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

[Tallifer]

- 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.

We regret to inform you that such wishes will have be options in the appendix. I imagine these wishes reflect a very small minority of D&D players nowadays. I grew up on these rules as well, but I never saw them as somehow essential to playing either Basic D&D or AD&D.

I was quite happy to play other systems with point-buying, so I welcome it in D&D. I was never very happy with the weird experience point progressions any way.

 

[Felon]

- 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.

You apparently have been playing a lot of HERO System, because in D&D they're called "ability scores", not "characteristics".

Seems the only reason to advocate randomly-rolled characters is specifically so that a lot of players *won't'* get the characters they want. It is essentially a way to deny players a sense of control.

Personally, I say ditch ability scores altogether. Ability scores existed at a time before feats and skills. They've been displaced.

- 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.

How does having different XP charts for different classes keep the game moving?

What I primarily recall about this element of AD&D was that if you took a good look at the charts, it was evident that only at extreme ranges (thief and magic-user) were you likely to be more than one level higher than a class with equivalent XP.

And when I pointed how much thieves stank on ice in virtually every respect (even the stuff they were supposed to be good at), the primary response was "well, that's accounted for by allowing you to progress faster than everybody else". It's a huge non-sequitor: I'm more marginal than everybody else--horrible hit points, saving throws, armor, HP, THACO, weapon profs--even though I'm a level higher than them, but my higher level is somehow compensation.

So, basically, we're talking about a huge non sequitor. Personally, I really think there's a lot overemphasis on character generation, to the point where actual gameplay seems secondary.

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

Well, some examples here would help, but I generally agree that saving throws have defanged many 4e monsters. Over in the "Saving Throws: What Should Become of Them?" thread, I mentioned how I want things like medusas to have more than a slight chance of actually petrifying someone who's blithely running into their gaze. The point of such a monster is to make the players back down and use better tactics, not bum rush them.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

We regret to inform you that such wishes will have be options in the appendix. I imagine these wishes reflect a very small minority of D&D players nowadays.

Citation needed. Your experience is merely that. My experience is just the opposite. Everyone I know detests point buy. Since neither of us can provide numbers, both options should be available. Of course, point buy will be the one in the appendix. I asked my magic D20.

 

[thedungeondelver]

We regret to inform you that such wishes will have be options in the appendix.

Awesome! You're in on a playtest then? Or you work for WIZARDS OF THE COAST and have this on authority?

 

[thedungeondelver]

How does having different XP charts for different classes keep the game moving?

XP is book-keeping; you're not doing it mid-stride in combat or while you're talking to the king about saving the castle. How does having the same charts for the same classes.

Personally, I say ditch ability scores altogether. Ability scores existed at a time before feats and skills. They've been displaced.

That game is not D&D.

How does taking options away make a game better? (It doesn't.)

Ultimately though we're all going to get more or less what we want; does that bother you? If so, why? Are you concerned that 3e players, 2e fans, AD&Ders like myself and so on will have an outlet in a new edition of D&D?

I mean, speaking for myself, honestly if there's a section on running a stat-less XP-less version of the game, well, that's fine too I guess. But it shouldn't be to the exclusion of all else.

Fortunately, I think Misters Cook & Mearles are smart enough to not do that!

 

[Felon]

XP is book-keeping; you're not doing it mid-stride in combat or while you're talking to the king about saving the castle.

It was you who said that having multiple XP charts "adds variety and it keeps the game moving". I'm asking you how exactly it keeps the game moving. Are you now recanting that position?

That game is not D&D.

How does taking options away make a game better? (It doesn't.)

Well, saying "that game is not D&D" is not rational. It's pure sentimentality, so there's no speaking to it beyond pointing out that it's irrational.

Removing ability scores doesn't take away options. As I've stated, ability scores have been displaced by other things that fill their role better.

Ultimately though we're all going to get more or less what we want; does that bother you? If so, why? Are you concerned that 3e players, 2e fans, AD&Ders like myself and so on will have an outlet in a new edition of D&D?

I don't think we're all going to get what we want by any stretch of the imagination. I suspect, in fact, that I'll be more appeased than you because the rules will ultimately favor a rational what's-best-for-everyone approach over a fickle "that is not D&D!" mindset. Though we'll probably retain ability scores simply because of people's limitations on accepting change.

 

[CM]

As a side note I saw it mentioned twice in this thread that rust monsters were defanged and now don't devour metal. This is not true of 4e rust monsters--they can still devour metal (and rust weapons that strike them) but it just takes a little longer: two hits minimum instead of one. You are able to recover residuum from the creature's corpse afterward, but this little comfort. Because uncommon and rare items cannot be crafted it's still trivially easy to lose a prized magic weapon or armor while fighting a rust monster.

Back on topic, as a 4e DM I am mostly in favor of limiting save-or-suck but there are some situations where I think it is appropriate. Fortunately I think variable lethality will be one of the easiest dials for WotC to establish. Posters in this thread have already shown how they could be statted out.

 

[Wormwood]

Personally, I say ditch ability scores altogether. Ability scores existed at a time before feats and skills. They've been displaced.

I couldn't agree more.

That said, 5e is all about making Nixon-era concepts compatible with present-day game design---in the interest of unity.

Ability scores ain't going nowhere.

 

[Felon]

Yes, I'm going to have to live with that. I do hold out hope that there's a chance we'll get rid of the meaningless number that represents the actual bonus.

 

[Tallifer]

Anyways all this crying and sobbing about point buying Abilities is moot. Even 4th Edition had the rules for rolling Abilities right in the Players' Handbook on the same page as buying by points.

So I take back my snark about rolling for them being in the appendix.