Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
5e open playtest
98 views
Skip to first unread message
Justisaur
May 30, 2012, 5:33:50 PM5/30/12
to
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDNext.aspx
I haven't taken a look at it yet, I plan to at my earliest oportunity,
but I'm extremely busy now so it might be awhile.
- Justisaur
I haven't taken a look at it yet, I plan to at my earliest oportunity,
but I'm extremely busy now so it might be awhile.
- Justisaur
David Trimboli
May 30, 2012, 6:49:19 PM5/30/12
to
it's better than "Five Ee."
--
David Trimboli
http://www.trimboli.name/
tussock
May 30, 2012, 11:16:40 PM5/30/12
to
that, so, never mind. They tell us that where the character sheets conflict
with the rules, you use the sheets, and where the game rules conflict with
the DMG rules, you pretend not to notice.
Early days.
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4news/dndnextfaq
--
tussock
dr...@bin.sh
May 31, 2012, 2:05:19 AM5/31/12
to
think we're all at least pretty happy with it, and the guy who's had
the least fun with 4e is fairly ecstatic.
the focus on character ability scores is very welcome.
the combat engine is lean and runs seriously fast.
advantage/disadvantage is one of the best-liked new mechanics.
i do not miss opportunity attacks and interrupts in the least.
character healing is pulled way back from 4e, still a little weird.
i could see a lot of groups being very happy with this core, and to
hell with any bolt-on modules. i would be.
next week, second level and back to the caves.
--
n_n n_n dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
|"|n_n_n|"| ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | " " | | "Hit Hard, Hit Fast, Hit Often."
|_|_[T]_|_| <http://donjon.bin.sh/d20/power/>
Geoffrey White
May 31, 2012, 5:21:42 AM5/31/12
to
> So I guess the stupid name "D&D Next" is gonna stick. Oh well. At least
> it's better than "Five Ee."
I think they're deliberately not calling it 5th edition until it's
> it's better than "Five Ee."
released - that way people who google it then won't be taken to
extensive discussions of the playtest we're having now. If I'm right,
we can help out by going along with 'D&D Next' name for the playtest
even if it does sound a bit silly.
Of course the playtest is clearly marked as confidential so we shouldn't
really be discussing it at all...
- Geoffrey
dr...@bin.sh
May 31, 2012, 9:35:49 AM5/31/12
to
Alien mind control rays made Geoffrey White <geoffr...@randomstuff.org.uk.cuthere.invalid> write:
> I think they're deliberately not calling it 5th edition until it's
> released - that way people who google it then won't be taken to
> extensive discussions of the playtest we're having now. If I'm right,
> we can help out by going along with 'D&D Next' name for the playtest
> even if it does sound a bit silly.
that's utterly absurd.
> I think they're deliberately not calling it 5th edition until it's
> released - that way people who google it then won't be taken to
> extensive discussions of the playtest we're having now. If I'm right,
> we can help out by going along with 'D&D Next' name for the playtest
> even if it does sound a bit silly.
> Of course the playtest is clearly marked as confidential so we shouldn't
> really be discussing it at all...
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4news/dndnextfaq
--
.--._.--.
|_/---\_| dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
] |<3 | [ -----------------------------------------------------------------
|~\---/~| Not Never But NOW
`--'~'--'
Rast
May 31, 2012, 10:45:42 AM5/31/12
to
dr...@bin.sh wrote...
>>Can I run an online game via email, Skype, Google Hangout or a play-
by-post forum?
>>No, you may not run an online game on third parties sites at this
time.
>>Can I create a video or podcast of my playtest to share with others?
>>With the exception of any contests or promotions, unfortunately you
cannot create podcast or video content of your playtest to share
publicly.
This isn't legally enforcable, is it?
> the current public playtest is explicitly open for public discussion.
> http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4news/dndnextfaq
Yes, but:
> http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4news/dndnextfaq
>>Can I run an online game via email, Skype, Google Hangout or a play-
by-post forum?
>>No, you may not run an online game on third parties sites at this
time.
>>Can I create a video or podcast of my playtest to share with others?
>>With the exception of any contests or promotions, unfortunately you
cannot create podcast or video content of your playtest to share
publicly.
This isn't legally enforcable, is it?
Keith Davies
May 31, 2012, 11:17:16 AM5/31/12
to
not. A FAQ might clarify a point in a contract -- iffy at best -- but
it certainly cannot add clauses to a contract.
Keith
--
Keith Davies "chain letter and chain mail...
keith....@kjdavies.org not the same thing, right?"
KJD-IMC: http://www.kjd-imc.org -- Naomi
Echelon: http://www.echelond20.org
dr...@bin.sh
May 31, 2012, 11:54:37 AM5/31/12
to
i'm sure the hasbro legal team considers the open playtest agreement
legally binding and enforcable, but they're total wankers and i don't
think anyone honestly expects full compliance. it depends more on
where you fall along the law-chaos axis of alignment.
--
._n_______n_. dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
| --------- |== -----------------------------------------------------------
I"/""|"|Z7""' "Any problem caused by a tank can be solved by a tank."
lJ | |
|_l
legally binding and enforcable, but they're total wankers and i don't
think anyone honestly expects full compliance. it depends more on
where you fall along the law-chaos axis of alignment.
--
._n_______n_. dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
| --------- |== -----------------------------------------------------------
I"/""|"|Z7""' "Any problem caused by a tank can be solved by a tank."
lJ | |
|_l
Alcore
May 31, 2012, 2:55:09 PM5/31/12
to
On Thursday, May 31, 2012 10:54:37 AM UTC-5, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
[snip]
> [...]. it depends more on
So *IS* there a law-chaos axis of alignment? Or did they stick with 4e's stupid "Chaos is an extreme form of Evil" and "Law is an extreme form of Good", single axis alignment nonsense?
If you are going to have an alignment system at all, either leave out concepts you don't want to map, or accept that every opposing pair of descriptors you include is it's own axis. (For instance, I can imagine "Active/Passive" and "Xenophobic/Open" axes... But just because someone is completely open to discourse across all species doesn't mean they aren't horribly evil as well.)
So anyway, to pull back from the digression, what I'm really asking is this: What's the thumnail summary of the characteristics of the new system, and how does it relate to prior editions?
[snip]
> [...]. it depends more on
> where you fall along the law-chaos axis of alignment.
[snip]
So *IS* there a law-chaos axis of alignment? Or did they stick with 4e's stupid "Chaos is an extreme form of Evil" and "Law is an extreme form of Good", single axis alignment nonsense?
If you are going to have an alignment system at all, either leave out concepts you don't want to map, or accept that every opposing pair of descriptors you include is it's own axis. (For instance, I can imagine "Active/Passive" and "Xenophobic/Open" axes... But just because someone is completely open to discourse across all species doesn't mean they aren't horribly evil as well.)
So anyway, to pull back from the digression, what I'm really asking is this: What's the thumnail summary of the characteristics of the new system, and how does it relate to prior editions?
dr...@bin.sh
May 31, 2012, 3:49:08 PM5/31/12
to
Alien mind control rays made Alcore <alc...@uurth.com> write:
> So anyway, to pull back from the digression, what I'm really asking
> is this: What's the thumnail summary of the characteristics of the
> new system, and how does it relate to prior editions?
the summary is that there's nothing stated about alignment in the
> So anyway, to pull back from the digression, what I'm really asking
> is this: What's the thumnail summary of the characteristics of the
> new system, and how does it relate to prior editions?
"How to Play" document or pregen characters, though there's a place
for it on the character sheet.
the bestiary includes monsters of neutral, lawful evil, neutral evil,
and chaotic evil alignments.
given the tone and direction of everything else, i think it's a fair
guess that the 4e alignment model is out of core with prejudice.
Ubiquitous
May 31, 2012, 5:55:12 PM5/31/12
to
In article <jq685p$8qi$1...@dont-email.me>, da...@trimboli.name wrote:
>On 5/30/2012 5:33 PM, Justisaur wrote:
> > http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDNext.aspx
> >
> > I haven't taken a look at it yet, I plan to at my earliest oportunity,
> > but I'm extremely busy now so it might be awhile.
>
>So I guess the stupid name "D&D Next" is gonna stick. Oh well. At least
>it's better than "Five Ee."
Seriously, that's the name?
>On 5/30/2012 5:33 PM, Justisaur wrote:
> > http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDNext.aspx
> >
> > I haven't taken a look at it yet, I plan to at my earliest oportunity,
> > but I'm extremely busy now so it might be awhile.
>
>So I guess the stupid name "D&D Next" is gonna stick. Oh well. At least
>it's better than "Five Ee."
--
It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the Democrats did
to America.
Tetsubo
May 31, 2012, 5:55:17 PM5/31/12
to
On 5/31/2012 5:55 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> In article<jq685p$8qi$1...@dont-email.me>, da...@trimboli.name wrote:
>> On 5/30/2012 5:33 PM, Justisaur wrote:
>
>>> http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDNext.aspx
>>>
>>> I haven't taken a look at it yet, I plan to at my earliest oportunity,
>>> but I'm extremely busy now so it might be awhile.
>>
>> So I guess the stupid name "D&D Next" is gonna stick. Oh well. At least
>> it's better than "Five Ee."
>
> Seriously, that's the name?
>
"Desperate Pandering"?
> In article<jq685p$8qi$1...@dont-email.me>, da...@trimboli.name wrote:
>> On 5/30/2012 5:33 PM, Justisaur wrote:
>
>>> http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDNext.aspx
>>>
>>> I haven't taken a look at it yet, I plan to at my earliest oportunity,
>>> but I'm extremely busy now so it might be awhile.
>>
>> So I guess the stupid name "D&D Next" is gonna stick. Oh well. At least
>> it's better than "Five Ee."
>
> Seriously, that's the name?
>
--
Tetsubo
Deviant Art: http://ironstaff.deviantart.com/
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/tetsubo57
Rast
May 31, 2012, 5:58:53 PM5/31/12
to
Ubiquitous wrote...
the modern trend of naming versions rather than numbering them.
>
> In article <jq685p$8qi$1...@dont-email.me>, da...@trimboli.name wrote:
> >On 5/30/2012 5:33 PM, Justisaur wrote:
> >
> >So I guess the stupid name "D&D Next" is gonna stick. Oh well. At least
> >it's better than "Five Ee."
>
> Seriously, that's the name?
"5E" would be a fine name, much better than this silly name. I hate
> In article <jq685p$8qi$1...@dont-email.me>, da...@trimboli.name wrote:
> >On 5/30/2012 5:33 PM, Justisaur wrote:
> >
> >So I guess the stupid name "D&D Next" is gonna stick. Oh well. At least
> >it's better than "Five Ee."
>
> Seriously, that's the name?
the modern trend of naming versions rather than numbering them.
Tetsubo
May 31, 2012, 6:14:02 PM5/31/12
to
Rast
May 31, 2012, 6:27:17 PM5/31/12
to
Tetsubo wrote...
though nearly the entire thing was a free download from their website.
> > "5E" would be a fine name, much better than this silly name. I hate
> > the modern trend of naming versions rather than numbering them.
>
> Can you copyright '5E'?
Trademark, I think. And who cares? They sold a boatload of 3E even
> > the modern trend of naming versions rather than numbering them.
>
> Can you copyright '5E'?
though nearly the entire thing was a free download from their website.
Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)
May 31, 2012, 8:34:47 PM5/31/12
to
--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com
tussock
May 31, 2012, 10:57:05 PM5/31/12
to
Justisaur wrote:
> http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDNext.aspx
Everyone who wants input, they're taking surveys now until the 14th for
this first round, for those registered only, so register, read it, and give
some feedback to stop it sucking too much, eh.
--
tussock
> http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDNext.aspx
Everyone who wants input, they're taking surveys now until the 14th for
this first round, for those registered only, so register, read it, and give
some feedback to stop it sucking too much, eh.
--
tussock
tussock
May 31, 2012, 10:11:28 PM5/31/12
to
Alcore wrote:
> So anyway, to pull back from the digression, what I'm really asking is
> this: What's the thumnail summary of the characteristics of the new
> system, and how does it relate to prior editions?
Oddly? Essentials-style Wizards, 3e-style Clerics (plus laser option),
> So anyway, to pull back from the digression, what I'm really asking is
> this: What's the thumnail summary of the characteristics of the new
> system, and how does it relate to prior editions?
2nd-style Fighters, Basic-style Rogues (without any obvious way to become
good at anything). Everyone gets kits, which give crappy feats and skill
mods in packages.
No grid combat, promised as a rules module, very open OD&D "wing it"
fights. Effectively group init, but individual for PCs only. Everything's a
stat check, rolled 3e-style d20+mods vs DC, even your six 3e-style saves.
Everyone gets +prime to hit and damage on their main attacks, except the
bashy Cleric, so 4e there.
Non-magic healing far stronger than what the Cleric can do, but limited
to roughly half your hit points at 1st level, eventually closer to full HP
or a bit more. Kinda 4e, but scaled more like a 2nd edition game in results,
only doesn't require or really benefit from a healer.
Padded sumo monsters like 4.5 era (over 100 hp for some pretty mid-range
classics, vs 8 to 14 average damage), for the bigger ones, more like 3e-
scale for the smaller ones. Orcs and such are hordes of low-hp types plus
one bloated boss. Con score + HD for PCs.
They've misappropriated some terms again, but whatever. New mechanic for
modifying difficulty, by dice rather than DCs. Oh, and it's a small game
that's very rules-light at the moment, so they've got an old-school core.
--
tussock
Geoffrey White
Jun 1, 2012, 4:16:28 AM6/1/12
to
>> Of course the playtest is clearly marked as confidential so we shouldn't
>> really be discussing it at all...
>
> the current public playtest is explicitly open for public discussion.
> http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4news/dndnextfaq
Ah, good spot. I was going by the 'Confidential information of Wizards
>> really be discussing it at all...
>
> the current public playtest is explicitly open for public discussion.
> http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4news/dndnextfaq
of the Coast LLC. Do not distribute.' printed at the top of each page of
the documents themselves. So I guess the exact words are confidential
but discussion of them is not? Bizarre...
- Geoffrey
D.J.
Jun 2, 2012, 7:37:17 PM6/2/12
to
On Thu, 31 May 2012 17:55:12 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
wrote:
be 'EQ Next'.
.
JimP.
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://www.drivein-jim.net/ Drive-In movie theaters
http://story.drivein-jim.net/ A story Feb, 2011
wrote:
>In article <jq685p$8qi$1...@dont-email.me>, da...@trimboli.name wrote:
>>On 5/30/2012 5:33 PM, Justisaur wrote:
>
>> > http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDNext.aspx
>> >
>> > I haven't taken a look at it yet, I plan to at my earliest oportunity,
>> > but I'm extremely busy now so it might be awhile.
>>
>>So I guess the stupid name "D&D Next" is gonna stick. Oh well. At least
>>it's better than "Five Ee."
>
>Seriously, that's the name?
Interesting, as the next MMO for Sony Online Entertainment is going to
>>On 5/30/2012 5:33 PM, Justisaur wrote:
>
>> > http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDNext.aspx
>> >
>> > I haven't taken a look at it yet, I plan to at my earliest oportunity,
>> > but I'm extremely busy now so it might be awhile.
>>
>>So I guess the stupid name "D&D Next" is gonna stick. Oh well. At least
>>it's better than "Five Ee."
>
>Seriously, that's the name?
be 'EQ Next'.
.
JimP.
--
Brushing aside the thorns so I can see the stars.
http://www.linuxgazette.net/ Linux Gazette
http://www.drivein-jim.net/ Drive-In movie theaters
http://story.drivein-jim.net/ A story Feb, 2011
tussock
Jun 3, 2012, 8:59:45 AM6/3/12
to
Ubiquitous wrote:
edition, no subtitle, just is what it is until they change it again in 2018.
I should really dig through google for my predictions of demise and see
how accurate they've been over the years. 8]
--
tussock
> David Trimboli wrote:
>>So I guess the stupid name "D&D Next" is gonna stick. Oh well. At least
>>it's better than "Five Ee."
>
> Seriously, that's the name?
Mearls has said he wants the name to be "Dungeons & Dragons". No
>>So I guess the stupid name "D&D Next" is gonna stick. Oh well. At least
>>it's better than "Five Ee."
>
> Seriously, that's the name?
edition, no subtitle, just is what it is until they change it again in 2018.
I should really dig through google for my predictions of demise and see
how accurate they've been over the years. 8]
--
tussock
Tetsubo
Jun 3, 2012, 2:28:05 PM6/3/12
to
On 6/3/2012 8:59 AM, tussock wrote:
> Ubiquitous wrote:
>> David Trimboli wrote:
>
>>> So I guess the stupid name "D&D Next" is gonna stick. Oh well. At least
>>> it's better than "Five Ee."
>>
>> Seriously, that's the name?
>
> Mearls has said he wants the name to be "Dungeons& Dragons". No
> Ubiquitous wrote:
>> David Trimboli wrote:
>
>>> So I guess the stupid name "D&D Next" is gonna stick. Oh well. At least
>>> it's better than "Five Ee."
>>
>> Seriously, that's the name?
>
> edition, no subtitle, just is what it is until they change it again in 2018.
>
>
> I should really dig through google for my predictions of demise and see
> how accurate they've been over the years. 8]
>
That is going to confuse the heck out of people. When they want to
>
>
> I should really dig through google for my predictions of demise and see
> how accurate they've been over the years. 8]
>
discuss Next, after the retitle, what do they say? D&D? That is a
category of games at this point, not a specific. So the name will muddle
discussion and confuse the speakers. Is his plan to make the game even
less approachable? Good tactic if he is.
Alcore
Jun 3, 2012, 3:42:24 PM6/3/12
to
On Sunday, June 3, 2012 1:28:05 PM UTC-5, Tetsubo wrote:
> On 6/3/2012 8:59 AM, tussock wrote:
[snip]
> On 6/3/2012 8:59 AM, tussock wrote:
> > Mearls has said he wants the name to be "Dungeons& Dragons". No
> > edition, no subtitle, just is what it is until they change it again in 2018.
> >
> > I should really dig through google for my predictions of demise and see
> > how accurate they've been over the years. 8]
> That is going to confuse the heck out of people. When they want to
> discuss Next, after the retitle, what do they say? D&D? That is a
> category of games at this point, not a specific. So the name will muddle
> discussion and confuse the speakers. Is his plan to make the game even
> less approachable? Good tactic if he is.
[snip]
> > edition, no subtitle, just is what it is until they change it again in 2018.
> >
> > I should really dig through google for my predictions of demise and see
> > how accurate they've been over the years. 8]
> That is going to confuse the heck out of people. When they want to
> discuss Next, after the retitle, what do they say? D&D? That is a
> category of games at this point, not a specific. So the name will muddle
> discussion and confuse the speakers. Is his plan to make the game even
> less approachable? Good tactic if he is.
I think you miss the essential arrogance of Hasbro. Hasbro wants to and believes that it actually can own and control the "intellectual property" of DND.
Wizards of the Coast is just a shell, a sock puppet with Hasbro's hand inside.
They don't care if they muddle the ability to discuss any other version. They really want to destroy all versions they are not currently publishing/selling.
Tetsubo
Jun 3, 2012, 3:59:58 PM6/3/12
to
edition books on the secondary market AND retro-clones. There must be a
great deal of teeth-gnashing amongst the Hasbro suit-wearing set. This
is why I firmly believe that a gaming company should be owned and run by
gamers.
Nicole Massey
Jun 3, 2012, 9:50:23 PM6/3/12
to
"Alcore" <alc...@uurth.com> wrote in message
news:9e7dd83b-58f5-4593...@googlegroups.com...
versions of the first edition AD&D core rulebooks, as that will muddy the
waters.
I understand the conceptual thing going on here -- they want one version
that will bring all players of the game back to one monolithic version of he
game. It isn't going to happen. There is no way anyone could create a digest
book, AD&D, and 3x compatible version that will capture a significant
portion of he players of those versions under one system unless you make it
so modular that it will effectively be a loose house rule management
system.The different versions are just too incompatible. And so far what
I've seen of the current playtest version (whose official name I will not
force my fingers to type) it's not attracting my first edition AD&D soul
much at all. Some of the fundamental things, like using constitution as base
hit points, has problems for me, and the problems I've seen so far are big
enough to make me unwilling to plop down the (very limited) cash I have for
at will purchases.
Justisaur
Jun 4, 2012, 7:56:08 PM6/4/12
to
On Jun 3, 11:28 am, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 6/3/2012 8:59 AM, tussock wrote:
>
> > Ubiquitous wrote:
> >> David Trimboli wrote:
>
> >>> So I guess the stupid name "D&D Next" is gonna stick. Oh well. At least
> >>> it's better than "Five Ee."
>
> >> Seriously, that's the name?
>
> > Mearls has said he wants the name to be "Dungeons& Dragons". No
> > edition, no subtitle, just is what it is until they change it again in 2018.
>
> > I should really dig through google for my predictions of demise and see
> > how accurate they've been over the years. 8]
>
> That is going to confuse the heck out of people. When they want to
> discuss Next, after the retitle, what do they say? D&D? That is a
> category of games at this point, not a specific. So the name will muddle
> discussion and confuse the speakers. Is his plan to make the game even
> less approachable? Good tactic if he is.
>
I understand they had a good response to the 're-issue' of the red
> On 6/3/2012 8:59 AM, tussock wrote:
>
> > Ubiquitous wrote:
> >> David Trimboli wrote:
>
> >>> So I guess the stupid name "D&D Next" is gonna stick. Oh well. At least
> >>> it's better than "Five Ee."
>
> >> Seriously, that's the name?
>
> > Mearls has said he wants the name to be "Dungeons& Dragons". No
> > edition, no subtitle, just is what it is until they change it again in 2018.
>
> > I should really dig through google for my predictions of demise and see
> > how accurate they've been over the years. 8]
>
> That is going to confuse the heck out of people. When they want to
> discuss Next, after the retitle, what do they say? D&D? That is a
> category of games at this point, not a specific. So the name will muddle
> discussion and confuse the speakers. Is his plan to make the game even
> less approachable? Good tactic if he is.
>
box, that wasn't. Confuse people into buying something they think is
something else that they do want.
- Justisaur
David Trimboli
Jun 4, 2012, 8:07:01 PM6/4/12
to
--
David Trimboli
http://www.trimboli.name/
Tetsubo
Jun 5, 2012, 7:37:01 AM6/5/12
to
On 6/4/2012 7:56 PM, Justisaur wrote:
gamers.
Tetsubo
Jun 5, 2012, 7:38:14 AM6/5/12
to
you, mad!
