Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jdrakeh" data-source="post: 4326535" data-attributes="member: 13892">The big ones (for me) were already on the list: 1. DMs needed a more eloquent and less time consuming method of statting up NPCs. Having hundreds of options is perfect for PCs or PC-classed NPCs (read &quot;BBEGs&quot; for convenience), but just plain stupid for commoners who served primarily as window dressing. It shouldn't take more than one minute (tops) to draw up stats for a potato farmer. He shouldn't need a class, skill ratings, etc. 2. DMs needed a consistent method for creating monsters. Let's face it -- for all the boasting that WotC did about balanced gameplay, the fact that the 'monster creation systm' was pretty much &quot;make stuff up as you see fit and refine it via playtesting&quot; undid any potential good that the CR system and other, related, mechanics might have accomplished. This basis for CR was deeply, deeply flawed. Some less important concerns (or pet peeves, if you will) that aren't yet on the list, AFAICT,&nbsp; follow: 1. I hate, hate, hate systems that arbitrarily assign class-based bonuses for some learned aptitudes (e.g., melee skill) and 'skill' ratings to other learned aptitudes (e.g., bluffing). Pick a system and stick to it already! You're either a class-based game or a skill-based game, but for the love of god, choose one or the other. Lack of decisive design in this regard leaves me cold, both as a player (Why can I custom-tailor my character's non-combat aptitudes, but not his weapon aptitude?!?!) and as a DM (who has to answer this question on a regular basis). 2. Why are all of the core classes based on vocation save for one? Why is &quot;Barbarian&quot; a class? In fiction and history, barbaric cultures have shamen, warriors, hunters, sailors, etc. In D&amp;D, the fact that the barbarain is pigeon-holed into the role of 'berserker warrior' has never sat right with me because it's neither internally consistent, nor does it reflect the diversity of primitive cultures.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jdrakeh, post: 4326535, member: 13892"] The big ones (for me) were already on the list: 1. DMs needed a more eloquent and less time consuming method of statting up NPCs. Having hundreds of options is perfect for PCs or PC-classed NPCs (read "BBEGs" for convenience), but just plain stupid for commoners who served primarily as window dressing. It shouldn't take more than one minute (tops) to draw up stats for a potato farmer. He shouldn't need a class, skill ratings, etc. 2. DMs needed a consistent method for creating monsters. Let's face it -- for all the boasting that WotC did about balanced gameplay, the fact that the 'monster creation systm' was pretty much "make stuff up as you see fit and refine it via playtesting" undid any potential good that the CR system and other, related, mechanics might have accomplished. This basis for CR was deeply, deeply flawed. Some less important concerns (or pet peeves, if you will) that aren't yet on the list, AFAICT, follow: 1. I hate, hate, [I]hate[/I] systems that arbitrarily assign class-based bonuses for some learned aptitudes (e.g., melee skill) and 'skill' ratings to other learned aptitudes (e.g., bluffing). Pick a system and stick to it already! You're either a class-based game or a skill-based game, but for the love of god, [i]choose one or the other[/i]. Lack of decisive design in this regard leaves me cold, both as a player (Why can I custom-tailor my character's non-combat aptitudes, but not his weapon aptitude?!?!) and as a DM (who has to answer this question on a regular basis). 2. Why are all of the core classes based on vocation save for one? Why is "Barbarian" a class? In fiction and history, barbaric cultures have shamen, warriors, hunters, sailors, etc. In D&D, the fact that the barbarain is pigeon-holed into the role of 'berserker warrior' has never sat right with me because it's neither internally consistent, nor does it reflect the diversity of primitive cultures. [/QUOTE]

Verification