I just realised I may not have been clear in my short reply. What I meant was that I understand D&D is not all simulation, and that it is a game, but it has always held a level of believability, regardless of whether the topic was magic or fantasy. The mechanics are all designed to in some way mimic or emulate life in some way (or a specific concept of life), but whenever abstraction is used, it is always done to turn something that is purely a game mechanic into something we should...
View full commentI just realised I may not have been clear in my short reply. What I meant was that I understand D&D is not all simulation, and that it is a game, but it has always held a level of believability, regardless of whether the topic was magic or fantasy. The mechanics are all designed to in some way mimic or emulate life in some way (or a specific concept of life), but whenever abstraction is used, it is always done to turn something that is purely a game mechanic into something we should "believe" approximates something we can consider "yep, that's possible". So if we abstract away AC and we are told "That's not just hits, that's glances and misses as well because your moving", then we can see some core of realism or understanding that allows us to maintain the suspension of disbelief.
I think HP just doesn't fit this possibility... there are too many disjointed concepts that have been lumped together and called "HP". For my own personal taste, I think it is too far from something I can conceive of being realistic that it breaks my ability to believe it is meant to relate to anything other than a game mechanic.
But I could wrap my head around it and accept it for what it is.. a game mechanic in a board game... But when they introduced martial healing, where an average lay person with absolutely no magical ability at all was now able to "heal" someone, that was just going too far. Now it was blatantly obvious it was a game mechanic, and all credibility of it being an abstraction covering life and will power and life force just went out the window.
They didn't add martial healing because it made sense, they added it to fill in a game mechanic hole, and I think they overstretched. Yes its needed, but to an extent... if you go too far, then this just becomes a board game and loses the realism that made it great, and I think getting into martial healing is going too far down the path of being a board game. It was the BAD pat about 4E
I think each class having the maneuver mechanic should have a different die size equal to the size of his hit dice: example, the fighter should have 6 d10 expert dice at high levels, when the monk has 6 d8 and the rogue 6d6. Also, on the subject of weapon choices, every characters had time only to learn two (2) weapons in the list given to his class, except for the fighter, who his better trained with weapons, who learns how to use two groups of similar weapons. His damage with such a...
View full commentI think each class having the maneuver mechanic should have a different die size equal to the size of his hit dice: example, the fighter should have 6 d10 expert dice at high levels, when the monk has 6 d8 and the rogue 6d6.
Also, on the subject of weapon choices, every characters had time only to learn two (2) weapons in the list given to his class, except for the fighter, who his better trained with weapons, who learns how to use two groups of similar weapons. His damage with such a weapon are one dice size better than other character using the same weaapon: example, a longsword in his hands do 1d12 damage while in the hand of a rogue it will do 1d10. Melee weapons groups: blades, axes, flails, polearms (including quaterstaff), maces (including hammers), pikes. Ranged weapons: Thrown, Flails, Slings, crossbows, bows, siege machines.
Thirdly, fighters styles should be related to his weapon of choices, while the paladin styles should be related to his actions. Example: a fighter is an archer or a axeman, or a swordman, etc. A paladin is a defender or a slayer or cavalier, or a knight, etc.
To clarify, there is no difference between background and profession. More skills are needed, but profession is a category which helps define the character's skills. A woodcutter, for example, would be recommended to have the skills Climb, Drive, Gather Information, Plants Knowledge and Use Rope, while the ability of a woodcutter to fell trees would be described narratively, without specifying restrictive limits such as how long it takes or how much damage a falling tree would do. A character...
View full commentTo clarify, there is no difference between background and profession. More skills are needed, but profession is a category which helps define the character's skills. A woodcutter, for example, would be recommended to have the skills Climb, Drive, Gather Information, Plants Knowledge and Use Rope, while the ability of a woodcutter to fell trees would be described narratively, without specifying restrictive limits such as how long it takes or how much damage a falling tree would do. A character with two or more professions would use class feature substitution, noted under career path, training or what you may call it, to get more skills than the 6 or 8 options normally available. Similar substitutions available at more specific points in one's career could grant the character other races' traits, religious ordination, a bonus to a specific skill area such as desert survival or dragons, or more general scholarly expertise. It is encouraging to see skills of narrow scope such as Diplomacy and Use Rope emphasized.
Because the trope its generally trying to cater to is not a generic 'Protection' effect. Protection from Good/Evil/Neutrality was actually more of a Protection from the Supernatural effect. It generally didn't and never would affect non-magical beings, no matter what their alignment even in the 1e D&D game. Extraplanar creatures were effected, and they were classified by their alignments generally, because in 1e, among other things, there were distinct alignment planes of existence that...
View full commentBecause the trope its generally trying to cater to is not a generic 'Protection' effect. Protection from Good/Evil/Neutrality was actually more of a Protection from the Supernatural effect. It generally didn't and never would affect non-magical beings, no matter what their alignment even in the 1e D&D game. Extraplanar creatures were effected, and they were classified by their alignments generally, because in 1e, among other things, there were distinct alignment planes of existence that represented the various power sources of these extra planar creatures.