David Lamb
Jun 5, 2012, 8:27:19 AM6/5/12
to
On 05/06/2012 7:37 AM, Tetsubo wrote:
> On 6/4/2012 7:56 PM, Justisaur wrote:
>> I understand they had a good response to the 're-issue' of the red
>> box, that wasn't. Confuse people into buying something they think is
>> something else that they do want.
>
> On 6/4/2012 7:56 PM, Justisaur wrote:
>> I understand they had a good response to the 're-issue' of the red
>> box, that wasn't. Confuse people into buying something they think is
>> something else that they do want.
>
> Like I said, I don't want suits in charge of a gaming company. I want
> gamers.
>
Wasn't there a company like that once upon a time? Wizards of the
> gamers.
>
something or other? whose CEO's business card said "Janitor"? Whatever
happened to them?
Rast
Jun 5, 2012, 9:26:52 AM6/5/12
to
Nicole Massey wrote...
hardly seems important. It's within a couple points either way of
"take your 3E starting HP and add 7".
> Some of the fundamental things, like using constitution as base
> hit points, has problems for me,
Really, why? Of all the things to criticize or debate about 5E, this
> hit points, has problems for me,
hardly seems important. It's within a couple points either way of
"take your 3E starting HP and add 7".
dr...@bin.sh
Jun 5, 2012, 12:28:17 PM6/5/12
to
Alien mind control rays made David Trimboli <da...@trimboli.name> write:
>> I understand they had a good response to the 're-issue' of the red
>> box, that wasn't. Confuse people into buying something they think is
>> something else that they do want.
>
> Too bad they don't just, you know, sell people something they *do* want.
yeah! like a nice reprint of the AD&D 1e core rulebooks! wheee...
>> I understand they had a good response to the 're-issue' of the red
>> box, that wasn't. Confuse people into buying something they think is
>> something else that they do want.
>
> Too bad they don't just, you know, sell people something they *do* want.
--
n_n n_n dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
|"|n_n_n|"| ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | " " | | "Ryan Dancey doesn't *do* anything. He's got epic levels in
|_|_[T]_|_| psion. He simply wills people into action."
-- der_kluge
Nicole Massey
Jun 5, 2012, 2:41:42 PM6/5/12
to
"Rast" <ra...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.2a372fa1c...@news.eternal-september.org...
more to dislike about 3e than just about any other game I've played)
Constitution is only part of the picture, in in game terms. A wizard sitting
on his or her butt all day pouring over tomes and scrolls should manifest
stamina, toughness, and health differently than a fighter who is out there
working the machine all the time.. I'd be much more comfortable with half
constitution, rounded up, for spell casters, two thirds for theists, three
quarter for stealthy types, and full constitution for fighters.
Of course my viewpoint is from a first edition perspective, as that is my
preferred system for D&D, where ability scores are potentials and there's no
mechanic except for the use of magic items and wishes to increase ability
scores. (Except for the stuff introduced in Unearthed Arcana, which is one
of the things in that tome I don't care for) Stat boosts per level seems
extremely munchkin to me.
Magewolf
Jun 5, 2012, 3:57:15 PM6/5/12
to
On 6/5/2012 2:41 PM, Nicole Massey wrote:
> Of course my viewpoint is from a first edition perspective, as that is my
> preferred system for D&D, where ability scores are potentials and there's no
> mechanic except for the use of magic items and wishes to increase ability
> scores. (Except for the stuff introduced in Unearthed Arcana, which is one
> of the things in that tome I don't care for) Stat boosts per level seems
> extremely munchkin to me.
>
>
You can like anything you want but that is a strange part of first
> Of course my viewpoint is from a first edition perspective, as that is my
> preferred system for D&D, where ability scores are potentials and there's no
> mechanic except for the use of magic items and wishes to increase ability
> scores. (Except for the stuff introduced in Unearthed Arcana, which is one
> of the things in that tome I don't care for) Stat boosts per level seems
> extremely munchkin to me.
>
>
edition to pick out.Since a lot ,maybe most,of the stories that inspired
D&D and that D&D tried to play out,had someone increasing ability scores
without magic.
David Trimboli
Jun 5, 2012, 5:46:38 PM6/5/12
to
On 6/5/2012 12:28 PM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
> Alien mind control rays made David Trimboli<da...@trimboli.name> write:
>>> I understand they had a good response to the 're-issue' of the red
>>> box, that wasn't. Confuse people into buying something they think is
>>> something else that they do want.
>>
>> Too bad they don't just, you know, sell people something they *do* want.
>
> yeah! like a nice reprint of the AD&D 1e core rulebooks! wheee...
It's a start.
> Alien mind control rays made David Trimboli<da...@trimboli.name> write:
>>> I understand they had a good response to the 're-issue' of the red
>>> box, that wasn't. Confuse people into buying something they think is
>>> something else that they do want.
>>
>> Too bad they don't just, you know, sell people something they *do* want.
>
> yeah! like a nice reprint of the AD&D 1e core rulebooks! wheee...
David Trimboli
Jun 5, 2012, 5:48:22 PM6/5/12
to
Jackson Games, which is still going strong.
dr...@bin.sh
Jun 5, 2012, 8:05:58 PM6/5/12
to
Alien mind control rays made David Trimboli <da...@trimboli.name> write:
> On 6/5/2012 12:28 PM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
>> Alien mind control rays made David Trimboli<da...@trimboli.name> write:
>>>> I understand they had a good response to the 're-issue' of the red
>>>> box, that wasn't. Confuse people into buying something they think is
>>>> something else that they do want.
>>>
>>> Too bad they don't just, you know, sell people something they *do* want.
>>
>> yeah! like a nice reprint of the AD&D 1e core rulebooks! wheee...
>
> It's a start.
and a 5th edition, which resurrects an old-school style of play but
> On 6/5/2012 12:28 PM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
>> Alien mind control rays made David Trimboli<da...@trimboli.name> write:
>>>> I understand they had a good response to the 're-issue' of the red
>>>> box, that wasn't. Confuse people into buying something they think is
>>>> something else that they do want.
>>>
>>> Too bad they don't just, you know, sell people something they *do* want.
>>
>> yeah! like a nice reprint of the AD&D 1e core rulebooks! wheee...
>
> It's a start.
welds it to modern mechanics and a coherent rule set! wheee...
--
n_n n_n dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
|"|n_n_n|"| ---------------------------------------------------------------
|_|_[T]_|_| build includes mule ownership, you know there's a problem."
-- firesnakearies
dr...@bin.sh
Jun 5, 2012, 8:23:52 PM6/5/12
to
Alien mind control rays made David Trimboli <da...@trimboli.name> write:
(seriously, they are. gurps 4e seems to be flailing a little, but
there's munchkin, ogre just rolled all over kickstarter, and a
resurrection of car wars seems likely to be next.)
--
n_n n_n dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
|"|n_n_n|"| ---------------------------------------------------------------
|_|_[T]_|_| -- Roy, the Order of the Stick
dr...@bin.sh
Jun 5, 2012, 8:25:10 PM6/5/12
to
Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> write:
> That is going to confuse the heck out of people. When they want to
> discuss Next, after the retitle, what do they say? D&D?
yeah. i'm a D&D gamer.
> That is going to confuse the heck out of people. When they want to
> discuss Next, after the retitle, what do they say? D&D?
David Lamb
Jun 5, 2012, 9:28:26 PM6/5/12
to
Gathering. Can't even remember the CEO's name at the moment; he left
after the Borg took over.
dr...@bin.sh
Jun 5, 2012, 10:09:30 PM6/5/12
to
want to be bothered with it.
--
._n_______n_. dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
| --------- |== -----------------------------------------------------------
I"/""|"|Z7""' "That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
lJ | | That which does is fracking toast after I respawn."
|_l
Tetsubo
Jun 6, 2012, 7:28:56 AM6/6/12
to
On 6/5/2012 8:25 PM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
> Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo<tet...@comcast.net> write:
>> That is going to confuse the heck out of people. When they want to
>> discuss Next, after the retitle, what do they say? D&D?
>
> yeah. i'm a D&D gamer.
>
That isn't a specific game any longer. Hasn't been since 1E was
> Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo<tet...@comcast.net> write:
>> That is going to confuse the heck out of people. When they want to
>> discuss Next, after the retitle, what do they say? D&D?
>
> yeah. i'm a D&D gamer.
>
released. So telling me, 'I'm a D&D gamer' isn't all that informative.
David Trimboli
Jun 6, 2012, 8:31:21 AM6/6/12
to
On 6/5/2012 8:05 PM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
> Alien mind control rays made David Trimboli <da...@trimboli.name> write:
>> On 6/5/2012 12:28 PM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
>>> Alien mind control rays made David Trimboli<da...@trimboli.name> write:
>>>>> I understand they had a good response to the 're-issue' of the red
>>>>> box, that wasn't. Confuse people into buying something they think is
>>>>> something else that they do want.
>>>>
>>>> Too bad they don't just, you know, sell people something they *do* want.
>>>
>>> yeah! like a nice reprint of the AD&D 1e core rulebooks! wheee...
>>
>> It's a start.
>
> and a 5th edition, which resurrects an old-school style of play but
> welds it to modern mechanics and a coherent rule set! wheee...
Color me unimpressed. I found the old rules perfectly adequate.
> Alien mind control rays made David Trimboli <da...@trimboli.name> write:
>> On 6/5/2012 12:28 PM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
>>> Alien mind control rays made David Trimboli<da...@trimboli.name> write:
>>>>> I understand they had a good response to the 're-issue' of the red
>>>>> box, that wasn't. Confuse people into buying something they think is
>>>>> something else that they do want.
>>>>
>>>> Too bad they don't just, you know, sell people something they *do* want.
>>>
>>> yeah! like a nice reprint of the AD&D 1e core rulebooks! wheee...
>>
>> It's a start.
>
> and a 5th edition, which resurrects an old-school style of play but
> welds it to modern mechanics and a coherent rule set! wheee...
dr...@bin.sh
Jun 6, 2012, 8:58:04 AM6/6/12
to
Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> write:
> On 6/5/2012 8:25 PM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
>> Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo<tet...@comcast.net> write:
>>> That is going to confuse the heck out of people. When they want to
>>> discuss Next, after the retitle, what do they say? D&D?
>>
>> yeah. i'm a D&D gamer.
>
> That isn't a specific game any longer. Hasn't been since 1E was
> released. So telling me, 'I'm a D&D gamer' isn't all that informative.
i've played every one, so its perfectly accurate.
> On 6/5/2012 8:25 PM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
>> Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo<tet...@comcast.net> write:
>>> That is going to confuse the heck out of people. When they want to
>>> discuss Next, after the retitle, what do they say? D&D?
>>
>> yeah. i'm a D&D gamer.
>
> That isn't a specific game any longer. Hasn't been since 1E was
> released. So telling me, 'I'm a D&D gamer' isn't all that informative.
Tetsubo
Jun 6, 2012, 9:03:46 AM6/6/12
to
On 6/6/2012 8:58 AM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
> Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo<tet...@comcast.net> write:
>> On 6/5/2012 8:25 PM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
>>> Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo<tet...@comcast.net> write:
>>>> That is going to confuse the heck out of people. When they want to
>>>> discuss Next, after the retitle, what do they say? D&D?
>>>
>>> yeah. i'm a D&D gamer.
>>
>> That isn't a specific game any longer. Hasn't been since 1E was
>> released. So telling me, 'I'm a D&D gamer' isn't all that informative.
>
> i've played every one, so its perfectly accurate.
