|
3 months ago ::
Feb 24, 2013 - 11:39AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
So there have been a lot of discussions about what should or should not be in DDN. One of the stated goals is to be able to capture the feel of each of the editions. Also, they have stated that each class (possibly each race) from each edition's PHB will be in the PHB in one shape or form. For the most part, WotC has kept their word regarding this, with hiccups on things like the Assassin being a Rogue Scheme rather than its own class and the Illusionist being a Wizard Tradition (I agree with this more than the Assassin). But how far should that extend? Personally, I think each race and class that was a PHB1 race or class in ANY edition should be available in the DDN Player's Handbook. For the most part, races only take about a page or two, and classes take only a handful.
In terms of where the limits should come from in terms of races and classes in regards to the PHB, that should and always has been a table issue. If one table wants just the core four races and core four classes, that should absolutely be an option for them. But if another table wants to play with the entire PHB1 suite of classes and races, that should also be an option with the Standard game. Shunting off specific races or classes into requiring the Advanced modules is a non-option. I think if WotC goes back on the initial promises that they made in terms of what classes and races will be available, they move Modularity into just being an empty promise meant to lead us along.
As for the versions of the game, I think they should go as follows:
Basic Game:
Dwarf, Elf, Halfing Human (probably with one subrace of each assumed)
The Basic versions of the Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard (perhaps with a set domain, fighting style, scheme, and tradition)
Standard Game:
All PHB1 races from past editions (ALL OF THEM), with 2-3 subraces of each (except human)
All PHB1 classes from past editions (ALL OF THEM), with additional options for each (additionally, I think a Basic or assumed version should be available as well, so that a person can add a Druid into the Basic game if they want).
Technically, any of the options presented here are in and of themselves modules. They can be removed if the table decides to remove them.
Advanced Game:
THIS IS NOT WHERE RACES AND CLASSES BELONG.
Modules to modify the Standard version of the game in some way.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 24, 2013 - 11:41AM
#2
|
|
|
Sounds about right to me.
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 24, 2013 - 12:18PM
#3
|
|
|
Sounds right to me too.
Why are we asking if modularity is just a marketing term, again? All the packets and designer quotes seem to indicate that modularity is a core assumption of the game, and that everything is module, based on DM (and to a lesser extent, Player) preferences.
A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 24, 2013 - 12:31PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
May 22, 2003
|
Yep, looks good. 
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 24, 2013 - 1:06PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Aug 25, 2007
|
Advanced Game:
THIS IS NOT WHERE RACES AND CLASSES BELONG.
Modules to modify the Standard version of the game in some way.
the more i look at it the more i start to think the moduals will be much like the options given in the 2nd edition combat and tactics and spells and magic books.
I agree that no classes or races should be introduced here.
but some alternative race or class options might be introduced, to help characters take advantage of options given in the moduals.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 24, 2013 - 1:08PM
#6
|
|
|
Sounds right to me too.
Why are we asking if modularity is just a marketing term, again? All the packets and designer quotes seem to indicate that modularity is a core assumption of the game, and that everything is module, based on DM (and to a lesser extent, Player) preferences.
And what is a "module" besides talk? Our thread starter thinks a race or class is, but DMs have always had the power to ban any rac/class or other that is not liked. Calling this a module is meaningless.
So far we have not seen an actual module even in outline. It has simply been an answer for when somebody says "I hate X" or "Y is broken" to say "You can use a module to take care of that problem.". Pure marketing.
"Module" has been a god word, able to deal with everyything, without explanation of how it deals with anything.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 24, 2013 - 1:15PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Marandahir, I titled the thread like this for a number of reasons. First, as a message to Wizards of the Coast to what it would appear to me like if they cut out specific PHB races or classes (the 4E ones always seem to be the ones on the chopping block) from the DDN PHB. They need to stand firm with their initial statement that all PHB1 classes will be in the game, and I think they need to apply that same ideal to the PHB1 races. There is NO definitive justification for cutting a race or class out of them game. Doing so, especially when targetting a specific edition for being ignored just seems spiteful. Basically, the message they would be sending is "Your playstyle and preferences are not good enough for inclusion".
Secondly, as a message to forum members advocating placing arbitrary limits on what other people want. It isn't like people advocating every PHB1 race and PHB1 class asking the world. It is something like 12 classes and 10 races, looking at less than 20% of the book. Given that this is less than every edition other than 4E (where there is no spell section to eat up 75% of the book), I really don't see the problem with having the full class suite.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 24, 2013 - 1:18PM
#8
|
|
|
The problem seems to be with people who mistakenly believe 'core' means 'mandatory'.
It doesn't. The DM can disallow *any* game element he chooses, regardless of whether it's printed in the initial book outlay or supplemental material, in a generic supplement or a campaign setting. You don't like it, don't use it. It's that simple.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 24, 2013 - 1:30PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Advanced Game:
THIS IS NOT WHERE RACES AND CLASSES BELONG.
Modules to modify the Standard version of the game in some way.
the more i look at it the more i start to think the moduals will be much like the options given in the 2nd edition combat and tactics and spells and magic books.
I agree that no classes or races should be introduced here.
but some alternative race or class options might be introduced, to help characters take advantage of options given in the moduals.
Absolutely, agree with the alternative options for races or classes possibly being modules, such as the spell point Wizard or whatever.
CORE MORE, NOT CORE BORE!
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Feb 24, 2013 - 1:31PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2009
|
Sounds right to me too.
Why are we asking if modularity is just a marketing term, again? All the packets and designer quotes seem to indicate that modularity is a core assumption of the game, and that everything is module, based on DM (and to a lesser extent, Player) preferences.
I have to disagree here. All the designer quots seem to indicate that modularity is a core assumption of the game. All the packets and every scrap of actual rules we've ever been shown seem to indicate that WotC is doing it's best to make modularity as difficult as possible to achieve satisfactorily. The core math of the game, the basic principles of the classes, any attempt at balance, and every socket I'd want to turn a dial in require rebuilding the game from the ground up to have any prayer of achieving the system I want. A game built with "modularity as a core assumption" would be designed with easily removable parts so that you can swap in different parts that you want with minimal impact on the rest of the system. Even the barest hints at modularity we've gotten so far (like average instead of rolled HP) have ripple effects elsewhere that are hard to account for (like gimping the feat that lets you roll twice for HP,1 and changing the fighter/wizard HP ratio to a non-negligible degree). Next is designed with modularity as a core assumption only insofar as it makes a great excuse for them to dodge the difficult design decisions and eschew looking for the compromise soutions that are desperately needed if they are to have any hope of uniting the fanbase in anything but name. So that's why it's worth asking if modularity is anything but a marketing term.
1 Granted, it's still useful for when you spend HD, but not nearly as useful. And if you also choose one of the optional healing rules that don't use HD, it really is completely useless.
|
|
|
