Hmm I don't know about DnD 5th edition. Yet I can't wait for details.
This is basically my sentiment. Although I am curiously combing over the articles that Mearls and Cook have written over the past several months, trying to see if I can pick out anything obvious.
I have a feeling they're going to go back toward meta-classes (what class has become with Essentials and sub-classes). Warrior, Arcanist, and so on. I think you could set up between 6-10 class groups, and fit all of the current class/sub-classes into them.
Have you by chance heard of this stunning new idea where instead of rolling a perception check, you just take ten automatically?
Have you by chance heard of this stunning new where instead of rolling a perception check, you just take ten automatically?
I just thought of it myself.
Yeah that pretty much pissed off the entirety of the Char-Op and "What's a DM to Do?" boards, we were all screaming "THAT'S ALREADY HOW IT FUCKING WORKS TWATSHIT!"
Are meta-Classes like, roles and you pick abilities and arrange stats based on how you want to fit the role? Like talents in an MMO? Warrior can deal damage, or be a tank, or ranged? That sort of thing? I think that would be pretty cool, and would allow for more character customization in the end. I liked the idea of changing a power source to change your class. Sure this mage has the same spells as my psionist, but I use my mind. Mind Missiles and Bigby's Crushing MIND Fist
When Essentials came out, they created a new level of character "taxonomy" and called it sub-class. Basically, being a member of the Wizard class stopped being specific enough to describe your character. At this point we have Arcanists, Mages, Bladesingers, Witches, all of which fall within the Wizard class, but each of which is a unique and separate sub-class, with different sets of class features. They even managed to change the role and power source of some sub-classes. For instance, Berzerkers are Barbarians, but they have both the Primal and Martial power source, and are both Defenders and Strikers. Hunters are Rangers, but they are both Martial and Primal, and are Controllers, instead of Strikers.
I'm using "meta-class" to refer to what class has become at this point in 4e, because presumable in 5th they'll reorient the progression and have what are now sub-classes be classes, which means what classes currently are will need a new name (Meta-class, class group, profession, whatever).
What you're referring to as far as talents and all that from MMOs is more covered by class features, and isn't quite as dynamic within a sub-class. A Weapon Master Fighter (what the original fighter is now called) can focus on control, or on damage, but they'll always be a defender first.
Frankly I think pretty much every Arcane class that has been released to this point except the Leaders (Bard, Artificer) could easily be covered under the Arcanist class-group. Actually Artificers could probably fit in there too, but I think Bards would lean more toward a class group that reflects their leader/skill monkey aspects. Bards, Skalds, and Warlords have more in common with each other, in my mind, and would fit together better in a class group.
Have you by chance heard of this stunning new where instead of rolling a perception check, you just take ten automatically?
I just thought of it myself.
Yeah that pretty much pissed off the entirety of the Char-Op and "What's a DM to Do?" boards, we were all screaming "THAT'S ALREADY HOW IT FUCKING WORKS TWATSHIT!"
The wierd thing is that this has prompted some people to consider the idea that 5E might be some sort of bizarre Windows Mojave style gambit.
guys, for as simple as the lego heroica line is, it is actually pretty neat. The whole links up to the other sets somewhat intuitively is what i was hoping for in the DnD board game line.
Also, i am a jerk in competitive board games. I do eventually feel bad and stop trying to screw people over, but by then they've already caught on, and start doing the opposite of what i say and start screwing themselves over and, well, there is a reason why i play wizards when available.
I'm actually trying to piece together how a Group -> Class system would work.
You could have "features" that are inherited at both levels. The Arcanist Group could, for instance, all gain Ritual Caster, and maybe a common implement. Then each Class has its own class features, including their own implements.
A Leader-style Group could all gain the standard issue healing power, etc.
If I was going to rattle off a list of Groups to have in the game I'd say this:
Soldier (covers Fighters, Knights, Slayers, Paladins, and maybe Warlords)
Skirmisher (covers more straight-forward style strikers like Barbarians, Rangers, and some Rogues and Avengers)
Lurkers (covers stealthy strikers like Assassins, some Rogues and Avengers)
Leaders (would cover Bards, Skalds, Warlords, and probably Clerics)
Arcanists (would cover most Arcane classes)
The only thing I'm missing is a catch-all group name for the Primal-style classes like Druids, Shamans, Wardens, and scout style classes.
