Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imagicka" data-source="post: 3274705" data-attributes="member: 4621"><a href="http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=184734" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=184734</a> #70Greetings...Arr Matey!What I no be liking about D&D...First, let us be addressing what others have mentioned...<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Levels - They are a nice way to gauge the power of characters.  Are they really needed?  No, not really.  But then the game really isn't roleplaying/storyteller centered either, like other games out there.  After all, if you put up one character against another that has gained enough experience to make a starting character three times over, how do you describe them?  Not to mention, it will make those lame-posterior roleplaying stories about your character that I really don't care about that much shorter.  I'd rather hear: "My character is a 23rd level gnome wizard/fighter/barbarian/ranger/monk/rogue, who has a staff.  The staff of power...and he was turned into an undead lich because of the staff."  than to listen to: "My character is pretty powerful.  But not as powerful as my friend Petey's character.  My character is a gnome and I spent a lot of points on first starting as a barbarian, but then I picked up some ranger abilities, and then thought I would be a rogue, or a fighter, but I couldn't decide.  So, I did a little of both.  I really wanted to be able to backstab people.  Then I decided I wanted to be able to cast magic, so I became a wizard...and he has this staff... the staff of power... and he was turned into an undead lick because of the staff... and..." My biggest problem with levels really isn't the levels themselves; but how they are perceived.  I've mentioned this before.  But too often I see people thinking that at 1st level they are full-formed hero.  Where the world is populated with NPCs that are 1st to 3rd level.  I think this is wrong.  I think it's better to consider levels 1-9 as pre-master.  With 10th level being the first level of full capable master of whatever class/profession that you choose to be. Why?  Well, just look at the numbers.  How many skill ranks do you think an average person would need to be a capable person in a given profession?  What would the BAB be for someone who can take on the combative challenges of the world?  </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">AC Progression - I too agree that there should be some sort of progression.  So, I can get better in hitting things, but I can't get better in avoiding to be hit? Unless I have magick?  Not very realistic if you ask me.  That's why I use the AC progression that other d20 games use, that's in WotC:UA.  If need be, I make it non-stackable with armour AC. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Vancian "fire and forget" Magick - I don't like it either.  It's more restrictive than it is flexible, and the addition of the Sorcerer just emphasizes that more.  I don’t think it really add flavour to the game, just frustration and restriction. Personally, in my own game, I like all the other magick variant systems that are out there, and have adopted the idea that different cultures have developed different magick systems.  As such, in some places, their wizards might be much more superior to the wizards of another region.  WayneLigon raised the point that balance would be lost if players were allowed to engineer their own spells.  I don’t believe so.  Look at Ars Magica, or something of a similar vane in d20, the Elements of Magic book, or Chaos Magic.  With a good rule system, spells would then be measured against each other, and could easily use a d20 mechanic to make it balanced. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Inflated Numbers - Yeah, the game does have some ridiculous numbers when it comes to higher levels.  But that is the price we have to pay when you want to play a hero.  Now, I’d love to run/play a game with a laptop.  Because there are some nice programmes out there that manage things, and I’d really like to put some programmes through their paces, that only the strains of a tabletop game can do.  But that’s a completely different topic. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Preparation – Preparation of a game, especially for the DM can be greatly time consuming.  Everyone knows that.  I just wish more people would be more sharing and open with their resources.  DMs that have run a campaign, and probably aren’t going to run it again:  Post the outline, or whatever, on the net.  Share.  I’d love to see places like <a href="http://www.d20wiki.com/" target="_blank">d20 Wiki</a> and other wiki’s get some more love.  Especially Jürgen Hubert’s d20NPC Wiki. I’d love to see people sharing their characters and NPCs at <a href="http://d20npcs.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page" target="_blank">d20 NPC Wiki</a> more often. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Shields and Helmets – Helmets, I’ve houseruled in the past, when I was running AD&D, gave a +1 to AC.  Then I believe that it was put into one of the books somewhere.  But for the most part, I don’t really have a problem with the lack of them since D&D doesn’t do hit locations.   As for shields though, I seriously think that they should have higher numbers.  Someone can’t seriously tell me that on average, a typical shield only decreases (at best) your chances to be hit by 10%. Personally, I houseruled that all shields have double AC, except for bucklers.  So, bucklers: +1, small/light shields: +2, large/heavy shields: +4, tower shields: +8.  Does it make shields more effective? Heck yeah!  But I think that’s the way it should be. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Classes, (Prestige and Otherwise) - I too would rather see a flexible system for designing characters.  Pick some skills, pick some feats.  Pick some abilities.  Voilá, a unique character.  Now, I don't mind if you outline what you think is a 'fighter', and you can come up with all the nice new shiny prestige classes in all the new books.  But the problem I see is that nothing really goes by the numbers.  There is the allusion that there is balance in the classes, but we all know there isn't.  You want to play a character that has great saves, great BAB, great skill points?  Pay for it. Then have the XP costs per level reflect it. Spending 'points' to pick up the abilities/feats/skills you want in a completely flexible system.  Hey, it's been done, and if anyone really wanted that level of complication, then those third party supplements would be a lot more popular.  Does it make the game better to let people choose what they want in a character?  Yes and no.  Too often I see people labour over making their characters, and take a few hours over picking just the right feats.  Just making the game that much more flexible, without streamlining the process is just going to make it that much more agonizing for DMs. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Mechanics -- A lot of the mechanics I don’t like.  Like the undead turning mechanic, or the Death at -10.  But there are variant mechanics for them out there, and easy enough to adopt for your own game.  </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Skill & Skill Points -- I just don’t think skills are done well in the d20 system.  There is little consistency on how class-skills are assigned to classes.  I also think that some of the classes themselves really have too few skill points.  Then your left with one or to characters being the possessors of needed skills for an adventure.  (Then I see people argue that the INT bonus justifies the fact that a character doesn’t have that many skill points per level. No one ever bothers with cross-class skills, unless it’s part of the character concept, because the cost is too high to the character.  Spending what few points they have just to keep a handful of class skills relevant.</li> </ul>Arashi Ravenblade, you say the game doesn’t have enough rules and options.  Well, first… I’d consider rules and options to be diametrically opposed to each other.  However, I am curious.  What rules would you like to see?</blockquote>

Verification