Yeah, I really wish they'd release more low crunch worldbooks. Not every book has to have new feats, new spells and new classes. That was one thing I really hated about 3E/4E. Almost everything they created had to be minimum 50% crunch.
I've been writing History of D&D blogs for a while now and, while the setting support was amazing, it also created an interesting case of product bloat; a dozen products in a month to support the various D&D settings during the 2nd Edition era.
So, while I'd love to see all the old settings make a come back, I think the best way to get back to the story of those worlds is via online articles in Dragon and adventure support in Dungeon. Then just pick a different world each month, with December devoted to smaller articles covering some of the less popular and more obscure settings.
January - Planescape February - Greyhawk March - Dragonlance April - Spelljammer May - Forgotten Realms June - Dark Sun July - Eberron August - Nentir Vale September - Birthright October - Ravenloft November - Mystara December - Minor Worlds
Or something like that. That's what I'd like to see anyway. Not sure how realistic it would be.
I'd rather see they split the package for each setting over the year instead of concentrating it for one setting per month.
If they split it I have something interesting to look forward too each month, if they concentrate it I have one month of bliss and around 7-8 month I am not interested in at all due to loathing the spotlighted setting
Wasn't 4e called the Points of Light setting? And yes. A PoL D&DN supplement/conversion would be so incredibly awesome. I would really enjoy seeing it get supported.
PoL was something of a non-setting. It was intentionally a loose framework, so each individual gaming group could flesh it out as they saw fit. Fleshing it out would defeat the purpose.
The Points of Light/Nentir Vale setting and the World Axis Cosmology are really things that I would like to see supported. I don't think that the setting needs to left the loose style to get supported. 4E DMG have support for PoL, but it was still loose.
I do not have played Vancian extensively but I know lots of magic systems that don't have at-will magic and they do it fine. I think that the LoF needs to get nerfed. But I think that the entire Cleric class needs a rework for balance purposes, especially the Arcanist deity. The more I think about the Cleric class, the more I think that it needs a rework. They have many spells and good Hit dice and armor and weapons and Expertise. They have too many uses of Channel Divinity, without talking about broken things like some Channel Divinity options, the Arcanist deity and Battlefield Concentration. Right now, I think that Clerics should be nerfed. And Wizards now are underpowered, so they need a buff. Also I suggested a module/dial that removes at-will magic and still maintains balance. Some people would like that. Right now I think that every damage dealer cantrip should be nerfed. Their big thing is not the at-wills, they shouldn't rely on them too much. The at-will cantrips should not overshadow their others spells. Personally, if I would make the magic system of D&D, I would make classic Vancian the standard for most classes (including Wizard and Cleric) and then the expected modules. If some class existed in one edition in the PHB their concept should be playable. If some class existed in one edition in the PHB as a own class, then it's a strong candidate to appear as a own class. I personally don't like folding classes into another ones. Basically when two or more classes are similar, you can do three things: Leave as it is, Fold then into one class, or Differentiate them. Of Course, this have very much to do with preferences. I would prefer a game with lots of flavorful and unique classes than few bland classes with no identity. There is one advantage in class design that it’s not mentioned very often. The short version is: being a Wizard actually means something. I will try to explain this. A class is formed by several parts: It has the mechanics, which is obvious. But it also has fluff, flavor, description and legacy. Basically there are the stories about characters of that class, the class’s identity and all of such. To better represent my opinion, I shall bring to the discussion another commercial franchise: Final Fantasy. In many FFs there exists the Job system, which is really just a class system. Many times the Final Fantasy’s games uses a system different from that, but usually it’s a system unique to the game, and even so references to the Job system exist, so the Job system wins as most common system used by FF. Thing is, many people recognize FF Jobs, from classical Jobs such as Black Mage, White Mage, Warrior, Ninja, Paladin, Dragoon to less iconic Jobs such as, I don’t know, Jobs that only appeared in one to three games. Thing is, with considered time, these Jobs have all sort of Fluff and Legacy with then. Many characters not only use one Job, but also marked the series. When people talk about the Black Mage, for instance, not only they will remember the concept itself, but they will also remember all the appearances made in Job based games (which, in that specific case, are many) and also many characters like Palom from FFIV or Vivi from FFIX or Lulu from FFX. Things is, these Jobs marked the series and being one of them actually has meaning, because this Jobs have strong identities attached to them. The problem with classless systems is that, they are classless. What is a Wizard in a classless system? This really matter? In a classless system, is there some meaning in being a Wizard? The problem with classless systems is that these identities are kinda of lost, because being a Wizard is not so important, because being a Wizard does not have any mechanical marks and basically in a classless system, there is no Wizard by default, this doesn’t have meaning in a practical way. With class bases D&D, however, that is different. Being a Wizard in D&D has meaning, an when people talk about Wizards in D&D they will not only remember the current version of the Wizard, they will also remember all versions of the Wizard, and all characters and NPCs that are Wizards, and now, they will also remember the mechanical difference and the flavor, identity difference between the Wizard and the other spellcasting classes. This is something really hard to put in words, there is my best shot.
