Community

Nov 13, 2012 -- 12:52PM, Diffan wrote:

No objection there, but it still begs the question: How will this be received at CONs and things like D&D:Encounters and other social gathering functions? I never attended CONs pre-4E so I don't know how much they went by the rules or allowed things like Alignment to be an optional factor. There was very little mechanical functions of alignment in 4E so I didn't have any problems what-so-ever.

And how does this fair with the Character Builder. I have to assume that it'll probably be converted or another one is made to make D&D:Next characters. Will Alignment be a build-in factor that's unchangeable? WIll it have the little "House" icon at the top of the screen when a player makes a non-Lawful Good Paladin? Will that even be an option at all?


Seems to me that it causes more problems and arguments being imposed rather than removing the element altogether and allowing DMs to make up their own mind on how to proceed with them.     

I don't have answers to those. My time in the Camarilla/MES has gotten me a bit gun-shy on dealing with another large RPG group (I really, really, really don't want to deal with childish drama when I game; this is something blessedly missing from my own local - and plenty large - gaming group). And I've never used a character builder of any sort for D&D characters; I much prefer just knowing how to make a character on my own, with dice, pencil, and paper.

Nov 13, 2012 -- 12:49PM, SleepsInTraffic wrote:

Nov 13, 2012 -- 12:41PM, greatfrito wrote:

Yes, the "expertise mechanic" is interesting (and simple) enough that it could be used for every single class - that still doesn't mean I'm excited to see it used on every single class (that isn't a spellcaster).  Honestly, maybe I'd be more excited if it was used on every single class, instead of "every single class (but not spellcasters)".  It'd be a simpler, and more consistent, game at least.


But, that pet peeve aside: Monk looks good, I guess?  Alignment restrictions are still dumb (but ignorable).  Ki stuff is weird to me, in that it doesn't interact with the expertise mechanic at all (and that just seems like such an obvious thing to do with it).  Static class features are generally uninteresting immunities - not a problem, just not something I care for in the slightest.

EDIT: Honestly, "Expertise" is just looking like the 5e equivalent of 3e's "Full Base Attack Bonus + Bonus Feats".

I feel you on the intigration of expertise and the ki mechanic, but at the moment I think I understand why they didn't.  In one word: Modularity.  At the moment I could build a class all my own and give it some of these monk maneuvers on its list were the monk maneuvers integrated explicitly with the ki mechanic I wouldn't be able to do that.  

That said I would love to see them in some way integrated.  Possibly an even better way would be to give the monk the ability to build ki points with exp dice.  something of an on your turn you may take an action make a check and then spend an expertise die to be able to roll it and gain half the rolled value as ki points.  Then expand the usefulness of ki points a bit possibly allowing them to gain you bonus expertise dice.  Kindof a take a turn to charge up and then be able to ruin some people the next turn, or run accross a lake in one turn.  stuff like that.  possibly make it one of the default "maneuvers" that only monks get/ I could give to other home brewed classes so that they can now integrate the ki points into maneuvers.  

What like about Ki and not total Expertise integration is it alows them to create abilities that aren't balanced with all manuevers. ALL Manuevers essentially have a power level that is supposed to be balanced between themselves. By adding KI abilities, you creat abilities that don't have to be balanced at in the way that manuevers are. They are introducing Daily (Ki powers), into their At-will (Manuevers) system. Which I am cool with.