Search results

You could certainly design a non-combat class for 5e if that was desired. d6 HD, no weapon or armor proficiencies, no offensive spells. or combat buffs of any kind. Like a peace cleric on quaaludes. :)

But we weren't really discussing viability, we were discussing your "4 points per class, putting 3 in combat, 1 in exploration, 0 in interaction" analogy. You said you wouldn't design a game with classes that are 3-1-0, so I'm assuming you would always do some sort of 2-1-1 or 1-2-1...

Agreed. As long as it's well communicated, I see no problem with some classes having moderate or even extreme differences in situational capability. The challenge, of course, is giving a character whose schtick is "all non-combat abilities" at least some push-button abilities that aren't...

I do wish there were more games in the space of "light OSR style mechanics" but also "combat is fun, not reckless and dangerous".

A miserable little pile of secrets?

I imagine you would see a decrease in Wizards. Which doesn't really sound that bad.

Since this is a druid thread, I guess it's been reincarnated.

No matter how good the arguments are, some people can't accept we need exactly 7 classes.

You mean like posts people start about litigation? I never know where those things are going, I mean, they're kinda long. :)

And that's OK. Some people can't ride roller coasters because they have heart conditions or have bad backs or are 4'6". That doesn't make roller coasters somehow mean-spirited for not being inclusive enough.

That looks like the 3.5 list of classes, along with some of the more popular third party stuff.

The best example I know is Mage Hand Press's Warmage. Gets a few cantrips, a scaling buff to cantrip damage (which puts the cantrip damage in the same tier as Warlock Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast), but no spells, just some invocations that add riders to the cantrips and some spell-like...

Of course it is. As I said in my post, simpler games are generally more accessible. There's a correlation between accessibility and complexity, of course. But they aren't opposites. A complex game can be more accessible than a simpler one if it has superior attempts to explain its procedures...

Right. "Accessibility" and "Complexity" are not opposites. It's certainly much easier for a simple game to be accessible, but a complex game can be made accessible with well-written rules and targeted documentation to help get newcomers on board. We're allowed to be kinda geeky and sometimes...

Soul Calibur is still my pick for best console release game of all time, and a strong contender for best fighting game of all time.

Here's how I would do it. Certainly don't think of this as me trying to prescript your ideas in any way, I'm simply brainstorming how I would approach this if I were doing it. I know my tolerances for experimentation and homebrewing are pretty high. General rules Medium armor proficiency...

That's above my pay grade :)

Nope. No matter what you roll on the d12, you always have a 5% chance to match it on the d20. As long as the bigger die is a d20, the odds of matching the smaller die are always 5%. Same odds if it was d6 and d20, or even a d3 and d20.