New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 27 of 50 FirstFirst ... 2171819202122232425262728293031323334353637 ... LastLast
Results 781 to 810 of 1492
  1. - Top - End - #781
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New York
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by RedWarlock View Post
    It's also a game I would have trouble buying. I mainly pick up new books for mechanical options (races in particular), not story or setting, because I don't need to pay $30 a pop for what I can just write for myself or scavenge from novels.
    I feel ya, but I wonder if you might not be in a vocal minority? I could be wrong, but I would guess a lot of D&D fans want story and setting, not just mechanics.

    It is my conjecture that the term "Dungeons & Dragons" evokes a great deal of flavor in most people's minds, and they buy into the game as much for that flavor (i.e. "fluff") as much, or perhaps moreso, than for the mechanics.

    Just a gut feeling, obviously.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yora View Post
    Not really... I'd rather say it's taking the best parts of 3rd Edition, but changing them so the game is overall more similar to 2nd Edition.

    <I spoiler'ed Yora's description for size considerations>

    Spoiler
    Show
    It is very similar to 3rd Edition is many, maybe even most ways. The main difference is, that base attack bonus and saving throws do not increase with every level. Base attack bonus increases very slowly and there are no saving throw bonuses at all. Instead you simply roll 1d20 plus your ability modifier and in many situations, you do not use just Dexterity, Constitution, and Wisdom, but sometimes also Strength, Intelligence, or Charisma when it makes most sense.
    The skills are very similar to 3rd Edition as well, but there are no skill points. Instead you start with 3 skills that have a modifier of +3 plus ability modifier. Rogues start with 6 skills. A system to learn new skills later on is not yet really there (there are ways, but they are really not much developed yet).
    Feats are just as they always were.

    And I guess that's really 90% of the game as in the current test version.
    Small point - they more or less got rid of Saving Throws (no more Will / Reflex / Fortitude) and instead replaced them with reaction ability checks.
    Last edited by JoeMac307; 2012-09-06 at 01:38 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #782
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    RedWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeMac307 View Post
    I feel ya, but I wonder if you might not be in a vocal minority? I could be wrong, but I would guess a lot of D&D fans want story and setting, not just mechanics.

    It is my conjecture that the term "Dungeons & Dragons" evokes a great deal of flavor in most people's minds, and they buy into the game as much for that flavor (i.e. "fluff") as much, or perhaps moreso, than for the mechanics.

    Just a gut feeling, obviously..
    Well, it's more that I feel story and setting goes hand-in-hand with mechanics. You need both for any book to be a worthwhile addition.

  3. - Top - End - #783
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeMac307 View Post
    I feel ya, but I wonder if you might not be in a vocal minority? I could be wrong, but I would guess a lot of D&D fans want story and setting, not just mechanics.

    It is my conjecture that the term "Dungeons & Dragons" evokes a great deal of flavor in most people's minds, and they buy into the game as much for that flavor (i.e. "fluff") as much, or perhaps moreso, than for the mechanics.

    Just a gut feeling, obviously.
    This sort of discussion has come up before, actually. WotC's sales numbers for their 3e books show that mostly-crunch books outsold mostly-fluff books by a large margin, with the exception of main campaign setting books. I'll see if I can find the discussion again (a bunch of forums are blocked at work), but maybe someone else can link them in the meantime.

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeMac307 View Post
    It seems a lot of the discussion on this thread revolves around optimization and how the designers can handle that.

