|
10 months ago ::
Aug 14, 2012 - 8:23PM
#131
|
|
|
DDN is not supposed to have a limited lifespan. This is why it isn't being called 5E. It is supposed to be "one edition to rule them all", a big tent that will last forever and simply be added to.
Where was this stated?
I'll look for it over on the ENWorld compilation. It came about early on, along the same time as saying they wanted DDN to provide something for players/lovers of all editions, and a lot of the other "pie in the sky" level ideals.
And ENWorld is down for maintenance. I'll look around on Google and if I fail, check ENWorld when it is back up.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 14, 2012 - 8:41PM
#132
|
Date Joined:
Jun 14, 2006
|
Oh well yeah, I know about the desire to try to please fans both old and new. Every edition tries to do that to some degree.
I was asking about the idea that 5E would somehow be the "last" edition and the idea that they wouold simply release new material and intend to never release a new edition again.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 14, 2012 - 9:56PM
#133
|
Date Joined:
Aug 14, 2012
|
The integration of fluff and mechanics serves one purpose only: to add detail to how certain fluff concepts should operate. Having mechanics differ between swinging a blade to do 1d6+x damage and reaching out to shock someone for 1d6+x damage is useful because it contributes to immersion and verisimilitude when, for instance, you direct those attacks against someone in full steel plate. Ideally, from an immersion standpoint, you would have specific rules in place to govern every possible action so that everything you do feels like itself and not some larger, generic class of situations.
The reality of that system, of course, would be an unplayable mess. Successful games that go in that direction by necessity end up with well defined rules for a very small set of scenarios at the expense of making others effectively impossible within their framework. On the other end of the spectrum, you could have a completely generic system where everything is resolved by a single mechanic: roll a die and compare to another die. In that game basically everything would be possible, but it would also be completely bland.
Mandatory fluff is the price you pay for having mechanics that make sense in-world; you're giving up narrative freedom in exchange for a more detailed way to describe certain events. The more generic that fluff is, the less it limits you. Fluff should therefore be as generic as possible without losing the basic justification for the mechanics it describes.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 14, 2012 - 10:45PM
#134
|
|
|
The kind of thinking that jsuggests the general Bard concept has breadth and depth rivaling that of the "classic four" can be used to justify virtually any character concept for a class.
Yes. And anything that can't command a full suite of mechanics and it's own thematic elements with at least a couple variations either waits in line or never becomes a class, or gets combined with something vaguely similar. The bard is not such a case, so it gets to be a class.
It's really very simple.
further, in this edition none of the more iconic archetypes should be in a "class or specialty" scenario, but rather should be both a class and a specialty. Just like there are a couple specialties that match up with rogue schemes or fighter fighting styles or the wizard or cleric. There will be a ranger class and a hunter theme, and a paladin class and a cavalier(some such such) theme, etc. And that's good, because it allows specific concepts to built from multiple angles, and it allows some of the benefits of multiclassing, without having to deal with the multiclassing rules.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 1:10AM
#135
|
|
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Why does there need to be a Fighter, Monk, Barbarian, and Ranger, when you could have one warrior class that, through modular options, can fulfill any of those roles? Why must there be a Wizard, Sorceror, Cleric, and Druid when all you have to do is fluff out your own basic Magic User class?
Because its much harder to build a fighter that can be a monk, and can be as satisfying a play experience as a monk, than it is to just build a monk from the ground up.
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
I could say anything in D&D is silly though, because it's a silly game and we are silly people.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 4:39AM
#136
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
Isn't the goal of character creation to build a character concept? If any class has almost all the features you want, or extra features you don't want, then the class is less than ideal for the concept. Does that mean we should have a separate class for every concept? That seems rather excessive to me. I'd rather see some form of swappable class features, or class features generic enough to allow for a good amount of flexability. Examples:
- a fighter that chooses either finesse or ranged (ie Dex) focus still gets medium/heavy armor proficiency. They are dead features, and worse, aren't even in keeping with the concept (the person was classically trained as a fencer or archer, and never strapped on a suit of plate armor).
- a rogue that wants to focus on exploration and interaction rather than combat. They still get sneak attack, even if it goes against the concept.
- a cleric of war that wants to be artillery. I guess pick a different god? Uh...
Why should classes ever be hard-coded such that a class feature that doesn't fit a concept (but the class otherwise matches well) can't be swapped out for something of equal value. "Just ignore it"-type answers I've been reading in this thread baffle me.
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 5:48AM
#137
|
Date Joined:
Sep 19, 2006
|
Isn't the goal of character creation to build a character concept? If any class has almost all the features you want, or extra features you don't want, then the class is less than ideal for the concept. Does that mean we should have a separate class for every concept? That seems rather excessive to me. I'd rather see some form of swappable class features, or class features generic enough to allow for a good amount of flexability.
