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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Q&A 12/13: Racial Ability Scores, Cleric Options & Monsters
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="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 6060849"><p>I'm not saying they do. I'm saying they're a good starting base.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>There must of course be some tie-in to each other. But lets throw out skills for a moment, I'm fine with players choosing what skills they want to be good in. Everyone picks say, 3 skills and gets X value in them to start with and then gets Y points to invest as they choose in those or other skills. Sort of a hybrid 4e and 3.X system.</p><p></p><p>But I'm still not sure that class, on it's own, should contain everything. How do we resolve the greataxe-weilding fighter-wizard? How do we position him against the straight fighter-type and the straight-wizard type. Is he half as good as either because he's evenly split? That doesn't really resolve the issue of players being stuck with one specific score, now they need to stick with one class to be good at it. Does the fighter class and the wizard class get the same BAB? If they do, then a 5-5 fighter-wizard can hit just as well as the 10-0 fighter-only. He may only know half the spells of the wizard, but that still makes him basically 10-5 out of a possible 10. The fighter-wizard is better than both the fighter, and the wizard on their own!</p><p></p><p></p><p>So, BAB basically, applied to damage as well.</p><p></p><p>we've got weapon damage types.</p><p> </p><p>But that's where it gets tricky. Take above. The fighter gets say, one "build option" per level, while the wizard gets one every other level.</p><p>So the wizard-fighter gets 7 choices. How many "build options" do we really need to be better with a greatsword? Two? Maybe three? All the while he's still gaining 5 spells(lets just say one per level for simplicity). The wizard-fighter can cast as a 5th-level, and hit as a 7th level. That still makes our fighter-wizard a 12/10. We're closer, but he's still sitting on more power individually than the straight fighter or the straight wizard.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Effectively dealing damage and the amount of damage you do are often two different scores(which I'm fine with). Dex-to-hit, str-for-damage. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, but we still retain the linear-fighter, quadratic-caster problem. Wizards get better at hitting, and also get better things to hit with, in addition to new option on how to hit. The fighter gets better at hitting, and new options, but never anything better to hit with, and if they do, they have to pay out the wazoo for it.</p><p></p><p></p><p>4e did that to an extent and you can see how well that was received(though don't get me wrong, I liked a lot of things about 4e).</p><p></p><p>I understand what you're getting at, but to balance things out we'd have to take a 4e "powers" approach to martial combat. Basically so every class would gain the options of:</p><p>Better to-hit/damage(through your BAB variant)</p><p>Better things to hit with(4e powers)</p><p>Build Options(the new feats, limited only by class or power choice)</p><p>X number of Skills to train in.</p><p></p><p>Sure, you don't need ability scores for that type of a setup, but I'm not really sure that says D&D to me. It sounds like a fine basis for a game and pretty easy to balance, but I'm just not really seeing "D&D" in that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 6060849"] I'm not saying they do. I'm saying they're a good starting base. There must of course be some tie-in to each other. But lets throw out skills for a moment, I'm fine with players choosing what skills they want to be good in. Everyone picks say, 3 skills and gets X value in them to start with and then gets Y points to invest as they choose in those or other skills. Sort of a hybrid 4e and 3.X system. But I'm still not sure that class, on it's own, should contain everything. How do we resolve the greataxe-weilding fighter-wizard? How do we position him against the straight fighter-type and the straight-wizard type. Is he half as good as either because he's evenly split? That doesn't really resolve the issue of players being stuck with one specific score, now they need to stick with one class to be good at it. Does the fighter class and the wizard class get the same BAB? If they do, then a 5-5 fighter-wizard can hit just as well as the 10-0 fighter-only. He may only know half the spells of the wizard, but that still makes him basically 10-5 out of a possible 10. The fighter-wizard is better than both the fighter, and the wizard on their own! So, BAB basically, applied to damage as well. we've got weapon damage types. But that's where it gets tricky. Take above. The fighter gets say, one "build option" per level, while the wizard gets one every other level. So the wizard-fighter gets 7 choices. How many "build options" do we really need to be better with a greatsword? Two? Maybe three? All the while he's still gaining 5 spells(lets just say one per level for simplicity). The wizard-fighter can cast as a 5th-level, and hit as a 7th level. That still makes our fighter-wizard a 12/10. We're closer, but he's still sitting on more power individually than the straight fighter or the straight wizard. Effectively dealing damage and the amount of damage you do are often two different scores(which I'm fine with). Dex-to-hit, str-for-damage. Sure, but we still retain the linear-fighter, quadratic-caster problem. Wizards get better at hitting, and also get better things to hit with, in addition to new option on how to hit. The fighter gets better at hitting, and new options, but never anything better to hit with, and if they do, they have to pay out the wazoo for it. 4e did that to an extent and you can see how well that was received(though don't get me wrong, I liked a lot of things about 4e). I understand what you're getting at, but to balance things out we'd have to take a 4e "powers" approach to martial combat. Basically so every class would gain the options of: Better to-hit/damage(through your BAB variant) Better things to hit with(4e powers) Build Options(the new feats, limited only by class or power choice) X number of Skills to train in. Sure, you don't need ability scores for that type of a setup, but I'm not really sure that says D&D to me. It sounds like a fine basis for a game and pretty easy to balance, but I'm just not really seeing "D&D" in that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Q&A 12/13: Racial Ability Scores, Cleric Options & Monsters
Top