My experience of 2nd ed. was, that wizards simply couldn't wear armor or use good weapons. This changed in 3e.
In the other directions, wizards have EXCLUSIVITY in magic, but they can still fight using mundane ranged or melee methods, they're just not very good at it.
So here's my suggestion: Everyone with the prerequisite intelligence should be able to cast spells. Now, naturally, they shouldn't be as good in it as wizards.
Let's take a look at a wizard's advantages when it comes to spell-casting:
First, they have spell slots, meaning they can memorize spells. Second, they can just DECLARE they're casting a spell, without any sort of a die roll.
So, here's my suggestion:
Allow any character, who has access to a spell book they have acquainted themselves with, cast a spell from it, IF they have the necessary intelligence, AND they succeed in an intelligence check. (DC 15 seems appropriate for most cases).
In fact, I think this should be a general rule --- instead of classes giving EXCLUSIVE abilities to characters, they should instead make them BETTER at them.
Not anyone can succeed in a forward flip without training, but anyone with the courage may ATTEMPT it. And those who are fit and agile, WILL succeed at least some of the time.
So, a particularily pious and wise character, who is NOT a cleric, might with an appropriate roll, succeed in channeling the divine, for an example. And anyone who succeeds in stealth and maneuvering, should be able to attempt a sneak attack.
Now, this is NOT as important as just having good, functioning, relatively light-weight core rules, but I think it's a good principle to adhere to, if possible.
Arcane magic for all!My experience of 2nd ed. was, that wizards simply couldn't wear armor or use good weapons. This changed in 3e. In the other directions, wizards have EXCLUSIVITY in magic, but they can still fight using mundane ranged or melee met
Allow any character, who has access to a spell book they have acquainted themselves with, cast a spell from it, IF they have the necessary intelligence, AND they succeed in an intelligence check. (DC 15 seems appropriate for most cases).
In fact, I think this should be a general rule --- instead of classes giving EXCLUSIVE abilities to characters, they should instead make them BETTER at them.
I like the philosophy, in general, but I'm not sure it works for arcane/divine magic. Fluff-wise, it takes a lot of work to learn just the basics. I would compare it to computer programming, where most people just have no chance of getting it right unless they've had training.
That's a setting-specific thing, though. There's no reason every world has to have magic be that difficult.
Out of curiosity, how does the wizard work into the whole "cast a spell by reading a book" thing? I mean, wizards are normally constrained by their spell slots, and this mechanic can't require spell slots from classes that don't have them, so do wizards just have unlimited out-of-combat casting?
I like the philosophy, in general, but I'm not sure it works for arcane/divine magic. Fluff-wise, it takes a lot of work to learn just the basics. I would compare it to computer programming, where most people just have no chance of getting it right
sounds like it'd be a mess, and frankly, not something i'd want to ever see within spitting distance of the standard dnd game.
Why?
there's no precedent for it in the game, and it's just not very interesting to give magic to everyone for no real reason.
dnd is a class based game, and you lose a lot more than you gain when you dillute each class's identity more than you need to. options to break the mold should exist, but they should be opt-in things like multiclassing and feats,
Why?[/quote]there's no precedent for it in the game, and it's just not very interesting to give magic to everyone for no real reason.dnd is a class based game, and you lose a lot more than you gain when you dillute each class's identity more than you
@Slayer_of_all_that_breathes: You can't do PROPER software work without training, but you can pick up the basics of scripting and start doing SOME things within a single day, easily. So....
Regarding unlimited casting, I was thinking the constraint could be a character's intelligence bonus - I originally thought a character with, say, +3 intelligence bonus, could cast a single 1st-level, a single 2nd-level and a single 3rd-level spell per day.
Another one I thought of was time restriction - to cast a spell directly from spell book, you need to read the spell, do all the work that would be required to memorize a spell, AND then cast it.
in 3e, spell memorization had a minimum time of 15 minutes, just to get into the right mind-set, beyond that memorizing was relatively fast, as a high-level wizard could memorize over 50 spells in the remaining 45 minutes.
Since the spell is not memorized, I think a minimum casting time of, say, one minute, might also work as a limitation.
Now, if there's no per-day limitation, this does indeed give unlimited utility for wizards, which does seem tricky - it also means, no wizard will memorize utility spells, for the most part, with some exceptions.
That might work, actually, but it does seem like a sticking point, so some artifical limitation would probably be good, such as a HP burn cost, or intelligence bonus limit.
@Slayer_of_all_that_breathes: You can't do PROPER software work without training, but you can pick up the basics of scripting and start doing SOME things within a single day, easily. So....Regarding unlimited casting, I was thinking the constraint co
Regarding unlimited casting, I was thinking the constraint could be a character's intelligence bonus - I originally thought a character with, say, +3 intelligence bonus, could cast a single 1st-level, a single 2nd-level and a single 3rd-level spell per day.
What about a number of spell slot levels equal to Int modifier? Someone with a +3 bonus could cast a level 3 spell, or a level 2 and a level 1, or three level 1 spells? I guess it depends on how much you want to restrict it. Either that many spell slot levels, or that's your maximum spell level and you can cast at-most one spell of each level you can cast.
In any case, I would probably also require you to be of the appropriate level - no level 1 rogues with 18 Int casting polymorph.
What about a number of spell slot levels equal to Int modifier? Someone with a +3 bonus could cast a level 3 spell, or a level 2 and a level 1, or three level 1 spells? I guess it depends on how much you want to restrict it. Either that many spell
Yes. This is a good way to go. Minimum class level of spell level x2, with the exception of 1st level.
When there's a per-day limit, there's no need for a time limit, so if a character has spellbook they're familiar with in hand, and succeed in an intelligence check, they could cast even in combat.
It's also a nice way to preface a class change in game.
Yes. This is a good way to go. Minimum class level of spell level x2, with the exception of 1st level.When there's a per-day limit, there's no need for a time limit, so if a character has spellbook they're familiar with in hand, and succeed in an int
My experience of 2nd ed. was, that wizards simply couldn't wear armor or use good weapons. This changed in 3e.
Well yes, you can wear armor with your 3ed wizard but with the heavy Spell Failure Chance, why would you?
And yes, you can take the Martial Weapon feat and learn to use a better weapon with your wizard, but with your poor base attack would you really waste a feat on that instead of something related to spell-casting?
3ed simply changed the "you can't do that" philosophy of AD&D to more like "you can, but you're better off without it anyway."
If it's some sort of "balance" that worries you, because wizards can also attack, and fighters can't cast, or something like that. Then think of it this way: a wizard will run out of spells eventually. Those feeble attacks is all that's left for him in combat. The fighter will never run out of attacks so that he needs to rely on "feeble spells."
That said, I would like to see a more unified casting system, that made (amongst other things) multi-classing between different caster-classes more interesting. But I suppose the ability to cast spells at all should still require you to have at least one spellcasting class.
Well yes, you can wear armor with your 3ed wizard but with the heavy Spell Failure Chance, why would you?And yes, you can take the Martial Weapon feat and learn to use a better weapon with your wizard, but with your poor base attack would you really
to me this would be sothing campaing setting specific.
In ebern for exaple a mudual doing somthing like that might not be out of place as in older editions it already had a npc class that craften normal items but knew a few minor spells to help them along.
maybe a modual nice and simple like : each character with a positive inteligence modifyer knows 1 cantrip, and can cast this cantrip a number of times equal to their inteligence modifyer per day.
to me this would be sothing campaing setting specific.In ebern for exaple a mudual doing somthing like that might not be out of place as in older editions it already had a npc class that craften normal items but knew a few minor spells to help them a
You know, this is possible in 4e. It's called ritual casting. And it doesn't break the game or anything.
