Results 811 to 840 of 1492
-
2012-09-07, 08:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- New York
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Using the term "level" to both mean the relative strength of the caster and the relative strength of the spell can be a point of confusion for people, especially in 3.5 where say fireball scales both with caster level (higher caster level means more damage) and with spell level (if you use Heighten Spell, you can cast it at a higher spell level to increase the save DC).
I mean, I'm a bright guy, fancy English degree from an Ivy League school, yay for me, I can keep my vocabulary straight for the most part, but in my experience some players, especially newbies, get a little confused with the concept of having spell levels and caster levels (and character levels and class levels, for that matter).
Using the term "level" to describe every scale of relative power in D&D is a bit lazy, is all I'm saying.
-
2012-09-07, 08:16 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
-
2012-09-07, 08:20 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I'm sure that's the idea behind them, but that's pretty flavor heavy to me, and definitely not something that should be the default assumption. I have no problem with a campaign setting saying "Dwarves use this background and it cannot be changed", but I do not like the idea of every dwarf ever in every conceivable world having that capability.
And even with that explanation, it still doesn't justify how a Dwarf who has never even even heard of the Tsurauni Empire, would stumble upon some ancient ruins and instantly be able to identify the stonework as Tsurauni. Which is what dwarves in the current playtest packet can actually do with their stonecutting ability.If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?
-
2012-09-07, 08:26 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
-
2012-09-07, 08:35 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- New York
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
-
2012-09-07, 08:39 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Main Entry: level
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: rank, position
Synonyms: achievement, degree, grade, stage, standard, standing, statusJude P.
-
2012-09-07, 08:47 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I've also seen Circle and Sphere used for spell levels.
If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?
-
2012-09-07, 08:55 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- New York
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I wonder if the Dwarf is so fleshed out with only one possible background in the playtest packet for the same reason why at the moment Sorcerers can only use the Draconic Bloodline and Warlocks can only have a Fey Pact: 1. It's all they've written so far and 2. It keeps all the play testers on the same ground?
Still, its a good point that racial abilities shouldn't be tied into their backgrounds, and hopefully something the designers realize as well. I can see saying Dwarfs have an affinity for stone, that its "in their blood" no matter how / where they were brought up, and so they have a sort of sixth sense that tells about how far underground they are, but the rest of the abilities in the stonecutting trait, as they are described in the packet, do seem more cultural and should be part of a background, not a race in and of itself.
All good options - but at the end of the day, I think it's a moot point. I'm pretty sure D&D will just stick with "level" to describe most things - it suspect its one of those untouchable sacred cows.Last edited by JoeMac307; 2012-09-07 at 08:56 AM.
-
2012-09-07, 11:08 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
And as well as being a sacred cow, it's not all that hard to work out for somebody who's proficient in the language.
Jude P.
-
2012-09-07, 11:13 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- New York
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
If you insist. I've played only with native English speakers, and it's confused about half my players. What I'll get is : "So, I'm a 5th Level Wizard, but I can only cast 3rd Level spells... why can't I cast 5th Level spells?"
Granted, some of them are not that bright, but they don't eat their own snot or anything like that, either.
But, either way, it's a moot point.Last edited by JoeMac307; 2012-09-07 at 11:18 AM.
-
2012-09-07, 11:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I dunno, I tend to have trouble estimating what's easy or hard for normal people. I also grew up with an English teacher for a mother.
Jude P.
-
2012-09-07, 11:41 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
With a slight refluffing it makes sense: Let's say all stone has a magical "memory" that dwarves have the unique ability to perceive. So the Dwarf who's never heard of the Tsurauni Empire before can lay her hand on the piece of stonework and instantly know the empire's entire history, absorbed into the stone over time.
And as an inherent magical power, it makes sense to give it to all dwarves in the setting (though not necessarily in ALL settings).
Though I'll agree, while it is interesting and flavorful it's way too heavy to include in default fluff (unless they're going to make a default setting)
-
2012-09-07, 11:43 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Having spell levels be different from caster level is a bit odd, and makes the game that much harder to learn, but unfortunately it's pretty inherent in the Vancian casting system, so you can't really get rid of it without getting rid of that first.
