Apparently the ranger's right arm has no radius, only an ulna.
Also, the goblin in the back - his left arm is insanely long.
Where's the quality control at the art department?
Not quite as egregious as the warlock whose right arm is apparently dislocated (or perhaps a spiral fracture); but still.
Zero Buzz on 5E...Is It Dead Out The Gate?
Moderator: Moderators
The art style is so grossly Pathfinder. They had 4 years to come up with a new art direction and "Plagiarize Pathfinder" was what they went with.
It is somewhere between the very start of 3.0 and Pathfinder. Kinda lame.
It is somewhere between the very start of 3.0 and Pathfinder. Kinda lame.
Last edited by Insomniac on Fri Jul 25, 2014 1:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
That's a Wayne Reynolds piece. I can't imagine why you'd think his personal style looks like Pathfinder art. Is it because he's done more art for them than any three other Paizo artists, or because he's done basically all their major covers and characters?Insomniac wrote:The art style is so grossly Pathfinder. They had 4 years to come up with a new art direction and "Plagiarize Pathfinder" was what they went with.
It is somewhere between the very start of 3.0 and Pathfinder. Kinda lame.
All sarcasm aside, I identify his art most closely with the 3e Eberron books, but he's done work for a ton of fantasy IPs (Magic, Warcraft, 3e and 4e D&D, etc).
They're not plagiarizing Pathfinder, that piece was done by Wayne Reynolds, who did a lot of 3rd edition's best art, and has done a lot of art for Magic as well, along with a lot of other games.
D&D isn't ripping off Pathfinder, Pathfinder commissioned one of D&D's better freelancers.
D&D isn't ripping off Pathfinder, Pathfinder commissioned one of D&D's better freelancers.
Cuz apparently I gotta break this down for you dense motherfuckers- I'm trans feminine nonbinary. My pronouns are they/them.
Winnah wrote:No, No. 'Prak' is actually a Thri Kreen impersonating a human and roleplaying himself as a D&D character. All hail our hidden insect overlords.
FrankTrollman wrote:In Soviet Russia, cosmic horror is the default state.
You should gain sanity for finding out that the problems of a region are because there are fucking monsters there.
Insomniac could you please put that Pic in spoiler tags?
Edit: Thanks.
Edit: Thanks.
Last edited by Covent on Fri Jul 25, 2014 3:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Maxus wrote:Being wrong is something that rightly should be celebrated, because now you have a chance to correct and then you'll be better than you were five minutes ago. Perfection is a hollow shell, but perfectibility is something that is to be treasured.
-
Amalie Gaston
- NPC
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Sat May 10, 2014 11:03 pm
So, the first two pages of the sorcerer are wandering about
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread ... e-Sorcerer!
Its... a wizard, but with a limit on spells known. Some sort of abilities for being descended from fey or dragons, and something called metamagic that may or may not be recognizable. Other than that it gets a bonus to con saves (which is good) and chr saves (which so far is utterly useless) and some skills are different, so whatever.
Granted, getting rid of the 'you don't get level appropriate spells at 5th level' speed bump is good. But, at first glance, it has fuck all of a point other than using charisma so stout halflings are the (sub)race of choice rather than high elves.
On the plus side, the art is at least evocative, though the hands are kind of a shame.
Minor apologies for the link source, but that is where i found it.
A point of discussion there struck me as funny: there was a bit of 'you don't know what the class abilities do, so you can't say its just like the wizard'
Here's the thing, though: they're getting abilities at mostly the same levels. The wizard's arcane schools don't need to be evocation, enchantment, etc. They can just as easily be 'ice school' 'dragon school,' 'fey school' or whatever the fuck. Beyond casting stat (which is trivial to just change) and optimal race, having these as separate classes means fuck all.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread ... e-Sorcerer!
