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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Willie the Duck" data-source="post: 8732338" data-attributes="member: 6799660">Things I want that have not been mentioned or I want to specify my own touches:I want a two*-pronged game (either two distinct pillars, or a divergence at maybe 6th or 9th level. One column is where the warriors and rogue are/stay experienced everypersons who succeed by luck, brilliance, caginess and (mostly) realistic application of force and daring-do; paired with spellcasters who make illusionary vipers to scare away enemies or create 'pay hp to bypass' crowd control like walls of thorns or other relatively grounded magics. The other column is where there are spellcasters who can raise the dead, traverse the planes, turn back time, grant wishes, and such; they are alongside warriors who lop the tops off mountains, rogues who can leap to the clouds (and balance on them), bards who can serenade Death itself until it gives up a loved one, and so forth. *or more, with potential for middle groundsAlternately, I would like a game where warriors and rogues fought alongside Battlemages who use spells instead of swords and arrows (the spells doing similar, if not identical, things to said swords and arrows) and Taskmages who used spells instead of skills (again, of similar style and scope). The spells that raised the dead and travelled the planes and such would then be part of a separate progression unrelated to class (and maybe main level) that is open to anyone (and the answer to 'is magic better?' becomes 'yes, but since this is open to everyone, the spellcasting classes aren't better').Regardless, I would an expansive non-magical, non-combat resolution system, where people can do more than just succeed or fail. This too will likely have to be divided for people who want 'realistic' heroes, and those who are playing Beowulf swimming for days in armor (and maybe in-between). Fighters should be allowed at this table, to the point where the line between dexterous fighters and rogues (or burly rogues and other types of fighters) may become blurry. That's fine. If these need to be in supplements or 'stronghold builder's guide,' 'intrigue-maker's guide,' etc. so be it. On to what others have said...Honestly, the spell names and base ideas can stay, the implementations just have to really be crafted (and tested, and tested again) to make sure that they don't disrupt the game. I recall Simulacrum and summons and druid wildshape and shapechange-y spells in various editions which were honestly pretty weak (wish has always been a nightmare balanced against costs the first step was finding a way around suffering). The various Force _____ spells could also be made less break-ish if you could just regular-violence your way through them, etc.Bravissimo! Magnifico! Other words of adulation! I would hold off on assuming this has anything to do with what the designers play, and more about what they think we the buying public want as a common architecture of gameplay. I'm assuming that their tables have all sorts of social encounters, politics, domain play, wilderness whatnot, but they don't believe we want what they use (or not 51% or more of us want any given version thereof, that last part probably being true). Man, you dream bigger than I. If wishes were horses, I would get an Andalusian showhorse , and you'd get a pegacentauricorn. Wouldn't that be any of the point-buys (GURPS, HERO, etc.) with training as a gate/point reducer? I love the idea, but class&level seem like rather hard to shake D&D-isms.</blockquote>

Verification