DMG II Preview in Game Trade Magazine
- Thread starter Glyfair
- Start date
The Shaman
First Post
Thank you for summing up everything I hate about 3e in one sentence.Corinth said:
I'm going to follow Darkness's advice and take a vacation from this topic and this board.
Infernal Teddy
Explorer
ry guys, but I DO see where he's coming from. D&D is facing it's own kind of "Infocalypse", and it's coming in a MUCH faster rate than in any other game so far...
Glyfair
Explorer
To get back towards the topic:
Last night I was just trying to get the information out there. I know a lot of people were interested in what was in the DMG II, but they don't seem to be commenting much.
In my opinion, the NPC section looks nice and detailed. It also shows some variations than just single characters (the 20th level High Priest is a 17th level cleric/3rd level Hierophant). There isn't a lot of personality given, just roles. For this, I find that nice. If I want a martial artist, I don't want to feel design choices were made in the character because of character things that were added.
The magic item changes are nice. I'm not particularly excited about the 3 abilities shown, personally. However, I'm excited about the format (appearing in a previous book or not). I really like the description that shows what the item likely looks like. I think it will help a lot of games add more flavor to their game.
As an aside, I really don't see how Acidic Burst increases the power level of the game. It's not more powerful than anything else in the game. It's another option for the game. If you don't need more options (and already created everything in the DMG II for you home game), don't buy it. Let those who want or need it buy it.
Last night I was just trying to get the information out there. I know a lot of people were interested in what was in the DMG II, but they don't seem to be commenting much.
In my opinion, the NPC section looks nice and detailed. It also shows some variations than just single characters (the 20th level High Priest is a 17th level cleric/3rd level Hierophant). There isn't a lot of personality given, just roles. For this, I find that nice. If I want a martial artist, I don't want to feel design choices were made in the character because of character things that were added.
The magic item changes are nice. I'm not particularly excited about the 3 abilities shown, personally. However, I'm excited about the format (appearing in a previous book or not). I really like the description that shows what the item likely looks like. I think it will help a lot of games add more flavor to their game.
As an aside, I really don't see how Acidic Burst increases the power level of the game. It's not more powerful than anything else in the game. It's another option for the game. If you don't need more options (and already created everything in the DMG II for you home game), don't buy it. Let those who want or need it buy it.
Kae'Yoss
First Post
Infernal Teddy said:
While the pletora of game books might be bad, I disagree that real roleplayers don't need their character's abilities represented in the stats and that having stats matching the character concept is unimaginative. If that were the case, why bother with stats at all? Why choosing a fighter over a thief? It all comes from the roleplaying, right?
Wrong. I think that the character's stats should reflect the abilities you want the character to have. This doesn't preclude being creative in character generation, as you can think up the concept free of any ruleset and then just pick the abilities and choices that are appropriate. So you are the noble knight? Fighter or paladin is good, and take ranks in Knowledge (Nobility and Royalty). It's the gladiator instead? Fighter or fighter/rogue is good, with ranks in bluff, intimidate and some perform (to please the crowds). Note that you needed the character concept before you decided which classes, feats, skills, etc you needed.
If the stats don't reflect the character's personality, on the other hand, there is the chance, that the character is too good. "He's the best archer ever, nothing can escape his eye, his will is stronger than iron, and he is very attractive". Right. Never mind that this character's Cha is 8 (dump stat), his dex isn't much better (10), he doesn't have any archery related feats, his wis isn't high either, and no iron will, and no ranks in spot. Instead, con is 18, as is str, and he has ranks in tumble.
Gez
First Post
Kae'Yoss said:
Taken to its logical extreme, everybody could just play commoners level 1. Diss all the other classes. Diss gaining levels. Diss feats and skills. Even diss ability scores.
Wanna play a spellcaster? Well, make your unarmed attack roll to hit the enemy, make your 1d4 slap damage roll, and -- instead of describing it as your character slapping the opponent -- describe it as your character cursing the opponent with his Evil Eye spell.
While it's definitely a possible approach (and one that would sure be balanced, by definition, since everybody would have the exact same potential), I personally prefer to have the mechanics support the flavor, rather than be at odds with it.
Keeper of Secrets
First Post
I am not sure why the contents in the DMG II would drive anyone away. Could you not just ignore those rules, not use them and move on with your campaign?
