Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7877362" data-attributes="member: 29398">Wow - lots to unpack in this one!  I don't agree with everything you say but some of your points are bang on.I'd rather see metagame mechanics like this disappear completely.Where I think six is not enough.  Each of the current stats can quite reasonably be divided into two parts.  Then at roll-up, for each pair you ROLL (none of this point-buy or array stuff) 4d6-take-3 twice, where one goes into one side of that stat and the other goes into the other.  For example what's now Strength would break into Strength and Brawn; you'd roll 4d6 twice and put one result into each.  Repeat for each pair of stats; after which you can switch one (and only one) complete pair with another.Keep on preaching this from the highest mountain you can find!!!!The answer is both simple and a bit complex at the same time: do away with additive levels and have levels in each class advance independently, at whatever ratio the player desires.Currently a Fighter-4/Wizard-4 is an 8th level character where four levels have been put into each class.  What I'd like is that this instead be a Fighter-4 and a Wizard-4, saving and attacking etc. using the better of the two classes' abilities.This would force a re-think of the advancement table to make it more of a J-curve, so that single-class characters don't get too far ahead of double-class ones.  It also wouldn't work well in games that don't use xp; the whole point of this idea is that a player can divide any xp in whatever ratio is desired, so you can have a 50-50 Fighter-Wizard or a 75-25 Fighter-Wizard or a 90-10 Wizard-Fighter, whatever. (we use this, and have ruled that the ratio can be changed only at training for any level or during downtime between adventures)Most importantly, put a hard cap that says no character can ever have more than two classes.Resting in 5e is its own special case... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Both of these are good enough mechanics in themselves but - like advantage/disadvantage - they get massively overused.  It's a designer thing: come up with a good mechanic and then shoehorn it into everything even if it doesn't work there. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Best to leave concentration and attunement only for those relatively few particular spells/items that would become truly problematic without them.In an old-school game where characters are a bit more fragile at all levels, this would be correct: not having a shiled to give you some extra AC makes you much more vulnerable thus making it a serious choice as to whether to go with two weapons or sword-and-board.  But in 4e-5e where everyone has bags of hit points and so taking damage isn't so much of an issue, the loss of defense from not having a shield is way more than made up for by the increased damage output from a second weapon - the choice is really no choice at all.  Thus, they needed to find a way to rein in TWF somehow, and this was their solution.I think they toned down surprise to avoid parties getting half-wasted before they could react; which is kind of a shame in some ways as it also means a careful party can't do the same to their foes.  You're quite right: the surprise round works just fine 99% of the time.Stealth and hiding have some glaring holes in their rules, so "Do what makes logical sense" is still what it comes down to anyway. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification