Results 1 to 30 of 46
-
2009-10-09, 10:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]
So, I've been playing D&D for some time and, although I never actually reached high levels (party problems+people problems) I've used many rules. And so, as many player, I've had to open the books way too many times during a game. Thus, my point is: what is wrong with D&D?
Some gerenal stuff I've noticed:
- Too many numbers. It's like having 10000 yens that translate into 10$.
- Too many complicated rules. We're always trying to remeber wierd rules which could, most of the times be reduced to the standard +2/-2 modifier.
- Limited magic system, sometimes it feels like it isn't really magic.
As for 4e, specifically:
- No actual magic exists, which translates in a bad thing for homebrewers.
- It's INSANE to homebrew a class for this system.
- Remembering all the powers of your character is hard.
I'd really like a simple yet effective system, but I think I'll have to create my own. Here are some ideas for it:
- Reduced number of abilities. Probably: Strenght, Dextery, Inteligence and Vigor.
-A magic system base on GURPS+White Wolf magic systems. To make the long story short: endless possibilities with magic, you got points in something like "magic schools" which allow you to do different kinds of magic. You don't have daily slots, but instead you get fatigued by doing magic.
- Not sure If I'd use classes.
- Skills based on D&D 4e, although their scores are White Wolf based.
- Many class powers from D&d would be turned into something similar to feats, and you'd get them as you gain experience.
- No level system. You spend experience to gain new powers.
Just some ideas. What do you guys think?"I'd rather DM to nice heroes than powerful slashers."
Im a fan of dungeons.
GENERATION 15: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and add 1 to the generation. social experiment.
-
2009-10-09, 10:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
- Location
- Midwest, not Middle East
- Gender
Re: What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]
It sounds like your solution is to play White Wolf instead. Reduce the number of attributes. Add in a new Fatigue stat that applies to Mages (or everyone, why not?) and specify schools of magic. You don't want classes, you want a point buy/experience system. If you feel the need, present classes as pre-made characters/templates with their bonus points unspent.
That's a lot easier than making a new system out of whole cloth.
-
2009-10-09, 10:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
Re: What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]
mmm I get what you mean by 3.5 I could just not learn everything as a DM. 4.0 is much simpler but I don't know if you have read about it they have in one of the books about creating new classes by combining classes and stuff like that have you taken a look at that?
-
2009-10-09, 11:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- The Final Chapter
- Gender
Re: What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]
Yay, yet another way for WotC to suck the creativity out the game.
"Hey, you don't have to go through all the trouble of creating a new class to suit your tastes. Just mix & match our wide selection of bland, interchangeable powers, & you can call your class whatever you want! It's so much better than the old clunky way of making up your own features & abilities. Why be creative when we've been creative for you!"
-
2009-10-10, 01:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- In the playground
-
2009-10-10, 02:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
Re: What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]
4E's combat is based solely around the defender, striker, controller, leader setup. The recommendation for creating new classes is to base their powers on previous classes IE defenders should have a way of drawing fire, controllers should have a way of pushing units, etc. If you deviate from the d/s/c/l setup then you'll make an ineffective character.
You can create new powers without copying other powers but a defender that doesn't have a way of getting enemies to fight them without penalty or a controller that has zero area at-will powers is worthless.
- Limited magic system, sometimes it feels like it isn't really magic.
3.5's major problems are a challenge rating system that doesn't take into account caster level, a broken diplomacy/intimidate system, characters with an over reliance on magical equipment, clunky combat mechanics that are overshadowed early in the game, and a save-or-die mechanic which can screw you completely from a single unlucky roll.
4E's problem revolves around removing flavor in exchange for balance, removing the fear of the environment (starving/dehydrating is near impossible, healing is automatic after 6 hours of rest, etc.), easily broken stealth rules and neutering feats so that characters can min/max more so than in 3.5.
- No actual magic exists, which translates in a bad thing for homebrewers.
-A magic system base on GURPS+White Wolf magic systems. To make the long story short: endless possibilities with magic, you got points in something like "magic schools" which allow you to do different kinds of magic. You don't have daily slots, but instead you get fatigued by doing magic.