Just calling it by a different name doesn't seem like it would help. It may well even hurt, since it means the player has to keep ranks and levels and circles and rings and spheres and so on all straight, instead of having just a few common concepts that share a name.5e Homebrew: Death Knight (Class), Kensai (Monk Subclass)Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.
-
2012-09-07, 11:49 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
In a mana-based system, spells could just be arranged by mana cost. And they wouldn't necessarily be restricted to so few levels, it would be more variable.
Jude P.
-
2012-09-07, 11:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Germany
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I don't see the problem. There is class level and spell level, so what? It's not even something you need to know during play but only during level up, when you almost certainly look up the tables anyway.
We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.
Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying
-
2012-09-07, 11:55 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- New York
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Last edited by JoeMac307; 2012-09-07 at 11:56 AM.
-
2012-09-07, 11:56 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I agree, that would be a very cool feature, and I wouldn't mind seeing it-in a specific campaign setting.
If we get a D&D Campaign Setting, that all of the core rules are supposed to be integrated with, that's one thing. But D&D has always been the generic game that can be transposed to any setting, and I would like the fluff inherent in the core game mechanics to reflect that unless they make an active effort to change that assumption completely.If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?
-
2012-09-07, 11:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Last edited by noparlpf; 2012-09-07 at 12:00 PM.
Jude P.
-
2012-09-07, 12:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2012
- Location
- New York
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
To me, this seems like it could work better as a set of feats / abilities gained through a specialty rather than a racial one...
Instead of only dwarves being able to perceive the magical memory of stone, maybe it's anyone with the "geomancer" specialty learns how to "speak to stone", and as they advance, they get more feats based on this ability... 1st level, they can discern their relative depth; 3rd level, they can tell what race / subrace / nationality worked stone; 6th level, stones can tell them which way is magnetic north; 9th level, they can tell what happened in a location recently by speaking to the stone...
Obviously, I haven't really thought this out, but it may be a possibility?
(Go ahead, crush my dreams )
-
2012-09-07, 12:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
It's just one more thing that you need to explain to your players. Very little in DnD is actually hard to understand, but just the same, very little in MtG is hard to understand either. However, it's the collection of all of these little things that you need to understand all together that adds up to make for a very intimidating wall for new players.
In this specific case, I don't think there's a fix that really helps anyone out, but in general it's a good thing to reduce the complexity of the game as much as possible, to lower the wall for new players. Of course you don't want to remove the depth of the game while you're doing that, otherwise the game becomes less fun after you've learned all the rules, but it's still an important goal that the designer should be looking to do whenever possible/practical.
MtG made simplifying the game a much bigger goal than it used to be in recent years, and has been rewarded with the most successful and widely-loved sets it's ever had. Obviously we can't apply the exact methods they used since MtG is a very different game, but don't downplay the value of making the game more accessible.5e Homebrew: Death Knight (Class), Kensai (Monk Subclass)Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.
-
2012-09-07, 02:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- Utah
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Well, they're definitely not going to make it so that Level 5 characters can cast Level 5 spells, because that would draw the ire of an anti-4e demographic for its superficial resemblance to 4e.
Gotta love all those people out there who judge a book by its cover ...
Personally, I think renaming spell levels "Circles" or something similar would be a good solution. It seems to do a good job of removing the confusion in Legend.
Honestly, I think they need to give in to the necessity that some mechanics (that are based in fluff, like this dwarven ability) are just going to need to be re-written for each Setting. Races, in general, will be such an area of mechanics.
They did a reasonable job of this with Deities in 3e: admitting that different settings weren't going to have the same gods just out of convenience, then building a system (Domains) that made it quite easy for different settings to customize their own distinctive religions, without needing to create new mechanics each time.
I don't see why they shied away from doing something similar with, say, Organizations. They started to do that with PrCs (e.g. Red Wizard of Thay), but something seemed to have spooked them and changed their direction (e.g. Purple Dragon Knight with no explicit tie to Cormyr ).
