"'Kill it before it grows'...he said 'Kill it before it grows'..."

[thedungeondelver]

I can live with a lot of new stuff, because again, I'm not looking to D&Dn to replace AD&D, just be a damn good D&D that I can play in addition to. But there has to be a starting point for "damn good".


- Point buy for characteristics. When I want HERO SYSTEM, I'll play it. There's enough methodologies of rolling dice to get the character you want without being able to crank every knob to 11 (or 18, or 25) immediately.

- Lockstep XP chart. Nope, nuh-uh, no way. I have said it and said it and said it and I'll keep on saying it: different professions are learned differently and at different paces. It adds variety and it keeps the game moving. It's fine if there's that method in there, but even if it's default I pray there's a more refined option.

- Defanging threats. Please, please, please don't make obviously lethal things mere "save versus or be inconvenienced for a round".

...there's a few other things but those three are dealbreakers.

 

[Vayden]

This is why there can never be an "edition for everyone". All of the things you mention are deal-breakers for me in the reverse.

 

[thedungeondelver]

This is why there can never be an "edition for everyone". All of the things you mention are deal-breakers for me in the reverse.

So if the game offers those things as options, you're out?

 

[DonTadow]

This is why there can never be an "edition for everyone". All of the things you mention are deal-breakers for me in the reverse.

I still think there can be, because none of those are really core to the game and things that can be ignored.

Point Buy ( am pretty sure that how i tell my players to make characters won't matter)

XP (I stopped giving XP years ago) again i think that how you give xp is going to matter or effect things if you differ.

Defanged threats - I think they can be both. I'm a fan of, not in the encounter, but possibly horrible afterwards.

 

[Vayden]

So if the game offers those things as options, you're out?

Point-buy: Deal breaker for the OP if it's included. Deal breaker for me if it's not included (4e had an option for die-role stat gen, we just never looked at it).

Different XP for different classes: Can't be the default, and I would probably be unhappy if it was even an option. Ancient evils should not be re-spawned.

"De-fanged threats" aka save-or-suck - I want paralysis/instant death/stun etc nerfed more than they were in 4e, not powered up again. If I have to go through and ban-hammer too many pieces of the rules I'll just stick with 4e.

 

[Deadboy]

I think that #1 being implemented as one of many options is pretty much guaranteed, #3 has a decent chance of being an one of the options and #2 likely won't be implemented because it will fill a lot of book space for little benefit other than to please the most old school of grognards.

As to my opinions on each:

1. I hate rolling for my stats. If I wanted a game that's going to make me want to cheat, I'd play Munchkin. Starting everyone out on a level playing fields and ending the "look, I just rolled all my stats and got two 18s while no one was looking!" days was a big step for D&D to me, and I've been playing since 1e.

2. Sure, it's more realistic for everyone to learn their professions differently. It's also more realistic for weapons to work differently against different types of armor and for getting hit with a sword to kill a person or at least injure them badly enough they can't fight any more.

3. Certain spells or monster abilities spelling certain doom for a player on a single die roll is certainly something that existed in old school D&D, but "defanging" those threats I think was better for the game for this reason - I don't understand why people are so accepting of a sword having to chew through a persons hit points while a spell or petrifying gaze can kill you instantly. Swords can kill people instantly, too. I don't see the logic in made up things that can kill you being more lethal than things that can kill you in real life.

 

[Pilgrim]

This is why there can never be an "edition for everyone". All of the things you mention are deal-breakers for me in the reverse.

I think the modularity of the game, implied, will allow for both to be available for either group to use.

However, which one is considered core and which one is optional/modular, has yet to be seen, if either one is either. For all we know there might be something else lined up for Core and both others optional.

 

[DonTadow]

I think that #1 being implemented as one of many options is pretty much guaranteed, #3 has a decent chance of being an one of the options and #2 likely won't be implemented because it will fill a lot of book space for little benefit other than to please the most old school of grognards.

As to my opinions on each:

1. I hate rolling for my stats. If I wanted a game that's going to make me want to cheat, I'd play Munchkin. Starting everyone out on a level playing fields and ending the "look, I just rolled all my stats and got two 18s while no one was looking!" days was a big step for D&D to me, and I've been playing since 1e.

2. Sure, it's more realistic for everyone to learn their professions differently. It's also more realistic for weapons to work differently against different types of armor and for getting hit with a sword to kill a person or at least injure them badly enough they can't fight any more.

3. Certain spells or monster abilities spelling certain doom for a player on a single die roll is certainly something that existed in old school D&D, but "defanging" those threats I think was better for the game for this reason - I don't understand why people are so accepting of a sword having to chew through a persons hit points while a spell or petrifying gaze can kill you instantly. Swords can kill people instantly, too. I don't see the logic in made up things that can kill you being more lethal than things that can kill you in real life.

i hate the term "deal breaker". I don't think anything at this stage is a deal breaker outside of copying either 4e or 3x a bit too much.

1. If there are options, why would you not play the game? Because somewhere in this world another group is doing something different than you?

2. I don't really understand the world of XP, so I can't understand how this is such an intense issue. The point of XP is to level so players can enjoy better benefits. I understand that some groups use it as a form of competing (in a cooperative game). And just as easy as I take it out, I"m pretty sure its simple to include it in the game. But the math needed to figure out how many locks picked equals a beholder killed would be resources better spent on other areas. I can't say i've ever met a player who, after hearing about how xp was distrubited, flipped over the table and left in disgust.

3. This is an issue that WOTC needs to tread lightly on, cause either way you can offend the other camp. Pathfinder still has save or die spells and they add to the intensity of a combat, 4e doesn't, and it allows everyone to play just about every 5 minute round. The easy way will be to have both. Still, this is an easy house rule. Heck, in 3.5 we gave all save or die spells a cap.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Point-buy: Deal breaker for the OP if it's included. Deal breaker for me if it's not included (4e had an option for die-role stat gen, we just never looked at it).

Deal breaker for me if it's the only way to gen characters.

Different XP for different classes: Can't be the default, and I would probably be unhappy if it was even an option. Ancient evils should not be re-spawned.

"Evil"? "Respawned"? What is it with that? Why would you care if it was an option?

"De-fanged threats" aka save-or-suck - I want paralysis/instant death/stun etc nerfed more than they were in 4e, not powered up again. If I have to go through and ban-hammer too many pieces of the rules I'll just stick with 4e.

Good to see you're taking a reasonable attitude towards this. Honestly, these things as options will kill the whole deal?

I should've been clearer - if those things are options, I'm fine with it. If they're defaults, no, I won't care for that. But for you, the idea that they might cater back to me up the game that bad?
[/font]

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Disagree with you on the first two.

1. There should be multiple options to generate ability scores, just like there has been for most of D&D.

2. XP as a measure of reward should be of equal value to each player regardless of what type of character he or she plays. XP is, after all, a metagame concept. If you want to simulate easier or harder learning for classes, bake that into the level structure, not the XP system, and (for example) give rogue-types more benefit per level relative to wizards.

I'm with you on dumbing down threats. Rust monsters should eat weapons and armor.