What would it take to make 6e not garbage?

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

Starmaker
Duke
Posts: 2402
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Redmonton
Contact:

Post by Starmaker »

FrankTrollman wrote:But what about Dexterity? How is it not incredibly stupid for there to be negative Dexterity modifiers when getting caught flat footed negates your Dexterity? Like, how is it even possible for there to be 5 levels of slower movement than people who are attacked while not moving? Why is that even a fucking thing?
Not "not moving", just taken by surprise and unable to defend well. Those who can't move at all get -5, the very bottom of the scale, for those rare cases that don't result in automatic failure, as whatever caused the not moving at all is supposed to give helpless. So a person with Dexterity 1 can shoot a bow at -5, but a person who's securely tied up can't shoot at all and has -5 to AC when someone's shooting at him.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Starmaker wrote:
FrankTrollman wrote:But what about Dexterity? How is it not incredibly stupid for there to be negative Dexterity modifiers when getting caught flat footed negates your Dexterity? Like, how is it even possible for there to be 5 levels of slower movement than people who are attacked while not moving? Why is that even a fucking thing?
Not "not moving", just taken by surprise and unable to defend well. Those who can't move at all get -5, the very bottom of the scale, for those rare cases that don't result in automatic failure, as whatever caused the not moving at all is supposed to give helpless. So a person with Dexterity 1 can shoot a bow at -5, but a person who's securely tied up can't shoot at all and has -5 to AC when someone's shooting at him.
Well it includes literally unmoving. Flat footed people may be walking in a straight line or sitting in a chair eating porridge. In any case, if you want to make "literally paralyzed" even worse than "taking no action to defend yourself" you already have a model in stunned, the condition that denies dexterity and gives enemies an additional +2 to-hit.

The idea that there are characters whose movement is so impaired that they are less defended than people who are not in combat at all and simply making coffee or taking a shit is fucking absurd. And the idea that these characters should nominally represent half of the starting character dexterity range is puzzling and ridiculous. A +0 dexterity modifier should be reserve for sloths and turtles, and a negative dexterity modifier has no reason to exist at all.

-Username17
User avatar
ArmorClassZero
Journeyman
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:08 am

Post by ArmorClassZero »

So how much can D&D afford to change and still be called D&D?
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

ArmorClassZero wrote:So how much can D&D afford to change and still be called D&D?
Reasonably profoundly, at least as far as numbers go. Remember that 3rd edition inverted armor class and attack bonuses and changed Fire Giant Strength from 22 to 35 and no one even blinked. A lot of the specific holdover numbers they used for fear of alienating old fans turned out to be unpopular - pretty much everyone involved has come out and said that keeping the d4 hit die was overly conservative and a bad choice.

The 3e experiment and the 4e experiment show that slavish adherence to old systems is not necessary. But it also shows that bad design is punished severely. Using a bad design just because it was present in an old edition is a sucker's game.

But there is another thing that 4e showed: people aren't happy about you shrinking the content in the kitchen sink fantasy setting. People didn't throw a fit over kits being replaced with prestige classes or Dwarves being allowed to be Wizards. But people lost their shit about Druids, Gnomes, and Bards getting taken out of the PHB.

A serious edition of DnD could do whatever it wants to the math. But if there are less than 8 races and 15 classes in the PHB the edition is going to be stillborn.

-Username17
User avatar
RobbyPants
King
Posts: 5201
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

Post by RobbyPants »

FrankTrollman wrote: But what about Dexterity? How is it not incredibly stupid for there to be negative Dexterity modifiers when getting caught flat footed negates your Dexterity? Like, how is it even possible for there to be 5 levels of slower movement than people who are attacked while not moving? Why is that even a fucking thing?

Everyone should have a Dexterity bonus while they are able to move so that losing your dexterity bonus by being attacked while immobile has a consistent meaning. Because fucking obviously.
Every time I come up with the AC for a non-moving object, I keep wondering if I should apply a -5 penalty to the AC because it' can't move. When I first learned 3E in 2000, I remembered rationalizing why a person with an 8 Dexterity would be harder to hit when flat-footed, by telling myself "well, they haven't had a chance to fuck up, yet, and you're just hitting them based on their size and their clumsiness hasn't set in".