So you could probably break it down into 5-7 groups of classes, and you could give each group a small set of common features, and keep it generic enough that your Group doesn't really define your character even as much as your Race would, then toss Class and Theme on top of it to help make each character wholly unique.
I would be down for like a build a class kind of approach, clearly wouldn't be dnd, but i like the idea that being an arcane caster gets you X (which you seem to be getting at) and then divine gets you channel divinity, and so on. basically each source gets a shared theme. and then from there you pick a role. and then maybe like, weapon user vs caster or some such?
Like a Divine Leader Caster would be effectively the laser cleric.
Or you could do Divine Defender Caster which would be like a laser cleric that marks. like you kinda just pick modular bits to make a class. probably maybe have more then just those three things, but yeah. add in a profession style layer on that.
Primal striker Melee weapon hat sales-man would be like a barbarian that sells hats.
Yeah, that'd be interesting, but no way they go that modular.
I'm just figuring that the fact they moved toward class-groups makes me think they're likely to try it in 5th. It was something they pointed out as being around back in 2nd Revised (although it didn't really mean much and was just a sorting system), but with the way class features overlapped in 4e, they could do it and give some sort of meaning by having common class features coming from the Group instead of just being copied over.
Another thing that makes me thing they could go this route is one of Mike Mearls' articles suggested that a lot of powers in 4e are duplicates of one another, and that it might make things easier to consolidate those powers and build a method whereby all the classes involved have access to those powers (I think he pointed to "Defender powers" as a conceptual example). Having a Group mechanic and making basically the same as a theme (You get feature X at level Y, and also you get this list of powers you can choose from as well as your class powers), is an easy way to translate that.
Also, one thing i've always liked about the Idea of multiclassing, is being able to breach into what other classes can do with minor sacrifice to yourself, but i don't think any system has really has met what i wanted to do with it. the closest i think that met my crazy idea is honestly dual classing. You're both a fighting man and a magic super. both of these are as good as they are at level 1 for you at level one, and they level up both classes.
It's archaic, is hellishly restrictive, but man. I can be an elf in field plate casting magic like that jerk in the robe, and i can fight if i have to. Sure later it doesn't pan out as well as it should, because i have to split experience between classes, but, doing some quick math you still end up fighting better then a lot of people, and you can magic pretty okay too. And really that's what i want out of it. Swordmage and bladesinger are probably my favourite classes in 4e, because it lets you do something melee classes can't do and something magic classes can't do, and you're not overly screwed for doing it.
Yeah, that'd be interesting, but no way they go that modular.
I'm just figuring that the fact they moved toward class-groups makes me think they're likely to try it in 5th. It was something they pointed out as being around back in 2nd Revised (although it didn't really mean much and was just a sorting system), but with the way class features overlapped in 4e, they could do it and give some sort of meaning by having common class features coming from the Group instead of just being copied over.
Another thing that makes me thing they could go this route is one of Mike Mearls' articles suggested that a lot of powers in 4e are duplicates of one another, and that it might make things easier to consolidate those powers and build a method whereby all the classes involved have access to those powers (I think he pointed to "Defender powers" as a conceptual example). Having a Group mechanic and making basically the same as a theme (You get feature X at level Y, and also you get this list of powers you can choose from as well as your class powers), is an easy way to translate that.
i would be for limited group powers. unless, like Paladin lets you pick from both Divine and Defender powers.
Otherwise i would want like class specif encounters or daily powers. There is a lot of repeat powers, sure, but there are also a lot of diverse ones. At-wills i would be all for pools of powers. because a lot of those are just "yeah we need this kind of power for this class too" but the paladin's one daily power that marks everyone adjacent to them every turn is outstanding and really helps lay down what a paladin is. And without the big wow powers then classes get too generic.
Well, my complaint isn't that, but that's a good point.
I think the idea was to move role more in the direction of a theme. You're a Fighter? Cool, what kind? Defender, Striker, (some other style they may come up with)?
Each choice grants you certain extra features, but those extra features can also be chosen by other classes. This adds some diversity, but mostly it helps prevent redundancy-bloat.
Either way, I think it's safe to say there's no telling what they're going to do ultimately, and we'll just have to wait until this spring to find out.