Anyways, the rest of your proposed "changes" change the core of D&D to the point where it's not even D&D. You're better off playing another system entirely or even a simpler system like Savage Worlds. Dungeons and Dragons is, historically, a combat centric, class focused, progressive level based game. Changing those three mechanics; it's focus on combat, being class oriented and having progressive levels would change the game completely IMO.Last edited by jmbrown; 2009-10-10 at 02:23 AM.
-
2009-10-10, 04:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Gender
Re: What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]
NO! Don't do that!
I thought of it first!
Well, except mine uses 12 attribute scores...
-
2009-10-10, 04:34 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Gender
Re: What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]
Just wondering, why did you put that in quotation marks? Makes no sense.
... change the core of D&D to the point where it's not even D&D. You're better off playing another system entirely or even a simpler system like Savage Worlds. Dungeons and Dragons is, historically, a combat centric, class focused, progressive level based game. Changing those three mechanics; it's focus on combat, being class oriented and having progressive levels would change the game completely IMO.
Don't get me wrong. I have my bones to pick with 4e DnD, but I won't say it isn't DnD.
To OP: Do you intend to publish this? If not, I can throw you some advice via PM. There are several.. how should I say.. hurdles that have to be overcome to make such a system work.Last edited by Chrono22; 2009-10-10 at 05:58 AM.
-
2009-10-10, 06:13 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- The Netherlands
-
2009-10-10, 01:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
Re: What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]
"I'd rather DM to nice heroes than powerful slashers."
Im a fan of dungeons.
GENERATION 15: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and add 1 to the generation. social experiment.
-
2009-10-10, 01:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
Re: What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]
I fear that you're trying a square block into a round hole. Doing away with classes and levels already turns it into something that isn't D&D, you're better off modifying WoD instead, or even another system, there's plenty of simpler games which would fit what you'd like perfectly...
-
2009-10-10, 01:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
Re: What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]
What I meant is that, although your creativity can allow you to create new spells, most players are limited to the existing "spell-list". And as good as it may seem, it is nothing compared to White Wolf's Mage: The Ascension magic system.
Agreed.
I don't like the no-enviroment-fear stuff. Hate the automatic healing. Sounds like they were making a computer game where you don't want to read boring texts and just press space non-stop until you get to action. Hate the 4e feats.
You're right about mecanics, but i belive that deep inside magic is no mere thing for "stick-wielders". In some scenarios it's feared by those who can't do it, and for a good reason: magic can be very powerfull. Additionally, I think that magic not being defined in the system gives brewers a hard time.
Hmm, I don't know. I do agree that combat has become a main figure in D&d but above all I belive it is about teamwork and roleplaying in a fantasy genre. Although Im not yet decided about no class-system.
I want something that makes you free in character creation, magic wielding and yet is simple enough to be played by normal humans. Thanks for your thoughts tho, they've been usefull."I'd rather DM to nice heroes than powerful slashers."
Im a fan of dungeons.
GENERATION 15: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and add 1 to the generation. social experiment.
-
2009-10-10, 01:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
Re: What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]
Im with this man.
Well, I only intended it for personal use, althought I'd submit it in the playground for balancing. Your help would be most aprecitated.
This is not intended to create a new scenario. It's just a new system for the already existing common sense D&d-scenario."I'd rather DM to nice heroes than powerful slashers."
Im a fan of dungeons.
GENERATION 15: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and add 1 to the generation. social experiment.
-
2009-10-10, 01:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- The Final Chapter
- Gender
Re: What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]
This is needlessly restrictive, & indicative of the brain-drain problem that I just pointed out as a flaw. In the minds of WotC (& apparently yours as well), you can only create classes that fit within these narrow cookie-cutter party roles. You can only control, defend, lead, or strike. Classes that focus on anything different are "ineffective".
D&D is a RPG, regardless of edition. In my mind, a RPG is a collaborative experience that can be customized to suit the player's tastes, including the DM's. If I made a new class that did something besides control/defend/lead/strike, why would that class be automatically ineffective or invalid, just because it didn't fit your predefined roles? What if my class was focused on summoning, or illusions, or animating objects? None of those fits neatly into the established roles, & any one of them could be very effective on the battlefield, if built well. But according to your strictures, my attempts are dismissed before I even start.
