But seriously, keep it civil. I want classes, races and all that jazz, and not that stuff about powersources and roles. I like 4e powers, but like how 3.5 had class features that were truely defineing and were gained after 1st lv. I love balance and options and beleive class features need to be more customizable. Races should play more of a role, and multiclassing should be far away from anything it has been as of yet. themes are wonderful and should become just as much a part of the game as your race or class.
What do you think?
The attempts to change that are what I dislike the most about Essentials and its aftermath. It's like redesigning and rebuilding the chassis of a truck while someone is driving it down the road.
They COULD HAVE had an initial architecture that allowed for all the Essentials classes. For example, they could have attached role to "build" ("subclass" is actually a better name) rather than to class - so, perhaps, the beastmaster ranger could have been a controller while the archer and two-weapon ranger are strikers. It would have worked just fine. And that isn't the only possibility either. But they didn't. So they had to jack things around and hack things up, breaking a number of firmly-embedded assumptions.
In contrast, there was no difficulty with adding themes and backgrounds, because those were simple additions to what had previously been released. Not alterations.
I really like roles, and so I would like to see them further defined, especially the controller, both with regards to class features but also powers (if 5E even sticks with the powers format). Currently it is a bit mixed, as some roles get a feature separate from the power (like marking, or striker damage), while others get a feature built into the powers (controllers and area powers). This makes power swapping a bit muddled (it can be great to pick up a controller power, but a defender power won't necessarily increase your defending abilities). Building role features into the powers themselves would help solve this. You would take a striker power to deal more damage, or a leader power to help your allies.
Lastly, assuming they stick with the roles, I would like to see Striker damage toned down. They should of course deal the most damage, but I don't think they should deal orders of magnitude more damage. Other roles should feel just as important, rather than placeholders to allow the striker to do the actual work.
Lastly, assuming they stick with the roles
They will stick with roles in some form, because those are a recognition of the reality of the game. A fighter, a rogue, a cleric, and a wizard have NEVER been interchangeable in terms of what they do for the party.
Exactly what that form will be, though, is more difficult to predict.
I'd like to see the roles, at least in their descriptions, broken down a bit more into recognized subroles - an archer ranger and a two-weapon ranger are both strikers, and they both do massive damage, but they are still not completely interchangeable; a leader that says "hey Joe, you're +3 to hit until end of my next turn" is different from a leader who says "hey Joe, you have 25 temp hit points".
And I'd like to see roles either entirely independent of class, or attached to subclass (aka build) rather than class.
As for powers, I can see there being racial powers, class powers, subclass powers, maybe role powers, and theme powers. Also all of those can have features (including features that are powers), which don't necessarily all kick in at level 1.
Realistically, a strong hybridization of the base classes from 4E and the subclasses from Essentials. Classes that get scaling abilities, power options, and features at all levels. Beyond that, everything else is fine. Magic items can still be made plot relevant through creativity, and more fluff is entirely unnecessary, as it creates the immense problem of 3.x where severing Fluff from Mechanics is next to impossible. Ontop of that, most people (I hope), are intelligent and creative enough to devise their own fluff for their character as they see fit.
That said, I'd like to add a new type of monster. Rather than just skirmisher, artillery, etc. I'd like to add a monster type that would give players a challenge that couldn't purely be overcome by systematic application of damage or simply having better stats. A monster that is technically "balanced" but that takes a bit of trial and error to figure out. Not a monster that makes classes feel useless but one that makes players feel empowered to have overcome. I'm thinking of a lot of boss battles in video games where you have to figure out the bosses weakness and then exploit it to win rather than just always overwhelming it with better to hit rolls and better damage output combined with basic tactics. I don't want to lose those things as they exist now but augment them with new types of monster challenges.
* Somehow streamline things further so combats are shorter. (No ideas, here.)
* I would like to see errata be used to IMPROVE existing material, instead of fixing / nerfing, but I don't think there's any money in that idea.
* Stick with the tokens. Some tips on how to best use the Dungeon Tiles would probably be helpful in getting people away from the wet-erase battlemat, as well.
* Ask for honest feedback with weekly one-question, multiple-choice polls on the front page (one entry per IP), and display the results. I'd much more interested in what the D&D audience at large thinks of the game rather than just those who dwell on the message boards.
* From day one have a built-in system with an eye towards encompassing all sorts of character ideas. I would go with Class, Race, Origin (region/environment-based), Background (pre-adventuring activity), and Theme (a class-neutral mechanic that reflects your interests in adventuring). And most importantly, don't cross the streams - don't create 'Themes' that should flavor-wise be 'Origins' or 'Backgrounds.'
Otherwise...streamline the various powers and things, so writing a character's abilities won't take quite so much page space.
DND brand dry erase boards with a grid with a background on one side and status tracking on the other would be cool. Maby.
Monsters with weaknesses (explotable by pritty much every class, if not all) was a cool idea and I second it.
I would like to add another question. What kind of suplementary matirial would you like to see. I'm talking game aids, books, etc. And what would you definately keep from forth.
As for what I want out of 5th ed, that's too long a post to go into here in the time I have. I'll come back and make a full post later.
Classes no longer having built in roles. Instead they have a VAAAAST array of powers they can choose at each level. So that any class can be any role.
I like pretty much everything about 4th, but this is what I would like.
Classes no longer having built in roles. Instead they have a VAAAAST array of powers they can choose at each level. So that any class can be any role.
Yeah, it was kind of a bad idea to restrict each class to a single role. There should have been a small number of classes with a large number of build options, instead of a large number of classes each with a small number of build options.
Yeah, it was kind of a bad idea to restrict each class to a single role. There should have been a small number of classes with a large number of build options, instead of a large number of classes each with a small number of build options.
Thats why I dropped the 4e wizard like a bad habbit. In 3.x wizards had the ability to define themselves through their powers in a way that no other class had, but which every class should have had (the ability to express their core identity through their powers).
Yeah, it was kind of a bad idea to restrict each class to a single role. There should have been a small number of classes with a large number of build options, instead of a large number of classes each with a small number of build options.
Thats why I dropped the 4e wizard like a bad habbit. In 3.x wizards had the ability to define themselves through their powers in a way that no other class had, but which every class should have had (the ability to express their core identity through their powers).
My biggest problem with defining one's self is that sometimes what a player designs is mud. Also, I found the "Bard/Sorcerer/Wizard" magic lists of the past boring, in so much as the lists were for all of them, and not that they got unique, interesting powers. I like that a wizard is alwys going to be mainly a controller, and that a sorcerer is always going to be mainly a striker. It gives PCs purpose. Well, purpose other than pissing off the other players and the DM with a "master of none, dabbler of all" type of character that a system with unrestricted access to all roles for all classes gives.
Yeah, it was kind of a bad idea to restrict each class to a single role. There should have been a small number of classes with a large number of build options, instead of a large number of classes each with a small number of build options.
Thats why I dropped the 4e wizard like a bad habbit. In 3.x wizards had the ability to define themselves through their powers in a way that no other class had, but which every class should have had (the ability to express their core identity through their powers).
