Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 9393344" data-attributes="member: 32164">That is quirky, but it also seems like a fun class. As an aside, I do love what I've seen of OSE/Dolmenwood, and I am firmly of the opinion that &quot;Dungeons &amp; Dragons&quot;-based games should stop at 14th-level (or sooner).Shadowdark (which is where I'm leaning at present, although my gaming group is currently on hiatus) stops at 10th, and I'd call it &quot;Old-school D&amp;D compatible.&quot; Kelsey took the streamlined design of modern games (Core check mechanic: &quot;roll d20, high is good&quot;) and reworked everything around it with the deliberate intent to create a game with a solid old-school &quot;feel.&quot; There's a bunch of other things I like about it, like Kelsey's approach to monster design (I'd call it &quot;5e-Lite:&quot; most monsters get A signature ability that lets them stand out from the rest, but they don't get a bunch of them). Check DCs range from 9 to 18. And even a 10th-level fighter tops out at an average of 50 hit points.Two of the big selling points for me were that one, I really like Kelsey's reworking of magic; not just that she made a non-Vancian system, but also that she totally condensed and rewrote the D&amp;D spell list. I'm sure there are some spells that are &quot;missing,&quot; but I couldn't offhand tell you what they are (with the exception of Raise Dead and its more potent brethren) in only 5 spell &quot;Tiers.&quot; And secondly, I really like that it still uses Advantage/Disadvantage, Death Saves and has a version of Inspiration (Luck Tokens). Those are all 5e innovations that I love. (Another 5e thing I adored was proficiency dice, but I think I was one of the only ones).Mostly, I love it, but it doesn't (out of the box) support multi-classing and a few other things I kinda dig. However, it's also super-simple (if not always &quot;easy&quot;) to create classes for.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="JohnSnow, post: 9393344, member: 32164"] That [I]is[/I] quirky, but it also seems like a fun class. As an aside, I do love what I've seen of OSE/Dolmenwood, and I am firmly of the opinion that "Dungeons & Dragons"-based games should stop at 14th-level (or sooner). [I]Shadowdark[/I] (which is where I'm leaning at present, although my gaming group is currently on hiatus) stops at 10th, and I'd call it "Old-school D&D compatible." Kelsey took the streamlined design of modern games (Core [B]check[/B] mechanic: "roll d20, high is good") and reworked everything around it with the deliberate intent to create a game with a solid old-school "feel." There's a bunch of other things I like about it, like Kelsey's approach to monster design (I'd call it "5e-Lite:" most monsters get [B]A[/B] signature ability that lets them stand out from the rest, but they don't get a bunch of them). Check DCs range from 9 to 18. And even a 10th-level fighter tops out at an average of 50 hit points. Two of the big selling points for me were that one, I really like Kelsey's reworking of magic; not just that she made a non-Vancian system, but also that she totally condensed and rewrote the D&D spell list. I'm sure there are some spells that are "missing," but I couldn't offhand tell you what they are (with the exception of [I]Raise Dead[/I] and its more potent brethren) in only 5 spell "Tiers." And secondly, I really like that it still uses Advantage/Disadvantage, Death Saves and has a version of Inspiration (Luck Tokens). Those are all 5e innovations that I love. (Another 5e thing I adored was proficiency dice, but I think I was one of the only ones). Mostly, I love it, but it doesn't (out of the box) support multi-classing and a few other things I kinda dig. However, it's also super-simple (if not always "easy") to create classes for. [/QUOTE]

Verification