My chosen analogy is art. WotC says that the only art is painting, sculpture, textiles, & architecture. If I were to submit a poem, or a novel, or a movie, or a digital image, it would be considered ineffective, invalid, & Not Art. It doesn't matter if it's inspiring or insipid, resplendent or repulsive, sublime or sucktastic. My attempts are doomed from the outset. It doesn't matter if my art is awesome or awful, it is already deemed Not Art.
I find this outlook sad & distasteful, & is yet another reason that 4E is anathema to me. You can sacrifice creativity, diversity, & realism on the altar of Unobtainable Balance, but I won't bow to the false idol of 4th Edition.
-
2009-10-10, 02:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
Re: What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]
"I'd rather DM to nice heroes than powerful slashers."
Im a fan of dungeons.
GENERATION 15: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and add 1 to the generation. social experiment.
-
2009-10-10, 02:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Gender
Re: What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]
The D&D vancian magic is a sacred cow that needs slaying.
At 1at level, your mage gets 1 (or 2, with a high Int) spell. He casts this with 1005 efficiency, then he pulls out his crossbow for the rest of the day. This doesn't feel particularly wizardly, and doesn't fit any established trope.
At 20th level, he has a minimum of 54 spells per day. This is "balanced" to be spread over 4 encounters. Assuming that half are utterly irrelevant to any encounter at that level, that leaves 6.5 spells per encounter on average. That is a bit longer than most encounters actually last. How many spells were you planning to cast each fight again?
Basically, this sacred cow needs slaying.Last edited by Ashtagon; 2009-10-10 at 04:36 PM.
-
2009-10-10, 02:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Location
- in a garden
Re: What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]
Someday I'll have my anxiety under control, but until then, I'm prone to sudden month-long disappearances.
-
2009-10-10, 04:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- Scotland
- Gender
Re: What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]
It sounds like you might be interested in something like the generic classes. It basically boils down to - 3 classes, one with decent BAB, one with lots of skills, and one with spell access. Abilities such as Rage and Smite are convereted to feats and the only class features these classes gain (other than the spells) are feats.
Admittidly, I think a system like that would need alot of tweeks (I think nerfing a fair portion of the spells avaliable and making the feats more balanced would surfice for me though).
Edit: Some TypoesLast edited by Nero24200; 2009-10-10 at 04:13 PM.
-
2009-10-10, 04:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
Re: What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]
I think that's a pretty good idea. I don't see a problem with converting lots of things into feat-like stuff. About the spells, I intend to use the White Wolf system (9 spheres of power; Forces, Time, Life & etc) mixed with GURPS (magic causes fatigue). This way, I won't need a huge list of spells (like the one in [3.5]PHB I) - every effect you can imagine becomes possible (not saying that it is not in 3.5, but it will need brewing).
So, instead of no classes, we can say that the players would pick up roles. The guy with high BAB, the guy with skills, they guy with magic. Later on some of these can be divided in subsections."I'd rather DM to nice heroes than powerful slashers."
Im a fan of dungeons.
GENERATION 15: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig and add 1 to the generation. social experiment.
-
2009-10-10, 05:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Gender
-
2009-10-10, 05:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
Re: What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]
And what are you basing this on? Where does WoTC say any other focus for a class is "ineffective"? On top of that, as the roles are very open, I would like to see what sort of classes you can build that don't fall somewhere in the control/defend/lead/strike classifications. As the examples you give below sure don't qualify, as I am about to cover.
D&D is a RPG, regardless of edition. In my mind, a RPG is a collaborative experience that can be customized to suit the player's tastes, including the DM's. If I made a new class that did something besides control/defend/lead/strike, why would that class be automatically ineffective or invalid, just because it didn't fit your predefined roles? What if my class was focused on summoning, or illusions, or animating objects? None of those fits neatly into the established roles, & any one of them could be very effective on the battlefield, if built well. But according to your strictures, my attempts are dismissed before I even start.
