Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pssthpok" data-source="post: 5342078" data-attributes="member: 34725">5th Edition, eh?Let me get mine in before this thing goes 404...First off, "epic" shouldn't be "core". Epic should be epic; i.e. it should be outside the bounds of normal play. 4E tried to give us all warm fuzzies by making epic "core" and in the end it only managed to make epic "mundane"; it took all the magic and romance out of it. To me, the definition of "epic" is that's it's not "core", but an acknowledgment that some people want to play beyond the normal scope of the game. Making it "core" utterly castrates that feeling and renders 21-30 to just more of the same. I think I'm probably the only one who liked the Forgotten Realms "epic" sidebar, where each "epic" level is a straight-forward +1 BAB, or bonus feat, or extra spell level or something sweet like that.Secondly, 2E had it right the first time when they said that some classes are just better than others. Sorry, all you egalitarians out there, but all class levels are not equal. Varying the XP requirements by class was brilliant and is so underestimated I cry myself to sleep at night just thinking about it. See, in 2E the game wasn't about "what level" you were, it was about "how much experience" you had. All people in an evenly-run party had (roughly) the same amount of XP (or EXP, if you guys are old enough), it's just that 100,000 XP for a fighter didn't realize the same level as 100,000 XP for a mage. And that MAKES SENSE! 3E was romantic about parity between class levels, but it's a fantasy that needs dispelling. Fireball used to kick ass; now it's the least-popular spell of its level... because egalitarian game designers are too blinded to see that parity across class level lines isn't the object of good game design. Parity across experience levels is. In a nutshell, bring back varying XP tables for classes and allow parties to have varying levels among its constituent classes.Third, my second point destroys the simplistic 4E multiclassing as well as the LEGO multiclassing from 3E. Quaint as those systems are, they don't work with varying amounts of XP per level per class. The simplest solution is to resurrect 2E multiclassing: allowing people to split XP gains across multiple classes. While we're at it, rein in what races can split how many classes. Humans should have the most diversity, being able to split across as many classes as they want. Also, you should be able to decide per point if your XP gains are split or not. If you have an encounter with your mage-thief and all you did was backstab, you should be able to dump all that XP to your thief levels. Heck, your DM might even want to enforce that sort of thing.Fourth, we have to get off the grid, guys. Grids and hexmaps are nice and all, but I think the strength of D&D as a pen-and-paper game is that you are using your imagination more than a strict reference like a grid. Let video games track position and distance and all that to exacting degrees. P&P RPGs like D&D should concentrate on what video games CAN'T do: invoke imagination and settle scenes without needing rulers. Grids lead to sterile interaction with combat rules (just look at all the push/pull/slide dominance in 4E - strictly grid-based mechanics), and that leads to a sterile interaction with the game's other non-combat elements (skill challenges, anyone?). Grids essentially reduce the gamer's dependence on their own inner eye and relegate it to "what is" on the mat, which precipitated in 4E to these rigorously structured RP interactions in skill challenges. (and before anyone bites off more than they can chew, I know you can just "not use" the skill challenges stuff. My point is that the culture of D&D has become too formulated, too grid-like). Fifth, iterative attacks should stay gone. One attack per round, with class powers granting additional attacks along the way. Fighters should get a second attack before anyone else.Sixth, this whole noun-noun naming scheme has got to get poopcanned. Show some creativity, folks.Seventh, the Monopoly property card design for anything and everything is pedestrian and ugly. If we don't stop this now, feats will soon follow the same format and we'll be shuffling our PCs before each encounter. No frack'n thank you.Eighth, the monster and encounter design rules from 4E are the best I've seen so far. Keep 'em. Flat XP per PC by Level is the only way to go. Standardized health, attacks, defenses and all that are great. I'd only ask that the # of monster special abilities by role/tier/level be a bit more explicit.Ninth, speaking of things 4E got right, no more spending XP to make things. That doesn't even make sense. Tenth, there are a lot of things 4E called rituals that should have been kept as spells. Likewise, there were a good few that should have been open to all classes. So, that merits some looking over.I'm being stared at by my boss, though, so I have to make this the end./casts protection from fire.Mod Edit: Hint - claiming you're trying to get your words in before the thing blows up, and then using language that's apt to make it blow up, not so smart.</blockquote>

Verification