Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nyeshet" data-source="post: 3380394" data-attributes="member: 18363">OtherHow could you possibly forget the Vancian spell system?!  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" />  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":eek:" title="Eek!    :eek:"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":eek:" />  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused    :confused:"  data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" />  :\ That would be the first vote of myself and, I believe, many many others. Otherwise: I like the d20 mechanics - which happen to include the saving throws and skill checks.I don't mind feats and in fact think characters should get more than they do. (I bought a guide to True20 a month or so ago, and its idea of a feat every level - and more or less replacing class specials with feats - is quite nice, although I think I might rather prefer something akin to Talent Trees (d20 modern) for some class specials. Perhaps alternating between a talent and a feat every level?)The Divine and Arcane magic division is odd - I'll give you that, but I more or less by chance accidentally (re)created a similar division a while back when I was trying to work out a skill based magic system. In the end there were a few skills associated with Wisdom that - in tone - were different enough from the other magic skills that I could see how a divide might naturally form. On the other hand, the divide was between magic based on perception, the mind / heart, etc and magic that evoked / transformed / etc - a rather different distinction from the D&D Divine / Arcane divide, which has some of both in both sides of the divide. So, perhaps I should state that I can see a divide existing, but it would requires massive spell re-allotment as to what spells were on which side, and in the process utterly altering the feel for each side from what is typical of 'normal' D&D magic. Attacks of Opportunity are sometimes odd, especially as they all but require the use of a battlemat and minis or pennies or dice to determine with any surety. I prefer not using such and so tend to wing it, allowing it or not based on the situation and how likely I think the PC or foe might get a chance to attack. Most often common sense will guide one's decision to a semi-realistic answer. I think the AoO might need a little work, but many of their rules make sense. It is the ever increasing number of options during combat - that may or may not allow for an AoO in this or that circumstance - that is truly bogging down and obfuscating the appropriateness of allowing an AoO or not in this or that situation. Weapon Damage is an interesting point, but I'm not sure that it is a notable one. I would expect, except perhaps on a critical hit, for a dagger to do far less damage on a hit than a greatsword. I don't see a major need to change it, although I'll admit to playing with the idea of using something similar to True20's save vs injury combined with Wounds / Vitality not too long in the future. PrCs are interesting, and as DM I consider each on a case by case basis - insisting among other things that I have a xerox of the relevant (mechanics) page(s) that hold the information on the PrC if I do not already own the book from which it comes (so that I am not surprised a level or two later by an ability I did not expect). The DM has the right to veto or alter a PrC as they deem necessary - and I'll admit I often treat PrCs to something of a pre-game or post-game gathering / discussion, if for no other reason than to make certain that no one has any problems with whatever the final form of the PrC happens to be. The initial core classes simply did not well cover every character concept, even allowing for wild multi-classing. Since then enough core classes have come out that this is almost no longer the case, but sometimes a niche situation arises, and a PrC fits the bill better than a core class. An undead hunter, for example, is too specialized (in my opinion) for a core class, but as a PrC it makes sense. Similarly, either PrCs or Affiliations (PHB2) can be used to give members of an organization that unique ability that - were it a feat - would perhaps be more common than I, as DM, might prefer. And it gives the PCs a reason to join that organization that otherwise they might not - and thus allows for more roleplay and opens up new hooks. So, no, I do not have a problem with (responsible review and allowance of) PrCs. Okay, I'll admit that after the spell system the Alignment system is the next item I would soonest drop from D&D. I prefer the Alligence system (modified, admittedly) from d20 modern to the Alignment system. People are loyal / leaning towards an ideal, an organization, etc. This makes more sense than the absolute Good / Evil or the flawed* Law / Chaos. (Any system where a person with nearly obsessive-compulsive highly ordered principles and behavior is considered Chaotic because they do not happen to follow traditions or respect established laws is flawed. I can understand why the designers set it up that way - as otherwise it is harder to differentiate between a lawful and chaotic character, as a seemingly chaotic character could in fact by highly ordered / lawful - just greatly different from the other lawfuls in the area, but it still grates a bit.)By far and away, the Vancian system (whether it is appropriately named or not - as has been raised in various other threads) is the single aspect of D&D I would (and did) drop. Alignment is the next item I would drop. I note it also is not mentioned in the poll. So it seems I would have chosen 'other' even should that idea have had prominence with me.</blockquote>

Verification