D&D General The perfect D&D edition (according to ENWORLD)

Garthanos · Jun 29, 2019

Paul3 said:
I realize that these preferences may or may not be what the majority of people on this site desire, but I can tell you right now that there are things on this list that, if present, would have prevented me from getting back into the game.

And without many of them I am certain they will get no money from me...
gotta love them preferences.

Mistwell · Jun 29, 2019

Yaarel said:
The original post is a pretty good list.

The only thing that caused me concern is:

* balance vs. niche protection: Each class will be specialized and fit a role at core.

Here, ‘each class will fit a role at core’ is the opposite of customizability according to character concept. So, it requires clarification about how to customize a character whose concept is beyond Gygax.

On a different concern, I was happy to see the need to support DM world-building.

DM world-building works best when the core rules are setting neutral − without any assumptions about what is in the setting. The setting might not even have other planes. So even references to ‘Fey’ creatures do well to avoid spacial assumptions. Especially religions, and different kinds of way of being religious, need to be more neutral and better model the reallife diversity of human religions. Let the DM decide without needing to erase texts.

At the same time, a separate box for official settings is excellent. These can show how each setting uses the core rules within its own unique context and flavor.

With one caveat. You MUST play with polytheism. No exceptions.*

*I kid I kid! I know you run some alternative religious systems, and some day I would like to hear more about it.

Lanefan · Jun 29, 2019

Garthanos said:
I might too... not much digging some of the impact of bounded accuracy nor increased lethality (faux difficulty in disguise making the game bound to random chance)

It *should* be in large part bound to random chance in the end, otherwise why do we have all these dice? Also, games without lethality are games without life, as a player of mine once said.

but I think I may have found some options to get around bounded accuracy at least.

To, er, make it less bounded, or less accurate?

Lanefan · Jun 29, 2019

Elfcrusher said:
Unlike Mystic, rapiers, drow, and some of the nuttier races, which I don't like for reasons mostly of flavor (and maybe some mechanical weirdness) the problem with Warlords is that they are, be definition and design, leaders. The whole concept is built around the idea that one member of the team isn't actually a peer, but is better than them. That the other characters are drawn to his/her leadership and charisma and knowledge.

Kinda reminds me of the 1e Paladin, or at least of how most people played them.

I don't mind the party-leader concept, though, if for no other reason than it's usually a temporary situation: it'll only work until the leader leads them into disaster, after which (if any survive) they won't listen to the leader's orders any more...

Lanefan · Jun 29, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
Neither the name of the Role, nor the concept of the class, imply a party leader in a superior position in the fiction, nor the player commanding or leading other players.

Can't speak for anyone else, but if someone told me my role in a party was 'leader' then I'd naturally take that to mean that for better or worse I'd just been put in charge; and would proceed on that basis.

Put another way, it's a flat-out bad word-choice by the 4e designers to have called the role 'leader' when it really means 'supporter' or 'follower'.

If you must express your fears of someday possibly sitting at a table where someone mis-plays a Warlord as an obligatory party leaders and starts trying to boss you around, express them as such

No such fears here; and I'd probably be that player.

It is in no way unreasonable to want an excellent, past-edition-PH1 class that fills a role and models concepts that currently are accessible only in the palest, most limited shadowy forms, to finally rise to the level of option-in-the-pipeline-that-may-still-never-see-print that the Psion & Artificer currently enjoy.

Non-magical battlefield healing of any kind is a complete non-starter.

Get rid of that, and would you still see the Warlord as viable?

If yes, I might even kinda get behind you on it (though another option might be to have some of its other abilities instead go to the Ranger, to beef it up and in effect merge the two classes into one).

If no, we remain opposed.

Lanefan · Jun 29, 2019

TwoSix said:
I'll be perfectly honest, building your characters on some sort of island with no reference to other players isn't some kind of estimable position to hold.

Unless some or all of the PCs knew each other before their played adventuring careers began, there's no reason to expect them to be any better suited to each other than any other bunch of random strangers; thus - again unless the PCs already know each other - having them 'built' in isolation is quite realistic.

Once things get going and the PCs get to know each other, then some alterations might arise organically...just the same as when a bunch of strangers get to know each other.

Garthanos · Jun 29, 2019

Lanefan said:
It *should* be in large part bound to random chance in the end, otherwise why do we have all these dice?

Your should I will take that to mean "zero impact of choice, simplistic tactics only and zero impact of player ability" ... go play a game of heads or tails with a coin.

Games with celebrated lethality make for cardboard heros without personality and no player investment seen it.

Less bounded - bounded accuracy makes heros less accurate. I want heros to be noticeably better at high levels instead of being stumped by chumps

But you have fun with your instant deaths and chumps.

Garthanos · Jun 29, 2019

Lanefan said:
Can't speak for anyone else, but if someone told me my role in a party was 'leader' then I'd naturally take that to mean that for better or worse I'd just been put in charge; and would proceed on that basis.

So insisting being illiterate and not reading the game you are playing yeh. That must be the perfect approach. You cannot half assed read the players handbook and come away with that conclusion.

But you can ewar forever over it... because you are so nice.

Garthanos · Jun 29, 2019

Lanefan said:
Unless some or all of the PCs knew each other before their played adventuring careers began, there's no reason to expect them to be any better

He said other players not other PCS now people do sometimes do that as a mistake but it is an entirely different reference

Garthanos · Jun 29, 2019

Garthanos said:
Y
Less bounded - bounded accuracy makes heros less accurate. I want heros to be noticeably better at high levels instead of being stumped by chumps

And I am less talking about combat with this than I am skill application to be honest.

When you are at high level in this game you are supposed to be approaching godling hood but that town mayor will still be no more overcome by my chosen one than when she was a kid unless I specialized in something. No the confidence and broad experience has no impact in 5e unless I do a bard. Isnt this supposed to be a game with levels???

D&D General The perfect D&D edition (according to ENWORLD)

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Lanefan

Victoria Rules

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight

Garthanos

Arcadian Knight

Similar Threads