Paladin in 3.5 was a fighter with a third of cleric and one unique ability. sorcerer was just a wizard with slightly different spell acquisition. at it's core, DnD is basicaly a four class game.
Fighting guy, magic guy, sneaky guy, healy guy
Melding on
0
Options
KurosThe WarriorWizards and Warriors. Rawr.Registered Usernew member
Well, my complaint isn't that, but that's a good point.
I think the idea was to move role more in the direction of a theme. You're a Fighter? Cool, what kind? Defender, Striker, (some other style they may come up with)?
Each choice grants you certain extra features, but those extra features can also be chosen by other classes. This adds some diversity, but mostly it helps prevent redundancy-bloat.
Either way, I think it's safe to say there's no telling what they're going to do ultimately, and we'll just have to wait until this spring to find out.
Yeah, and even in 4e, where a bunch of classes have completely different powers, they're all still basically the same.
Make an attack roll, do some damage of one or more types, maybe move around in some fashion or another, either before or after attacking. Encounter power? a bit more damage, and a minor condition for a round. Oh, it's a daily? Do half damage on a miss, and maybe a more powerful condition for longer, or a minor condition hit or miss.
i am interested to see to first bit of content they show off for 5e. i feel like they can cut off a lot of ideas they've been using. like your attack bonus going up every level? not that great when defences are going up just as much every level. and sure you have 44 ac now, but everyone has +33 to hit, so, it's not any better then your 21. granted i liked that AC was still worth noting past level 14, but that was kind of a dumb way to do it.
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
edited January 2012
Doom, COD, and ARMA2 are basically all the same game where I put a thing in the center of my screen and click my mouse until it dies.
i also want a game that comes to social encounters with the same level for dedication as combat encounters. Skill challenges did a pretty good job of trying this, but it was too broad a system and confused a lot of people.
i am interested to see to first bit of content they show off for 5e. i feel like they can cut off a lot of ideas they've been using. like your attack bonus going up every level? not that great when defences are going up just as much every level. and sure you have 44 ac now, but everyone has +33 to hit, so, it's not any better then your 21. granted i liked that AC was still worth noting past level 14, but that was kind of a dumb way to do it.
I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, if your stats stay the same, even if everything else's does too, that would probably get boring. On the other hand, you're right, it would be wildly easier to just simplify it down.
Still, "to-hit" number progressions have also always been around, so they're probably not something they'll do away with.
I think one thing they need to seriously consider getting rid of is magic item bonuses, though. Before 4e enhancement bonuses were a big deal, and could really boost your characters power. In 4e, it went the opposite direction. Having enhancement bonuses were assumed, and if you didn't have them, it would really gimp your character.
Drop ability score bumps, drop enhancement bonuses, and just have PCs' stats improve the same way monsters do, whether it's static, +1/2 level, or +level. Give them all the same mechanical calculation and don't try to balance things.
Also the biggest thing they need to fix is mechanical feats vs flavor feats. They need to sort that out, desperately.
eh, i liked the old magic item system. dropping stat boosts was a good idea, but having everything just be the same plus around the same level was boring. I liked the old it's a +3 sword sure, but the shit on it made it more powerful then like a +5 sword because it explodes on a critical, does ice damage on all hits and if you throw it it teleports back into your hand with the phone numbers of every girl in the nearest town. to just balance the game around everyone having a +4 sword at this level was simple, yes, but it made it less interesting.
Yeah, it was pretty solid. The problem I think was that magic item bonuses weren't really ever taken into account in the larger mathematical picture. Not the way they were in 4e anyway. I'm fairly certain they were never accounted for prior to 3rd.
And I agree with you on social stuff needing more support. Although I've always divided non-combat encounters into two groups, roleplaying based and skill based, and just because you have bunch of social skills doesn't mean you'll be any good at a social roleplaying scenario, because the emphasis is on roleplaying your character, not rolling dice. Skill challenges allowed for a mix of both to exist, either separately or mingled together. That was nice, they should try to do more of that.
Inherent bonuses was probably one of my favorite things 4E introduced.
