D&D General D&D Evolutions You Like and Dislike [+]

[payn]

yeah one of the evolutions that sticks in my craw is the species abilities becoming so watered down and superficial, if i'm playing a different species i want their gameplay to feel like i'm playing a different species.

It might have been an overreaction to making Species abilities so tied to attributes. It made some class combos better or much worse. I think that could totally be offloaded from stats. Though, some of the things like proficiency was weird. Where every elf knows longbows kind of thing. How to do it uniquely without it being illogical has a been a trick that hasnt been figured out.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

wait, what? is that a thing? that's psychotic. that can't be a thing. what?

I agree, but others have at times acted like i was being unreasonable for disliking it.

IMO, if every dwarf doesnt have stonecunning, there is no reason every PC Dwarf should. I mean, it is absolutely bonkers.

Essentially, it means that every PC Dwarf has these traits in common, so...what, all exceptional Dwarfs have the same exceptionality? How??

And like....why? What purpose does it serve?

 

[Reynard]

yeah one of the evolutions that sticks in my craw is the species abilities becoming so watered down and superficial, if i'm playing a different species i want their gameplay to feel like i'm playing a different species.

I've been thinking how you can make species traits more prominent and I'm increasingly at a loss except to give them moar powah! I mean, species already can fly, teleport, breathe fire, resist energy, heal with a touch, cast up to 2nd level spells, see in darkness, and grow large. What can you even do to make a dwarf fighter feel different from a human or elf fighter?

Nothing says such differences can't be negative. Bring back some actual downsides in addition to the cool powers. Dwarves suffer from Gold Fever and can be consumed by greed. Elves cannot be ressurected AT ALL, ever. Halflings need twice the rations of a non-halfling. Like that.

 

[Alzrius]

Blizzard apparently didn't really plan for a lot of the emergent gameplay, and so didn't really know how all these mechanics would work possible. (Not sure if that is still true for the current iteration of WoW, but that game definitely has a very different gameplay from WoW Classic.)

I think that this is true for a lot of game engines, be they computer or tabletop, at least if they're "sufficiently" (whatever that means) complex. For instance, in 3.5E we saw a sweeping change, late in the life of the game, where a large swath of monsters that had polymorph (or a similar power) as a spell-like ability had it removed, either being replaced with the more finite "change shape" monster ability, or simply not replaced at all. (This was pointed out earlier in the thread by @Necropolitan ). That wasn't the only such implementation either; just look at the Battle Blessing feat from Complete Champion. Video games just have an easier time applying those patches.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm interested in both.

You don't have a team without members. And you don't have members without a team.

It's like saying one should be interested in the fabric, while not caring one iota about any of the threads. Without the threads, it's "fabric" in concept only. But a pile of disconnected threads is merely the material of fabric, not fabric itself. It is only the union of both--the individual pieces, and their collective structure--that makes fabric.

Likewise, story. Without the individual members, it's a "story" in concept only. With exclusively individual members, no wider network to fit them into, it's got the pieces of a story just randomly jumbled about.

A piece of woven fabric is in nearly every possible case more useful than a pile of disconnected threads.

Threads are potential. Fabric is potential realized, with the question then becoming to what use will that fabric be put.

This analogy is far from perfect when talking about adventuring parties, however. Characters in parties number considerably fewer than threads in a piece of fabric*, and fabric doesn't have the ability to self-repair like a party does (as in, new threads can't sew themselves into the fabric to replace worn ones but new characters can easily join a party to replace those who have left).

* - exception: a sweater knitted from one or two long continuous pieces of wool or similar.

The whole thing--components, structure, and execution--is important. Telling folks to enjoy the components of a clam chowder isn't going to make them any more likely to listen to you, no matter how much you explain that nutritionally it's equivalent.

I think, if I read this right, I'm saying the exact opposite: to enjoy the chowder as itself without worrying overmuch about what's in it.

 

[Lanefan]

untrue, a story's a story even as it's happening, even before it's finished.

Most of the time, however, the story (or elements thereof) doesn't become clear until viewed in hindsight.

 

[Lanefan]

*because velocity is movement over time, and instantaneous removes the time aspect

Tap tap tap on your shoulder:

"Hi; I'm the Teleport spell, and I'd like a word...."

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Halflings need twice the rations of a non-halfling. Like that.

the irony of being half sized but having twice the diet...

 

[TwoSix]

Honestly, this opinion is so widespread and culturally dominant that sometimes I wonder if me holding the opposite opinion isn't just some kind of kneejerk hipster BS. Is there anyone else who thinks Classic, 2e, and 4e are better than 1e, 3.5, and 5e?

<raises hand> I love 4e, and I'm ride-or-die for Skills and Powers 2e.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't have a source on this, but my understanding is that the various restrictions on spellcasters in AD&D 1E and 2E were an example of this. That is, things like wizards needing to spend "round segments" casting their spells; automatically losing them if anything broke their concentration during casting; only being able to know so many spells per level if they had less than a 19 Intelligence; various spells requiring system shock checks or teleporting off-target being instant death if you ended up inside a solid object or having spells age you prematurely; magic item crafting requiring exotic ingredients whose availability was entirely controlled by the DM; requiring what could potentially be hours to fill all of your spell slot; your familiar dying requiring you to make a save to avoid dying yourself, etc.

Just about all of which were quite good, if maybe not always intentional, balancers that really did keep casters reined in a bit.

A lot of people, I'm given to understand, didn't like these. And so Third Edition dialed them all back in various ways, the result of which was a whole list of new complaints about how spellcasters dominated the game ("linear fighters, quadratic wizards"). So the designers essentially made martial characters operate like spellcasters in 4E, which was what they thought people wanted, and that turned out to be just as unpopular of a move.

All of which goes to show how the loudest voices aren't necessarily the ones who represent what your customers want.

And the loudest voices over the years have belonged to those who want to play unfettered wizard types.

So, the more recent designers went the other route: let them cast without restriction but nerf a lot of the spells to the point of boring and then tack concentration on top of it.