Eberron took some good steps in the Races department. It wasn't afraid to make new races an integral part of the setting, and it experimented with putting old races in fresh, new roles (e.g. drow, orcs), and I think it even dared to change the mechanics of some of those races to fit their new placement. (Or do orcs and drow still have Light Sensitivity?) But it could have gone further. It could have left some generic races out or dared to change the mechanics of Humans/Elves/Dwarves/Halflings/Gnomes in daring ways.You can call me Draz.
Trophies:
Spoiler
Also of note:
- Winning Entry of Gestalt Build Challenge IV
- 3rd Place in Iron Chef XI (Blade Bravo)
- Judge of Iron Chef XXIII (Divine Champion)
I have a number of ongoing projects that I manically jump between to spend my free time ... so don't be surprised when I post a lot about something for a few days, then burn out and abandon it.
... yes, I need to be tested for ADHD.
-
2012-09-07, 03:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
ADnD 1e PHB, page 8:
It was initially contemplated to term character power as rank, spell complexity was to be termed power, and monster strength was to be termed as order. Thus, instead of a 9th level character encountering a 7th level monster on the 8th dungeon level and attacking it with a 4th level spell, the terminology would have been: A 9th rank character encountered a 7th order monster on the 8th (dungeon) level and attacked it with a 4th power spell. However, because of existing usage, level is retained throughout with all four meanings, and it is not as confusing as it may now seem.Last edited by huttj509; 2012-09-07 at 03:50 PM.
-
2012-09-07, 04:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Well, that's half of my point. The other half is what you glommed onto, and that's the fact that a full separation of fluff and crunch ends up with something like Champions, where you don't have a sword, you have a 2d killing attack with an obvious removable focus.
D&D has pretty well always integrated fluff and crunch to a certain extent.
-
2012-09-07, 06:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Seattle, USA
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I always found it odd when people say D&D doesn't have fluff. D&D has a ton of fluff, what it usually lacks is a setting. Setting info is "fluff", but not all fluff is setting.
Paladins being holy warriors of good, that's fluff, demons coming from another plane, that's fluff, wizards casting spells via books, that's fluff, longswords, shields, and platemail, that's fluff. D&D has always had a lot of fluff and flavor built into the rules, they've just always left setting specifics, names, locations, NPC's, ect, to either the GM or setting specific books for the most part. This uniquely allows D&D to have multiple official settings for the same system."Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."
-Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion
-
2012-09-08, 01:35 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- NYC
- Gender
-
2012-09-08, 04:11 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Seattle, USA
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
That's mostly a matter of opinion. As long as you like the Medieval Heroic High Fantasy genre(which is kinda the price for entry into D&D), I can think of nothing in the 3/3.5 core books that is really bad or objectionable. I like that they let me make my own campaign setting.
"Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."
-Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion
-
2012-09-08, 05:05 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Meh the core fluff is good enough. I certainly wouldn't care to play D&D without its fluff. I think everyone on this board likes fantasy fluff.
Its just the details we have problems with sometimes. Things like the paladins code. It is so restrictive and yet open to interpretation so that falling is more or less a matter of a DM's whims. That's terrible. The paladin in general? A heavily armored holy warrior that fights for whats right, mostly with melee weapons? Me likey.
The core fluff is decent enough. Its specific bits of bad fluff that are the problem.
-
2012-09-08, 05:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Jude P.
-
2012-09-08, 01:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Seattle, USA
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
According the the American Heritage Thesaurus, Order is an Antonym of Chaos and a Synonym for Law, ergo the two are opposites to a point.
Alignment isn't that tough to deal with in general, as for everyone save paladins(and I'll admit the 3e paladin code is silly), it's irrelevant to know if a specific action is good or evil(or lawful or chaotic). The trick with alignment is to remember it's an objective force in the D&D universe, it's not subjective at all, as evidenced by the fact that you can't argue with a Holy Smite spell."Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."
-Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion
-
2012-09-08, 01:44 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Jude P.