Agreed. It actually allowed the game to experiment with magic items they, in theory, weren't +anything, just a magical item with a power. Granted, a lot of items already did that, but weapons never did. If they stripped out enhancement/inherent bonuses altogether, they could still have magic items with powers and properties that were useful. Even a weapon that grants a +1 to attack rolls (though probably no more than a +1, because those little extra attack bonuses should be rare)
i like ability scores. how else am i supposed to define what my character is good at outside of skills?
there is a pointless divide between ability scores and ability modifiers, though. like there's literally no difference between Dexterity 14 and 15 unless you're specifically looking to qualify for a Dex-based feat. if anything ability scores/modifiers should be primarily derived from character class with modifiers from race, level, build, theme, etc.
i like ability scores. how else am i supposed to define what my character is good at outside of skills?
there is a pointless divide between ability scores and ability modifiers, though. like there's literally no difference between Dexterity 14 and 15 unless you're specifically looking to qualify for a Dex-based feat. if anything ability scores/modifiers should be primarily derived from character class with modifiers from race, level, build, theme, etc.
They're primarily derived by your character class already, seeing as the class uses a primary statistic for attacks and then a secondary statistic for bonuses to certain styles of play. Unless you mean to suggest that all Fighters should start with the same base ability scores, and then the rest of the character creation changes those.
i like ability scores. how else am i supposed to define what my character is good at outside of skills?
there is a pointless divide between ability scores and ability modifiers, though. like there's literally no difference between Dexterity 14 and 15 unless you're specifically looking to qualify for a Dex-based feat. if anything ability scores/modifiers should be primarily derived from character class with modifiers from race, level, build, theme, etc.
it's a progression thing. 17 is better then 16 because when it comes to improve that stat by one it's now 18.
To get the same speed out of just a modifier system stat boosts would have to be half as common.
Also everyone in a class having similar stats is not something i am for. sure every fighter is probably goign to have 18 strength, but i tend to play lowish con high dex and wisdom fighters, where as most play high con fuck everything else fighters.
there is a pointless divide between ability scores and ability modifiers, though. like there's literally no difference between Dexterity 14 and 15 unless you're specifically looking to qualify for a Dex-based feat. if anything ability scores/modifiers should be primarily derived from character class with modifiers from race, level, build, theme, etc.
They're primarily derived by your character class already, seeing as the class uses a primary statistic for attacks and then a secondary statistic for bonuses to certain styles of play. Unless you mean to suggest that all Fighters should start with the same base ability scores, and then the rest of the character creation changes those.
Yeah, that's what I'm suggesting. Leaving ability scores as a primarily player-assigned thing can turn them into a newbie trap pretty easily, especially when you're dealing with classes that play off of multiple scores.
i like ability scores. how else am i supposed to define what my character is good at outside of skills?
there is a pointless divide between ability scores and ability modifiers, though. like there's literally no difference between Dexterity 14 and 15 unless you're specifically looking to qualify for a Dex-based feat. if anything ability scores/modifiers should be primarily derived from character class with modifiers from race, level, build, theme, etc.
They're primarily derived by your character class already, seeing as the class uses a primary statistic for attacks and then a secondary statistic for bonuses to certain styles of play. Unless you mean to suggest that all Fighters should start with the same base ability scores, and then the rest of the character creation changes those.
Yeah that'd be dumb.
I'm not opposed to them redefining how they work, though. Instead of 10 being average and each 2 points over that improves the overall performance by one, I'd be just fine with each ability score starting on a 1-4 range, with 2 being average.
I also think they could experiment with Skill training system. Instead of it being a binary +5 bonus, maybe have a progressive bonus. Have three different tiers of training, with each granting a progressive +2 bonus. Or maybe +2/+3/+5. Each level of training costs a skill point, and you get a number of skill points at first level, and then maybe one or two more as you level (like at each tier of play or something).
Most of the skill points would be given at first level though. I vastly prefer 4e's skill mechanics to 3.X's. The 3.X system heavily encouraged focusing all your points on a small group of skills, instead of spreading them out and being alright in many skills.
also, while i'm just throwing down words. Anyone else notice that last thread the same people who didn't like 4e for the lack of rules to enforce role playing and social encounters, are largely the same people who also claimed that they don't like mechanical rules governing social encounters preferring it to be based on player skill?
there is a pointless divide between ability scores and ability modifiers, though. like there's literally no difference between Dexterity 14 and 15 unless you're specifically looking to qualify for a Dex-based feat. if anything ability scores/modifiers should be primarily derived from character class with modifiers from race, level, build, theme, etc.