Its... a wizard, but with a limit on spells known. Some sort of abilities for being descended from fey or dragons, and something called metamagic that may or may not be recognizable. Other than that it gets a bonus to con saves (which is good) and chr saves (which so far is utterly useless) and some skills are different, so whatever.
Granted, getting rid of the 'you don't get level appropriate spells at 5th level' speed bump is good. But, at first glance, it has fuck all of a point other than using charisma so stout halflings are the (sub)race of choice rather than high elves.
On the plus side, the art is at least evocative, though the hands are kind of a shame.
Minor apologies for the link source, but that is where i found it.
A point of discussion there struck me as funny: there was a bit of 'you don't know what the class abilities do, so you can't say its just like the wizard'
Here's the thing, though: they're getting abilities at mostly the same levels. The wizard's arcane schools don't need to be evocation, enchantment, etc. They can just as easily be 'ice school' 'dragon school,' 'fey school' or whatever the fuck. Beyond casting stat (which is trivial to just change) and optimal race, having these as separate classes means fuck all.
And also 4e, and quite a bit of dancing about the subject in 3e. The 'copying PF' line is about as valid as 'copying warcraft' or 'copying star trek,' or 'copying tolkien' which is to say, half of that is stolen right out of shakespeare, who ripped off most of the playwrights of antiquity (or in the latter case, norse mythology). Shut up.Rawbeard wrote:speaking of plagiarizing Pathfinder, the sorcerer preview does look awefully familiar...
Last edited by Voss on Fri Jul 25, 2014 10:20 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Remember, spellcasting is majorly different in 5e.
3.5 style spell preparation is gone. Instead, the Wizard gets spell slots based on his level and prepares a list of Class Level + Int spells out of his spellbook every long rest to spontaneously cast from. For example, a 3rd level wizard with 16 Int gets four 1st level spell slots, two 2nd level spell slots and the ability to prepare 6 spells every day. He can prepare Silent Image, Burning Hands, Suggestion, Invisibility, Knock and Web and then cast 6 Silent Images; 4 Silent Images, a Burning Hands and a Web; Suggestion twice, Burning Hands 3 times and Silent Image once, or any other combination of spells to spell slots.
We know that they're not going to be doing the traditional Spontaneous/Prepared caster thing, since all casters in this edition cast spontaneously. We can be pretty sure that Sorcerous Origin is going to be analogous to the wizard's Arcane Tradition. And we also know that the Sorcerer gets +1 Cantrip and something called "Sorcery Points" that are used by the class feature "Font of Magic" in exchange for going from a large, variable list of spells they can spontaneously cast to a short, fixed list. The extra Cantrip is kinda pointless, so it's mostly just a question of what a sorcery point is and why you should care about it enough to sacrifice the flexibility of a large spontaneous casting list. Some possibilitiess that come to mind:
1. Psionics-style "Augmenting" where the Sorcerer can spend a Sorcery Point to make a spell count as if he'd cast it with a higher level slot than he actually used. We know that lots of low level spells scale up when cast like a high level slot, and this seems like the sort of twisty callback that the WotC team might go for. Admittedly, this will probably be terrible in play, but on paper the ability to cast a small number of spells really hard seems like it could make up for not knowing as many in the first place, if you pick ones that scale well.
2. Psionics-style power points. Maybe you can spend a Sorcery Point to cast a 1st level spell. That would mean that the Sorcerer effectively gets four 1st level slots at level one compared to the wizard's two, which would square with the 3.5 sorcere mindset of less spells known for more spells per day. The 3rd level sorcerer would have an extra spell of the 1st and 2nd levels, while a 20th level shows up with three 9th level spells and a little extra to spare.
3. Something related to Metamagic. Maybe the Sorcerer gets to pay Sorcery Points to widen/extend/enlarge/heighten a spell? This ties into Option 1 a little, in that Option 1 is basically this, except "Font of Magic" is basically the same as "Metamagic: Heighten". The fact that the Sorcerer gets the "Metamagic" class ability multiple times implies that they select one metamagic to know every time they get that ability, possibily with the option to buy more via feats/archtypes.
