Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2012 12:50:00 GMT -6
I, too, agree that wizards are under-powered at low levels, but I don't really feel that is a flaw. It is sort of like chess, in which the knight is an important piece in the early game but of less importance as the board clears.
At any rate, IMO some people labelling MU fixes as power-gaming is due to the fact most house-rules result in very powerful wizards at higher levels. The btb wizard is already a formidable presence in battle, making even more powerful is a bad idea.
NOTE: I do NOT share the above stated opinion, I'm merely pointing up the thought processes of those who do feel that way. I do feel an over-balanced wizard is not a good idea, but there are ways to fix it without going overboard.
|
|
vargr1105
Level 3 Conjurer
Cymek Lord filled with hatred for Mankind
Posts: 68
|
Post by vargr1105 on May 31, 2012 13:53:32 GMT -6
I certainly don't call myself a powergamer, but I actually agree with you. Wizards at the first few levels are underpowered and at higher levels are overpowered, IMO anyway. Its not even a question of "power" as I see it, but of usefulness and fun of play by using class abilities. For Wizards, one go and that's it for the rest of the day, while the Fighter keeps chopping and the Thief keeps sneaking till the cows come home. The Cleric might be out of juice too, but encased in metal from head-to-two he can join the fray like be best of'em. I would rather play a low-level Wizard with no offensive magic whatsoever (no Magic Missile, Sleep, Enlarge, Charm Person, Burning Hands, etc) but multiple uses of spells like Detect magic, Unseen Servant, Ventriloquism, Light, Floating Disc, Feather Fall, Manipulate Fire, Hold Portal and the like. I, too, agree that wizards are under-powered at low levels, but I don't really feel that is a flaw. Neither do I, it is a design feature not a flaw. Some of us simply don't think it is much fun play. I also don't fell that the puny-to-godlike MU is the best representation of the sorcerers found in the literature that drew me into the game originally. At any rate, IMO some people labelling MU fixes as power-gaming is due to the fact most house-rules result in very powerful wizards at higher levels. The btb wizard is already a formidable presence in battle, making even more powerful is a bad idea. I would agree. When one starts fiddling with the rules one must have long-range vision of the consequences. The issue in question in that forum (which was not started by me btw) was a yea or nay to granting extra spell slots derived from high INT, with a 3d6-in-order ability generation. Hardly game-shattering, I think.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on May 31, 2012 14:10:00 GMT -6
Well, and one easy way to do that is to take those spells, or ones like them, and "cantrip" them. In a way like what D&DNext (and other editions before it) is doing with the at-will MU spells.
|
|
vargr1105
Level 3 Conjurer
Cymek Lord filled with hatred for Mankind
Posts: 68
|
Post by vargr1105 on May 31, 2012 14:25:58 GMT -6
Well, and one easy way to do that is to take those spells, or ones like them, and "cantrip" them. In a way like what D&DNext (and other editions before it) is doing with the at-will MU spells. I apologize in advance if I'm leading to thread derailment, as this was supposed to be a discussion about D&DNext and I haven't contributed to that. I do not like the idea of at-will spells very much, but I have thought about turning some, like Detect Magic and Read Magic into class abilities rather than spells, similarly to Turning Undead, Laying Hands or Detecting Evil for Clerics and Paladins. Cantrips I've never dealt with. In what edition did those first came up? And how many can a MU cast?
|
|
|
Post by kesher on May 31, 2012 15:06:18 GMT -6
Well, and one easy way to do that is to take those spells, or ones like them, and "cantrip" them. In a way like what D&DNext (and other editions before it) is doing with the at-will MU spells. I apologize in advance if I'm leading to thread derailment, as this was supposed to be a discussion about D&DNext and I haven't contributed to that. I do not like the idea of at-will spells very much, but I have thought about turning some, like Detect Magic and Read Magic into class abilities rather than spells, similarly to Turning Undead, Laying Hands or Detecting Evil for Clerics and Paladins. Cantrips I've never dealt with. In what edition did those first came up? And how many can a MU cast? Nah, no derailment! That's an excellent question! I'm certain it was before 2nd ed AD&D; maybe in a supplement? Unearthed Acrana, perhaps?
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on May 31, 2012 16:26:56 GMT -6
I just did a playtest survey with lots of spaces to type in specific feedback comments.