They're primarily derived by your character class already, seeing as the class uses a primary statistic for attacks and then a secondary statistic for bonuses to certain styles of play. Unless you mean to suggest that all Fighters should start with the same base ability scores, and then the rest of the character creation changes those.
Yeah, that's what I'm suggesting. Leaving ability scores as a primarily player-assigned thing can turn them into a newbie trap pretty easily, especially when you're dealing with classes that play off of multiple scores.
Well, I think you run into two problems.
One, and this is smaller, is that you get a lot of people proclaiming this is another MMO-style steal. MMOs derive ability scores based on class and race, and they're all prefab. Second, and this is the key one to me, is that fluid ability scores is a hallmark of D&D. Hell, prior to 4e you rolled for your ability scores. Even in 4e, there's a lot of variance (as Melding pointed out). It's hardly a newbie trap if you've read the book and/or have a DM helping you build characters (and both should happen anyway), so I'm not sure I feel like that's a good issue to stand on.
also, while i'm just throwing down words. Anyone else notice that last thread the same people who didn't like 4e for the lack of rules to enforce role playing and social encounters, are largely the same people who also claimed that they don't like mechanical rules governing social encounters preferring it to be based on player skill?
Yep I saw that. I'm actually all for roleplaying stuff being decided rules-off. That's the sort of thing that should be handled through the story.
Keep your mechanics (read: rules) out of my flavor (read: story).
While i still say that if my physically assaulting you during the game doesn't improve my combat prowess my silver tongue shouldn't win my barbarian any favours either.
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
also, while i'm just throwing down words. Anyone else notice that last thread the same people who didn't like 4e for the lack of rules to enforce role playing and social encounters, are largely the same people who also claimed that they don't like mechanical rules governing social encounters preferring it to be based on player skill?
I think the biggest problem with changing the ability score system at this point is that no matter how they streamline it, it just ends up looking like they're ripping off another game. Granted, they may not care what it looks like, and decide to go for it anyway. Still, a large part of marketing and property rights these days comes from things following a certain blueprint, and the D&D blueprint is Str, Con, Dex, Int, Wis Cha.
Posts
now Jones Soda has Dungeons & Dragons Spellcasting Soda
I just thought of it myself.
Yeah that pretty much pissed off the entirety of the Char-Op and "What's a DM to Do?" boards, we were all screaming "THAT'S ALREADY HOW IT FUCKING WORKS TWATSHIT!"
When Essentials came out, they created a new level of character "taxonomy" and called it sub-class. Basically, being a member of the Wizard class stopped being specific enough to describe your character. At this point we have Arcanists, Mages, Bladesingers, Witches, all of which fall within the Wizard class, but each of which is a unique and separate sub-class, with different sets of class features. They even managed to change the role and power source of some sub-classes. For instance, Berzerkers are Barbarians, but they have both the Primal and Martial power source, and are both Defenders and Strikers. Hunters are Rangers, but they are both Martial and Primal, and are Controllers, instead of Strikers.
I'm using "meta-class" to refer to what class has become at this point in 4e, because presumable in 5th they'll reorient the progression and have what are now sub-classes be classes, which means what classes currently are will need a new name (Meta-class, class group, profession, whatever).
What you're referring to as far as talents and all that from MMOs is more covered by class features, and isn't quite as dynamic within a sub-class. A Weapon Master Fighter (what the original fighter is now called) can focus on control, or on damage, but they'll always be a defender first.
Frankly I think pretty much every Arcane class that has been released to this point except the Leaders (Bard, Artificer) could easily be covered under the Arcanist class-group. Actually Artificers could probably fit in there too, but I think Bards would lean more toward a class group that reflects their leader/skill monkey aspects. Bards, Skalds, and Warlords have more in common with each other, in my mind, and would fit together better in a class group.
Man I need to get some old school DnD going...maybe after I get my class/work stuff set in stone I'll get a group together.
Also, i am a jerk in competitive board games. I do eventually feel bad and stop trying to screw people over, but by then they've already caught on, and start doing the opposite of what i say and start screwing themselves over and, well, there is a reason why i play wizards when available.
You could have "features" that are inherited at both levels. The Arcanist Group could, for instance, all gain Ritual Caster, and maybe a common implement. Then each Class has its own class features, including their own implements.