3.5 style spell preparation is gone. Instead, the Wizard gets spell slots based on his level and prepares a list of Class Level + Int spells out of his spellbook every long rest to spontaneously cast from. For example, a 3rd level wizard with 16 Int gets four 1st level spell slots, two 2nd level spell slots and the ability to prepare 6 spells every day. He can prepare Silent Image, Burning Hands, Suggestion, Invisibility, Knock and Web and then cast 6 Silent Images; 4 Silent Images, a Burning Hands and a Web; Suggestion twice, Burning Hands 3 times and Silent Image once, or any other combination of spells to spell slots.
We know that they're not going to be doing the traditional Spontaneous/Prepared caster thing, since all casters in this edition cast spontaneously. We can be pretty sure that Sorcerous Origin is going to be analogous to the wizard's Arcane Tradition. And we also know that the Sorcerer gets +1 Cantrip and something called "Sorcery Points" that are used by the class feature "Font of Magic" in exchange for going from a large, variable list of spells they can spontaneously cast to a short, fixed list. The extra Cantrip is kinda pointless, so it's mostly just a question of what a sorcery point is and why you should care about it enough to sacrifice the flexibility of a large spontaneous casting list. Some possibilitiess that come to mind:
1. Psionics-style "Augmenting" where the Sorcerer can spend a Sorcery Point to make a spell count as if he'd cast it with a higher level slot than he actually used. We know that lots of low level spells scale up when cast like a high level slot, and this seems like the sort of twisty callback that the WotC team might go for. Admittedly, this will probably be terrible in play, but on paper the ability to cast a small number of spells really hard seems like it could make up for not knowing as many in the first place, if you pick ones that scale well.
2. Psionics-style power points. Maybe you can spend a Sorcery Point to cast a 1st level spell. That would mean that the Sorcerer effectively gets four 1st level slots at level one compared to the wizard's two, which would square with the 3.5 sorcere mindset of less spells known for more spells per day. The 3rd level sorcerer would have an extra spell of the 1st and 2nd levels, while a 20th level shows up with three 9th level spells and a little extra to spare.
3. Something related to Metamagic. Maybe the Sorcerer gets to pay Sorcery Points to widen/extend/enlarge/heighten a spell? This ties into Option 1 a little, in that Option 1 is basically this, except "Font of Magic" is basically the same as "Metamagic: Heighten". The fact that the Sorcerer gets the "Metamagic" class ability multiple times implies that they select one metamagic to know every time they get that ability, possibily with the option to buy more via feats/archtypes.
FrankTrollman wrote:I think Grek already won the thread and we should pack it in.
Chamomile wrote:Grek is a national treasure.
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Considering who was working on it in early stages, I think we're basically looking at Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed casters.hogarth wrote:Similar to the 3.5E Spirit Shaman, for example.Grek wrote:3.5 style spell preparation is gone. Instead, the Wizard gets spell slots based on his level and prepares a list of Class Level + Int spells out of his spellbook every long rest to spontaneously cast from.
-Username17
Well, no. Spell prep is different (as Frank points out, it is effectively Monte style, which in retrospect is an odd thing for him to burn all his political capital on), but spell casting is still 'burn slot.'Grek wrote:Remember, spellcasting is majorly different in 5e.
But my point was, none of what you wrote needs to involve a separate class. Those could just be Arcane Tradition features for a slightly different wizard build. Given that they are also cramming it in alongside the warlock (and the bard, I suppose), it feels insufficiently different as its own class.
Part of it is simply that I'm not sure this was the best way to spend the 'classes' page count. They decided to go with 12 classes, and to some degree this had to be dictated by the traditional D&D classes. And mostly I'm fine with that, but they ended up with:
Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard.