Lots of questions (I won't reproduce the whole thing) but I liked this: Rate the following * The current iteration of the base rules * The complexity of the base game * The pace of overall play * The amount of simulation in the game (i.e., how much the game emulated reality, obeyed physics, etc.) * The system for adjudicating success through ability checks and skills * Rules for saving throws * Rules for advantage/disadvantage * Rules for surprise * Action economy (i.e., having "an action" and "a move") * Rules for critical hits * Rules for dying * Rules for resting and healing * The overall system for magic and spellcasting * Speed of combat * Hit Dice mechanic
That's a lot of stuff that they want to get information about. I don't know what they will do with the data, but it's cool that they are collecting it. I urge any OD&D types on the playtest list to be sure to make your preferences felt.
|
|
|
Post by darkling on May 31, 2012 17:58:55 GMT -6
I intend to fill mine out as soon as we finish our first session tomorrow!
|
|
|
Post by llenlleawg on Jun 1, 2012 1:13:18 GMT -6
Cantrips I've never dealt with. In what edition did those first came up? And how many can a MU cast? That's an excellent question! I'm certain it was before 2nd ed AD&D; maybe in a supplement? Unearthed Acrana, perhaps? Cantrips first appeared in 1982 (i.e. for AD&D) in Dragon #59, in an article written by Gygax, "Cantrips: Minor magics for would-be wizards." For rulebooks, they first appeared, I believe, in Unearthed Arcana (1985), again for AD&D. In AD&D, an MU could choose to memorize 4 cantrips in place of one 1st-level spell.
|
|
|
Post by llenlleawg on Jun 1, 2012 1:29:57 GMT -6
I got the playtest materials last week, and I am quite pleased with what I saw, given what had to be there in any event. That is, certain features will seem very "3e" (e.g. ascending armor class), but overall it was recognizable to me as D&D. Unhappily, the playtest agreement disallows playtesting through 3rd parties, which includes online forums, hangouts on Google+, etc., which means I have not yet been able to playtest the material. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, after all!
My personal sense was that it looks to be somewhere between 2e AD&D (especially with its kits, now in the form of backgrounds and themes) and 3e, rules-wise, with a few standard-looking house rules. For example, while we old timers might like to wax eloquent about the virtues of low hit points at first level, the desire for heartier low-level characters has been a long-standing one. Likewise, we might praise the design of the one-spell-per-day 1st-level MU, but likewise some desire for flexibility and greater spellcasting capacity for low-level MUs has been around for a long time, as witnessed by the early D&D spin-offs (e.g. Tunnels & Trolls, Chivalry & Sorcery, etc.). So, the presence of more hit points for the PCs, as well as at-will spellcasting, along with a few more spells per day for wizards and clerics, at least is clearly in the family of standard house rules, even if never part of the standard game as such.
I can say that the approach to clerical spells is, for my book, a little too influenced by 4e in this sense, that cleric spells seem to be principally about combat and causing damage. This state of affairs is the exact opposite of the original game, and I would much rather see a return to clerical magic with a focus on healing, protection, the removal of ill effects, divination, command of the natural world, driving off supernatural evil, etc.
Even so, while it's far from OD&D, it does look recognizable in a way that 4e, at least for many of us, did not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2012 2:20:51 GMT -6
So, the presence of more hit points for the PCs, as well as at-will spellcasting, along with a few more spells per day for wizards and clerics, at least is clearly in the family of standard house rules, even if never part of the standard game as such. I can't agree with you about "clearly" a "standard" house rule, though I understand where you're coming from. During the time OD&D was the only version of the game that was published I never participated in a game that allowed either house rule to which you refer above, and I played in several different campaigns. To this date I've never played in a D&D campaign that included either rule, though I have heard (online, mostly) of referees who use those rules. The other part of the equation as I see it, is you're talking about two different types of gamers. Those who like those sorts of rules, feeling they add to the challenge of the game; and those who do not, feeling they detract from the super-heroic aspects of the game. It is my opinion that, while both groups can and do respect the viewpoint of the other, neither will fully understand the other.
|
|
|
Post by llenlleawg on Jun 1, 2012 3:57:05 GMT -6
Fair enough re: at-will casting specifically, but a call for "spell points" has been around since the later 70s at least, allowing some flexibility to the spell-caster. Likewise, the various attempts to increase hit points at first level (e.g. maximum at 1st, or re-roll 1s and/or 1s and 2s, etc.), as well as the "re-roll hit points at each level and keep the same or take higher amount" are also of quite old vintage, and were certainly put in place to allow for a higher number of hit points at lower levels. These were the senses of "clearly" and "standard" I had in mind, which are, admittedly, rather weak uses of both words. Chalk it up to rhetorical enthusiasm.