A Leader-style Group could all gain the standard issue healing power, etc.
If I was going to rattle off a list of Groups to have in the game I'd say this:
Soldier (covers Fighters, Knights, Slayers, Paladins, and maybe Warlords)
Skirmisher (covers more straight-forward style strikers like Barbarians, Rangers, and some Rogues and Avengers)
Lurkers (covers stealthy strikers like Assassins, some Rogues and Avengers)
Leaders (would cover Bards, Skalds, Warlords, and probably Clerics)
Arcanists (would cover most Arcane classes)
The only thing I'm missing is a catch-all group name for the Primal-style classes like Druids, Shamans, Wardens, and scout style classes.
So you could probably break it down into 5-7 groups of classes, and you could give each group a small set of common features, and keep it generic enough that your Group doesn't really define your character even as much as your Race would, then toss Class and Theme on top of it to help make each character wholly unique.
I would be down for like a build a class kind of approach, clearly wouldn't be dnd, but i like the idea that being an arcane caster gets you X (which you seem to be getting at) and then divine gets you channel divinity, and so on. basically each source gets a shared theme. and then from there you pick a role. and then maybe like, weapon user vs caster or some such?
Like a Divine Leader Caster would be effectively the laser cleric.
Or you could do Divine Defender Caster which would be like a laser cleric that marks. like you kinda just pick modular bits to make a class. probably maybe have more then just those three things, but yeah. add in a profession style layer on that.
Primal striker Melee weapon hat sales-man would be like a barbarian that sells hats.
I'm just figuring that the fact they moved toward class-groups makes me think they're likely to try it in 5th. It was something they pointed out as being around back in 2nd Revised (although it didn't really mean much and was just a sorting system), but with the way class features overlapped in 4e, they could do it and give some sort of meaning by having common class features coming from the Group instead of just being copied over.
Another thing that makes me thing they could go this route is one of Mike Mearls' articles suggested that a lot of powers in 4e are duplicates of one another, and that it might make things easier to consolidate those powers and build a method whereby all the classes involved have access to those powers (I think he pointed to "Defender powers" as a conceptual example). Having a Group mechanic and making basically the same as a theme (You get feature X at level Y, and also you get this list of powers you can choose from as well as your class powers), is an easy way to translate that.
It's archaic, is hellishly restrictive, but man. I can be an elf in field plate casting magic like that jerk in the robe, and i can fight if i have to. Sure later it doesn't pan out as well as it should, because i have to split experience between classes, but, doing some quick math you still end up fighting better then a lot of people, and you can magic pretty okay too. And really that's what i want out of it. Swordmage and bladesinger are probably my favourite classes in 4e, because it lets you do something melee classes can't do and something magic classes can't do, and you're not overly screwed for doing it.
i would be for limited group powers. unless, like Paladin lets you pick from both Divine and Defender powers.
Otherwise i would want like class specif encounters or daily powers. There is a lot of repeat powers, sure, but there are also a lot of diverse ones. At-wills i would be all for pools of powers. because a lot of those are just "yeah we need this kind of power for this class too" but the paladin's one daily power that marks everyone adjacent to them every turn is outstanding and really helps lay down what a paladin is. And without the big wow powers then classes get too generic.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I think the idea was to move role more in the direction of a theme. You're a Fighter? Cool, what kind? Defender, Striker, (some other style they may come up with)?
Each choice grants you certain extra features, but those extra features can also be chosen by other classes. This adds some diversity, but mostly it helps prevent redundancy-bloat.
Either way, I think it's safe to say there's no telling what they're going to do ultimately, and we'll just have to wait until this spring to find out.
Paladin in 3.5 was a fighter with a third of cleric and one unique ability. sorcerer was just a wizard with slightly different spell acquisition. at it's core, DnD is basicaly a four class game.
Fighting guy, magic guy, sneaky guy, healy guy
Preach it. Can I get a witness?
Make an attack roll, do some damage of one or more types, maybe move around in some fashion or another, either before or after attacking. Encounter power? a bit more damage, and a minor condition for a round. Oh, it's a daily? Do half damage on a miss, and maybe a more powerful condition for longer, or a minor condition hit or miss.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
also death to ability scores.