And to me, those last 3 really stand out* as treading over each other's territory. This is particularly true since at one point during the playtest, Mikey made a point of having NO wizard class, just a 'mage' class that could be reconfigured (via class abilities) as a wizard, sorcerer and warlock. That they ultimately went with the opposite is puzzling.
(for reference: http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130902
This was seriously what he was thinking less than 10 months ago, almost at the end of the playtest)
But as it stands, thats 3 classes that stand in back in no (or light, in the case of the warlock) armor and toss spells around. From a game play perspective that seems kind of shitty- they're even largely pulling off the same spell list as far as I can tell (unlike the cleric, druid, ranger and paladin). As much as I like the concept of the sorcerer, it seems like a missed opportunity to do a class that does something different from the other classes and see if something more tactically interesting can be done under the 5e rules.
*we could argue over barbarian vs fighter and cleric vs druid, but they're all old enough that we can figure out why they're there, even if that seems like insufficient reason. On a personal level, I'm a bit sad to see the monk again, but whatever, I can't expect them to cater to my whims all the time.
On the subject of missed opportunities, apparently Neverwinter, the pseudo MMO that came out emulating the 4e ruleset after 4e was dead and buried, is getting an update to cross promote Tyranny of Dragons. Because apparently there is no better way to promote the new version of D&D that uses completely different class mechanics than to stuff dragonborn into a 4e game. You certainly wouldn't want to release a 5e game to get people interested in the new version of D&D.
Last edited by Voss on Sat Jul 26, 2014 6:35 pm, edited 2 times in total.
It lends credit to the idea that 5e is banking on appeal to players of earlier additions.Voss wrote:Well, no. Spell prep is different (as Frank points out, it is effectively Monte style, which in retrospect is an odd thing for him to burn all his political capital on), but spell casting is still 'burn slot.'Grek wrote:Remember, spellcasting is majorly different in 5e.
But my point was, none of what you wrote needs to involve a separate class. Those could just be Arcane Tradition features for a slightly different wizard build. Given that they are also cramming it in alongside the warlock (and the bard, I suppose), it feels insufficiently different as its own class.
Part of it is simply that I'm not sure this was the best way to spend the 'classes' page count. They decided to go with 12 classes, and to some degree this had to be dictated by the traditional D&D classes. And mostly I'm fine with that, but they ended up with:
Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard.
And to me, those last 3 really stand out* as treading over each other's territory. This is particularly true since at one point during the playtest, Mikey made a point of having NO wizard class, just a 'mage' class that could be reconfigured (via class abilities) as a wizard, sorcerer and warlock. That they ultimately went with the opposite is puzzling.
(for reference: http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130902
This was seriously what he was thinking less than 10 months ago, almost at the end of the playtest)
But as it stands, thats 3 classes that stand in back in no (or light, in the case of the warlock) armor and toss spells around. From a game play perspective that seems kind of shitty- they're even largely pulling off the same spell list as far as I can tell (unlike the cleric, druid, ranger and paladin). As much as I like the concept of the sorcerer, it seems like a missed opportunity to do a class that does something different from the other classes and see if something more tactically interesting can be done under the 5e rules.
*we could argue over barbarian vs fighter and cleric vs druid, but they're all old enough that we can figure out why they're there, even if that seems like insufficient reason. On a personal level, I'm a bit sad to see the monk again, but whatever, I can't expect them to cater to my whims all the time.
On the subject of missed opportunities, apparently Neverwinter, the pseudo MMO that came out emulating the 4e ruleset after 4e was dead and buried, is getting an update to cross promote Tyranny of Dragons. Because apparently there is no better way to promote the new version of D&D that uses completely different class mechanics than to stuff dragonborn into a 4e game. You certainly wouldn't want to release a 5e game to get people interested in the new version of D&D.
Even though the classes have heavy overlap, the design team wants to appeal to 3.5/pathfinder players by saying "we have Wizards and Sorcerers." and 4e players with "we have Warlocks!".
It fits there "something for everyone." motto.
