Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jaeger" data-source="post: 8378059" data-attributes="member: 27996">True, But you can do this:And then there is this:Granting PC's immediate access to the entire spell list for their class the instant that they level up is a mistake. It is a case of designers removing a limit on casters in the name of "fun" without asking themselves why that limit was there to begin with - as if Gygax and co. missed something in all their years of practical play.LFQW becomes less of an issue, and overall complexity becomes less of an issue when you don't have universal access to all the theoretical options at once.In B/X and AD&D - no two 6th level magic users were the same. They found different spell scrolls to copy into their spell books in treasure. They researched and learned different spells as they progressed (They had to roll to see if they could even learn a spell they wanted to research!)This made magic in B/X, AD&D, much more varied and mysterious in actual play when these rules were followed. When they were removed it made magic users much more formulaic, and pushed the desire for outright mechanical differences that you see in the magic user classes now with the sorcerer and warlock. Barbarians of Lemuria is the standard I would reference most. The players do not create or define their own career/background terms. They select from a list of a dozen or so career/background descriptions which briefly outline what type of skills they encompass. Having played a swashbuckling game using this skill system I have found that it take a little for players used to a standard skill list to wrap their head around, but it then flows very smoothly in actual play. I have found the issue you describe above to be a non-issue.In my opinion: Classes should already provide the thematic mode of play. The class abilities are just the expression of the individual characters take on the class.In my version options are restricted at early levels specifically to narrow down analysis paralysis for newbies, yet give the player real choices after level 3. As to min maxing: It will always happen. Always. 5e does multiclassing that lets this in the door in a big way as well.The trick with my version is that a PC never winds up with more than 8 or so class abilities with restricted options. Yes, the design will need to be tight, and there can be no 'ivory tower' game design - no bad options. Playtesting will need to be thorough.This is certainly a viable alternative, and IMHO it is the Hit Point paradigm that D&D should never have left behind. So many scaling and CR issues would be much easier for GM's and designers to get a grasp on. I'm admittedly more hardcore in my view on the issue.Yes. Another case of designers removing aspects of D&D without thinking through why those systems were put there in the first place.IMHO 5e relies heavily on D&D's massive network effect to ease new players and GM's into the game.Modified the post a bit to make my response more generic:Unlike a videogame, where you are limited to what the code allows, a Tabletop Game allows for user interpretation and changes. The Tabletop RPG is built on this capacity, which means that the Game Master's skill at running the game and body of knowledge available to inform his rulings has the consequence of significant variability of experience from table to table.For Some players that variability really bothers them, and they get frustrated...Why? Because they were relying upon are the rules and mechanics - "the code" - and while they can complain to the programmers of videogames (and, usually, get bugs fixed in patches) they can't do that for proper Tabletop RPGs. They rely on the mechanics because that is the only objective measure of performance that they are used to working with with, and therefore have any sense of control over. They don't have that with GM rulings. And their past experiences with some bad GMs have turned them sour on the amount of control that the Game Master has.So they want the rules of Tabletop games defined - and therefore bound - by the rules.Why?Because the rules are what they can count upon. So they begin to insist upon their definition and adherence as a means to protect themselves from chaotic game situations where a GM's ruling "cannot be trusted", because of their past experiences with Bad GM's that they have extrapolated to all potential future RPG experiences.</blockquote>

Verification