Comments on: Is there a happy medium?

By: Ambrose

Ambrose — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:07:07 +0000

So I rambled a bit there, yeah, I'll sum it up... Accounting for special abilities and building the perfect character can be done with one volume if one really wishes it, as long as the system is flexible enough and the GM competent enough. Ambrose´s last blog post..House Rules Season 1 Pilot: d20 Superpowers Drop-In Module

By: Ambrose

Ambrose — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 00:03:27 +0000

That's the main reason I developed the STTRPG on my site the way I did. Everything is computed using skills, and all the skills can be contained in one descriptive volume, however, the skills are defined in terms of combinations and fields of study if the occasion to use them in new ways arises(As it so often does). I'm kind of a big class-less skill-based system evangelist in that way. Classes and Feats especially seem to do things that skills could easily account for in a well-run skill based system. Ambrose´s last blog post..House Rules Season 1 Pilot: d20 Superpowers Drop-In Module

By: Anarkeith

Anarkeith — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:38:13 +0000

The deluge of 4e books is darkening the horizon even as we speak. Within two years, we’ll probably be in the same state with 4e that 3e achieved: rules overload.

For me, that was what burned me out of D&D. I turned to a homebrew based on the d20 SRD. 42 skills (several of the d20 feats, and class features were rolled into this list) divided into the categories of warrior, rogue, spellcaster, ranger and sage. You buy everything with experience points, so you can “build” just about any kind of character you want.

Granted, it’s geared towards experienced players who have an idea of what they want to play. But it works for the kids we’ve included in the play group as well. Zachary’s point about differentiating characters through play is key. I’ve told my players that we’re not playing a combat simulation, we’re playing a role-playing game. This particular group seems happy with that.

By: Kiashu

Kiashu — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:49:30 +0000

KISS

By: Zachary

Zachary — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 02:45:02 +0000

I think part of the problem is there are a lot of gamers who equate mechanical choice with character differentiation. I actually think a bit of limited mechanical choice can be a good thing for character development: ideally, it gets people playing their characters more and differentiating them *through play*--and not worrying so much about going over hundreds of pages of material for the perfect build, which is something that frustrated me sometimes when running 3.5. Zachary´s last blog post..The Case For Castles & Crusades

By: Geek Gazette

Geek Gazette — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 01:26:36 +0000

Generally I just stick with the PHB and the campaign setting we are playing in for usable classes/races. I can deal with the core classes and races being spread over 2 PHBs, more than that and I will probably not buy them and since we are likely sticking with one setting this shouldn't be a huge issue for my group. We haven't decided whether Eberron is making the jump to 4e or is we will continue using 3e for that setting, yet. So having an insane amount of PC options isn't a big priority for my group. Almost everyone sticks to Fighters, Theives, Magic Users(Sorcerers are preferred) with the occasional Ranger thrown in for good measure. So really the extra options are a waste for the players because they like the more iconic classes. They do like being able to play things other than the standard races. I get a lot of vampire, werewolf, demon and dragon influenced PCs in game so Dragonborn and Tieflings were welcomed with glee. Other than wanting more race options my group is pretty happy with core stuff, which saves us a lot of money in the long run. I would like to see a race only book, something for new or formerly unusable races... that would be cool. Though with 4e that would not be likely as most races seem to work best with a few specific classes and the race book would have to go under the assumption that everyone owns the PHB 1 & 2 to make that work well. Geek Gazette´s last blog post..Which D&D Charater Are You?

By: Swordgleam

Swordgleam — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:23:56 +0000

A lot of the options added in the later books were kind of silly, and/or not the sort of thing people would actually play. Many classes, especially prestige classes, work better for NPCs. As for the choices in 4e, I wish there were a couple more controllers, just so the party wouldn’t have to either force someone to play a wizard, or do without. Aside from that, I’m happy. If I want to make “the perfect character” with stats exactly where I want them, I’ll play a classless game like d6. If I want to min-max, I’ll play 3.5. If I want to pick up something shiny and go blow stuff up, 4e is great.

By: greywulf

greywulf — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:53:24 +0000

I like the choices we’ve currently got in 4e D&D, and think that a lot of the additional choices we got in 3e just served to muddy the waters. Certainly in our games, 90% of the characters came straight from the PHB.

With 4e there’s loads of potential for divergent characters from the the Core Rules alone with all of the Classes, Multi-class options, Races and different Powers. I won’t be looking any further than just those books any time soon.