I didn't like that rationalization. Positive, bonus-only Dex seems way preferable for that reason.
Mord
Knight-Baron
Posts: 565
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:25 am

Post by Mord »

RobbyPants wrote:Every time I come up with the AC for a non-moving object, I keep wondering if I should apply a -5 penalty to the AC because it' can't move. When I first learned 3E in 2000, I remembered rationalizing why a person with an 8 Dexterity would be harder to hit when flat-footed, by telling myself "well, they haven't had a chance to fuck up, yet, and you're just hitting them based on their size and their clumsiness hasn't set in".

I didn't like that rationalization. Positive, bonus-only Dex seems way preferable for that reason.
Positive and negative modifiers aren't absolute - they're necessarily statements about something's position relative to the zero point. Whether you define that zero point as "totally unmoving object" or "hamster" or "level 1 Wizard" it doesn't matter. You set your zero point based on your most common use case in order to minimize the amount of head math happening at the table.

You're absolutely right that it's weird and stupid that someone losing their Dex bonus to AC when flatfooted can result in being harder to hit, but why is the best solution to that problem resetting the zero point on stat mods to conform to that specific use case? Why isn't it a better solution to change the rules that refer to potentially negative modifier values? For instance, change the definition of "flatfooted" such that it means you lose your Dex bonus to AC only if the Dex bonus is greater than zero.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Mord wrote: Positive and negative modifiers aren't absolute - they're necessarily statements about something's position relative to the zero point. Whether you define that zero point as "totally unmoving object" or "hamster" or "level 1 Wizard" it doesn't matter. You set your zero point based on your most common use case in order to minimize the amount of head math happening at the table.

You're absolutely right that it's weird and stupid that someone losing their Dex bonus to AC when flatfooted can result in being harder to hit, but why is the best solution to that problem resetting the zero point on stat mods to conform to that specific use case? Why isn't it a better solution to change the rules that refer to potentially negative modifier values? For instance, change the definition of "flatfooted" such that it means you lose your Dex bonus to AC only if the Dex bonus is greater than zero.
That's already the rule. It just sucks. If you're going to do things to make your opponents unable to move, that should benefit you. Having a bunch of potential Dexterity values in which you don't become less defended while defenseless is illogical. And there's no reason for it, because you could just move the zero point to the point where things actually don't move.

Having a significant number of characters having a zero or negative Dexterity modifier does nothing but add confusion and undermine the logic of the game. Especially because whether or not you are currently denied your dexterity bonus is a separately important gamestate question, meaning that it can currently be important whether you currently would be adding a bonus that you don't have if you had one to add. That is fucking bullshit.

Everything gets just a shit tonne easier if you move the zero point to zero. There's no benefit to putting it anywhere else. It just creates stupid edge cases and exceptions. Sloths and Turtles can have a Dexterity of 1 and get a +0 Dexterity bonus to AC. Fucking everything else can have a positive Dexterity modifier so that things can be clearly and consistently marked when they lose it.

-Username17
Emerald
Knight-Baron
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 9:18 pm

Post by Emerald »

RobbyPants wrote:Every time I come up with the AC for a non-moving object, I keep wondering if I should apply a -5 penalty to the AC because it' can't move.
Wonder no more!
SRD, Smashing Objects wrote:Armor Class

Objects are easier to hit than creatures because they usually don’t move, but many are tough enough to shrug off some damage from each blow. An object’s Armor Class is equal to 10 + its size modifier + its Dexterity modifier. An inanimate object has not only a Dexterity of 0 (-5 penalty to AC), but also an additional -2 penalty to its AC.
----

I think the bigger question about flat-footedness is not why some people go from +3 AC to +0 AC when flat-footed and others stay at -2, or whatever, but rather whether it's actually best represented by removing a Dex bonus at all.

At the start of combat you add your Dex to initiative to represent your unconscious reaction time and then immediately remove it from your AC until your turn to represent not being able to react fast enough to defend yourself, which doesn't make much sense. And in the all-positive-bonuses world, removing your Dex bonus would mean that being just a bit slow on the uptake causes you to be exactly as agile and maneuverable as a block of wood, which doesn't make much sense either.

