Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Too many cooks (a DnDN retrospective)
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="Tovec" data-source="post: 6059277" data-attributes="member: 95493"><p>I would only point out that not needing to study to learn magic =/= Loners. Also, that it was your comment about how they should be as opposed to anything else that I actually disagreed with. You seem against anyone describing how classes should be but then you did it with the sorcerers = loners comment. In either case I can let it go, I just felt like pointing it out.</p><p></p><p></p><p>You had me at the beginning but lost me towards the end with "This game is teh suxxors" comment.</p><p></p><p>I definitely agree with the problems in refluffing (as you put it) classes to make them into something different. I'd hate to be in a 3e game where I'm told that I have to play a sorcerer class, but call it a wizard, instead of playing a wizard class. Or in a 4e game where I have to play a ranger, call it a fighter, in order to play an archer.</p><p></p><p>I don't think that automatically leads to "defaults are bad". I think defaults can be bad, but I don't think they have to be. In fact I think it is probable that they will have a default mode, for all the classes, with options to switch it out. I'd be okay (assuming I liked psionic power points) of using the Psion's mechanics for the wizard. I'd hate to have to play the Psion and call it a wizard. Those are very different things.</p><p></p><p>But what I think will happen, for example, is say that all classes use a vaguely 3e design. Let's say for argument sake that the wizard will use slots (and memorization, etc.) and all the normal fluff that goes with them (as per 3e) by default. Let's also say that sorcerers and bards will be how they were in 3e. Now, from there, we have a template where wizards have memorize and forget mechanics based on spell slots, and sorcerers having roughly the same power level but instead relying on spontaneousness. Bards, similarly, will be spontaneous but they'll have fewer spell levels than a sorcerer. Changing to power points, AEDU or any other method (3e warlock's invocations maybe?) shouldn't affect these power levels, nor the choices available. It changes only <em>how </em>they cast the spells. I don't see this as bad or even hard to directly identify.</p><p></p><p>If anything it will be much easier, and more acceptable than 4e, if WotC puts specific instructions on HOW and WHERE to rules on changing spell-slots for other systems. They just have to be very direct and upfront about it, in order to nip this problem in the bud. I think it helps if they go with a default system for all classes, be that vaguely 3e, 4e or even AD+D for all I care. So that people don't feel like one class is getting preferred treatment.</p><p></p><p>What I'm saying I guess, and what I have been, is that there is so much more that defines a class than just how they cast spells or how they fight. Monks, Paladins, and Barbarians all ostensibly used the same structure to fight in 3e, but they weren't the same. That is why I'm more worried about how WotC differentiates the classes, than what the mechanics are.</p><p>Once they get the power levels, abilities and other aspects of the classes right they can worry about fixing how people cast spells and how they give us the tools to change or pick the system that we want right out of the box.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I agree with this too. That is why we have to be clear that there are other versions for mechanics and how to easily swap them in or out. They can't be tacked on and they can't be relegated to other books or random obscure chapters. They have to be right up front. Back in the day people played because they were a little obsessed. Most who play now look for a game they can easily run. They need to make sure to cater to both. Some are willing to put in a bunch of time to convert or fix things but most of us aren't.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Same here. They have to be careful on how they do it, as per the fighters without bows problem in 4e. But it isn't insurmountable or even difficult, just tricky.</p><p>It's a dial that needs to be big and red and flashing and waiting for them the first time they crack open the chapter that holds the wizard, sorcerer and warlock.</p><p>I'd say its more important than how much power each of the classes have. Magic can always be cranked up, and with effort powered down too. It is probably the number 2 issue in my mind, right after getting HP right - or close enough that I can easily change it to have it my way, and you yours.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tovec, post: 6059277, member: 95493"] I would only point out that not needing to study to learn magic =/= Loners. Also, that it was your comment about how they should be as opposed to anything else that I actually disagreed with. You seem against anyone describing how classes should be but then you did it with the sorcerers = loners comment. In either case I can let it go, I just felt like pointing it out. You had me at the beginning but lost me towards the end with "This game is teh suxxors" comment. I definitely agree with the problems in refluffing (as you put it) classes to make them into something different. I'd hate to be in a 3e game where I'm told that I have to play a sorcerer class, but call it a wizard, instead of playing a wizard class. Or in a 4e game where I have to play a ranger, call it a fighter, in order to play an archer. I don't think that automatically leads to "defaults are bad". I think defaults can be bad, but I don't think they have to be. In fact I think it is probable that they will have a default mode, for all the classes, with options to switch it out. I'd be okay (assuming I liked psionic power points) of using the Psion's mechanics for the wizard. I'd hate to have to play the Psion and call it a wizard. Those are very different things. But what I think will happen, for example, is say that all classes use a vaguely 3e design. Let's say for argument sake that the wizard will use slots (and memorization, etc.) and all the normal fluff that goes with them (as per 3e) by default. Let's also say that sorcerers and bards will be how they were in 3e. Now, from there, we have a template where wizards have memorize and forget mechanics based on spell slots, and sorcerers having roughly the same power level but instead relying on spontaneousness. Bards, similarly, will be spontaneous but they'll have fewer spell levels than a sorcerer. Changing to power points, AEDU or any other method (3e warlock's invocations maybe?) shouldn't affect these power levels, nor the choices available. It changes only [I]how [/I]they cast the spells. I don't see this as bad or even hard to directly identify. If anything it will be much easier, and more acceptable than 4e, if WotC puts specific instructions on HOW and WHERE to rules on changing spell-slots for other systems. They just have to be very direct and upfront about it, in order to nip this problem in the bud. I think it helps if they go with a default system for all classes, be that vaguely 3e, 4e or even AD+D for all I care. So that people don't feel like one class is getting preferred treatment. What I'm saying I guess, and what I have been, is that there is so much more that defines a class than just how they cast spells or how they fight. Monks, Paladins, and Barbarians all ostensibly used the same structure to fight in 3e, but they weren't the same. That is why I'm more worried about how WotC differentiates the classes, than what the mechanics are. Once they get the power levels, abilities and other aspects of the classes right they can worry about fixing how people cast spells and how they give us the tools to change or pick the system that we want right out of the box. I agree with this too. That is why we have to be clear that there are other versions for mechanics and how to easily swap them in or out. They can't be tacked on and they can't be relegated to other books or random obscure chapters. They have to be right up front. Back in the day people played because they were a little obsessed. Most who play now look for a game they can easily run. They need to make sure to cater to both. Some are willing to put in a bunch of time to convert or fix things but most of us aren't. Same here. They have to be careful on how they do it, as per the fighters without bows problem in 4e. But it isn't insurmountable or even difficult, just tricky. It's a dial that needs to be big and red and flashing and waiting for them the first time they crack open the chapter that holds the wizard, sorcerer and warlock. I'd say its more important than how much power each of the classes have. Magic can always be cranked up, and with effort powered down too. It is probably the number 2 issue in my mind, right after getting HP right - or close enough that I can easily change it to have it my way, and you yours. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Too many cooks (a DnDN retrospective)
Top