My biggest problem with defining one's self is that sometimes what a player designs is mud. Also, I found the "Bard/Sorcerer/Wizard" magic lists of the past boring, in so much as the lists were for all of them, and not that they got unique, interesting powers. I like that a wizard is alwys going to be mainly a controller, and that a sorcerer is always going to be mainly a striker. It gives PCs purpose. Well, purpose other than pissing off the other players and the DM with a "master of none, dabbler of all" type of character that a system with unrestricted access to all roles for all classes gives.
"My biggest problem with defining one's self is that sometimes what a player designs is mud."
This shouldn't have to be a problem. If the concept is fun and makes the player/group happy, who cares? Also, the system doesn't have to dictate a role for a PC to have "purpose". Regardless of whether a sorceror is forced to be a striker, if he happens to choose all defender powers, he would serve a purpose just as well as if he chose striker powers. Does a sorceror serve a purpose in a party full of strikers? How about a sorceror defender in a party full of strikers?
2) Solid and unchanging implementation of the Class/Subclass structure which I see as a perfect way to get multiple roles out of one class. Themes being implemented from the begining and calculated into the overall game balance so they can be both effective and balanced.
3) getting rid of +x magic items, that math should be incorperated into the standard mechanics. Magic items should have cool properties and effects that define them and be handed out based on the needs of the narrative and not as a nessecary part of game balance. This also frees up player resources, no longer do they have to hoard their money for semi manditory equipment upgrades, they could if they wanted to invest in magic items of course but they would also be equaly free to spend their treasure doing other things, which leads into my fourth point.
4) Free up money for story purposes, Money can be either a narrative or a mechanical currency but it shouldn't be both and I feel it works better as a narrative currency. I love things like Henchmen and Hirelings, fortresses and other things that in the current system are sort of a waste of resources. As a player I have even been known to engage in philanthropic endevors, my Eladrin Warlord spent a good deal of his cash and free time buying equipment for and training village millitias so that they could defend themselves from bandits and marauding monsters, My Dwarven Cleric built temples to Moradin in many of the cities we visited and used his money to support his bid for High Priest. I would like the freedom to be able to do interesting and mostly narritive things with my cash without feeling like I am crippling my character.
"My biggest problem with defining one's self is that sometimes what a player designs is mud."
This shouldn't have to be a problem. If the concept is fun and makes the player/group happy, who cares? Also, the system doesn't have to dictate a role for a PC to have "purpose". Regardless of whether a sorceror is forced to be a striker, if he happens to choose all defender powers, he would serve a purpose just as well as if he chose striker powers. Does a sorceror serve a purpose in a party full of strikers? How about a sorceror defender in a party full of strikers?
This is something I'm not really sure you can even be right/wrong about, because it really comes down to personal preference. Of course game design reflects the personal preferences of the people making it, so naturally you will end up with a product that will please some and not please others.
I DM two games. One rolls attributes, the other uses point buy. The underlying philosophies are that one group feels rolling can have you end up with inferior characters and that's no fun, while the other thinks that it's an organic experience and flaws are half of the game. As long as each person in each group can agree to the system, I have no problems with either.
Personally, I tend to the 'point buy' viewpoint. The real trouble with "bad" characters is that D&D is a team sport. Even if a player enjoys the character they created, if that character is a drain on the team then suddenly you are interfering with other people's enjoyment. Bad decisions (be they personal or game design) never affect just one person.
More pages. I LIKEM THICK.
Leather Bound.
Big gems in the cover.
Chainmail bikinis.
More pages. I LIKEM THICK.
Leather Bound.
Big gems in the cover.
21st century and girls are also gamers too, BOY.
Nothing invite girls to game like chainmail bikinis. *rolls eyes*
My wife (a psychologist) tried explaining the association of females to a predominantly male genre and the way they are depicted in said genre. Most of it was over my head, but I got the general gist. It basically boiled down to women who see a scantily-clad (or inappropriately clad) woman, and the effects it has on their own self-esteem. Women with self-worth issues are much more likely to take offense to them than those with higher self-worth. The only comments my wife will make amount to "I wonder if she gets sunburns in awkward places when she wears that", or "I didn't think you could make a great-axe sexy-looking, but she pulls it off", or "If I could find armor like that in real-life, I'd buy it in a heartbeat". She's a strong woman with high self-esteem. Something as clichèd and old-school as a chainmail bikini won't even register on her "offense" radar. Now, someone with poor self-esteem might take issue with it, but that's much more an issue with them than with the art. Just an opinion, naturally.
I'm sure I might be in the minority, but I haven't had a single female refuse to play (or even get mildly offended) by classic fantasy female art, aka chainmail bikinis, plate mail with boob-windows, and so on. My wife loves playing strong, buxom female warriors. Her sister does as well. My son's girlfriend always comments on how she wishes she could really look like the women in the artwork (her favorite is the barbarian female on page 12 of Primal Power).
My wife (a psychologist) tried explaining the association of females to a predominantly male genre and the way they are depicted in said genre. Most of it was over my head, but I got the general gist. It basically boiled down to women who see a scantily-clad (or inappropriately clad) woman, and the effects it has on their own self-esteem. Women with self-worth issues are much more likely to take offense to them than those with higher self-worth. The only comments my wife will make amount to "I wonder if she gets sunburns in awkward places when she wears that", or "I didn't think you could make a great-axe sexy-looking, but she pulls it off", or "If I could find armor like that in real-life, I'd buy it in a heartbeat". She's a strong woman with high self-esteem. Something as clichèd and old-school as a chainmail bikini won't even register on her "offense" radar. Now, someone with poor self-esteem might take issue with it, but that's much more an issue with them than with the art. Just an opinion, naturally.
I think the ones who would refuse to play because of it or who are turned off by it on a very basic level, probably would never come in contact with gamers simply because they're so far in the other direction. And if you did come in contact with them about it, they'd likely divert from the issue and just say they're not interested rather than going off on a rant about the art. Self Esteem may play a part in it for some, but I doubt that's a common issue. I certainly don't have female self esteem issues, being a male, who's loud and proud about playing D&D but even I see that the gross objectification of women in fantasy/comic/etc art is mostly based on teen age power fantasy (the core demo), which can be a turn off for more mature consumers of either gender. I don't mind it. But when I was a teen and ruled by those parts of myself (rather than ruling them) I'm sure I found it more appealing. My wife, never having had a teenage male power fantasy simply sees it as something clearly not targeted at her as a consumer. I can't disagree. I don't begrudge D&D for knowing its target demographic and focusing on it like a laser. But I'm not willing to blame consumers for not simply ignoring that focus without solid justification.
Now, someone with poor self-esteem might take issue with it
Why should D&D be a game only for people with high self-esteem? I think 13-20 year-old women (and that's probably the target aurdience for new girl gamers) are going to have a high proportion of people with self-esteem issues, just like boys in that age group.
If we alienated all the potential D&D players with self-esteem issues, we'd be even more of a niche hobby than we are now.
but that's much more an issue with them than with the art.
Artwork doesn't have issues because it's an inanimate thing. So, if there's an issue with the game for any reason, it's more of a problem with them than it is with the inanimate object, like artwork, or mechanics, or prose, or the quality of binding. So trying to fob off the issue on the person being turned off by the art is, in my just-an-opinion, a cop-out.
