Has D&D jumped the shark?

[Rasyr]

Technically, it's not that different from some of my favorite spells from Monte's Book of Eldritch Might I, the various Mark of Energy spells: They grant you a +2 bonus to an attribute for 1 hour/level, but you can dismiss them at any time to create another, related effect (such as dismissing your Mark of Fire, which gives you +2 Dex, to shoot a ray of fire for 3d6 damage). I love those spells!

Now this is VERY M:tG in nature.... An enchantment you can send to the graveyard in order to do damage to a target creature.....

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Racial substitution levels are actually something I found to be interesting, pretty much for the reasons Psion notes above - they show how easy it is to give flavor to a campaign by making a fairly easy tweak to a given class.

 

[diaglo]

That's what I was thinking.

thirded.

 

[Psion]

Now this is VERY M:tG in nature.... An enchantment you can send to the graveyard in order to do damage to a target creature.....

And yet, I prefer the mark spells much more. I have no snarky comparisons to show my point (reminds me of the "GURPS is a Wargame" debate going on over at RPGnet right now.)

I guess the reason is, despite the fact that this also does resemble MtG in certain ways, it feels much less contrived. It seems natural to me that an active spell can act in a variety of ways and do different things. OTOH, the idea that an uncast spell can give you benefits seems much more contrived. To me, magic is an active thing.

That said, some of the new feats I have seen that let you expend slots to acheive effects work fine for me. Again, because you are expending the energy to acheive an effect. I guess I just see it as "sorcery in miniature."

 

[ZeroGlobal2003]

With reguards to the orginal poster, you've really got not much of a right to start randomly popping off about disliking new mechanics when you aren't even aware of all the places these mechanics exist. If you don't know the full context then you don't really know anything.

That said, I like substitution levels. They are in a number of books and offer a very quick way to modify a class in a clear way. With Planar Subsitution Levels it offered a quick way to tweak the classes to fit better in a non-material plane setting. With the Racial Subsitution Levels it gives a good show of what the differance is between gnome and elf wizards or any other combonations. Think where they can go with this simple mechanic: in setting books different cultures can have Cultural Subsitution Levels, and thus explain why the plains nomad fights differently then the city guard even though they are both fighters, and can do it without having to create a completely new 20 level class. It saves space, saves redundency, and makes things clear and simple. For the guy that said "just play them differently" I respond that the only class we need is commoner. If you want wizard, "just play them differently". There are lots and lots of times that mechanical differences are what is critical to make the character work.

As for Mind Set spells, I really like the mechanic. These spells are slightly weaker for their level and so remain balanced. Its a cool flavor mechanic, and one that I only take fault with because Sorcerers can't participate. Someone already mentioned that Malhavoc has similar types of spells, which is proof that they aren't that unbalancing. The person liked the implimentation of that system better, but I disagree. In Eldritch Might you have to cast the spell ahead of time, then release it for the second effect, which leads to lots of spells floating around on a player and a lot more book keeping about when the durations pop, where as with this you just let it sit until you use it.

Zero

 

[Desdichado]

Personally, I like them. The DMG expresses the idea that classes can be tweaked, but provides no method for doing so. That bothers me. I like that they have finally done something to formalize this process, allow making classes more flexible (as they should be), and in doing so, help defray the need for all-new classes.

I agree, both about racial substitution levels, and the fact that class tweaking was mentioned but no good guidance on how to do it was ever given. I had really hoped that the DMG2 would address that, but it appears that it does not, from what I've heard so far.

Now that bugs me. That is the sort of gimmicky thing that sounds like what WotC started doing when they were looking for new gimmicks for MtG.

I don't particularly like the idea, but the complexity of managing it is on the player's shoulders. As I player, I simply wouldn't use it (then again, I hardly ever play spellcasters) and as a DM, I'd probably allow it.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

With reguards to the orginal poster, you've really got not much of a right to start randomly popping off about disliking new mechanics when you aren't even aware of all the places these mechanics exist. If you don't know the full context then you don't really know anything.

Why? Are the mechanics in all the other places different from what is presented in Races of Eberron?

If not, one sample ought to be as good as any other when forming an opinion about them.

 

[Deadguy]

I admit that I amrather fond of Racial Substitution levels. Not that every one has necessarily been done well, but that the notion that following 'type' is rewarded. A DM can use that idea to encourage stereotypes in his game, without denying players the flexibility to play their characters any way they like.

Mindset spells are, on the whole, a book-keeping troublemaker. As others have mentioned I prefer Monte's Mark spells to this approach. But I don't criticise them for trying out the idea. If they aren't well received I expect them to fall into disuse, which is a perfectly fine developmental approach.

So, no, I don't think D&D has jumped the shark yet. There are still new ideas being tried out, new options and tools being offered to us as DMs. It's just up to us to use those tools well, which may mean disallowing some for a given campaign.

 

[MerricB]

That being said, as long as the spells in question are a little less powerful than they might otherwise be-- say, 1/2 a level-- I actually think this is kind of a cool idea.

Mindset is (in some ways) similar to the Tactical feats.

Cheers!

 

[ZeroGlobal2003]

Why? Are the mechanics in all the other places different from what is presented in Races of Eberron?

If not, one sample ought to be as good as any other when forming an opinion about them.

No, they aren't... perhaps I was a little to offensive in how I put that, so I apologize. What I'm saying is that you have to look at all the things these mechanics offer to the whole of D&D, not just how they fit into one book. For example: I dislike the Races of Stone feats that require dwarf or require gnome, but feats with racial requirements do make since in the context of things like elemental gensai... if I was to make my judgement about all feats with racial requirements after reading only Races of Stone I'd be pretty ignorant of what it can offer D&D as a whole.

Despite claiming not to be interconnected, D&D books have gone back to having information that relates to every other book. This means that I have to have spells and subsititution levels in my Races of Eberron without having the Eberron CS to use them with, but I don't mind because they help D&D as a whole.

Zero