rycanada said:I'd love if we had
Basic: 1-6
Expert: 7-12
Advanced: 13-20
Epic: 21+
That way all I'd need to buy was basic!
I'm using a 1-10 scale for my OD&D/Holmes games. However, 10 is a "soft limit," which can be exceeded in certain circumstances (mostly by NPC magic users).rycanada said:I may sit down and try to pare down an SRD to levels 1-10 only.
Presto2112 said:I'd just make the font really really small.![]()
Glyfair said:Isn't that what the Pocket Player's Handbook basically did?
Nah, I think the basic four would be better: clear archetypes, all different, with well-defined roles. Rangers and Paladins are Fighters with some special abilities and flavor (I think OAD&D had it right calling them "subclasses"). And D&D Bards are usually the every-archetype, which is goofy, IMO. For the basics, stick to the basics; leave subclass-type, prestige-type, and farrago-type classes to the DM, or to supplements.Grimstaff said:Paring it down to four classes may be a little too "basic". I see no reason not to include Ranger, Bard, and Paladin.
The basic four are certainly clear archetypes, but you are bound to have players who will be disatisfied with that "limitation". Rangers, Paladins, and Bards are well represented in historical and fantasy literature, and give players a little more "breathing room". An assassin base class would be a useful (re)addition to the game as well, imho.Philotomy Jurament said:Nah, I think the basic four would be better: clear archetypes, all different, with well-defined roles. Rangers and Paladins are Fighters with some special abilities and flavor (I think OAD&D had it right calling them "subclasses"). And D&D Bards are usually the every-archetype, which is goofy, IMO. For the basics, stick to the basics; leave subclass-type, prestige-type, and farrago-type classes to the DM, or to supplements.