A generic 'Protection' spell could work, I guess, if you just said it protected you from 'Summoned and other worldly creatures and the Undead' and then you'd probably call it 'Circle of Protection' like many other games do. If your being chased by Good NPCs or Evil ones, the Protection spell shouldn't be the way to go anyway...based on what the spell really generally conceptually meant. Its like throwing down a circle of salt...any person can break that circle, but a Zombie can't cross!
Okay, first of all, Adam never rode Cringer, so there's no reason to mention him on the list. Furthermore, it's rude and possibly a little sexist for you to mention Battle Cat and completely ignore She-Ra's Spirit/Swift Wind (and yes, Adora actually did ride Spirit, so it makes more sense to mention him than Cringer). Anyway, I vote for the Luggage from Discworld. Not the most reliable of mounts, but it did get its owner from place to place in a hurry every now and then.
View full commentOkay, first of all, Adam never rode Cringer, so there's no reason to mention him on the list. Furthermore, it's rude and possibly a little sexist for you to mention Battle Cat and completely ignore She-Ra's Spirit/Swift Wind (and yes, Adora actually did ride Spirit, so it makes more sense to mention him than Cringer).
Anyway, I vote for the Luggage from Discworld. Not the most reliable of mounts, but it did get its owner from place to place in a hurry every now and then.
I am thinking mostly spelljammer which was part a riff on Classical metaphysics and and part a vision in black light and velvet in a wood paneled basement.
Personally my biggest peeve with the treatment of faeries in 4e is the idea that faeries are necessarily wild. This is certainly true of some of them, but not all. Some faeries are rather civilized, albeit in a somewhat alien fashion. Personally I also think that trying to have each kind of fey be a specific category or kind is something of a mistake. Sure there are identifiable kinds of faerie, like satyrs or pixies or whatever. However, sometimes a faerie is just a faerie, with it's own...
View full commentPersonally my biggest peeve with the treatment of faeries in 4e is the idea that faeries are necessarily wild. This is certainly true of some of them, but not all. Some faeries are rather civilized, albeit in a somewhat alien fashion.
Personally I also think that trying to have each kind of fey be a specific category or kind is something of a mistake. Sure there are identifiable kinds of faerie, like satyrs or pixies or whatever. However, sometimes a faerie is just a faerie, with it's own unique attributes that doesn't fit into any other category.
MORE FEYWILD!!!! i personally enjoy the Feywild as a "wild"plane. Although i think it needs more "wild". Tiny Fey are completely neccesary but not Wild enough. One last thing OWLBEARS FOR EVER!!!!!
View full commentMORE FEYWILD!!!!
i personally enjoy the Feywild as a "wild"plane. Although i think it needs more "wild". Tiny Fey are completely neccesary but not Wild enough.
One last thing OWLBEARS FOR EVER!!!!!
I am not sure I will go through with it; I was just brainstorming. I was going for a noirish type of set up. I like demons as primal spirits, because there is a surplus of bad guy elemental types (giants, efrets, archons), not enough primal spirit bad guys, and Balors aside, they don't look very elemental. Besides, the notion that nature is out of whack has some storytelling potential.
View full commentI am not sure I will go through with it; I was just brainstorming. I was going for a noirish type of set up.
I like demons as primal spirits, because there is a surplus of bad guy elemental types (giants, efrets, archons), not enough primal spirit bad guys, and Balors aside, they don't look very elemental. Besides, the notion that nature is out of whack has some storytelling potential.
I am Not a Fan of the Monk alignment requirement or alignment requirements for classes in general. Personally, I prefer giving players more options and do not like limiting an entire class to a specific alignment. I think alignment restrictions are fine for prestige classes which can be tied to a specific story or for classes in specific campaign settings where it is tied to story. Also just to be clear, I am not a rules purist and will have no problem allowing my players to play...
View full commentI am Not a Fan of the Monk alignment requirement or alignment requirements for classes in general.
Personally, I prefer giving players more options and do not like limiting an entire class to a specific alignment. I think alignment restrictions are fine for prestige classes which can be tied to a specific story or for classes in specific campaign settings where it is tied to story.
Also just to be clear, I am not a rules purist and will have no problem allowing my players to play chaotic monks regardless of rules alignment restrictions, but I do feel there is a tipping-point.
Other notes about my group’s playtest experience – Two players in our 6 player game played Monks and were happy with the class and it’s feel. Our rouge was less impressed and thought the class felt flat. Our Wizard enjoyed the class and spell casting but felt they needed slightly more spells per-day and the damage values of spells are not balanced – Magic Missile too good, Cone of Cold too weak. Our fighter felt the concept of maneuvers and expertise dice was good, but the particulars of specific maneuvers weren’t balanced (Cleave vs. Whirlwind attack)
The Cleric was our least favorite class – our player and group could see no reason for the cleric having horrible attack bonuses with weapons and spells and even worst save bonus. Also the number of Cleric spells per day is way too small. The Cleric needs to be able to heal, cast spells that feel combat effective, and cast out-of-combat spells, yet the Cleric’s at-will spell are only situationally useful, 2 spells per-day of other levels, and have to prepare spells to cast them as rituals. It really doesn’t make sense – the current system makes Clerics crummy at Melee, crummy at spell-casting (mediocre at healing), and crummy at out of combat spell-casting.
View full comment