My general sense is that WotC simply can't produce something that emulates the earliest iteration of the game. Indeed, since the break/rupture that was 3e, it won't be able to produce something more or less directly compatible with the material from 1974 through 2000, during which time almost anything was, mutatis mutandis, about 95% compatible, or even more. However, it simply cannot erase the player base and new culture/language/assumptions/mechanics that came after 3e and up to the present. So, my attitude to the playtest is based on that fact, that whatever D&D Next looks like, it will necessarily have notable departures from the game we know. What I am looking at is whether I could step into such a game viewed as an oddly house-ruled version of a game I know, or some other thing altogether.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2012 6:16:18 GMT -6
You raise some good points I would love to discuss but I've just worked a 24 hour shift (a rare occurrence) and I'm out of gas. If my previous post sounded a bit stiff and formal that is the mode I go into when I'm running on adrenaline and caffeine. I hope no offense was taken, none was meant. I'll be up and about later and maybe we can exchange further thoughts on the matter.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jun 1, 2012 9:24:35 GMT -6
And thus this remains, to my knowledge, the most polite place on the IntraWebs!
|
|
Koren n'Rhys
Level 6 Magician
Got your mirrorshades?
Posts: 355
|
Post by Koren n'Rhys on Jun 1, 2012 9:56:33 GMT -6
Well, and one easy way to do that is to take those spells, or ones like them, and "cantrip" them. In a way like what D&DNext (and other editions before it) is doing with the at-will MU spells. I apologize in advance if I'm leading to thread derailment, as this was supposed to be a discussion about D&DNext and I haven't contributed to that. I do not like the idea of at-will spells very much, but I have thought about turning some, like Detect Magic and Read Magic into class abilities rather than spells, similarly to Turning Undead, Laying Hands or Detecting Evil for Clerics and Paladins. Cantrips I've never dealt with. In what edition did those first came up? And how many can a MU cast? I'll invite you to start a new thread on this, since I'd like to see what people think of some variations on it...
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 1, 2012 11:45:45 GMT -6
And thus this remains, to my knowledge, the most polite place on the IntraWebs! I win!
|
|
vargr1105
Level 3 Conjurer
Cymek Lord filled with hatred for Mankind
Posts: 68
|
Post by vargr1105 on Jun 1, 2012 12:11:14 GMT -6
About extra HP, at-will casting etc... The other part of the equation as I see it, is you're talking about two different types of gamers. Those who like those sorts of rules, feeling they add to the challenge of the game; and those who do not, feeling they detract from the super-heroic aspects of the game. It is my opinion that, while both groups can and do respect the viewpoint of the other, neither will fully understand the other. I disagree slightly on two accounts. First, if the interwebs are any indication many people in both groups, especially the latter, do not respect the other or make any effort to understand. In fact, a fair number of persons seems to be afflicted by a peculiar foaming-at-the-mouth syndrome just by knowing other folks play differently from them, even if they never meet them. Then there is also a 3rd group, persons that enjoy playing either way. Personally I enjoy both the "fantasy f-ing vietnam" and "a step above most mortals" variants.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2012 14:56:49 GMT -6
First, if the interwebs are any indication many people in both groups, especially the latter, do not respect the other or make any effort to understand. In fact, a fair number of persons seems to be afflicted by a peculiar foaming-at-the-mouth syndrome just by knowing other folks play differently from them, even if they never meet them. (chuckle) Fair enough. I believe that part of perception, however, is "grouchy customer syndrome". Meaning, you can have 20 wonderful persons with whom you interact in the course of your work day; but you will remember the one grouch who tested the limits of your goodwill! Well put. There are those that enjoy both. I do, though I much prefer the FFV, as you so aptly put it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2012 15:09:25 GMT -6
