Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Merlion" data-source="post: 1769182" data-attributes="member: 10397">Imagkica:I agree that hit points wont be changed/removed. But including CBDB and/or Armor as DR doesnt change/remove them, it simply adds to them. Thats what I'm getting at. Armor as DR just makes sense. Its hard for me to envision my character putting on armor and having it make him harder to strike in combat. Thats not what armor does. It reduces damage. Interesting. But I dont really think DnD will ever move away from the Vancian system...and if they do, it would probably be to something like Spell Points. I think DnD magic will always consist of specfic spells that characters learn. I'm ok with that. Something like the heighted/diminished system in Arcana Unearthed would be nice.  I think maybe we could hope for more of this kind of stuff, at least as "official variant" options. I never said anything about removing alignment. Alignment restrictions on base classes should be removed, since in that context they are essentially roleplaying restrictions. But both the mechanics and the roleplaying aspects of alignment could use more tweaking, and I think the mechanics could be scaled back a bit. Theres so very many alignment based spells, magic items feats, etc etc..I also dont personaly like the law/chaos part of alignment. To me it covers things that are simply part of personality. Whats the difference? If only a certain class can take them, they basically become class features. This is my thing. Also, I would like to see a lot more feats that effect spells and spellcasting. I dont see this ever happening in D&D, and I dont think I would want it to. The flexibility would be nice, but most of the base classes we have now should be base classes. Druids are most certainly not "wilderness based Cleric-Fighters." they are Druids. They are nature-mages or nature-priests depending on how you want to look at it. And so on. I want to be able to start out as the type of character I want to be.I think if people would be more open to customizing existing classes and if the core rules supported it more, it would be even better though. Dragon Lancer: I think maybe you are misunderstanding some of what I am saying, lets see what we can do here.. I dont really have a problem with hit points myself. They are a little too abstract, and I like say the wound/vitality point system also, but its not a big beef with me. I dont foresee any change to it in 4th edition, save perhaps vitality/woundpoints being made an "official variant." And again, I am not saying anything about removing HP or AC. Class based defense bonus is simply something to add to/work with the Armor Class system, not replace it. It just seems strange to me that you get better at attacking, but never any better at defending yourself. With that last part I was mostly refering to what one person said about the time it can take to do up skills for NPCs. Its particlarly bad with multiclass characters.But in generall, I'd like to see (and wouldnt really be shocked to see) the base skill point number raised to 4, and at least some skills be made class skills for everyone. Physical and perception skills (swim, climb, jump, spot, listen) and things like Craft, Profession and Knowledge in particular. A big part of RPG design is balancing simplicity and ease of play with content and custimizability. 2nd edition had almost no way to mechanically customize characters, especially warrior types. Feats allow that. Now yea theres a whole bunch of feats, and I'm sure it can be bewildering for a new player. But the same is true of spells for instance. They are always going to take something like that and make lots of it, and a lot of it is going to be dreck. It comes with the territory. How so? Especially, how so with feats? Your the first person I've ever heard say that. I am very must AGAINST massive reduction in number of core classes.  I find the whole "bards paladins and rangers should be PrCs" thing frankly ridcules. The only class that I see as realistically needing removal is the Barbarian.Now yea, on a personal level, I hate the Cleric with a burning passion, and would rejoice to see it removed. But setting that aside, the Cleric in its current form is overpowered, and suffers from severe archtype issues. I would like to see this repaired in a new edition. Same with Sorcerer...it needs its own identity, archtypally, and it needs to be equal to the other casting classes. Its an interesting idea, but probably is overdone/overused a bit.So, what changes do you think will, and seperate from that what changes do you think should occur?</blockquote>

Verification