    I wonder, when did this phenomenon of optimization first start? Has it been a part of the game since the outset? Or has it really taken off since the rise of the internet (and boards/forums on optimizing builds) coupled with D&D 3.x, with easy multi-classing and a 100,000 PrCs?
    My group, at least, has been optimizing to the extent possible since 1e. The level of customization in 1e is nowhere near that of 3e or 4e, but there were still splatbooks, there were still differences between class power (cavalier, anyone?), you could craft items, you could seek out specific spells, and so on. When 2e came around, there were kits, there were the Player Options books, and there were more splats. Again, it's nothing compared to 3e or 4e, the gaps between classes were much smaller, and it was a hell of a lot more difficult back in the day to get the spells and items you wanted given the danger and costs of crafting, but the idea that in AD&D you just picked a race and a class and completely ignored mechanical aspects of your character while the DM dropped stuff in your lap doesn't match my experiences.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  4. - Top - End - #784
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New York
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    This sort of discussion has come up before, actually. WotC's sales numbers for their 3e books show that mostly-crunch books outsold mostly-fluff books by a large margin, with the exception of main campaign setting books. I'll see if I can find the discussion again (a bunch of forums are blocked at work), but maybe someone else can link them in the meantime.
    Emphasis mine.

    That is what I meant - I think people care about the fluff in the main campaign setting books, and I would include the primary rule books (PHB, DMG and MM) in that category.

    The splat books are definitely more about the crunch, which is what they are all about, and will now be marketed as new "modules" to add on to the basic rules of D&D Next. That is my thought.

    Everyone buys the primary rule books, not everyone buys the splatbooks. Therefore, the primary rule books have to have some flavor / fluff that is recognizably "D&D".
    Last edited by JoeMac307; 2012-09-06 at 02:05 PM.

  5. - Top - End - #785
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Which I am not opposed to. I'm still a huge fan of XPH and ToB also has its own considerable fanbase.
    But other than the Complete line, these don't appear to cause nearly as much rules bloat to me. They are alternative options but mostly leave the existing material unaffected. If you play a psion, you have your one book to work with, if you are a warblade you have another one. But it's this mentality of combining obscure material from six different sources that I really don't like. Then it starts to get about beating the system and the narrative aspects completely falls into the background.
    I much prefer the approach, which seems to be highlighted a lot by the devs recently, of approaching character building from the narrative side, asking the classic questions "where do I come from, who am I, where do I go to", and then looking for a way to have these things reflected in the characters mechanical stats.

    While of course I can not deny anyone to say "I noticed when you combine A with B and C, they all aplify each other. Let's build that and unleash it on monsters", but I think this should not be the style that the books portray.
    We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.

    Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying

  6. - Top - End - #786
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    I dunno, I think the main books should be fluff-less unless they're going to go full out and have a default campaign setting. You really can't go halfway, good fluff has to be integrated into the setting to work. Otherwise it's deprived of its context and just gets in the way of worldbuilding when people want to change something.

  7. - Top - End - #787
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New York
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese) View Post
    I dunno, I think the main books should be fluff-less unless they're going to go full out and have a default campaign setting. You really can't go halfway, good fluff has to be integrated into the setting to work. Otherwise it's deprived of its context and just gets in the way of worldbuilding when people want to change something.
    I think some fluff will always be there. For example, just describing dwarves as good miners and metalworkers is fluff, but that will (almost definitely) always be one of the default descriptions for dwarves in the PHB for this edition of D&D, or any edition that ever comes out.

    I don't think that means there has to be a full on default campaign setting, though. I think it is best if the designers give each race, class, background and specialization some fluff, give bare bones of a basic (but not DEFAULT) pantheon and cosmology, and offer some insight on a few varieties of "typical" D&D societies.

    Too much fluff can be very limiting, but most people need some fluff to help with their worldbuilding. Having only mechanics seems too daunting to me, personally.

