|
Post by ayslyn on May 6, 2012 23:46:39 GMT -8
Social and Physical Resources are plot points, and completely within the purview of the GM. If your 3/4e games were missing that, then it was their choice to not include it. The reason why followers (especially in the "... hordes of" category was dropped was that people weren't really using them. They got cumbersome, and therefor, a lot of groups house ruled them out. There was enough of a trend that the designers said, "If people aren't interested in this, why are we putting it in?"
And, I would disagree with the point of the later editions not dealing well with companions. But, I suspect that is a matter of opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2012 2:48:15 GMT -8
Social and Physical Resources are plot points, and completely within the purview of the GM. If your 3/4e games were missing that, then it was their choice to not include it. The reason why followers (especially in the "... hordes of" category was dropped was that people weren't really using them. They got cumbersome, and therefor, a lot of groups house ruled them out. There was enough of a trend that the designers said, "If people aren't interested in this, why are we putting it in?" And, I would disagree with the point of the later editions not dealing well with companions. But, I suspect that is a matter of opinion. I agree, most players I know would rather earn those as plot rewards (wizard towers, castles, titles, followers etc.) as part of the story rather than a class features. I don't remember using those rules at all during my time with 2e. Besides, it's D&D we are talking about, with it's inherent power creep, low level followers are only potentially useful if their corpses count as difficult terrain.
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on May 7, 2012 8:42:12 GMT -8
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2012 9:27:09 GMT -8
Social and Physical Resources are plot points, and completely within the purview of the GM. If your 3/4e games were missing that, then it was their choice to not include it. I completely agree and that's why I don't believe one could consider them part of balancing classes in those editions but are prime for inclusion in 5th as a way to make the classes equal if one still wanted a sense that magic was extremely powerful compared to a guy with a sword, bow, or lute of equal level (such as the Your Highness movie). I'd be perfectly happy if they just balanced the classes at higher level so they played kind of like how sorcerer, rogue, and fighter did in the Demonstone game. I believe 4th edition did that but sacrificed a bit too much of the feel I got playing 2ed and 3.5. Edit: Don't get me wrong; I like 4th edition but it doesn't feel like I'm playing the "spiritual" successor to 3.5. It feels like I'm playing World of Warcraft: The Board Game except as an RPG. I think I get that feeling, not necessarily because of the rules, but from how the rules and classes are presented. I say this because the Tome of Battle effectively introduced melee classes with power cards while still feeling like it fit in with the rest of 3.5.[/edit] I agree, most players I know would rather earn those as plot rewards (wizard towers, castles, titles, followers etc.) as part of the story rather than a class features. Right, one could say that anything non-combat or skill related in D&D is not crunchy/gritty. Those aspects of the game were of the "GM may I?" variety. I'm personally a fan of it because, as noted, they make for good rewards though one of my regular players really gets titchy about any system that makes assumptions on behalf of GM behavior and rewards (past experiences have made him wary).
|
|
|
Post by ayslyn on May 20, 2012 5:36:34 GMT -8
|
|