Fair enough re: at-will casting specifically, but a call for "spell points" has been around since the later 70s at least, allowing some flexibility to the spell-caster. Good point. Even though EGG came out strongly against spell points in a Dragon column, I seem to recall him stating in his later years he had considered such a system for D&D. He discarded the option after deciding it was too complicated. Right here on ODD74 our moderator, Finarvyn, has posted one of the most elegant and useful spell point systems I've ever seen for OD&D. In all honesty? I've seen these discussed online but I've never seen such a system in actual use. You were fine, see my above remarks about a 24 hour work shift (at a very busy hospital NICU). Things read different when you're in hour #20 and doing anything you can, such as reading an FRPG forum, trying to keep your mind engaged and alert. They have certainly, as I've already stated elsewhere, taken a Herculean task upon themselves. Through their own efforts, the D&D player base is fragmented, with each thinking of D&D in varying terms. Making a majority of them happy (there is always that fringe who will hate any/every thing) is a daunting task which I do not envy them. So far, my general feeling is this: I would play or even referee this game if it proves popular with the gaming public. I'm much more comfortable with the game in its current proposed version than 3rd or 4th edition. Nothing against those games, but they're not my cup of tea. I haven't read anything yet that makes me think it replace OD&D as my favorite version of the game, but I think D&D:N plays well. One must remember, however, the game is still being edited and revised. edit to fix quote
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2012 16:10:06 GMT -6
|
|
vargr1105
Level 3 Conjurer
Cymek Lord filled with hatred for Mankind
Posts: 68
|
Post by vargr1105 on Jun 1, 2012 17:23:32 GMT -6
Well put. There are those that enjoy both. I do, though I much prefer the FFV, as you so aptly put it. In all honesty the term isn't mine, I read it in a blog somewhere. I think it was created by an anti-old-school adept but taken as a positive moniker by someone in the OSR. In all honesty? I've seen these discussed online but I've never seen such a system in actual use. The most recent variant to beef up up HPs that I have seen is in Humanspace Empires where you add the equivalent of a full Hit Die (without any modifications) to your normally rolled hit points. But that game has several commonly available weapons with damage ranges that surpass those OD&D/BD&D. My general sense is that WotC simply can't produce something that emulates the earliest iteration of the game. Indeed, since the break/rupture that was 3e, it won't be able to produce something more or less directly compatible with the material from 1974 through 2000, during which time almost anything was, mutatis mutandis, about 95% compatible, or even more. I would agree, the loss of retro-compatibility is a major blow to any new editions of any well-established RPG. And I would go further. Perhaps my greatest dislike about 3rd and post variants (I have others besides this one) is that it really doesn't allow one to do anything that could not be done in previous editions. You are still delving into dungeons, killing things and taking their stuff, but everything is more complex and morose. Chargen takes longer, combat takes longer, leveling up takes longer, there are more things to keep track of, mastering the game requires more time, more effort and more reading, and the learning barrier becomes thicker. Some of the purported "advantages" of 3rd+, such as ascending AC, prestige classes, etc are nothing but adaptations from house rules that had been around for decades. Other factors such as the physical quality of the books themselves and their editing cannot really count on fair comparison. If 4th edition D&D had to be designed using no computers, printing technology from the 1970's and a budget comparable to that of incipient TSR it would look (pardon the English) piss-poor to many of today's gamers that decry OD&D/BD&D/AD&D on looks alone. Lastly, the OSR is here and available for free barring some modules and expansions. Why pay for a re-design of the wheel with all the added detriments I mentioned above? D&DNext would have to be truly revolutionary to make me open up my wallet for it.
|
|
jasmith
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 316
|
Post by jasmith on Jun 1, 2012 21:35:00 GMT -6
So far, I don't see anything that's going to propel 5e into my shortlist of favorite Editions/Clones/Variants.
