|
2 years ago ::
Nov 16, 2011 - 1:57PM
#11
|
|
|
Hybrids would make this even more complicated.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 16, 2011 - 2:38PM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
The need for a hybrid mechanic exists only so long as you have too rigid classes. If core classes had about as many features as paragon paths (ok, maybe a few more), and didn't lock itself into a specific role, then you could probably build most character concepts without resorting to a total refluff of a class. While the class powers concept was innovative for 4e, I think many see that, like perks, more is not always better. I want D&D to stay a tactical game for combat, but I also want it to embrace non-combat encounters with equal fervor.
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 16, 2011 - 9:55PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jan 26, 2011
|
Hybrids would make this even more complicated.
In Skyrim you are as you do. For example, the more spells you cast, the better you are at casting spells.
At character creation you choose from 10 different 'races'. No matter which race you pick you are still able to develop your character as you see fit. Multi-classing, hybridization and 'pure' class has no meaning in Skyrim. That said, Skyrim is a single player RPG. DnD's current approach is to make a PC functional (currently a PC has a role to fill) and yet incomplete (i.e. no one is a one-man army of awesome) to encourage team play.
I like the idea DnD taking a different approach to the ability scores as well. Mand's suggestion of going to a d20 vs Defence system makes sense, but the level progression mechanic of the game will need a way to let the player feel themselves getting more powerful. For example imagine the scenario where a PC attacks a level 1 bandit and hits on a 10 or better for the given defence. When a level 5 PC attacks the same level 1 bandit and attack against the same defence, do they still hit on a 10 or higher? Let's say that you do agree that the defence score is intrinsic to the bandit, and therefore is not affected by the attacker's advantage in level. One would expect the level 5 PC to do more damage that a level 1 PC on a successful hit against the bandit. Therefore, the damage dice would need to level as the PC levels to provide the sense of power growth/progression. In turn, more powerful enemies would be generated by a combination on chance to successfully hit (the PC only ever rolling a d20 versus a target defence check -- Fortitude/Reflex/Will) and their pool of hit points. Nothing new or ground breaking here, but I believe that the combat system would work fine without the ability scores; thus allowing for their use elsewhere in the game system.
I like the concept of skill trees. A player must invest in one skill to 'unlock' a higher skill. From a player perspective this makes sense as a player is building on the skills he/she has acquired those skills would be related to one another. From a design perspective skill trees makes the power selection and progression pool much simpler to manage. For example a skill tree with 4 lanes containing 5 powers each, and you know the player will get 15 points at max level you can quickly see just what is possible to create. You can also quickly see what happens if the player invests all 5 points in lane 1 before investing in others. To imbalanced that way? Well then what if the PC can't invest in the 3rd tier until they are level 5, thus forcing the player to spend 2 points in other lanes. Skill trees also help address the power duplication issue. For example rather than having several caster classes have a very similar spell set, why not have those classes to invest in the a specific set of skill trees, with some of the skill tree overlapping from one class to another?
"Do androids dream?" Rick asked himself.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 20, 2011 - 6:36PM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Mar 27, 2004
|
I had thought the ability scores in Skyrim where hidden. Doesn't matter, as the skills seem to run along the line of what the character does.
5th edition really doesn't need skill trees like Skyrim or Diablo. It needs a more difined way for Feats/Class Features/skills to effect the character's use of his powers/weapons/skills. Feats can make Daggers gain a trait in the hands of the character, class features that add to the powers of the wizard, or skills gaining tricks at they rise in level.
Skill also needs to lose the Trained vs. Suck mechanic, having a way to train them as you level instead, to gain tricks. Like being able to pick simple locks without tools or being able to sneak in plain sight for a master of a skill. (Like how Nobby siddles in Discworld)
A mistake for 4th edition was that some feats were turned to powers while the ones that were left were muted. They were not changed to go along with the new design philosiphy.
Terms you should know... Spoiler:
Show
Kit Build - A class build that is self sustaining and has mechanical differences than the normal scale. Started in Essentials. Most are call their own terms, though the Base Class should be said in front of their own terms (Like Assassin/Executioner)
Power Points - A mechanic that was wedged into the PHB3 classes (with the exception of the Monk) from the previous editions. This time, they are used to augment At Wills to be Encounters, thus eliminating the need to choose powers past 4th level.
Mage Builds - Kit builds that are schools of magic for the Wizard. A call back to the previous editions powering up of the wizard. (Wizard/Necromancer, for example) Unlike the previous kit builds, Wizards simply lose their Scribe Rituals feature and most likely still can choose powers from any build, unlike the Kit Builds.
Parcel System - A treasure distribution method that keeps adventurers poor while forcing/advising the DM to get wish lists from players. The version 2.0 rolls for treasure instead of making a list, and is incomplete because of the lack of clarity about magic item rarity.
ha ha
Show
They will Essentialize the Essentials classes, otherwise known as Essentials2.
The new sub-sub-classes will be:
* Magician. A subsubclass of Mage, the magician has two implements, wand and hat, one familiar (rabbit) and series of basic tricks.
* Crook. A subsubclass of Thief, the Crook can only use a shiv, which allows him to use his only power... Shank.
* Angry Vicar, a subsubclass of warpriest, the angry vicar has two attacks -- Shame and Lecture.
* Hitter. A subsubclass of Slayer, the Hitter hits things.
* Gatherer. A subsubclass of Hunter, it doesn't actually do anything, but pick up the stuff other players might leave behind.
Future Essentials2 classes include the Security Guard (Sentinel2), the Hexknife (Hexblade2), the Webelos (Scout2), the Gallant (Cavalier2) and the Goofus (Knight2).
These will all be detailed in the box set called Heroes of the Futile Marketing.
(Though what they should really release tomorrow is the Essentialized version of the Witchalok!)
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Nov 21, 2011 - 9:22AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
I think generic feats aren't the way to go for future editions. I'd rather see feats trees that are tied to either specific classes and/or specific skills (and possibly racial substitution feats or equivalent). It's much easier to balance feat trees than letting each feat be stand alone. It could use a model more similar to Civilization technology tree, which allows for alternate techs to meet the prequisites (like the feats that say stat X or race Y). I would like to see the return of racial feats, or at least something that helps race make a different past 1st level. Humans need a new schtick to replace the bonus feat as well.
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
