|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 9:58AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
Here's a question, what if levels 11-20 were fundamentally different? Such as not having regular classes at all, which end at L10, and only having Prestige Classes or Paragon Paths at that point?
I think it would be neat if stats improved up to level 10, and then "epic" levels kicked in at 11. That's kind of like what edwin_su mentioned, about AD&D. Maybe classes advanced to level 10, with hit dice and bigger numbers (spell slots, CS, backstab, etc), but then the math just stops growing, so it never gets to a point where it's unwieldy, and advancement from 11-20 is by non-math methods.
Wasn't there a third edition concept where you would go epic at level 6?
Anyway, if they decide to overhaul the mechanics completely at level 11, then it makes sense to release that as a different book. There's absolutely nothing wrong with having a core game from 1-10, as long as you can kill dragons and demon-lords at level 10.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 10:38AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
I recall WotC mentioning they are considering changing the overall mechanics based on tiers, such that 1-10 would be the standard "adventuring" levels, but after that their scope changes such that a whole new set of mechanics may be needed. It sounded a little like the 1e name level concept, where 11+ would be much more about dealing with larger issues than that rampaging ogre over in Nexttownoverville. Perhaps classes only need to advance to level 10, and then a whole new page is added to the character sheet. Sure, it is similar to paragon paths and epic destinies of 4e, but if the concept was expanded, I think it might make for more enjoyable play. Rules/guidlines for building castles, establishing kingdoms, et al could be appropriate material after you've "capped" your class.
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 11:03AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Feb 10, 2007
|
Why don't we just bring the idea of tiers out back behind the barn and out a crossboow bolt in it's head.
The thing that makes D&D a bloated mess after a while is the constant addition of unnecessary class abilities each time a character gains a level. Just because a spell caster gets another spell to add to his list doesn't mean everyone else needs to add something to theirs too.
Rather than filling the player's hand book with a crap ton of garbage for each level of every class the space it would fill could be used for something else. that way they wouldn't have to split the game into a dozen core books.
If this happens I'm not too sure I want to be a part of it. They did this with classes and races I use and include in my campaigns in 4e, it was one of many nails in that game's coffin for me. Splitting them up or leaving out levels because they crammed a ton of junk into a 300 page PHB is not going to fly with me.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 12:21PM
#34
|
|
|
Why don't we just bring the idea of tiers out back behind the barn and out a crossboow bolt in it's head.
The thing that makes D&D a bloated mess after a while is the constant addition of unnecessary class abilities each time a character gains a level. Just because a spell caster gets another spell to add to his list doesn't mean everyone else needs to add something to theirs too.
Not that it necessariliy needs to inform what happens to the exclusion of anything else, but during 3.5, that many classes had "dead levels" - levels where a character doesn't get anything besides the HP/Saves/BAB that you always get when you level up - was unpopular and considered kind of lame, to the extent that one of the most heralded changes made with the revision to Pathfinder (as well as one of its guiding design principles) was the minimization of dead levels.
Does that mean that every class has to get something at every level? Nope. But it's likely that they're aware of the concept of dead levels and it's responsible for why classes tend to get stuff at every level. (For varying values of "stuff".)
It's also something that you notice a lot more in play than when designing a system as sort of a museum piece; leveling up and getting nothing noticeable isn't really that exciting (leveling up is supposed to be exciting), even if having a bunch of abilities makes the game look less like something you'd want to hang on your wall.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 2:22PM
#35
|
|
|
I'm probably the only one who will agree with you Jester but I actually do think it would work better, 1-10, 10-20, or so. I do think it doesn't need to climb beyond 30. In turn it allows each tier to work on different focuses, monsters manuals to have different focuses, and makes it cheaper for people who do not play certain types of games.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 2:40PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Hey if they have to design all tiers at the same time, they might as well give us all tiers at the same time.
That's like a person of your preffered attractive gender showing you the goods then keeping it hidden and away from you.
Why you gotta tease me, baby?
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 3:08PM
#37
|
|
|
Well if they did design the game that way then it'd make sense but I don't think they will. For a start, it's reinventing the wheel in a place nobody's particularly asking for a change. 1-20 is the traditional range, 4e did the 1-30 thing and that's fine too but really, there's a basic expectation in the player base that we're going to see at least 20, maybe 30 levels worth of game in the book.