  8. - Top - End - #788
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    I'm going to stop you right there. First of all, most of your numbers are either wrong or horribly misleading. The skill points is true(though a level 1 character has the lowest skill cap for those points). By default a level 1 character only starts with 1 feat. I don't know where you got that 4x number, but it's just a feat, and it's available to everyone. Good saves are plus 2 over 0, which once again isn't a multiplier at all, and it's something you can get at later level via multi classing. Max HP at level 1 is normal, and depending on the campaign they may continue to get it. 0 level spells are not a whole level a spells, and weapon proficiencies are normal.
    His numbers are all correct, he's just looking at it in terms of progression per level.

    ie you're saying "At level 1 you gain 1 feat how is that x4?". He's looking at it as "The general progression is one feat every 3 levels. So a 1st level character is starting with 1.33 feats rather than the .33 he would if you weren't starting with a feat". Similarly, he's looking at Good saves giving +.5 every level, and thus level 1 good saves have 2.5 instead of the expected .5, so x5 at level 1.

    Anyways, WotC tried making starting characters more powerful, it was called 4e, and there were a lot of complaints about combat taking two long, and the players being invincible. So in this edition they are turning things down. Characters are relatively fragile at all levels, but between hit dice and powerful healing they should still be able to adventure for awhile before running out of steam. They are trying to make it so combat is dangerous, without making the PC's run home and rest every encounter.

    By definition, level 1 is the starting point. You may be suprised to find many people like playing characters who are only slightly better than an average person, slowly gaining in power until they become like gods. You can certainly start at a higher level, and I'm sure those rules will be around eventually, but the option to start at level 1 should both exist and be the default. From a design standpoint, it's easier to add something than take it away, and it's easier to make something stronger than make something weaker. That's why no magic items is going to be the base, and they'll have rules for making encounters tougher based on how many magic items you're giving them.
    I'm not sure you understood his position. He was claiming that 3.5 1st level characters were too strong, effectively starting out with 4 levels worth of progression in most areas. His argument was that things would have worked just as well with characters starting at level 4 as the default assumption, with stats similar to what you have in 3.5 at level 1. The exception would be HP, which would be slightly higher at that level 4 point.

    However, levels 1-3 would still be presented, and still be an option for people who wanted to play that. A level 1 Wizard however would have 2+con hp, a cantrip or two, +0 to all saves, no feats and 2+int skill points (rather than x4). The level 4 wizard would be basically a 3.5 level 1 wizard with some more hit points.

    You say not everyone wants to have stronger low level characters, that's exactly what he's proposing. Having really low level characters be more like normal people, not getting a bunch of free stuff at level 1. The game might assume a default starting position of level 4 because that's closer to the power level many people like, but it would still be wholly possible for a group to choose to play a group of level 1 inexperienced mooks and work their way up to adventurer status.
    If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?


  9. - Top - End - #789
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    I hate to bring the sorcerer bloodline stuff up again, but it's a great example of what I'm talking about. Take this one line in the PHB:

    Some sorcerers claim that the blood of dragons courses through their veins. That claim may even be true in some cases - it is common knowledge that certain powerful dragons can take human form and even humanoid lovers, and it's difficult to prove that a given sorceror does not have a dragon ancestor.
    Seems innocuous enough, except this one line is what got it in everyone's head that "Sorcerer powers always come from a magical ancestor." Of course additional WotC and Pathfinder fluff on the sorcerer afterward didn't help, but those things came about after this one line had already done its damage.


    If you want to have sorcerers that work in a different way, you have to actively fight against this player perception. The biggest problem with worldbuilding in D&D is you often have to spend more time talking about what isn't true than what is. This is a very, very bad thing in a game that isn't supposed to have a default setting, and going halfway with the fluff just gives you the worst of both worlds.

  10. - Top - End - #790
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New York
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese) View Post
    If you want to have sorcerers that work in a different way, you have to actively fight against this player perception. The biggest problem with worldbuilding in D&D is you often have to spend more time talking about what isn't true than what is. This is a very, very bad thing in a game that isn't supposed to have a default setting, and going halfway with the fluff just gives you the worst of both worlds.
    I see your point... but how do you strip out ALL of the fluff? It seems impossible. You just hand charts to new players and DMs with titles like Fighter and Rogue, and descriptions of the abilities / powers / feats / spells, etc, that can be used, and say "Figure the rest out yourself?"

