PDA

View Full Version : What are your ideal design goals for D&D?



xechnao
2010-05-17, 01:17 PM
Hi first post :smallsmile:

I wanted to ask you what the title says.


So here are mine in no particular order.

-Newbie friendly.
-Manageable book keeping.
-Each player always having meaningful choices to make.
-Balance by default. Which means that some players are not destined to have to risk more than others regarding the point above.
-Believability. Verisimilitude.
-No metagaming.
-Dire straits tactical gameplay.
-Action can be sexy and at moments it will be -but not all the time. Player characters are strugglers, not ballet dancers. Being awesome is not supposed to be ever present.
-Players not having to wait more than a couple of minutes for their turn to come.
-Changing action environments. The game is designed in such a way where action does not result in grind, doing the same over and over again.
-Strategic gameplay. Fighting, exploring and what have you always reflect to each player's possibilities to make meaningful choices. Combat or anything else is not something apart from the rest of the game.

Escheton
2010-05-17, 01:42 PM
-kick ass
-take names

nyarlathotep
2010-05-17, 01:52 PM
Seems like you want to be playing nWoD partner. :smallbiggrin:

In all seriousness I'd say many many problems with D&D could be solved with one system change: fewer hit points at higher levels.

gdiddy
2010-05-17, 01:54 PM
-Mechanics that do not interfere with storytelling.
-Grimdark
-Let PCs do cool things, but not break reality.
-chew bubblegum

Kurald Galain
2010-05-17, 02:03 PM
- Contains dungeons
- Contains dragons


I wanted to ask you what the title says.
Seriously though, I'm not really sure what you mean. Are you making a statement about D&D rules as written? Are you looking for the edition of D&D that best meets your design goals? Or for house rules that brings a particular ruleset closer to those goals? Or something else?

xechnao
2010-05-17, 02:24 PM
Or something else?

D&D is believed to have always been the tabletop rpg that gets played the most around the world. As a tabletop rpg, it is distinctly about adventurers that face dangerous monsters and various arcane threats so I hold this point to be what fascinates people the most.

Now, I am asking what are the ideal qualities that for you such a game should possess. The most played adventurous fantasy tabletop rpg.:smallsmile:

Gnaeus
2010-05-17, 02:34 PM
1. Ability to play any concept I can imagine. If I want to stat out a half-celestial troll Cleric/Magic-User/Thief with a wierd PRC, I can.

2. A system with enough complexity that I can spend hours designing and redesigning a character, and be mechanically rewarded for time spent.

3. A large player community.

4. Books in print.

valadil
2010-05-17, 02:41 PM
Now, I am asking what are the ideal qualities that for you such a game should possess. The most played adventurous fantasy tabletop rpg.:smallsmile:

D&D should give me an experience that I can't get out of a book or playing a video game. The key to that is that I should be able to do (or at least attempt) anything my character can imagine. I absolutely have to be able to leave my mark on the adventure. If they only way through is the same way any other party would go through, I might as well be playing a video game instead. As a GM, I try to create a unique story determined by the current set of characters. If any of them were changed or swapped out, the story would be different.

jseah
2010-05-17, 02:42 PM
- solves fundamental problems of rpg gameplay. Namely the versatility vs power one that gets bandied around alot.

I'll quite like to see that. Just so I and everyone else can copy it to make better games.


That said, for a more perfect game:
- more realism
- more realistic magic (an oxymoron, I know)
- focus on something beyond an immediate challenge

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-05-17, 02:48 PM
My personal goals for d20 house rules:

- customisation options over niche classes
- less "me too" classes and races, including monsters: every race and class should be significantly and clearly different
- no more than one check to make per task

Draz74
2010-05-17, 02:49 PM
Hi first post :smallsmile:

I wanted to ask you what the title says.


So here are mine in no particular order.

-Newbie friendly.
-Manageable book keeping.
-Each player always having meaningful choices to make.
-Balance by default. Which means that some players are not destined to have to risk more than others regarding the point above.
-Believability. Verisimilitude.
-No metagaming.
-Dire straits tactical gameplay.
-Action can be sexy and at moments it will be -but not all the time. Player characters are strugglers, not ballet dancers. Being awesome is not supposed to be ever present.
-Players not having to wait more than a couple of minutes for their turn to come.
-Changing action environments. The game is designed in such a way where action does not result in grind, doing the same over and over again.
-Strategic gameplay. Fighting, exploring and what have you always reflect to each player's possibilities to make meaningful choices. Combat or anything else is not something apart from the rest of the game.
I like your list a lot, though I think it needs Kurald's list added:


- Contains dungeons
- Contains dragons

... but, more seriously, I think the big one that I want to add is, "The story that comes out of your play should feel like a high-quality, classic fantasy novel (albeit with a new, original plot)."

