|
1 year ago ::
Apr 05, 2012 - 10:03PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2005
|
One big thing that I think should be done for 5th is to go over a lot of the old variant rules and ideas that were used in different systems. What I loved about 3rd was that it was the edition of experimentation, my favorite books from that period being the Book of 9 Swords, Tome of Magic, and Magic of Incarnum. Incarnum was admittedly kinda messed up, but I give them credit for gambling with an interesting if poorly exectured concept, I consider it a magnificent failure and something that I would like to see tried again.
What I mean is this, when I was waiting for 4th edition I was hoping for martial characters that would be clear evolutions from the tome of battle, the idea of stances and set manuevers were very appealing to me, and the class abilities coupled with that stuff made some very fun and interesting characters. I also remember the magic systems from tome of Magic, the Binder still blows my mind when I read it today. It was something that was simple, effective, mechanically viable and had some very cool and interesting effects. Always on abilities that might require recharges, a kind of cost in what would happen if you rolled badly when forging the pacts. Hell, with some tweaking that could make a very good kind of cleric. The shadowcaster while a little wonky might offer a more easily balanced version of the wizard without moving completely away from vancian roots. The truenamer...well there might be some things that need to be rebuilt entirely, but again, nice attempt.
Hell, the warlock might even be called a more realized version of the sorcerer concept as originally written. What I'm hoping is that when the new edition comes the classes will feel mechanically distinct and also there might be some attempts to ressurect old ideas that might be very useful in this go round.
What I mean here is that there were some very cool and innovative ideas, and I'm worried that because they weren't core they'll be forgotten. If anyone else has any favored variant mechanics or ideas that they think would be cool as possible addons or replacements in the new system might as well bring them up here.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 05, 2012 - 10:06PM
#2
|
|
|
I'd like to see the Jester as an officially supported class.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 06, 2012 - 7:54AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
My likes and dislikes are mixed with regard to martial manuevers. But I do like stances in the abstract.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 2:01AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2005
|
My likes and dislikes are mixed with regard to martial manuevers. But I do like stances in the abstract.
I have to ask, what didn't you like about martial manuevers?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 2:41AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
Loved Incarnum, have an important Aasimar Incarnate/Monk NPC in my Planescape campaign.
I love alternate systems (here comes the Balance Brigade).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 3:42AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
I absolutely love Incarnum. It's a pity I never managed to play an Incarnum character due to the awfully bad mechanics and because of the obvious balance problems in the 3.5 edition.
Are you interested in an online 4E game on Sunday? Contact me with a PM! Spoiler:
Show
Reflavoring: the change of flavor without changing any mechanical part of the game, no matter how small, in order to fit the mechanics to an otherwise unsupported concept. Retexturing: the change of flavor (with at most minor mechanical adaptations) in order to effortlessly create support for a concept without inventing anything new. Houseruling: the change, either minor or major, of the mechanics in order to better reflect a certain aspect of the game, including adapting the rules to fit an otherwise unsupported concept. Homebrewing: the complete invention of something new that fits within the system in order to reflect an unsupported concept. Ideas for 5ESpoiler:
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 4:49AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
My likes and dislikes are mixed with regard to martial manuevers. But I do like stances in the abstract.
I have to ask, what didn't you like about martial manuevers?
I've been on dozens literally threads debating the pros and cons of the way they did martial manuevers in 4e. I hate to hijack an innocent thread that has nothing to do with that subject.
Let's just say I don't like plot coupons. If you want to email about it Archangel62 thats fine. Let's no distract this thread.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 5:05AM
#8
|
|
|
*Edit*
Emawasick is right. I just couldn't let it pass unchallenged earlier.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 5:11AM
#9
|
|
|
I'd like to not turn every thread into the same thread. Confronting Emirikol yet again about his issue with martial dailies is another step towards every conversation in this forum converging.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves. Quotation of the moment
Show
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game? Quotation of ALL moments
Show
TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon.
A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 10, 2012 - 6:15AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
I don't get the concept of warlock = sorcerer, yes I agree wiz and sorc need to be more distinct from one another, but warlock is a different beast entirely.
The way I see it Wizards have the brains, sorcs have the talent, and warlocks have the contacts.
The problem with incarnum was that it had a hundred little fiddly bits to figure out and keep track of, and was tied up in the alignment system. Fix those and we might be able to get something interesting.
Shadowcaster style mechanics might be adapatable to wizards, but the class concept itself needs a major re-tooling.
|
|
|