    Quote Originally Posted by Seerow View Post
    The game might assume a default starting position of level 4 because that's closer to the power level many people like, but it would still be wholly possible for a group to choose to play a group of level 1 inexperienced mooks and work their way up to adventurer status.
    Kinda like the old days, where if you started at level 1 and actually made it to level 4 or 5, that was a character worth keeping.
    Last edited by JoeMac307; 2012-09-06 at 02:54 PM.

  11. - Top - End - #791
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeMac307 View Post
    I see your point... but how do you strip out ALL of the fluff? It seems impossible. You just hand charts to new players and DMs with titles like Fighter and Rogue, and descriptions of the abilities / powers / feats / spells, etc, that can be used, and say "Figure the rest out yourself?"
    Yeah, basically what the SRD does. Personally though my preferred solution would just be to have a default setting.

    Kinda like the old days, where if you started at level 1 and actually made it to level 4 or 5, that was a character worth keeping.
    This was also sortof what 3rd edition did: 1st level play wasn't that good and 3rd level play was the default. My big problem is this was not communicated clearly at all, and just from reading the books you'd guess "every game starts with everyone at level 1" was how it was supposed to work when clearly that wasn't the intention at all. Furthermore, in every other game system ever characters start out fully functional at level 1 (including 4E, which is one good thing they did).

    Here's what I would prefer: Keep level 1 to mean what it meant in 4E, and have negative levels or something for people who want to play really, really fragile characters. Introduce character creation starting from level 1 first in the books, then talk about negative-level play in another section later.

  12. - Top - End - #792
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeMac307 View Post
    I see your point... but how do you strip out ALL of the fluff? It seems impossible. You just hand charts to new players and DMs with titles like Fighter and Rogue, and descriptions of the abilities / powers / feats / spells, etc, that can be used, and say "Figure the rest out yourself?"
    Have you ever played Champions?

  13. - Top - End - #793
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Meridianville AL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    I'm going to stop you right there. First of all, most of your numbers are either wrong or horribly misleading. The skill points is true(though a level 1 character has the lowest skill cap for those points). By default a level 1 character only starts with 1 feat. I don't know where you got that 4x number, but it's just a feat, and it's available to everyone..
    In that case it's times INFINITY, because you get a feat every third level by normal progression, and that says you shouldn't get one at level 1. Level 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18,... follows a consistent pattern. Level 1 BREAKS that pattern, it breaks it by giving you EXACTLY what you'd get by level 4 in the normal pattern. That is, you have one feat and are 2 levels away from your second.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    Good saves are plus 2 over 0, which once again isn't a multiplier at all
    So you're insisting on infinitely better again? But that's STILL WRONG, you get half a point of save bonus per class level. How many levels do you need at that rate to have a +2 and get another +1 next level? Five.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    and it's something you can get at later level via multi classing.
    Which again just means the class is front loaded.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    Max HP at level 1 is normal,
    Not in any edition prior to third.

    and depending on the campaign they may continue to get it.
    Houserule, and an uncommon one not being implemented for fifth.

    0 level spells are not a whole level a spells, and weapon proficiencies are normal.
    Level 0 spells are a full level, and you get them ALL in your spellbook for free.

    Like I said, most the numbers you put out are either wrong or meaningless.
    No, your objections are based on "but this is the way it is" to a proposal about "this is the way it SHOULD BE". By your method of counting level 1 is INFINITELY better than every other level, because you ignore fractional accounting for things. You arbitrarily declare level 0 spells to not be a level of spells, you appeal to a houserule.

    If every character gets something at level 1, that's not really something of note. The problem is when a class provides a lot of front loaded unique abilities for multiclassing.
    You don't think front-loading abilities MIGHT, just MIGHT have SOMETHING to do with the fact that characters start at level 1?

    Front-loading is a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of starting at one. You can fix this by starting at a higher level, by not allowing multiclassing, or by having a completely separate class writeup for people who multiclass in.