And I really, really don't like tying Saves to Ability Scores. Not the only thing I'm not caring for in the new edition. Just a personal pet peave. ;D
|
|
|
Post by llenlleawg on Jun 2, 2012 1:39:19 GMT -6
One must remember, however, the game is still being edited and revised. Indeed! This is why I find the Sturm und Drang raging across the WotC board just odd and an unnecessary cause of heightened blood pressure. It's not all bad, of course, but the point of the playtest was and is to give the version they have a try, see how things work, and focus on only particular aspects at a time. By the way, thanks for the comments above. Re: spellcasting I can note that, due to an early misreading about clerics, my first fellow gamers and I had clerics able to cast any spell from the list they wanted, up to the limits per day of any spell level. It was "spontaneous casting" avant la lettre! Anyway, we figured out what was supposed to happen, played by the book, but then opted for our original misreading. Given the cleric spell lists at the time (OD&D plus Greyhawk, or even later the AD&D list), this was not prone to much abuse, at least not with our players. Likewise, re: hit points, somewhere along the line we picked up the "max at first level" idea. Must have been in the air. Anyway, we never used the "re-roll" approach, whether of 1s, 1s and 2s, or at each level, but the first two did become an "official option" in Menzter, I believe, and the last version is likely the oldest. Why do I think so? Well, it's hard to trace house rules by their nature, but Chivalry & Sorcery, which began basically as a set of adaptations/modifications of D&D, has (in its 1st edition) players re-roll fatigue at each level, keeping the higher of the two (i.e. the old score or the new roll). Philotomy uses this system, and it was also used in Swords & Wizardry (at least in White Box). Since I imagine they were not just pulling this out of thin air, these must have been floating out there as options for some time. In any event, I share your hopefulness that WotC will do something respectable with this project, even as I share your sense of how daunting the task is which they have set for themselves.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 2, 2012 5:23:45 GMT -6
And I really, really don't like tying Saves to Ability Scores. Basing saving throws on ability scores rather than class/level might be a "plausible" mechanic for PCs, perhaps, and maybe humanoids in general. But I don't like the side effects in the 5e implementation that : a) ability scores, and especially HIGH ability scores, are so important to character saves/survival/success, b) Monsters need ability scores in order to have saving throws. Oozes with dexterity? wisdom? Then what about saving throws for objects? I guess these will need ability scores also. What constitution or charisma should be assigned to a saddle, a tree, a rock, a tower, a ship, a door? WHY should I even be thinking about it while running a game? c) Giant monster with Str and Con right off the 3-18 scale demeans the value of otherwise "good" scores. Think of the fighter with, say, 13 or 15 strength. If Giants have 30 strength (?), then a 15 will seem unplayable to some players. They will aspire to reach 30 strength also, and many of them will get it with spells, potions, items etc. It isn't quite right, IMHO; it encourages maxxing ability scores, contributes to the ability score arms race, and lumbers the referee with unnecessary "baggage". All conjecture, of course
|
|
|
Post by darkling on Jun 2, 2012 9:25:03 GMT -6
I think saves based on ability scores, and indeed focusing the game back around ability scores is one of D&D Next's greatest potentials. However:
1. They need to get rid of ability scores for monsters. It's one of the big things preventing the compact, one-line stat block for opponents. Which I love. However, since they appear to have ditched hit dice for monsters there is nothing else to really go by. But this came up in our game last night, I really hoped I wasn't going to have to go back to the bestiary, I was wrong. Monsters need some 'power level' whatever it is and you can base their saves and checks off of that with a adjudicated modifier based on what the monster is (e.g. give kobolds a bonus to sneaking and a minus to not being craven, in fact you could do this to characters too just by not bothering to delineate what a background gives bonuses on and letting the DM and player negotiate it).
2. I would personally like to get rid of the open ability score system and go back to something that goes from 1-20, with modifiers not evenly spaced and characters generated by 3d6 +/- certain racial/class/magic mods. This is really doable and I don't understand their temptation to do otherwise.
3. Here's where I defend the playtest. Or at least ask a naive question and hope for a genuine answer: Why does everyone seem to assume/complain that characters will have HIGH ability scores? This isn't really so much as directed at waysoftheearth as it is some of the comments I have been seeing over on WOTC's board. Example, someone over there was complaining about armor because "the minute you get a +4 Dex mod you are a better tank in mithril chain than a fighter in adamantine plate and this means the armor system is broken". Which I agree with if and only if +4 dex is a common thing. So yeah, if this were fourth edition where you were expected to have 18 in your primary stat right out the gate and it only balloons to the point that those numbers are meaningless...I get that complaint. But I haven't seen any evidence of that. In fact, there isn't a single 18 stat on any of the pre-gens and no indication that stats will ever change as you level up. In fact we don't even know how stats are generated, though the range looks like point buy or 4d6 drop one, and in those circumstances, extremely high stats are still either A) really rare; or B) come at the cost of other things so if you want to be dexterity 18 and fast like a freak go for it and have 5 other middling stats to make up for it. Am I missing something?
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 2, 2012 19:32:32 GMT -6
And I really, really don't like tying Saves to Ability Scores. Not the only thing I'm not caring for in the new edition. Just a personal pet peave. ;D Just goes to show that even if we like the same basic game we won't all agree on the details. I've use a saves system based on attributes for years and love it, and see this as a strength of the new game rather than a weakness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2012 21:07:59 GMT -6
You are correct, Marv.
Understand, however, that all that will change when I become Emperor.