Well, considering that was a stated design goal, yeah, they are trying to appeal to early players. But... if they were really trying to appeal to 4e players, I would have expected the warlord in place of the sorcerer or warlock (which are both 3e constructions anyway, and the form of the 5e warlock strikes me as at least as much 3e as 4e).
That literally none of the classes or races* designed for 4e show up in 5e says a lot to me, even the flagship 'new class' of the edition, let alone the avenger, dickpriest, useless nature archer, the psionicist Con tank, invoker, warden, etc. The race list has been pared down to (standard D&D (including gnomes, half-elves, and half orcs) + tiefling and dragonborn.
*before anyone tries, while 4e pushed dragonborn more into the spotlight, they were a 3e creation.
They've made it pretty clear that much of 4e was jettisoned, and even the 4e backers within Wizards gave up early on in the process.
That literally none of the classes or races* designed for 4e show up in 5e says a lot to me, even the flagship 'new class' of the edition, let alone the avenger, dickpriest, useless nature archer, the psionicist Con tank, invoker, warden, etc. The race list has been pared down to (standard D&D (including gnomes, half-elves, and half orcs) + tiefling and dragonborn.
*before anyone tries, while 4e pushed dragonborn more into the spotlight, they were a 3e creation.
They've made it pretty clear that much of 4e was jettisoned, and even the 4e backers within Wizards gave up early on in the process.
-
deaddmwalking
- Prince
- Posts: 3591
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am
Every single version of the Cavalier has sucked ass. The first one sucked ass because it was overpowered as fuck by virtue of shitloads of random bonuses and getting the unique ability to upgrade stats every level up. For no reason.deaddmwalking wrote:If they were REALLY looking to appeal to the nostalgia crowd, we'd have seen Cavalier as one of the base classes. It freakin' made it into the D&D cartoon, so it isn't 'dead on the vine'.
Every version since has sucked by virtue of being just a goddamn fighter who loses yet more resources for being saddled with a horse.
-
deaddmwalking
- Prince
- Posts: 3591
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 11:33 am
And your point is?Voss wrote:Every single version of the Cavalier has sucked ass. The first one sucked ass because it was overpowered as fuck by virtue of shitloads of random bonuses and getting the unique ability to upgrade stats every level up. For no reason.deaddmwalking wrote:If they were REALLY looking to appeal to the nostalgia crowd, we'd have seen Cavalier as one of the base classes. It freakin' made it into the D&D cartoon, so it isn't 'dead on the vine'.
Every version since has sucked by virtue of being just a goddamn fighter who loses yet more resources for being saddled with a horse.
You're not seriously suggesting that they didn't include it because they couldn't find a way to make it good, are you? I mean, they have a monk for the love of all that's holy.
Of course not. They didn't include it because they didn't get piles of fanmail, death threats, entitled whining and general sniveling to include it because no one gives a fuck. The monk, on the other hand, has literally generated pages and pages of all of that crap for decades. I'm saying the cavalier has very little nostalgia value because it has always been shit. People do want knights, but they don't need to be The Cavalier Class. The D&D cartoon is a weird thing to reference, since Eric was the joke character that everyone ragged on.deaddmwalking wrote:And your point is?Voss wrote:Every single version of the Cavalier has sucked ass. The first one sucked ass because it was overpowered as fuck by virtue of shitloads of random bonuses and getting the unique ability to upgrade stats every level up. For no reason.deaddmwalking wrote:If they were REALLY looking to appeal to the nostalgia crowd, we'd have seen Cavalier as one of the base classes. It freakin' made it into the D&D cartoon, so it isn't 'dead on the vine'.
Every version since has sucked by virtue of being just a goddamn fighter who loses yet more resources for being saddled with a horse.
You're not seriously suggesting that they didn't include it because they couldn't find a way to make it good, are you? I mean, they have a monk for the love of all that's holy.