Altair_the_Vexed
2010-05-17, 02:51 PM
... but, more seriously, I think the big one that I want to add is, "The story that comes out of your play should feel like a high-quality, classic fantasy novel (albeit with a new, original plot)."
I'm not sure that's ever going to be reliably achievable - heroes get killed all the time in D&D, plot hooks get missed, key NPCs get killed by angry PCs...

The Big Dice
2010-05-17, 03:07 PM
1. Ability to play any concept I can imagine. If I want to stat out a half-celestial troll Cleric/Magic-User/Thief with a wierd PRC, I can.

2. A system with enough complexity that I can spend hours designing and redesigning a character, and be mechanically rewarded for time spent.

3. A large player community.

4. Books in print.

1. I wish D&D allowed that. Character classes are like straitjackets to me, forcing me to play the concept the writers think I should play, rather than the one I want to. But then, I tend to think of the character's personality and background rather than the class.

2. Complexity for the sake of complexity is a Bad Thing (tm). It discourages new players and puts a GM in a position where they spend more time on the busy work for a session than they do on the session itself.

3 and 4 are right on the money, though. +1 to both.

Vitruviansquid
2010-05-17, 03:32 PM
I want the form to fit the function.

Simply put, a game about fighting should have really fun fights, a game about investigation should have fun investigations, and a game about grittiness should have mechanics that feel really gritty.

Optimystik
2010-05-17, 03:35 PM
1. I wish D&D allowed that. Character classes are like straitjackets to me, forcing me to play the concept the writers think I should play, rather than the one I want to. But then, I tend to think of the character's personality and background rather than the class.

That's what PrCs are for, there are very few concepts that can't be expressed via some combination thereof.

@OP: 4e is a step in the right direction, though I hear combat tends to drag a bit.

Axolotl
2010-05-17, 03:36 PM
"Captures the feeling of high adventure."

Everything beyond that is just a bonus.

Godskook
2010-05-17, 03:49 PM
The OP's question is only half the sentence, and prevents a good answer. Is it:

What are your ideal design goals for D&D as a _____?
a.PC building a character
b.DM constructing a world
c.Consumer evaluating splat books
d.Homebrewer adding content to the format


A.I look for originality and amusement. I'm not worried if someone has played my build before, but I want to feel like I'm the first. Thus, I want something that has a lot of 'good' options. I also find it 'amusing' when I can change encounters by examining my options and finding an unexpected boon that changes things in our favor at critical moments.

B.Not really my schtick, unfortunately.

C.Uhhh....I got what books I have as gifts, so I'm not really sure. I'm also a collector at heart, which is why I consider pokemon to be the crack of the video game world(Really bad for you, but addictive as hell).

D.To create ideas that have lasting relevance, without being overpowered. To maintain an overarching flavor(or lack of one, as the case may be).

J.Gellert
2010-05-17, 04:37 PM
A system where every character contributes by being awesome. Each character is different, but balance is achieved through the fact that everyone is overpowered (so no one is overpowered).

Also, a system where you can play exactly the character that you want, unrestricted by class or archetype.

And of course it has to be medieval fantasy. I've enjoyed the rest in the past, but D&D for me is this: Hobbits, Dwarves, Elves, and sometimes Gnomes. I grew up with Conan and Hero Quest (it was some years before I knew about Warhammer), and certain RPG concepts will always seem alien to me. Give me dungeons, and give me dragons, but old-style ones!

As in, this (http://justanotheriphoneblog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/dragon.jpg), not this (http://fc07.deviantart.com/fs8/i/2005/293/4/5/dragon_hurlant_by_rinpoo_chuang.jpg). :smallcool:

The J Pizzel
2010-05-17, 04:47 PM
I like the class and talent tree system of SAGA. 5 classes. That's it. Just 5. Endless customization through talent trees and feats.

Drakevarg
2010-05-17, 05:36 PM
-The ability to play with any character concept I want.
-Balanced classes. If it comes to PvP, any class should be able to conceivably beat any other class.
-Gameplay mechanics that do not interfere with roleplay at all.
-A system that can be easily adapted for homebrewing.

Swordgleam
2010-05-17, 05:53 PM
I can get a lot of customization and whatnot out of other systems. When I play D&D, I want all the things that make it D&D, including classes, races, a d20 roll as the core mechanic, etc.

