Cast Raise Dead on a Game Element!

[Felon]

I too agree with bringing back class/race restrictions. For one it perserves the archtypes, and D&D has always been a game based around classical archtypes.

This is the "appeal to tradition" fallacy. That something "has always been such-and-such" is not a compelling reason why that state of affairs should continue.

IMO, leads to more background flavor for the races themselves...its why hobbits/halflings are so enamored with magic, because they cant be wizards themselves, etc.

You speak of flavor. Isn't a character that breaks the mold much more flavorful than someone whose following in his race's pre-ordained footsteps? A player character is, by his very nature, exceptional. He can be the rare, almost-unheeard-of halfiing wizard.

 

[Felon]

Does naybody remember tactical feats from 3e? You spend a feat, you get three maneuvers you can do. They required you set up conditions to unlock a more powerful. In other words, they required actual tactics. And because you got three-for-one, you weren't just spamm the same tactic over and over (a la Improved Trip/Combat Reflexes/Spiked Chain).

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

This is the "appeal to tradition" fallacy. That something "has always been such-and-such" is not a compelling reason why that state of affairs should continue.

It's an appeal to tradition. Appeal to tradition is only a fallacy when you assume the tradition itself holds no intrinsic value; hardly the case when we are talking about trying to recreate an experience from our youths.

You speak of flavor. Isn't a character that breaks the mold much more flavorful than someone whose following in his race's pre-ordained footsteps? A player character is, by his very nature, exceptional. He can be the rare, almost-unheeard-of halfiing wizard.

No. When a character breaks the mold, there is no longer a mold left to work with; PCs are exceptional, but if they're all special snowflakes then they no longer reflect the flavor of the setting at all. If you take all of the brightest and most vibrant colors on your palette and blend them together, you will always end up with the same dull shade of brown.

 

[ferratus]

On the issue of level limits for PC's or class restrictions, I think I agree with the sentiment. An elf who is a necromancer for example, becomes a necromancer rather than an elf because the flavour text of the class overshadows rather than compliments the flavour text of the race.

However, level limits or class restrictions are a crude way to get the effect you want. The way 3e (or Skyrim for that matter) does it better is by having racial abilities that are supposed to compliment certain classes. As long as it is out in the open that half-orcs or dwarves make poor wizards, and the penalties for playing against type are minor, you'll steer people towards optimal builds without forcing substandard builds.

Of course, with this model you have to build your races with care. Both halfings and dwarves made better wizard builds than elves did in 3e.

 

[Felon]

It's an appeal to tradition. Appeal to tradition is only a fallacy when you assume the tradition itself holds no intrinsic value; hardly the case when we are talking about trying to recreate an experience from our youths.

No. When a character breaks the mold, there is no longer a mold left to work with; PCs are exceptional, but if they're all special snowflakes then they no longer reflect the flavor of the setting at all. If you take all of the brightest and most vibrant colors on your palette and blend them together, you will always end up with the same dull shade of brown.

Wrong on both counts--objectively in the first case, and as a matter of opinion in the second.

First off, an appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy when the person making the appeal assumes the tradition holds intrinsic value simply because it's a tradition. Jiggawatts may personally like the tradition for a sentimental reason, but without demonstrating the value of the tradition, it's not a logical reason.

Secondly, there is a difference between a character's personal traits and the predominant traits of their member race. The qualities of the latter can be reflected quite effectively by using the player character as a foil, thus showing the contrast between the player and the average joe who is cast from the mold. Such examples in fiction abound. If every player character is just a stereotype, the flavor will inevitably be cloying. Gee, another klepto halfiing....How great it is to keep tasting the same dish for thirty years.

On a lesser note, blending any number of colors on a palette together, regardless of their brightness or vibrancy, will tend to produce brown. That's why you take pains not to blend them so on the palette before applying them to the canvas. The player characters are the objects in the foreground. The races and the rest of the setting are in the background. Let the characters be distinct from the background and you can appreciate both better.

 

[Lanefan]

Secondly, there is a difference between a character's personal traits and the predominant traits of their member race.

Not so much once the characters hit the table.

If Hobbits in a given game in theory cannot be Wizards yet a Hobbit Wizard somehow gets played, the players see a Hobbit Wizard and may well turn around and want one of their own. Sure, 99.999% of the world's Hobbits can't tell a spellbook from a spatula, but if the .001% is all the players ever see in the party then that racial flavour - that Hobbits don't do magic - is largely lost.

Lan-"sometimes, no means no"-efan

 

[Plane Sailing]

Wrong on both counts--objectively in the first case, and as a matter of opinion in the second.

First off, an appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy when the person making the appeal assumes the tradition holds intrinsic value simply because it's a tradition. Jiggawatts may personally like the tradition for a sentimental reason, but without demonstrating the value of the tradition, it's not a logical reason.


etc.

[MENTION=8158]Felon[/MENTION], please use these threads to talk about the subject of the thread (in this case elements which YOU would like to see raised from the dead) and AVOID attempting to deconstruct other peoples preferences.

It is disruptive to the thread, so please don't do it (at least and especially in the new horizons forum)

Thanks

 

[Felon]

[MENTION=8158]Felon[/MENTION], please use these threads to talk about the subject of the thread (in this case elements which YOU would like to see raised from the dead) and AVOID attempting to deconstruct other peoples preferences.

It is disruptive to the thread, so please don't do it (at least and especially in the new horizons forum)

Thanks

You have me a little confused. Please clarify. Someone was recently suspended essentially for telling people they weren't allowed to express disagreement with each other. But here it is disruptive for me to discuss disagreement. You're using the word "deconstruct" instead of "disagree", but deconstruction is how rational people conduct disagreement.

I would like to respond to Lanefan's comment, but I can't refute anything he says without doing what might be called deconstruction.

 

[Glade Riven]

Seems like the mod just doesn't want folks going off topic. It's a wishlist thread, after all...

- I'd like to see some return of vancian magic, but not a complete removal of 4e's style of magic.

- I would also like to see the return of a "core" setting, which at this moment is vaguely indicated to be Forgotten Realms. Points of Light was a good attempt to go setting-less, but it ended up turning into a rather vague setting in and of itself.

- I would like to see Star Wars Saga's force mechanics applied to psionics. Okay, not D&D, but much of Saga was a halfway point between d20 and 4e.

- I would like to see a 5e version of d20 Modern. I've played in some interesting games that crossed over d20 Modern elements with D&D, and it work very well.

 

[Umbran]

I would like to respond to Lanefan's comment, but I can't refute anything he says without doing what might be called deconstruction.

The thread is about stating your own preferences. It isn't about providing logical proof that your preferences should apply to all. There should be no refuting required.

Honestly, this went off the rails when logical fallacies got brought up. There is no accounting for taste - no mathematics applies. Tastes are not fully logical, and the reasons behind them may be illogical, and that's okay.