Plus, full plate and shield knight is easily just stuffed under fighter as a 'path' or 'archetype' option (whatever they're calling it), so you can take the core concept of the 'cavalier' and just have it. In fact, I'm pretty sure that was in one of playtest versions at one point*. The fighter class inherently covers most of the concept anyway, so why bother with yet another armored melee dude? That niche is overburdened between the fighter and paladin as is. Plus 'I'm a knight' is also one of those background things that nets you a couple skills if you scribble it down on your character sheet. They've pretty much have the whole deal more than covered.
Its the same kind of mistake that I think they're making with the sorcerer and the wizard: too much overlap and the differences can be sorted out with path features.
*yep, the august 2013 packet. Path of the Knight: defensive options, 'courtly graces' (bonus on charisma checks), challenges, and bonuses for charging. Even low level knights who follow you around when you hit level 19.
Last edited by Voss on Sun Jul 27, 2014 4:09 am, edited 7 times in total.
Monk is much more easily distinguished from a fighter than a cavalier.deaddmwalking wrote:And your point is?Voss wrote:Every single version of the Cavalier has sucked ass. The first one sucked ass because it was overpowered as fuck by virtue of shitloads of random bonuses and getting the unique ability to upgrade stats every level up. For no reason.deaddmwalking wrote:If they were REALLY looking to appeal to the nostalgia crowd, we'd have seen Cavalier as one of the base classes. It freakin' made it into the D&D cartoon, so it isn't 'dead on the vine'.
Every version since has sucked by virtue of being just a goddamn fighter who loses yet more resources for being saddled with a horse.
You're not seriously suggesting that they didn't include it because they couldn't find a way to make it good, are you? I mean, they have a monk for the love of all that's holy.
One of the big issues is that a mount is useless in a large portion of combat(inside, crowded cities, caves, etcs)
Cavalier is from a time when "Class" still meant your social class as well as your ability set. Thieves were cowardly ragamuffins hanging on the coattails of real adventurers like grimdark heroes, pious church trouble-shooters, and secretive magic-user cultists.
It's why the Fighter had so many sub-classes in the first place, magic-fearing Barbarian tribesmen, Druid-taught Rangers and Bards in the borderlands, and high cultured fairytale knights.
That's long gone, almost, kind of, if you ignore what they're doing to Sorcerers and Warlocks and so on, missing the obvious marketing hook of a Dwarf Barbarian. Besides, Paladins have still got all the worthwhile aspects of the old Cavaliers, that being a free horse.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment ... 1406295677
PHB Table of Contents. 3-5 pages per race, 5-7 per class, 22 of backgrounds, 20 for gear, 2 are multiclassing rules, 6 for feats, 8 on stat checks, 8 for adventuring, 10 in combat, 6 on casting, 86 for spells. A huge amount of that has to be art in the early bits.
vs 3.0 which is 1 per race, 2-4 per class, 20 of skills, 10 for feats, 8 of background, 20 for gear, 21 in combat, 6 for adventuring, 12 on casting, 116 for spells.
So ... more feat-like stuff folded into the classes, way more race fluff and art, and generally less rules and more ... alternate space filler content. 25% less magic could be the reduced spell clarity I guess.
It's why the Fighter had so many sub-classes in the first place, magic-fearing Barbarian tribesmen, Druid-taught Rangers and Bards in the borderlands, and high cultured fairytale knights.
That's long gone, almost, kind of, if you ignore what they're doing to Sorcerers and Warlocks and so on, missing the obvious marketing hook of a Dwarf Barbarian. Besides, Paladins have still got all the worthwhile aspects of the old Cavaliers, that being a free horse.
http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachment ... 1406295677
PHB Table of Contents. 3-5 pages per race, 5-7 per class, 22 of backgrounds, 20 for gear, 2 are multiclassing rules, 6 for feats, 8 on stat checks, 8 for adventuring, 10 in combat, 6 on casting, 86 for spells. A huge amount of that has to be art in the early bits.
vs 3.0 which is 1 per race, 2-4 per class, 20 of skills, 10 for feats, 8 of background, 20 for gear, 21 in combat, 6 for adventuring, 12 on casting, 116 for spells.