To deny other classes the ability to use magic in a limited manner is just another manifestation of "fighters can't have nice things because they're not wizards."
Not to take a shot at anyone, but I find it interesting how many suggestions for Next are things that are already present in 4e and work well, but people either seem to be unaware of that or don't think it's the same thing.
You know, this is possible in 4e. It's called ritual casting. And it doesn't break the game or anything.To deny other classes the ability to use magic in a limited manner is just another manifestation of "fighters can't have nice things because the
My experience of 2nd ed. was, that wizards simply couldn't wear armor or use good weapons. This changed in 3e.
Well yes, you can wear armor with your 3ed wizard but with the heavy Spell Failure Chance, why would you?
And yes, you can take the Martial Weapon feat and learn to use a better weapon with your wizard, but with your poor base attack would you really waste a feat on that instead of something related to spell-casting?
3ed simply changed the "you can't do that" philosophy of AD&D to more like "you can, but you're better off without it anyway."
If it's some sort of "balance" that worries you, because wizards can also attack, and fighters can't cast, or something like that. Then think of it this way: a wizard will run out of spells eventually. Those feeble attacks is all that's left for him in combat. The fighter will never run out of attacks so that he needs to rely on "feeble spells."
That said, I would like to see a more unified casting system, that made (amongst other things) multi-classing between different caster-classes more interesting. But I suppose the ability to cast spells at all should still require you to have at least one spellcasting class.
There were ways around the armor rule in 3.5 but I'm leaning towards the 4th ed and D&DN proficient= cast spells in it anyway.
Well yes, you can wear armor with your 3ed wizard but with the heavy Spell Failure Chance, why would you?And yes, you can take the Martial Weapon feat and learn to use a better weapon with your wizard, but with your poor base attack would you really
You know, this is possible in 4e. It's called ritual casting. And it doesn't break the game or anything.
To deny other classes the ability to use magic in a limited manner is just another manifestation of "fighters can't have nice things because they're not wizards."
Not to take a shot at anyone, but I find it interesting how many suggestions for Next are things that are already present in 4e and work well, but people either seem to be unaware of that or don't think it's the same thing.
In a more general sense, 4ed gives everyone "magic" in the sense that everyone gets cool things to do. Beyond utility powers, a lot of classes (especially post-Essentials ones) get fun abilities at level one like Wilderness Knacks and Domain Utilities.
I think one of the problems of early D&D was that, when designers wanted to give fighters interesting things to do, they either gave them magic items or gave them access to spellcasting. Spellcasting already existed, so why not just use that? But then you create a paradigm of 'only magic can do cool things;, which is bunk.
In a more general sense, 4ed gives everyone "magic" in the sense that everyone gets cool things to do. Beyond utility powers, a lot of classes (especially post-Essentials ones) get fun abilities at level one like Wilderness Knacks and Domain Utilitie
To deny other classes the ability to use magic in a limited manner is just another manifestation of "fighters can't have nice things because they're not wizards."
That "all things nice must come from magic" is merely your view, not a rule.
I, for one, find 3ed's fighter an awesome class. The possibilities you get from that many feats are endless. To my taste, it is one of the most satisfying classes to play with, more than the wizard even. Same can be said about the rogue, who is a swiss-knife of skills.
Both classes don't need any spells to be "nice". And that's only 2 examples.
Maybe you don't like to play with anything that doesn't have spells, but that's just you.
That "all things nice must come from magic" is merely your view, not a rule.I, for one, find 3ed's fighter an awesome class. The possibilities you get from that many feats are endless.To my taste, it is one of the most satisfying classes to play with
To deny other classes the ability to use magic in a limited manner is just another manifestation of "fighters can't have nice things because they're not wizards."
That "all things nice must come from magic" is merely your view, not a rule.
Except when the rules explicitly provide players with a load of nice things, but only from magic, and not without it.
Then it stops being just one man's view, and literally is a rule.
That "all things nice must come from magic" is merely your view, not a rule.[/quote]Except when the rules explicitly provide players with a load of nice things, but only from magic, and not without it.Then it stops being just one man's view, and lite
Arcane magic for all! So here's my suggestion: Everyone with the prerequisite intelligence should be able to cast spells. Now, naturally, they shouldn't be as good in it as wizards.
great somebody else who wants MOAR MAGICS! and fantasy superheros... yeah, lets let everyone cast spells, let wizards wear full plate, heck lets throw out any restrictions what so ever...
great somebody else who wants MOAR MAGICS! and fantasy superheros... yeah, lets let everyone cast spells, let wizards wear full plate, heck lets throw out any restrictions what so ever...
It's about internal consistency. I'm big on Magic A is Magic A.
You can learn arcane magic if you're smart enough, so you should be able to learn arcane magic if you're smart enough. And ANY learning starts with a single action.
You learn to write by writing. You learn to shoot by shooting. You should learn spellcasting by casting spells.
You even learn to cook by cooking, although it's very helpful to see someone do it first, and perhaps assist the first few times. You _could_ just go through a long and arduous try-fail cycle.
It should be noted that settings in Conan and Lord of the Rings ARE, in fact, pretty high magic. It's just that the characters aren't the ones doing most of it.
It's about internal consistency. I'm big on Magic A is Magic A. You can learn arcane magic if you're smart enough, so you should be able to learn arcane magic if you're smart enough. And ANY learning starts with a single action. You learn to write by
So if ou want to cast a few spells take arcane dabbler if you want more multiclass into a spell casting class simple as that...you start giving everyone everything you may as well have one class "ADHD Man" and that would suck.
Sidenote: Arcanist clerics rock
So if ou want to cast a few spells take arcane dabbler if you want more multiclass into a spell casting class simple as that...you start giving everyone everything you may as well have one class "ADHD Man" and that would suck. Sidenote: Arcanist cler
"Everyone can pick up a little magic" is something of a deal from tradition and complexity standpoints, but it's more of a deal from a resonance standpoint. It's just not how fantasy fiction works for the most part, and where it is it's a highly specific setting choice. Giving a large chunk of the population the ability to alter reality under their own power even once each day is pretty hefty.
Granted, because D&D codified a lot of what fantasy fiction does, it's largely itself to blame for this, but there's something to be said (quite a lot, really) for meeting expectations in terms of resonance. (Of course, D&D has traditionally stuck with a powerfully, potently almost gaudily non-resonant casting system, for whatever that's worth.)
"Everyone can pick up a little magic" is something of a deal from tradition and complexity standpoints, but it's more of a deal from a resonance standpoint. It's just not how fantasy fiction works for the most part, and where it is it's a highly spec
Lesp makes a good point. I do want to be able to run a game where only 'special' people can use magic. So, shunt my suggestion to a module or optional, then.
Thing is though, in DnD, Wizards are the geeks who gain power through studying, but we also have Sorcerers who have an innate talent which tends to come forth whether they want to, or not.
Lesp makes a good point. I do want to be able to run a game where only 'special' people can use magic. So, shunt my suggestion to a module or optional, then. Thing is though, in DnD, Wizards are the geeks who gain power through studying, but we also
To deny other classes the ability to use magic in a limited manner is just another manifestation of "fighters can't have nice things because they're not wizards."
That "all things nice must come from magic" is merely your view, not a rule.
Except when the rules explicitly provide players with a load of nice things, but only from magic, and not without it.
Then it stops being just one man's view, and literally is a rule.
