Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6084115" data-attributes="member: 92511">Is that still a goal though? I thought we were shifting toward: You can have a Basic table or a Standard table or an Advanced table. Not at a single table: Joe (the experienced co-DM) and Tom (the never played before newbie) go for Basic PCs, Tim and Julie create "Standards" (how awful would it be if we started referring to PC's as such? Blech.) and Barbara (of course it's Barb. You know she's always gotta be soooo different <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> goes for Advanced so she can build her pseudo-dragon alienist-sage shadow-warlock/barbarian. I really don't see the later happening.Works for me. And you may be right, I'm approaching it from the wrong side. Your suggestions make sense. It may be...or it may be fair/exactly what's happening. Fair enough. You want to see the glass half-full and benefit of the doubt...I can accept that. I simply am a glass-half-empty cynic and think it's just as likely that they're "throwing toys to appease the masses" [and very possibly, including themselves in those masses].Again, fair enough. and exactly what I made this thread for...so where is that line? What would be "too much stuff" for you...or is there even such a thing as "too much"?No. I agree with you there. But for Basic characters, it appears that non-combat stuff is pretty much going to be all about the RP. Standard will likely have non-combat skills to choose...though I'd expect, at least, Bards to have some interactive stuff built in.AH! "Not much", no...but it is complexity. If one or two is ok, then why not 3 or 4? Does it actually get complex if you have 5 skills listed on your character sheet? 8...12? 1 per level? Again, where is the line?To whit:Basic Fighter: You get these Extra Damage Dice (static)....or is a "Basic Fighter": You get these Extra Damage Dice(static...or that increase?). Plus, you can choose a Background from the following list...that give you 2 "skills" and a feat/maneuver/whatever it's called....OR is a "Basic Fighter": You get these EDD (are they static or increase?). Background w/4 skills and selectable maneuvers AND choose 1 thing from this list of 30 you also know. You're only choosing 2 things...BG and an extra skill. Is that complex?Standard Fighter: You get EDD that increase every X levels. You also [automatically have] have X (assumed to be Strength bonus) to Athletics, Intimidate checks and 1 maneuver from this list of ???. Then, choose a Background that gives you these other 2 skills and these other feats/maneuvers/whatever it would be called that increase with level.Or is that simply not enough "options" for one's conception of Standard play?Advanced Fighter: You get EDD that increase every level. You also choose from these 30 (if it stays 30) skills. AND Select 2 per level from: Individual maneuver 1, Individual maneuver 2, etc...etc... Or is what I'm writing as an "advanced" what, to you, looks like a "Basic"?"Not too much complexity" is a subjective call...as, obviously, all of this stuff is. So I'm looking for what do you think would be acceptable, if not perfect, to your tastes. More than 4 is not really an answer. Is "an extra skill or two" acceptable for a Basic class or a Standard?  I agree and hope for the same (though, see above, I think it is more "my table can be X" and "your table can by Y" as opposed to "X and Y in the same game"). And while I do enjoy a simpler game sometimes, my perspective is really more thinking in the vein of "introducing new players to the game" which, I think, is getting lost among the designers as they focus on "what do we need to add to get those lapsed players back and/or keep the post-2000 edition folks interested/happy."What IS a Basic number of skills? What is a Standard amount of skills? Is Standard supposed to simulate 3.x as I've seen stated somewhere around here? Or is that Advanced? And if that's advanced, then what's 4e style play? Is a 1e style game supposed to be Basic+? Advanced-lite?And, then, to take the topic a step further, what is a skill? Is a skill simply something that's "non-combat"? Or should there be skills that are usable in combat? Does that somehow "take away from" or "make sub-optimal" non-combat skills? Why? What's a feat...vs. a maneuver...vs. a trick...vs....?</blockquote>

Verification