Mixing class roles/more generalized characters... You want to be a magic-user that buffs? Isn't that a cleric/paladin? You want to be a cleric that's called "wizard"? You need you Rogue to have INT? For the skill checks? Train them? Wait until you're higher level? Just be bad at STR or CHA? I think we can't have a ridiculously powerful multiclass system, because optimization exist. Get rid of optimization and folks can make whatever characters they want because monsters could be weaker.
Pluses... it's a math game, the pluses will have to be tacked onto something, somewhere.
What would I want from 5e? Nothing really, I think the tools exist in 4e. Are the answers printed in a book yet? Probably not. Products like the recent Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan are very close to previous edition layouts, its vague, story focused, and random instead of rigid and tactical. I think this is the direction 4e is taking and that it will work.
"My biggest problem with defining one's self is that sometimes what a player designs is mud."
This shouldn't have to be a problem. If the concept is fun and makes the player/group happy, who cares? Also, the system doesn't have to dictate a role for a PC to have "purpose". Regardless of whether a sorceror is forced to be a striker, if he happens to choose all defender powers, he would serve a purpose just as well as if he chose striker powers. Does a sorceror serve a purpose in a party full of strikers? How about a sorceror defender in a party full of strikers?This is something I'm not really sure you can even be right/wrong about, because it really comes down to personal preference. Of course game design reflects the personal preferences of the people making it, so naturally you will end up with a product that will please some and not please others.
I DM two games. One rolls attributes, the other uses point buy. The underlying philosophies are that one group feels rolling can have you end up with inferior characters and that's no fun, while the other thinks that it's an organic experience and flaws are half of the game. As long as each person in each group can agree to the system, I have no problems with either.
Personally, I tend to the 'point buy' viewpoint. The real trouble with "bad" characters is that D&D is a team sport. Even if a player enjoys the character they created, if that character is a drain on the team then suddenly you are interfering with other people's enjoyment. Bad decisions (be they personal or game design) never affect just one person.
The former of your points is why I support hybrid/multiclass, point buy/dicerolling, magic pluses/inherent pluses, and more in a new system. It's all about choice, and personal preference.
However, as your second point states, if personal preference impinges on the enjoyment of others, it becomes less about self expression, and more about how much that druid with class features that are controller and striker but powers that are solid defender would be damned annoying, not helpful. The whole point of subclasses, for example, is to keep separated what needs separation, and join up what can be joined without killing a role in the party; fighter can be a striker, and all the fighter defenders can use are the utility powers because of how they structured it. To me, nothing could be more beautiful.
My big point is that when you select a class, you know what you are getting yourself and the rest of the party into. Counting on the average game player to not make a totally useless character "because their concept is cool", well that's a danger I would rather any system not take.
There's rules for personal enjoyment, and rules that are more or less likely to step on the toes of other player's enjoyment. I personally think the Power Source + Role Powers kind of idea would create a glut of characters on the "more likely to step on the toes of other's enjoyment" end of the spectrum. 
Monsters with specific/secret weaknesses... Is this for some reason not possible in 4e? You mentioned "like in video games". I've seen bosses vulnerable spots, which would require facing and called shots, not all that simple. I've seen bosses with keyword weakness, which I think is called vulnerable X in 4e. I've seen bosses weak against certain weapons and tactics, which seems to be solved with a Trait. Some bosses can only be hit if a switch is flipped or some such, which are terrain features and skill challenges.
*snip*
It's more of a standard monster we were looking for. You are right, a portion of solos and maby even some standards have weeknesses that are not vulnerability. It would just be neat if a litte stat box said "when you daze a kobold with an effect that deals damage, he also takes 3 ongoing damage"
Like if every monster had one of these, or maby most or something, it would be neat.
Or a boss that when flanked from all sides deals twice as much damage, but takes have of it himself.
I know its possible now, but I would like it to be core.
Since it (the art) has moved a good deal away from what it was in the '70s or '80s, if they have not yet been alienated by it, they likely won't be in the future...unless we suddenly take a drastic step backwards.
Well, that's what we're discussing, isn't it? Carl_the_half-ork wanted the return of the chainmail bikini from the 70's and 80's. Some people said it would turn off women. You then stated that if anybody was turned off by chainmail bikinis, it was their problem. And I then said that I think it's the hobby's problem if it's turning off people who would otherwise want to play. And then you wrote the above.
We weren't talking about today's art. We're talkign about Carl_the_half-ork's call for a return of cheesecake Boris Vallejo-style art from the 70's and 80's.
Yeah, it was kind of a bad idea to restrict each class to a single role. There should have been a small number of classes with a large number of build options, instead of a large number of classes each with a small number of build options.
Thats why I dropped the 4e wizard like a bad habbit. In 3.x wizards had the ability to define themselves through their powers in a way that no other class had, but which every class should have had (the ability to express their core identity through their powers).
My biggest problem with defining one's self is that sometimes what a player designs is mud. Also, I found the "Bard/Sorcerer/Wizard" magic lists of the past boring, in so much as the lists were for all of them, and not that they got unique, interesting powers. I like that a wizard is alwys going to be mainly a controller, and that a sorcerer is always going to be mainly a striker. It gives PCs purpose. Well, purpose other than pissing off the other players and the DM with a "master of none, dabbler of all" type of character that a system with unrestricted access to all roles for all classes gives.
"My biggest problem with defining one's self is that sometimes what a player designs is mud."
This shouldn't have to be a problem. If the concept is fun and makes the player/group happy, who cares? ?
My problem is when mud becomes the best option and simultaneously the worst based on adv system mastery - from what I hear its exactly what happened in 3e. Some Roles like loner who attempts to do everything and either does it better than everyone or always badly... and the other options is misfit who cant be depended on to do anything because he doesnt have a role in the most frequent form of conflict in the game.
I mean I like hybrids and you can build a hybrid with a rather defocused role... they arent terrible but in general they shouldnt be the norm ... there needs to be solid reason to be a pure class or something has failed miserably.
I'm sure I might be in the minority, but I haven't had a single female refuse to play (or even get mildly offended) by classic fantasy female art, aka chainmail bikinis, plate mail with boob-windows, and so on. My wife loves playing strong, buxom female warriors. Her sister does as well. My son's girlfriend always comments on how she wishes she could really look like the women in the artwork (her favorite is the barbarian female on page 12 of Primal Power).
My wife (a psychologist) tried explaining the association of females to a predominantly male genre and the way they are depicted in said genre. Most of it was over my head, but I got the general gist. It basically boiled down to women who see a scantily-clad (or inappropriately clad) woman, and the effects it has on their own self-esteem. Women with self-worth issues are much more likely to take offense to them than those with higher self-worth. The only comments my wife will make amount to "I wonder if she gets sunburns in awkward places when she wears that", or "I didn't think you could make a great-axe sexy-looking, but she pulls it off", or "If I could find armor like that in real-life, I'd buy it in a heartbeat". She's a strong woman with high self-esteem. Something as clichèd and old-school as a chainmail bikini won't even register on her "offense" radar. Now, someone with poor self-esteem might take issue with it, but that's much more an issue with them than with the art. Just an opinion, naturally.