My chosen analogy is art. WotC says that the only art is painting, sculpture, textiles, & architecture. If I were to submit a poem, or a novel, or a movie, or a digital image, it would be considered ineffective, invalid, & Not Art. It doesn't matter if it's inspiring or insipid, resplendent or repulsive, sublime or sucktastic. My attempts are doomed from the outset. It doesn't matter if my art is awesome or awful, it is already deemed Not Art.
I find this outlook sad & distasteful, & is yet another reason that 4E is anathema to me. You can sacrifice creativity, diversity, & realism on the altar of Unobtainable Balance, but I won't bow to the false idol of 4th Edition.Last edited by Reverent-One; 2009-10-10 at 05:19 PM.
Thanks to Elrond for the Vash avatar.
-
2009-10-10, 05:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
Re: What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]
Just wondering, why did you put that in quotation marks? Makes no sense.
At the heart of it, DnD is about explorative & cooperative adventure, teamwork, and fantasy. As long as the heart remains the same, it's DnD to me.
Don't get me wrong. I have my bones to pick with 4e DnD, but I won't say it isn't DnD.
You're right about mecanics, but i belive that deep inside magic is no mere thing for "stick-wielders". In some scenarios it's feared by those who can't do it, and for a good reason: magic can be very powerfull. Additionally, I think that magic not being defined in the system gives brewers a hard time.
Keep in mind that magic no longer has a direct combat effect so it's easier to create utility spells that do things like move the earth, teleport the party or rip holes in the fabric of reality.
Hmm, I don't know. I do agree that combat has become a main figure in D&d but above all I belive it is about teamwork and roleplaying in a fantasy genre. Although Im not yet decided about no class-system.
I want something that makes you free in character creation, magic wielding and yet is simple enough to be played by normal humans. Thanks for your thoughts tho, they've been usefull.
Everything that you want exists in better form than D&D. As a suggestion, Savage Worlds has point based character creation, magic that's inherent to a caster instead of learned, and it's designed around fast combat with multiple characters that doesn't take 30 minutes to finish a single round.
This is needlessly restrictive, & indicative of the brain-drain problem that I just pointed out as a flaw. In the minds of WotC (& apparently yours as well), you can only create classes that fit within these narrow cookie-cutter party roles. You can only control, defend, lead, or strike. Classes that focus on anything different are "ineffective".
Outside of combat, all characters are assumed to be average at every skill and useful at trained skills. This is a direct opposite of 3E's skill system which assumes all characters are terrible at everything and trained only in what they have skill points in. Because of the progressive system, only characters that specialize in a skill can hope to overcome a skill of their level. In other words, characters in 4E are more useful outside of combat than 3E characters.
Now tell me, which game is more restrictive?
D&D is a RPG, regardless of edition. In my mind, a RPG is a collaborative experience that can be customized to suit the player's tastes, including the DM's. If I made a new class that did something besides control/defend/lead/strike, why would that class be automatically ineffective or invalid, just because it didn't fit your predefined roles?
What if my class was focused on summoning, or illusions, or animating objects? None of those fits neatly into the established roles, & any one of them could be very effective on the battlefield, if built well. But according to your strictures, my attempts are dismissed before I even start.
Summoner Striker: Summons monsters like dinosaurs that move quickly and deal high damage.
Summoner Defender: Summons monsters like bears that have high defenses and grant bonuses to allies that fight next to it.
Summoner Controller: Summons monsters like demons that charm enemies and have area attacks which debilitates them.
Summoner Leader: Summons monsters like angels that heal the party and grant bonuses for the party.
Illusionist Striker: Uses illusions to trick enemies into attacking themselves or each other.
Illusionist Defender: Creates illusory walls that protect allies or magical decoys that keep enemies from targeting the PCs.
Illusionist Controller: Creates illusory terrain that damages enemies as they walk through it.
Illusionist Leader: Creates illusory beacons that help PCs target enemies or inspire them with courage.
Animated Striker: Uses natural terrain or random objects to deal damage to enemies like causing roots to stab enemies or forcing an enemies' weapon to strike back at them.
