Sacred Cows You Hope Die?
- Thread starter JoeGKushner
- Start date
Invisibility as a second level spell.
Knock as a second level spell.
Fly as a third level spell.
We have all these neat skills like Hide in Shadows and Climb and Pick Locks and the Wizard comes along and deep sixes them.
Ditto for Cloak and Boots of Elvenkind. They were cool in 1E, but just plain useless in 3E.
Balance the magic system out so that it does not totally overshadow the skill / magic item system at low levels. Sure, at 15th level, spell casters can go invisible. But, not at 3rd.
Knock as a second level spell.
Fly as a third level spell.
We have all these neat skills like Hide in Shadows and Climb and Pick Locks and the Wizard comes along and deep sixes them.
Ditto for Cloak and Boots of Elvenkind. They were cool in 1E, but just plain useless in 3E.
Balance the magic system out so that it does not totally overshadow the skill / magic item system at low levels. Sure, at 15th level, spell casters can go invisible. But, not at 3rd.
YourSwordIsMine
First Post
sacred cows that need killing
Classes
level based advancement
Alignment
random stat generation
Vancian Magic
Xp per gold piece was finally killed but XP for killing monsters should be too. It only encourages hack&slash with no reward for roleplay. XP should be given based on how the players deal with situations (including combat) and on the furtherance of the Story.
D&D should evolve beyond its wargame roots and into the Roleplaying game it is.
Classes
level based advancement
Alignment
random stat generation
Vancian Magic
Xp per gold piece was finally killed but XP for killing monsters should be too. It only encourages hack&slash with no reward for roleplay. XP should be given based on how the players deal with situations (including combat) and on the furtherance of the Story.
D&D should evolve beyond its wargame roots and into the Roleplaying game it is.
Last edited:
Brian Gibbons
Explorer
I'm surprised that there are people out there that still prefer random attributes and hit points. Among people I play with, point buy and fixed hit points per class are standard, unless the GM wants to run an "old school" game as a change of pace.Baby Samurai said:Right on, you have just illustrated why random ability score generation sucks massive amounts of donkey– one lucky guy has an 18, and the other chump's best score is a 15…lame.
If your group really wants random ability scores, one way to get around the unbalanced party issue is to have the group randomly roll an ability array which every PC can use, arranging to taste.
borc killer
First Post
Geron Raveneye said:I dare say it is part of D&D just as much as some other things.
Now that is a Sacred Cow I would like to see go away.
And to some of you other guys:
Random = good
If you don't like random hps or stats there are optional rules right in the core... heck why not just assume everyone takes 10 on all d20 rolls? That sounds like fun! /sigh
Geron Raveneye
Explorer
JVisgaitis said:
Hmmm, this post will probably take me quite some time, as it usually does when I need to coax my brain into thinking through what I usually know from my gut.
As a start, your "improvised" cover for the 4E PHB is something that definitely says D&D for me, and belongs on the cover of the 4E PHB. I went with those faux tome covers because I didn't have any other choice, but I really missed the artwork on the front, depicting at least something from the game itself. I'm a Basic D&D guy myself, loved the Elmore covers, and I really love the AD&D 1E covers. They all hint at what you can expect from the game inside.
Classes are a BIG part of D&D. I actually like them for their niche-protection, their minimum-funcionality insurance, and the fact that you can, in most cases, see from the name what you are going to play. Granted, 3.X went quite overboard with them after a while, and with weird names, ditto for prestige classes...which pushes 3.X in the realm of "has to be limited/houseruled to be D&D for me in that context". But anyway...classes are D&D. I've played with a few skill-point systems, and they are all nice and well, but there's nothing that gives you a simple fighter as fast as D&D. And here, the feats are a damn nice new addition, since you can shape the fighter from level 1 into different things and still keep him in his niche. Very nicely done.
Levels tie in with classes...hope you won't mind if I keep it at that.
Magic...hmmm, here I'm a bit ambivalent. I like the Vancian system, since it is pretty easy to handle. You have a certain amount of spells per day for eahc level (how many exactly is not quite the point), you tick off which ones you prepare, and when you use it, you scratch it out again. If you don't know what it does, you can simply look it up instead of having to calculate everything from scratch, since spells are pre-made. When you run out of spells, you're out of spells, and that's it. Easy to get for a 14-years old (me 20 years ago
), and good to be in the basic rules.On the other hand, I like the variability that was introduced into it with different supplements and campaign settings. They stayed within certain limits, but showed nicely what you can do with the system if you want to vary it. Midnight and Sovereign Stone D20 come to mind...or Arcana Unearthed for just a bit added flexibility.