    One of these is better than the others.

  14. - Top - End - #794
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Lampert View Post
    In that case it's times INFINITY, because you get a feat every third level by normal progression, and that says you shouldn't get one at level 1. Level 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18,... follows a consistent pattern. Level 1 BREAKS that pattern, it breaks it by giving you EXACTLY what you'd get by level 4 in the normal pattern. That is, you have one feat and are 2 levels away from your second.
    And what's wrong with starting with some ability? Normal people know how to do things that other normal people don't. That's skill points and a feat.

    So you're insisting on infinitely better again? But that's STILL WRONG, you get half a point of save bonus per class level. How many levels do you need at that rate to have a +2 and get another +1 next level? Five.
    They start at +2 because, for example, somebody whose background is in fighting will be better at dodging area of effect attacks than somebody whose background is in the clergy. Adult humans have a background, and that provides them with some abilities beyond "can walk and talk".

    Level 0 spells are a full level, and you get them ALL in your spellbook for free.
    0-level spells are designed to be very weak, minor abilities any caster learns during his apprenticeship/early dabbling with magic, "character level 0", so to speak.

    No, your objections are based on "but this is the way it is" to a proposal about "this is the way it SHOULD BE". By your method of counting level 1 is INFINITELY better than every other level, because you ignore fractional accounting for things. You arbitrarily declare level 0 spells to not be a level of spells, you appeal to a houserule.
    The objections I see are not to your proposal "this is how it should be" but to your incorrect facts regarding the existing rules. These objections are followed up by a rationale for how it is and why it should not be how you suggest it should be.

    You don't think front-loading abilities MIGHT, just MIGHT have SOMETHING to do with the fact that characters start at level 1?

    Front-loading is a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE of starting at one. You can fix this by starting at a higher level, by not allowing multiclassing, or by having a completely separate class writeup for people who multiclass in.
    ...as opposed to starting where? Level six? It's called level six because it comes sixth. If we started at level six by default, that would basically be a super-duper-frontloaded level one with more abilities, and then level seven would be even weaker by comparison than you're claiming the existing level two is to the existing level one. How is that better?

    One of these is better than the others.
    This is purely opinion. Don't assert it as fact, say, "In my opinion..." or "I think that..." or "I like this way better because...".
    Jude P.

  15. - Top - End - #795
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New York
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    Have you ever played Champions?
    I'm passingly familiar with Champions, and I think I get your point (that a system with no fluff can work), but this isn't Champions (or GURPs, etc)... this is D&D.

    From my POV, part of what makes D&D attractive to me personally is the baseline flavor, such as the cosmology of Inner and Outer Planes, the grumpy Dwarf, the haughty Elf, etc. It helps me have a common expected starting point from which to build upon.

    Perhaps that is me and me alone... I am guessing that there are many others who feel the same way to more or less degrees, but of course that is just my guess.

  16. - Top - End - #796
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    You can fix this by starting at a higher level, by not allowing multiclassing, or by having a completely separate class writeup for people who multiclass in.
    Actually, given how the playtest has been shaking up so far, I think they could go pretty far with making feats and specialties more expansive, and doing away with "multi-classing" as we know it.

    You class defines your core, it is who you are at the most basic level. Then have feats encompass minor versions of class features and be available to all (much the way "Arcane Dabbler" does now). Are you a fighter that does some magic, great, take Arcane Dabbler and maybe later on (at higher levels) some feats might grant you some regular level spells too, but you will never be as good as the wizard at spells. Similarly, want to be a wizard that mixes it up from time to time, take some feats that maybe give you access to some better HP, AC or to-hits, and maybe at higher levels, limited CS dice, but you will never be as good as a real fighter. Eliminates the problems with front loading without having to deal with starting at a higher level (and all that entails) and gets rid of nasty experience progression issues too.