I'm not sure about your copies of the books, in mine there are loads of magic weapons, armor, and items all geared towards the non-mage classes. Depending on the edition, they have extra attacks, better saving throws in some areas, and a boatload of feats.
Maybe your books are missing pages? Because the only other explanation I can think of is that you've never played the game.
That "all things nice must come from magic" is merely your view, not a rule.[/quote]Except when the rules explicitly provide players with a load of nice things, but only from magic, and not without it.Then it stops being just one man's view, and lite
To deny other classes the ability to use magic in a limited manner is just another manifestation of "fighters can't have nice things because they're not wizards."
That "all things nice must come from magic" is merely your view, not a rule.
Except when the rules explicitly provide players with a load of nice things, but only from magic, and not without it.
Then it stops being just one man's view, and literally is a rule.
I'm not sure about your copies of the books, in mine there are loads of magic weapons, armor, and items all geared towards the non-mage classes. Depending on the edition, they have extra attacks, better saving throws in some areas, and a boatload of feats.
Maybe your books are missing pages? Because the only other explanation I can think of is that you've never played the game.
Given what I (think) is the average age of posters here, there's a good chance I've been playing D&D longer than you've been alive. So whatever.
The point remains that there are ways to give non-caster classes limited access to spells (4e rituals being a great example, 4e multiclassing being another) that don't break the game, so once again we have a case of Next needing a fix or fixing something that worked fine in the previous edition. One could say that the whole game of D&D Next is just that ... a solution in search of a problem.
Unless the problem is that WoTC needs more money, in which case I completely understand.
That "all things nice must come from magic" is merely your view, not a rule.[/quote]Except when the rules explicitly provide players with a load of nice things, but only from magic, and not without it.Then it stops being just one man's view, and lite
To deny other classes the ability to use magic in a limited manner is just another manifestation of "fighters can't have nice things because they're not wizards."
That "all things nice must come from magic" is merely your view, not a rule.
Except when the rules explicitly provide players with a load of nice things, but only from magic, and not without it.
Then it stops being just one man's view, and literally is a rule.
I'm not sure about your copies of the books, in mine there are loads of magic weapons, armor, and items all geared towards the non-mage classes. Depending on the edition, they have extra attacks, better saving throws in some areas, and a boatload of feats.
Maybe your books are missing pages? Because the only other explanation I can think of is that you've never played the game.
Given what I (think) is the average age of posters here, there's a good chance I've been playing D&D longer than you've been alive. So whatever.
The point remains that there are ways to give non-caster classes limited access to spells (4e rituals being a great example, 4e multiclassing being another) that don't break the game, so once again we have a case of Next needing a fix or fixing something that worked fine in the previous edition. One could say that the whole game of D&D Next is just that ... a solution in search of a problem.
Unless the problem is that WoTC needs more money, in which case I completely understand.
Actually, the chances aren't good. I'm 38, so you'll be needing to be more than 76 years old to have been playing longer than I've been alive.
I'd also caution you on the assumption that 4e handled this issue well, for many of us, 4e didn't handle anything well. IMO, 4e broke the game.
D&DNext is a solution to a rather easily observed problem. 4e caused interest and participation in Dungeons and Dragons to drop significantly, and they ceded a very large amount of market share to Pathfinder (D&D 3.5). It's very possible that WOTC faced the decision of either 5th edition and trying to regain market share, or retiring the brand at this point.
That "all things nice must come from magic" is merely your view, not a rule.[/quote]Except when the rules explicitly provide players with a load of nice things, but only from magic, and not without it.Then it stops being just one man's view, and lite
Every character in every edition of D&D has always been able to cast spells. They simply use magical items to do it.
Exactly, spell casters had direct access to magic. Non spell casters just need other mechanisms like boons , spells that imbue such ability, magical items, etc. My 13th level fighter with a ring of spell reflection, boots of flying, and a helm of teleportation won't be hapyy if his magical items get taken away. .
Even Perseus had some kick ass items.
Exactly, spell casters had direct access to magic. Non spell casters just need other mechanisms like boons , spells that imbue such ability, magical items, etc. My 13th level fighter with a ring of spell reflection, boots of flying, and a helm of
Perseus being an authentic Xmas tree hero.. yup , and yet why is that the only kind allowed? and similarly you might have an Elric or maybe Arthur who is defined ins some ways by their items... but their needs to be very real room and support for Lancelots and Beowulfs and Herakles and maybe CuCulaines, who'se awesome pretty much runs the other way they had magic items but there "awesome" was overwhelmingly theirs and not something they wore or carried.
Perseus being an authentic Xmas tree hero.. yup , and yet why is that the only kind allowed? and similarly you might have an Elric or maybe Arthur who is defined ins some ways by their items... but their needs to be very real room and support for Lan
Actually, the chances aren't good. I'm 38, so you'll be needing to be more than 76 years old to have been playing longer than I've been alive.
The one thing I love about DnD is it inherently weeds out most of the morons...if your dumb its VERY hard to play DnD so age means less than say in..lets scrape the bottom of the barrel here..Call of Duty
I'm 26 but my regular players range from 10 - 35 and the 10 year old is a genius and actually one of our better role players.
I'd also caution you on the assumption that 4e handled this issue well, for many of us, 4e didn't handle anything well. IMO, 4e broke the game.
Yes and no...personally my only expereince with pre-3e is video games...awesome video games (drool...Baldurs gate..watching project eternity like a hawk) but not PnP so I don't really have much of an opinion on those beyond THACO was dumb. Now 3.xe and 4th edition I've played both extensively and OVERALL prefer 4e despite the fact it did quite a few things wrong (ie. Feats =/= multiclassing) which is why I'm striving to involve myself with the creation of 5e because a perfect blending of elements from both 3e and 4e with the few things I know and like from previous additions (ie. Kits from 2e) is a dream and IMO the next edition should not be called 5e that implies a sequel but this is more of a more flexible blending....DnD 40th Anniversary Edition has a nice ring to it (The 40th anniversary is 2014 IIRC)
The one thing I love about DnD is it inherently weeds out most of the morons...if your dumb its VERY hard to play DnD so age means less than say in..lets scrape the bottom of the barrel here..Call of Duty I'm 26 but my regular players range from 10 -
To deny other classes the ability to use magic in a limited manner is just another manifestation of "fighters can't have nice things because they're not wizards."
That "all things nice must come from magic" is merely your view, not a rule.
Except when the rules explicitly provide players with a load of nice things, but only from magic, and not without it.
Then it stops being just one man's view, and literally is a rule.
I'm not sure about your copies of the books, in mine there are loads of magic weapons, armor, and items all geared towards the non-mage classes. Depending on the edition, they have extra attacks, better saving throws in some areas, and a boatload of feats.
Maybe your books are missing pages? Because the only other explanation I can think of is that you've never played the game.
Given what I (think) is the average age of posters here, there's a good chance I've been playing D&D longer than you've been alive. So whatever.
The point remains that there are ways to give non-caster classes limited access to spells (4e rituals being a great example, 4e multiclassing being another) that don't break the game, so once again we have a case of Next needing a fix or fixing something that worked fine in the previous edition. One could say that the whole game of D&D Next is just that ... a solution in search of a problem.
Unless the problem is that WoTC needs more money, in which case I completely understand.
Actually, the chances aren't good. I'm 38, so you'll be needing to be more than 76 years old to have been playing longer than I've been alive.
I'd also caution you on the assumption that 4e handled this issue well, for many of us, 4e didn't handle anything well. IMO, 4e broke the game.