So ... more feat-like stuff folded into the classes, way more race fluff and art, and generally less rules and more ... alternate space filler content. 25% less magic could be the reduced spell clarity I guess.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
I suspect the 25% less on spells at least partly comes from ripping things out of the game. Just the Summon Monster/Nature's Ally spells are about 4 pages of that 30 page difference.
So, the Selling Treasure section caught my eye as I was looking other stuff up, and it occurred to me that it had some interesting carry on effects on the game. General equipment, armor and weapons sell for about half, unless it is 'monster equipment,' in which case it is defined as shitty and doesn't sell at all. Magic Items don't sell for love or money, which I have far less of a problem with. On the other hand, Gems, Jewelry and Art all sell for full market value, as do trade goods.
This has two pretty interesting effects:
1) money means fuck all. Yeah, you want a couple thousand so you can buy plate or half-plate or spyglasses and live the high life in the lifestyle section, but beyond that, it doesn't translate into Real Character Power so whatever.
2) The best way to said money is for low level characters to immediately become bandits, pirates or art thieves, and leave the monsters the fuck alone. Adventuring skills apply just as well to hijacking merchant caravans or ships, or breaking into homes and stealing wedding rings. After you've got your seed money for all the mundane equipment you'll ever need, you can move on to actual adventuring.
So, the Selling Treasure section caught my eye as I was looking other stuff up, and it occurred to me that it had some interesting carry on effects on the game. General equipment, armor and weapons sell for about half, unless it is 'monster equipment,' in which case it is defined as shitty and doesn't sell at all. Magic Items don't sell for love or money, which I have far less of a problem with. On the other hand, Gems, Jewelry and Art all sell for full market value, as do trade goods.
This has two pretty interesting effects:
1) money means fuck all. Yeah, you want a couple thousand so you can buy plate or half-plate or spyglasses and live the high life in the lifestyle section, but beyond that, it doesn't translate into Real Character Power so whatever.
2) The best way to said money is for low level characters to immediately become bandits, pirates or art thieves, and leave the monsters the fuck alone. Adventuring skills apply just as well to hijacking merchant caravans or ships, or breaking into homes and stealing wedding rings. After you've got your seed money for all the mundane equipment you'll ever need, you can move on to actual adventuring.
Last edited by Voss on Sun Jul 27, 2014 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
Lago PARANOIA
- Invincible Overlord
- Posts: 10555
- Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am
That may or may not be a step in the right direction, Voss. It depends on what the rest of the magical item acquisition system looks like.
I think that 2E D&D had the best treasure system out of all of the D&Ds and 5E D&D embracing that paradigm would be a definite point in 5E's favor over 3E and 4E D&D. However:
So let's see what the rest of the system looks like. Right now things lean in the direction of 2E D&D but Mike Mearls and friends could fuck up a one-car funeral.
I think that 2E D&D had the best treasure system out of all of the D&Ds and 5E D&D embracing that paradigm would be a definite point in 5E's favor over 3E and 4E D&D. However:
Note that this could also largely apply to 4E D&D's post-Essentials magical item acquisition system. Which is and was literally the worst magical item system I've ever seen in a game.So, the Selling Treasure section caught my eye as I was looking other stuff up, and it occurred to me that it had some interesting carry on effects on the game. General equipment, armor and weapons sell for about half, unless it is 'monster equipment,' in which case it is defined as shitty and doesn't sell at all. Magic Items don't sell for love or money, which I have far less of a problem with. On the other hand, Gems, Jewelry and Art all sell for full market value, as do trade goods.
So let's see what the rest of the system looks like. Right now things lean in the direction of 2E D&D but Mike Mearls and friends could fuck up a one-car funeral.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.