    From my POV, part of what makes D&D attractive to me personally is the baseline flavor, such as the cosmology of Inner and Outer Planes, the grumpy Dwarf, the haughty Elf, etc. It helps me have a common expected starting point from which to build upon.

    Perhaps that is me and me alone... I am guessing that there are many others who feel the same way to more or less degrees, but of course that is just my guess.
    I agree, I'm happy with light flavor in D&D. If I want to play GURPS, I'll play GURPS, but I want D&D, which includes some basic shared tropes.

  17. - Top - End - #797
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4 View Post
    Actually, given how the playtest has been shaking up so far, I think they could go pretty far with making feats and specialties more expansive, and doing away with "multi-classing" as we know it.

    You class defines your core, it is who you are at the most basic level. Then have feats encompass minor versions of class features and be available to all (much the way "Arcane Dabbler" does now). Are you a fighter that does some magic, great, take Arcane Dabbler and maybe later on (at higher levels) some feats might grant you some regular level spells too, but you will never be as good as the wizard at spells. Similarly, want to be a wizard that mixes it up from time to time, take some feats that maybe give you access to some better HP, AC or to-hits, and maybe at higher levels, limited CS dice, but you will never be as good as a real fighter. Eliminates the problems with front loading without having to deal with starting at a higher level (and all that entails) and gets rid of nasty experience progression issues too.
    Might be interesting One addition--those feats shouldn't be available to the classes they're based on. A wizard taking a feat that lets mundanes cast would be a little silly and might be exploitable.

    I agree, I'm happy with light flavor in D&D. If I want to play GURPS, I'll play GURPS, but I want D&D, which includes some basic shared tropes.
    D&D is a classic feel, not a classic set of mechanics. As shown by the four editions sharing a lot of the same feel but with widely disparate mechanics. Change that basic feel and we might as well play a different RPG.
    Jude P.

  18. - Top - End - #798
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by noparlpf View Post
    D&D is a classic feel, not a classic set of mechanics. As shown by the four editions sharing a lot of the same feel but with widely disparate mechanics. Change that basic feel and we might as well play a different RPG.
    D&D is both. The mechanics vary, but only within very narrow constraints. The core attributes have barely changed, the core classes have barely changed, even the number of levels has been mostly stable, in an industry where widely disparate mechanics can mean that things like "attributes", "classes", and "levels" don't exist, model something utterly disconnected to what the game models, or exist in a number of very different forms. There are shared mechanics, and judging by the backlash to 4e on account of how much it changed I suspect most people would say that changing that basic feel means that they might as well play a different RPG.
    I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.

    I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that.
    -- ChubbyRain

    Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.

  19. - Top - End - #799
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Knaight View Post
    D&D is both. The mechanics vary, but only within very narrow constraints. The core attributes have barely changed, the core classes have barely changed, even the number of levels has been mostly stable, in an industry where widely disparate mechanics can mean that things like "attributes", "classes", and "levels" don't exist, model something utterly disconnected to what the game models, or exist in a number of very different forms. There are shared mechanics, and judging by the backlash to 4e on account of how much it changed I suspect most people would say that changing that basic feel means that they might as well play a different RPG.
    Yeah, true. The core of the mechanics is fairly stable.
    Jude P.

  20. - Top - End - #800
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Might be interesting One addition--those feats shouldn't be available to the classes they're based on. A wizard taking a feat that lets mundanes cast would be a little silly and might be exploitable.
    I was thinking it would work something like the way the Arcane Dabbler one works now, where if you're already a spell caster, you add 2 additional minor spells, otherwise you simply gain two. Higher level spell ones would work similar, basically gaining some spell slots, if you're a spell caster, you just add to your current slots, if you're not you gain just those slots.