Examples:
- a fighter that chooses either finesse or ranged (ie Dex) focus still gets medium/heavy armor proficiency. They are dead features, and worse, aren't even in keeping with the concept (the person was classically trained as a fencer or archer, and never strapped on a suit of plate armor).
- a rogue that wants to focus on exploration and interaction rather than combat. They still get sneak attack, even if it goes against the concept.
- a cleric of war that wants to be artillery. I guess pick a different god? Uh...
Why should classes ever be hard-coded such that a class feature that doesn't fit a concept (but the class otherwise matches well) can't be swapped out for something of equal value. "Just ignore it"-type answers I've been reading in this thread baffle me.
This is something we saw in the later stages of v3.5 development, the current Pathfinder system, and a little bit in 4E. I'm not opposed to the alternative class feature element of class design, but it does pose serious balance issues. The problem is deciding what's of Equal Value to something your giving up? A Dexterous fighter giving up medium and heavy armor proficiency would gain an equal value for...........what exactly? Added damage on attacks? Adding a bonus to AC that doesn't rely on armor (like luck or dodge bonus)? Perhaps more mobility? What's equivalent to medium and heavy armor proficiency? And more importantly, how does that swap change the design elements of other classes. More modularity means a lot more combinations, which opens the door farther for imbalance and brokeness.
The thing is, classes are hard-coded to be the baseline of Fantasy RPGS.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 7:46AM
#138
|
Date Joined:
Aug 26, 2012
|
I've always been in favour of more general, flexible classes. In some instances I'd even be happy with just "The Big Four", although I can accept the addition of Sorcerer and Warlock classes for a different flavour of arcane magic. I do however accept that classes like the barbarian, the bard, and the druid have been a part of D&D for such a long time that we're unlikely to see the back of them.
Going back to some of the original comments, I think whatever they come out with will be fine so long as:
a) It's reasonably flexible, rather than a proscribed class. How this is achieved is less important, be it feats, specialties, backgrounds, or whatever.
b) The base classes aren't just there to support Prestige Classes. I hate Prestige Classes.
c) We don't see an endless tide of new classes. A module for custom class design is fine, but I don't want a flood of new base classes worming their way into the "core" of D&D.
e) No arbitrary mechanical restrictions, particularly alignment ones. This goes back to flexibility, really. For example, as far as I am concerned a Paladin is a Crusading Knight of some form, thus they should be as diverse as the pantheon of the setting, just like clerics. A CN Paladin of a trickster god might be odd, but it should be just as valid as a traditional LG paladin, or a LE Anti-Paladin. Same goes for monks, druids, and everything else.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 8:38AM
#139
|
|
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Why does there need to be a Fighter, Monk, Barbarian, and Ranger, when you could have one warrior class that, through modular options, can fulfill any of those roles? Why must there be a Wizard, Sorceror, Cleric, and Druid when all you have to do is fluff out your own basic Magic User class?
Because its much harder to build a fighter that can be a monk, and can be as satisfying a play experience as a monk, than it is to just build a monk from the ground up.
Yeah, well, you know, that's just like, uh... your opinion, man.
I think being able to map mechanics to a concept of your own is much more satisfying than forcing your vision to match the abilities you are forced to take with a certain class. Plus, what if I want to play a monk more in-line with like a Franciscan monk or something? Why the hell would he have quivering palm and slow-fall?
My D&D Next Philosophy: In this age of user created content, Wizards needs to take a step toward embracing that. Modularity is certainly a start, but the best possible way for Wizards to encourage homebrew is to strip the mechanics of flavor, and to ensure that they are as balanced as possible. Players today should be able to start with a concept and build that character. They should not have to force it into narrowly-defined classes that restrict the ability to play the character you want.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 27, 2012 - 8:41AM
#140
|
|
|
The problem is deciding what's of Equal Value to something your giving up? A Dexterous fighter giving up medium and heavy armor proficiency would gain an equal value for...........what exactly? Added damage on attacks? Adding a bonus to AC that doesn't rely on armor (like luck or dodge bonus)? Perhaps more mobility? What's equivalent to medium and heavy armor proficiency? And more importantly, how does that swap change the design elements of other classes. More modularity means a lot more combinations, which opens the door farther for imbalance and brokeness.
Is this not what game designers are paid to figure out? Not to mention the fact that they have a public playtest on-going that we expect to last for what, two years? That's a lot of free labor, and a lot of testing.
My D&D Next Philosophy: In this age of user created content, Wizards needs to take a step toward embracing that. Modularity is certainly a start, but the best possible way for Wizards to encourage homebrew is to strip the mechanics of flavor, and to ensure that they are as balanced as possible. Players today should be able to start with a concept and build that character. They should not have to force it into narrowly-defined classes that restrict the ability to play the character you want.
|
|
|