>
If you said that statement to me, I would ask which edition. I don't
> Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo<tet...@comcast.net> write:
>> On 6/5/2012 8:25 PM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
>>> Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo<tet...@comcast.net> write:
>>>> That is going to confuse the heck out of people. When they want to
>>>> discuss Next, after the retitle, what do they say? D&D?
>>>
>>> yeah. i'm a D&D gamer.
>>
>> That isn't a specific game any longer. Hasn't been since 1E was
>> released. So telling me, 'I'm a D&D gamer' isn't all that informative.
>
> i've played every one, so its perfectly accurate.
>
know anyone that plays every edition. You couldn't pay me to play 1E, 2E
or 4E. I have been told that this opinion means I am destroying the game
and the hobby of RPGs. I wish I had that type of power in my personal life.
Rast
Jun 6, 2012, 9:14:58 AM6/6/12
to
Nicole Massey wrote...
HD and good Fort saves.
I'm not pretending 3E wizards are well-balanced with fighters, but they
are genuinely less tough -- before buffs.
> In meta-game terms, I feel that 3e was overpowered in hit points. (I found
> more to dislike about 3e than just about any other game I've played)
> Constitution is only part of the picture, in in game terms. A wizard sitting
> on his or her butt all day pouring over tomes and scrolls should manifest
> stamina, toughness, and health differently than a fighter who is out there
> working the machine all the time
That's why wizards get d4 HD and bad Fort saves, while fighters get d10
> more to dislike about 3e than just about any other game I've played)
> Constitution is only part of the picture, in in game terms. A wizard sitting
> on his or her butt all day pouring over tomes and scrolls should manifest
> stamina, toughness, and health differently than a fighter who is out there
> working the machine all the time
HD and good Fort saves.
I'm not pretending 3E wizards are well-balanced with fighters, but they
are genuinely less tough -- before buffs.
Nicole Massey
Jun 6, 2012, 9:13:56 AM6/6/12
to
"Magewolf" <Mage...@removenc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:jqlob6$13i$1...@dont-email.me...
First, D&D/Ad&D is not a literary simulator. Novels and short stories (and
everything in between them) do not have to have the level of world and rules
consistency that a game does, because the hero sets the rules of the world
by what he or she needs to have access to to move the author's plot forward,
especially in fantasy settings. The system started to fray when it tried to
do this, as it introduced elements of game balance that required the system
to get a lot more crunchy to cover them in all types of situations, which
led us to the trend of the rigid rulesets we found in later editions of the
game. Gary and Dave quite logically didn't try to make it easy or most of
the time even possible for players to play Conan, John Carter, Frodo or
Gandalf, (Gary stated in an editorial that he thought Gandalf was a mediocre
wizard at best) or Heracles. Such characters don't work well in group play,
and the game was intrinsically a social activity, a concept that has been
lost on many folks involved on either side of the table or rulebook in the
ensuing years.
Second, Conan, Frodo, Heracles, and the poor people who faced the horrors in
Lovecraft's tales didn't increase any stats in anything I've read. (Though
some folks in Lovecraft's work suffered degredation of their Sanity score,
which isn't the same thing, as it stems from an illness) They were already
who they were. I admit that I've only read the Howard Conan stuff, the
Lovecraft stuff in his milieu with minimal editor alteration, and the works
of the professor instead of anything put out by his ghoul of a son. And
since as I said above that it's a game, not a novel, what happens in the
books is only a tangent and not really important to the game. Find enjoyment
from the inspiration material, but treat the game as valid in its own right,
not a coattail passenger of a different creative field.
And just so you know, this is only one of many things I take exception with
in AD&D first edition. But since I'm a game designer I deal with these
issues by creating ways to resolve them. And since I'm a first edition
referee, I have the license by the creators to do so, as "The Dungeon Master
is the final arbitrator in all game situations."
dr...@bin.sh
Jun 6, 2012, 11:40:10 AM6/6/12
to
Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> write:
> On 6/6/2012 8:58 AM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
>> Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo<tet...@comcast.net> write:
>>> On 6/5/2012 8:25 PM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
>>>> Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo<tet...@comcast.net> write:
>>>>> That is going to confuse the heck out of people. When they want to
>>>>> discuss Next, after the retitle, what do they say? D&D?
>>>>
>>>> yeah. i'm a D&D gamer.
>>>
>>> That isn't a specific game any longer. Hasn't been since 1E was
>>> released. So telling me, 'I'm a D&D gamer' isn't all that informative.
>>
>> i've played every one, so its perfectly accurate.
>
> If you said that statement to me, I would ask which edition. I don't
> know anyone that plays every edition. You couldn't pay me to play 1E, 2E
> or 4E. I have been told that this opinion means I am destroying the game
> and the hobby of RPGs. I wish I had that type of power in my personal life.
dude, rutger freakin' hauer responded to you. YOU HAVE THE POWER.
> On 6/6/2012 8:58 AM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
>> Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo<tet...@comcast.net> write:
>>> On 6/5/2012 8:25 PM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
>>>> Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo<tet...@comcast.net> write:
>>>>> That is going to confuse the heck out of people. When they want to
>>>>> discuss Next, after the retitle, what do they say? D&D?
>>>>
>>>> yeah. i'm a D&D gamer.
>>>
>>> That isn't a specific game any longer. Hasn't been since 1E was
>>> released. So telling me, 'I'm a D&D gamer' isn't all that informative.
>>
>> i've played every one, so its perfectly accurate.
>
> If you said that statement to me, I would ask which edition. I don't
> know anyone that plays every edition. You couldn't pay me to play 1E, 2E
> or 4E. I have been told that this opinion means I am destroying the game
> and the hobby of RPGs. I wish I had that type of power in my personal life.
David Lamb
Jun 6, 2012, 2:07:34 PM6/6/12
to
On 06/06/2012 9:03 AM, Tetsubo wrote:
> On 6/6/2012 8:58 AM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
>> Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo<tet...@comcast.net> write:
>>> On 6/5/2012 8:25 PM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
>>>> Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo<tet...@comcast.net> write:
>>>>> That is going to confuse the heck out of people. When they want to
>>>>> discuss Next, after the retitle, what do they say? D&D?
>>>>
>>>> yeah. i'm a D&D gamer.
>>>
>>> That isn't a specific game any longer. Hasn't been since 1E was
>>> released. So telling me, 'I'm a D&D gamer' isn't all that informative.
>>
>> i've played every one, so its perfectly accurate.
>>
>
> If you said that statement to me, I would ask which edition. I don't
> know anyone that plays every edition.
There are plenty of old-timers like me who started with the original,
> On 6/6/2012 8:58 AM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
>> Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo<tet...@comcast.net> write:
>>> On 6/5/2012 8:25 PM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
>>>> Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo<tet...@comcast.net> write:
>>>>> That is going to confuse the heck out of people. When they want to
>>>>> discuss Next, after the retitle, what do they say? D&D?
>>>>
>>>> yeah. i'm a D&D gamer.
>>>
>>> That isn't a specific game any longer. Hasn't been since 1E was
>>> released. So telling me, 'I'm a D&D gamer' isn't all that informative.
>>
>> i've played every one, so its perfectly accurate.
>>
>
> If you said that statement to me, I would ask which edition. I don't
> know anyone that plays every edition.
then moved on to 1e, 2e, and 3e at they appeared. All it would take is a
few who tried 4e to have "someone who has played every edition" (with
just a playtest in progress, I'm not counting 5e yet). Of course you
might not know any such person, even if they exist.
Nicole Massey
Jun 6, 2012, 2:12:34 PM6/6/12
to
"David Lamb" <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote in message
news:jqo694$eng$1...@dont-email.me...
true old-timer, someone who at least knows someone who has dabbled in every
pond.
I on the other hand, would not describe myself as a "D&D Gamer," as I play
enough other systems and have only limited experience (Often it's hard to
roll dice whilst holding one's nose at the same time because the system
stinks so badly) with any version other than OD&D and first edition AD&D. So
our local metal quarterstaff and I differ on most accounts, except that like
him I have no interest in playing a video game simulator. (Well, except
perhaps for GURPS Doom...)
Nicole Massey
Jun 6, 2012, 2:16:45 PM6/6/12
to
news:MPG.2a3921dfc...@news.eternal-september.org...
Yeah, and constitution for all characters as starting or base hit points
completely circumvents that dynamic. I can see using ability score numbers
directly in some cases, after all we did exactly that with Artistry, but in
this case it has problems. This is why I also don't care for the rule where
you replace -10 to die with -constitution to die -- I simply modify -10 with
the person's hit point bonus or negative in rounds to the -10 to give
constitution a bit more influence. (And I use current constitution, too, so
any con draining things, like Magic-users casting Identify, alters this
number)
completely circumvents that dynamic. I can see using ability score numbers
directly in some cases, after all we did exactly that with Artistry, but in
this case it has problems. This is why I also don't care for the rule where
you replace -10 to die with -constitution to die -- I simply modify -10 with
the person's hit point bonus or negative in rounds to the -10 to give
constitution a bit more influence. (And I use current constitution, too, so
any con draining things, like Magic-users casting Identify, alters this
number)
Justisaur
Jun 6, 2012, 3:13:33 PM6/6/12
to
On Jun 6, 11:07 am, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
> On 06/06/2012 9:03 AM, Tetsubo wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 6/6/2012 8:58 AM, d...@bin.sh wrote:
> On 06/06/2012 9:03 AM, Tetsubo wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo<tets...@comcast.net> write:
> >>> On 6/5/2012 8:25 PM, d...@bin.sh wrote:
> >>>> Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo<tets...@comcast.net> write:
> >>>>> That is going to confuse the heck out of people. When they want to
> >>>>> discuss Next, after the retitle, what do they say? D&D?
>
> >>>> yeah. i'm a D&D gamer.
>
> >>> That isn't a specific game any longer. Hasn't been since 1E was
> >>> released. So telling me, 'I'm a D&D gamer' isn't all that informative.
>
> >> i've played every one, so its perfectly accurate.
>
> > If you said that statement to me, I would ask which edition. I don't
> > know anyone that plays every edition.
>
> There are plenty of old-timers like me who started with the original,
> then moved on to 1e, 2e, and 3e at they appeared. All it would take is a
> few who tried 4e to have "someone who has played every edition" (with
> just a playtest in progress, I'm not counting 5e yet). Of course you
> might not know any such person, even if they exist.
I haven't played OD&D, Moldvey (purple box basic), or Essentials but
> >>>>> That is going to confuse the heck out of people. When they want to
> >>>>> discuss Next, after the retitle, what do they say? D&D?
>
> >>>> yeah. i'm a D&D gamer.
>
> >>> That isn't a specific game any longer. Hasn't been since 1E was
> >>> released. So telling me, 'I'm a D&D gamer' isn't all that informative.
>
> >> i've played every one, so its perfectly accurate.
>
> > If you said that statement to me, I would ask which edition. I don't
> > know anyone that plays every edition.
>
> There are plenty of old-timers like me who started with the original,
> then moved on to 1e, 2e, and 3e at they appeared. All it would take is a
> few who tried 4e to have "someone who has played every edition" (with
> just a playtest in progress, I'm not counting 5e yet). Of course you
> might not know any such person, even if they exist.
all the rest I have. The ones I have played are close enough to be
considered interchangeable with the ones I haven't.
That's Holmes (Blue Box Basic), AD&D, AD&D 1.5e(1e with all the splats
added), 2e AD&D, 2.5e (Options Books), 3e D&D, 3.5e D&D, 4e D&D,
Mentzer (Red Box Basic).
