Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The perfect D&D edition (according to ENWORLD)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7630111" data-attributes="member: 29398"><p>IME if there's a couple (or more) options given then DMs feel less constrained re adding others, where if there's only one option it just is what it is.</p><p></p><p>Thing there is if you've got Druids, and you've got nature-based or nature-domain healing Clerics, then before long they'll end up looking and playing very much the same even if they get their spells from different sources. Thus, simplicity (which usually wins out where there's a choice) says get rid of one of them by folding the two together - and as Clerics already have all the "infrastructure" in place to support other Cleric types, making Druids into Clerics means one can also scrap the underlying infrastructure of the Druid and thus make things simpler.</p><p></p><p>Difference in outlook, I suppose - binary is often fine with me.</p><p></p><p>That said, I have an underlying theory regarding the in-fiction physics of magic. I'll explain it if you like but it goes on for a bit, but in very short form magic is a 'force' much like gravity with the key difference being that some lifeforms can access this force and make it do what they need/want. Divine casters get that access from their deities. Arcane casters get it through study. Bards use sound to manipulate it, and psionics access it - well, because they can.</p><p></p><p>Put another way, in effect all magic comes from the same place; and only the means of access differ.</p><p></p><p>From there, it's pretty easy to set things up such that each method of access allows those people to do some things but not others; hence the divine-arcane divide.</p><p> </p><p>Which brings up another point: the 'ideal' edition should and IMO must follow through on 5e's promise of modularity, and be presented largely as guidelines rather than rules.</p><p></p><p>"This one goes to 11..."</p><p></p><p>My concern here is that on first read this system looks like it wants each character to be able to do a bit of everything...and maybe even a lot of everything. A gish that can heal itself, for example, is a one-man band and has no need for a party beyond simple strength in numbers.</p><p></p><p>Players tend to want this sort of character, and IMO designers have to fight this desire in order to preserve niche protection and to encourage ensemble or party play. Everyone should have a key thing he-she is good at and a bunch of things he-she isn't so good at, leading to party inter-dependence once they get into the field.</p><p></p><p>Oh, and regarding some bits way above: I haven't even looked at PF2 yet so I'll just have to take your word on whatever you say about it. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>Could be...but at cost of knocking down a lot of niche walls; and while some might not mind this, I sure would. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 7630111, member: 29398"] IME if there's a couple (or more) options given then DMs feel less constrained re adding others, where if there's only one option it just is what it is. Thing there is if you've got Druids, and you've got nature-based or nature-domain healing Clerics, then before long they'll end up looking and playing very much the same even if they get their spells from different sources. Thus, simplicity (which usually wins out where there's a choice) says get rid of one of them by folding the two together - and as Clerics already have all the "infrastructure" in place to support other Cleric types, making Druids into Clerics means one can also scrap the underlying infrastructure of the Druid and thus make things simpler. Difference in outlook, I suppose - binary is often fine with me. That said, I have an underlying theory regarding the in-fiction physics of magic. I'll explain it if you like but it goes on for a bit, but in very short form magic is a 'force' much like gravity with the key difference being that some lifeforms can access this force and make it do what they need/want. Divine casters get that access from their deities. Arcane casters get it through study. Bards use sound to manipulate it, and psionics access it - well, because they can. Put another way, in effect all magic comes from the same place; and only the means of access differ. From there, it's pretty easy to set things up such that each method of access allows those people to do some things but not others; hence the divine-arcane divide. Which brings up another point: the 'ideal' edition should and IMO must follow through on 5e's promise of modularity, and be presented largely as guidelines rather than rules. "This one goes to 11..." My concern here is that on first read this system looks like it wants each character to be able to do a bit of everything...and maybe even a lot of everything. A gish that can heal itself, for example, is a one-man band and has no need for a party beyond simple strength in numbers. Players tend to want this sort of character, and IMO designers have to fight this desire in order to preserve niche protection and to encourage ensemble or party play. Everyone should have a key thing he-she is good at and a bunch of things he-she isn't so good at, leading to party inter-dependence once they get into the field. Oh, and regarding some bits way above: I haven't even looked at PF2 yet so I'll just have to take your word on whatever you say about it. :) Could be...but at cost of knocking down a lot of niche walls; and while some might not mind this, I sure would. :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The perfect D&D edition (according to ENWORLD)
Top