D&DNext is a solution to a rather easily observed problem. 4e caused interest and participation in Dungeons and Dragons to drop significantly, and they ceded a very large amount of market share to Pathfinder (D&D 3.5). It's very possible that WOTC faced the decision of either 5th edition and trying to regain market share, or retiring the brand at this point.
You are making a lot of impossible to prove assumptions there. The WHOLE gaming landscape has changed. For one, D&D takes a significant money and time investment. It's also always been slow to run if you are playing by the rules and not some stripped down home brew version. World of Warcraft takes up millions and millions of people that would otherwise play other types of RPGs.
I've played D&D off and on for over 30 years now and from my perspective computer games are superior yet there is still a niche market for pnp. But it's a diverse niche market full of egotistical customers and that is going to make it harder to sell. Now the same people who want THEIR viewpoint heard of poo-pooing others for having a different view point. I think that class based games are anachronistic and I don't see any problem with blurring the boundaries for those who wish the option to do so. We are wanting to be all-inclusive of differing play styles arent we?
That "all things nice must come from magic" is merely your view, not a rule.[/quote]Except when the rules explicitly provide players with a load of nice things, but only from magic, and not without it.Then it stops being just one man's view, and lite
Oh and Gatt I don't know what Wizards sales figures are and this is entirely anecdotal but in my experience gaming stores used to be few and far between and the amount of people who actually DnD was a small fraction of even that usually only 1 table but nowdays there are FOUR gaming stores in my city alone not to even bother mentioning Toronto and their packed with people playing 4e. I have feeling it has more to do wiuth video games and DnD leaving the realm of being associated with them must be accompanied by beatings than 4es ruleset but I doubt their making less money.
IMO 5e is to fix a community divided...3e enthusists hating on 4e players, 4e players wondering why so much vitriol is thrown at them 1e & 2e edition players holding on to their worn books like a mother bear protecting her young...5e is to be a flexible integration of all of them in an attempt to bring the community back under the same roof.
Oh and Gatt I don't know what Wizards sales figures are and this is entirely anecdotal but in my experience gaming stores used to be few and far between and the amount of people who actually DnD was a small fraction of even that usually only 1 table
Oh and Gatt I don't know what Wizards sales figures are and this is entirely anecdotal but in my experience gaming stores used to be few and far between and the amount of people who actually DnD was a small fraction of even that usually only 1 table but nowdays there are FOUR gaming stores in my city alone not to even bother mentioning Toronto and their packed with people playing 4e. I have feeling it has more to do wiuth video games and DnD leaving the realm of being associated with them must be accompanied by beatings than 4es ruleset but I doubt their making less money.
IMO 5e is to fix a community divided...3e enthusists hating on 4e players, 4e players wondering why so much vitriol is thrown at them 1e & 2e edition players holding on to their worn books like a mother bear protecting her young...5e is to be a flexible integration of all of them in an attempt to bring the community back under the same roof.
I've never met anyone who likes 4e so I have a very different experience. Of course most people I know feel that 3e is loaded with its own problems as well.
I certainly hope that Next is flexible enough to give love to everyone. I am still optimistic even though some bloggers have thrown their hands in the air and fled over minor changes to what they hoped for.
I've never met anyone who likes 4e so I have a very different experience. Of course most people I know feel that 3e is loaded with its own problems as well. I certainly hope that Next is flexible enough to give love to everyone. I am still optimist
I'm 38, so you'll be needing to be more than 76 years old to have been playing longer than I've been alive.
lol. This statement hurt my brain, just a little. Why would he need to be 38 to start playing?? Maybe he is 50 and started playing when he was 11 (39 years).
lol. This statement hurt my brain, just a little. Why would he need to be 38 to start playing?? Maybe he is 50 and started playing when he was 11 (39 years).
Perseus being an authentic Xmas tree hero.. yup , and yet why is that the only kind allowed? and similarly you might have an Elric or maybe Arthur who is defined ins some ways by their items... but their needs to be very real room and support for Lancelots and Beowulfs and Herakles and maybe CuCulaines, who'se awesome pretty much runs the other way they had magic items but there "awesome" was overwhelmingly theirs and not something they wore or carried.
Are you referring to the Beowulf that had to remove his armor or sink like a stone and drown? Lets not also forget about all the realism that these characters had to deal with as well.
In my opinon, in a fantasy setting there is no reason why a fighter couldn't aquire divine boons or the "favour of the gods"
I'd only worry if fighters have magical powers that are passed off as non-magical martial abilities. If the system requires fighters to have such powers then it should at least provide a default reason. Is it a boon from the gods or has the surrounding magic of the world infused with their martial prowess? Other classes provide an explaination for their magial/supernatural powers, so why wouldn't the supernatural fighter?
Perseus being an authentic Xmas tree hero.. yup , and yet why is that the only kind allowed? and similarly you might have an Elric or maybe Arthur who is defined ins some ways by their items... but their needs to be very real room and support for Lan
Perseus being an authentic Xmas tree hero.. yup , and yet why is that the only kind allowed? and similarly you might have an Elric or maybe Arthur who is defined ins some ways by their items... but their needs to be very real room and support for Lancelots and Beowulfs and Herakles and maybe CuCulaines, who'se awesome pretty much runs the other way they had magic items but there "awesome" was overwhelmingly theirs and not something they wore or carried.
Are you referring to the Beowulf that had to remove his armor or sink like a stone and drown?
There was a very definite morale to Beowulfs story it was one of being independent of ones items because sometimes they might hinder rather than aide you (it was both with arms and armor)... the same with slaying grendel... With grendel they use a blessing/curse on that beast man able to bite the heads off of armed thanes with a single chomp but which was immunte to his weapons (which I beleive may have been magical even).
He NEEDED to be mighty without them...
Perseus being an authentic Xmas tree hero.. yup , and yet why is that the only kind allowed? and similarly you might have an Elric or maybe Arthur who is defined ins some ways by their items... but their needs to be very real room and support for Lan
I'm 38, so you'll be needing to be more than 76 years old to have been playing longer than I've been alive.
lol. This statement hurt my brain, just a little. Why would he need to be 38 to start playing?? Maybe he is 50 and started playing when he was 11 (39 years).
Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out that math, heh. In the interest of full disclosure I'm 40 so no, I haven't been playing longer than he's been alive since I started at nine. Just saying, don't tell me I don't know D&D since I've played every edition since the little brown books! But there are a lot of folks in the under 30ish range here so it's a safe bet to make!
And my contention is that Next would do well to learn more lessons from how well 4e worked. It works very well and I can honestly say in over 30 years of playing D&D, it's my favorite edition.
lol. This statement hurt my brain, just a little. Why would he need to be 38 to start playing?? Maybe he is 50 and started playing when he was 11 (39 years).[/quote]Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out that math, heh. In the interest of full disclo
And this is why I don't use D&D as a ruleset, unless I want to play D&D. If I want to play a crappy, anachronistic, class-based system with wonky rules and a weird a$$ cosmology and setting... I'll reach for the D&D books. If, say, I want to play anything else... I'll use a better system. Trust me, there are a lot of systems out there that are cheaper and worlds better than any edition of D&D.
Don't get me wrong, I love D&D, but don't try to generalize it or make it into something that it's not. All you'll end up with is a crappy (-ier?) version of GURPS or... whatever.
And this is why I don't use D&D as a ruleset, unless I want to play D&D. If I want to play a crappy, anachronistic, class-based system with wonky rules and a weird a$$ cosmology and setting... I'll reach for the D&D books. If, say, I want to play any
This is all ready being done in Next as a feat. It's been said early on in the thread and I don't really see why this discussion has gone on past that.