  21. - Top - End - #801
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4 View Post
    I was thinking it would work something like the way the Arcane Dabbler one works now, where if you're already a spell caster, you add 2 additional minor spells, otherwise you simply gain two. Higher level spell ones would work similar, basically gaining some spell slots, if you're a spell caster, you just add to your current slots, if you're not you gain just those slots.
    Yeah, I guess that would be alright. In 3.X the feats Extra Slot and Extra Spell seemed fairly underpowered that I saw (except in cases of cheese and shenanigans). So maybe offering two spells and slots would be acceptable. Possibly add the condition "up to one level lower than your highest existing level" for casting classes?
    Jude P.

  22. - Top - End - #802
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeMac307 View Post
    I feel ya, but I wonder if you might not be in a vocal minority? I could be wrong, but I would guess a lot of D&D fans want story and setting, not just mechanics.
    I also buy the books for the mechanics, but I love it when they put story into mechanics. A dwarf's Stonecunning ability is very fun when it comes up in play, and if you're playing in a setting in which dwarves don't live underground, it's pretty easy to make up a parallel feature for that setting. Sure, they could have gone with a Stand Your Ground type ability, but it would be more bland.

    That said, I write my own settings. A book can go on and on about Arkhosia and Bael Turath, but I'll still tell my players that dragonborn almost always live in small mountain tribes, while tieflings are rarely born from human mothers (for various reasons) and usually never even meet another of their kind, much less form an entire kingdom of them. I only bought the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide because the swordmage is so freaking awesome. So I hope they focus less on telling us about their setting, and instead give us the tools to create our own.

  23. - Top - End - #803
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    So I hope they focus less on telling us about their setting, and instead give us the tools to create our own.
    This is sort of another reason I like light setting and flavor throughout the rules. It gives you something to build off of. Too much setting and yes, it becomes restrictive or more difficult to work around (a lot like how too many rules affects how easy it is to tinker with the rules). Equally, too little setting can be very uninspiring. GURPS suffers from this a bit, since the whole thing is generic and without setting, unless you have something specific in mind when you pick up the book, you'll find yourself very uninspired when you get to the end of the rule book.

  24. - Top - End - #804
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4 View Post
    This is sort of another reason I like light setting and flavor throughout the rules. It gives you something to build off of. Too much setting and yes, it becomes restrictive or more difficult to work around (a lot like how too many rules affects how easy it is to tinker with the rules). Equally, too little setting can be very uninspiring. GURPS suffers from this a bit, since the whole thing is generic and without setting, unless you have something specific in mind when you pick up the book, you'll find yourself very uninspired when you get to the end of the rule book.
    It's a hard balance. Many of my favorite RPG settings are intrinsically tied to the rules system and visa-verse. Paranoia and L5R come to mind, and I have never played an RPG I liked that didn't assume some setting information.

    I liked how the 3e core rulebooks handled it, most of the information was generic fantasy setting info, with a few little bits of flavor thrown in, notably some greyhawk gods.
    "Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  25. - Top - End - #805
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    How about this:

    Spell Study
    Prerequisite: Int 15, Level 3
    Benefit: You gain the ability to memorize and cast a wizard spell. If you are already a wizard, you gain an extra spell slot of the appropriate level. Otherwise, you gain the wizard spellcasting and spellbook abilities, and may memorize any single spell of the appropriate level each day.

    {table=head]Level|Spell Level
    3-4|1
    5-6|2
    7-8|3
    9-10|4
    11-12|5
    13-14|6
    15-16|7
    17-18|8
    19-20|9[/table]

    Basically, you're supposed to always be 1 spell level behind what a wizard can cast at the same level. From the look of the wizard spell chart, level 10 is the max spell level now, so you'd never get the highest spell level. This may be too strong, but it could just as easily offer a spell 2 levels below what a wizard can cast at that level.
    Last edited by AgentPaper; 2012-09-07 at 01:58 AM.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  26. - Top - End - #806
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    How about this:

    Spell Study
    Prerequisite: Int 15, Level 3
    Benefit: You gain the ability to memorize and cast a wizard spell. If you are already a wizard, you gain an extra spell slot of the appropriate level. Otherwise, you gain the wizard spellcasting and spellbook abilities, and may memorize any single spell of the appropriate level each day.