- Justisaur
Tetsubo
Jun 6, 2012, 4:31:09 PM6/6/12
to
and those that actually *play* every edition. I took drow's comment to
mean the latter.
dr...@bin.sh
Jun 6, 2012, 5:13:02 PM6/6/12
to
this is like trekkies arguing about which Enterprise is best.
Tetsubo
Jun 6, 2012, 6:03:07 PM6/6/12
to
On 6/6/2012 5:13 PM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
> this is like trekkies arguing about which Enterprise is best.
>
So you like *every* edition of D&D to *exactly* the same degree?
> this is like trekkies arguing about which Enterprise is best.
>
Nicole Massey
Jun 6, 2012, 7:03:52 PM6/6/12
to
"Tetsubo" <tet...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:jqok2m$7lo$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 6/6/2012 5:13 PM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
>> this is like trekkies arguing about which Enterprise is best.
>>
>
> So you like *every* edition of D&D to *exactly* the same degree?
You know, that's a thought. How about doing the Tom T. Hall school of gaming
>> this is like trekkies arguing about which Enterprise is best.
>>
>
> So you like *every* edition of D&D to *exactly* the same degree?
design, based on his song "One Piece at a Time," and grab all the books and
do a head to head comparison of the various features and pick and choose the
ones that a particular DM is going to use. You'd have to, keeping with the
metaphor, driff a few holes so things would fit, and it might only have one
tail fin, but it would at the very least make one DM happy.
And as an added bonus, it would drive the rule lawyers absolutely nuts. It
could possibly also give the munchkins fits.
And before anyone starts saying things like, "X version has no good rules,"
that would only both violate the spirit of hte exercise and also tend to
foster strife instead of communication and comparison.
Rast
Jun 6, 2012, 7:39:41 PM6/6/12
to
Nicole Massey wrote...
CON+6 -- only 25% more with 14 CON. So you have a point. But it seems
that as they gain levels, the fighter gains HP three times as fast. At
level five, they have CON+10 vs CON+30 HP, which is a very big
difference IMO.
> > I'm not pretending 3E wizards are well-balanced with fighters, but they
> > are genuinely less tough -- before buffs.
>
> Yeah, and constitution for all characters as starting or base hit points
> completely circumvents that dynamic.
Well, the 5E wizard starts with CON+2 while the fighter starts with
> > are genuinely less tough -- before buffs.
>
> Yeah, and constitution for all characters as starting or base hit points
> completely circumvents that dynamic.
CON+6 -- only 25% more with 14 CON. So you have a point. But it seems
that as they gain levels, the fighter gains HP three times as fast. At
level five, they have CON+10 vs CON+30 HP, which is a very big
difference IMO.
dr...@bin.sh
Jun 6, 2012, 8:18:31 PM6/6/12
to
Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> write:
> On 6/6/2012 5:13 PM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
>> this is like trekkies arguing about which Enterprise is best.
>
> So you like *every* edition of D&D to *exactly* the same degree?
i'd say that i like specific editions for different reasons, and only
>> this is like trekkies arguing about which Enterprise is best.
>
> So you like *every* edition of D&D to *exactly* the same degree?
like one edition over another in part. for example, high level 4e
monsters over high level 3e monsters, which are a time-wasting pit of
despair in comparison. one edition as a whole relative to another
never comes into it, and i'm happy to play in whichever one
circumstances prefer.
i'm an easy-going guy. :)
--
._n_______n_. dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
| --------- |== -----------------------------------------------------------
lJ | | with a rocket launcher before, so I didn't think it
|_l mattered." -- Axly
tussock
Jun 7, 2012, 3:07:56 AM6/7/12
to
Nicole Massey wrote:
> (Well, except perhaps for GURPS Doom...)
You could do a crossover with GURPS Diablo and GURPS Dune 2. Maybe throw
> (Well, except perhaps for GURPS Doom...)
in a little GURPS X-COM.
--
tussock
tussock
Jun 7, 2012, 2:59:13 AM6/7/12
to
Tetsubo wrote:
> I don't know anyone that plays every edition.
Hey, I play every edition! Oh, wait, 4th, never mind. I happily play
> I don't know anyone that plays every edition.
more editions that there are official editions, that's close enough.
> You couldn't pay me to play 1E, 2E or 4E. I have been told that this
> opinion means I am destroying the game and the hobby of RPGs. I wish I
> had that type of power in my personal life.
personally didn't like. It'd be all, 1950 called and wants it's legal system
back.
--
tussock
tussock
Jun 7, 2012, 3:12:49 AM6/7/12
to
Nicole Massey wrote:
> You know, that's a thought. How about doing the Tom T. Hall school of
> gaming design, based on his song "One Piece at a Time," and grab all the
> books and do a head to head comparison of the various features and pick
> and choose the ones that a particular DM is going to use.
You do realise that's the plan for 5e, right?
> You know, that's a thought. How about doing the Tom T. Hall school of
> gaming design, based on his song "One Piece at a Time," and grab all the
> books and do a head to head comparison of the various features and pick
> and choose the ones that a particular DM is going to use.
--
tussock
Tetsubo
Jun 7, 2012, 7:38:27 AM6/7/12
to
entire group has to be happy. And I have a really hard time believing
this method would make an entire group happy.
Tetsubo
Jun 7, 2012, 7:40:48 AM6/7/12
to
Nicole Massey
Jun 7, 2012, 7:45:43 AM6/7/12
to
news:MPG.2a39b446d...@news.eternal-september.org...
Level gain doesn't count in the calculations here, as that is learned skill
and a direct effect of the training in the class. I keep coming back to how
Rolemaster did it, and that approach seems to make the most sense -- have
players actively spend skill slots to gain hit points, which takes away
skill slots from warrior types but a lot more from the non-physically
focused magic casters. But there's no good way to simulate that in D&D
without getting a bit convoluted.
And of coruse there's always the aspect of power creep that these examples
are pointing out to me, as hit point totals seem to be much higher in later
editions of the game.
and a direct effect of the training in the class. I keep coming back to how
Rolemaster did it, and that approach seems to make the most sense -- have
players actively spend skill slots to gain hit points, which takes away
skill slots from warrior types but a lot more from the non-physically
focused magic casters. But there's no good way to simulate that in D&D
without getting a bit convoluted.
And of coruse there's always the aspect of power creep that these examples
are pointing out to me, as hit point totals seem to be much higher in later
editions of the game.
Nicole Massey
Jun 7, 2012, 7:48:23 AM6/7/12
to
"tussock" <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:hs06a9x...@scrub2.WOOLEY...
Magewolf
Jun 7, 2012, 1:40:57 PM6/7/12
to
On 6/7/2012 7:45 AM, Nicole Massey wrote:
> Level gain doesn't count in the calculations here, as that is learned skill
> and a direct effect of the training in the class. I keep coming back to how
> Rolemaster did it, and that approach seems to make the most sense -- have
> players actively spend skill slots to gain hit points, which takes away
> skill slots from warrior types but a lot more from the non-physically
> focused magic casters. But there's no good way to simulate that in D&D
> without getting a bit convoluted.
> And of coruse there's always the aspect of power creep that these examples
> are pointing out to me, as hit point totals seem to be much higher in later
> editions of the game.
>
>
It seems more like 5e is just setting everything's base hp to con.Which
> Level gain doesn't count in the calculations here, as that is learned skill
> and a direct effect of the training in the class. I keep coming back to how
> Rolemaster did it, and that approach seems to make the most sense -- have
> players actively spend skill slots to gain hit points, which takes away
> skill slots from warrior types but a lot more from the non-physically
> focused magic casters. But there's no good way to simulate that in D&D
> without getting a bit convoluted.
> And of coruse there's always the aspect of power creep that these examples
> are pointing out to me, as hit point totals seem to be much higher in later
> editions of the game.
>
>
makes as much sense as make it 1d4 or 1d8 or anything else.
So with con as base hp first level wizard training gives you 2 hp
extra,fighter gives you 6.Not much difference between fighters giving up
4 extra skill pts or whatever.
Nicole Massey
Jun 7, 2012, 3:01:37 PM6/7/12
to
news:jqqp3c$20t$1...@dont-email.me...
Smart wizards will get their con as high as they can manage, and with the
reasoned minimum of 8 in any ability score that has been around since first
editon that gives a first level magic-user double the possible hit points,
while a fighter can get at most 1.8 times the hits for a maxed out
constitution. (Less than 9 constitution was a bad idea for any first edition
magic-user who ever intended to cast identify, as that's an eight point
hit, and hitting 0 meant unconsciousness) So it's a definite point creep.
And in some ways it's a bit of a moving target, as if you ramp up starting
hits then the only thing it effects is damage per round, because the
adversaries will get a bit of an increase too. So combats just last longer.
As I said before, I'll pass. I can see it working for other systems, but not
in D&D.
reasoned minimum of 8 in any ability score that has been around since first
editon that gives a first level magic-user double the possible hit points,
while a fighter can get at most 1.8 times the hits for a maxed out
constitution. (Less than 9 constitution was a bad idea for any first edition
magic-user who ever intended to cast identify, as that's an eight point
hit, and hitting 0 meant unconsciousness) So it's a definite point creep.
And in some ways it's a bit of a moving target, as if you ramp up starting
hits then the only thing it effects is damage per round, because the
adversaries will get a bit of an increase too. So combats just last longer.
As I said before, I'll pass. I can see it working for other systems, but not
in D&D.
Tetsubo
Jun 7, 2012, 3:23:45 PM6/7/12
to
at first level as PF does it. Fighters end up with 10 or 10+ depending
on the build. I'm OK with this.
Loren Pechtel
Jun 7, 2012, 10:55:00 PM6/7/12
to
On Thu, 07 Jun 2012 15:23:45 -0400, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> High Con Wizards just feel wrong to me. Always have. I don't mind 6 hp
>at first level as PF does it. Fighters end up with 10 or 10+ depending
>on the build. I'm OK with this.
Yeah, I've long wondered whether there should be a division between
physical and mental stats when it comes to point buy. As it stands
it's just as easy for a wizard to have a high con as a fighter and
that strikes me as wrong.
What I have thought is you get to choose physical or mental. The
stats from the selected group are a bit cheaper, the stats from the
other group are substantially more expensive.
wrote:
> High Con Wizards just feel wrong to me. Always have. I don't mind 6 hp
>at first level as PF does it. Fighters end up with 10 or 10+ depending
>on the build. I'm OK with this.
physical and mental stats when it comes to point buy. As it stands
it's just as easy for a wizard to have a high con as a fighter and
that strikes me as wrong.
What I have thought is you get to choose physical or mental. The
stats from the selected group are a bit cheaper, the stats from the
other group are substantially more expensive.
dr...@bin.sh
Jun 7, 2012, 11:14:54 PM6/7/12
to
Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> write:
> High Con Wizards just feel wrong to me. Always have. I don't mind 6 hp
> at first level as PF does it. Fighters end up with 10 or 10+ depending
> on the build. I'm OK with this.
more or less objectionable than smart fighters?
> at first level as PF does it. Fighters end up with 10 or 10+ depending
> on the build. I'm OK with this.
--
n_n n_n dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
|"|n_n_n|"| ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | " " | | "That looks pretty fatal. I think you have to return to the
|_|_[T]_|_| character generation section." -- One character to another
tussock
Jun 8, 2012, 3:18:00 AM6/8/12
to
Nicole Massey wrote:
intend to.