Just so you know. . .
|
|
vargr1105
Level 3 Conjurer
Cymek Lord filled with hatred for Mankind
Posts: 68
|
Post by vargr1105 on Jun 3, 2012 3:45:46 GMT -6
They need to get rid of ability scores for monsters. It's one of the big things preventing the compact, one-line stat block for opponents. Which I love. Together with feats and skills and whatever bloat 4th edition might have added to them. I stopped paying attention to WOTC during 3.5 era, but i clearly remember some of their monster stats were more complex than most characters I have played in other rule systems. As a GM I don't want to have to deal with that, a a player I don't want my GM to have to deal with that when the effort could be better used running the game rater than doing complex math. However, since they appear to have ditched hit dice for monsters... Wait...what? They did away with monster HIT DICE? What else? Do attack rolls use tarot cards now? Example, someone over there was complaining about armor because "the minute you get a +4 Dex mod you are a better tank in mithril chain than a fighter in adamantine plate and this means the armor system is broken". Good Lord. Mithril chain? Adamantine plate? People are thinking about those during chargen? I am not sure if it is the AC system that is broken or the current game zeitgeist itself. So yeah, if this were fourth edition where you were expected to have 18 in your primary stat right out the gate... 18 expected right of the bat on 4th edition? And to think there are debates here and in other OSR forums about the merits of 3d6 in order and wagging of fingers at players who refuse to play PCs without at least with ability score at 13. There are lightyears of difference between the mindsets of these groups of players and the only thing the "editions" have in common is a brand title and a (very diluted) "genome". And WOTC is bringing D&DNext as a sort of "One True Ring" of D&D to satisfy us all? Does anyone truly believe they will remotely succeed at a task which seems paradoxical from the get-go? If D&DNext was a stock market product I wouldn't be putting on any shares just yet.
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Jun 3, 2012 3:59:25 GMT -6
Why does everyone seem to assume/complain that characters will have HIGH ability scores? I don't have "the" answer, obviously, but my expectation is that power gamers will get the nod regarding ability score boosts. The reason I think so is that at some point in the past (probably around 3E) the "character builds" sub-game came to the fore, and has been a dominant presence every since. The character build sub-game is all about min-maxxing your PC. Wringing every possible benefit from the rules, and stacking up the biggest possible numbers. This sub-game is exemplified in the current Dungeons & Dragons Online game, which is a (modified) implementation of 3.5e. That particular game is totally about character builds. There are thousands of players "tweaking" dozens of characters to get them optimised "just so" for this or that feat, or "damage per second", or maximum AC, and so on. Maxxing specific ability scores is central to the character build sub-game. In D&D Online most characters can achieve 40 (or more) in their primary ability score by level 20. Monks can achieve (ascending) Armor Class around 70+. And because these numbers are possible, anything less is considered "sub par" or "nerfed". There are an entire generation of new "D&D players" for whom the "character builds" sub-game IS what D&D is all about. Building optimal combinations of abilities, feats, spells and items. Getting bigger "pluses" and bigger bragging rights. Because there are so many players of the "character builds" sub-game, I can't imagine WotC really wants to cut them off by telling them they will just have to "live with it" if they roll a fighter with 13 strength. The power gamers won't be impressed, and WotC won't get their dollars. WotC may, possibly, separate any ability score inflation rules into an optional rules module which old school types could ignore. That might work, but it still seems to be a difficult task to create a game that caters equally to PCs with "normal" abilities and also those with "inflated" abilities. It will be interesting to see how they juggle it.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 3, 2012 5:08:03 GMT -6
Right here on ODD74 our moderator, Finarvyn, has posted one of the most elegant and useful spell point systems I've ever seen for OD&D. And I've tried quite a few over the years. Personally, I think that the fire-and-forget system is okay, but often too limiting. Probably an issue for another thread, but seems to me that if you know a spell but can't use it because you didn't happen to memorize it that day you lose a certain fun of being a magic-user. You get the DM who puts two magically locked doors in a dungeon, knowing that the mage might memorize one Knock spell but probably not two.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jun 3, 2012 5:16:10 GMT -6
You are correct, Marv. Understand, however, that all that will change when I become Emperor. Just so you know. . . That's okay. I note from your post count that you are currently a "Level 7 Enchanter" and I should warn you that I typically force my players to retire somewhere around level 8 or so. Become Emperor if you like, then come back as a level 1 nobody the next session while "Cameron DuBeers" becomes my next NPC Emperor.
|
|