby the 'organized play' rules, without options to confuse them or force them to decide things.
edit: Basically, I want steak. Don't tell me I have to have oatmeal, because that's all the new guy can digest.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 15, 2012 - 7:45PM
#83
|
|
|
My only concern would be is that if their ARE backgrounds with beefy mechanical benefits that I wouldn't just give a player for free that any custom-built backgrounds are going to gravitate heavily towards those.
The current best example would be Endurance from the Soldier background. This is a very direct and specific mechanical benefit (doubled non-encumbered capacity, doubled time before becoming tired etc) that does not require a specific role play scenario to use, compared to vague things like "People who care about nobility will give you shelter' or "You can make a living and people who do the same work think you are cool" that would be non-functional in many situations / environments.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 15, 2012 - 7:51PM
#84
|
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2008
|
My only concern would be is that if their ARE backgrounds with beefy mechanical benefits that I wouldn't just give a player for free that any custom-built backgrounds are going to gravitate heavily towards those.
The current best example would be Endurance from the Soldier background. This is a very direct and specific mechanical benefit (doubled non-encumbered capacity, doubled time before becoming tired etc) that does not require a specific role play scenario to use, compared to vague things like "People who care about nobility will give you shelter' or "You can make a living and people who do the same work think you are cool" that would be non-functional in many situations / environments.
I would agree; background benefits need to be balanced with each other. In addition, I think classes should have an impact on some of these areas. For example, rogues should get a virtual expansion of skills (in regards to locks and things) without the "correct" background. A ranger should get an expansion of nature skills without the "correct" background. I think other classes could also get similar "bumps" (at least as an optional module).
I just cited the two classes that seemed more fleshed out (in comparison to the other two classes).
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 15, 2012 - 8:08PM
#85
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
Nice idea for a character, Bruce.
But why wouldn't I just play a Bard?
"People want balance but can't accept this homogenization that occurs as a result of that balance being implemented. then they complain that the fighter is weaker than the wizard ad nauseam.: - Teitan
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 17, 2012 - 12:09PM
#86
|
Date Joined:
Jan 21, 2009
|
Nice idea for a character, Bruce.
But why wouldn't I just play a Bard?
If the system goes as expected, something like a Wizard/Spy, Rogue/Magic User, or Bard/whatever may seem thematically similar, but the implementations would be different. In my opinion, this a great thing. You now have multiple approaches to a similar concept, and can pick the one that best suits your character, thematically or mechanically.
There has also been talk by the devs about bringing the Bard back to its Celtic roots, to distinguish it more as a unique class. How this might play out we've yet to see.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 17, 2012 - 12:22PM
#87
|
Date Joined:
Jun 30, 2011
|
Nice idea for a character, Bruce.
But why wouldn't I just play a Bard?
In some ways bards seems similar thematically to wizard/spy, as Zaenos pointed out. On the other hand bards in the editions of D&D that I have played have a very limited access to direct damage spells such as fireball.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 17, 2012 - 12:42PM
#88
|
Date Joined:
May 30, 2010
|
I am really liking the social interaction bonus of traits. Handlers. That's genius.
I'm actually not wild about that either. I don't like rules that dictate NPC's to the DM.
I won't argue that it should be removed, though, because it's easy enough for me to say "not in my campaign."
If you look carefully, you will notice that "Traits" are an ability that give the charachter a flavorful bonus to "Gather information" checks, or "rest for free" benefits. How they do that is just flavor.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 17, 2012 - 1:04PM
#89
|
Date Joined:
May 30, 2010
|
General Tso's or bust.
Themes appears to be just a package of 10 Feats preselected for you. Picking Feats without going for a Theme is exactly how 3E and 4E have handled it in the past. Nothing to worry about IMO...
That's not very reassuring...
I feel as though people have not been critical enough about what Themes and Backgrounds are.
Thankfully, there is common knowledge now that Themes = Feat package and Backgrounds = Skills + Trait package. However, I think there is still some confusion as to what a Feat is, what a Skill is, and what a Trait is.
A feat is not a 3e or 4e feat. A feat is a latteral/horizontal increase to charachter ability. Feats will not give benefits to skills. Feats will not give benefits to Attack bonus. Feats will not give benefits to Defensive bonuses. Feats will allow a "new thing" to happen, that previously "you did not know you could do that". (damage when you miss, preventing movement of a monster, casting spells you couldn't otherwise cast, damaging targets you couldn't previously damage etc.)
Skills, means a +3 to a skill. These skills can be used for either interaction, or exploration or both. They can even be used during combat with improvised actions.
Traits, are simple, flavorful abilities that gives your charachter a bonus to the interaction pillar. It might be a reduction in cost, or an increase in a knowledge check.
Mathematical bonuses will come from your class and your class only. You might also get some perks to your exploation or interaction abilities if that is what your class is known to excel in. Dice alteration bonuses, and defences are likely to come from your Race, as well as some exploration and interaction perks.
I'm sadly afraid that they are going to have to waste another blog post/rules of three/ article explaining these things.
|
|
|
|
12 months ago ::
Jun 17, 2012 - 1:19PM
#90
|
|
|
My only concern would be is that if their ARE backgrounds with beefy mechanical benefits that I wouldn't just give a player for free that any custom-built backgrounds are going to gravitate heavily towards those.
The current best example would be Endurance from the Soldier background. This is a very direct and specific mechanical benefit (doubled non-encumbered capacity, doubled time before becoming tired etc) that does not require a specific role play scenario to use, compared to vague things like "People who care about nobility will give you shelter' or "You can make a living and people who do the same work think you are cool" that would be non-functional in many situations / environments.
Actually the Herbalist background is way better overall. "I can stockpile hit points in the form of vast numbers of healing potions at trivial cost" is pretty hard to beat as a mechanical benefit. It has a few saving virtues in that it really isn't advantageous to have everyone taking that background, but it is going to be pretty darn hard to see a cleric that claims any sort of healing credentials whatsoever passing it up.
The way I feel about stuff like that is it is just an 'attractive nuisance'. Players feel obligated to drop stuff like that onto their sheets because it has such a large positive impact in play. Other possible choices are simply crowded out. It is the same issue as the 'feat tax' really. You can go without something, but you end up wondering why you did, and the guy who starts with mechanics and builds his concept around what works well can end up hauling the rest of the party around like dead weight if it goes too far. At best it is a missed opportunity to have more diversity.
What I see in games I run anymore is we've all done every concept there is to death at this point after 30-something years of play. There are always variations on any theme, but you can be sure that Tim is probably going to pick the more useful mechanics at this point and won't care much if THIS rogue is variation X or Y.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