Or you can just point to the nearest halloween boutique full of school girl, corsett witch,bikini vampire costumes for adult women and compare the slutty-to-modest costume ratio that the shop has to offer.
Women want to look good.
Secondlife is another example. Almost every female (real female) that has an avatar, is a supermodel wearing fashionable yet skin tight clothing, sporting dark tans and almost gravity defying busts. They pretty much look the same.
Its not just what men want, its what everyone wants. They can call it subjective,they can call it whatever they want.Everyone wants to look good. And for the most part, everyone knows what looks good even though they want to deny and beat around the bush by saying beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I can just turn to E! network and show you 15 "stars" that pretty much look the same.
I know that if I could just flip a switch, I would have a 6 pack instantly. Yet I dont, and the sight of a totally ripped hunk on dnd does not make me "not want to play" in fact, assuming that women would "not want to play" because they see a pretty girl on a cover in skimpy clothes would make them seem very shallow and timid. (Content Removed)
Besides, I was being heavily sarcastic with my post. (Content Removed) LOL (I do like leatherbound books however)
My post pretty much boiled down to, the only reason I would want 5th ed is because I would want it for asthetic quality. I would want a pretty book to go on my shelf or to read while sitting on the toilet.
Pretty much, Im happy with 4th ed. If they make a 5th ed, and its pretty? I will buy it. If its just a new ruleset? Probably not. Im 2kool for rulez anyway. :p
I did not intend to re-create the entire chainmail bikini argument.
By the way, you and your wife sound like cool people. We can pretend to be the responsible, logical enlightened ones, but in REALITY we operate on our Id, not our ego/superego.
My id wants leatherbound, gem filled, thick book with gold/silver page trimmings and an attached velvet bookmark with gold scrolling on it.
Chainmail optional.
I think that one of the biggest things is that 5th edition needs to pull a quarter of a step back from gamism, as far as powers are concerned. 4th edition is bloated, but it wouldn't be considered bloating at all if all 8000 powers were imaginative and grounded abilities. I don't think that fighters should take a back seat to wizards, but I do think that martial as a power source needs to be worked harder to be more clearly mundane. Perhaps it shouldn't even be considered a power source. Melee and Ranged Basic Attack don't have the martial keyword, y'know. And to be clear, what I mean is that attack powers should be pretty easy to understand as doing exactly what they're named to do. And I think that abilities should stick with the old D&D way of being named bluntly. "Steel Serpent Strike" doesn't say a whole lot, but "Hobbling Strike" certainly does. It cuts down on potential mechanical expansion, I suppose, but I think that indicates that there shouldn't be such a blind expansion of powers like 4th edition had.
Problem with that is that Martial isn't mundane. It's not magical, but it's still super-human. It's the "action hero" power source. It's where characters like the Prince from Prince of Persia games would fall (the recent ones), or where Aragorn and even Legolas lie. It's the power source for Jack Slater of Last Action Hero, John McClane of Die Hard, etc. There's mundane, and then there's martial power.
Also, for the whole art conversation going on, I just want art that doesent alianate anyone. I also want art that has women doing more than healing and other noncombat stuff and guys who heal. I know they exist, but it is incredibly disporportianate.
Alright, thred derailed enough, no more art discussion.
Well...for the most part, 4E serves me well. A few minor points I'd like to see for a future 5E:
1) Removal of +X items. They are unnecessary, and make a shoddy excuse for a "magical" item..
2) Better mount/mounted combat options. The ones we have now have are functional, but could use improvement.
3) Better underwater/aerial rules handling. It's not easy to run grid-based combat in the full 3 dimensions present in underwater or aerial encounters.
4) Bring it out of the dungeon a little more. I'd love to see more overland/seafaring options. This can also tie in to #2. Having a horse or other mount is nice. Constantly having to leave it behind while you explore yet another castle/cavern is not so nice.
5) A different crew to work on published adventures. While they are finally improving (3 1/2 years into the edition), the vast majority of 4E published adventures are...less than stellar, I would say.
6) Keep Themes. Bring them into the first PHB.
7) Try to NOT make 5,000 powers divided between so few power-sources. So many of them are redundant and overlap with scores of others, some of which even within the same power-source.
8) Keep Inherent Bonuses. Like Themes, bring them to the forefront in the first PHB.
Since it (the art) has moved a good deal away from what it was in the '70s or '80s, if they have not yet been alienated by it, they likely won't be in the future...unless we suddenly take a drastic step backwards. If they have issues with it as it is now...well...that's too bad. Not sure what to tell them, aside from don't ever turn on the TV, open a magazine, or go out into public. If their sensibilities are that fragile, they're going to have a hell of a time out in the real world.
The problem is, it's not because you (you in a non specific way) do not see a problem as this that it do not exist - Privilege is an often inate, unseen thing.
I am aquainted and sensible to the issues of feminism, and there is still an aura of 'white boys club' to D&D, some subtile (or not always so..) things may discourage some non-white, non-female gamers.
More tastefull arts would be a plus, albeit things changed already some. Just bring it ahead.
I am aquainted and sensible to the issues of feminism, and there is still an aura of 'white boys club' to D&D, some subtile (or not always so..) things may discourage some non-white, non-female gamers.
Yes there is.
However...
I don't see it being any more prevalent than most any other RPG, and actually see it as being less prevalent than some (I won't go into more detail, as the thread has been jacked plenty as it is).
It is very, very difficult to produce a product that appeals to every nationality, race, creed, religion, and so on. I would actually call it impossible. I have even heard people refer to Monopoly as being racist (it depicts predominantly white-populated areas, Mr. Money Bags is white, the picture of the guy in the Jail square is supposedly black, etc.). If someone is going to get offended at a game as well-established and beloved as Monopoly, then nothing is safe.
I will say that fantasy art has come a long way from the atypical topless woman-in-distress and the bulky, overly-muscled man coming to her rescue that was very prevailent from artists such as Frazetta. I would NOT lump Boris Vallejo or his wife and co-artist Julie Bell into this category, as Wrecan suggests, even though they often depict nude females. Their art focuses on the human body. Their focus is on musculature, form, and pose much, much more than the fantasy aspects they are often associated with. This is also why Vallejo art is not typical in D&D (I can't actually recall ANY of his art from previous editions of D&D). Brom, Royo, and many other very talented artists often use nude females in their work. It is not degrading or trashy. But because it is made available to the general public, someone is going to be offended by it. Brom is also one of the most well-known fantasy artists from his D&D Dark Sun work back in 2E.
The point is, D&D can try its best to not openly offend anyone within their target customer base. If suggestive artwork being removed will help, then they should continue to do it. They should just be aware that no matter what they do, someone will be offended by it. It is unavoidable. Whether it be a religious nut-job that is still stuck in the 1980's and thinks all D&D players are devil-worshippers, or an ultra-pacifist who thinks D&D glorifies fighting and killing, rest assured that no matter what they do, someone will always have a problem with it.
Problem with that is that Martial isn't mundane. It's not magical, but it's still super-human. It's the "action hero" power source. It's where characters like the Prince from Prince of Persia games would fall (the recent ones), or where Aragorn and even Legolas lie. It's the power source for Jack Slater of Last Action Hero, John McClane of Die Hard, etc. There's mundane, and then there's martial power.
