What are the basic assumptions DND assumes for a setting to work with it under the rules of DND? Assumptions like:
- paladins recieve powers
- paladins are seperate from clerics
- casters rule martials drool
- etc...
I'd start with the most basic...
- The present world is built upon the ruins of past civilizations (which provide the many dungeons/ruins/tombs that the PCs go have adventures in).
- Relatedly, there exist various monsters that inhabit these dungeons and the wild places outside the bounds of civilization that are too dangerous for typical warriors of the setting to easily overcome.
- Society has the concept of The Adventurer... a semi-nomadic individual skilled in fighting and/or magic who routinely takes on challenges in pursuit of their goals. These individuals are accepted enough that they can generally wander into a community without being seen as a strange and dangerous outsider, but instead as a business opportunity and potential problem solver.
- Magic and magical items exist. You could drill further into types of magic (Arcane/Divine)
- Society is roughly based on medieval Europe - this I guess isn't necessarily true anymore
Of course, there are dungeons and there are dragons.
Quote from: Chainsaw Surgeon on March 26, 2025, 11:06:18 AM- Magic and magical items exist. You could drill further into types of magic (Arcane/Divine)
- Society is roughly based on medieval Europe - this I guess isn't necessarily true anymore
Of course, there are dungeons and there are dragons.
Among official D&D settings - "Oriental Adventures" came out in 1985. Masque of the Red Death and The Gothic Earth Gazeteer came out in 1994-1995, which was gothic horror set in the 1890s. The historical sourcebooks from "The Glory of Rome" to "A Mighty Fortress" came out from 1992 to 1994.
Since the WotC takeover, there has been a push to consolidate and standardize the official settings more. The new official settings, like Eberron, are pretty much required to include all the Player's Handbook races, classes, and magic. At the same time, though, they have allowed third-party settings which stretch the assumptions even further - like Afghanistan: D20 that uses D&D rules for modern military action in Afghanistan.
Homebrew campaigns can venture in similar ways.
So there's kind of big question about what is considered D&D.
Further complicating the matter, even with respect to official D&D, different settings and editions may have different core assumptions.
Until recently an assumption was monsters are monsters, and monsters need killin.
Quote from: Ruprecht on March 26, 2025, 03:42:36 PMUntil recently an assumption was monsters are monsters, and monsters need killin.
Playing monsters as PCs has been a thing since OD&D.
AD&D cut back on playing monsters at first, but The Orcs of Thar (1989) is a full campaign of playing full-blooded orcs and other humanoids. Council of Wyrms (1994) is a campaign where the PCs are all dragons.
D&D has had a lot of variation since early on.
Indeed, the general codified assumption that adventurers were at least not evil, and that their enemies typically were, was to my knowledge more of a 2nd edition thing with the demise of assassin and the like.
That being said, kinda hard to argue that earlier editions weren't closer to war gaming, or that the rules didn't tend to emphasize combat and violence/killing as a means to resolve most published scenarios.
(Not saying faction diplomacy or outside-the-box thinking didn't matter, just that killing was almost always in there insofar as the rules and scenarios covered anything.)
For better or for worse, recent publications have moved away from that origin a fair bit. Some scenarios like wilds beyond the witchlight even seem tailored around a less wargame-y more RP and skill check focused style of play.
Quote from: KindaMeh on March 26, 2025, 04:18:08 PMThat being said, kinda hard to argue that earlier editions weren't closer to war gaming, or that the rules didn't tend to emphasize combat and violence/killing as a means to resolve most published scenarios.
(Not saying faction diplomacy or outside-the-box thinking didn't matter, just that killing was almost always in there insofar as the rules and scenarios covered anything.)
For better or for worse, recent publications have moved away from that origin a fair bit. Some scenarios like wilds beyond the witchlight even seem tailored around a less wargame-y more RP and skill check focused style of play.
Late 1980s AD&D and 2nd edition spread out a lot from wargaming. Some games had story focus like Dragonlance and Ravenloft. There were also mystery and exploration adventures, like L2 The Assassin's Knot.
Then 3rd edition and especially 4th edition had a greater focus on wargaming.
I haven't seen Wild Beyond the Witchlight, but the other 5E adventures I've seen have been pretty combat heavy - including some recent like Phandelver and Below (2023), which I got for free.
What I mean is that insofar as mechanical and rules support go, a lot of what we have now has strayed (probably starting in 3e with skill point mechanics), from solely focusing on a character's combative capabilities.