Is there some other good way to represent both "getting the drop on someone has a noticeable impact" and "if a guy who relies on dodging over armor can't dodge, he's screwed" without mucking around with Dex to AC?
User avatar
RobbyPants
King
Posts: 5201
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

Post by RobbyPants »

Emerald wrote:
RobbyPants wrote:Every time I come up with the AC for a non-moving object, I keep wondering if I should apply a -5 penalty to the AC because it' can't move.
Wonder no more!
SRD, Smashing Objects wrote:Armor Class

Objects are easier to hit than creatures because they usually don’t move, but many are tough enough to shrug off some damage from each blow. An object’s Armor Class is equal to 10 + its size modifier + its Dexterity modifier. An inanimate object has not only a Dexterity of 0 (-5 penalty to AC), but also an additional -2 penalty to its AC.
Thanks. So I did remember reading that, then.
User avatar
Cervantes
Journeyman
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:27 pm

Post by Cervantes »

I've got another question for 6e: How do you change the six primary attributes?

Something like what Fate Accelerated did is interesting to me - instead of attributes they had "Approaches" and you could do things Sneakily or Handsomely or some shit like that. So it's not a measure of inherent character traits but rather just how good your dude is at doing things in such-and-such a style. I'm not proposing this or defending it or anything - it was just the first example of a non-Attribute Attribute system that came to mind and I wasn't sure if there was any fruit from that particular tree.

DnD attributes are a bit like an equivalence class over the set of possible actions. Researching is Intelligence, Perceiving is Wisdom, and so on - every action done in a particular way has a single Attribute that governs it. Is this actually feasible though? Should we allow overlap? Aren't we fucking sick of the Intelligence/Wisdom distinction?
Last edited by Cervantes on Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
nockermensch
Duke
Posts: 1898
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:11 pm
Location: Rio: the Janeiro

Post by nockermensch »

Speaking of attributes, Wisdom is fucking weird, anyway. A bizarre mix of willpower, insight and awareness that somehow determines how good your eyesight is, and also divine spelcasting and monk powers maybe???2

But if Wisdom is "so weird that's lovably nostalgic and genre-defining" like an invisibility spell that goes off after the first attack, or "so weird that's horrible" like warriors with 1hp at 1st level, is probably a matter of opinion.

It's just a fact that low level clerics in D&D usually notice things before low level rogues, but I really don't know if this is a feature or a bug.
@ @ Nockermensch
Koumei wrote:After all, in Firefox you keep tabs in your browser, but in SovietPutin's Russia, browser keeps tabs on you.
Mord wrote:Chromatic Wolves are massively under-CRed. Its "Dood to stone" spell-like is a TPK waiting to happen if you run into it before anyone in the party has Dance of Sack or Shield of Farts.
User avatar
OgreBattle
King
Posts: 6820
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am

Post by OgreBattle »

Cervantes wrote:I've got another question for 6e: How do you change the six primary attributes?
Everyone has the prime attributes so they're defenses that everything needs. "Undead don't have con" needs to be thrown out, vampires can get hungry and even robots have batteries and structural weakness.

If I don't need to keep them I'd change it to...

Body- STR and CON stuff, FORT, Athletics, Endurance skills
Agility- DEX stuff, REF, Acrobatics skill
Sense- spotting stuff skill, used for aimed weapons
Logic- book smarts stuff
Spirit- WIL defense

I'd rather not have acrobatics and athletics as skills, just let athletic dudes and panthers have higher body n' agility to represent their athleticism. Then you have a short list of broad skills for technical stuff like thievery, medicine, alchemy, animal ken, etc.

Sense is your defense against ambushes and sleight of hand tricky stuff maybe, Logic is your defense against illusions. Animals like the dog have low logic so a big stick in their mouth while trying to go through a narrow door is like an illusion attack on them.

I figure social defenses can be spread over logic, spirit, maybe sense depending on if it's fearful intimidation, lying, etc.

-----

The timing of PC power use also helps with flavor. 4e launched with warriors and casters both choosing powers and setting them off which in addition to just doing HP damage made it very samey. I'd have the following guidelines...

