The Sacred Cow Slaughterhouse: Ideas you think D&D's better without

[Systole]

<shrug> Your call. I've been playing for 25 years. I like 13th Age because D&D has at long last stopped telling me what kind of character I should play, and is instead letting me make the character that I want to play.

In AD&D, you had things like humans dual-classing and nonhumans multiclassing. There were rules and restrictions on what you could and couldn't do that didn't have any good reason for being there except that it the original developers had a vision of the D&D world that was incorporated into the ruleset. In 3rd ed., the writers stepped back and said (among other things), "Look, why does an elf advance differently from a human? Wouldn't it be better and simpler if they advanced the same way? Okay, let's fix that." And it was awesome because it leveled the field and got closer to the goal of letting players play what they want without feel straitjacketed. Was it perfect? No. But it was a vast improvement over AD&D.

In 13th Age, I feel like the writers have taken that to its logical conclusion. In PF, for example, halflings have a size penalty and a negative Strength modifier. That means that if you want to make, for example, a halfling barbarian, you are going to run with a gimped character that is never going to be as good as a human or even an elf barbarian. So you're sometimes left with this choice of: play a gimped PC, or play a PC that isn't really your first choice. In 13th Age, you do not have to make that choice, because your halfling barbarian will be every bit as badass as a human barbarian. Your dwarf sorcerer will be every bit as good as a dark elf sorcerer. That's why I think 13th Age is the best thing since 3rd edition.

 

[Salamandyr]

I'm happy that you have found a game you like so much. I'm pleased as punch about 5e myself.

 

[Systole]

Haven't played 5e, to be honest. I don't like NDAs so I didn't take the chance for a playtest. But likewise, I'm happy you've found a game you like. Different strokes and all that.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Very true. I also post on the Hero boards, and it is amazing how many posters want to emulate D&D with the Hero rules. My usual response is "WHY??" There is no way you will get a better system for playing D&D (whatever edition you are working to emulate) than D&D. Use the system for its own strengths, not to created a watered-down version of another system.

Yeah. I adapted some stuff - I made a lot of talents that were HERO versions of D&D Feats. My magic system really feels like Rolemaster. I pretty much took elements from games I liked and emulated them in HERO. Got the exact game I wanted.

 

[N'raac]

Yeah. I adapted some stuff - I made a lot of talents that were HERO versions of D&D Feats. My magic system really feels like Rolemaster. I pretty much took elements from games I liked and emulated them in HERO. Got the exact game I wanted.

I think hat's a big part of it - not "how do I get this identical result" but "how do I invoke the feel I like".

 

[billd91]

In 13th Age, I feel like the writers have taken that to its logical conclusion. In PF, for example, halflings have a size penalty and a negative Strength modifier. That means that if you want to make, for example, a halfling barbarian, you are going to run with a gimped character that is never going to be as good as a human or even an elf barbarian. So you're sometimes left with this choice of: play a gimped PC, or play a PC that isn't really your first choice. In 13th Age, you do not have to make that choice, because your halfling barbarian will be every bit as badass as a human barbarian. Your dwarf sorcerer will be every bit as good as a dark elf sorcerer. That's why I think 13th Age is the best thing since 3rd edition.

If that works for you, OK. But for fantasy games, that idea doesn't really work for me. I find it's a disconnect if the halfling barbarian can be just as good as a larger race barbarian on the exact same terms. That sort of absolutely unbounded development belongs, in my opinion, in the superhero RPGs - and even then if Puck decides he's going to take on Sasquatch, my money's still on Sasquatch...

 

[Systole]

If that works for you, OK. But for fantasy games, that idea doesn't really work for me. I find it's a disconnect if the halfling barbarian can be just as good as a larger race barbarian on the exact same terms. That sort of absolutely unbounded development belongs, in my opinion, in the superhero RPGs - and even then if Puck decides he's going to take on Sasquatch, my money's still on Sasquatch...

I respectfully disagree. I think once you accept that you can have a 12th level <insert class here> that could singlehandedly plow through a small army of mooks, then assigning power levels based on something as basic as race is, in my opinion, rather arbitrary.

 

[billd91]

I respectfully disagree. I think once you accept that you can have a 12th level <insert class here> that could singlehandedly plow through a small army of mooks, then assigning power levels based on something as basic as race is, in my opinion, rather arbitrary.

It's not really a question of power levels as much as it's a question of method. That 12th level halfling barbarian is also quite capable of taking on an army of mooks, but he does so in a different way as befits a small barbarian with good hiding benefits and the sling (or staff sling) he favors (and is better suited for him) over his great-axe wielding human counterpart. And, as such, I find it anything but arbitrary.

 

[Systole]

If you take Tolkein as a starting point, I wouldn't be able to disagree with you. And if that's the game you'd like to play, that's certainly your prerogative. Don't get me wrong: I respect Tolkein as an innovator and a codifier for, like, every single fantasy trope. But I want to move past Tolkein. He's a sacred cow for me.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

<shrug>
In AD&D, you had things like humans dual-classing and nonhumans multiclassing. There were rules and restrictions on what you could and couldn't do that didn't have any good reason for being there except that it the original developers had a vision of the D&D world that was incorporated into the ruleset. In 3rd ed., the writers stepped back and said (among other things), "Look, why does an elf advance differently from a human? Wouldn't it be better and simpler if they advanced the same way? Okay, let's fix that." And it was awesome because it leveled the field and got closer to the goal of letting players play what they want without feel straitjacketed. Was it perfect? No. But it was a vast improvement over AD&D.

No, it was horrible, because it destroyed the humanocentric world and made multiclassing useless except for a one or two level dip here and there. An improvement? If a square wheel is an improvement, then I suppose so.