Animated Defender: Morphs walls and terrain to cover allies or remove cover from enemies; animates ally shields to protect them (allowing them to use 2 hands or providing an AC bonus).
Animated Controller: Causes enemy equipment like weapons and armor to jump around or dislodge themselves (animate enemy's boots causing them to trip, etc.)
Animated Leader: Enhances ally equipment to deal more damage, increase reach, or fight by themselves.
Each of those class suggestions conforms to the rules while still using ideas unique to their design. With proper construction, the character will be unique while still doing their job in combat.
My chosen analogy is art. WotC says that the only art is painting, sculpture, textiles, & architecture. If I were to submit a poem, or a novel, or a movie, or a digital image, it would be considered ineffective, invalid, & Not Art. It doesn't matter if it's inspiring or insipid, resplendent or repulsive, sublime or sucktastic. My attempts are doomed from the outset. It doesn't matter if my art is awesome or awful, it is already deemed Not Art.
I find this outlook sad & distasteful, & is yet another reason that 4E is anathema to me. You can sacrifice creativity, diversity, & realism on the altar of Unobtainable Balance, but I won't bow to the false idol of 4th Edition.Last edited by jmbrown; 2009-10-10 at 05:30 PM.
-
2009-10-10, 05:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
Re: What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]
And to add to this, any hypothetical 4e class that isn't a defender, striker, leader, or controller isn't useless in combat because WoTC doesn't like anything different and stacked the deck against said hypothetical class, but because the roles pretty much cover anything any given class could do in combat. A class that isn't a defender, striker, leader, or controller can't deal much damage, can't protect friends, can't heal or buff allies, and can't meaningfully affect the battlefield/debuff enemies. So what else is there to do in combat for such a class?
Last edited by Reverent-One; 2009-10-10 at 05:45 PM.
Thanks to Elrond for the Vash avatar.
-
2009-10-10, 05:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- The Final Chapter
- Gender
Re: What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]
I based my arguments on the quote from jmbrown that is in my post. You apparently didn't read it, so I'll quote the most relevant passage for you again, so you can see from where I based my post.
This essentially boils down to "YOU CAN'T DO THAT". To whit I responded, succinctly, "SCREW IT, SURE I CAN".
I state that it is entirely possible that a class could be created that could function effectively in 4E without falling neatly into any of the four pre-made categories. A class based on creating illusions need not control the battlefield, defend allies, lead the party, or strike at enemies. Neither does a class focused on summoning creatures, or one focused on animating the dead/objects. Those classes could fit those molds, if you wanted them to hard enough, but they don't have to. And those are just some ideas rattled off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many, many more possibilities, but WotC refuses to see them as valid (or forces them into their molds, whether they fit or not).
My basic supposition is that it is possible to do things in the game outside of what WotC says you can do. It's as simple as that. If you disagree, then there's little point in arguing.
-
2009-10-10, 05:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
Re: What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]
-
2009-10-10, 05:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
Re: What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]
You have yet to show that you can.
I state that it is entirely possible that a class could be created that could function effectively in 4E without falling neatly into any of the four pre-made categories. A class based on creating illusions need not control the battlefield, defend allies, lead the party, or strike at enemies. Neither does a class focused on summoning creatures, or one focused on animating the dead/objects. Those classes could fit those molds, if you wanted them to hard enough, but they don't have to. And those are just some ideas rattled off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many, many more possibilities, but WotC refuses to see them as valid (or forces them into their molds, whether they fit or not).
My basic supposition is that it is possible to do things in the game outside of what WotC says you can do. It's as simple as that. If you disagree, then there's little point in arguing.Last edited by Reverent-One; 2009-10-10 at 06:02 PM.
Thanks to Elrond for the Vash avatar.
-
2009-10-10, 06:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- The Final Chapter
- Gender
Re: What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]
Your arguments veered way off topic here, so I'm going to ignore them. We weren't talking about the skill systems, & if you wanna throw down about the skill systems of both editions in some other place, we can throw down there. This tangent is irrelevant to our discussion of party roles.
And just because a class isn't strictly a controller, a defender, a leader or a striker doesn't mean it's invalid. I fail to see why this is such a hard pill to swallow.