I fall in an older school train of thought, I suppose. I think that action heroes do so well because they're high-leveled characters and because of player choices, not because of mechanics. Or, that's how it should be. That martial shouldn't be a power source beyond the mundane from the start. Perhaps it'd be gradual or sudden upon epic, but I could see the truly over-the-top martial abilities of 4e fitting. But in the hands of great warriors, not the start-ups. And as per the older school train of thought, I see level 1s as, ideally, being only a little better than commoners.
That's basically the thing. I think that 4th edition gave a bit too much magic to the martial power source, and 5th edition should withhold that magic for a little while. We know that there won't be a lack of viable mechanics, since the Slayer is a perfect example of mundane options. A 5th edition Fighter, ideally, starts something like a Knight and turns into the Weaponmaster. A 5th edition Assassin similarly starts something like an Executioner and turns into the original Assassin class.
New nitpick: if there is anything resembling Utility Powers in 5th edition, there better be no combat-useful ones. No one bloody picks the non-combat utilities that don't provide a constant, overwhelming bonus in social or travel situations over circumstantial combat bonuses. If combat utility options must exist, they should be seperately taken from the non-combat ones. That, or non-combat should be given more design space from the start so that people weigh the options differently. I don't like how many unnecessary, redundant powers there are in this sector that scarcely get picked. And worse, fun ones (like that loud-voice one for Invokers or Memories to Mist for wizards) that aren't strictly worthwhile either.
Problem with that is that Martial isn't mundane. It's not magical, but it's still super-human. It's the "action hero" power source. It's where characters like the Prince from Prince of Persia games would fall (the recent ones), or where Aragorn and even Legolas lie. It's the power source for Jack Slater of Last Action Hero, John McClane of Die Hard, etc. There's mundane, and then there's martial power.
I fall in an older school train of thought, I suppose. I think that action heroes do so well because they're high-leveled characters and because of player choices, not because of mechanics. Or, that's how it should be. That martial shouldn't be a power source beyond the mundane from the start. Perhaps it'd be gradual or sudden upon epic, but I could see the truly over-the-top martial abilities of 4e fitting. But in the hands of great warriors, not the start-ups. And as per the older school train of thought, I see level 1s as, ideally, being only a little better than commoners.
That's basically the thing. I think that 4th edition gave a bit too much magic to the martial power source, and 5th edition should withhold that magic for a little while. We know that there won't be a lack of viable mechanics, since the Slayer is a perfect example of mundane options. A 5th edition Fighter, ideally, starts something like a Knight and turns into the Weaponmaster. A 5th edition Assassin similarly starts something like an Executioner and turns into the original Assassin class.
New nitpick: if there is anything resembling Utility Powers in 5th edition, there better be no combat-useful ones. No one bloody picks the non-combat utilities that don't provide a constant, overwhelming bonus in social or travel situations over circumstantial combat bonuses. If combat utility options must exist, they should be seperately taken from the non-combat ones. That, or non-combat should be given more design space from the start so that people weigh the options differently. I don't like how many unnecessary, redundant powers there are in this sector that scarcely get picked. And worse, fun ones (like that loud-voice one for Invokers or Memories to Mist for wizards) that aren't strictly worthwhile either.
I agree on the problem with Utilities, but I think their is an underlying issue here that is plaguing Utilities in 4e. You don't get enough of them to flesh out a character.
When 4e was being sold to us in the previews, they used the example of having to choose in 3.x of picking between Fireball and Phantom Steed as a choice of 3rd level spells. The pitch line for 4e is was you wouldn't have to choose anymore, because they had "silo"ed them in attack and utility powers. And that seemed like a great idea at first. You got a power at 2 and 6 and etc that let you do something special outside of an attack.
Then they added Skill Powers.....
Now you have to choose between a cool class trick and a skill trick, many of which are highly situational but extremely fun roleplaying-wise.
Then they added Theme utilites.....
Now you are choosing between cool class trick, skill trick, and a power that defines you a little more thematicly....
Then they added Racial Utilities.....
BUT no where did you get more of these. You still only get one per utility level. So now this "Silo" slot, which was intitially set for your class tricks, has to be used to fill multiple roles in the character defining process.
On top of this, some classes are more dependant on those utilites for their roles than others. Certain classes have a much higher numerical need to take the role based optimized choice than others.
In my home game, our dwarven fighter might love to take racial utilites than make he seem more like a dwarf. Does he? No. Because he needs every defensive/damage reduction/etc trick he can get to keep him functioning when charging into throngs of monsters. Every utility must support his role. My shaman is the opposite. He is a bit of a force multiplier shaman, granting attacks every rounds and healing when needed. Almost all of my role is achievable through just my attack powers, so I am totally free to take skill powers etc.... In fact I don't think I actually have a shaman utility, and we are 18th level now.
By tieing so many aspects of character definition into slots that you only get a few of to begin with, a situation has been created for many classes where there is a right and wrong choose when picking utility powers. In many ways we are back to choosing between fireball and phantom steed. There is only one choose, for lots of classes. It becomes systematicly enforced Char Op. And that sucks for a power slot that was more about defining your character than anything else.
Problem with that is that Martial isn't mundane. It's not magical, but it's still super-human. It's the "action hero" power source. It's where characters like the Prince from Prince of Persia games would fall (the recent ones), or where Aragorn and even Legolas lie. It's the power source for Jack Slater of Last Action Hero, John McClane of Die Hard, etc. There's mundane, and then there's martial power.
I fall in an older school train of thought, I suppose. I think that action heroes do so well because they're high-leveled characters and because of player choices, not because of mechanics. Or, that's how it should be. That martial shouldn't be a power source beyond the mundane from the start. Perhaps it'd be gradual or sudden upon epic, but I could see the truly over-the-top martial abilities of 4e fitting. But in the hands of great warriors, not the start-ups. And as per the older school train of thought, I see level 1s as, ideally, being only a little better than commoners.
That's basically the thing. I think that 4th edition gave a bit too much magic to the martial power source, and 5th edition should withhold that magic for a little while. We know that there won't be a lack of viable mechanics, since the Slayer is a perfect example of mundane options. A 5th edition Fighter, ideally, starts something like a Knight and turns into the Weaponmaster. A 5th edition Assassin similarly starts something like an Executioner and turns into the original Assassin class.
I much prefer Martial as an above normal character. NPCs are the mundane; PCs are big damn heroes. I've never liked the "starts out weak farmboy" type game, and unfortunately, martial power being a sub power reinforces that horrible practice. Now I've seen the level 0 rules, and I have to say that in that arena, I love them. If I wanted to feel weak and underpowered and just starting out, I'd use them. But level 1 should be when the character has some moderate experience under their belt.
For an example, a few Final Fantasies have a Squire or Basic class, a non-class, if you will. It takes about 15-60 minutes to gain actual classes, and generally those original classes are never used again. That's how I see 0 level to 1st level progression.
Not directed at anyone specifically: Why all the hate for +X items? I love them, even if they are part of the "system". If I didn't feel the need to use them, story or whatever, I'd use Inherent bonuses. So, where specifically is all the dislike of +X items coming from? Please be very detailed, I'm trying to understand the other side on this.