Martial Arts- Roll attack, then you apply your art as a rider effect.

Sneaky man/treasure/bounty-hunter batman planning- You apply markers to individuals or the scene via observing then expend them for 'just as planned' effects.

Brainy guy memorized magic- choose one of your pre-selected powers then expend it.

Spiritual communion magic- You go into a 'stance' where you link with your spirit and that sustains a summon or gives you a short list of powers like "my link with pelor gives me blinding light and heat rays"

You can have exceptions like an elemental blaster sorcerer rolls to do "fire stuff" at an enemy and when he hits he can choose a rider to show it's more spontaneous and natural than a wizard's formal magic.
Last edited by OgreBattle on Fri Feb 23, 2018 2:55 am, edited 3 times in total.
souran
Duke
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:29 pm

Post by souran »

The whole conversation on dexterity proceeds from a false premise.

Flat footed only causes you to lose your dexterity bonus. It does not negate your dexterity modifier. A positive modifier is a bonus. A negative modifier is a penalty. Flat footed characters with dexterities of 9 or less don't gain AC.
User avatar
virgil
King
Posts: 6339
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by virgil »

souran wrote:The whole conversation on dexterity proceeds from a false premise.
Nobody here is confused how Dexterity or the flat-footed condition works.
Come see Sprockets & Serials
How do you confuse a barbarian?
Put a greatsword a maul and a greataxe in a room and ask them to take their pick
EXPLOSIVE RUNES!
Mord
Knight-Baron
Posts: 565
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:25 am

Post by Mord »

Cervantes wrote:I've got another question for 6e: How do you change the six primary attributes?
As I see it, there are roughly 4ish main functions that attributes serve:

1) Bonuses to various derived stats that are actually used in the system. The biggest ones are: saves (CON, DEX, WIS), AC (DEX), attack (STR/DEX), and spell DCs (casting stat).

2) Following on closely from #1, one of the six stats will basically be the "competence" stat for your character, most visible in SAD classes where one stat governs your spell DCs (INT, WIS, CHA) or attack bonus (STR, DEX). If you're a Wizard, you ain't worth shit if you're not an INT monkey, etc.

3) Bonuses to other shit that isn't nearly so important: damage (STR), bonus spells (casting stat), skill checks (various), skill points per level (INT), HP per level (CON).

4) Alternative KO condition in the form of ability damage.

Depending on how you choose to structure your 6e system, some or all of these functions can be reassigned elsewhere.

#2 is especially onerous, because it results in extremely samey characters - it's just not a defensible life choice to play a Wizard with anything but maxxed INT, a Sorcerer with less than max CHA, etc. For all such characters, the most important thing you must buy with your GP is the "+[biggest possible] [dongle] of [stat]." Fuck that shit; if you want to encourage character diversity, you have to allow characters that play against type to still pull their weight. Note that I'm not talking about highly optimized builds that are designed around One Weird Trick that uses a different key stat somehow.

Image
This is the kind of Wizard I want to play sometime.

If you were to assign a "Competence" stat as something whose value is tied only to character level (or pull the assumed steady increase in casting attributes out of the level-over-level progressions for saves, AC, and the like) you could do away with designated SAD classes and, with a little more work, MAD ones too.

Once you eliminate that most important function of attributes in 3.5 - that is, their role in the [save vs spell DC] and [attack vs AC] progressions - you can do pretty much whatever the fuck you want with the rest of your system. Suddenly, players have the freedom to play a bookish Fighter or a meathead Wizard without shooting their party in the foot.

Me, I like the idea of having four stats: Strength, Dexterity, Perception, Charisma. You could even represent them with little icons showing an arm, a hand, an eye, and a smiling mouth. But really that's going to depend on what your game is really about. If you're making Muhammad Ali: The Boxing, then you might care about the potential for distinction between strength and endurance, while someone making Zorro: The Swashbuckling might care about the shades of difference between one's manual dexterity and bodily agility.

