Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 5806913">Hmmm...here's some quick thoughts:LEVEL&nbsp; &nbsp; 1-30.&nbsp; This depends on the power scaling and how people want to run their games.&nbsp; I prefer 1-30 because simply, I use level as a &quot;plot progression&quot; and would prefer to throw more levels in between plot progression points.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; POWERS (4e power mechanic)&nbsp; &nbsp; GOOD, in fact I would go as far as to say VERY good.&nbsp; I'm a rp guy, numbers aren't my best friend and having to copy down the text of an ability is tedious.&nbsp; Powers went a long way to easing a lot of my troubles.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; VANCIANT SYSTEM (3.x caster mechanic)&nbsp; &nbsp; Honestly not familiar with the system...never was good with casters.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; CLASS ROLES (defender, controller, striker, leader)&nbsp; &nbsp; GOOD, within reason.&nbsp; I think roles are useful as long as most classes retain the ability to take on one of at least two roles.&nbsp; Though, I don't care much for &quot;leader&quot;, it's that weird &quot;support&quot; class that so many RPGs have tried and I feel it could be better served by being divided up into the other roles.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; MAGIC ITEMS HAS TO BE MECHANICALLY (you want magic items to be almost necessary? a big part of the game?)&nbsp; &nbsp; Kinda 50/50 on this, magic items are fun, but I feel 4e made them too easy to come by.&nbsp; Your +1-5 weapons I don't really consider &quot;magical&quot;, more of an extension of &quot;masterwork&quot;, but overall I think a character with 3 or more magical items should be a rarity.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; ABILITIES SCORES (str, con, dex, int, wis, cha)&nbsp; &nbsp; GOOD, I don't think D&amp;D would be the same without them.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A LOT OF CLASSES&nbsp; &nbsp; GOOD, provided as above these classes retain variety.&nbsp; I'd be happy with 10 classes if each of them held 3-4 roles or playstyles to them.&nbsp; Having two fighters come on to the scene and fight in two totally different manners is great.&nbsp; There's no need to call one a &quot;warrior&quot; and the other a &quot;fighter&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; A LOT OF RACES&nbsp; &nbsp; GOOD, VERY VERY VERY VERY GOOD!&nbsp; Though I think there should be more emphasis on your physical appearace being a vanity choice.&nbsp; IMO, beast races should also be options with any benefits being limited to you getting to look the way you want.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; ABILITY SCORES FOR RACES (you want a particolar race to be better with some classes and bad with others?)&nbsp; &nbsp; YES, ability scores should come in a standardized modular fashion.&nbsp; Let players pick their bonuses, and if their character is a typical or a-typical member of a race.&nbsp; The rules should not be deciding that all dwarves are warriors, it's limiting to players and DMs, especially those who like to create their own worlds and stories.IE: every race gets say a single +2 to one stat, and may have an additional +2 to any stat(even the same one) at a cost of a -2 to one other stat.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; FEATS (AND OTHER OPTIONS) THAT GIVES YOU STATIC +X BONUSES (weapon focus, weapon expertise)&nbsp; &nbsp; GOOD to a degree.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; HIT POINTS&nbsp; &nbsp; GOOD, tracking health in other manners is just...hard.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; HEALING SURGES (part of 4e heal system)&nbsp; &nbsp; GOOD, but should be more limited.&nbsp; Healing surges should be a player-use-only ability, and healing in general should not be dependent upon how many you do or do not have.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; DEFENSES&nbsp; &nbsp; AS AC: good, provided your AC can benefit from more than a single score.&nbsp; &nbsp; AS DAMAGE RESISTANCE: good within reason.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; SKILL CHALLENGES (4e)&nbsp; &nbsp; GOOD: every adventure should have more solutions than &quot;KILL THEM ALL!&quot;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; SKILLS HAVE TO BE&nbsp; &nbsp; IMPORTANT within reason.&nbsp; I don't like the laundry list of skills in 3.x, it's just too much to track for many people.&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; NORMAL CHANCE TO HIT&nbsp; &nbsp; 50% AS NOW, I think 50% is a good medium, both for players and enemies.&nbsp; Allow players to have hit-boosting feats, skills, and so on, but these come at the expense of other things.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; ALIGNMENT IS (mechanical means there are&nbsp; powers/spells that work on what you write on your sheet, fluff means&nbsp; pure role play)&nbsp; &nbsp; MECHANICAL &amp; FLUFF: I should never see such blashpemy in a campaign as a &quot;warlock paladin&quot;.