This is all ready being done in Next as a feat. It's been said early on in the thread and I don't really see why this discussion has gone on past that.
This is all ready being done in Next as a feat. It's been said early on in the thread and I don't really see why this discussion has gone on past that.
The feat represents specific training, which should make you better at doing this (but not as good as someone who multiclasses). This post is about letting everyone do it by default.
The feat represents specific training, which should make you better at doing this (but not as good as someone who multiclasses). This post is about letting everyone do it by default.
Which is a rotten idea that should die a death in a game with character classes. If you want a classless game then that's cool, I play and enjoy a few of those as well, but there's a reason I keep going back to character classes and that's basically that not everyone can do everything by default.
Which is a rotten idea that should die a death in a game with character classes. If you want a classless game then that's cool, I play and enjoy a few of those as well, but there's a reason I keep going back to character classes and that's basically
I guess the basic question is, should the wizard be the only one who can cast arcane spells? or should the wizard be the one who is best at casting arcane spells? (Just talking basic four, for now.)
Because as it stands, the fighter is just the best fighter, ehile the wizard is both the worst fighter and the worst arcane spellcaster. You need comparison points if you want people to shine.
I guess the basic question is, should the wizard be the only one who can cast arcane spells? or should the wizard be the one who is best at casting arcane spells? (Just talking basic four, for now.)Because as it stands, the fighter is just the best
I guess the basic question is, should the wizard be the only one who can cast arcane spells? or should the wizard be the one who is best at casting arcane spells? (Just talking basic four, for now.)
Because as it stands, the fighter is just the best fighter, ehile the wizard is both the worst fighter and the worst arcane spellcaster. You need comparison points if you want people to shine.
Which is why there are feats that enable some minor spellcasting and there will be other classes that do magic. Really, what we've got are five classes, two of which are basically fighters. The rogue is currently the best and the worst at misdirection and ambush fighting, the cleric is currently the best and the worst at divine spellcasting and the wizard is both the best and the worst at arcane spellcasting.
The monk and the fighter are the only classes that actually have a comparison point at this time. When we see a sorcerer or warlock make another entrance on the scene we'll have a comparison point for the wizard. When the favoured soul or somesuch shows up, we'll have something to compare the cleric to and when a scout or assassin type character shows up we'll have something to compare the rogue to.
We simply have no information to base any claims about who's better or worse as an arcane caster any more than we did about who was better or worse at martial combat before the monk showed up. We can make some situational claims about the wizard vs the cleric and the rogue vs the fighter, but on the whole we can't say anything about who's the better arcane caster 'cause we only have one to look at.
Which is why there are feats that enable some minor spellcasting and there will be other classes that do magic. Really, what we've got are five classes, two of which are basically fighters. The rogue is currently the best and the worst at misdirectio
Which is why there are feats that enable some minor spellcasting and there will be other classes that do magic. Really, what we've got are five classes, two of which are basically fighters. The rogue is currently the best and the worst at misdirection and ambush fighting, the cleric is currently the best and the worst at divine spellcasting and the wizard is both the best and the worst at arcane spellcasting.
Not true. Currently, the wizard is the worst at fighting (with the cleric as second worst), while (most) clerics are worse at sneaking than wizards (but fighters are better at ambush fighting than either, since they can deal damage if they get into position).
The basic jobs of the fighter and rogue classes - fighting, sneaking/skills - are all things that the wizard and cleric can do worse than either of those specialists. The basic jobs of the cleric and wizard classes - healing/buffing, blasting/utility-magic - are all things that no other class can do.
The only internally-consistent reason to deny fighters and rogues the ability to cast spells by default is if you think wizards should never be able to fight (and clerics should either not fight or should use magic to make themselves equivalent to full fighters), which does seem to be the direction they're heading with Next, but which is counter to their design in every edition prior to 4E.
(The design of anything prior to 3E was internally inconsistent - wizards and thieves and priests could act like weaker fighters, but fighters could not act like weaker wizards or thieves or priests.)
Not true. Currently, the wizard is the worst at fighting (with the cleric as second worst), while (most) clerics are worse at sneaking than wizards (but fighters are better at ambush fighting than either, since they can deal damage if they get into
Not true. Currently, the wizard is the worst at fighting (with the cleric as second worst), while (most) clerics are worse at sneaking than wizards (but fighters are better at ambush fighting than either, since they can deal damage if they get into position).
In a campaign setting that is a white room with a loot tray on one side and a big red button labelled "monster" that opens a hatch with a monster behind it to fight, I guess you're right. Anywhere else this is totally semantic nonsense.
The basic jobs of the fighter and rogue classes - fighting, sneaking/skills - are all things that the wizard and cleric can do worse than either of those specialists. The basic jobs of the cleric and wizard classes - healing/buffing, blasting/utility-magic - are all things that no other class can do.
And this is a problem how? In any practical sense, the casters aren't useful in the capacity of the non casters without their spells which means it's working as intended. It allows us to account for the fact that human beings in real life do try to sneak around and will occasionally punch people without training, but the guys with training are the only ones that are actually effective with it.
The only internally-consistent reason to deny fighters and rogues the ability to cast spells by default is if you think wizards should never be able to fight (and clerics should either not fight or should use magic to make themselves equivalent to full fighters), which does seem to be the direction they're heading with Next, but which is counter to their design in every edition prior to 4E.
Actually what you're seeing is the fact that good fantasy is based enough on reality that we can relate to it. Magic in the D&D sense is outside of the human experience in the real world, so a fantasy setting where every normal person is throwing around magic in the D&D sense is too far outside our assumptions about what's real for us to relate to it. Of course, that varies from person to person, but it's easier to make things more fanciful from the writing than it is to strip things back. I don't entirely understand why that is but it's something I've noticed over the years. As a campaign-specific decision I'd be all for letting everyone have spells but as a general rule of thumb I don't think so.
Really, a better way to do what you're describing is to allow everyone to be marginally aware of magic, so people tend to know when it's around and they might even be able to influence its ebb and flow through ability checks but the ability to actually initiate something totally new they need the training. So in this case if someone encounters a charmed person, they'll know something's wrong but they won't know what, exactly or where it's coming from. Some exposure will reveal that it's the person and some intervention on their part might lenghten or shorten the duration of the charm or maybe loosen the restrictions of the charmed dude's instructions. The stronger the caster, the harder it is to manipulate the spell instinctively. They could then hone their skills (take a feat) which would let them get into ritual casting or maybe learn a spell or two.
That way, you reflect the latent magical talent without actually giving them spells, same way you reflect latent fighting ability without actually giving them maneuvers.
(The design of anything prior to 3E was internally inconsistent - wizards and thieves and priests could act like weaker fighters, but fighters could not act like weaker wizards or thieves or priests.)
How was 3e consistent in this way? I don't recall fighters being able to cast spells, and feats augment default combat maneuvers available to all. A few things are feat only (whirlwind attack) but most of them work off of things that all characters do anyway. The skill use magic device gives some wiggle room here.
In a campaign setting that is a white room with a loot tray on one side and a big red button labelled "monster" that opens a hatch with a monster behind it to fight, I guess you're right. Anywhere else this is totally semantic nonsense.And this is a
You know, this is possible in 4e. It's called ritual casting. And it doesn't break the game or anything.
To deny other classes the ability to use magic in a limited manner is just another manifestation of "fighters can't have nice things because they're not wizards."
Not to take a shot at anyone, but I find it interesting how many suggestions for Next are things that are already present in 4e and work well, but people either seem to be unaware of that or don't think it's the same thing.
