Community

Jul 23, 2011 -- 9:48PM, crzyhawk wrote:

When my buddy (who I played 2e with in Korea years ago) calls monsters "mobs" I want to punt a kitten.

LOL

Jul 23, 2011 -- 1:44PM, Haldrik wrote:

• I prefer its math light/image heavy dice resolution mechanic. 

The recent Legend&Lore article talks about establishing a simpler “Core” that uses more narrative and less math to resolve challenges. The system would still use d20 but minimize the math that the Core gamers need to track.

The 3e and 4e dice resolution systems are basically identical, and require little more than addition.  I don't see a need to go any lighter on the math than that (I suppose it's /possible/, there's always Phill Pholio's 'coin toss dungeon').  'The Math' that people keep talking about is more on the design side, something players only worry about when they're second-guessing the design.

• I like that it has lots of non-combat resolution actions available. The game feels like a lot more of it was dedicated towards non-combat resolution mechanics than 4e's very combat heavy approach.

The Core D&D would simply use ability checks to resolve all skill checks. But to it, a separate Skill Module can add. This would add a separate section to handle noncombat challenges in more detail. The advantage with the D&D module is, players can add on options to develop their noncombat prowess without sacrificing their combat prowess.

There's non-combat, and there's non-adventuring. 

• I like how it lets you build different types of characters, and choose what area of the game you wish to excel at. Not every character must choose to be good at combat, characters do not have a fixed number of actions (read: powers), talents (read: feats), or ability advances they must gain as they level. Rather, you choose where you want to advance at the expense of not advancing in other areas; you choose how you want your character to excel.

Not sure this is a good thing, because characters who specialize in noncombat options would simply be underpowered in an adventure that emphasized combat. And visa versa. But you say it works out balanced after all?

That kind of character-growth freedom is really nice.  It's harder to balance and easier to powergame, but with a strong DM and responsible players, I love systems that give high degrees of freedom that way, like Hero.

• I like how despite that it is still fairly balanced. In fact, I would say it is roughly as balanced as 4e (which is to say overpowered characters can be created, but for the most part things are pretty even in terms of potential, and every character ends up being able to contribute meaningfully).

How does it balance out, when having to choose between combat and noncombat options seems so dependent on the narrative of the adventure? It seems inherently “situational”.

'Balance' just doesn't mean the same thing to everyone.  It's one of the things I've learned from the Essentials schism.  To some, 'balance' is a matter of tight mechanical restrictions and trade-offs that minimize both intentional and unintentional abuse of the system.  To some, 'balance' means everyone at there table has generally had fun, most of the time.

However. D&D has no system to track permanent injuries, that simply remain until magically (or medically) restored. Albeit certain diseases seem to do something like this, there is no mechanic for physical injuries. The possibility of cutting off an arm with a sword, realistically poses longterm effects. Maybe an optional D&D injury system could trigger the possibility of impairment whenever suffering a critical hit?

The disease mechanic could be adapted to that.  Even 'permanent' injuries could eventually be cured by magic.  Past eds had no general rules for lopping off limbs, for instance, but a few magic items or monsters could do it - but, they did have a general rule (spell) for growing them back.