Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Grainger" data-source="post: 7487927" data-attributes="member: 6779234">I could do without alignment and saves, too, come to think of it. The former I house-rule away (it's stupid), the latter just confuses my players (I have to remind them not to use their actual stats as saves every single time). If Wizards found a replacement for saves in 6e, I wouldn't consider the game &quot;not D&amp;D&quot;.For me, I think the core of D&amp;D is the classes, levels, hit points, armour class, the vaguely (but less elegant) Tolkeinesque setting, and the classic rosters of monsters and spells (although I think D&amp;D would be much improved mechanically with far, far fewer spells that were much more player-customisable. Would D&amp;D with, say, 20 spells that are massively customisable still be D&amp;D? I don't know until I try it.). Then again, I think we could lose a lot of the fluff introduced in 3e or 4e and it would still be D&amp;D for me. Not because I have anything against that stuff, but because I skipped these editions (was either not playing, or still playing BECMI). To this day, I still can't remember what any of the non-PHB newer player races actually are (what is a Genesai? - no idea), nor do any of them feel particularly &quot;D&amp;D&quot; to me, although I accept that they've become a core part of the game for a great many. I don't particularly care for the preponderance of devil/demon stuff either - not through any religious objections but perhaps because I'm not at all religious, so this stuff has no resonance with me whatsoever. None of that is particularly core to D&amp;D in my head-canon (although again, I get that other people are crazy for it).I'd also happily go with a much simplified weapons system. Damage per class, instead of per weapon. Call the weapon whatever you want (subject to DM approval). It would still be D&amp;D in my book.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Grainger, post: 7487927, member: 6779234"] I could do without alignment and saves, too, come to think of it. The former I house-rule away (it's stupid), the latter just confuses my players (I have to remind them not to use their actual stats as saves every single time). If Wizards found a replacement for saves in 6e, I wouldn't consider the game "not D&D". For me, I think the core of D&D is the classes, levels, hit points, armour class, the vaguely (but less elegant) Tolkeinesque setting, and the classic rosters of monsters and spells (although I think D&D would be much improved mechanically with far, far fewer spells that were much more player-customisable. Would D&D with, say, 20 spells that are massively customisable still be D&D? I don't know until I try it.). Then again, I think we could lose a lot of the fluff introduced in 3e or 4e and it would still be D&D for me. Not because I have anything against that stuff, but because I skipped these editions (was either not playing, or still playing BECMI). To this day, I still can't remember what any of the non-PHB newer player races actually are (what is a Genesai? - no idea), nor do any of them feel particularly "D&D" to me, although I accept that they've become a core part of the game for a great many. I don't particularly care for the preponderance of devil/demon stuff either - not through any religious objections but perhaps because I'm not at all religious, so this stuff has no resonance with me whatsoever. None of that is particularly core to D&D in my head-canon (although again, I get that other people are crazy for it). I'd also happily go with a much simplified weapons system. Damage per class, instead of per weapon. Call the weapon whatever you want (subject to DM approval). It would still be D&D in my book. [/QUOTE]

Verification