--
tussock
> tussock wrote:
>> Nicole Massey wrote:
>>
>>> You know, that's a thought. How about doing the Tom T. Hall school of
>>> gaming design, based on his song "One Piece at a Time," and grab all the
>>> books and do a head to head comparison of the various features and pick
>>> and choose the ones that a particular DM is going to use.
>>
>> You do realise that's the plan for 5e, right?
>
> Thank you for filling in my punch line.
But of course. I'm always playing the strait man. Sometimes I even
>> Nicole Massey wrote:
>>
>>> You know, that's a thought. How about doing the Tom T. Hall school of
>>> gaming design, based on his song "One Piece at a Time," and grab all the
>>> books and do a head to head comparison of the various features and pick
>>> and choose the ones that a particular DM is going to use.
>>
>> You do realise that's the plan for 5e, right?
>
> Thank you for filling in my punch line.
intend to.
--
tussock
Tetsubo
Jun 8, 2012, 7:41:20 AM6/8/12
to
On 6/7/2012 11:14 PM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
> Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> write:
>> High Con Wizards just feel wrong to me. Always have. I don't mind 6 hp
>> at first level as PF does it. Fighters end up with 10 or 10+ depending
>> on the build. I'm OK with this.
>
> more or less objectionable than smart fighters?
>
I can think of more examples of smart fighters than I can of tough
> Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> write:
>> High Con Wizards just feel wrong to me. Always have. I don't mind 6 hp
>> at first level as PF does it. Fighters end up with 10 or 10+ depending
>> on the build. I'm OK with this.
>
> more or less objectionable than smart fighters?
>
wizards. The iconic wizard is a bookish sort *because* he is a weakling.
He seeks out a method of being powerful that doesn't require physical
might. You can play a fighter smart or strong or tough or agile. I just
don't see a lot of tough wizards.
Nicole Massey
Jun 8, 2012, 8:58:52 AM6/8/12
to
news:jqsoco$akl$1...@dont-email.me...
between a video game like Wow or D&D 4th Edition and a roleplaying game is
that players can play non-stereotypes of their own creation.
> On 6/7/2012 11:14 PM, dr...@bin.sh wrote:
>> Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> write:
>>> High Con Wizards just feel wrong to me. Always have. I don't mind 6 hp
>>> at first level as PF does it. Fighters end up with 10 or 10+ depending
>>> on the build. I'm OK with this.
>>
>> more or less objectionable than smart fighters?
>>
>
> I can think of more examples of smart fighters than I can of tough
> wizards. The iconic wizard is a bookish sort *because* he is a weakling.
> He seeks out a method of being powerful that doesn't require physical
> might. You can play a fighter smart or strong or tough or agile. I just
> don't see a lot of tough wizards.
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of buffed wizards either, but one of the differences
>> Alien mind control rays made Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> write:
>>> High Con Wizards just feel wrong to me. Always have. I don't mind 6 hp
>>> at first level as PF does it. Fighters end up with 10 or 10+ depending
>>> on the build. I'm OK with this.
>>
>> more or less objectionable than smart fighters?
>>
>
> I can think of more examples of smart fighters than I can of tough
> wizards. The iconic wizard is a bookish sort *because* he is a weakling.
> He seeks out a method of being powerful that doesn't require physical
> might. You can play a fighter smart or strong or tough or agile. I just
> don't see a lot of tough wizards.
between a video game like Wow or D&D 4th Edition and a roleplaying game is
that players can play non-stereotypes of their own creation.
Tetsubo
Jun 8, 2012, 11:03:45 AM6/8/12
to
non-stereotype?
David Lamb
Jun 8, 2012, 11:14:13 AM6/8/12
to
On 08/06/2012 11:03 AM, Tetsubo wrote:
> On 6/8/2012 8:58 AM, Nicole Massey wrote:
>> "Tetsubo" <tet...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:jqsoco$akl$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 6/8/2012 8:58 AM, Nicole Massey wrote:
>> "Tetsubo" <tet...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:jqsoco$akl$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> I can think of more examples of smart fighters than I can of tough
>>> wizards.
>>
>>> wizards.
>>
>> Yeah, I'm not a big fan of buffed wizards either, but one of the
>> differences
>> between a video game like Wow or D&D 4th Edition and a roleplaying
>> game is
>> that players can play non-stereotypes of their own creation.
> Cool. But should the game mechanics reflect the stereotype or the
> non-stereotype?
Ideally both should be possible, though a "buff wizard" might require
>> differences
>> between a video game like Wow or D&D 4th Edition and a roleplaying
>> game is
>> that players can play non-stereotypes of their own creation.
> Cool. But should the game mechanics reflect the stereotype or the
> non-stereotype?
either exceptional luck with dice (as in D&D) or more character creation
points than a wimp wizard (as in GURPS).
Alcore
Jun 8, 2012, 9:36:19 AM6/8/12
to
On Friday, June 8, 2012 6:41:20 AM UTC-5, Tetsubo wrote:
[snip]
I have always felt that Wizards are often fragile because their quest for power has damaged them physically.
Look at Tom Riddle's transformation into Voldemort. That's some serious physical distortion.
[snip]
> I can think of more examples of smart fighters than I can of tough
> wizards. The iconic wizard is a bookish sort *because* he is a weakling.
> He seeks out a method of being powerful that doesn't require physical
> might. You can play a fighter smart or strong or tough or agile. I just
> don't see a lot of tough wizards.
[snip]
> wizards. The iconic wizard is a bookish sort *because* he is a weakling.
> He seeks out a method of being powerful that doesn't require physical
> might. You can play a fighter smart or strong or tough or agile. I just
> don't see a lot of tough wizards.
I have always felt that Wizards are often fragile because their quest for power has damaged them physically.
Look at Tom Riddle's transformation into Voldemort. That's some serious physical distortion.
Tetsubo
Jun 8, 2012, 1:01:01 PM6/8/12
to
liked. I like my magic to be pervasive. To be infused within the fabric
of the campaign. I like magic. I'm not fond of Taint for example. For me
magic is technology essentially. The ultimate universal tool. I don't
want tools twisting the bodies of the users. But if that is your
preferred model, mutate away.
Nicole Massey
Jun 8, 2012, 2:41:07 PM6/8/12
to
news:jqt489$lk$1...@dont-email.me...
Neither, and both. The game mechanics should provide the player with the
ability to hew to or against stereotypes as his or her inspiration dictates.
My favorite referee introduced a character named Murder into a game. He was
a short dagger weilding character who had some obvious psychological
problems and the desire to sneak around everything. We took him for a thief,
though he was notoriously bad at, as we perceived it, making the roll. He's
the one who coined the phrase, "thieves don't open doors," that we still use
from time to time.
I found out recently Murder was a fighter. His psychosis made him want to be
a thief, and his catch phrase was there to shield him from the effects of
his inability to pick locks and disarm traps.
Murder played in his last adventure around 1988, but I still remember him
well because of his distinctiveness. I go through a lot of character sheets
from time to time in an effort to convert them into NPC's, and there are
characters that I didn't even remember their names or class or level, (some
of them above tenth) and in each case reviewing the transcribed sheet makes
it clear they were iconic.
ability to hew to or against stereotypes as his or her inspiration dictates.
My favorite referee introduced a character named Murder into a game. He was
a short dagger weilding character who had some obvious psychological
problems and the desire to sneak around everything. We took him for a thief,
though he was notoriously bad at, as we perceived it, making the roll. He's
the one who coined the phrase, "thieves don't open doors," that we still use
from time to time.
I found out recently Murder was a fighter. His psychosis made him want to be
a thief, and his catch phrase was there to shield him from the effects of
his inability to pick locks and disarm traps.
Murder played in his last adventure around 1988, but I still remember him
well because of his distinctiveness. I go through a lot of character sheets
from time to time in an effort to convert them into NPC's, and there are
characters that I didn't even remember their names or class or level, (some
of them above tenth) and in each case reviewing the transcribed sheet makes
it clear they were iconic.
tussock
Jun 8, 2012, 11:10:56 PM6/8/12
to
Tetsubo wrote:
> Cool. But should the game mechanics reflect the stereotype or the
> non-stereotype?
Classes are by definition a stereotype. Class options like feats, kits,
> Cool. But should the game mechanics reflect the stereotype or the
> non-stereotype?
NWPs, and multiclassing (or whatever) are the tools to break that. Or add to
it, in the case of Elven Fighter-Mages (despite 3e+ giving up on that).
Wizards, however, are /weak/, not /unhealthy/. At least in D&D, the
classic limit being that with Str 3-5 you had to be Wizard.
--
tussock
Tetsubo
Jun 9, 2012, 3:20:42 AM6/9/12
to
table, take more damage than an average farmer, be more resistant to
disease or poison than a dock worker, etc? None that I can think of.
While they may not have been *sickly* they most definitely were not
*robust*. I still say that a high Con wizard just seems strange and
(literally) out of character.
Paul Colquhoun
Jun 9, 2012, 4:51:31 AM6/9/12
to
On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 03:20:42 -0400, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
| On 6/8/2012 11:10 PM, tussock wrote:
|> Tetsubo wrote:
|>
|>> Cool. But should the game mechanics reflect the stereotype or the
|>> non-stereotype?
|>
|> Classes are by definition a stereotype. Class options like feats, kits,
|> NWPs, and multiclassing (or whatever) are the tools to break that. Or add to
|> it, in the case of Elven Fighter-Mages (despite 3e+ giving up on that).
|>
|> Wizards, however, are /weak/, not /unhealthy/. At least in D&D, the
|> classic limit being that with Str 3-5 you had to be Wizard.
|>
|
| How many fictional wizard archetypes could: drink a person under the
| table, take more damage than an average farmer, be more resistant to
| disease or poison than a dock worker, etc? None that I can think of.
| While they may not have been *sickly* they most definitely were not
| *robust*. I still say that a high Con wizard just seems strange and
| (literally) out of character.
Gandalf. He was quite good with a sword, as I recall. He carried a
| On 6/8/2012 11:10 PM, tussock wrote:
|> Tetsubo wrote:
|>
|>> Cool. But should the game mechanics reflect the stereotype or the
|>> non-stereotype?
|>
|> Classes are by definition a stereotype. Class options like feats, kits,
|> NWPs, and multiclassing (or whatever) are the tools to break that. Or add to
|> it, in the case of Elven Fighter-Mages (despite 3e+ giving up on that).
|>
|> Wizards, however, are /weak/, not /unhealthy/. At least in D&D, the
|> classic limit being that with Str 3-5 you had to be Wizard.
|>
|
| How many fictional wizard archetypes could: drink a person under the
| table, take more damage than an average farmer, be more resistant to
| disease or poison than a dock worker, etc? None that I can think of.
| While they may not have been *sickly* they most definitely were not
| *robust*. I still say that a high Con wizard just seems strange and
| (literally) out of character.
legendary Elven blade from Gondolin ("Glamdring", wasn't it?).
Possibly he was a wizard/fighter dual class, or something. ;-)
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
Asking for technical help in newsgroups? Read this first:
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#intro
Tetsubo
Jun 9, 2012, 5:03:18 AM6/9/12
to
On 6/9/2012 4:51 AM, Paul Colquhoun wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 03:20:42 -0400, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> | On 6/8/2012 11:10 PM, tussock wrote:
> |> Tetsubo wrote:
> |>
> |>> Cool. But should the game mechanics reflect the stereotype or the
> |>> non-stereotype?
> |>
> |> Classes are by definition a stereotype. Class options like feats, kits,
> |> NWPs, and multiclassing (or whatever) are the tools to break that. Or add to
> |> it, in the case of Elven Fighter-Mages (despite 3e+ giving up on that).