Except 20 isn't the traditional range. It was the range in 2e. And 3e for all of 18 months before the Epic Handbook came out. But not 1e or 4e or Basic.
And one of the problems with 4e was the hard camp on level 30, when monsters and threats could keep going up. Because they made the L30 powers so crazy they made it impossible to keep adventuring. Even if Epic Tier had worked and been played crazy amounts they'd never be able to add onto it because they wrote that as the cap. Leaving room to add more levels seems like a good plan.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? Spoiler:
Show
My Webcomic
Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
You can follow me on Twitter: "@DnDJester"
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 4:14AM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Feb 10, 2007
|
Not that it necessariliy needs to inform what happens to the exclusion of anything else, but during 3.5, that many classes had "dead levels" - levels where a character doesn't get anything besides the HP/Saves/BAB that you always get when you level up - was unpopular and considered kind of lame, to the extent that one of the most heralded changes made with the revision to Pathfinder (as well as one of its guiding design principles) was the minimization of dead levels.
Does that mean that every class has to get something at every level? Nope. But it's likely that they're aware of the concept of dead levels and it's responsible for why classes tend to get stuff at every level. (For varying values of "stuff".)
It's also something that you notice a lot more in play than when designing a system as sort of a museum piece; leveling up and getting nothing noticeable isn't really that exciting (leveling up is supposed to be exciting), even if having a bunch of abilities makes the game look less like something you'd want to hang on your wall.
It seems to me that the thinking where every level needs some thing or people get bored or feel slighted isn't actually all that good an argument, especially if like in my groups no one really wants to play characters over a certain level or as in my case even eants to write adventures for them.
It's too much to keep track of it's time consuming, no one wants to play because it's too much work.
Using D&D 3.75 aka pathfinder as an example isn't useful since it is far worse in many ways. Two of my nephews wanted to learn how to play after seeing us in action one week end. The minute I dropped the pathfinder core rules book on the table and invited them to read up on the classes so they had an idea what to do they balked. The book intimidated them. I had a sinilar experience with a niece a few years before when I slid the 3e players hand book over for her to look at.
The only players hand book that didn't drive players off was the 1e player's hand book because it was slender and the classes were condensed to one page or so. The only complicated class was the wizard and it wasn't as hard to figure out as any character in 3e because you didn't need to commit reading and deciphering a crap ton of rules. unless next returns to that king of simplicity only those who really want to learn how to play and are not intimidated by thick books and complex systems are going to want to learn how to play.
My sister inlaw took one look at the playtest character creation rules and her eyes glazed over. She then went on to ask my brother to make a character for her. Admittedly she's not the most dedicated of players unless she is playing WoW, but she's the kind of person who would spend money on a system if it was easy and simple to use.
Honestly, as a player, and especially as a DM, I like my rules light and clutter free, and I don't mind reading 800 page game manuals. The third reason I gave up on D&D when 4e came out was having to learn yet another covoluted system, especially since I was competent with at least one set of rules and intimate with another.
After the atrocitie of WotC games design over their tenure I'd assume that they would have learned that over complicated rules with dozens upon dozens of niggling little rules and a mountain of options isnt the way to go. If it continues as it is they wiil have failed in their stated purpose of bringing all of us they lost to their competition and bad design choices back into the fold.
Its happening already.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 12:31PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Jul 31, 2007
|
Using D&D 3.75 aka pathfinder as an example isn't useful since it is far worse in many ways. Two of my nephews wanted to learn how to play after seeing us in action one week end. The minute I dropped the pathfinder core rules book on the table and invited them to read up on the classes so they had an idea what to do they balked. The book intimidated them. I had a sinilar experience with a niece a few years before when I slid the 3e players hand book over for her to look at.
To be fair, dropping a book in front of an interested player and saying "Read up!" is a terribly efficient way to kill that interest.
The best way to introduce someone to the game is to get them playing. Make the character for them, as you talk to them and figure out what they want to play. Then, let them learn the game as they play. Then, in the next campaign, they can roll up their own character by themselves, with the knowledge of how the rules actually work.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 05, 2012 - 12:48PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
My understanding is that 3e and later editions aren't any more complex than previous, only that players are expected to learn the rules instead of being completely at the mercy of the DM.
|
|
|
