Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Next Q&A 9/20
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="kerleth" data-source="post: 6019238" data-attributes="member: 84383"><p>I think the debate about kamikaze midget's idea is really a theoretical vs. practical debate. On the surface I love the idea. However, I've tried to teach several people how to play dnd, and having more options in the core DOES make that more difficult. They are flabbergasted by the sheer amount of material. Of course, the default class could be written one way, with an "advanced options" section following.</p><p> </p><p>That said, the comparison to how the designers are seperating backgrounds and specialties from class doesn't fit as well with your idea. A background functions completely independently of your class. You need never reference anything in the class to make use of your "I'm sleeping with the king's sister" background trait.<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite7" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue :p" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":p" /> Specialties also work this way. Exception being any specialties they make specifically to pick up some abilities from another class. By definition, the dial you're talking about creating must reference class abilities.</p><p> </p><p>That requires one of two things.</p><p> </p><p>1) A fairly compact and universal ruleset that could be in it's own section and could then be applied to anything. This is where the comparison to 4th edition class design comes in. That is the "tight, and rigid box" a previous poster was talking about I think. You have to make sure everything is designed so that it meshes with this "dial" ruleset and that majorly restricts design. Whether it's worth it or not depends on how it's applied and personal preference.</p><p> </p><p>2) Each class to have it's version of the dial. This creates a large wall of text which can be intimidating to even many experienced gamers. Your specific example would triple the space required for every single fighter maneuver for example. Also, some abilities might not lend themselves well to this. Certain things require stretching and squinting to see how they can be made to work. Your cure is one example. It would have to come with a sidebar explaining how filling up to full hp after every fight affects playstyle, requiring even more page space, even if in a single spot that listed all such abilities so those who didn't like it could "ban" them en masse. </p><p> </p><p>Personally I want options, more options, and then detailed advice on creating my own options when I can't find anything that seems just right. However, I also realize that their is a limit on how much can be put in the core books. If they try to put everything everyone could possibly want into one book we end up with a 10 pound $100 monstrosity that will flop because it isn't new player and casual player friendly. There is a fine line to be drawn. Don't like any of the fighter styles? Put together your own chain of maneuvers. Same with specialties and backgrounds.</p><p> </p><p>Personally, I think requiring an illusionist tradition to play an illusionist is a bad place to be. Design the wizard where you have a limited number of spells known. If half your spells known are illusion and you regularly prepare and use them in adventuring, you are an illusionist. Having a dedicated tradition for it creates the illusion (pun intended) of having to use it to play one. My idea is more like kamikaze midgets actually. Instead have traditions that modify HOW you cast spells. Giving you more access to at wills, encounter, or daily to go with your preference. And leave the school specialization to spell choice.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="kerleth, post: 6019238, member: 84383"] I think the debate about kamikaze midget's idea is really a theoretical vs. practical debate. On the surface I love the idea. However, I've tried to teach several people how to play dnd, and having more options in the core DOES make that more difficult. They are flabbergasted by the sheer amount of material. Of course, the default class could be written one way, with an "advanced options" section following. That said, the comparison to how the designers are seperating backgrounds and specialties from class doesn't fit as well with your idea. A background functions completely independently of your class. You need never reference anything in the class to make use of your "I'm sleeping with the king's sister" background trait.:p Specialties also work this way. Exception being any specialties they make specifically to pick up some abilities from another class. By definition, the dial you're talking about creating must reference class abilities. That requires one of two things. 1) A fairly compact and universal ruleset that could be in it's own section and could then be applied to anything. This is where the comparison to 4th edition class design comes in. That is the "tight, and rigid box" a previous poster was talking about I think. You have to make sure everything is designed so that it meshes with this "dial" ruleset and that majorly restricts design. Whether it's worth it or not depends on how it's applied and personal preference. 2) Each class to have it's version of the dial. This creates a large wall of text which can be intimidating to even many experienced gamers. Your specific example would triple the space required for every single fighter maneuver for example. Also, some abilities might not lend themselves well to this. Certain things require stretching and squinting to see how they can be made to work. Your cure is one example. It would have to come with a sidebar explaining how filling up to full hp after every fight affects playstyle, requiring even more page space, even if in a single spot that listed all such abilities so those who didn't like it could "ban" them en masse. Personally I want options, more options, and then detailed advice on creating my own options when I can't find anything that seems just right. However, I also realize that their is a limit on how much can be put in the core books. If they try to put everything everyone could possibly want into one book we end up with a 10 pound $100 monstrosity that will flop because it isn't new player and casual player friendly. There is a fine line to be drawn. Don't like any of the fighter styles? Put together your own chain of maneuvers. Same with specialties and backgrounds. Personally, I think requiring an illusionist tradition to play an illusionist is a bad place to be. Design the wizard where you have a limited number of spells known. If half your spells known are illusion and you regularly prepare and use them in adventuring, you are an illusionist. Having a dedicated tradition for it creates the illusion (pun intended) of having to use it to play one. My idea is more like kamikaze midgets actually. Instead have traditions that modify HOW you cast spells. Giving you more access to at wills, encounter, or daily to go with your preference. And leave the school specialization to spell choice. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Next Q&A 9/20
Top