> |>
> |> Wizards, however, are /weak/, not /unhealthy/. At least in D&D, the
> |> classic limit being that with Str 3-5 you had to be Wizard.
> |>
> |
> | How many fictional wizard archetypes could: drink a person under the
> | table, take more damage than an average farmer, be more resistant to
> | disease or poison than a dock worker, etc? None that I can think of.
> | While they may not have been *sickly* they most definitely were not
> | *robust*. I still say that a high Con wizard just seems strange and
> | (literally) out of character.
>
>
> Gandalf. He was quite good with a sword, as I recall. He carried a
> legendary Elven blade from Gondolin ("Glamdring", wasn't it?).
>
> Possibly he was a wizard/fighter dual class, or something. ;-)
>
>
Using Gandalf as an example of a wizard is like the fantasy version of
> On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 03:20:42 -0400, Tetsubo <tet...@comcast.net> wrote:
> | On 6/8/2012 11:10 PM, tussock wrote:
> |> Tetsubo wrote:
> |>
> |>> Cool. But should the game mechanics reflect the stereotype or the
> |>> non-stereotype?
> |>
> |> Classes are by definition a stereotype. Class options like feats, kits,
> |> NWPs, and multiclassing (or whatever) are the tools to break that. Or add to
> |> it, in the case of Elven Fighter-Mages (despite 3e+ giving up on that).
> |>
> |> Wizards, however, are /weak/, not /unhealthy/. At least in D&D, the
> |> classic limit being that with Str 3-5 you had to be Wizard.
> |>
> |
> | How many fictional wizard archetypes could: drink a person under the
> | table, take more damage than an average farmer, be more resistant to
> | disease or poison than a dock worker, etc? None that I can think of.
> | While they may not have been *sickly* they most definitely were not
> | *robust*. I still say that a high Con wizard just seems strange and
> | (literally) out of character.
>
>
> Gandalf. He was quite good with a sword, as I recall. He carried a
> legendary Elven blade from Gondolin ("Glamdring", wasn't it?).
>
> Possibly he was a wizard/fighter dual class, or something. ;-)
>
>
a Godwin.
David Lamb
Jun 9, 2012, 8:44:51 AM6/9/12
to
Nicole Massey
Jun 9, 2012, 10:22:49 AM6/9/12
to
news:jqutg2$1jk$1...@dont-email.me...
like being restrained in that box.
> On 6/8/2012 11:10 PM, tussock wrote:
>> Tetsubo wrote:
>>
>>> Cool. But should the game mechanics reflect the stereotype or the
>>> non-stereotype?
>>
>> Classes are by definition a stereotype. Class options like feats,
>> kits,
>> NWPs, and multiclassing (or whatever) are the tools to break that. Or add
>> to
>> it, in the case of Elven Fighter-Mages (despite 3e+ giving up on that).
>>
>> Wizards, however, are /weak/, not /unhealthy/. At least in D&D, the
>> classic limit being that with Str 3-5 you had to be Wizard.
>>
>
> How many fictional wizard archetypes could: drink a person under the
> table, take more damage than an average farmer, be more resistant to
> disease or poison than a dock worker, etc? None that I can think of. While
> they may not have been *sickly* they most definitely were not *robust*. I
> still say that a high Con wizard just seems strange and (literally) out of
> character.
Good thing we're not playing a literature simulator, then. Some folks don't
>> Tetsubo wrote:
>>
>>> Cool. But should the game mechanics reflect the stereotype or the
>>> non-stereotype?
>>
>> Classes are by definition a stereotype. Class options like feats,
>> kits,
>> NWPs, and multiclassing (or whatever) are the tools to break that. Or add
>> to
>> it, in the case of Elven Fighter-Mages (despite 3e+ giving up on that).
>>
>> Wizards, however, are /weak/, not /unhealthy/. At least in D&D, the
>> classic limit being that with Str 3-5 you had to be Wizard.
>>
>
> How many fictional wizard archetypes could: drink a person under the
> table, take more damage than an average farmer, be more resistant to
> disease or poison than a dock worker, etc? None that I can think of. While
> they may not have been *sickly* they most definitely were not *robust*. I
> still say that a high Con wizard just seems strange and (literally) out of
> character.
like being restrained in that box.
Shawn Wilson
Jun 9, 2012, 3:26:54 PM6/9/12
to
On Jun 9, 5:44 am, David Lamb <dal...@cs.queensu.ca> wrote:
> >> Gandalf. He was quite good with a sword, as I recall. He carried a
> >> legendary Elven blade from Gondolin ("Glamdring", wasn't it?).
>
> >> Possibly he was a wizard/fighter dual class, or something. ;-)
> > Using Gandalf as an example of a wizard is like the fantasy version of a
> > Godwin.
>
> Dandalf was an Outsider (Maia). Normal rules don't apply.
I would model him as a high level Cleric (and Outsider), not a Wizard
> >> Gandalf. He was quite good with a sword, as I recall. He carried a
> >> legendary Elven blade from Gondolin ("Glamdring", wasn't it?).
>
> >> Possibly he was a wizard/fighter dual class, or something. ;-)
> > Using Gandalf as an example of a wizard is like the fantasy version of a
> > Godwin.
>
> Dandalf was an Outsider (Maia). Normal rules don't apply.
at all. Fits his abilities in the books better. Artillery? No.
Buff/Divination/Healing? Sure.
Shawn Wilson
Jun 9, 2012, 3:28:00 PM6/9/12
to
On Jun 9, 12:20 am, Tetsubo <tets...@comcast.net> wrote:
> How many fictional wizard archetypes could: drink a person under the
> table, take more damage than an average farmer, be more resistant to
> disease or poison than a dock worker, etc? None that I can think of.
> While they may not have been *sickly* they most definitely were not
> *robust*. I still say that a high Con wizard just seems strange and
> (literally) out of character.
How many COULDN'T? Supernatural vitality seems to be a wizard thing,
> How many fictional wizard archetypes could: drink a person under the
> table, take more damage than an average farmer, be more resistant to
> disease or poison than a dock worker, etc? None that I can think of.
> While they may not have been *sickly* they most definitely were not
> *robust*. I still say that a high Con wizard just seems strange and
> (literally) out of character.
though mostly for the villains.
tussock
Jun 9, 2012, 6:34:41 AM6/9/12
to
Tetsubo wrote:
> tussock wrote:
>> Tetsubo wrote:
>>
>>> Cool. But should the game mechanics reflect the stereotype or the
>>> non-stereotype?
>>
>> Classes are by definition a stereotype. Class options like feats,
>> kits, NWPs, and multiclassing (or whatever) are the tools to break
>> that. Or add to it, in the case of Elven Fighter-Mages (despite 3e+
>> giving up on that).
>>
>> Wizards, however, are /weak/, not /unhealthy/. At least in D&D, the
>> classic limit being that with Str 3-5 you had to be Wizard.
>
> How many fictional wizard archetypes
How many exist pre-D&D? Not all that many, and only Vance's really
> tussock wrote:
>> Tetsubo wrote:
>>
>>> Cool. But should the game mechanics reflect the stereotype or the
>>> non-stereotype?
>>
>> Classes are by definition a stereotype. Class options like feats,
>> kits, NWPs, and multiclassing (or whatever) are the tools to break
>> that. Or add to it, in the case of Elven Fighter-Mages (despite 3e+
>> giving up on that).
>>
>> Wizards, however, are /weak/, not /unhealthy/. At least in D&D, the
>> classic limit being that with Str 3-5 you had to be Wizard.
>
> How many fictional wizard archetypes
fitting the bill for "Wizard" as D&D defined it.
> could: drink a person under the table, take more damage than an
> average farmer, be more resistant to disease or poison than a dock
> worker, etc? None that I can think of. While they may not have been
> *sickly* they most definitely were not *robust*. I still say that a
> high Con wizard just seems strange and (literally) out of character.
basically walking gods, far more robust than anyone else still living on the
dying earth. Anything based on D&D (which is pretty much everything since
1974) models the d4 HD of AD&D, house-cat fodder.
--
tussock
Shawn Wilson
Jun 9, 2012, 3:32:34 PM6/9/12
to
On Jun 7, 4:45 am, "Nicole Massey" <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote:
> Level gain doesn't count in the calculations here, as that is learned skill
> and a direct effect of the training in the class. I keep coming back to how
> Rolemaster did it, and that approach seems to make the most sense -- have
> players actively spend skill slots to gain hit points, which takes away
> skill slots from warrior types but a lot more from the non-physically
> focused magic casters. But there's no good way to simulate that in D&D
> without getting a bit convoluted.
It would take a little work, but it's easily doable. 'Hit Point'
> Level gain doesn't count in the calculations here, as that is learned skill
> and a direct effect of the training in the class. I keep coming back to how
> Rolemaster did it, and that approach seems to make the most sense -- have
> players actively spend skill slots to gain hit points, which takes away
> skill slots from warrior types but a lot more from the non-physically
> focused magic casters. But there's no good way to simulate that in D&D
> without getting a bit convoluted.
Skill- 5 hp per rank. No automatic hit points from level progession.
I have always wanted a classless DnD anyway. Take all class features
and translate them into skills and feats.
Nicole Massey
Jun 9, 2012, 7:17:56 PM6/9/12
to
"Shawn Wilson" <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:935c705f-dc75-4d47...@m2g2000pbv.googlegroups.com...
class specific things, I've got a way of doing this for first edition Ad&D
that I'm including in The Tome of War when I manage to get it finished.
Though I'd probably use a D6 or 2d3 (or even 3d2) for determining the hits.
dr...@bin.sh
Jun 9, 2012, 11:34:15 PM6/9/12
to
Alien mind control rays made Paul Colquhoun <newsp...@andor.dropbear.id.au> write:
> Gandalf. He was quite good with a sword, as I recall. He carried a
> legendary Elven blade from Gondolin ("Glamdring", wasn't it?).
>
> Possibly he was a wizard/fighter dual class, or something. ;-)
or a demi-god. not sure he's a good example.
> Gandalf. He was quite good with a sword, as I recall. He carried a
> legendary Elven blade from Gondolin ("Glamdring", wasn't it?).
>
> Possibly he was a wizard/fighter dual class, or something. ;-)
--
n_n n_n dr...@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
|"|n_n_n|"| ---------------------------------------------------------------
|_|_[T]_|_| <http://donjon.bin.sh/d20/weather/>
Loren Pechtel
Jun 10, 2012, 4:54:19 PM6/10/12
to
On Sat, 9 Jun 2012 12:32:34 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>It would take a little work, but it's easily doable. 'Hit Point'
>Skill- 5 hp per rank. No automatic hit points from level progession.
>I have always wanted a classless DnD anyway. Take all class features
>and translate them into skills and feats.
I've wondered if it would be possible to go farther: How about no
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>It would take a little work, but it's easily doable. 'Hit Point'
>Skill- 5 hp per rank. No automatic hit points from level progession.
>I have always wanted a classless DnD anyway. Take all class features
>and translate them into skills and feats.
levels? Instead, you earn XP, you use it to buy abilities as you
choose. Make abilities linearly increase in cost as you develop them.
(As the XP/level now linearly increases per level.)
Shawn Wilson
Jun 10, 2012, 6:13:11 PM6/10/12
to
On Jun 10, 1:54 pm, Loren Pechtel <lorenpech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >It would take a little work, but it's easily doable. 'Hit Point'
> >Skill- 5 hp per rank. No automatic hit points from level progession.