I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, if your stats stay the same, even if everything else's does too, that would probably get boring. On the other hand, you're right, it would be wildly easier to just simplify it down.
Still, "to-hit" number progressions have also always been around, so they're probably not something they'll do away with.
I think one thing they need to seriously consider getting rid of is magic item bonuses, though. Before 4e enhancement bonuses were a big deal, and could really boost your characters power. In 4e, it went the opposite direction. Having enhancement bonuses were assumed, and if you didn't have them, it would really gimp your character.
Drop ability score bumps, drop enhancement bonuses, and just have PCs' stats improve the same way monsters do, whether it's static, +1/2 level, or +level. Give them all the same mechanical calculation and don't try to balance things.
Also the biggest thing they need to fix is mechanical feats vs flavor feats. They need to sort that out, desperately.
Yeah, it was pretty solid. The problem I think was that magic item bonuses weren't really ever taken into account in the larger mathematical picture. Not the way they were in 4e anyway. I'm fairly certain they were never accounted for prior to 3rd.
And I agree with you on social stuff needing more support. Although I've always divided non-combat encounters into two groups, roleplaying based and skill based, and just because you have bunch of social skills doesn't mean you'll be any good at a social roleplaying scenario, because the emphasis is on roleplaying your character, not rolling dice. Skill challenges allowed for a mix of both to exist, either separately or mingled together. That was nice, they should try to do more of that.
Agreed. It actually allowed the game to experiment with magic items they, in theory, weren't +anything, just a magical item with a power. Granted, a lot of items already did that, but weapons never did. If they stripped out enhancement/inherent bonuses altogether, they could still have magic items with powers and properties that were useful. Even a weapon that grants a +1 to attack rolls (though probably no more than a +1, because those little extra attack bonuses should be rare)
there is a pointless divide between ability scores and ability modifiers, though. like there's literally no difference between Dexterity 14 and 15 unless you're specifically looking to qualify for a Dex-based feat. if anything ability scores/modifiers should be primarily derived from character class with modifiers from race, level, build, theme, etc.
They're primarily derived by your character class already, seeing as the class uses a primary statistic for attacks and then a secondary statistic for bonuses to certain styles of play. Unless you mean to suggest that all Fighters should start with the same base ability scores, and then the rest of the character creation changes those.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
it's a progression thing. 17 is better then 16 because when it comes to improve that stat by one it's now 18.
To get the same speed out of just a modifier system stat boosts would have to be half as common.
Also everyone in a class having similar stats is not something i am for. sure every fighter is probably goign to have 18 strength, but i tend to play lowish con high dex and wisdom fighters, where as most play high con fuck everything else fighters.
Yeah, that's what I'm suggesting. Leaving ability scores as a primarily player-assigned thing can turn them into a newbie trap pretty easily, especially when you're dealing with classes that play off of multiple scores.
Yeah that'd be dumb.
I'm not opposed to them redefining how they work, though. Instead of 10 being average and each 2 points over that improves the overall performance by one, I'd be just fine with each ability score starting on a 1-4 range, with 2 being average.
I also think they could experiment with Skill training system. Instead of it being a binary +5 bonus, maybe have a progressive bonus. Have three different tiers of training, with each granting a progressive +2 bonus. Or maybe +2/+3/+5. Each level of training costs a skill point, and you get a number of skill points at first level, and then maybe one or two more as you level (like at each tier of play or something).
Most of the skill points would be given at first level though. I vastly prefer 4e's skill mechanics to 3.X's. The 3.X system heavily encouraged focusing all your points on a small group of skills, instead of spreading them out and being alright in many skills.
Well, I think you run into two problems.
One, and this is smaller, is that you get a lot of people proclaiming this is another MMO-style steal. MMOs derive ability scores based on class and race, and they're all prefab. Second, and this is the key one to me, is that fluid ability scores is a hallmark of D&D. Hell, prior to 4e you rolled for your ability scores. Even in 4e, there's a lot of variance (as Melding pointed out). It's hardly a newbie trap if you've read the book and/or have a DM helping you build characters (and both should happen anyway), so I'm not sure I feel like that's a good issue to stand on.
Yep I saw that. I'm actually all for roleplaying stuff being decided rules-off. That's the sort of thing that should be handled through the story.
Keep your mechanics (read: rules) out of my flavor (read: story).
On both fronts.