I'm too fuzzy-headed at the moment to list all the things I'd like. But I do find it funny that already in so short a thread people are contradicting one another. Makes you feel a little sympathy for the designers.

The Tygre
2010-05-17, 05:58 PM
- Resources Manageable (My one gripe with Exalted is that you always need buckets to roll dice after a while.)
- Easy to understand
- Flexible
- Customizable
- Not too generic
- Huge fan and third party support
- The ability to never stop growing in power
- The means to communicate with NPCs meaningfully

Thajocoth
2010-05-17, 06:17 PM
I have only one requirement for anything I play:
- Fun

There are several trillion ways to accomplish this... So it should be fairly easy.

Samm
2010-05-18, 07:18 AM
I have only one requirement for anything I play:
- Fun

There are several trillion ways to accomplish this... So it should be fairly easy.

I second that notion. I'd enjoy a good game with:


Good Drama
Good Action
Good Plot
Good Roleplaying
Customisability
Teamwork
The awesome off-the-wall ideas actuallly working
High adventure

The Big Dice
2010-05-18, 07:41 AM
That's what PrCs are for, there are very few concepts that can't be expressed via some combination thereof.

How about a Viking-style sailor, berserker and farmer. Or a super civilised noble warrior, as comfortable in social situations as he is on the battlefield. Or a hermit wizard that's lived in the wilderness for the past five years learning from a reclusive master. Or a contemplative warrior monk, skilled in philosophy as well as both armed and unarmed combat.

And do that without having to play for three months, go through three base classes and a PrC and generally not be able to play my initial concept for so long that the original idea has been buried under the mechanics.

If you're not too worried about having a character that fits a backstory from level 1, D&D is a good game. If you want to play something that's even just a little outside the stereotypes given in the books, it's a straitjacket.

True20 is much more flexible in that regard. In fact, if you want to stick with an OGL game that has the versatility of GURPS but isn't as detail obsessed, I'd strongly suggest True20.

Dr.Epic
2010-05-18, 07:43 AM
-kick ass
-take names

Mine are kick ass and chew bubble gum. I always am out of the latter.

Swordgleam
2010-05-18, 10:16 AM
If you're not too worried about having a character that fits a backstory from level 1, D&D is a good game.

I think the problem is one of expectations. In each of your examples, the character is already very good at one or several things. In D&D, in order to be very good at things, you have to have a few levels; level 1 characters are better than the average peasant, but they're hardly legendary heroes (even in 4e). If you want to start out with a character who has already had numerous life experiences that have given him skills, you should represent that mechanically by starting at a higher level.

"Can I do all the things I want at first level?" is less of a flexibility issue and more of a power level issue, I think.

The Big Dice
2010-05-18, 10:48 AM
I think the problem is one of expectations. In each of your examples, the character is already very good at one or several things. In D&D, in order to be very good at things, you have to have a few levels; level 1 characters are better than the average peasant, but they're hardly legendary heroes (even in 4e). If you want to start out with a character who has already had numerous life experiences that have given him skills, you should represent that mechanically by starting at a higher level.

"Can I do all the things I want at first level?" is less of a flexibility issue and more of a power level issue, I think.

The issue is purely one of flexibility. Why shouldn't a first level Barbarian be able to help crew a longship and raise crops, as well as fight with spear, sheild and axe? Why can't a starting Fighter have a rank or two in Diplomacy and Sense Motive? Why should a Wizard be unable to function outside of academia?

It's not a question of relative power, it's a question of the class skills limiting my options. And I know I could easily houserule the situation away, but D&D is already a cluttered and complicated game, why should I have to make the situation worse just to be able to excercise my creativity?

Swordgleam
2010-05-18, 10:52 AM
It's not a question of relative power, it's a question of the class skills limiting my options. And I know I could easily houserule the situation away, but D&D is already a cluttered and complicated game, why should I have to make the situation worse just to be able to excercise my creativity?

I hear you on the class skills thing. I understand niche protection, but aside from that goal, it's stupid. And classes that are "supposed" to be better at certain things still will be - they'll have higher stats for them. I'm glad 4e has mostly done away with this, by making it easy to get extra skills via feats and by allowing you to add skills to your class list via backgrounds.

I misunderstood. It sounded like it was the being good at all those things that was core to the character concept, not the opportunity to take those skills.