And the whole point of homebrew is to expand beyond those narrow boundaries, to find something new & different that appeals to your gaming sensibilities. If you don't appreciate that, or can't accept that, then homebrew might just not be for you. There's nothing wrong with playing the game strictly by the book, if you want to. But to say that doing things differently, or even trying to, is "ineffective" is not something that I can abide.
Those are not useless options, they just aren't commonly used variants. One could make a class with an "average" saving progression, something like 0.4HD+1, which is right in the middle between good & bad progressions. Doing so would not be unbalanced or "useless" in the slightest. I've also seen low/no-magic campaigns that use BAB progressions far beyond the mere good BAB=1HD. In such campaigns, Great (1¼HD), Amazing (1½HD), Perfect (1¾HD), & Sublime (2HD) attack bonuses were possible options, & they worked because there were few spells or items to boost the numbers otherwise. A similar thing was devised to saving throws.
Just because you haven't seen it yet doesn't mean it can't/shouldn't be done. That's all I'm trying to say here, & I'm surprised that I find opposition to such a simple concept on the homebrew forum of all places.
-
2009-10-10, 06:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
-
2009-10-10, 06:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Near Atlanta,GA USA
- Gender
Re: What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]
What about a "jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none" combination of the above roles?
Hard to balance? Perhaps.
Pointless to try? Nope.[Public Service Announcement]P.E.A.C.H stands for Please Examine And Critique Honestly[/Public Service Announcement]
Currently Running: Equestria Begins (A High Tactics campaign)
Extended Signature
My Homebrew is meant to be used, but, if you do, PLEASE tell me how it goes.
-
2009-10-10, 06:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
Re: What's Wrong With D&D? [3.5 & 4.0]
And just because a class isn't strictly a controller, a defender, a leader or a striker doesn't mean it's invalid. I fail to see why this is such a hard pill to swallow.
PHBII introduces classes that double as two roles and every 4E splat book offers additional options but every single option falls back on 4E's combat being comprised of characters who can defend, characters who attack well, characters who control the battlefield, and characters who heal.
Those are the fundamental building blocks. If you change those you ruin the foundation of the game.
And the whole point of homebrew is to expand beyond those narrow boundaries, to find something new & different that appeals to your gaming sensibilities. If you don't appreciate that, or can't accept that, then homebrew might just not be for you. There's nothing wrong with playing the game strictly by the book, if you want to. But to say that doing things differently, or even trying to, is "ineffective" is not something that I can abide.
If I made a homebrew wizard in 3.5 that could cast spells at-will with no drawbacks, are you going to tell me that's good homebrew? Likewise if you made a 4E character with no at-will powers and none of his powers were effective in combat, he would entirely useless.
Those are not useless options, they just aren't commonly used variants. One could make a class with an "average" saving progression, something like 0.4HD+1, which is right in the middle between good & bad progressions. Doing so would not be unbalanced or "useless" in the slightest. I've also seen low/no-magic campaigns that use BAB progressions far beyond the mere good BAB=1HD. In such campaigns, Great (1¼HD), Amazing (1½HD), Perfect (1¾HD), & Sublime (2HD) attack bonuses were possible options, & they worked because there were few spells or items to boost the numbers otherwise. A similar thing was devised to saving throws.
This is why it's important to establish primary rules that you shouldn't deviate from. The 2 core books (not including Monster Manual) are the basic building blocks that everything is based on. You can add stuff, but changing something internally means you're doing away with everything that comes after. Unearthed Arcana 3E for example provides tons of variant rules but every single rule is built upon assumptions made in the 3 core rulebooks.
Just because you haven't seen it yet doesn't mean it can't/shouldn't be done. That's all I'm trying to say here, & I'm surprised that I find opposition to such a simple concept on the homebrew forum of all places.
What about a "jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none" combination of the above roles?
Hard to balance? Perhaps.
Pointless to try? Nope.
The result? A messy, weak character that can do everything but does everything poorly compared to the specialists.Last edited by jmbrown; 2009-10-10 at 06:59 PM.