I don't think that Essentials was a smart move, but, in my opinion, one thing that Essentials and post-Essentials 4e do good are character concepts. I don't like the idea of folding classes into another class in the first place. Yes, I don't like the idea of folding the Warlord into the Fighter. Right now, I would make Vancian the standard magic system for most classes in D&D (including Wizard and Cleric). What people complained is the fact that the Wizard was Vancian-Only. If it was Vancian-Default, that would be different.
I had some thought on one spellcasting system. Spoiler:Show
It is basically composed of three parts: 1. The Standard System: The standard system would be classic Vancian. Wizard: classic Vancian, have to learn spells first, and then prepare them. All the 9 spells levels. Cleric: It would be Vancian, but with some differences, The Cleric would carry on the tradition of choosing spells directly from the class’s spell list, but it would have some old school disadvantages to compensate, such as 7 spell-levels for Clerics and Druids (and even less for Paladins and Rangers), and most divine’s spells would be about healing and support (the Druid and the Ranger can have more offensive spells), and, in general, they would have less spells, perhaps even having divine spells (Cleric, Druid, Paladin and Ranger) be worse than arcane spells, as I’ve told that it was like this in pre-3rd Edition. 2. The Flagships The Flagships are classes that represent one alternative magic system in the standard system. They, by default, are not Vancian, they use another system (with the possibility of using Vancian or other systems). Sorcerer: This Sorcerer would be a little different than the other casters. They would have the same spell list as the Wizard (a la 3.X) and they will use, by default, flexible spell-slots spellcasting (the current system. Very like 3.X Sorcerer, but with class benefits that make then different, a la 4th Edition. With regards to other classes, I would make Bards Vancian, but the Warlock is also a good candidate to some different spellcasting mechanics. Possibly the Witch (4e post-Essentials subclass) somewhere? 3. Modular Magic Systems And there would be a module that changes the way that the spellcasting works. This would be a module that has guidelines about altering the default spellcasting mechanics. The guidelines would consist of how the quantity of spells cast can be ported over, and from which spells they prepare, etc... Let’s give a proper example: The Wizard would be classic Vancian. Thing is, for alternative casting systems, the Wizard would have guidelines that would be something on these lines: “They always prepare spells from the list of know spells. In alternative spellcasting modules, he can prepare a number of spells equal to 1+ Wizard’s level, and the number of spells slots or equivalent is equal to the number of spells per level per day.” This is not something that will have problems of text space. All that you need is some short guidelines about which spells they can chose to cast and how much spells they cast. The rest of these mechanics would be stated only once, in the module of alternative magic system. The good points: • Not only every Vancian class would have an option to be non-Vancian, but also the non-Vancian classes would have the options to be Vancian. Why some classes in default would be Vancian while others not? Add some variety for the new players and players of things like RPGA and Encounter. That and many of the editions of D&D had it like that. • It manages to both being classic with classic Vancian and satisfy the non-Vancian fans with flagships and modules. The bad points: • Using alternative magic systems do not raise your raw power but make casters more flexible. The classes that are already flexible (such as Sorcerer) would need some more flexibility to keep up. No idea how to handle martial characters, although.
We should get rid of at-will cantrips. Spoiler:Show
Okay, now that you’ve got the first panic reaction, let me explain it. Yes, many people like at-will cantrips and they are popular. They have everything that it takes to be popular. However, I think we should remove them from the game, at least as an assumption to all caster classes.
First: At-will cantrips blur up the distinction between casters and martial characters, and makes being a gish useless.
Basically in non at-will cantrips systems there is an advantage in martial characters: the fact that they have abilities that they can always use. But if we give every caster at-will cantrips this blurs up the difference between classes, take out a huge advantage of martial classes. There is also the gish issue. Basically in non at-will cantrips systems, there is a huge advantage of being a gish over being a full caster. The advantage of have some reliable action when out of spells. At-will cantrips weakens that advantage. Just for you to have some idea I was talking previously about the possibility of the Wizard being weaker than the Cleric (some time ago), and when I quoted the fact that the Cleric is a gish, people talked that this is not important, that it doesn’t have such impact because it will use its at-will cantrips. Being a gish should matter. Of course when being a gish actually matters, we can rebalance the classes but it should matter.
Second: At-will cantrips go into the opposite direction of trying to balance casters.
Really when we are trying to balance classic or neo Vancian casters, why give to all of them at-will cantrips? Why we cannot use the absence of at-will cantrips to provide a drawback to balance casters?
Third: At-will cantrips weaken the challenge of resource management.
Really when you always have magic a great part of the challenge goes away. The possibility in being out of magic is not a bug, it is a feature It is part of the system, and this challenge don’t have to go away because it is fun. The challenge of running out of magic is part of the system, and fun.
Fourth: At-will cantrips do not fit properly under every system.
