It really is a return to basic d&d, which is something they say in interviews. The idea us that a lot the character options that we crave really could be handled as ad hoc rulings when appropriate. By giving someone an option to grapple, for instance, you have to justify why it's better than someone else audio trying to grapple. Even basic had that problem, though, add only thieves had the ability to climb walls. You ended up with adventures that let climb walls be a strength check, abd suddenly thieves everywhere felt like others not only encroached on their territory, but in this case were often better at it than they were.
Having said that, they added feats and have entered that problematic area themselves. For instance they have a feat which gives a bonus for "charging" so as a DM you suddenly don't want to give the barbarian a bonus to charging, even though it feels right, but the fighter bought the feat.
I have liked the focus on gridless play, which they call "theater of the mind." We still draw fights out, but the folks don't
( ... )
Longer version: Bounded Accuracy (the flattened math curve) is wonderful, the fact that you have to choose between Feats and ability score increases makes character development choices truly meaningful, the Bonds/Ideals/Flaws/Traits system is really helpful for making the characters feel like more than just a walking collection of numbers and for facilitating group communication (both among the PCs and with the GM), the Concentration rules for spellcasting help a ton to both bring down the power of casters and speed things up (by making ultra-buffing impossible), and the Backgrounds system makes it possible to create "hybrid" character concepts very nicely, like a Criminal Wizard or a Craftsperson Fighter.
Sure, there are one or two things that could be improved-Beastmaster Ranger is nigh-universally agreed to be underpowered, for example-but overall it's a really fantastic design.
Comments 7
It really is a return to basic d&d, which is something they say in interviews. The idea us that a lot the character options that we crave really could be handled as ad hoc rulings when appropriate. By giving someone an option to grapple, for instance, you have to justify why it's better than someone else audio trying to grapple. Even basic had that problem, though, add only thieves had the ability to climb walls. You ended up with adventures that let climb walls be a strength check, abd suddenly thieves everywhere felt like others not only encroached on their territory, but in this case were often better at it than they were.
Having said that, they added feats and have entered that problematic area themselves. For instance they have a feat which gives a bonus for "charging" so as a DM you suddenly don't want to give the barbarian a bonus to charging, even though it feels right, but the fighter bought the feat.
I have liked the focus on gridless play, which they call "theater of the mind." We still draw fights out, but the folks don't ( ... )
Reply
Longer version: Bounded Accuracy (the flattened math curve) is wonderful, the fact that you have to choose between Feats and ability score increases makes character development choices truly meaningful, the Bonds/Ideals/Flaws/Traits system is really helpful for making the characters feel like more than just a walking collection of numbers and for facilitating group communication (both among the PCs and with the GM), the Concentration rules for spellcasting help a ton to both bring down the power of casters and speed things up (by making ultra-buffing impossible), and the Backgrounds system makes it possible to create "hybrid" character concepts very nicely, like a Criminal Wizard or a Craftsperson Fighter.
Sure, there are one or two things that could be improved-Beastmaster Ranger is nigh-universally agreed to be underpowered, for example-but overall it's a really fantastic design.
Reply
Leave a comment