The General D&D thread

Now, this, I do agree with.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds mostly like the spell classifications I've seen in third edition as well. Labelling spells as a Death spell, a Phantasm, a Pattern, Fire, etc.

Or perhaps I should just dig up my 4th edition books and find out for myself.

Yes, 3E did have some keywords, but they didn't apply them consistently and across the board.

This isn't JUST me fanboying now - Tomu, what do you think of Legend's way of doing things - i.e. keywords not only exist, but are usually presented as [Keyword]?

I haven't looked at Legend much lately, but how is that different from how 4E does things?

Of the things I disliked about Legend, how they handled keywords wasn't one of them.

The bracketed keywords are legit one of the best things about Legend. (Great target for jokes, though. My printed copy of the book has brackets around the title in hi-liter.)

Oh right, they use keywords in the power text.

Yeah, that's probably a technical improvement over how 4E does things. "You deal fire damage" causes your power to gain the fire keyword, which is pretty close but still. Meh.

Keywords rule, but I'm a very technical gamer. You want flavor text too.

Flavor text can be cool, but I don't like the way D&D tends to handle it. Just saying "Arcane Bolt" or "Whirlwind Strike" puts a strong image in my mind, and it doesn't help to have the game tell me that they're blue streaks of light rather than the crackling gold bolts I was picturing. (That said, I don't begrudge the flavor text's existence. If it makes things less dry for people, more power to it.)

And some flavor text is just embarrassing. I seem to recall a Ranger power from the first handbook (might have been Double Strike, but I actually think it was a two-weapon encounter power) that said, "You sink both blades into your opponent, making them howl in pain." Really? Really?

Arcane Bolt and Whirlwind Strike might be pretty evocative, but then there's stuff like "Remove Disease" or "Detect Magic"...

Less is more, IMO.

It's true that the rules should concentrate on the effects and use of abilities in preference to flavor. Well, in a crunch-heavy game like D&D at least. Other systems may be able to get away with more freeform roleplaying but not this one.

My main objection is that the more fluff you have, the more the DM has to "override" if his campaign is different. I find it annoying just having to tell players "No pixies" or something, having to say "no, that spell doesn't do that-it makes no sense in the context of this game" is just another layer of all that.

Managing player expectations is always difficult. I find a lot of players assuming that because a splatbook exists that has a particular race, class, feat, spell, etc., they should automatically get to use it, no matter how gamebreaking it may be.

You're an imaginative DM but Tomu.

4e gives you lack of an tightly defining setting and background compared to earlier edition is great if you're creative type who can fill in the blank. But a lot of players like having a rich world to draw from, for example look at the success of the Dark Hersey game line

Well sure, but I don't think that's what Dn D is. Dn D is supposed to be generic-it's why the campaign settings exist as supplementary materials.

Truth.

System shouldn't equal setting unless the two are very, very closely intertwined (I.E. the setting revolves around a mechanical system which only ever makes sense for that setting.)

Speaking of did 'wizards if the coast ever publish any original settings for 4th Ed? Everything on my bookcase is rewritten of old 3.5 and Advance stuff like neverwinter or eberron.

The official setting is Points Of Light. Basically, the ultimate Adventure-Friendly World.

Eh, Points Of Light isn't really a setting, so much as it's a series of assumptions about setting. 4E has default assumptions about the world (deities, demon lords, the planes, etc), but it's unclear whether that constitutes a setting onto itself.

I wouldn't call D&D a generic system — a lot of setting-y stuff is built into the mechanics. Stuff as basic as the difference between divine and arcane magic builds some pretty serious basic assumptions into the game setting, to say nothing of the existence of spells like Plane Shift or Raise Dead.

Put another way, I'd say that D&D's metaphysics is pretty set in stone, but the details of specific geography and politics is left open unless you're using campaign setting materials. But given that it's a fantasy game, the metaphysics are (at least to me) the biggest part of the setting.

That's true-I actually tend to ignore much of the metaphysics in my game as well, though often by replacing them with near identical ones.

So is there any official campaign settings then? Baring nebulous outlines for the DM.

My character died.

You have our sympathies. Let us mourn the passing of-uhhh, what was the name of the deceased?

edited 30th Sep '12 9:27:39 PM by TheyCallMeTomu