Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Legend and lore - the other one is too big
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sadrik" data-source="post: 6099406" data-attributes="member: 14506"><p><a href="http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130304" target="_blank">http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130304</a></p><p></p><p>So the other thread on this is pretty dense and I don't know if any of this was discussed in it but I think this is conceptually a really good idea. If there is only going to be one fighter/Mage type then get it right. If there is only going to be one spell that puts someone to sleep then get it right. If there is only going to be one spell to shape change then get it right. And so on... </p><p></p><p>I can see some changes in approach on this first if a new idea comes up and it might be better than the old it could be that it is instead tacked onto the original feat or spell or class feature or whatever as a new option for that item. This would be in lieu of jst adding the similar feature as a new feat or spell or whatever. I can also see errata happening. I see why mm is saying spend more time play testing because no chaff style features. Solid concepts. Build it once and build it right. The strategy makes sense. </p><p></p><p>I saw this happen in 3e quite a bit you have character concepts that were rehashed by refluffing them and 4e saw this in spades. In 3e you had the ranger and the scout. You had the rogue and the ninja. You had I don't know how many attempts at making a serviceable fighter magic-user. I think a lot of concept issues for characters can be handled well with a strong multi-classing system.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sadrik, post: 6099406, member: 14506"] [url]http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130304[/url] So the other thread on this is pretty dense and I don't know if any of this was discussed in it but I think this is conceptually a really good idea. If there is only going to be one fighter/Mage type then get it right. If there is only going to be one spell that puts someone to sleep then get it right. If there is only going to be one spell to shape change then get it right. And so on... I can see some changes in approach on this first if a new idea comes up and it might be better than the old it could be that it is instead tacked onto the original feat or spell or class feature or whatever as a new option for that item. This would be in lieu of jst adding the similar feature as a new feat or spell or whatever. I can also see errata happening. I see why mm is saying spend more time play testing because no chaff style features. Solid concepts. Build it once and build it right. The strategy makes sense. I saw this happen in 3e quite a bit you have character concepts that were rehashed by refluffing them and 4e saw this in spades. In 3e you had the ranger and the scout. You had the rogue and the ninja. You had I don't know how many attempts at making a serviceable fighter magic-user. I think a lot of concept issues for characters can be handled well with a strong multi-classing system. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Legend and lore - the other one is too big
Top