+ Log in or register to post
Results 91 to 100 of 211
Tuesday, 28th February, 2012, 12:01 AM #91
Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)
These other things that you can use at will? They're not spells. No sir. They're "Abilities". Or maybe "Feats". And they're not "Powers", either. Absolutely not. We don't use the "P-word" around here any more.
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Tuesday, 28th February, 2012, 12:16 AM #92
Myrmidon (Lvl 10)
- Wizard choosing which spells to learn is an option.
- Fighter choosing which weapon to be good with is an option.
- Wizard choosing to switch some spells for At-Will magic is an option.
The first one has been a part of all editions in a very core way. The second was implemented as a feat in 3e, and is IMO a perfectly fine option for a core fighter*. The third may according to the article be a feat in 5e, but nothing indicates wizards with At-Will are in any way non-optional.
*Although I prefer generalist fighters.
So should the core game be so simple that none of the above options are offered?
Tuesday, 28th February, 2012, 12:28 AM #93
The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)
"Powers" does seem to be a term that divides players of the game into camps, perhaps because some see it as more akin to other types of games whether they be supers games or even non-tabletop games. I'm sure those of us hoping for a vibrant 5E with as large a player pool as possible don't mind if terminology like that is dropped in favor of alternate or even more traiditonal terms.
Tuesday, 28th February, 2012, 12:38 AM #94
The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)
There is no fluff. There is no crunch. There are only rules of varying precision.
Tuesday, 28th February, 2012, 12:38 AM #95
Magsman (Lvl 14)
There's only one way I see this working for you as well as many other D&D fans.
NO CLASS CHAPTERS
Instead each Module has a page for each class. Each DM and Player chooses which chapters to use and which one to not use.
Assassin HP and Base Attack Chart
Bard HP and Base Attack Chart
Cleric HP and Base Attack Chart
Druid HP and Base Attack Chart
Fighter HP and Base Attack Chart
Then ignore the Skill and Feats chapters.
My beard is hairy.
Tuesday, 28th February, 2012, 01:17 AM #96
Waghalter (Lvl 7)
"Big tent" doesn't mean every D&D fan of every edition has to be 100% satisfied with every rule included in the game. It just has to be big enough to include a sizable majority.
Anyway, I for one think Monte is on the right track here. Vancian is legacy, and a terrific system, to boot. No need NOT to include it, as long as folks who like other forms of magical resource management can do things their way, too. And I like the idea of feats that grant magical abilities or attacks that can be used at-will, though I will reserve the right to have my Vancian mage pull out a crossbow when necessary, and be pretty damn deadly with it.
Tuesday, 28th February, 2012, 01:49 AM #97
Thaumaturgist (Lvl 9)
I love all four methods of building casters....but if you want new players, you better not make point buy the only way to do it....
I dream of a world were I could choose to mix and match the four types of managing spells and powers and whatnot for magic using characters. But that would be hard to do.
So, I'd probably have different classes use different methodologies.
Tuesday, 28th February, 2012, 01:55 AM #98
Guide (Lvl 11)
To avoid confusion due to the nomenclature, WotC might want to consider calling the default class features "comps" -- short for "components," or for "competencies" -- instead of calling them "class features."
That way, when the Feats module gets introduced, any character who is taking a Feat can select a provided Feat that allows that character to trade away a default "comp" to get a different "comp," as specified in the wording of the Feat, which new "comp" is roughly as powerful as the default "comp" that is being replaced.
This arrangement might work for people such as @Odhanan on the basis of not including Feats within the core of the game; yet still also work for the required availability of Feats for those who want to use them.
Last edited by tuxgeo; Tuesday, 28th February, 2012 at 01:59 AM.
Original Member of the Rouseketeers! ("mmnnaarrrrrrrrr")
"I'll take sitting around on my laurels because my character died any day over feeling like regardless of what I do, my character can't fail no matter what." -- Hobo
Tuesday, 28th February, 2012, 02:01 AM #99
A 1e title so awesome it's not in the book (Lvl 21)
If one's copacetic with fighter dalies in 4e, one shouldn't (in theory) have a problem with a strategist-style fighter that prepares combat moves to activate them once, since that is an oft-used justification for fighter dalies in 4e.Originally Posted by Dasuul
Tuesday, 28th February, 2012, 02:15 AM #100
Spellbinder (Lvl 16)
old school argument is that skills and whatnot just get in the way. ALL PCs are reasonably competent and can do most things. Only a few very very narrow niche things are carved out. Thus any PC can climb an ordinary wall (maybe with a check of some kind) and a thief has a niche carved out, he can climb a sheer wall with no handholds (again with a check). The point is everyone is competent and you just use ability scores to determine how far the PC's ability actually goes.
Actually, IMHO the skill system Monte has outlined is really very much a modernistic version of this, at least potentially. You just use ability scores, and then you COULD have 'skills' which are just very niche things where your character has 'mastery' (like climbing for a rogue).
By Uller in forum Miscellaneous Geek Talk & Media LoungeReplies: 8Last Post: Friday, 18th January, 2013, 02:17 PM
By Mercurius in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & DiscussionReplies: 88Last Post: Sunday, 15th January, 2012, 12:13 AM
By Mercurius in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 4Last Post: Monday, 9th January, 2012, 05:16 PM
By rounser in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 7Last Post: Friday, 19th July, 2002, 06:11 AM
By widderslainte in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & DiscussionReplies: 25Last Post: Wednesday, 29th May, 2002, 09:51 PM