The Big Dice
2010-05-18, 11:24 AM
I hear you on the class skills thing. I understand niche protection, but aside from that goal, it's stupid. And classes that are "supposed" to be better at certain things still will be - they'll have higher stats for them. I'm glad 4e has mostly done away with this, by making it easy to get extra skills via feats and by allowing you to add skills to your class list via backgrounds.

I misunderstood. It sounded like it was the being good at all those things that was core to the character concept, not the opportunity to take those skills.

Being good at things comes later. A big part of it is me wanting to explore more character based than combat based options. But that's me, I tend to start with an image, some kind of coathanger I can base a character around, then try to find mechanics to suit that.

Swordgleam
2010-05-18, 11:33 AM
Being good at things comes later. A big part of it is me wanting to explore more character based than combat based options. But that's me, I tend to start with an image, some kind of coathanger I can base a character around, then try to find mechanics to suit that.

I do that for other systems, mostly point-buy ones. For class based systems, I take a class that looks fun to play and build my concept around that. I'm glad that both exist, and I wouldn't want one to be too much like the other. So for me, having restrictive classes is part of the point of D&D; if I didn't want those restrictions, I'd play something else.

Lycar
2010-05-18, 03:51 PM
The issue is purely one of flexibility. Why shouldn't a first level Barbarian be able to help crew a longship and raise crops, as well as fight with spear, sheild and axe? Why can't a starting Fighter have a rank or two in Diplomacy and Sense Motive? Why should a Wizard be unable to function outside of academia?

It's not a question of relative power, it's a question of the class skills limiting my options. And I know I could easily houserule the situation away, but D&D is already a cluttered and complicated game, why should I have to make the situation worse just to be able to excercise my creativity?

To be fair, D&D assumes that 0 ranks in a given skill are pretty much the 'everyman' level of skill. So a barbarian can crew a longship and raise crops just fine right from level 1. As good as any other NPC in the game world that is.

As soon as someone has as much as 1 skill rank in anything, he is already supposed to possess skill in excess of what a normal mortal has (and ever will have!).

And a starting Fighter can have Diplomacy and Sense Motive. The rules system just makes him pay an arm and a leg for it (although Able Learner helps. Then again, I am leaning toward assuming every PC is an 'able learner').

As far as wizards go... uhm... they get to rule the world. They don't have to 'function outside academia. :smalltongue:

But then again, why can't your diplomatic fighter be represented by a Feat Rogue (UA variant, replaces Sneak Attack with fighter bonus feats)? That would fit the bill. Sure, he is a bit weaker (less BAB/HP) then the 'regular' fighter, but he is also much more skilled. He has to pay some price for his choices though.

The rules are meant to be guidelines to help you play. What you (and your fellow players) make out of it does not need to bear much resemblance to what the designers wrote on the tin, so to speak.

And about houseruling and all that: Simply stick to rule -1 -> Don't be a ****.

Lycar

The Big Dice
2010-05-18, 07:13 PM
To be fair, D&D assumes that 0 ranks in a given skill are pretty much the 'everyman' level of skill. So a barbarian can crew a longship and raise crops just fine right from level 1. As good as any other NPC in the game world that is.
So not good enough to go raiding then :smallwink:

As soon as someone has as much as 1 skill rank in anything, he is already supposed to possess skill in excess of what a normal mortal has (and ever will have!).
Considering 0 ranks is described as Untrained, I'm not particularly inclined to agree there, though I do see your point.
[QUOTE=Lycar;8517327]And a starting Fighter can have Diplomacy and Sense Motive. The rules system just makes him pay an arm and a leg for it (although Able Learner helps. Then again, I am leaning toward assuming every PC is an 'able learner').
I quite like the everyone gets to be an Able Learner thing. But I stand by my point about Class Skills being limited and classes in general being a weird in-game construct. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)

As far as wizards go... uhm... they get to rule the world. They don't have to 'function outside academia. :smalltongue:
Are you kidding me? Ruling means dealing with people, and that takes time away from acquring yet more arcane power. What self respecting Wizard wants to demean himself by ruling? Far, far better to be the power behind the throne. That way you get to be the one who's really in charge, but don't have to deal with all that petty business to do with settling property disputes and taxes and so on and so forth.

But then again, why can't your diplomatic fighter be represented by a Feat Rogue (UA variant, replaces Sneak Attack with fighter bonus feats)? That would fit the bill. Sure, he is a bit weaker (less BAB/HP) then the 'regular' fighter, but he is also much more skilled. He has to pay some price for his choices though.
Some of those options work. I'm particularly fond of the Urban Ranger as a bounty hunter. But rather than being round pegs into square holes, it's kind of like oval pegs into round holes. They almost fit, but not quite.

