Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ferratus" data-source="post: 5997846" data-attributes="member: 55966">Rolling ability scores: &nbsp; Two of my players had to reroll hopeless characters (hopeless being defined as half the ability scores being under 8), so that's a bit of an issue.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'd prefer 6+2d6 as the default rolling method myself.&nbsp;&nbsp; Random, with much the same spread as 4d6, but no crippled characters.I also don't like that 18 isn't the highest score anymore.&nbsp; Having an 18 ability has a cultural resonance as &quot;the best you can be&quot; that shows up in movies, tv and comics.&nbsp; Sure, it has only ever been true for humans, but I would like to have a cap of 18 for starting characters.&nbsp; Helps keep the math flat too.Backgrounds and Specialities: I definately like backgrounds and specialities.&nbsp; It adds another dimension to D&amp;D that it has always lacked or has implemented poorly.&nbsp;&nbsp; Specialities needs a bit more work though, to decide whether they want them to function as subclasses (such as the necromancer speciality), as multiclasses (magic-user and acolyte) or themes (survivor).&nbsp;&nbsp; At the very least they need to be categorized so I can tell at a glance what job they need to do.&nbsp; For example, &quot;subclass&quot; could be the header for a listing of all class specific specialities.Races:&nbsp; I am a bit leery about humans getting so many boosts to ability scores (though I'd like it better if humans were capped at 18, like a said before).&nbsp; But all the racial abilities work, and work well and that's the important thing.&nbsp; I love that hob-- stout halflings are back, even if they can't have hairy feet.&nbsp; I like that they share the world with their thieving and wandering lightfoot cousins, which I bet makes family reunions hillarious.&nbsp;&nbsp; I like the division of all the subraces actually, and the differing flavour text they have.Classes:&nbsp; Fighter seems to be okay now, and I'd definately play one.&nbsp;&nbsp; Wizards, Warlocks and Clerics are the strongest designs right now, which is probably why my players chose those three classes.&nbsp; I think giving warlocks witchmarks and making them grow more hag-like in appearance as they grow older is genius.&nbsp;&nbsp; Sorcerers also have the right idea but need work.&nbsp; The Rogue is disappointing.&nbsp; The rogue obviously hasn't had much time spent on him, but hopefully based on Mike Mearls' design column recently that they are taking a harder look at that class. Flat Math: Love the flat math and hard restrictions on leveling up bonuses.&nbsp; I love the low defenses for monsters, which allowed my characters to hit without frustration even though none rolled higher than 15 for their prime requisite.&nbsp; I love that hp are lower so that combats are quicker, though spellcasting PC's can be a bit too fragile.&nbsp;&nbsp; Two average hits (8-10 hp) would be a good standard for the amount of punishment they can take before being knocked unconscious as a 1st level PC.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ferratus, post: 5997846, member: 55966"] [B]Rolling ability scores: [/B] Two of my players had to reroll hopeless characters (hopeless being defined as half the ability scores being under 8), so that's a bit of an issue. I'd prefer 6+2d6 as the default rolling method myself. Random, with much the same spread as 4d6, but no crippled characters. I also don't like that 18 isn't the highest score anymore. Having an 18 ability has a cultural resonance as "the best you can be" that shows up in movies, tv and comics. Sure, it has only ever been true for humans, but I would like to have a cap of 18 for starting characters. Helps keep the math flat too. [B] Backgrounds and Specialities:[/B] I definately like backgrounds and specialities. It adds another dimension to D&D that it has always lacked or has implemented poorly. Specialities needs a bit more work though, to decide whether they want them to function as subclasses (such as the necromancer speciality), as multiclasses (magic-user and acolyte) or themes (survivor). At the very least they need to be categorized so I can tell at a glance what job they need to do. For example, "subclass" could be the header for a listing of all class specific specialities. [B]Races:[/B] I am a bit leery about humans getting so many boosts to ability scores (though I'd like it better if humans were capped at 18, like a said before). But all the racial abilities work, and work well and that's the important thing. I love that hob-- stout halflings are back, even if they can't have hairy feet. I like that they share the world with their thieving and wandering lightfoot cousins, which I bet makes family reunions hillarious. I like the division of all the subraces actually, and the differing flavour text they have. [B]Classes:[/B] Fighter seems to be okay now, and I'd definately play one. Wizards, Warlocks and Clerics are the strongest designs right now, which is probably why my players chose those three classes. I think giving warlocks witchmarks and making them grow more hag-like in appearance as they grow older is genius. Sorcerers also have the right idea but need work. The Rogue is disappointing. The rogue obviously hasn't had much time spent on him, but hopefully based on Mike Mearls' design column recently that they are taking a harder look at that class. [B]Flat Math:[/B] Love the flat math and hard restrictions on leveling up bonuses. I love the low defenses for monsters, which allowed my characters to hit without frustration even though none rolled higher than 15 for their prime requisite. I love that hp are lower so that combats are quicker, though spellcasting PC's can be a bit too fragile. Two average hits (8-10 hp) would be a good standard for the amount of punishment they can take before being knocked unconscious as a 1st level PC. [/QUOTE]

Verification