But some semblance of the Vancian system of D&D should be retained..otherwise, I could play Ars Magica, Shadowrun, or Rolemaster (or any other game with a vastly different magic system
).As I said already in another thread, I miss specialty priests (althout, after taking a look at Priests of the Celestial Spheres from Mouseferatu, I think they are not that hard to bring back
). I like the cleric as a "support caster and second-line fighter", but not as a fighter/divine wizard which he is in 3.X. In older editions, I preferred divine casters to get spontaneous casting of their spells...which would be murder with 3.X lists.In that vein, the separation between arcane and divine magic is basically D&D. I like to play around with necromantic healing for the wizard, or some arcanes spells in divine spheres/domains as anybody, but I still like the split. It makes sense, to me, that in a world where the gods favour a few with their miracles, they'd make sure that those snobby wizards couldn't produce the exact same effects. Some campaign settings have done away with that, but in those cases, it fits the setting. For basic D&D, I like that split.
Saving Throws are a D&D thing, and a good one. The reasoning that with some threats, heroes might get lucky (dice-luck) and survive them is fundamental for their existence, and I'd hate to see them go for calculable "action points" or whatever. I prefer heroes who take risks that they can't quite calculate...makes the luck be really lucky, and not just a game mechanic/resource. Or, in other words, an Indiana Jones who tries to trick the trap with his bag of stones so it WON'T go off, instead of simply setting it off, knowing he has enough action points left to avoid any nasty damage. I've seen a few saving throw mechanics...Basic D&D and AD&D didn't differ that much...3E simplified it pretty much, and in a nice way...Castles & Crusades made a hybrid between attribute-based and "old school" saving throw...and if I had to choose, I'd choose C&C for the reason that it eliminates dump stats. But 3.X takes the price for intuitiveness. See, I CAN like innovations.
AC as prime stat to be hit, modified by other stuff...the combat system is nicely abstract, while offering enough leeway to go into more detail if necessary. 3E demonstrated that, even though it went overboard with all the bonuses after a while. ThAC0 or BAB...one is like the reverse of the other, if you squint a little...BAB has proved itself to be easier for most, but the underlying principle stayed the same.
Which is why I also like all those "arbitrary" dice rolls for attributes, hit points, etc. It's part of D&D's charm, that your hero has to depend on luck from his creation already...and haggling a bit with the DM about rerolling something, or shifting a few attribute points used to strengthen the social aspects right at character creation as well..made it easy to spot the DMs you maybe didn't want to play with...and those players whose dice you better keep an eye on. And enforced the fact that there's always two involved in the game...player and DM.
The rest...weird but loveable monsters, exotic and traditional settings side by side, planar adventures...all that stuff is also a big part of D&D, but nothing that would easily change, since it is not as tied to rules-mechanics. What I dislike is the ever-present cry to eliminate "unfun" elements, and what those elements are identified as. The rust monster is one example, but I don't want to kick off another discussion about that...it got enough pain during the Mearls-workup-discussions.
Uhm...and I better stop here, otherwise I'll have typed for nothing, since you'll be fast asleep at half-post. Hope I was able to answer your question to some degree.
Fact is that I can be a pretty tolerant guy where change is concerned...at some point, I'd simply start wondering why people still want to call it D&D. Which is why I reacted to your post like I did...because to me, if you slaughter ALL "sacred cows" of D&D, and set up something completely new and simply slap on the brand name...you've killed the game in my opinion, and just use the name to pull in those who follow brand recognition instead of the game. A game, to me, is more than just a name and what you play with it...it's also the rules of the game, since they give it structure and guidance, and certain kind of flavour.But, you know...your 4E PHB mock-up is spot on for me. So we can't be THAT far apart in tastes in the end.
Which is why I'd like to hand that question back to you, if you don't mind.
Last edited:
Geron Raveneye
Explorer
borc killer said:
I wouldn't...simply because creative differences lead to creative discussions, and to creation processes that lead to new (and maybe improved) versions of the rules we all love to play. And I think a little creativity is never wrong in roleplaying games.
Thurbane
First Post
In your humble opinion. No one in my group walked away feeling hard done by. We've been rolling for nigh on 20 years, and have no plans for changing now.Baby Samurai said:Right on, you have just illustrated why random ability score generation sucks massive amounts of donkey
I just don't get this "hate" for rolling abilties - many people seem to think it's either a cheatfest or produces lame ducks. Neither have been the case in my experience. Sure, some characters might be moderately better mechanically than others, but even with arrays or point buy, the guys who are better rules lawyers and min/maxers will have significantly more powerful characters than those less book savvy anyway.
I also find it odd than many of the same people who decry rolling abilties for producing characters with "broken" high ability scores also seem to support more splat powers for the characters in each edition. On one hand having an 18 ability score is overpowering, but on the other having 27 salient magical abilities for a 3rd level commoner is "kewl".
