|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 1:59PM
#131
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2007
|
2e-style dual-classing (the thing that only humans got) is frankly baffling to me
It's baffling to me as well, can someone actually describe how it works in noob terms?
Just how it works, but not the in-character justifications for it?
In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.5e should strongly stay away from "I don't like it, so you can't have it either."
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 1:59PM
#132
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Yes, how it works, and why you'd want to play one.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 2:03PM
#133
|
|
|
Believe me, as a GM since the blue box days I can ensure you that I could write many long and boring dissertations on the various flaws with this choice. But this forum is neither the time nor place for a high minded discussion on the seen and unseen aspects of game design decisions.
This is in fact the exact fricken time and place. Just remember this is a system based on the 3.5e system not the 3.5e systemitself. If you feel there are parts of the 3.5e system that we have yet to identify as problematic feel free to share them. Try not to extrapolate to much, or show all the waves these problems create in the system. Do not lose detail to verbosity. We are fairly intelligent here and can see the waves ourselves. Maybe go through and list in bullet points the problems you see, with a short 1 to 2 sentence explanation of each point, and we will see what possible solutions to said problems there may be.
There is no reason for me to elaborate. While you may be rational and intellegent this thread has shown that an uncomfortable level of support rules the day in these forums. Much as it always has.
This decision was already made behind the scenes to head down the 3e multiclass route despite the public perception of it and despite the many threads on this very forum saying no to that very thing. 10 page dissertations on the failures of 3e multiclassing will not do anything but further entice those who feel they must personally defend a concept rather then engender rational conversation.
The most effective thing I can do is not to buy DnD Next. Mission accomplished.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 2:06PM
#134
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Er...what?
Someone asks you to engage in productive discussion, to put forth your ideas and explain why you think the way you do, and you refuse?
Way to take the high ground.
And hold on here, since when are people having a personal need to defend the flaws of 3e multiclassing? Everybody posting here disagreeing with your "inherent flaws" aspect agrees with you that the way 3e did it was flawed. We just don't think those flaws are unfixable. You clearly do, and apparently refuse to say why. Well, one of us is right, and none of us are going to figure out which one if you don't cough up the goods, and actually explain what you believe rather than just continuing to rant at people who are claiming nothing more than the possibility that things could be better this time.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 2:09PM
#135
|
|
|
... 1e/2e players have given up any hope of the system returning to its roots. (lets be honest, they were never really intended as an audience for this game anyhow.)
D&D Next does target the “Advanced” 1e-2e players, Ae.
Partly for economic strategy. The number of people who “used to play” D&D in high school and college is huge. These are an untapped market, including many busy professionals, who have good feelings about Ae. This market seems the reason for the “nostalgia” marketing campaign.
Partly for the sake of tradition. D&D Next strives to “feel” like D&D, and this necessarily includes revisiting and updating historical roots.
Partly for the sake of designer bias. A number of designers are known for their fondness for Ae, including Mearls.
The Ae fanbase will probably see much of their gaming style in Basic D&D, when it crystallizes as fully functioning gaming system.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 2:17PM
#136
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
Believe me, as a GM since the blue box days I can ensure you that I could write many long and boring dissertations on the various flaws with this choice. But this forum is neither the time nor place for a high minded discussion on the seen and unseen aspects of game design decisions.
This is in fact the exact fricken time and place. Just remember this is a system based on the 3.5e system not the 3.5e systemitself. If you feel there are parts of the 3.5e system that we have yet to identify as problematic feel free to share them. Try not to extrapolate to much, or show all the waves these problems create in the system. Do not lose detail to verbosity. We are fairly intelligent here and can see the waves ourselves. Maybe go through and list in bullet points the problems you see, with a short 1 to 2 sentence explanation of each point, and we will see what possible solutions to said problems there may be.
There is no reason for me to elaborate. While you may be rational and intellegent this thread has shown that an uncomfortable level of support rules the day in these forums. Much as it always has.
