Legends and Lore for 2/13

[Sunseeker]

I might argue that virtually all of the polls have been heavily loaded with pre-selection bias. But I'm not that cynical.

Oh wait, yes I am.
The polls are twice as useless as the actual columns. How much use THOSE are I leave to individual taste.

Anyone with any hint of knowhow about how Wizards operates and their past ideas of "player involvement"(anyone from the MTG community knows how disgruntled the whole Mirrodin Pure/New Phyrexia made people) knows that Wizards will do what Wizards wants to do. The end.

While it's nice that this poll is actually asking "here's some features we like, which ones do you like too?" it's really not giving us any real input. Even in the playtest the testing will be more along the lines of "what do you think of the features we've chosen?" not "can you suggest better features?"

 

[The Shadow]

Racial limits were to explain why elves and other long lived species don't rule the planet (or universe)

...What? Really?

So in order to explain why elves don't rule the universe, you have to come up with a completely arbitrary limit on how good they can get at their careers? That... really doesn't make much sense. And what about halflings? They aren't all that long-lived compared to humans.

There's no point complaining about the polls; they're meaningless anyway. I'll say it again: Self-selected sample of those fans who visit the website. This ain't exactly a random sample, folks, so take it with a grain of salt.

Regarding the actual column, I was glad to see they're going to let certain outdated mechanics rest in their graves; and I was intrigued at some of the mashup possibilities he mentioned.

The ideas about rolling mechanics seem well worth exploring. Multiple rolls are nice, because they give a bonus without breaking out of the bounds of the die. As for bonus dice... shades of Alternity!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Actually those polls are designed quite well... this time you should decide, which features you would like in the next edition... Simple as that.

 

[Whatthehell]

While they might make for a less than ideal gaming experience, racial limits and gender ability caps were hardly stupid.

Racial limits were to explain why elves and other long lived species don't rule the planet (or universe) and women do have lower limits of physical strength than men.

It's certainly okay for you to not like things from past edition, but it gets old when you constantly refer to them as "stupidity".

What the hell is wrong with you? Is your real life so horrible that you seek to enforce misogyny in your recreation?

Admin here. It's certainly possible to express that you think the other poster is wrong - as I sure do! - without resorting to personal attacks. When you're talking about stuff at ENW, please address the issue instead of aiming for the other person. Thanks. -- Piratecat

 

[Jack99]

Are we voting in favor of them or against them? If they are going to go through the motions of asking our opinion, they ought explain themselves. I mean "Features" in Dndnext doesn't tell me anything aside from giving some vague notion as to what the text is supposedly about.

You are voting for what you want included dndnext. It's the only thing that makes sense. If the poll was to exclude things, you would have to assume that all things were already in the game. Or maybe it's just me.

 

[pemerton]

I voted yes on weapon vs armour. I used to use that table, back when I played AD&D - it helped balance some of the other weapons against longswords!

 

[JoeGKushner]

Thaco and Weapon Tables? ha!

My group loved those little player screens they came out with for each core class.

Weapon tables versus AC? Man, I never used those even back in the day.

 

[Sunseeker]

While they might make for a less than ideal gaming experience, racial limits and gender ability caps were hardly stupid.

No, they're really not, considering that there were basically NO caps on male characters and yet there were caps on female characters.

Racial limits were to explain why elves and other long lived species don't rule the planet (or universe) and women do have lower limits of physical strength than men.

Does not compute.
Class limits would do nothing to that. The way races were "balanced" was by using traditional fantasy ideas that longer-lived races have fewer pregnancies and take more time to gestate, ect...
You'd have to cite scientific evidence to prove the latter as well. I don't think we need Wizards to have to provide efficacy data for why men can have any ability scores, but women can only get a 17 str.

It's certainly okay for you to not like things from past edition, but it gets old when you constantly refer to them as "stupidity".

Sure, but that doesn't mean they weren't stupid.

 

[pemerton]

The ideas about rolling mechanics seem well worth exploring. Multiple rolls are nice, because they give a bonus without breaking out of the bounds of the die. As for bonus dice... shades of Alternity!

I'm not a big fan of bonus dice added to d20 rolls, but like the idea of multiple rolls and picking the best, for the reason you give. Bonus dice to damage are fine, if a little clunky in large numbers.

 

[Kynn]

The ideas about rolling mechanics seem well worth exploring. Multiple rolls are nice, because they give a bonus without breaking out of the bounds of the die. As for bonus dice... shades of Alternity!

Terrifying shades of Alternity.

I love the setting and some things about the system, but maaan that dice mechanic was a hot mess.