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

[Maxperson]

I liked how in 3.5 I could have a bunch of magic items that did different things, even if all they provided was a small bonus that could be replicated by a Feat.

Sure there was the hermit crab problem, but it was fun to play a character decked out in flashy gear.

See, I absolutely hated that. It took the magic away from finding magic items. As DM instead of putting in an item that gave +2 to spot, another item that gave a small bonus to listen, a ring of warning, and a +1 sword, I put in Notify, a +1 short sword that gives a +2 bonus to spot and listen, and allows the wielder to cast the Alarm spell 1x day.

Now instead of a bunch of small common as spit magic, there was 1 really cool, but rare magic item.

 

[TwoSix]

So as I said a solution in search of a problem hoping everyone would play one way instead of the way they actually play.

Games are supposed to tell you what way to play. If you didn’t want to change the way you were playing, why would you need different rules?

 

[Yaarel]

My point is that Classes are all just different flavors of adventurers. Fighter = adventurer. Sorcerer = adventurer. Wizard = adventurer. Therefore, Fighter/Sorcerer/Wizard = adventurer/adventurer/adventurer. Nearly every multiclassed character I've seen is a variation of "adventurer who uses a sword and also magic, but not like that other guy." Seems like a feat tree or skill tree would be a more efficient way to describe that, but I'm not holding my breath.

Anyway. This isn't really an issue either, it's just a personal preference. Multiclassing is optional, so I prefer to opt out.

I feel the advancement schedule for character levels needs to standardize the subclass levels for all classes: 3, 6, 10, 14 (and maybe 18).

Then, players can optionally choose to take levels in a class instead of a multiclass. A prestige class that various classes can take is also possible. And maybe take levels from than one subclass.

If a subclass only has three levels, then choose a feat to fill in the gap.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes magic items was a slider..

But in 4 of the 5 editions, it was also tied to the power of the game. And ingrained, in a helm, many of the classes worked. So A DM literally had to change the base game if they strayed from the base assumption.

And that's something that many, or even most DM's that strayed from the base assumption did not do.

The Christmas tree happened because there literally was a Magic Item Treadmill..

Only 3e and 4e had the magic item treadmill. 1e and 2e did not. Magic items were tied to the power of the game, because they provided XP that increased PC power. Magic weapons were tied to the game, because they were needed in order to be able to even harm creatures of +X or lower. However, the game balance of 1e and 2e didn't really take magic items into consideration. They were pure bonus and if you had a lot of them, you curb stomped monsters.

That's what it was the 2/3rds of the dm's who either weren't following the rules because they didn't read them or weren't following the rules because they thought they were better than the rules were handcuffing the 1/3 of people who are actually mindful about how magic items worked.

And some of the "bad" 2/3rds were the actual official adventure designers in some cases.

And this fails to take into consideration the many DMs and tables that don't care if the game is unbalanced by magic items, because lots of magic items can be fun(See @nevin)

 

[Yaarel]

Bjt yes, a 3-18 more or less unchangeable Attribute roll under system would be preferable in some ways

I dont see any benefits from using scores 3-18, nor rolling under.

Could you suggest some?

It seems to me, using bonuses +0, +1, +2, ... is most useful, both to quantify any magnitude and for normal gameplay.

 

[Maxperson]

Does Charisma really need a boost?

It's the most powerful stat out there, so no, not really.

 

[Maxperson]

Games are supposed to tell you what way to play. If you didn’t want to change the way you were playing, why would you need different rules?

I'm going to nitpick a bit. Games are supposed to give you the suggested way to play. All games are tweakable to the preferences of the table.

 

[Minigiant]

Only 3e and 4e had the magic item treadmill. 1e and 2e did not. Magic items were tied to the power of the game, because they provided XP that increased PC power. Magic weapons were tied to the game, because they were needed in order to be able to even harm creatures of +X or lower. However, the game balance of 1e and 2e didn't really take magic items into consideration. They were pure bonus and if you had a lot of them, you curb stomped monsters.

It still was a Treadmill in 1e and 2e.

If you needed a +1 item by a certain level to deal damage to any extra planar monster, still needed a + 1 item to deal damage to that monster by that level. The only real difference is that it was more of an on off switch. You either couldn't damage the monster at all, it was too strong to fight straight up anway, or you murderized it.

And any monster that didn't have these requirements or automatically in the second or third group.

And this fails to take into consideration the many DMs and tables that don't care if the game is unbalanced by magic items, because lots of magic items can be fun(See @nevin)

That's why I think that the amount of attunement slot should be higher in 3.

And then just have rules and advice in the D. MG about changing the number of ardomin slots or removing the requirement of the two-man slots, and how that changes your game. And what you can do via variant rules, to make up for it.

But what we shouldn't have is having no limit with no Treadmill. And no advice and then, having a bunch of tables where the DM either loads the party up with magic items and complains that they just cream, everything or doesn't give the party magic items and the players complain that the balance is off.

DND should create a stable base about how is designed and how it's published. Then, educate dm's and players on how to adjust the game away from the published standard. Therefore, people are educated on creating different experiences if that's their fun and not complain about the game not working.

"No rules, no advice. No standards" sounds like a bad game design and publication system that will just lead to disaster. And bad press of your game.

 

[Maxperson]

It still was a Treadmill in 1e and 2e.

If you needed a +1 item by a certain level to deal damage to any extra planar monster, still needed a + 1 item to deal damage to that monster by that level. The only real difference is that it was more of an on off switch. You either couldn't damage the monster at all, it was too strong to fight straight up anway, or you murderized it.

And any monster that didn't have these requirements or automatically in the second or third group.

Only for weapons, which were not the majority of magic items, and even then only for weapon using classes.

That's why I think that the amount of attunement slot should be higher in 3.

And then just have rules and advice in the D. MG about changing the number of ardomin slots or removing the requirement of the two-man slots, and how that changes your game. And what you can do via variant rules, to make up for it.

But what we shouldn't have is having no limit with no Treadmill. And no advice and then, having a bunch of tables where the DM either loads the party up with magic items and complains that they just cream, everything or doesn't give the party magic items and the players complain that the balance is off.

DND should create a stable base about how is designed and how it's published. Then, educate dm's and players on how to adjust the game away from the published standard. Therefore, people are educated on creating different experiences if that's their fun and not complain about the game not working.

"No rules, no advice. No standards" sounds like a bad game design and publication system that will just lead to disaster. And bad press of your game.

Or... Just accept that DMs can and do improve based on a learning curve. It only takes one campaign to realize that handing out magic items like candy isn't the way you want things to go, or maybe you learn that it is.

Attunement, even with more slots, doesn't really make up for that ability to learn what it is that you actually like.

 

[Minigiant]

Only for weapons, which were not the majority of magic items, and even then only for weapon using classes

Thats who the Treadmill typically was for. Weapon users using weapons..

Only 4E put it on spellcasters, as well.

Or... Just accept that DMs can and do improve based on a learning curve. It only takes one campaign to realize that handing out magic items like candy isn't the way you want things to go, or maybe you learn that it is.

Attunement, even with more slots, doesn't really make up for that ability to learn what it is that you actually like

But most of them never learn how many Magic items the game was designed around. Because the game always dances around giving answers.

If the game is designed around player characters having three major Magic items are per player character then, say that..

Or do attunement slots.

I like attument slots because I think that there is possibly a formula where you can attach them to the charisma score and make charisma matter as a base score. And not rely on mega, buffing, charisma classes.

Like 3 + Your Charisma Modifier.

Or 2 + Constitution Modifier + Your Charisma Modifier.

I firmly believe PCs having 3-5 major magic items IS the flavor look of D&D.