|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 1:21PM
#41
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Honestly it is just irrelevant what you consider correct or incorrect or acceptable or not acceptable. If you have an actual logical argument for something then present it, otherwise your comments along those lines are just irrelevant.
You're right, what I consider correct or not is just as unimportant as what you do.
But as far as "actual logical argument" goes, how can you justify going aganist what the stated goals and intent of the developers are?
I'm not claiming 100% positively, absolutely, there will be no defaults. I'm claiming that the intent is that there will be no defaults, and that there is absolutely zero rational basis for assuming otherwise. There could be, there could not be. But you have absolutely no grounds to state with any authority whatsoever that they WILL do anything. At all.
You say you're 100% certain, and yet I've presented a direct counterexample to your claims (races and classes do not have defaults, and will not have defaults in Next), provided direct developer motivation describing how they don't want to do what you're 100% certain they will do, and described how all of your certainty boils down to unfounded assumptions about how they're going to present things that haven't even hit initial playtesting, let alone given consideration for book layout.
You talk about actual logical arguments - why should anyone believe yours, when it's able to be dismantled piece by piece?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 1:32PM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Sep 11, 2008
|
I'm pretty sure a modular system would be one that assumes a standard rule set to which modules can be added to extend or over-ride rules.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 1:40PM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
I'm pretty sure a modular system would be one that assumes a standard rule set to which modules can be added to extend or over-ride rules.
Almost, but not quite. Almost nobody will use just the core in Next.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 1:45PM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2004
|
Not really something you are going to notice, especially when you are having a blast playing the halfling fighter that you wanted to play.
I know that it would prevent me from ever playing a halfling two-handed weapon fighter, unless they introduced some other weapons to fit a similar niche. In my case, though, rather than the (negligible) decrease in damage, I just really don't want to ever have to say the name of that weapon.
I really hope they can produce at least the core books without the inclusion of such offensive language. I'm not saying they should Bowdlerize it, or something (even I would think that "heckfire" sounds worse than the obvious alternative), but there are ways to design a game with naming conventions such that these situations need not arise.
Bastard swords were called this name because they can't be wielded with just one hand.
The "bastard" part comes from the fact a noble couldn't carry a shield with this weapon, and the coat of arms were on shields.
Without coat of arms, you don't represent your noble family, then you fight as a bastard = bastard sword.
Bastard swords were strictly two-handed weapons.
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion
"Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe
"In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer
"Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition.
"you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"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 - 1:52PM
#45
|
|
|
Q&A Haiku Time!
Q&A goes soft...
 Ever consider
Specialties to multiclass?
Soft multiclassing!
 Different XPs
for different advancements?
Softball questions? Yes!
 Small player races...
What pluses and minuses?
Soft fighting, hard stealth!
I thought your second one was all around really clever today.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 2:10PM
#46
|
Date Joined:
Sep 11, 2008
|
I'm pretty sure a modular system would be one that assumes a standard rule set to which modules can be added to extend or over-ride rules.
Almost, but not quite. Almost nobody will use just the core in Next.
Exactly. Even if everyone that ever played the game used some combination of modules on top of the core, the core remains. There is a default even if nobody willingly uses it. I'm sure the company will be selecting a core that people would be willing to choose.
In organized play situations you don't have a choice and I'm sure that the developers will want that type of play presented as the default in the core rules for the sake of simplicity. The options they do allow will be listed after an assumed base rule set.
---
I think the devs are already getting tired of feeding us.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 2:12PM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
In organized play situations you don't have a choice and I'm sure that the developers will want that type of play presented as the default in the core rules for the sake of simplicity. The options they do allow will be listed after an assumed base rule set.
I'm rather sure that the just the core won't be the rules in Encounters, or similar events. Things like specialties and backgrounds will be included, and those aren't core.
They are expecting people to add modules. Most of the development work they've done has been on modules. They're going to be an integral part of Next, at all levels. Except for a small few who really want the most bare-bones of rules to hang their stories on.
And yes, this isn't how they've done it before. That's what makes Next so exciting.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 2:14PM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Sep 11, 2008
|
Now you're just being intentionally obtuse. That's what I said.
-Edited for clarity.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 2:16PM
#49
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
The options are part of the assumed base rule set. That's not what you said, no.
And please, don't resort to insults.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 2:22PM
#50
|
Date Joined:
Sep 11, 2008
|
In organized play situations you don't have a choice and I'm sure that the developers will want that type of play presented as the default in the core rules for the sake of simplicity. The options they do allow will be listed after an assumed base rule set.
I'm rather sure that the just the core won't be the rules in Encounters, or similar events. Things like specialties and backgrounds will be included, and those aren't core.
Same.
I don't mean to insult you. It seems like you just want to argue about this when I see that we mostly agree, other than the spin you put on it.
|
|
|