I also want art that has women doing more than healing and other noncombat stuff and guys who heal. I know they exist, but it is incredibly disporportianate.
What most women find attractive in men's bodies is most emphasized by heavy armor, not so much by leather/hide armor and really not by robes. It's also exposed by air armor.
What most men find attractive in women's bodies is concealed by heavy armor, outlined in tight leather/hide armor, and can be as visible as the woman likes in robes or air armor.
Therefore, the art will have males being disproportionately in heavy, leather, or air armor (and doing things appropriate to that armor) while females will be disproportionately in robes or leather/air armor.
Alright, thread derailed enough, no more art discussion.
You must have forgotten, so I'll remind you: this is an internet discussion.
Not directed at anyone specifically: Why all the hate for +X items? I love them, even if they are part of the "system". If I didn't feel the need to use them, story or whatever, I'd use Inherent bonuses. So, where specifically is all the dislike of +X items coming from? Please be very detailed, I'm trying to understand the other side on this.
There are two closely related problems that affect pretty much all characters.
(1) Gee, I finally got the magic weapon (could just as well be armor or neck item) that is absolutely perfect for my character theme. Oops, now the party leveled, which means we face tougher monsters, and in order to not fall behind the curve I need a bigger enhancement bonus. But the next larger version of my thematically perfect item isn't supposed to be available for *another three levels.*
(2) Sigh. Oh well. This campaign is really tough, and the party needs everyone to be thoroughly up to speed, so I'll set aside my thematically perfect weapon for... these magic weapons are completely wrong for my character, except the basic Magic Weapon that is absolutely nothing but an enhancement bonus - and that's booooo-ring.
There is a third problem that is a minor thing for most characters, but serious for some.
(3a) Okay, I need armor with an enhancement bonus, a neck item with an enhancement bonus, and a weapon/implement with an enhancement bonus. That's three items, and I can expect to get 4 items in 5 levels. That's only one item in 5 levels for flavor and other forms of utility (and some items are so good for combat enhancement as to eat some of those few slots), which is pretty sparse.
(3b) But... I'm a two-weapon guy. That eats my utility/flavor magic item slot. And actually I'm a balanced Str/Dex two-weapon guy, which means I'm also pretty good with a bow, and the party's relying on my ranged capability too. So eally I'm a THREE-weapon guy, and I need 5 magic items in 5 levels just to keep up - but I only get 4. So when do I get those flavor and general-utility items, such as the climbing boots?
That's what I see as the problems with enhancement-bonus items.
Inherent bonuses... my bard is in a campaign with inherent bonuses. We started at level 6, so she should have gotten magic items of levels 5, 6, and 7 by standard rules. Instead she got magic items of levels 2, 2, 3, 3, and 4. And she doesn't give up effectiveness.
But if we're going to automatically use inherent bonuses... can't we make them disappear into the system completely, and get rid of enhancement bonuses? Then we could have the rare and special weapon - an artifact - that actually does grant +1 to hit.
(3b) But... I'm a two-weapon guy. That eats my utility/flavor magic item slot. And actually I'm a balanced Str/Dex two-weapon guy, which means I'm also pretty good with a bow, and the party's relying on my ranged capability too. So eally I'm a THREE-weapon guy, and I need 5 magic items in 5 levels just to keep up - but I only get 4. So when do I get those flavor and general-utility items, such as the climbing boots?
When my party upgrades "essential" magic items, they sell/trade the old items for flavor and utility pieces.
Problem with that is that Martial isn't mundane. It's not magical, but it's still super-human. It's the "action hero" power source. It's where characters like the Prince from Prince of Persia games would fall (the recent ones), or where Aragorn and even Legolas lie. It's the power source for Jack Slater of Last Action Hero, John McClane of Die Hard, etc. There's mundane, and then there's martial power.
I fall in an older school train of thought, I suppose. I think that action heroes do so well because they're high-leveled characters and because of player choices, not because of mechanics. Or, that's how it should be. That martial shouldn't be a power source beyond the mundane from the start. Perhaps it'd be gradual or sudden upon epic, but I could see the truly over-the-top martial abilities of 4e fitting. But in the hands of great warriors, not the start-ups. And as per the older school train of thought, I see level 1s as, ideally, being only a little better than commoners.
That's basically the thing. I think that 4th edition gave a bit too much magic to the martial power source, and 5th edition should withhold that magic for a little while. We know that there won't be a lack of viable mechanics, since the Slayer is a perfect example of mundane options. A 5th edition Fighter, ideally, starts something like a Knight and turns into the Weaponmaster. A 5th edition Assassin similarly starts something like an Executioner and turns into the original Assassin class.
I much prefer Martial as an above normal character. NPCs are the mundane; PCs are big damn heroes. I've never liked the "starts out weak farmboy" type game, and unfortunately, martial power being a sub power reinforces that horrible practice. Now I've seen the level 0 rules, and I have to say that in that arena, I love them. If I wanted to feel weak and underpowered and just starting out, I'd use them. But level 1 should be when the character has some moderate experience under their belt.
For an example, a few Final Fantasies have a Squire or Basic class, a non-class, if you will. It takes about 15-60 minutes to gain actual classes, and generally those original classes are never used again. That's how I see 0 level to 1st level progression.
Not directed at anyone specifically: Why all the hate for +X items? I love them, even if they are part of the "system". If I didn't feel the need to use them, story or whatever, I'd use Inherent bonuses. So, where specifically is all the dislike of +X items coming from? Please be very detailed, I'm trying to understand the other side on this.
I'm definitely with Kalnaur on the Martial Power Source issue. I don't want to see Martial get gimped like it was in previous editions, and definitely do not want to see 'wizards rule, fighters drool' return.
I will say that fantasy art has come a long way from the atypical topless woman-in-distress and the bulky, overly-muscled man coming to her rescue that was very prevailent from artists such as Frazetta. I would NOT lump Boris Vallejo or his wife and co-artist Julie Bell into this category, as Wrecan suggests, even though they often depict nude females. Their art focuses on the human body.
While Vallejo and Bell often depicted strong female characters, they just as often depicted typical scantily clad females in distress worshipping their hunky male counterparts. At any rate, Vallejo was definitely assocuated with 1st edition D&D. His artwork adorned the covers of numerous issues of Dragon magazine. Dragon 52 had a full profile of him, with a Vallejo cover of a naked woman admiring a freshly hatched dragon.
Go back to 3/3.5...it was the most complete yet flexible edition.
I doubt they'd sell a lot of books if they republish something that already exists and most people actually moved away from (either by going Pathfinder or 4e)
And you know what? You provide some very decent examples, which helps me get more to the heart of my point.
Had they gone to the trouble fo actually descibing the Charisma training - "Your character develops such a terrifying visage that enemies are unnerved and left defenseless against his attacks." I would have been okay with that. That's somethings I can easily graspand it tells me how to interpret the game world, , it's a stretch sure but this is fantasy after all.