I was asking a freind of mine where the "fighters can't have nice things" outlook comes from, and his response (tongue in cheek) was that fighters are jocks, and roleplayers got picked on by jocks, so we want them to be inferior to us, the high int guy, in our game.
Tongue in cheek, but I shuddered anyway.
I was asking a freind of mine where the "fighters can't have nice things" outlook comes from, and his response (tongue in cheek) was that fighters are jocks, and roleplayers got picked on by jocks, so we want them to be inferior to us, the high int g
In a fantasy setting not everyone with have magic- that's just the way it is. In Avatar: The Last Airbender only the benders could learn to bend. You didn't just wake up one day and decide to learn bending. In Charmed the only way to gain magic if you didn't already have it was to make a deal with a demon. Otherwise you were just human and relied on those magical if you fought in magical fights.
I don't think that just because everyone has a base attack bonus that everyone should gain the ability to cast spells. Spells are specific to spell-casting classes. I do like the feats which enable a person to play a fighter who can heal himself or one who can perform minor cantrips. I don't agree with the taking away from what defines a spell-caster a spell-caster.
In a fantasy setting not everyone with have magic- that's just the way it is. In Avatar: The Last Airbender only the benders could learn to bend. You didn't just wake up one day and decide to learn bending. In Charmed the only way to gain magic if yo
I was asking a freind of mine where the "fighters can't have nice things" outlook comes from, and his response (tongue in cheek) was that fighters are jocks, and roleplayers got picked on by jocks, so we want them to be inferior to us, the high int guy, in our game.
Tongue in cheek, but I shuddered anyway.
This is actually quite true, or at least seems to be. At some point in 3e, the Fighter was seen as such an underdog, so the inequality got highlighted. Not a problem in 4e (since everyone has the same chassis), and 3e did give fighter more and more nice things all the way towards it's end, but then something like Bo9S was derided, despite the fact that certain styles, such as Diamond Mind and Iron Heart had NO even slightly supernatural maneuvers in them, and all Tiger Claw had, was, what, slightly longer jumps.
This is actually quite true, or at least seems to be. At some point in 3e, the Fighter was seen as such an underdog, so the inequality got highlighted. Not a problem in 4e (since everyone has the same chassis), and 3e did give fighter more and more n
In a fantasy setting not everyone with have magic- that's just the way it is. In Avatar: The Last Airbender only the benders could learn to bend. You didn't just wake up one day and decide to learn bending. In Charmed the only way to gain magic if you didn't already have it was to make a deal with a demon. Otherwise you were just human and relied on those magical if you fought in magical fights.
I don't think that just because everyone has a base attack bonus that everyone should gain the ability to cast spells. Spells are specific to spell-casting classes. I do like the feats which enable a person to play a fighter who can heal himself or one who can perform minor cantrips. I don't agree with the taking away from what defines a spell-caster a spell-caster.
This...seriously single-class mages cant fight and single class fighters cant cast...I understand your plea though I personally love the Red Mage/Gish style...luckily though multiclassing will be coming soon and I bet you these forums will be filled with all sorts of gish builds.
In short...no, if you want a hybrid multiclass
This...seriously single-class mages cant fight and single class fighters cant cast...I understand your plea though I personally love the Red Mage/Gish style...luckily though multiclassing will be coming soon and I bet you these forums will be filled
(The design of anything prior to 3E was internally inconsistent - wizards and thieves and priests could act like weaker fighters, but fighters could not act like weaker wizards or thieves or priests.)
How was 3e consistent in this way? I don't recall fighters being able to cast spells, and feats augment default combat maneuvers available to all. A few things are feat only (whirlwind attack) but most of them work off of things that all characters do anyway. The skill use magic device gives some wiggle room here.
It is, at the very least, debatable as to whether 3E wizards are supposed to engage in weapon combat, (or whether clerics made for inferior fighters). Rogues were designed to be more offensively-skewed than fighters, but were intended to be fully equal in combat ability.
To someone who says that wizards are not supposed to fight with a weapon, it then becomes internally consistent as wizards only cast spells and only dedicated fighting-types are intended to engage in martial combat. Prior to 3E, wizards had to rely on weapon attacks because they simply lacked the capacity to cast spells every round, and there were no cheap and easy rules to let them supplement their spell slots with wands or the like.
How was 3e consistent in this way? I don't recall fighters being able to cast spells, and feats augment default combat maneuvers available to all. A few things are feat only (whirlwind attack) but most of them work off of things that all characters d
Anyhoo! Yes, D&D as a system has always sucked the big one.
Weird. I've always seen D&D as a system (and particularly 3E/3.5) to be about the most playable system I've come across. Very few fiddly percentile charts, lots of universal mechanics (d20 + modifier to resolve pretty much everything), just enough class features that each class has a reasonable list of variations from baseline without being overwhelming, enough abstraction that it doesn't catch on boring details while also providing enough detail to explain what's actually going on. Only a few minor quibbles that really grow out of proportion, and those are easily fixed once you know where to look.
Weird. I've always seen D&D as a system (and particularly 3E/3.5) to be about the most playable system I've come across. Very few fiddly percentile charts, lots of universal mechanics (d20 + modifier to resolve pretty much everything), just enough cl
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Post button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Ive removed content from this thread because using inappropriate language, or masking inappropriate language is a violation of the Code of Conduct.You can review the Code here: www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_...Please keep your posts polit
Actually, the target audience is the real movers and shakers of the world. No, not the Illuminati (they retired). I'm talking giant sentient hippos with flintlocks and fancy clothing! D&DNext will only feature the race "Giff" in the end, just you wait! The truth is out there!
Actually, the target audience is the real movers and shakers of the world. No, not the Illuminati (they retired). I'm talking giant sentient hippos with flintlocks and fancy clothing! D&DNext will only feature the race "Giff" in the end, just you
Loads his blulderbus and takes cover behind the Overturned computer desk- ' You'll never take me alive you buck toothed Hippo men! I got 3 copies of TSR book ever printed and I'm not afraid to join the resistance! The rebellion will not be televised!" -Pulls pin on granade with teeth.
Loads his blulderbus and takes cover behind the Overturned computer desk- ' You'll never take me alive you buck toothed Hippo men! I got 3 copies of TSR book ever printed and I'm not afraid to join the resistance! The rebellion will not be televised!
Actually, the target audience is the real movers and shakers of the world. No, not the Illuminati (they retired). I'm talking giant sentient hippos with flintlocks and fancy clothing! D&DNext will only feature the race "Giff" in the end, just you wait! The truth is out there!
I know you guys are probably (hopefully :P) just joking around but Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 5e's target audience everyone who is currently playing some form of D&D...i mean isn't the idea of this edition to get a divided community back together and hopefully win over some pathfinderers.
I know you guys are probably (hopefully :P) just joking around but Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 5e's target audience everyone who is currently playing some form of D&D...i mean isn't the idea of this edition to get a divided community back toget
Actually, the target audience is the real movers and shakers of the world. No, not the Illuminati (they retired). I'm talking giant sentient hippos with flintlocks and fancy clothing! D&DNext will only feature the race "Giff" in the end, just you wait! The truth is out there!
I know you guys are probably (hopefully :P) just joking around but Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 5e's target audience everyone who is currently playing some form of D&D...i mean isn't the idea of this edition to get a divided community back together and hopefully win over some pathfinderers.
Yeah, I'm messing around. I want D&D Next to give something to each type of player. If we keep being constructive, there's still hope for that.
I know you guys are probably (hopefully :P) just joking around but Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 5e's target audience everyone who is currently playing some form of D&D...i mean isn't the idea of this edition to get a divided community back toget
Actually, the target audience is the real movers and shakers of the world. No, not the Illuminati (they retired). I'm talking giant sentient hippos with flintlocks and fancy clothing! D&DNext will only feature the race "Giff" in the end, just you wait! The truth is out there!
I know you guys are probably (hopefully :P) just joking around but Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 5e's target audience everyone who is currently playing some form of D&D...i mean isn't the idea of this edition to get a divided community back together and hopefully win over some pathfinderers.
Thats the spin they are putting out.
Based on what has been prodiced to this point that seems to be only spin.
I know you guys are probably (hopefully :P) just joking around but Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 5e's target audience everyone who is currently playing some form of D&D...i mean isn't the idea of this edition to get a divided community back toget
Actually, the target audience is the real movers and shakers of the world. No, not the Illuminati (they retired). I'm talking giant sentient hippos with flintlocks and fancy clothing! D&DNext will only feature the race "Giff" in the end, just you wait! The truth is out there!
I know you guys are probably (hopefully :P) just joking around but Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 5e's target audience everyone who is currently playing some form of D&D...i mean isn't the idea of this edition to get a divided community back together and hopefully win over some pathfinderers.
Hey Doc. I got a bite, fish on!
To Failed Legend: Appropriate name for a Next playtester Btw.It supposed to be. And that would be nice but if that's the case why is there limited to no post 3e influence within it? Why are the last editions players being ignored? Why is Wotc using a 3.5 platform for a retro clone? Why did a over 100 page thread with over 20,000 views on 4e get entirely ignored by the company? They want to ignore them and see them go away - to the back of the bus that's why. This game isn't using the best of every edition of D&D to be great. This Game is using the legacy of D&D's past to sell a retro clone of a mix of Skills and powers with 3.5. with nerfed wizards and a simplified skill system. This isn't reto enough to intrest one group(The osr/ Tsr movement) or innovative enough to keep the current group( The new school 4e. movement). In fact as far as I'm concerned this game is equal to a bowel movement..
I know you guys are probably (hopefully :P) just joking around but Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 5e's target audience everyone who is currently playing some form of D&D...i mean isn't the idea of this edition to get a divided community back toget
Actually, the target audience is the real movers and shakers of the world. No, not the Illuminati (they retired). I'm talking giant sentient hippos with flintlocks and fancy clothing! D&DNext will only feature the race "Giff" in the end, just you wait! The truth is out there!
I know you guys are probably (hopefully :P) just joking around but Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 5e's target audience everyone who is currently playing some form of D&D...i mean isn't the idea of this edition to get a divided community back together and hopefully win over some pathfinderers.
Yeah, I'm messing around. I want D&D Next to give something to each type of player. If we keep being constructive, there's still hope for that.
I normally don't get involved into this pre-beta kind of stuff but me and my group are trying to play/give input as much as possible because we all like things from all the editions which we wish were all smashed together into a diamond of a game and were hoping 5e is that diamond
Also I hate to be sappy but the amount of vitriol thrown around in the edition wars is very sad...especially at 4e and I hope this does unite at least the majority under a single rule set.
The keystone of this hope of course is if they can pull of the modularity so everyone can easily adjust to their groups play style. Personally I don't thin it should be called 5e though because that implies a new edition just like any before this is more of a compilation...personally I like 40th Annivesary Edition.
One example focusing on modularity is prestige classes...I personally dislike the way they function (they halt your classes progression and require pre-planning) but I know others swear by them so no reason not to add them. Personally I'd prefer something like 2e Kits or 4e PP/EDs except they can be taken at any time assuming the pre-reqs are met (ie. Dragon slayer has to slay a dragon...than can further increase the bonuses he gets from his "kit, expereince,tile,w/e" but killing older more powerful dragons) this is where modularity comes in basically the PHB would have the various ways to ?level? your character...a few examples being Dual-Classing (a-la 2e), Multi-classing (a-la 3e), Kits/PP/EDs (a-la 2e & 4e), Hybrid/Gestalts (3e,4e) for the core 4 classes (and w/e the core races are) than as they release more classes and races those books would have options for the above except for the classes/races contained within the book...know what I mean?
I know you guys are probably (hopefully :P) just joking around but Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 5e's target audience everyone who is currently playing some form of D&D...i mean isn't the idea of this edition to get a divided community back toget
You see I also hate edition warring. In fact I am sworn to end it. That's the point. What's currently taking place withn the D&D Next playtest does little to effect the onslaught of edition bias as you yourself have seen and read. There has to be some muti edition cross gaming cultural give and take for the goal of Next to be a succsess. That is what I'm not seeing so far. And let me tell you I am not alone there.
You see I also hate edition warring. In fact I am sworn to end it. That's the point. What's currently taking place withn the D&D Next playtest does little to effect the onslaught of edition bias as you yourself have seen and read. There has to be som
Actually, the target audience is the real movers and shakers of the world. No, not the Illuminati (they retired). I'm talking giant sentient hippos with flintlocks and fancy clothing! D&DNext will only feature the race "Giff" in the end, just you wait! The truth is out there!
I know you guys are probably (hopefully :P) just joking around but Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 5e's target audience everyone who is currently playing some form of D&D...i mean isn't the idea of this edition to get a divided community back together and hopefully win over some pathfinderers.
Thats the spin they are putting out.
Based on what has been prodiced to this point that seems to be only spin.
This is what I'm talking about.
I know you guys are probably (hopefully :P) just joking around but Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't 5e's target audience everyone who is currently playing some form of D&D...i mean isn't the idea of this edition to get a divided community back toget
@Bright: To clarify I love 4e I haven't played 3e in forever and miss multi-classing and a few things from older editions as well (although I really only played those in digital game form, no THACO though...THACO was dumb) right now the playtets had really just begun the point where I'm hoping to see alot of modularity (see above and alternative spell casting) has yet to arrive but I love the flexibility of the cleric domains and the wizard traditions...the skill dice system I love...I wish they would bring back the reflex/will/fort system as opposed to eveyrthing hits AC and spellcasters have 2 worry about DCs AND spell attck..its annoying but I won't abandon my feedback until it's officially released than I'll make my desicion
Back to 4e though as much as I love it, there's one huge flaw its FAR to restircting my ideal 5e is a mix of 3e and 4e with a little 1/2e sprinkled throughout and of course some new ideas (I love {dis}advantage much easier than having to keep track of 30 different +1 and 2s)
@Bright: To clarify I love 4e I haven't played 3e in forever and miss multi-classing and a few things from older editions as well (although I really only played those in digital game form, no THACO though...THACO was dumb) right now the playtets had
@Bright: To clarify I love 4e I haven't played 3e in forever and miss multi-classing and a few things from older editions as well (although I really only played those in digital game form, no THACO though...THACO was dumb) right now the playtets had really just begun the point where I'm hoping to see alot of modularity (see above and alternative spell casting) has yet to arrive but I love the flexibility of the cleric domains and the wizard traditions...the skill dice system I love...I wish they would bring back the reflex/will/fort system as opposed to eveyrthing hits AC and spellcasters have 2 worry about DCs AND spell attck..its annoying but I won't abandon my feedback until it's officially released than I'll make my desicion
Back to 4e though as much as I love it, there's one huge flaw its FAR to restircting my ideal 5e is a mix of 3e and 4e with a little 1/2e sprinkled throughout and of course some new ideas (I love {dis}advantage much easier than having to keep track of 30 different +1 and 2s)
if you take all of what you cited and add Daily's and powers, you basically have Pathfinder with an even more simple skill system, Feat taxes and all bro. These are not exclusive to Wotc's ideas or design. This thing does not encorperate the best rules from each system or even their concepts. One whole group isn't being heard. D&D Next could be better than this.
if you take all of what you cited and add Daily's and powers, you basically have Pathfinder with an even more simple skill system, Feat taxes and all bro. These are not exclusive to Wotc's ideas or design. This thing does not encorperate the best rul
I am not willing to see a whole group of fans just kicked to the curb, again. that's what I see Wotc as doing. This happened to me in the 1990's. It sucks and it isn't right.