&nbsp; Pardon me while I go puke.&nbsp; Alignment is important, but should be flexible.&nbsp; Alignment in 4e was pointless.&nbsp; Alignment in 3.x was far too strict.&nbsp; Let the player play how they want to and work with them to determine how that affects their character.REMEMBER: Lawful good is not lawful stupid.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; SAVE OR DIE (finger of death)&nbsp; &nbsp; GOOD within reason.&nbsp; Save or die should be rare, and only encountered at incredibly high power levels.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 5806913"] Hmmm...here's some quick thoughts: [B]LEVEL[/B] 1-30. This depends on the power scaling and how people want to run their games. I prefer 1-30 because simply, I use level as a "plot progression" and would prefer to throw more levels in between plot progression points. [B] POWERS (4e power mechanic)[/B] GOOD, in fact I would go as far as to say VERY good. I'm a rp guy, numbers aren't my best friend and having to copy down the text of an ability is tedious. Powers went a long way to easing a lot of my troubles. [B] VANCIANT SYSTEM (3.x caster mechanic)[/B] Honestly not familiar with the system...never was good with casters. [B] CLASS ROLES (defender, controller, striker, leader)[/B] GOOD, within reason. I think roles are useful as long as most classes retain the ability to take on one of at least two roles. Though, I don't care much for "leader", it's that weird "support" class that so many RPGs have tried and I feel it could be better served by being divided up into the other roles. [B] MAGIC ITEMS HAS TO BE MECHANICALLY (you want magic items to be almost necessary? a big part of the game?)[/B] Kinda 50/50 on this, magic items are fun, but I feel 4e made them too easy to come by. Your +1-5 weapons I don't really consider "magical", more of an extension of "masterwork", but overall I think a character with 3 or more magical items should be a rarity. [B] ABILITIES SCORES (str, con, dex, int, wis, cha)[/B] GOOD, I don't think D&D would be the same without them. [B] A LOT OF CLASSES[/B] GOOD, provided as above these classes retain variety. I'd be happy with 10 classes if each of them held 3-4 roles or playstyles to them. Having two fighters come on to the scene and fight in two totally different manners is great. There's no need to call one a "warrior" and the other a "fighter". [B] A LOT OF RACES[/B] GOOD, VERY VERY VERY VERY GOOD! Though I think there should be more emphasis on your physical appearace being a vanity choice. IMO, beast races should also be options with any benefits being limited to you getting to look the way you want. [B] ABILITY SCORES FOR RACES (you want a particolar race to be better with some classes and bad with others?)[/B] YES, ability scores should come in a standardized modular fashion. Let players pick their bonuses, and if their character is a typical or a-typical member of a race. The rules should not be deciding that all dwarves are warriors, it's limiting to players and DMs, especially those who like to create their own worlds and stories. IE: every race gets say a single +2 to one stat, and may have an additional +2 to any stat(even the same one) at a cost of a -2 to one other stat. [B] FEATS (AND OTHER OPTIONS) THAT GIVES YOU STATIC +X BONUSES (weapon focus, weapon expertise)[/B] GOOD to a degree. [B] HIT POINTS[/B] GOOD, tracking health in other manners is just...hard. [B] HEALING SURGES (part of 4e heal system)[/B] GOOD, but should be more limited. Healing surges should be a player-use-only ability, and healing in general should not be dependent upon how many you do or do not have. [B] DEFENSES[/B] AS AC: good, provided your AC can benefit from more than a single score. AS DAMAGE RESISTANCE: good within reason. [B] SKILL CHALLENGES (4e)[/B] GOOD: every adventure should have more solutions than "KILL THEM ALL!" [B] SKILLS HAVE TO BE[/B] IMPORTANT within reason. I don't like the laundry list of skills in 3.x, it's just too much to track for many people. [B] NORMAL CHANCE TO HIT[/B] 50% AS NOW, I think 50% is a good medium, both for players and enemies. Allow players to have hit-boosting feats, skills, and so on, but these come at the expense of other things. [B] ALIGNMENT IS (mechanical means there are powers/spells that work on what you write on your sheet, fluff means pure role play)[/B] MECHANICAL & FLUFF: I should never see such blashpemy in a campaign as a "warlock paladin". Pardon me while I go puke. Alignment is important, but should be flexible. Alignment in 4e was pointless. Alignment in 3.x was far too strict. Let the player play how they want to and work with them to determine how that affects their character. REMEMBER: Lawful good is not lawful stupid. [B] SAVE OR DIE (finger of death)[/B] GOOD within reason. Save or die should be rare, and only encountered at incredibly high power levels. [/QUOTE]

Verification