Dear Unregistered! We notice you don't currently have a silver subscription here on EN World. We'd love to encourage you to give it a try, so we've made this coupon for $5 off your first 4-month Silver Subscription. Simply go to the subscription page and enter coupon code SILVER. With that subscription you get access to TWO adventure paths, which between them cover D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, and D&D 4th Edition - War of the Burning Sky (which has been completed) and ZEITGEIST: The Gears of Revolution (which is currently ongoing). You also get a whole bunch of site perks and features here on EN World, including access to the Search function, images and links in your forum signature, a larger PM box, give out more XP at a time, and more. Please give a try; we're proud of our adventure paths, and we're sure you'll love them both!
All the latest EN World
official reviews, columns, and subscriber articles here.
Don't have your subscription yet? It's only $3 a month and you can grab
it right
here!
This is the kind of hyperbole that ignites edition wars, and this is something that I hope EVERYONE wants to avoid with this new edition. At least WoTC appears to be trying to avoid it.
I gotta agree with what you said catsclaw in your entire post.
For myself I'm not really a fan of the Devas, Dragonborn, etc. but hey if they fit in your world, great. That being said, if they were an integral part of 4E, then they should probably end up in some manner in the next edition whether it be in the initial books or supplements who knows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by catsclaw227
And here is some reason... We're not going to get everything in the first book. And it is not a reason to start screaming that WoTC or "Hasborg" has stolen your dog and kicked your cat.
And if they don't end up catering to your specific wants, there is NOTHING that says you can't continue to play your chosen existing edition.
The worrying thing for me about rolling for stats being the default is that the rest of the game has to be balanced against something (monsters etc) so the base systems are going to have to take into account that characters are going to have wildly differing stats.
This means 1 of 2 things - either the differences in stats are not going to be that important (in which case why bother?) or encounter and monster design is going to be a lot looser or difficult for DMs. I can see published adventures being very difficult to design well (or have to include lots of variance in encoutner setups etc).
What is also worrying me is that the standard responce to people not liking a particular thing is "don't worry, there will be a module for that".
What is also worrying me is that the standard responce to people not liking a particular thing is "don't worry, there will be a module for that".
This may be less troublesome than you think. Obviously, not everything will be available at launch. But if there's a decent OGL/GSL/5eLic then 3rd party companies can thrive by creating the content you might be looking for. And if WoTC is going to do what they say, then the "module" approach will still fill your needs, whether in 3 months or 6-12 months. In the meantime, wing it!
__________________ Game on, gang! Ptolus #15 (with customized, personalized sig from Monte.), Rappan Athuk Reloaded #37 (The Necromancer way.)
Current Campaign
Current Campaign: Currently running Deadlands for Savage Worlds. Also have a Slumbering Tsar 4e campaign that is taking a break, but we'll be starting that up again in the summer.
The worrying thing for me about rolling for stats being the default is that the rest of the game has to be balanced against something (monsters etc) so the base systems are going to have to take into account that characters are going to have wildly differing stats.
Well rolling for stats has been in D&D since day one! So I don't quite understand the beef about it. You can always use the other options, but really D&D isn't a point-buy system. And all they can do is give it their best shot at balance. As we saw in 3.X, it was like chasing your own tail and everyone has their own opinion about it. Not to mention sometimes its just not obvious even during play testing that something is out of whack; happens a lot with software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBeens
This means 1 of 2 things - either the differences in stats are not going to be that important (in which case why bother?) or encounter and monster design is going to be a lot looser or difficult for DMs. I can see published adventures being very difficult to design well (or have to include lots of variance in encoutner setups etc).
Probably neither. Stats will be important; that is really one of the cornerstones of D&D. And really I think people overstate the importance of both encounter and monster design. The latter matters little, if the monster ends up being tough, well too bad, gain a few levels before you go after it. And for encounters, well, the DM can always fudge things if he's feeling nice and the encounter is too hard or such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrBeens
What is also worrying me is that the standard responce to people not liking a particular thing is "don't worry, there will be a module for that".
Well, to some extent, that *is* the stated goal of the 5e design. No matter how much the the designers and developers try, 5e won't be for everyone. If they try that, it will just be a losing battle for them. IMO if they get the core essence of both 1e-3e and 4e (just because 1e/2e have far more in common with 3e and 4e is just its own animal) plus add some new twists of their own, then it may just succeed.
And yes, like everyone else, if someone doesn't like a particular piece, or feels that X, which wasn't included, must absolutely be in the game, there is always "rule zero" aka house rules!
Well rolling for stats has been in D&D since day one! So I don't quite understand the beef about it. You can always use the other options, but really D&D isn't a point-buy system. And all they can do is give it their best shot at balance. As we saw in 3.X, it was like chasing your own tail and everyone has their own opinion about it. Not to mention sometimes its just not obvious even during play testing that something is out of whack; happens a lot with software.
...Probably neither. Stats will be important; that is really one of the cornerstones of D&D.
