New Legends and Lore: Live Together, Die Alone
- Thread starter nedjer
- Start date
ExploderWizard
Hero
Whats the point of having classes if everyone just does everything as needed?
D&D classes have always been about defining archetypes. If every class is a utility infielder then how can you really distinguish the classes. Everyone defending, healing, sneaking, and dealing damage is really a classless system in function if not form.
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
AeroDm
First Post
My first reaction, too, but that would mean his beard goes over the nose.
Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
AeroDm
First Post
The neat thing that I'm taking away from this article is how Monte's article trajectory is following the same path as Mearls' trajectory. That is, it begins with really general statements and observations that are hard to object to before getting into anything concrete. It was when Mearls got concrete that things got interesting and when people began to dissent. I hope Monte endures the dissension and pushes out concrete ideas because, of all designers, he probably has the most idea-cred.
I will say, though, that I think this article had an insightful core. D&D really is a unique game in that it coordinates players instead of pits players against each other. Most games strive to be as simple and elegant as possible to not get in the way of player excellence, allowing the gravitas of the game to be drawn out by increasing skill of the players. Because D&D focuses on coordination, it (the game) has to engage you instead of allowing your opponent to engage you. That places a unique burden on the game and probably leads to a lot of the pit falls that have been discussed at length on these boards such as errata, bloat, min/maxing, and so on. It is a unique dilemma worth calling out and exploring.
I will say, though, that I think this article had an insightful core. D&D really is a unique game in that it coordinates players instead of pits players against each other. Most games strive to be as simple and elegant as possible to not get in the way of player excellence, allowing the gravitas of the game to be drawn out by increasing skill of the players. Because D&D focuses on coordination, it (the game) has to engage you instead of allowing your opponent to engage you. That places a unique burden on the game and probably leads to a lot of the pit falls that have been discussed at length on these boards such as errata, bloat, min/maxing, and so on. It is a unique dilemma worth calling out and exploring.
fireinthedust
Explorer
I like the idea of every class having something they can do to aid other characters. I like that a lot, actually, and it's something to consider.
Healing is the gorilla in the room, and it defines play experience for a system and a setting. Is healing based on potions? On spells? On medical checks and sci-fi bacta tanks?
Because of healing, Clerics were mandatory.
On the other hand, theoretically wizards can do a lot to help others, but don't due to blasting potential: who wants to memorize a few possibly-useful spells if you're only really likely to need a certain handful of energy-based magical attacks?
Even without wands of cure spells as an option, I think everyone looks to the game sans magic, and especially at the first 7 levels, as the key to whether or not a class is needed. Clerics are the only real healers for a 1st level party. There aren't other options.
Fixing healing is still a huge deal.
Healing is the gorilla in the room, and it defines play experience for a system and a setting. Is healing based on potions? On spells? On medical checks and sci-fi bacta tanks?
Because of healing, Clerics were mandatory.
On the other hand, theoretically wizards can do a lot to help others, but don't due to blasting potential: who wants to memorize a few possibly-useful spells if you're only really likely to need a certain handful of energy-based magical attacks?
Even without wands of cure spells as an option, I think everyone looks to the game sans magic, and especially at the first 7 levels, as the key to whether or not a class is needed. Clerics are the only real healers for a 1st level party. There aren't other options.
Fixing healing is still a huge deal.
The Shaman
First Post
Now that I have a little more time to look at it, it resembles a ninja half-mask made out of a pair of old women's nylons.
Yeesh.
I voted 'individuals' - I think a party of any classes should be viable; this is vital when you have a variable player base. It's ok for PCs to lean towards offense, defense, control or buffing, but I don't like 3e's 'must have healer' or 4e's 'must have defender'; it doesn't work well when the player of the cleric or fighter may not make the game session.
On 'buffer' PCs - healing and granting extra attacks are nice powers, but I strongly dislike fiddly bonuses; IME most of the other players forget about them and don't apply them. In 1e I always avoided spells like 'prayer' that granted the whole party +1s to hit & AC. In 3e the buffs became overwhelming, to the detriment of the game. In 4e the buffs are no longer vital, and players always seem to forget that the warlord is granting +2 to init or the elf is granting +1 perception etc.
On 'buffer' PCs - healing and granting extra attacks are nice powers, but I strongly dislike fiddly bonuses; IME most of the other players forget about them and don't apply them. In 1e I always avoided spells like 'prayer' that granted the whole party +1s to hit & AC. In 3e the buffs became overwhelming, to the detriment of the game. In 4e the buffs are no longer vital, and players always seem to forget that the warlord is granting +2 to init or the elf is granting +1 perception etc.
pming
Legend
Hiya.
I generally agree with Monte on this. The one thing I think needs mentioning is that these "group bonuses", IMHO, should *not* be "class based".
If the game is going to have a much more prounounced "group" dynamic over what 1e AD&D had, I'd *much* rather see it be reflected in generalized rules, and not class-ruled into minutia. In other words, if PC1 wants to try and help defend PC2, it should be a matter of the player describing "I try and step close enough to PC2 that I can flash, wave or otherwise try and keep the goblin guessing so that he's destracted"...and then the DM asking for a Dex check (lets say); success gives PC2 a 3 point bonus to defense, and failure gives only a 1 point bonus. This way, *any* character, regardless of class can help another based on their capabilities. To put it another way, if it was a fighter who had a better Str than dex, the player may say "I try and use my size to intimidate the goblin by flexing, posing, yelling and hitting his weapon really hard, so that he gets worried about who to attack"; DM then gives a Str check with the same success/fail bonus of 3 or 1.
What I don't want to see is "Thieves can do fancy moves and stuff to distract someone fighting another person so that other person gets a bonus to defense". This would set up the feeling that, for some strange reason, only a thief...er "rogue"... can distract someone by doing this. IMHO, best to just make it a generic rules thing and let anyone try, perhaps with certain classes/races being more likely based simply on their generally favored stats.
Generic rules for bonuses = GOOD.... Class-based rules for bonuses = BAD.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
I generally agree with Monte on this. The one thing I think needs mentioning is that these "group bonuses", IMHO, should *not* be "class based".
If the game is going to have a much more prounounced "group" dynamic over what 1e AD&D had, I'd *much* rather see it be reflected in generalized rules, and not class-ruled into minutia. In other words, if PC1 wants to try and help defend PC2, it should be a matter of the player describing "I try and step close enough to PC2 that I can flash, wave or otherwise try and keep the goblin guessing so that he's destracted"...and then the DM asking for a Dex check (lets say); success gives PC2 a 3 point bonus to defense, and failure gives only a 1 point bonus. This way, *any* character, regardless of class can help another based on their capabilities. To put it another way, if it was a fighter who had a better Str than dex, the player may say "I try and use my size to intimidate the goblin by flexing, posing, yelling and hitting his weapon really hard, so that he gets worried about who to attack"; DM then gives a Str check with the same success/fail bonus of 3 or 1.
What I don't want to see is "Thieves can do fancy moves and stuff to distract someone fighting another person so that other person gets a bonus to defense". This would set up the feeling that, for some strange reason, only a thief...er "rogue"... can distract someone by doing this. IMHO, best to just make it a generic rules thing and let anyone try, perhaps with certain classes/races being more likely based simply on their generally favored stats.
Generic rules for bonuses = GOOD.... Class-based rules for bonuses = BAD.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Similar Threads