    {table=head]Level|Spell Level
    3-4|1
    5-6|2
    7-8|3
    9-10|4
    11-12|5
    13-14|6
    15-16|7
    17-18|8
    19-20|9[/table]

    Basically, you're supposed to always be 1 spell level behind what a wizard can cast at the same level. From the look of the wizard spell chart, level 10 is the max spell level now, so you'd never get the highest spell level. This may be too strong, but it could just as easily offer a spell 2 levels below what a wizard can cast at that level.
    Methinks something like this is basically what you're going to get if you multiclass into the wizard at a later level.
    "Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  27. - Top - End - #807
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New York
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    From the look of the wizard spell chart, level 10 is the max spell level now, so you'd never get the highest spell level.
    I hadn't noticed that... are there 10th Level spells in 4e? In the previous editions, if I'm remembering correctly, spells topped out at 9th Level (and in 2e and earlier, at 7th Level for Clerics, IIRC). I never understood why.

    That reminds me - I wish they would come up with a new term for caster level and spell level... it could be confusing at times trying to differentiate the two for new players.

  28. - Top - End - #808
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeMac307 View Post
    I hadn't noticed that... are there 10th Level spells in 4e? In the previous editions, if I'm remembering correctly, spells topped out at 9th Level (and in 2e and earlier, at 7th Level for Clerics, IIRC). I never understood why.

    That reminds me - I wish they would come up with a new term for caster level and spell level... it could be confusing at times trying to differentiate the two for new players.
    I never thought so. "Caster level" is your casting strength, determined by things like class level. "Spell level" is the level of the spell, listed right next to the name of the spell. Seems pretty simple to me.
    Jude P.

  29. - Top - End - #809
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Camelot View Post
    I also buy the books for the mechanics, but I love it when they put story into mechanics. A dwarf's Stonecunning ability is very fun when it comes up in play, and if you're playing in a setting in which dwarves don't live underground, it's pretty easy to make up a parallel feature for that setting. Sure, they could have gone with a Stand Your Ground type ability, but it would be more bland.
    And the thing is, I hate those kinds of mechanics. Why should my dwarf who grew up in a human city know any more about stonecutting than the average human? What is there in dwarven physiology that actually makes them inherently better at stonecutting, or recognizing the culture that worked a given piece of stone?

    These are things that come from study, not native instinct. They are things that should be represented via background, or knowledge skills. I would have no problem with them providing a list of racial backgrounds, and said "Most dwarves have this background" etc, but those things should definitely be interchangeable. And by making it interchangeable you make it infinitely easier to adapt to a new campaign setting, because you simply introduce new backgrounds for that setting rather than needing to rewrite each race, or force each race to adhere to the traditional conventions.
    If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?


  30. - Top - End - #810
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Seerow View Post
    And the thing is, I hate those kinds of mechanics. Why should my dwarf who grew up in a human city know any more about stonecutting than the average human? What is there in dwarven physiology that actually makes them inherently better at stonecutting, or recognizing the culture that worked a given piece of stone?

    These are things that come from study, not native instinct. They are things that should be represented via background, or knowledge skills. I would have no problem with them providing a list of racial backgrounds, and said "Most dwarves have this background" etc, but those things should definitely be interchangeable. And by making it interchangeable you make it infinitely easier to adapt to a new campaign setting, because you simply introduce new backgrounds for that setting rather than needing to rewrite each race, or force each race to adhere to the traditional conventions.
    That's fair, and would probably be the best idea for mechanics.
    However, the idea of things like Stonecunning is probably from Tolkien, where a god crafted dwarves of earth or something like that. (It's been a few years since I read Tolkien.) So they have an affinity for earth and stone, the ability to notice irregularities in stone, worked stone, hidden doors, stuff like that.
    Jude P.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •