I played with someone who really like the scout class, and I know that ninjas a somewhat popular. I know Knights as class will most likely not make a return because of the Knight background. What I'm trying to get out is that I would like to know what classes are planned for a return, which former ones are now going to be delegated to background or specialty. Here's a character concept to try out, a fighter type character that is only proficient in the use of shields as both offensive and...
View full commentI played with someone who really like the scout class, and I know that ninjas a somewhat popular. I know Knights as class will most likely not make a return because of the Knight background. What I'm trying to get out is that I would like to know what classes are planned for a return, which former ones are now going to be delegated to background or specialty. Here's a character concept to try out, a fighter type character that is only proficient in the use of shields as both offensive and defensive tools. Another possible class I've been toying with is what I call Master of the Improbable this class is like a fighter, but so proficient with improbable weapons that the more ridiculous or improbable the weapon the greater their combat bonuses, I am aware that this class is what many might call a "joke class" however that's the point the class is their for comedic emphasis in the otherwise serious scenarios of combat situation, personally I would love to see a gnome female laying a smack down on a couple of orcs while dual wielding a pair of sponges, but that's just me. The point is I know Master of the Improbable will never be an official class, but a guide for helping make some of the sillier home brew classes or races would be nice. Also if you're going to divide 1 or 2 races into subraces that's bad form, if 1 race has subraces then all races need subraces. I went on a rant their earlier, sorry, but it still helps get my point across, I don't mind not knowing that something is coming, I just want to hear that its being considered for a reasonable amount of time.
I like having some example unique items pre-made in the books. Especially some throw-backs and classics. But they're usually more of a jumping off point for me. I like to design my own items and I don't particularly care for rules (and a chapter thereof) to tell me how to do it "the right way". I generally disregard these rules and generate my ideas. My players enjoy the weapons, items, and artifact I create, and that's the important part. I work hard to make balanced items that don't break...
View full commentI like having some example unique items pre-made in the books. Especially some throw-backs and classics. But they're usually more of a jumping off point for me. I like to design my own items and I don't particularly care for rules (and a chapter thereof) to tell me how to do it "the right way". I generally disregard these rules and generate my ideas. My players enjoy the weapons, items, and artifact I create, and that's the important part. I work hard to make balanced items that don't break games. I give my players my own unique and personal parts of the game - often custom tailored for specific characters. I am not opposed to having guidelines, especially for newer DMs, but leave them at that, and drop the expectations for characters to upgrade their weapons like they do in console RPGs. It ruins the magic. No pun intended. Honestly.
Except then You have to sacrifice your background and specialty choices just to approximate that class, rather than having an equal ability to explore different stories within the class as the Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard do. NO WAY.
View full commentExcept then You have to sacrifice your background and specialty choices just to approximate that class, rather than having an equal ability to explore different stories within the class as the Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard do.
I think in relation to paragraph 2 above, it would be awesome if a paladin had martial dice to use but instead of straight damage they could be used to provide effects based on deity choice. For example: I follow the edicts of a god of healing and as an option I can spend a martial die on a hit allowing the party member with the lowest HP to gain HP equal to a given modifier.
I agree with some observations. One thing that frustrated me to no end in 4ed was that players looked up to "Skills" section of their character sheets as some kind of choice menu. Considering that skill system is mostly used out of combat, in roleplaying situations - it felt like it was overly restricting. Furthermore, penalizing party for failures created a situation where players would pass on interesting ideas because their characters are unlikely to make the roll. I also didn't...
View full commentI agree with some observations. One thing that frustrated me to no end in 4ed was that players looked up to "Skills" section of their character sheets as some kind of choice menu.
Considering that skill system is mostly used out of combat, in roleplaying situations - it felt like it was overly restricting. Furthermore, penalizing party for failures created a situation where players would pass on interesting ideas because their characters are unlikely to make the roll.
I also didn't quite like the way the skills were always tied to the same ability score. I liked World of Darkness system idea of combining skills with different abilities depending on the action performed. Think the episode in Terminator 2 when the machine cuts open his arm to remove the skin - that would be great example of Intimidate (CON) roll. Or scaring someone by punching a hole in a wall beside his head would be Intimidate (STR).
I think that ability checks could work for all 'skill' checks. But there are two things missing from that basic approach. The first is that some skills really do require learning and, secondly, people can get better with practice. But I think it's a very simple prospect to address both while still retaining the same mechanic. First is to have a small list of skills that require training (acrobatics, swimming, etc.). There would have to be a mechanic for limiting the number and types....
View full commentI think that ability checks could work for all 'skill' checks. But there are two things missing from that basic approach. The first is that some skills really do require learning and, secondly, people can get better with practice.
But I think it's a very simple prospect to address both while still retaining the same mechanic.
First is to have a small list of skills that require training (acrobatics, swimming, etc.). There would have to be a mechanic for limiting the number and types. It could be similar to any of the older systems, or like feats.
Second, the modifier would be the ability score modifier plus 1/2 the character's level or something similar. Yes, that means that somebody picking up the skill at 10th level would be as proficient as somebody who learned it at 1st level and is now 10th level. But for simplicity (and you could argue that a 10th level character could learn faster and more easily), this mechanic would work well.
Combining a question from another post, I do think that a 'skill feat' should be separate from choosing a 'combat feat'.
Although players in my campaigns learned that I don't always play to their strengths, and the environment is a powerful ally or enemy so they tended not to min/max on just combat abilities.
It is a very smart idea to be able to incorperate both styles of play (TotM/grid) into one game system. Not only do you find both types of encounters (2 guards/big final battle) and both types of players' tastes. But it would create a great amount of flexibility in the game itself. That is what our imagination can do, now D&D might do it as well. I love the fact that a DM or module would have the freedom to say "You know, they would probably post a pair of guards." and be able to run it quickly...
View full commentIt is a very smart idea to be able to incorperate both styles of play (TotM/grid) into one game system. Not only do you find both types of encounters (2 guards/big final battle) and both types of players' tastes. But it would create a great amount of flexibility in the game itself. That is what our imagination can do, now D&D might do it as well. I love the fact that a DM or module would have the freedom to say "You know, they would probably post a pair of guards." and be able to run it quickly and effectively. Many a time my old groups tried to take out the guards quietly and flubbed the delicate proceedure. He he... Adding to other, often unforseen, complications. The designers want the system to be able to run with anything that could happen. Sweet!
This is intriguing, and I have to admit, I haven't really given much thought as to whether or not a particular encounter warrants grid and minis (I'm a bit of a grognard). This will be interesting to see. I'm actually going to start trying more TotM style combats in my games for the smaller encounters.
I'm a big believer in "Getting to Yes." Present the options, all the options, to the players, and see what they latch onto. Then build a game around what they are playing. If they want to play a Tiefling, don't screw them over for wanting to play the Tiefling. Build a story that will accommodate that choice. If the player WANTS to have risks involved with the racial choice (because those risks could be a roleplaying MINE, like having to wear robes to disguise a devilish appearance), that's...
View full commentI'm a big believer in "Getting to Yes." Present the options, all the options, to the players, and see what they latch onto. Then build a game around what they are playing. If they want to play a Tiefling, don't screw them over for wanting to play the Tiefling. Build a story that will accommodate that choice. If the player WANTS to have risks involved with the racial choice (because those risks could be a roleplaying MINE, like having to wear robes to disguise a devilish appearance), that's in the DM's power to grant, but the DM shouldn't screw someone over because their idea of fun is different than the DM's. Of course, if the player becomes a problem to the group, that's an issue, but the most important role of the DM is making sure everyone can have their fun. And part of that means providing all the racial choices, "ICONIC D&D" or not.
My campaign is quasi-historical, so I'm constantly saying no to races I haven't already distorted history to accommodate. I don't care one way or another about the frequency designations, because it should vary greatly from setting to setting.
~Yoda
View full comment
View full comment