I completely agree; rolling stats is the way to go; most I know who play in Edition X of D&D do the 4d6, drop the lowest & arrange as desired. This does not normally yield wildly differing stats & also tends to have few stats below the 10-11 range and a few more in the 13-14 range. Some randomness is just the way is has been since day one and should continue to be used IMHO. If your stats are a little better than mine, good for you! You won't hear me whining about it
__________________ "Does a 3 Save?" Famous last words... Roll up a new character.
I completely agree; rolling stats is the way to go
Not exactly what I said... I personally like the die rolling, because I've been doing it in D&D for eons. But the point-buy abilities has been in the game for quite some time too. Its just as viable for the game too, even if its not a true point-buy system (ala True20, Hero, GURPs, etc). And if a DM allows people to pick their stats that is cool too.
Oh, I understood what you were saying & I was agreeing with the rolling part (but notice I had the entire quote so I didn't mis-quote you). I too have played in D&D games where stats have been rolled up (nearly 30 years now). And I'm not saying the point buy system is without merit; it keeps things exactly equal... but unless you're using one of the more generous methods, it's hard to have more than one good stat. In my opinion, D&D characters are heroes & as such should have a chance at a few exceptional stats.
__________________ "Does a 3 Save?" Famous last words... Roll up a new character.
I think that we have a real problem if the word " charisma " in D&D does not at some level mean the same thing as " charisma " in real life. And in real life, charisma and cowardice go together all the time.
I disagree. George Washington or Alexander the Great were both charismatic and brave, just to name a few.
Remember also that "charismatic" is not necessarelly the same than "eloquent". Batman speaks very little.
Just change "charisma" for "personality". Does it work?
I disagree. George Washington or Alexander the Great were both charismatic and brave, just to name a few.
Remember also that "charismatic" is not necessarelly the same than "eloquent". Batman speaks very little.
Just because they are some examples of charismatic and brave, doesn't mean there aren't as many examples of charismatic and craven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by triqui
Just change "charisma" for "personality". Does it work?
Not really, no. Personality is subjective. Charisma seems to be the "measurement", and I use that loosely, of how effective a character can be, stat-wise, in social situations. Eloquent or lack thereof is more a factor of how the player views the character.
As far as we know so far, themes have much less impact on the overall gameplay and are far less important overall for the character. Nobody presents his character as "level 10 human noble fighter". Everybody will just go "level 10 human fighter".
Also on a conceptual level, making deva a theme strips good part of its fluff - their unique appearance and certain racial features that just won't work in a theme.
Idisagree. I often present my character as a 10th level pirate. The fact that he can be a 10 level fighter, a 10 level rogue, a 5/5 fighter/rogue, or a urban ranger vairant is not that import to define what the character is. Just what the character do.
Just because they are some examples of charismatic and brave, doesn't mean there aren't as many examples of charismatic and craven.
but still refuse the sentence which I was quoting, that says charisma *always* pair with cowardice
Quote:
Not really, no. Personality is subjective. Charisma seems to be the "measurement", and I use that loosely, of how effective a character can be, stat-wise, in social situations. Eloquent or lack thereof is more a factor of how the player views the character.
that's an oversimplification. Charisma has always been the stat that shows how efective a cleric can turn or destroy undeads, or more recently (post 3e) how effective a Sorcerer Finger of Death or Fireball are. Turning undeads is not a social interaction.
Saying that Carisma is the measurement of how good you are in social interactions is like saying Dexterity is the measure, stat wise, on how good you are dodging. What about archery? Or disabling devices? Or being sneaky?
Just becuse Charisma modifies Bluff it does not mean all Paladins are good liers. A character with ten ranks in diplomacy and Charisma 9 is eloquent, while a character with Cha 18 and no ranks in diplomacy may not be, even if he can try to convince just for strength of character or sheer force of personality.
I think that we have a real problem if the word " charisma " in D&D does not at some level mean the same thing as " charisma " in real life. And in real life, charisma and cowardice go together all the time.
And, in fact, certain Socratic dialogues do actually present arguments for courage and wisdom being akin to one another. I do not think I have ever seen one that argues charisma and courage having a similar relationship.
Quote:
The term charisma (pl. charismata, adj. charismatic; from the Greek χάρισμα, meaning "favor given" or "gift of grace") has two senses: 1) compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others, 2) a divinely conferred power or talent.
And from Weber:
Quote:
Charisma is a certain quality of an individual personality by virtue of which he is set apart from ordinary men and treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. These are such as are not accessible to the ordinary person, but are regarded as of divine origin or as exemplary, and on the basis of them the individual concerned is treated as a leader.
So, really, I think there's clearly a way that Charisma in D&D relates to the dictionary term, but it still means an almost entirely different thing. In any case, to sum up a personality in 1 number, or even 3 numbers, is pretty much just not going to work. Cha can tell you any of many things you want it to, but it ends up amounting to some sort of measure of a PC's ability to influence people.
All 'real world' arguments aside, IMO the Charisma stat in the D&D game is a combination of inner-strength of character/force of will against enemies (not related to Will saves)/& to some extent, magnetism/physical attractiveness... if that makes any sense to you all, my fellow D&D aficionados. The CHA stat in game terms rolls all of this into one encompassing Ability score that rates your overall score among these parts. I think it can be determined by the DM & player just how much of each facet of the CHA score is handled for their specific character.
__________________ "Does a 3 Save?" Famous last words... Roll up a new character.
Recent News
Linear Mode
