ComradeGnull
First Post
Race, class, level. Level-based advancement (..e, you get better at everything when you get better at anything). Six ability scores with humans typically in the 3-18 range (adding a high end for monsters and gods is fine with me). The nine alignments. Rolling a d20 as a core resolution mechanic. Hit points.
Save vs. rod/breath weapon/whatever always seemed cobbled together to me- you would read a description of some random effect in an adventure and then be told 'save vs. wand for half damage'- from some acid falling out of the walls or something. Why save vs. wand? Because that one had the numerical progression that best matched the chance of saving that the designer wanted for that effect...
Skills a la 3/4e & Pathfinder are uniformly better than the NWP system. I was just the other day looking through a big collection of 2e books (the edition I grew up playing), and every time I hit a Non-weapon Proficiency section, I just found myself thinking "wow, this is rubbish". Even the rules in the core book are goofy in terms of what requires two slots, which proficiencies have inexplicable penalties applied to them, proficiencies that cover way too much or too little content... etc.
Healing surges, to me, were an alternative healing mechanic introduced and made core in 4e. I have no problem with them being an option, but I also have no problem with them going away entirely.
Percentile dice... their application was always nichey. You can still use them for any 'Random xxx' table in the world, but honestly D&D feels more D&D-like without them. I always wondered why Thief skills had percentile rolls, but no other ability check did. It felt bolted on from another system.
Why do people want to change things? Because everyone's view of what is D&D is slightly different, and everyone thinks that changing a few things would make it their own personal Platonic ideal of what D&D is. Everyone has something where they think 'this doesn't fit with what D&D is'. These attempts at changing the core of the game are just attempts at making D&D more perfectly D&D-like, for varying personal values of what is D&D.
Save vs. rod/breath weapon/whatever always seemed cobbled together to me- you would read a description of some random effect in an adventure and then be told 'save vs. wand for half damage'- from some acid falling out of the walls or something. Why save vs. wand? Because that one had the numerical progression that best matched the chance of saving that the designer wanted for that effect...
Skills a la 3/4e & Pathfinder are uniformly better than the NWP system. I was just the other day looking through a big collection of 2e books (the edition I grew up playing), and every time I hit a Non-weapon Proficiency section, I just found myself thinking "wow, this is rubbish". Even the rules in the core book are goofy in terms of what requires two slots, which proficiencies have inexplicable penalties applied to them, proficiencies that cover way too much or too little content... etc.
Healing surges, to me, were an alternative healing mechanic introduced and made core in 4e. I have no problem with them being an option, but I also have no problem with them going away entirely.
Percentile dice... their application was always nichey. You can still use them for any 'Random xxx' table in the world, but honestly D&D feels more D&D-like without them. I always wondered why Thief skills had percentile rolls, but no other ability check did. It felt bolted on from another system.
Why do people want to change things? Because everyone's view of what is D&D is slightly different, and everyone thinks that changing a few things would make it their own personal Platonic ideal of what D&D is. Everyone has something where they think 'this doesn't fit with what D&D is'. These attempts at changing the core of the game are just attempts at making D&D more perfectly D&D-like, for varying personal values of what is D&D.