Really is not that I don’t like at-will magic, but I don’t think we should bake in every spellcasting system. In 4e it worked because it was part of AEDU, but now, they don’t feel part of anything. They seem to be an arbitrary addition to the game. The 3.5 Warlock was special because it was a class with at-will magic in a game where it doesn’t exist, otherwise, at-will magic. We can have at-will cantrips but it should be done it right, and not being a default assumption for every caster class. I’m worried if they are going to launch a mana spell-point based magic system for spellcasters. This system should not have at-will, no mana cost magic as default for every caster class, because running out of mana is part of the mana system. In Final Fantasy they even have no MP cost magic, but they do it right, and when they use no MP cost magic, it is special because it is in a game that is otherwise MP based.
It is true that readability varies from person to person. For some of us, crunchy rules text reads like a math textbook. For others, setting fluff reads like a history textbook. Either way, reading textbooks is pretty darn boring for a lot of folks.
Let's put this another way:
For some of us, crunchy rules text reads like a math textbook. For others, crunchy rules text reads like a math textbook.
LOL I've never had any problem in wanting to read crunch, but I often struggle to get excited about fluff and ever if I do make it through the fluff, it's rare I even read it a second time. So to me, it reads nothing like a math book. :P
Yeah, I really wish they'd release more low crunch worldbooks. Not every book has to have new feats, new spells and new classes. That was one thing I really hated about 3E/4E. Almost everything they created had to be minimum 50% crunch.
I like crunch book to have almost all crunch and fluff books to be mostly fluff. Or at least have a clear divide between them. I could live with a setting book that had the first half one and the second half the other if it was cheaper that a fluff book + a crunch book.
OK assuming (based on the lat 2 issues of Dragon and Dungeon) 9 articles in Dragon and 3 adventrues Dungeon; how about we break down the month content something like the following. This would provide good generic content every month and specific setting content every 4 months with on of those months being heavily skewed to a particular setting.
Yeah, I really wish they'd release more low crunch worldbooks. Not every book has to have new feats, new spells and new classes. That was one thing I really hated about 3E/4E. Almost everything they created had to be minimum 50% crunch.
And that was something I liked, because it gave me things to use in games even if they weren't taking place in that campaign world
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Yeah, I really wish they'd release more low crunch worldbooks. Not every book has to have new feats, new spells and new classes. That was one thing I really hated about 3E/4E. Almost everything they created had to be minimum 50% crunch.
And that was something I liked, because it gave me things to use in games even if they weren't taking place in that campaign world
I agree, it totally made sense to publish the Swordmage in the Forgotten Realms books. Everybody should have to pay 30$ (or 15$/months for an insider subscription) to get their hands on this one. And as a bonus, those guys got 250 pages of high quality books (out of 255) to use as toilet paper because they couldn't care less about the Forgotten Realms.
Yeah, I really wish they'd release more low crunch worldbooks. Not every book has to have new feats, new spells and new classes. That was one thing I really hated about 3E/4E. Almost everything they created had to be minimum 50% crunch.
And that was something I liked, because it gave me things to use in games even if they weren't taking place in that campaign world
I agree, it totally made sense to publish the Swordmage in the Forgotten Realms books. Everybody should have to pay 30$ (or 15$/months for an insider subscription) to get their hands on this one. And as a bonus, those guys got 250 pages of high quality books (out of 255) to use as toilet paper because they couldn't care less about the Forgotten Realms.
I have to agree. I can care less about forgotten realms (For me the Spellplague was the best idea for a campaign setting since the genocide of gnomes in Dark Sun, to give an idea), and my beloved shielding swordmage was lost in in this FR book. And the class wasn't even part of the FR mythos, as spellsinger was its own class.
Concepts like swordmages, playable golems or playable dopplegangers are general enough to be accessible in a general game books.
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion "Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe "In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer "Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition. "you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'" - Gary Gygax
I agree, it totally made sense to publish the Swordmage in the Forgotten Realms books. Everybody should have to pay 30$ (or 15$/months for an insider subscription) to get their hands on this one. And as a bonus, those guys got 250 pages of high quality books (out of 255) to use as toilet paper because they couldn't care less about the Forgotten Realms.
I've imagine adding 'banners' for each setting, in addition to the normal monthly articles that appear in D&D Insider. That is, there would a section set aside (if you will) for Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Dark Sun, Eberron and so on.
Under each banner would be online supplements; something like 'Cormyr' (a location supplement) for Forgotten Realms, 'Orders of High Sorcery' (a class supplement) for Dragonlance, 'The Veiled Alliance' (an organization supplement) for Dark Sun. And so on, until eventually there would be an entire library of world supplements to choose from.
The supplements could originally be published as a series of monthly DDI articles, then compiled and placed under their respective banners later (easy to find and always available).
So in addition to the ezines and the online tools, DDI would be the place to find D&D world supplements. It's a bit more involved then just producing the ezines I s'pose but that's the gist of it. Definitely do-able I imagine.