Then again, I also like the idea of the generic classes in UA. They can be very handy when I've got a specific idea I want to play. Like a wilderness wizard or a samurai that's not got levels in the samurai class.

The rules are meant to be guidelines to help you play. What you (and your fellow players) make out of it does not need to bear much resemblance to what the designers wrote on the tin, so to speak.

And about houseruling and all that: Simply stick to rule -1 -> Don't be a ****.

Lycar

I've been gaming long enough to be well aware of that. Both the guidelines and not being a ****. But I also think that since it's the 21st century and all, RPGs should offer me freedom of concept. After all, not all Fighters are all about riding, jumping, climbing and bullying people. Just as the archetypal Barbarian can do more than roam the plains Hulking out on people.

Kurald Galain
2010-05-18, 07:15 PM
To be fair, D&D assumes that 0 ranks in a given skill are pretty much the 'everyman' level of skill. So a barbarian can crew a longship and raise crops just fine right from level 1. As good as any other NPC in the game world that is.

As soon as someone has as much as 1 skill rank in anything, he is already supposed to possess skill in excess of what a normal mortal has (and ever will have!).

Um, no. He has a 5% better chance of succeeding at a particular task, and that's pretty much it.

NPCs don't have zero ranks in everything. In fact that's precisely what NPC classes were created for.

The New Bruceski
2010-05-19, 04:36 AM
I do that for other systems, mostly point-buy ones. For class based systems, I take a class that looks fun to play and build my concept around that. I'm glad that both exist, and I wouldn't want one to be too much like the other. So for me, having restrictive classes is part of the point of D&D; if I didn't want those restrictions, I'd play something else.

I do both depending on my mood. Sometimes I find an interesting class and make a character who fits (probably going to do this with a 4e Monk next campaign), sometimes I have a character idea and find a close class, tweaking as needed. For example of the second, my first 4e game had me interested in playing a refugee from a smuggling cartel. Initially planned as a rogue I found we didn't have a defender so I became a Fighter. Took Thievery, Streetwise and Intimidate, and instead of having been a sneaky guy with the cartel I was instead a guard/enforcer for them, but could keep the rest of my character idea the same.

Lycar
2010-05-19, 11:14 AM
Are you kidding me? Ruling means dealing with people, and that takes time away from acquring yet more arcane power. What self respecting Wizard wants to demean himself by ruling? Far, far better to be the power behind the throne. That way you get to be the one who's really in charge, but don't have to deal with all that petty business to do with settling property disputes and taxes and so on and so forth.

Err... yes, precisely. They don't have to deal with the 'talking to people' parts, they just set things into motion and watch them happen. Hence they really don't need to be able to 'function outside of academia'. My point exactly. :smallsmile:



Um, no. He has a 5% better chance of succeeding at a particular task, and that's pretty much it.

NPCs don't have zero ranks in everything. In fact that's precisely what NPC classes were created for.

Yes, eventually they created NPC classes. But I refer you to p. 62, PHB:


'CHARACTER SKILLS

... Your character may have solid familiarity with many skills, without having the actual training that grants skill ranks. Knowing to how to strum a few cords on the lute or clamber over a low fence doesn't really mean you have ranks in Perform or Climb. Ranks in those skills represent training beyond everyday use-the ability to impress an audience with a wide repertoire of songs on the lute, or to successfully scale a 100-foot-high cliff face.

So how do normal people get through life without ranks in a lot of skills?
-(Normals juts take 10 on routine DC 10 tasks.)-

You're always welcome to assume that your character is familiar -even good at, as far as everyday tasks go- many skills beyond those for which you actually gain ranks. The skills you buy ranks in, however, are those with which you have truly heroic potential.

In other words: You pseudo-viking barbarian can sail just fine as long as your DM doesn't require any actual rolls. Off-screen, he can be a very successful farmer too. That are the things that don't get rolled for in the game after all.

Of course, then you go on and read the actual skill rules and have to wonder how a rank 0 artisan gets anything done... :smallyuk:

But hey, they say you can just go and assume. It is RAW. Knock yourself out. Just make sure to put ranks where you expect to have to roll without being able to take 10. :smallwink:

Lycar

Kurald Galain
2010-05-19, 11:48 AM
Yes, eventually they created NPC classes. But I refer you to p. 62, PHB:

Sure, but that piece of fluff text doesn't say that one mere rank allows you to e.g. "scale a 100-foot-high cliff". Just that with enough ranks you can do that.