In the general case, though, I've never much cared for "Intelligence" as a character stat. Players are going to RP they way they want and will think of things when they think of things; it's possible but often a table-disrupting pain in the ass for a player to play a character dumber than they are and it's flat impossible for a player to play a character smarter than they are. Let's just skip the shit and leave abstract notions of "Intelligence" at the door - when you need to represent a learned character, give them ranks in knowledge skill(s) or whatever.
Grek
Prince
Posts: 3114
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:37 pm

Post by Grek »

souran wrote:Flat footed characters with dexterities of 9 or less don't gain AC.
Nobody thinks that. The idea is that, if you're immobilized, the skill which represents your ability to move well should be irrelevant. Being good at moving should offer no benefit and being bad at moving should offer no penalty if you aren't able to move.
Chamomile wrote:Grek is a national treasure.
User avatar
RobbyPants
King
Posts: 5201
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm

Post by RobbyPants »

virgil wrote:
souran wrote:The whole conversation on dexterity proceeds from a false premise.
Nobody here is confused how Dexterity or the flat-footed condition works.
No, I was, although it wasn't my only complaint.
User avatar
ArmorClassZero
Journeyman
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:08 am

Post by ArmorClassZero »

And does alignment return? Is it more than just a role-playing cue this time?
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

ArmorClassZero wrote:And does alignment return? Is it more than just a role-playing cue this time?
Alignment is a thing that should be on your character sheet. None of the available alignments should be "Lawful Good." Available Player Character alignments should be things like "Calimshan" and "Harpers" where they are signifiers that there is some in-world faction that you are aligned with. Some number of fiends and undead can have "Alignment: Evil" to show that they are 100% face stabbable at all times.

Actual races of people should only have alignments written in for sample warriors. Like the sample Gnoll Ravager has Alignment: Yeenoghu, but the Gnoll race does not.

Players should not be required to pick an alignment during character generation.

-Username17
User avatar
Cervantes
Journeyman
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2014 10:27 pm

Post by Cervantes »

If you rename it "Affiliation" and it reflects something like "whoever's employing you", with the understanding that it can and will change over time, i'm probably okay with that. keeping "Alignment" makes it seem like it's somehow reflective of your character's values and goals in some deeper personal sense as opposed to "what you're doing right now"
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Post by Username17 »

Cervantes wrote:If you rename it "Affiliation" and it reflects something like "whoever's employing you", with the understanding that it can and will change over time, i'm probably okay with that. keeping "Alignment" makes it seem like it's somehow reflective of your character's values and goals in some deeper personal sense as opposed to "what you're doing right now"
The thing is that that's not what alignment means. Alignment in the real world means "allied with in some sense." And even that is the second definition, in that the first most commonly used meaning refers to things being actually in straight lines as per wheel alignment.

The only reason to use the term "alignment" is nostalgia. No one in the real world has ever had a "Good Alignment." If you change it to affiliation, it probably doesn't need a spot on the character sheet. Shadowrun characters can be affiliated with the Yakuza or whatever, and that shit does goes into the Contacts section.

If you put a spot for allegiances on the character sheet, it's because you want to make a callback to 1977, and then you'd use the specific word "Alignment."

-Username17
Eikre
Knight-Baron
Posts: 571
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 5:41 am

Post by Eikre »

FrankTrollman wrote:
ArmorClassZero wrote:And does alignment return? Is it more than just a role-playing cue this time?
Alignment is a thing that should be on your character sheet. None of the available alignments should be "Lawful Good." Available Player Character alignments should be things like "Calimshan" and "Harpers" where they are signifiers that there is some in-world faction that you are aligned with. Some number of fiends and undead can have "Alignment: Evil" to show that they are 100% face stabbable at all times.

Actual races of people should only have alignments written in for sample warriors. Like the sample Gnoll Ravager has Alignment: Yeenoghu, but the Gnoll race does not.

Players should not be required to pick an alignment during character generation.