But they didn't do that, they just say, "You use Cha for MBAs now," leaving me to write my own story about it. We can work together and make a fascinating cosmology that explains away all the weird eccentricites of this system, but I don't want to. That's what we're paying them for. The math rules of the game and the practical rules of the story should be compatible, and the authors should provide both of them to us.
I'm gonna go with 'no'. I'd much rather they let me decide how my powers, feats, race, skills etc. work. My character may NOT develop a terrifying visage. He may just be casting a spell, like every other spell he casts, to make the attack accurate. It's better to leave the fluff empty and let the player have the freedom to plug in what's appropriate for his character than set it in stone.
D&D needs LESS fluff, not more.
I hate having my oozes and golems "taunted" across a battlefield.
Is it a taunt?...well sometimes it is and sometimes it isnt.
Sometimes its the scent of that obnoxious chicken recipe my fighter loves and spilled on himself (low char) which nobody else could stand waifs across the battlefield and fills there nostrils sensation pores at just the right moment and they all attack....
It might even be he stumbles and looks rediculously vulnerable and they just cant resist the apparent opening. <-- if="" they="" make="" decisions="" about="" what="" to="" attack="" can="" be="" deceived="" br="">
I dont use oozes anyway idiotic monster type.. gelatinouse cubes were rediculous in e1 and still are.
The fighter is soooo obnoxious that the golem/ zombie/ ooze just cannot resist the opening and charges forward... when it's not even it's turn. And feels no compulsion or incentive to stay when it does get a turn.
Yeah, that's the very definition of a silly power.
Does it break the game? Meh. Not really. It's just very, very, very mockable. Just like wizard-killing cats or THAC0 or the grapple rules.
And you know what? You provide some very decent examples, which helps me get more to the heart of my point.
Had they gone to the trouble fo actually descibing the Charisma training - "Your character develops such a terrifying visage that enemies are unnerved and left defenseless against his attacks." I would have been okay with that. That's somethings I can easily graspand it tells me how to interpret the game world, , it's a stretch sure but this is fantasy after all.
I really do recognize how individuals are less comfortable conjuring there own. I agree that melee training was badlly presented ie under flavored yet they have huge potential, you really can do each of them especially the charisma one many different ways.
I dont entirely agree with Salla about needing less fluff. I think it needs to include more flavor training. Games like HERO which uses no flavor built in... has effectively examples of creating flavoring in every example character they make. And I really think demonstrating how a given power can be contextually multiple things helps, hence my sig.
As long as martial characters are still balanced and equivalent, does it matter?
It matters because having strong, varied, useful powers is /how/ the martial classes were brought closer to parity in 4e. And, it's how they were stripped of it, already, in Essentials. Yes, it's worth defending, vigorously.
In fact, there should be /more/ - many more - powers that give coniption fits to those who hate the martial source and want the martial archetypes relegated to second-class status while their broken casters ruin the game for everyone else. We can do without those sorts of players, entirely. If WotC wants to capture their &&s they should do it with an entirely different game. Buy Paizo to acquire Pathfinder, or start publishing material for 3.5 again.
Because just going backwards will lose them fans, too.
Except... if you strip away even the pretense realism from Martial powers you end-up with magic by another name.
Realism has no place in a fantasy game, anyway. 'Verisimilitude' or faitfulness to genre serves the same purpose, though. Part of the problem has always been that martial classes were held to a standard of realism aproaching that of the real world, even the modern world, while casters were held to the much more flexible standard of what magic might do in /any/ source of inspiration. The spells and magic items of D&D draw inspiration from every myth, legend, tradition, story, movie and whatnot available to the fevered imaginations of Gygax & Arneson in the 70s. No single wizard or witch or whatnot in any single story or setting had anywhere near the sheer breadth of powers that a D&D magic-user could have.
The result often turned into the very 'Wierd Wizard Show' that even EGG warned us about.
In the same genres of heroic fantasy that give us wizards who, perhaps, need minutes or hours to cast any sort of spell, or who need a magic implement for all their casting, or demonstrated only a few spells in the entire narrative or whatever, you have warrior-heroes who perform remarkable feats without the trappings of magic. In other sub-genres you have narrative bits that allow lone swordsmen to improbably stand against hordes of lesser enemies, or in 'cinematic' ones outrun explosions, and whatever else.
There is room for a very great deal of balanced, interesting, potent, and varied powers for the martial source in the genres that inspire D&D - if given the same latitude in picking through them as magic has always been given.
It matters because having strong, varied, useful powers is /how/ the martial classes were brought closer to parity in 4e. And, it's how they were stripped of it, already, in Essentials. Yes, it's worth defending, vigorously.
No one said anything about the strength of the power, or its variety or use. It's not about any of those things. Or, well... that's not what it's about with me, anyway.
Well, of course no one /says/ anything about that, it would sound bad. So instead we get all this harping on verisimilitude and immersion. The bottom line, though, is take power/versatility/fun/interest away from the fighter.
In fact, there should be /more/ - many more - powers that give coniption fits to those who hate the martial source and want the martial archetypes relegated to second-class status while their broken casters ruin the game for everyone else.
That's not anyone's stance here, as far as I can tell.
It may not be your stance, but your stance supports that agenda, whether you mean it to or not.
All I meant (I can't speak for The_Jester) is that if Come and Get It is to be an ability that Fighters can learn in 5th edition (hypothetically), it should be mechanically more like its description depicts. Perhaps with a Bluff, Diplomacy or Intimidate check, or a Charisma vs. Will attack, instead of using Strength and weapon proficiencies against will.
The original version and the first errata did not use STR & Weapon vs Will. They just pulled. Lots of powers have an effect that happens before the attack, but aparently that's too good for the Fighter.
I'm sorry if I sound like I'm speaking for a hypothetical Fighter with a percecution complex, here, but the truth is, the martial archetypes of heroic fantasy have gotten short thrift for most of the history of D&D, and, when 4e finally started to redress that, it was met with fierce resentment. So, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean no one's out to get you and all that... ;)
Have stuff like a Weaponmaster and Slayer in the same book under the Fighter section. How does that sound?
Aweful, if it's just for the Fighter. If there's a bone-simple 'Sorcerer' next to the complex Wizard, OK, fine, you have high- and low-complexity options for each archetype, so a player really wanting simplicity isn't forced into a few shallowly-implemented classes. Still not great for balance, but not so intollerable as it might be.
Better, I think, would be to have all classes be choice-rich, but have a (quite effective) default path - maybe several for different 'builds' - that the player uninterested in complexity or customization could use.
Realism has no place in a fantasy game, anyway. 'Verisimilitude' or faitfulness to genre serves the same purpose, though. Part of the problem has always been that martial classes were held to a standard of realism aproaching that of the real world, even the modern world, while casters were held to the much more flexible standard of what magic might do in /any/ source of inspiration. The spells and magic items of D&D draw inspiration from every myth, legend, tradition, story, movie and whatnot available to the fevered imaginations of Gygax & Arneson in the 70s. No single wizard or witch or whatnot in any single story or setting had anywhere near the sheer breadth of powers that a D&D magic-user could have.
This depends 110% on the campaign. In some games this might not matter, while others allow the martial freedom of action movie logics. While others have much lower magic and much more grim, gritty reality. A good edition of D&D should enable all three equally, or players will be alienated. And it's always, always easier to ignore limitations or rules than make new ones on the fly.
