Judgement calls vs "railroading"

[Campbell]

Again, this is all cool. I've played only a couple of the games you mentioned, but there are also many I have not. Over the years, I have played enough games to be exposed to a lot of different game mechanics that help with the game structure. I dig that stuff, even though I don't often think it is necessary.

Now, given that this is a 5E forum....do you think that 5E is incapable of achieving the kind of play you like? It's conspicuously not in your list. Do you think that absent such narrative mechanics in 5E, that DM Judgment can substitute?

You could get there fairly easy, although B/X or BECMI would be better fits. You would have to develop your exact Agenda and Principles to fit what the game uniquely offers and the exact sort of narrative you are after. Inspiration in its current state would have to go - it cuts against our interests in the same way that Fate Aspects do. It reinforces playing to who our characters are right now instead of making who they are a question answered through play. I would also scrap the current experience system and replace it with something more strongly tied to the sort of play I'm going for. A better rewards system is not strictly necessary for this sort of play, but the current reward structure is also counterproductive to our interests. I would probably also alter rest cycles in the same way I did when I ran 4e. Not insignificant hacks, but ones that don't really touch core systems that much. You can stop at just the principles, but there are some counter productive procedures I would not be able to help myself with.

Honestly if I were going to run 5e it would most likely be in a West Marches style. Create a map with blanks in it, have a larger group of players create characters, and have them coordinate what they want to do. Then prep exactly that material using guidance from B/X. Either that or run Sine Nomine's Red Tide sandbox setting or utilize some Red Box Vancouver modules - not adventures, actual modules.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Otherwise known as ... so, how ya feeling about that Battlemaster archetype?

Actually, I recently started on a 4e version (post-Essentials-style Fighter sub-class) of the Battlemaster.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

Subclass is just another way of saying that WoTC doesn't love you.

WotC does seem parsimonious with that metaphorical emotion this time around.

Nobody puts Baby the Illusionist in the corner!

The illusionist started life as a sub-class, became one of 8 specialist wizards in 2e, stayed that way in 3.x, was vaguely present as the Orb of Deception build in 4e Arcane Power, was a Mage School at release in Essentials, and, in 5e, is back to a sub-class, now called a Tradition, on of 8 in the PH.

So, it's literally never been a class.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you state that Paladin wasn't a class in 1e (something that I wish was true ...) then this is accurate.

Going by tables, the only real classes are:
Cleric
Fighter
Magic User
Thief

The core four.

Yep. That's my story.

It's worth noting that every other sub-class, optional-class, proto-PrC, and not-a-class-at-all, except the Assassin, got to be a full class, in print, in at least one subsequent edition.

The Paladin, Ranger, Psionicist, and Bard were classes in 2e, the Druid was in 3.0 (in 2e it was technically one instance of a speciality priest, iirc). All were likewise classes in 4e - though the psionicist had half his name chopped off, and was joined by three other psionicists, including a very confused Monk ("Not Psi! Ki!" "Yeah, OK, 'Psyche' it is.").

But calling 5e's traditions "subclasses" and comparing them to the Illusionist class in 1e .... just doesn't cut it.

It's probably a fairer to compare Traditions to the 2e and 3e specialist wizard (they compare favorably: no opposed schools!).
Of course, aside from that (and presentation), the biggest difference is that the 1e Illusionist never got 8th or 9th level spells, while as a 'mere' specialist or Tradition, it does.

 

[Lanefan]

I disagree with that characterization in the following way-

If you state that Paladin wasn't a class in 1e (something that I wish was true ...) then this is accurate.

However, the "subclasses" of 1e were, for all practical purposes, classes.

Going by tables, the only real classes are:
Cleric
Fighter
Magic User
Thief

The core four.
Every thing else that we consider a class (and is fully developed)? Nope.

Illusionist? Druid? Ranger? Paladin? Assassin? Tehcnically, sub-classes, yet they were all fully developed.

The Monk and the Bard were not delineated as sub-classes, but lacking unique tables (to hit, save) they would be, at best, "special variant classes" (one listed out of order, one listed in an appendix).

In later editions, however, all of those became their own full classes at some point - except the Illusionist.

Lan-"and Necromancer, which also works really well as a 1e subclass on par with Illusionist"-efan

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Tony Vargas]

Bah. Who needs wish when you can use your 7th level spell for Alter Reality, Prismatic Wall, and ... um .... first level magic user spells ....

So, you wish you couldn't cast wish? That could work out...