I do not mean to imply that prior adventures could not include non-combat play or RP. What I mean is that the core chassis of 2e and prior, to my knowledge, even with NWPs, would not allow for a campaign like Wilds Beyond the Witchlight. At least not without a whole lot of DM finagling, homebrewing, and specific on the fly rulings.
Similarly, a lot of what defines a character now is non-combat and utility options on the character sheet itself. Rather than challenging a player themselves or fixating on non-statted backstory or RP modern iterations seem to challenge the character sheet during non-combat scenarios in a way that simply wouldn't have worked with a war-game centric mechanical approach.
I don't always dislike that, but I feel it's the way the mechanical cookie has crumbled. And that much of what one gets in terms of game scenarios and the like for making use of those new mechanical features would not have really worked the same way in or with prior editions.
Quote from: KindaMeh on March 26, 2025, 05:48:00 PMWhat I mean is that insofar as mechanical and rules support go, a lot of what we have now has strayed (probably starting in 3e with skill point mechanics), from solely focusing on a character's combative capabilities.
I do not mean to imply that prior adventures could not include non-combat play or RP. What I mean is that the core chassis of 2e and prior, to my knowledge, would not allow for a campaign like Wilds Beyond the Witchlight. At least not with a whole lot of DM finagling, homebrewing, and specific on the fly rulings.
Again, I don't know Wild Beyond the Witchlight, so I'm not sure what cases you're talking about, but non-weapon proficiencies covered most of the space that is covered by 3E skills.
I don't really agree with that, having run them in AD&D 1e/OSRIC mishmashed Arden Vul, and skill points in 3.5e Tomb of Horrors (very different play from the original). NWPs for me seem a lot more like a binary question of narrative training, yes or no. (Even the ability to invest more for better rolls when applicable seems like a laughable investment at best unless you're just taking it for flavor.)
Meanwhile skill points are actual in-game on the character sheet numerical representations of how well you can do noncombat thing. And you get some that matter at every level. DCs will actually come up regularly in the adventures. All the damn time.
NWP, I ask if you have it or not. If you have it all that means is that your character is trained to have specialized knowledge within the narrative. But the same could be said of just having blacksmith as a backstory. I don't have to worry about DCs and penalties and synergies and all that crap.
Skill points I have to actually care what specifically is on your sheet. when running tomb of horrors for 3.5e a two point difference matters and could be the difference between life and death. I challenge the sheet, not your own knowledge of whatever or creativity as regards the training your character ostensibly has.
In the other instance I challenge the players of Arden Vul. Maybe a player can think to have their character do something special, yes or no, based on having or not having an nwp. Maybe they even roll against the set number for the nwp (not situation). But it's less about the specific number on the character sheet, and I don't assume you have no skill in fire starting, breath holding, religion, rope tying, horsemanship, and the like just because you didn't put your possibly as low as two starting NWPs (which grow in number by one like once every three levels at best) into that.
Sorry, I've been monologuing.
TLDR: Since around 3e, skill checks have mattered a lot more,and been more of a mechanical focus, with codified situational DCs in the modules and scenes themselves.
Likewise, non-combat abilities on the character sheet get referenced pretty frequently nowadays, and can be constant parts of a campaign's gameplay.
Previously, most of what one had was either directly combat applicable or, like NWPs, primarily a narrative acknowledgement of backstory skill in some specialized task.
Nowadays it's like everything is codified. DCs everywhere and non-combat play as being supported mechanically everywhere. Not even just supported, but mechanically governed.
It's not just a war game in the mechanics, that is to say. The focus of the mechanical support and descriptions has shifted.
Bringing that back around to assumptions, I don't think D&D always requires combat within a campaign. Or even that it is always a wargame.
I think that it is maybe a vague set of mechanical systems, with each edition and setting-specific rules iteration being a different item in the set. But that we can't even say that said systems are always centered on combat. They are generally class and level based, I guess? Usually having d20 combat rules, that may or may not see use?
Likewise, maybe each edition/setting ruleset has setting assumptions. But if there's something that fits all of them I'm blanking on it.
Quote from: jhkim on March 26, 2025, 03:55:14 PMQuote from: Ruprecht on March 26, 2025, 03:42:36 PMUntil recently an assumption was monsters are monsters, and monsters need killin.
Playing monsters as PCs has been a thing since OD&D.
AD&D cut back on playing monsters at first, but The Orcs of Thar (1989) is a full campaign of playing full-blooded orcs and other humanoids. Council of Wyrms (1994) is a campaign where the PCs are all dragons.
D&D has had a lot of variation since early on.