This decision was already made behind the scenes to head down the 3e multiclass route despite the public perception of it and despite the many threads on this very forum saying no to that very thing. 10 page dissertations on the failures of 3e multiclassing will not do anything but further entice those who feel they must personally defend a concept rather then engender rational conversation.
The most effective thing I can do is not to buy DnD Next. Mission accomplished.
oddly enough no. We on this forum have at least a few times instigated changes.
Now given that they do seem to be particularly set on basing the multiclassing on third edition what specifically about that system did you dislike?
Yet again don't lose detail, or my will to concentrate on your post, to verbosity. Generally if your writing a 10 page disertation you could likely have said each thing simply then expanded on that topic via conversation. so reduce it down. Give the topics as bullet points with short descriptions (seriously like 2 sentences per tops) and we can talk about them. Who knows maybe just maybe, if you aren't a giant flaming **** about it, we can influence the devs to make it a system we can both like. You'll catch far more flies with honey than with vinegar and vitriol.
Continually saying, "The system is flawed, I could write a 10 page disertaion on why it is flawed...",says nothing about why it was flawed. Right now you are posting useless, ignorable, crap. Maybe formulate things into consise discussion perameters and we can open up a productive dialogue. If your just going to sit here and say, "Nope not gunna tell ya what I didn't like...", you are completely unallowed to be pissed when the company repeats the same mistakes. They can't know it was the wrong way to do it if no one ever tells them. Maybe you'll reveal a problem with it that can't be solved. Until you do find a problem in it that can't in some way be solved I submit that any problem within it can be solved and made better for this new system.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 2:20PM
#137
|
|
|
4e-style hybrids won't work because, again, there's no rigid AEDU system for alternating powers.
Nonsense. 4e hybrid expressed through Next's class system is a 3e 50/50 multiclass split. A Ftr5/Wiz5 is the same thing as a Fighter|Wizard.
Well, yeah, and if that's the only thing people want when they're complaining here, then it's the easiest module ever: just only let people at your table multiclass 50/50 from level 1.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 2:21PM
#138
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2007
|
2e-style dual-classing (the thing that only humans got) is frankly baffling to me
It's baffling to me as well, can someone actually describe how it works in noob terms?
Just how it works, but not the in-character justifications for it?
Yes, how it works, and why you'd want to play one.
I'll give it a shot, though I've not played one. One of my group did, though.
Lindsay starts a character as a fighter. He plays the PC through level 7, then decides he wants the PC to be a thief. So he takes the Dual Class option and switches. He still has the HPs and stats of a fighter, but the abilities of a Level 1 thief. He doesn't use any of his fighter ability, preferring to adventure as a thief. When he reaches Level 8 (I think; I don't have my book ready to hand) he can use his 7th level fighter abilities again without penalty to his thief class.
Why did he want to play one? I'm not really sure. He and his high school buddies were playing any time they weren't eating or sleeping or doing homework -- which, during the summer was most of the time. Maybe it was just because he could and he wanted to see how it worked. Or he wanted to make a 1st-Ed Bard (which the character did become, in time). There could be any number of in-game and in-character reasons for it, but for the player, I can't say since he never discussed it with me. (And we lost him 12 years ago, so I can't ask him now.)
In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.5e should strongly stay away from "I don't like it, so you can't have it either."
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 2:25PM
#139
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
....
That makes no sense at all. I don't mean this as a criticism on you, I think you've explained it well enough (maybe?), I just have no idea why anyone would have thought to include that in a rulebook as a good idea.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 24, 2013 - 2:27PM
#140
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2007
|
....
That makes no sense at all. I don't mean this as a criticism on you, I think you've explained it well enough (maybe?), I just have no idea why anyone would have thought to include that in a rulebook as a good idea.
I don't know either. As I said, I never used the rule. I opted for non-human multiclassing when I wanted to do more than one class at a time.
In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.5e should strongly stay away from "I don't like it, so you can't have it either."
|
|
|
