|
10 months ago ::
Aug 19, 2012 - 2:28AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2009
|
At the point where people liking 1e get exactly the 1e classes and people liking newer editions get exactly the classes from that edition... Why make a new edition at all? Those people can as well keep on playing their edition.
Because these different preferences can play at the same table. I have friends who prefer 3e, I have friends who prefer 4e. It would be nice if all can enjoy the same game together.
Yes I can agree on that. It is nice when people with different preferences can come together and play a game that they all enjoy. However, I don't think that this can be achieved by just taking the classes from each edition and putting them into a unified rolling system. It is impossible for the DM to keep track of all the class features, spells, specialities and so on. The classes have to be unified too in some way.
When different people play at one table there always have to be compromises. The group has to decide together what kind of game they want to play.
This is why I support the modularity approach.
There is one Wizard, pick the casting mechanics your group likes. Stick with that.
There is one Fighter, pick the basic version with inherent boni or the enhanced version with many options instead. Stick with that.
If your group likes to have both Fighters in the same party, sure go with that.
This is not the same as taking all the classes from each edition. It is designing a bunch of basic classes, that you can then add the mechanic to that you like and that is similar to the edition you are familiar with.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 19, 2012 - 2:54AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
This is not a good idea. Well maybe a module or something, but still not good.
There is no reason for anything like this, the types of classes availible can be made almost the way the player would want them as it stands now. You want the bashy cleric, War domain, robed priest, Sun. Don't like vancian magic come, try the mp/spell points Sorcerer or AEDU Warlock.
Rogue as it stands actually looks fine right now just needs more options.
Fighter is fine. Most people I've played with that play a fighter is to play the simple easy class or because thats the character concept not because of all its nifty powers.
ITYM "Fighting Man" HtH
Seriously, do people really want to go dack to 1974 terminology, it's confusing enough as is. (just spent my whole plaing with people who didn't know the diff between "bless" and "bless weapon" spells sheesh!
|
|
|