-Username17
Doing this also gives you better reasons to chart out the customary multitude of upper planes (aside from self-indulgence). Usually I can give only the most tenuous of shits about Arcadia or the Abyss or whatever, but if the ideological slants of those places are bywords for things like "magic communist" or "murdergame athlete" and I can mark them down as spiritual allegiance, then I have a better reason to care.
This signature is here just so you don't otherwise mistake the last sentence of my post for one.
Emerald
Knight-Baron
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 9:18 pm

Post by Emerald »

FrankTrollman wrote:The only reason to use the term "alignment" is nostalgia. No one in the real world has ever had a "Good Alignment."
Originally characters had an "alignment" of Lawful, Neutral, or Chaotic because they were actually aligned with the Cosmic Forces of Law, Neutrality, or Chaos, and later the same applied to the rest of the alignment grid. Obviously no one in the real world is aligned with Goodness, but just as obviously in a world where celestials and gods of Goodness actually exist and are champions of the forces of Good and fiends and gods of Evilness actually exist and are champions of the forces of Evil it can make sense to be aligned to Good and Evil because those are valid teams to be on.

So I'd argue that what makes a reasonable alignment varies by setting. If you're in Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, or another setting with a big focus on cosmic struggles between Light and Darkness and other Capitalized Ideals, it makes sense to use the traditional nine alignments, and perhaps even for those alignments to override whatever alignment with the Harpers, Knights of Solamnia, or whatever that you might have, though that part would probably vary with individual campaigns. A mustache-twirling priest of Mammon in the Realms with "Alignment: Evil" gets his powers by being Evil in the service of Evil and should be just as constantly-stabbable as the devils he summons--but in a different Realms campaign there may be other cultists of Mammon who aren't card-carrying villains and simply worship Mammon, Archduke of Greed over Waukeen, Goddess of Wealth and Trade because they don't go in for that whole organized religion thing.

If you're in Dark Sun, Eberron, or another setting where they're all "screw divine quests and stuff, we've got more serious shit to worry about," then yeah, people should care whether you're a Karrnathi, a Silver Flamite, or a Khyber cultists first and foremost and Thrane wouldn't care in a cosmic sense whether its citizens are pious saints or puppy murderers as long as the latter murder only non-Thranish puppies and do it in the name of the Silver Flame.
Eikre wrote:Doing this also gives you better reasons to chart out the customary multitude of upper planes (aside from self-indulgence). Usually I can give only the most tenuous of shits about Arcadia or the Abyss or whatever, but if the ideological slants of those places are bywords for things like "magic communist" or "murdergame athlete" and I can mark them down as spiritual allegiance, then I have a better reason to care.
Those planes are already the physical incarnations of magic communism (Arcadia), soul-crushing bureaucracy (Baator), an unpredictable and uncaring cosmos (Limbo), and the like, they've just been organized according to what alignment descriptors Gygax felt best fit those concepts.

The reason few people care about many Outer Planes is not that they have alignment tags, but that they've been very poorly detailed in the various Manuals of the Planes over the years as to what makes them tick, focusing more on a purely mechanistic "Here's the Elemental Plane of Fire. It's full of fire. Next!" sort of writeup and less on why you'd want to adventure there, so everyone considers Arcadia and Gehenna incredibly boring places to go (and they're not entirely wrong).

The Outer Planes revision project that someone (I want to say Libertad?) did here a while back fleshed out the planes quite a bit and made them more attention-grabbing, but it didn't ditch the alignment or radically change the planes to make them work, it just had to detail more adventure-able locations outside the one or two famous locations each plane had and write up explicit adventure hooks to make them more engaging.
Mord
Knight-Baron
Posts: 565
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:25 am

Post by Mord »

Emerald wrote:The Outer Planes revision project that someone (I want to say Libertad?) did here a while back fleshed out the planes quite a bit and made them more attention-grabbing, but it didn't ditch the alignment or radically change the planes to make them work, it just had to detail more adventure-able locations outside the one or two famous locations each plane had and write up explicit adventure hooks to make them more engaging.
Libertad's Planar Revision Project, now with pretty pictures

It's a really good thread. One of the best on the Den, IMO.
User avatar
ArmorClassZero
Journeyman
Posts: 114
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2018 7:08 am

Post by ArmorClassZero »

@FrankTrollman: What's your reasoning for why player's shouldn't be required to pick alignment at chargen? I thought the reason it was included in the 1st place was as part of the 'backgrounds & history' part of making your char seem like a person who existed before Level1.
Post Reply