It also doesn't say that NPCs cannot have skill ranks, or that all NPCs are equally mediocre at every ordinary task. Why wouldn't a mountain guide have a bunch of Climb ranks? An ordinary task for him is something a plainslander would have trouble with.

TheThan
2010-05-19, 12:49 PM
Primary design goal: The game must be fun to play.

I realize that this is a very vague goal as not everyone shares the same likes and dislikes, or are into the same sort of role-playing. For instance I’m not into larps or vampire/werewolf these games don’t really interest me and I doubt I would find them fun. But there are plenty out there that are interested in it and do find them fun. So first and foremost RPG must be fun for all the parties involved. It’s easy to solve, just pick one you like and boom its solved.

Secondary design goal: world building toolbox

I like creating unique and interesting worlds. I have never playing in FR or Ebberon simply because those worlds have already been created by someone else and I’m just not interested in them. Some people like this, but it’s not really for me. I like to write out descriptions of new locations, draw up city maps, and write out NPC backgrounds. That’s part of the fun of being a DM, and it’s a part I enjoy greatly.

Tertiary design goal: game balance

Everyone knows that dnd 3.X is not all that balanced. There are superior classes and inferior classes out there. I want a game that the power level between classes (won’t work for point based systems obviously), are fairly consistent across the board. So no one character has a huge edge in power over the other members of his party. Not only is this simple fairness it also makes the DM’s job much easier and fits into the primary design goal I listed above.

The Big Dice
2010-05-19, 12:59 PM
Err... yes, precisely. They don't have to deal with the 'talking to people' parts, they just set things into motion and watch them happen. Hence they really don't need to be able to 'function outside of academia'. My point exactly. :smallsmile:

So in other words, they don't actually rule anywhere, just interfere. Then one day the peasants revolt and the wizard destroys them. So they stop paying taxes and growing food, then the kingdom collapses from starvation and lack of resources. The churches step in and all wizards are declared heretics.

The book burning begins and within a decade centuries of hard earned knowledge are all but lost forever due to the stupidity of one wizard who didn't know when to stop.

Roderick_BR
2010-05-19, 01:49 PM
1. I wish D&D allowed that. Character classes are like straitjackets to me, forcing me to play the concept the writers think I should play, rather than the one I want to. But then, I tend to think of the character's personality and background rather than the class.

2. Complexity for the sake of complexity is a Bad Thing (tm). It discourages new players and puts a GM in a position where they spend more time on the busy work for a session than they do on the session itself.

3 and 4 are right on the money, though. +1 to both.
Technically, that's what the 4 iconic classes are used for. Any guy that wields a weapon, can use some sort of armor/shield, is resilient to damage, and can kick ass, should be doable with fighter, for example. Unfortunatelly, D&D as it is doesn't allow it to work well, giving you several different kind of martial characters with different rules (PHB2's knight, several kinds of samurai, ninja, swachbucklers), not so different rules (Complete Warrior samurai), and others that would require differnt sets of rules (like paladin and ranger that are also half-casters). The closest you could get is use Unearthed Arcana's generic classes, and allow PrCs for further specializations.

Lycar
2010-05-19, 03:47 PM
It also doesn't say that NPCs cannot have skill ranks, or that all NPCs are equally mediocre at every ordinary task. Why wouldn't a mountain guide have a bunch of Climb ranks? An ordinary task for him is something a plainslander would have trouble with.

Yes, but according to that fluff text, you could as well claim that your PC is a 'competent mountaineer'. Just like the barbarian could be 'an accomplished sailor'. Unless you need to actually roll for it, the sky is the limit. :smallbiggrin:

But yeah, then they invented NPC classes to curb at least some of the idiocy of the skill system...


The book burning begins and within a decade centuries of hard earned knowledge are all but lost forever due to the stupidity of one wizard who didn't know when to stop.

You mean... all arcane spells above, say, level 3 are now 'lostech'?

That sounds like a pretty intriguing campaign to play in. :smalltongue:

Lycar

The Big Dice
2010-05-19, 04:45 PM
You mean... all arcane spells above, say, level 3 are now 'lostech'?

That sounds like a pretty intriguing campaign to play in. :smalltongue:

Lycar

Y'know, that does sound like it could work. It would work really well as an E6 campaign. As a regular D&D thing it would be less good, characters are heavily dependent on their magic shinies and if the means to go to Magic Mart and get them doesn't exist, it would mess with the fundamental ideas behind the CR system.