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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AFGNCAAP" data-source="post: 1770211" data-attributes="member: 871">FWIW, most (if not all) of the traditional conventions that I'm tired of are rather D&D system-specific.<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Arcane/Divine/Psychic Divide: I'm not a fan of the arcane/divine division in magic as it is (I'd prefer if it was just all treated as arcane & be done with it), much less the exclusiveness that appears in this set up (i.e., healing only for divine spellcasters; massive offensive spells only for arcane spellcasters; etc.).  Ultimately, I'd prefer to see 1 spellcasting list, from which the spellcasters pick & choose the stuff they know/use.  In relation to this...</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Specific Core Classes: I'm a big fan of UA's generic character classes.  I like this option better than having multiple "similar but different" core classes presented in various iterations of D&D.  I still prefer some degree of class-based system for some sort of basic structure, but not making various specific versions of a class (you can make a Finesse-based fighter using the core Fighter class, but wouldn't it be better if you received feats for those unused medium armor, heavy armor, and tower shield profs. instead of having them remain as unused options?).  And, to a degree, I think it may eliminate some of the ""a barbarian/assassin = X', "no, a barbarian/assassin = Y'" interpretation sort of arguments regarding classes (to a degree).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Subraces: I dislike this idea.  I prefer treating different cultures of demihumans pretty much the same as different cultures of humans--a different flavor text, perhaps a different preference in skill/feat/class/gear selection (maybe restricted access to some unique regional feats), & that's it.  No different racial mods or abilities because of it.  My 2nd ed. AD&D days really burned me out on this.  In the same vein...</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A.K.A./Synonym Monsters: I'm really tired of mechanically-different-yet-still-the-same-concept sorts of monsters, like the countless numbers of undead, dragons, humanoids, giants, outsiders, etc.  I don't like hobgoblins & bugbears, because (to me, IMHO), they seem like just different varieties of orcs.  Same with kobolds & xvarts (in relation to goblins).  Heck, I'd prefer it if gnomes & dwarves were made 1 race (IMHO, "gnomes" represent the magical dwarves of fairy tale and myth, while "dwarves" represent the pseudo-Norse warrior-smith dwarves of Tolkien).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Great Wheel/D&D view of the Afterlife: I don't care for the idea of what is a world's afterlife as being the ultimate adventuring grounds.  It just bugs me, personally.  I can understand the precedent for it (trips of Greek heroes into the Underworld, etc.), but I always see this as being something of rather "epic" proportions (for one); besides, I can accept the precedent if it sticks with the idea that these divine realms are a real, fixed part of that world (i.e., The Shadowland & Gods' Pole are real places in Leiber's world of Nehwon--the people can literally walk/travel there; Mt. Olympus here was THE Mt. Olympus--the gods dwelled there; the Valar dwelled in Arda, which was on the surface of Middle-Earth; etc.).  However, the current cosmology seems to be ripped out of comic books rather than myth (with Asgard, Olympus, and other divine realms existing merely as other dimensions/universes).  IMHO, these supposed "realms of the Afterlife" lose their mystique & wonder because of this.</li> </ul>Those are the big ones that I have issues with.  There are some other ones, though I can't recall all of them right now.</blockquote>

Verification