Realism has no place in a fantasy game, anyway. 'Verisimilitude' or faitfulness to genre serves the same purpose, though. Part of the problem has always been that martial classes were held to a standard of realism aproaching that of the real world, even the modern world, while casters were held to the much more flexible standard of what magic might do in /any/ source of inspiration. The spells and magic items of D&D draw inspiration from every myth, legend, tradition, story, movie and whatnot available to the fevered imaginations of Gygax & Arneson in the 70s. No single wizard or witch or whatnot in any single story or setting had anywhere near the sheer breadth of powers that a D&D magic-user could have.
This depends 110% on the campaign. In some games this might not matter, while others allow the martial freedom of action movie logics. While others have much lower magic and much more grim, gritty reality. A good edition of D&D should enable all three equally, or players will be alienated. And it's always, always easier to ignore limitations or rules than make new ones on the fly.
No. A game should be focused, and that means in such debate, taking one side.
At times, like politics, you loose all in trying to please everyone.
Realism has no place in a fantasy game, anyway. 'Verisimilitude' or faitfulness to genre serves the same purpose, though. Part of the problem has always been that martial classes were held to a standard of realism aproaching that of the real world, even the modern world, while casters were held to the much more flexible standard of what magic might do in /any/ source of inspiration. The spells and magic items of D&D draw inspiration from every myth, legend, tradition, story, movie and whatnot available to the fevered imaginations of Gygax & Arneson in the 70s. No single wizard or witch or whatnot in any single story or setting had anywhere near the sheer breadth of powers that a D&D magic-user could have.
This depends 110% on the campaign. In some games this might not matter, while others allow the martial freedom of action movie logics. While others have much lower magic and much more grim, gritty reality. A good edition of D&D should enable all three equally, or players will be alienated. And it's always, always easier to ignore limitations or rules than make new ones on the fly.
No. A game should be focused, and that means in such debate, taking one side.
At times, like politics, you loose all in trying to please everyone.
Ahhh US politics: two mutually opposed sides forcing every issue into an advasarial contest.
Role-playing games are innately flexible. You can do multiple things well, letting people choose which elements to focus on. They're not a board game where you need to focus on a single style of play. You can present layers of options and let people pick and choose what elements they like.
As long as martial characters are still balanced and equivalent, does it matter?
It matters because having strong, varied, useful powers is /how/ the martial classes were brought closer to parity in 4e. And, it's how they were stripped of it, already, in Essentials. Yes, it's worth defending, vigorously.
In fact, there should be /more/ - many more - powers that give coniption fits to those who hate the martial source and want the martial archetypes relegated to second-class status while their broken casters ruin the game for everyone else. We can do without those sorts of players, entirely. If WotC wants to capture their &&s they should do it with an entirely different game. Buy Paizo to acquire Pathfinder, or start publishing material for 3.5 again.
d
Because just going backwards will lose them fans, too.
Except... if you strip away even the pretense realism from Martial powers you end-up with magic by another name. Then you're not playing a fighter anymore, you're playing a swordmage with a different name. If we go down that route why not remove power sources altogether and just let fighters cast spells? That will bring parity to fighters as they teleport and cast fireball and fly. Give everyone the exact same spell list and flavour differently, pretending as hard as you can that you're playing a different class.
Besides, Paizo seems to be doing very well. If WotC doesn't move backwards a little the move to 5e will just divide the current fanbase into 4e loyalists and 5e avengers and the game with atrophy. It needs to gain back some players and earn new players. Just throwing a splash of paint over 4e is not enough.
I think we're seeing the first of the 4e grognards emerging.
Agreed. It sounds to me like the argument is "casters are broken and martial is second class, therefore I want martial to be more like casters". What? Not sure how that makes sense. Definitely very grognardy. Its amazing how fast a grognard is birthed in the internet age. I actually quite dislike casters. That's why I want a bit different take on martial. I don't want martial to be second class. I don't know anyone who does. I almost exclusively play martial and I prefer the Essentials martial classes.
Realism has no place in a fantasy game, anyway. 'Verisimilitude' or faitfulness to genre serves the same purpose, though. Part of the problem has always been that martial classes were held to a standard of realism aproaching that of the real world, even the modern world, while casters were held to the much more flexible standard of what magic might do in /any/ source of inspiration. The spells and magic items of D&D draw inspiration from every myth, legend, tradition, story, movie and whatnot available to the fevered imaginations of Gygax & Arneson in the 70s. No single wizard or witch or whatnot in any single story or setting had anywhere near the sheer breadth of powers that a D&D magic-user could have.
This depends 110% on the campaign. In some games this might not matter, while others allow the martial freedom of action movie logics. While others have much lower magic and much more grim, gritty reality. A good edition of D&D should enable all three equally, or players will be alienated. And it's always, always easier to ignore limitations or rules than make new ones on the fly.
You can't please everyone, of course. If you have to displease someone, the sorts who aren't happy unless they're ruining it for someone esle are good candidates.
It is easier to start with a balanced system, and imbalance it if you want that, than to start with an imbalanced one and fix it. So, if you did want a campaign that emphasized powerful, unlimitted magic and held the martial source as a mundane contrast, you could do it. But, the best aproach for a playable game would be one like that taken by games like Ars Magicka - the PCs are /all/ casters. With 4e, you could do that quite easily, not by taking the martial classes and stripping them of options and effectiveness, but simply by banning the martial source from the campaign - there might still be warriors out there, but they'd be soldiers or skirmishers (the monster roles), NPCs who exist to provide contrast and cannon fodder, not playable classes.
Realism has no place in a fantasy game, anyway. 'Verisimilitude' or faitfulness to genre serves the same purpose, though. Part of the problem has always been that martial classes were held to a standard of realism aproaching that of the real world, even the modern world, while casters were held to the much more flexible standard of what magic might do in /any/ source of inspiration. The spells and magic items of D&D draw inspiration from every myth, legend, tradition, story, movie and whatnot available to the fevered imaginations of Gygax & Arneson in the 70s. No single wizard or witch or whatnot in any single story or setting had anywhere near the sheer breadth of powers that a D&D magic-user could have.
This depends 110% on the campaign. In some games this might not matter, while others allow the martial freedom of action movie logics. While others have much lower magic and much more grim, gritty reality. A good edition of D&D should enable all three equally, or players will be alienated. And it's always, always easier to ignore limitations or rules than make new ones on the fly.
No. A game should be focused, and that means in such debate, taking one side.
At times, like politics, you loose all in trying to please everyone.
Ahhh US politics: two mutually opposed sides forcing every issue into an advasarial contest.
Role-playing games are innately flexible. You can do multiple things well, letting people choose which elements to focus on. They're not a board game where you need to focus on a single style of play. You can present layers of options and let people pick and choose what elements they like.
I'm not american.
No, rpg rules are not always so flexible, there is limits.
Like trying to put realism and grittyness in D&D, you make it suck.
Face it buddy, you have at times to make a choice in life - one or the other, and you can't have both.
Like Blairism-Third Way - trying to woo both right and left, and failing BOTH.