Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 8224228" data-attributes="member: 7006">For me, the stuff that I felt were needed for the feel of D&amp;D were the ones that have appeared in almost every single version of D&amp;D since the beginning.&nbsp; Whereas stuff down in the 20% category are things that have only shown up in a few editions, and a lot of those are just categorization-- something that could be re-done in a different way mechanically to get the same effect.&nbsp; IE - feats are just class features that almost class can take and do not have a set level for their appearance. You could easily create a different system or incorporate the effects into the current system to acquire those features.&nbsp; Thus feats are not to me essential to the feel of D&amp;D.Likewise... anything that are flavor for specific settings are also not required for me.&nbsp; Neither of the cosmologies nor specific deities are necessary, because as we saw with 4E the game could create a whole new cosmology for a whole new setting and people would be fine with it.&nbsp; Obviously changing any of the existing settings to the new version would cause an uproar (as we saw in 4E with the changes to the Realms cosmology)... but if 6E released their game with cleric domains and just treated the domains as &quot;forces of the universe&quot; and not from specific gods in the PHB... no one would much care.&nbsp; Because people would either use the deities already created for all the previous campaign settings people use (either published or homebrewed), or they'd decide to adapt to the new idea of domains being more like paladin oaths (which are not deity-specific, but can be aligned to a deity by those players that want it).&nbsp; At this point in D&amp;D history.... with as many of the settings and worlds that exists for the game... the more generic and non-setting specific the base rules are, the more comfortable people tend to be.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 8224228, member: 7006"] For me, the stuff that I felt were needed for the feel of D&D were the ones that have appeared in almost every single version of D&D since the beginning. Whereas stuff down in the 20% category are things that have only shown up in a few editions, and a lot of those are just categorization-- something that could be re-done in a different way mechanically to get the same effect. IE - feats are just class features that almost class can take and do not have a set level for their appearance. You could easily create a different system or incorporate the effects into the current system to acquire those features. Thus feats are not to me essential to the feel of D&D. Likewise... anything that are flavor for specific settings are also not required for me. Neither of the cosmologies nor specific deities are necessary, because as we saw with 4E the game could create a whole new cosmology for a whole new setting and people would be fine with it. Obviously changing any of the [I]existing[/I] settings to the new version would cause an uproar (as we saw in 4E with the changes to the Realms cosmology)... but if 6E released their game with cleric domains and just treated the domains as "forces of the universe" and not from specific gods in the PHB... no one would much care. Because people would either use the deities already created for all the previous campaign settings people use (either published or homebrewed), or they'd decide to adapt to the new idea of domains being more like paladin oaths (which are not deity-specific, but can be aligned to a deity by those players that want it). At this point in D&D history.... with as many of the settings and worlds that exists for the game... the more generic and non-setting specific the base rules are, the more comfortable people tend to be. [/QUOTE]

Verification