Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6728773" data-attributes="member: 996">The subtle distinction between "this class idea could have some issues with implementation that might cause a little trouble at the table, please watch out for that, especially in playtesting" and  "this class idea could have some issues with implementation that might cause a little trouble at the table, don't you dare even try to add it to the game under any circumstances."  Addressing a concern with a possible new class means that you want to see the class implemented in a way that minimizes the potential problem you see.  Raising an objection to a possible new class means you don't want the class to be added, at all.  The former is asserting your desire that the game try to avoid sucking unnecessarily (yes, I'm afraid suck is sometimes necessary, perfection being impossible), the latter is asserting your desire to dictate to everyone what they can play.  When I say the system is 'up for handling anything,' well, first, yes, it may be an overstatement for effect, maybe 'anything from a past edition' (or even 'core in a past edition) would be a safer way to put it.  But, more importantly, I'm not talking about the game exactly as it stands can be mangled and shoved into shape by amateurs - it can be, that's just not what I'm referring to.  Rather, the point is that the design philosophy and the basics of the system can handle the addition of any given new class or other game element.  It might still bloat and experience negative effects if many (dozens of classes, hundreds of feats, thousands of spells) such things were added, and were all used at one table, but there's nothing 'impossible' about handling a class or other game element from a past edition and doing so in a way that's faithful to the concept and supports the play styles  in questions.Sure, you could find outre mechanics that are basically incompatible with rolling everything on a d20.  A percentile roll, though, is not exactly hard to convert to a mathematically equivalent d20 check.Spells do scale with level, cantrips literally so, while other spells scale with the level of the slot (and your available slots scale with level).  It's not an identical mechanic, but it supports the concept of casters getting better at casting as they level up.I don't see how it'd be a major problem.  So it's a monster you can't cast spell directly upon with much chance of success?  Parties have other resources than spells, and other ways to use spells other than casting them directly at enemies.  That hasn't changed from 1e to 5e.Or you could just give casters a magic resistance DC to overcome, using caster Stat mod + proficiency.  It was an obscure rule in 1e, but IIRC, magic resistance went up for casters under 11th and down for those above that level.  So a DC of around 28 would probably be equivalent to 90% magic resistance.  Level is taken into account, the spirit/feel/concept of the old mechanic is re-introduced, and the 'new' (it's prettymuch how 3e did magic resistance, so not that new) mechanic fits the dice conventions of the current edition.In D&D, where magic is such a common, highly-available, and powerful tool for PCs?  Sure, sometimes.  The Mind Flayer's magic resistance goes way back.  I'd think it had to do with them being Lovecraftian eldritch abominations so alien that our world's magic can barely touch them.  In 1e, the rationale for magic resistance was often (though hardly consistently) that the creature was extra-dimensional in nature (maybe magic meant to affect natives of the plane couldn't reach the 'whole' creature?  IDK).  It's certainly not that they're arch-wizards.  Arch-wizards, afterall, don't develop magic resistance.  Second Wind isn't magical in the Standard Game, but there's no reason a DM couldn't house-rule it to be magical if it fit his campaign (probably want to beef it up slightly to compensate for the potential loss of availability when magic is being blocked or countered or messed with somehow).  For that matter, a player and/or his PC could /believe/ the ability was magical, and what's to say it isn't some subtle sort of magic that just isn't subject to the usual laws and trappings of casting or ki or other supernatural powers?  The same goes for any current or hypothetical non-magical ability that might cross some individual's personal verisimilitude line like that.  Really should be a non-issue.</blockquote>

Verification