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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pming" data-source="post: 6399606" data-attributes="member: 45197">Hiya.  I'm on the fence about this. I was actually quite convinced they were going to screw up 5e after Monty left (I can definitely see his influence though...a lot of 5e reminds me of his "Diamond Throne" or "Arcana Unearthed"). I figured it was going to totally suck spherical man-meat. I was pleasantly surprised when I actually got up the guts to try and run the Starter Set. Now...I'm rather fond of 5e. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  Anyway, I think WotC could make it work...but they have to stick to their guns and NOT give in to all the loud, gotta-have-it-all-and-gotta-have-it-NOW crowd. They have to stick to the "less is more" BECMI/0e/1e line of game design. The moment they start to fall into the "well, I suppose we could just give this class an extra +1 to their Proficiency checks, but only with regards to ranged combat"...that will be the pebble that starts the landslide.  We are both firmly on the same page on this one. The thing many of those clamoring for more "splat book choices" are, if I had to guess, players and not DM's. They want things that they can just "pick and choose". I can see the allure, really I can. However, more splat book choices will NOT make for a better campaign experience. I guarantee that. My 34+ years of DM'ing has taught me that giving a player 4 choices, all laid out in perfect mechanical detail will give them 4 choices. But giving them 4 choices, laid out with so-called "vagueishness" in some of the aspects will give the player two, five, or ten choices. Why? With it all laid out, they use what they see and never go any farther than that. With a few well-placed "vague" sentences, the player is guaranteed to think of at least two or three interpretations himself. He then goes to the DM for clarification, and the DM adds in another one or two interpretations. They talk, the player says what he thinks would be cool, the DM considers what would be cool for his campaign, they work out what they want it to mean and there you go. The next time a player wants to do something with the same 'choice', the player may have a different take, as the DM may, and then you have yet another variant. Both are custom tailored to the player and DM campaign. That "adjudication/creation/interpretation" gives all around a special feeling of attachment to their game world. Like painting a picture, building a scale model, or building a gazebo in the back yard; a feeling of actually creating something. Something that nobody else did...others may have painted the same picture, but it won't be exact and it won't be "yours".   So, PrC's; less mechanics is better, but some mechanical differences are definitely needed. They need to be additional, not "exceptions", and they need to be on-par with regular class abilities. They can't "break" anything a class can/can't do (re: a PrC shouldn't allow a thief to wear heavy armor and ignore armor penalties, for example), and the player should never, ever be heard uttering "Well, yeah, this is exactly like the {class ability}, but you don't have to {insert classes balancing factor for ability}". I don't want my Barbarian playing player to hear another player, who's not playing a Barbarian, say "Yeah, I can rage too...but I can do it any time I want as long as I make a DC 15 Wisdom check".  Oh, and as for "level requirements". Nope. Don't want them. They are never accurate to everyone's campaign and place a distinctly "gotta level as fast as I can, and make sure I get all the doo-dad and thingamajig abilities by that level" stress on the player (and DM). For example, if (as someone mentioned), a PrC not being available to level 10. My group and I generally like low to mid level. In our games (BECMI, 1e, even PF), rarely did PC's crack the level 7 or 8 marker. We just like lower level stuff. If 10th level became the 'standard PrC level requirement', I'd be forced to rework it to be lower. But, chances are, that 10th will have certain other mechanical things that simply are not possible unless you are level 10. How do I fix those? I could, but now I'm going down a huge path of "fixing all of WotC's mistakes for my game". I'd much rather be going down the path of "using my imagination to custom-fit WotC's stuff for my game" (re: add to is better and easier than take away...just ask the people who think THAC0 is "too difficult"... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ).  I don't think there should be ANY 'level requirement' for a PrC. If a PC lives up to the standards of some PrC's tenants by the time he hits level 4, then by the gods he should be allowed to petition to join their ranks. Any other mechanical requirements should be significantly low, or open-ended (e.g., "Requirement: skill in at least one weapon with the Versatile trait.", or "Able to cast 1st level spells"). IMHO, any and all PrC mechanical requirements should be attainable by the time the character hits 3rd level. This is low enough so as to be open to any D&D campaign (except for something crazy extreme...like "no levels above 2nd", I guess...). Low is good. Less is more. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />^_^Paul L. Ming</blockquote>

Verification