> >I have always wanted a classless DnD anyway. Take all class features
> >and translate them into skills and feats.
>
> I've wondered if it would be possible to go farther: How about no
> levels? Instead, you earn XP, you use it to buy abilities as you
> choose. Make abilities linearly increase in cost as you develop them.
> (As the XP/level now linearly increases per level.)
Skill points are just effectively bundles of XP, 1 skill point = 200
> >It would take a little work, but it's easily doable. 'Hit Point'
> >Skill- 5 hp per rank. No automatic hit points from level progession.
> >I have always wanted a classless DnD anyway. Take all class features
> >and translate them into skills and feats.
>
> I've wondered if it would be possible to go farther: How about no
> levels? Instead, you earn XP, you use it to buy abilities as you
> choose. Make abilities linearly increase in cost as you develop them.
> (As the XP/level now linearly increases per level.)
XP (or whatever).
And, sure, you could even do that *with* levels. That is, 'level'
would be the limit of how many ranks of anything you could have.
'Level' could even be its own skill, with its own cost. Want more
ranks in something than you have levels, you will have to use some
skill points to increase your 'level' skill ranks. Oh, without a
necesary 1-1 cost for skills, of course.
And maybe characteristics would increase your effective 'level' in
some things, without necessarily giving direct benefits. As in say
Con adds to your 'level' to define how many ranks of 'hit point' skill
you are allowed to take, but doesn't add hit points itself.
Weapon Focus and the like would remain the same, increasing your
ability and effectively skill ranks, beyond strict level limits.
You could have two characters built on the same points, one being 20th
level with maybe only a few things he's *really* good at, and the
other being only 3rd 'level' but with different abilities out the
wazoo.
And, really, why should that 20th level ivory tower pure research
Wizard have 30 hit points (Con 8) and a BAB of 10? He isn't a
fighter. Should he be able to outfight a veteran (OK, low level, but
still experienced) naked without using magic?
Shawn Wilson
Jun 10, 2012, 6:21:21 PM6/10/12
to
On Jun 9, 4:17 pm, "Nicole Massey" <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote:
> It would take a little work, but it's easily doable. 'Hit Point'
> Skill- 5 hp per rank. No automatic hit points from level progession.
> I have always wanted a classless DnD anyway. Take all class features
> and translate them into skills and feats.
>
> Though I don't do it with the hit points, saving throws, or a couple of
> class specific things, I've got a way of doing this for first edition Ad&D
> that I'm including in The Tome of War when I manage to get it finished.
> Though I'd probably use a D6 or 2d3 (or even 3d2) for determining the hits.
I can see the allure of rolling dice, but I don't like the resort to
> It would take a little work, but it's easily doable. 'Hit Point'
> Skill- 5 hp per rank. No automatic hit points from level progession.
> I have always wanted a classless DnD anyway. Take all class features
> and translate them into skills and feats.
>
> Though I don't do it with the hit points, saving throws, or a couple of
> class specific things, I've got a way of doing this for first edition Ad&D
> that I'm including in The Tome of War when I manage to get it finished.
> Though I'd probably use a D6 or 2d3 (or even 3d2) for determining the hits.
chance undoing intent. One alternative I would like to see, is
instead of rolling for hit points (period), you roll daily. Some days
you are lucky and roll high, other days not. Having sufffered wounds,
the damage taken remains fixed, but as your daily hit point rolls vary
your actual condition as you heal could get better or worse.
Oh... and magical healing is merely a patch... It goes away after a
day, to be renewed (or not...) as needed. And it can be dispelled...
And what a nasty effect of entering an unhallowed area that could
be... Natural healing becomes much more important, but you don't have
to take it into account. (no, I never liked DnD as video game, why do
you ask...)
Shawn Wilson
Jun 10, 2012, 6:22:53 PM6/10/12
to
On Jun 9, 8:34 pm, d...@bin.sh wrote:
> > Gandalf. He was quite good with a sword, as I recall. He carried a
> > legendary Elven blade from Gondolin ("Glamdring", wasn't it?).
>
> > Possibly he was a wizard/fighter dual class, or something. ;-)
>
> or a demi-god. not sure he's a good example.
Like I said- Cleric. And the Maiar were Angels. Note how well that
> > Gandalf. He was quite good with a sword, as I recall. He carried a
> > legendary Elven blade from Gondolin ("Glamdring", wasn't it?).
>
> > Possibly he was a wizard/fighter dual class, or something. ;-)
>
> or a demi-god. not sure he's a good example.
fits in with being a Cleric...
Ken Arromdee
Jun 10, 2012, 8:57:50 PM6/10/12
to
In article <jqth54$ce6$1...@news.albasani.net>,
to be balanced. A character who is good at both fighting and wizardry
wouldn't be balanced against other characters who are only good at one.
If your stereotype is "I am a wizard and I can also fight as well as a
fighter", why would anyone want to play in a game with you? (Unless it's
a very freeform game where you'll get balanced against other players by
GM discretion--in which case you're still not as good as a wizard or a
fighter, it's just that the mechanism for this isn't part of your character
sheet.)
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
Obi-wan Kenobi: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
Yoda: "Do or do not. There is no 'try'."
Nicole Massey <ny...@gypsyheir.com> wrote:
>Neither, and both. The game mechanics should provide the player with the
>ability to hew to or against stereotypes as his or her inspiration dictates.
The reason that games have weak wizards and dumb fighters is that games have
>Neither, and both. The game mechanics should provide the player with the
>ability to hew to or against stereotypes as his or her inspiration dictates.
to be balanced. A character who is good at both fighting and wizardry
wouldn't be balanced against other characters who are only good at one.
If your stereotype is "I am a wizard and I can also fight as well as a
fighter", why would anyone want to play in a game with you? (Unless it's
a very freeform game where you'll get balanced against other players by
GM discretion--in which case you're still not as good as a wizard or a
fighter, it's just that the mechanism for this isn't part of your character
sheet.)
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
Obi-wan Kenobi: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."
Yoda: "Do or do not. There is no 'try'."
Ken Arromdee
Jun 10, 2012, 9:07:58 PM6/10/12
to
In article <2flba9x...@scrub2.WOOLEY>, tussock <sc...@clear.net.nz> wrote:
>> How many fictional wizard archetypes
>> How many fictional wizard archetypes
>> could: drink a person under the table, take more damage than an
>> average farmer, be more resistant to disease or poison than a dock
>> worker, etc? None that I can think of. While they may not have been
>> *sickly* they most definitely were not *robust*. I still say that a
>> high Con wizard just seems strange and (literally) out of character.
> In Vance? They were all over the place, and the rare high level ones are
>basically walking gods, far more robust than anyone else still living on the
>dying earth. Anything based on D&D (which is pretty much everything since
>1974) models the d4 HD of AD&D, house-cat fodder.
I don't think Lina Inverse (or any spellcaster from anime, really) os
>> average farmer, be more resistant to disease or poison than a dock
>> worker, etc? None that I can think of. While they may not have been
>> *sickly* they most definitely were not *robust*. I still say that a
>> high Con wizard just seems strange and (literally) out of character.
> In Vance? They were all over the place, and the rare high level ones are
>basically walking gods, far more robust than anyone else still living on the
>dying earth. Anything based on D&D (which is pretty much everything since
>1974) models the d4 HD of AD&D, house-cat fodder.
housecat-fodder, and she's definitely influenced by D&D.
Loren Pechtel
Jun 10, 2012, 10:45:31 PM6/10/12
to
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 15:13:11 -0700 (PDT), Shawn Wilson
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 10, 1:54�pm, Loren Pechtel <lorenpech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >It would take a little work, but it's easily doable. �'Hit Point'
>> >Skill- 5 hp per rank. �No automatic hit points from level progession.
>> >I have always wanted a classless DnD anyway. �Take all class features
>> >and translate them into skills and feats.
>>
>> I've wondered if it would be possible to go farther: �How about no
>> levels? �Instead, you earn XP, you use it to buy abilities as you
>> choose. �Make abilities linearly increase in cost as you develop them.
>> (As the XP/level now linearly increases per level.)
>
>
>Skill points are just effectively bundles of XP, 1 skill point = 200
>XP (or whatever).
>
>And, sure, you could even do that *with* levels. That is, 'level'
>would be the limit of how many ranks of anything you could have.
>'Level' could even be its own skill, with its own cost. Want more
>ranks in something than you have levels, you will have to use some
>skill points to increase your 'level' skill ranks. Oh, without a
>necesary 1-1 cost for skills, of course.
I wasn't even thinking of having a max. It's just each point in a
<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 10, 1:54�pm, Loren Pechtel <lorenpech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >It would take a little work, but it's easily doable. �'Hit Point'
>> >Skill- 5 hp per rank. �No automatic hit points from level progession.
>> >I have always wanted a classless DnD anyway. �Take all class features
>> >and translate them into skills and feats.
>>
>> I've wondered if it would be possible to go farther: �How about no
>> levels? �Instead, you earn XP, you use it to buy abilities as you
>> choose. �Make abilities linearly increase in cost as you develop them.
>> (As the XP/level now linearly increases per level.)
>
>
>Skill points are just effectively bundles of XP, 1 skill point = 200
>XP (or whatever).
>
>And, sure, you could even do that *with* levels. That is, 'level'
>would be the limit of how many ranks of anything you could have.
>'Level' could even be its own skill, with its own cost. Want more
>ranks in something than you have levels, you will have to use some
>skill points to increase your 'level' skill ranks. Oh, without a
>necesary 1-1 cost for skills, of course.
skill costs more than the last one rather than the linear costs we
have now.
>And, really, why should that 20th level ivory tower pure research
>Wizard have 30 hit points (Con 8) and a BAB of 10? He isn't a
>fighter. Should he be able to outfight a veteran (OK, low level, but
>still experienced) naked without using magic?
any XP into things like hit points or BAB. Probably not even saving
throws. He'll have a few knowledge skills, intelligence and casting
level. I think I would even separate out spell slots from casting
level--he might cast as a 25th level wizard but have only one
spell/day of each level up to 12.
I think I would also add an ability: Ray attack bonus. An
adventuring wizard would develop that. It would be cheaper than
ordinary BAB but it would only apply to aimed spells, not physical
combat.
Rick Pikul
Jun 11, 2012, 12:11:52 AM6/11/12
to
like something similar:
Magic isn't corrupting, but most of the short cuts to magical power are.
This can result in the stereotypical wizard having made the trade off of
corruption for power, as many will have done so early on. This would be
especially true in settings where magic manifests before one gets
training.
It also give you an excuse for why the BBEG can do things the PCs can't:
He's made far more such trades than the players would ever even consider,
(with some of them of a kind they also wouldn't consider).
--
Chakat Firepaw - Inventor & Scientist (Mad)
David Lamb
Jun 11, 2012, 7:51:12 AM6/11/12
to
On 10/06/2012 10:45 PM, Loren Pechtel wrote:
> I think I would also add an ability: Ray attack bonus. An
> adventuring wizard would develop that. It would be cheaper than
> ordinary BAB but it would only apply to aimed spells, not physical
> combat.
Why should it be cheaper than any other kind of BAB? It's the main
> I think I would also add an ability: Ray attack bonus. An
> adventuring wizard would develop that. It would be cheaper than
> ordinary BAB but it would only apply to aimed spells, not physical
> combat.
attack that character uses; should an archer get a cheaper "missiles
only" BAB for his "more limited" attack?
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages