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
Weighing in on 5e
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="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5695334" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>There are more than a few days when I get this unshakeable hunch that D&D would be well served to dust off some of the Dragon Quest class division ideas. I say this in full awareness of some of the drawbacks to going that way.</p><p> </p><p>In DQ, classes are called "professions", but then magic (spells in schools) and weapon ability is bought separately, through something closer to skills. However, unlike a skill-based or point-based game, almost everything you buy is treated like a class track. Some are broad and some are narrow. When you buy broadsword skill ranks, you do in a narrow track that applies to ... broadsword skill use. When you buy ranger skill ranks, you get several thematically related abilities in that profession. XP is spent on these things, and they get progressively more expensive the better they get.</p><p> </p><p>So I can envision a version of D&D where you spend XP in such tracks, separately. If you want to be a 10th level ranger with 2nd level broadsword ranks, you can. </p><p> </p><p>The obvious objection to that is one that can be easily answered. We are so used to the cherry picking in skill-based or point-based games, that the DQ solution gets short thrift: Make XP award partially contingent upon broadening your character. I forget the exact details, but DQ RAW had three sizably different XP tiers, and you had to get 8-12 professions, skills, or schools to set ranks to qualify for the tier. Once you made it, you got enough XP to make creditable gains in those tiers. If you over-specialized, you can get rank 10 broadsword use very early--but you are seriously hurt elsewhere (and it matters, even for fighting). OTOH, If you spread out too much, it takes forever to get that last rank in the 8-12 skills. </p><p> </p><p>In DQ, it was hard-coded. But DQ is a very old game. It would be interesting in D&D to have such tracks for advancement, but then have multiple recommendations for how to structure the tier thresholds to get the kind of game you want. For example, if you want something akin to 4E, where every character has to work hard to not be about equally good in combat, you simply set up the tier requirements to require a certain amount of combat ability. If you want a lot of slowly developing generalists, akin to say, GURPS, you relax the requirements severely. If you want some specialization, but not too much overt power-gaming, you go for something more middle of the road.</p><p> </p><p>Another nice thing about this structure is that you need not fill out every track equally. You can lop off tracks for thematic, simulation, or gameplay reasons. If you don't want 20th level cake bakers, then you don't let the track with baking skills go very far.</p><p> </p><p>Edit: Yep, WotC does have the DQ license. TSR got it from SPI, put out DQ 3rd ed., and then sat on it. WotC got it when they bought out TSR.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5695334, member: 54877"] There are more than a few days when I get this unshakeable hunch that D&D would be well served to dust off some of the Dragon Quest class division ideas. I say this in full awareness of some of the drawbacks to going that way. In DQ, classes are called "professions", but then magic (spells in schools) and weapon ability is bought separately, through something closer to skills. However, unlike a skill-based or point-based game, almost everything you buy is treated like a class track. Some are broad and some are narrow. When you buy broadsword skill ranks, you do in a narrow track that applies to ... broadsword skill use. When you buy ranger skill ranks, you get several thematically related abilities in that profession. XP is spent on these things, and they get progressively more expensive the better they get. So I can envision a version of D&D where you spend XP in such tracks, separately. If you want to be a 10th level ranger with 2nd level broadsword ranks, you can. The obvious objection to that is one that can be easily answered. We are so used to the cherry picking in skill-based or point-based games, that the DQ solution gets short thrift: Make XP award partially contingent upon broadening your character. I forget the exact details, but DQ RAW had three sizably different XP tiers, and you had to get 8-12 professions, skills, or schools to set ranks to qualify for the tier. Once you made it, you got enough XP to make creditable gains in those tiers. If you over-specialized, you can get rank 10 broadsword use very early--but you are seriously hurt elsewhere (and it matters, even for fighting). OTOH, If you spread out too much, it takes forever to get that last rank in the 8-12 skills. In DQ, it was hard-coded. But DQ is a very old game. It would be interesting in D&D to have such tracks for advancement, but then have multiple recommendations for how to structure the tier thresholds to get the kind of game you want. For example, if you want something akin to 4E, where every character has to work hard to not be about equally good in combat, you simply set up the tier requirements to require a certain amount of combat ability. If you want a lot of slowly developing generalists, akin to say, GURPS, you relax the requirements severely. If you want some specialization, but not too much overt power-gaming, you go for something more middle of the road. Another nice thing about this structure is that you need not fill out every track equally. You can lop off tracks for thematic, simulation, or gameplay reasons. If you don't want 20th level cake bakers, then you don't let the track with baking skills go very far. Edit: Yep, WotC does have the DQ license. TSR got it from SPI, put out DQ 3rd ed., and then sat on it. WotC got it when they bought out TSR. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Weighing in on 5e
Top