Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Starfox" data-source="post: 6179461" data-attributes="member: 2303">&lt;soapbox&gt;If this is how things turn out, I don't really mind. Because in my opinion, what Next should be is an introductory game and (wishful thinking) a mass-market game. I'd much prefer a simple, easy-to-learn core game with few well-wrought, distinct options than some open-ended system. I want a game I can give as a xmas present to the children of my next-of-kin who ask me what a role-playing game is. I want a game I can play with minimal hassle at conventions. And I want Dungeons &amp; Dragons to be that game, because the name has such a huge recognition factor. Would I play that game myself? Probably a few times, but more likely than not I'd keep playing my own homebrew more. But I don't want this game to be about me - I want it to be about bringing new players into the hobby. That means it has to be playable even by us olf foxes, but it need not be the perfect game for each of us - something which is patently impossible anyway with all our diverse tastes.&lt;/soapbox&gt;Ok, now that I got that off my chest, and more on topic, there is one thing I do NOT want. And that is for rogues to be able to trade some of their sneak attack dice for other abilities. It seems attractive at first; a rogue who can do some fancy stunt, but who does 4d6 sneak attack instead of 5d6 sneak attack. But this way lies madness - because now, the rogue has 2 abilities, neither if which is as good as the regular sneak attack. Trade another d6 for more abilities, and you add even more watered-down options. If there is something to be learned from the history of the DnD bard, it is that lots of poor abilities does not equate one good ability. The same can be seen with multiclassing. I am all for variants of classes, but this is not how to do it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Starfox, post: 6179461, member: 2303"] <soapbox> If this is how things turn out, I don't really mind. Because in my opinion, what Next should be is an introductory game and (wishful thinking) a mass-market game. I'd much prefer a simple, easy-to-learn core game with few well-wrought, distinct options than some open-ended system. I want a game I can give as a xmas present to the children of my next-of-kin who ask me what a role-playing game is. I want a game I can play with minimal hassle at conventions. And I want Dungeons & Dragons to be that game, because the name has such a huge recognition factor. Would I play that game myself? Probably a few times, but more likely than not I'd keep playing my own homebrew more. But I don't want this game to be about me - I want it to be about bringing new players into the hobby. That means it has to be playable even by us olf foxes, but it need not be the perfect game for each of us - something which is patently impossible anyway with all our diverse tastes. </soapbox> Ok, now that I got that off my chest, and more on topic, there is one thing I do NOT want. And that is for rogues to be able to trade some of their sneak attack dice for other abilities. It seems attractive at first; a rogue who can do some fancy stunt, but who does 4d6 sneak attack instead of 5d6 sneak attack. But this way lies madness - because now, the rogue has 2 abilities, neither if which is as good as the regular sneak attack. Trade another d6 for more abilities, and you add even more watered-down options. If there is something to be learned from the history of the DnD bard, it is that lots of poor abilities does not equate one good ability. The same can be seen with multiclassing. I am all for variants of classes, but this is not how to do it. [/QUOTE]

Verification