I am not willing to see a whole group of fans just kicked to the curb, again. that's what I see Wotc as doing. This happened to me in the 1990's. It sucks and it isn't right.
I am not a big enough fan boy of the franchise name to lie down and buy another product that exiles a whole group of the fanbase annexing them as ner do wells so we can win back fans that hate this company in the first place. I am the player who's been playing for 25 years and left Wotc because of their buisness practices. I don't care if this game caters to my playstlye perfectly. If it doesn't include the input of my brethren, even input I don't agree with: I'm not buying this. thus far it's double talk and it's nine months of yes manning and no show.
I am not a big enough fan boy of the franchise name to lie down and buy another product that exiles a whole group of the fanbase annexing them as ner do wells so we can win back fans that hate this company in the first place. I am the player who's be
Meh. This seems like a classless system. Although I might be a fan in a different scenario it's not what I want to see from D&D Next. Currently I want to see a balance brought to the martial classes. Mainly setting a 3d6 limit on MDD and instead giving out some encounter powers to be gained (I like the name advanced maneuvers). This brings back some familiarity from 4th edition.
Meh. This seems like a classless system. Although I might be a fan in a different scenario it's not what I want to see from D&D Next. Currently I want to see a balance brought to the martial classes. Mainly setting a 3d6 limit on MDD and instead givi
I am not a big enough fan boy of the franchise name to lie down and buy another product that exiles a whole group of the fanbase annexing them as ner do wells so we can win back fans that hate this company in the first place. I am the player who's been playing for 25 years and left Wotc because of their buisness practices. I don't care if this game caters to my playstlye perfectly. If it doesn't include the input of my brethren, even input I don't agree with: I'm not buying this. thus far it's double talk and it's nine months of yes manning and no show.
My take -I'm not interested in the game as it stands now and not hopeful based on their comments/direction---- BUT there's always the chance they might put out something worthwhile eventually.
Regardless of whether wotc gives me what I want there's plenty of other fish in the sea and some of them look quite tasty (13th age from what I've seen for instance looks RIGHT up my alley)
Keep ya head up Bright and keep them d20's rolling
My take -I'm not interested in the game as it stands now and not hopeful based on their comments/direction---- BUT there's always the chance they might put out something worthwhile eventually.Regardless of whether wotc gives me what I want there's pl
What tears it for me is Wotc employees get on to Tell people who are unhappy to stop. Rather than listen to them. Look at What Trevor did on the legends and lore update. The company has no respect for nor care for what it's fans truly feel is the right direction.
What tears it for me is Wotc employees get on to Tell people who are unhappy to stop. Rather than listen to them. Look at What Trevor did on the legends and lore update. The company has no respect for nor care for what it's fans truly feel is the rig
I am not a big enough fan boy of the franchise name to lie down and buy another product that exiles a whole group of the fanbase annexing them as ner do wells so we can win back fans that hate this company in the first place. I am the player who's been playing for 25 years and left Wotc because of their buisness practices. I don't care if this game caters to my playstlye perfectly. If it doesn't include the input of my brethren, even input I don't agree with: I'm not buying this. thus far it's double talk and it's nine months of yes manning and no show.
My take -I'm not interested in the game as it stands now and not hopeful based on their comments/direction---- BUT there's always the chance they might put out something worthwhile eventually.
Regardless of whether wotc gives me what I want there's plenty of other fish in the sea and some of them look quite tasty (13th age from what I've seen for instance looks RIGHT up my alley)
Keep ya head up Bright and keep them d20's rolling
Right. Why did I say I want D&D to go to Piazo? It's not because of their rules system, Wotc owns that. It's because of their attitude and buisness practices. They love and support their fans. Wotc craps on us.
My take -I'm not interested in the game as it stands now and not hopeful based on their comments/direction---- BUT there's always the chance they might put out something worthwhile eventually.Regardless of whether wotc gives me what I want there's pl
I am not a big enough fan boy of the franchise name to lie down and buy another product that exiles a whole group of the fanbase annexing them as ner do wells so we can win back fans that hate this company in the first place. I am the player who's been playing for 25 years and left Wotc because of their buisness practices. I don't care if this game caters to my playstlye perfectly. If it doesn't include the input of my brethren, even input I don't agree with: I'm not buying this. thus far it's double talk and it's nine months of yes manning and no show.
My take -I'm not interested in the game as it stands now and not hopeful based on their comments/direction---- BUT there's always the chance they might put out something worthwhile eventually.
Regardless of whether wotc gives me what I want there's plenty of other fish in the sea and some of them look quite tasty (13th age from what I've seen for instance looks RIGHT up my alley)
Keep ya head up Bright and keep them d20's rolling
Right. Why did I say I want D&D to go to Piazo? It's not because of their rules system, Wotc owns that. It's because of their attitude and buisness practices. They love and support their fans. Wotc craps on us.
Heh I was thinking something along the lines of WOTC/Hasbro is controlled by suits while Paizo is controlled by gamers. I had seen something like that from some insiders previously on other boards and that basically explains to me the relative success of the 2 companies at this junction.
Not to say that I like Pathfinders system - I don't as it's too reminiscent of 3.x but MAN do those folks understand how to support their system (unlike wotc/hasbro)
My take -I'm not interested in the game as it stands now and not hopeful based on their comments/direction---- BUT there's always the chance they might put out something worthwhile eventually.Regardless of whether wotc gives me what I want there's pl
He gets it. Piazo cares and they listen to their fans. They remind me of when I used to write into Dragon magazine BITD and Roger E. Moore would correspond with me within Dragon magazine. They love their fans the way Tsr used to.
He gets it. Piazo cares and they listen to their fans. They remind me of when I used to write into Dragon magazine BITD and Roger E. Moore would correspond with me within Dragon magazine. They love their fans the way Tsr used to.
I am not a big enough fan boy of the franchise name to lie down and buy another product that exiles a whole group of the fanbase annexing them as ner do wells so we can win back fans that hate this company in the first place. I am the player who's been playing for 25 years and left Wotc because of their buisness practices. I don't care if this game caters to my playstlye perfectly. If it doesn't include the input of my brethren, even input I don't agree with: I'm not buying this. thus far it's double talk and it's nine months of yes manning and no show.
The first part of the sentiment here is awesome and I totally agree. Ethically, a company should recognise that they have fans who want things and at least acknowledge them in some way. It also makes them money, so really it's in everyone's best interest.
However, I am really only interested in my own fun and the fun of my friends and while I think the company should behave in such a way that caters to their fans (or at the very least, doesn't leave some of their fans with nothing to show for their years of goodwill), I don't feel that so strongly that I won't buy something I find fun for the sake of folks I don't know, don't play with, and probably won't play with.
I don't really need the game to be anything but a ttrpg that is fun. It can resemble whatever edition or none, though there are some conventions that I assume when I see a D&D label on something so that's the real challenge.
The first part of the sentiment here is awesome and I totally agree. Ethically, a company should recognise that they have fans who want things and at least acknowledge them in some way. It also makes them money, so really it's in everyone's best inte
I am the target audience for Next. lol