He said "assumption", which is correct. The notion that you can "play the monsters" subverts the baseline; it's not UNUSUAL, but even in OD&D when EGG was developing it, the assumption was you were a human of some sort. Outliers prove the default case. When AD&D came out, the DMG made it pretty clear PC monsters were horseshit as far as Gygax was concerned, probably because he knew the implications: you give the players an inch, they will destroy your campaign. Then of course the "monster PC" campaigns became a thing because it was something different, but I'd bet 95% of all D&D games were pretty cookie-cutter compared to those. I mean, I've run monster-centric campaigns before, but it's ALWAYS "hey, this is something different we're trying." It wasn't until very recently that every retard under the sun had to run some sort of half-demon, half-dragon abomination. In the last 5th edition game I played, out of 6 PCs, only 1 was a conventional race (I ran a half-elf). Everyone else had some weird crap.
As several previous comments have hinted, there aren't many assumptions that are going to be universally true across all the editions of D&D that have been published, without even taking into account the OSR and all the other D&D derived games out there.
A prime example is the "casters rule, martials drool" attitude mentioned in the OP. AFAICT that attitude didn't start until 3rd edition. In the previous editions, I believe most people regard either fighter or cleric as the strongest class. Even in third edition (and I believe 5th as well), hybrid martial/caster classes (Cleric/Druid in 3rd and Paladin/Bard in 5th) usually top people's power rankings, but that's a little beside the point.
That said, there are a few setting assumptions that can fairly be said to be
near-universal across official D&D settings, and the most popular 3rd party settings and retroclones. A few have been mentioned already: Common-enough magic to have magic-users as a base class and plentiful magic items, a divine/arcane magic dynamic, a high volume of monsters, tombs, dungeons, etc., and adventuring as at least a semi-recognized occupation.
I can add a few others:
-Multiple intelligent humanoid races, some living in relative harmony (usually elves, dwarves and halflings), and some in an antagonistic relationship (orcs, ogres, gnolls).
-D&D Magic, with fast-casting, low cost spells of the kind you get in D&D spell lists, as opposed to settings where magic is ritual-based, summoning-only, "true name"-based, an expression of spiritual power (as in Middle Earth), or other fictional or historical magic types. Often, there's a mechanistic explanation for how people can use magic (like the Weave in Forgotten Realms or the energy draining magic in Dark Sun).
-Gods that directly grant power to their followers (you can easily write your way around this, but very few D&D settings do).
Quote from: Brad on March 26, 2025, 07:39:50 PMQuote from: jhkim on March 26, 2025, 03:55:14 PMQuote from: Ruprecht on March 26, 2025, 03:42:36 PMUntil recently an assumption was monsters are monsters, and monsters need killin.
Playing monsters as PCs has been a thing since OD&D.
AD&D cut back on playing monsters at first, but The Orcs of Thar (1989) is a full campaign of playing full-blooded orcs and other humanoids. Council of Wyrms (1994) is a campaign where the PCs are all dragons.
D&D has had a lot of variation since early on.
He said "assumption", which is correct. The notion that you can "play the monsters" subverts the baseline; it's not UNUSUAL, but even in OD&D when EGG was developing it, the assumption was you were a human of some sort....
Even when you do play monsters, it's still assumed there will be other monsters for you to fight and kill. I'm sure someone has run an evil monsters campaign where the PCs set out to destroy civilization and spend the whole campaign fighting traditional "goodly" races. That sounds fun; I'd like to run one of those some day. But it'd be a vanishingly rare type of game.
can't figure out how to make quotes work here
A prime example is the "casters rule, martials drool" attitude mentioned in the OP. AFAICT that attitude didn't start until 3rd edition. In the previous editions, I believe most people regard either fighter or cleric as the strongest class.
Yeah. 3rd edition turned Casters into something that would easily solve most mythological adventures (which, IMO, should be the basis for high level DND due to its scope and themes) by themselves, while martials were stuck as peak humans or so, akin to Batman. I think if Casters get to solve the Ramayana by their own, then Martials should too.
Quote from: FishMeisterSupreme on March 26, 2025, 09:44:57 PMcan't figure out how to make quotes work here
A prime example is the "casters rule, martials drool" attitude mentioned in the OP. AFAICT that attitude didn't start until 3rd edition. In the previous editions, I believe most people regard either fighter or cleric as the strongest class.
Yeah. 3rd edition turned Casters into something that would easily solve most mythological adventures (which, IMO, should be the basis for high level DND due to its scope and themes) by themselves, while martials were stuck as peak humans or so, akin to Batman. I think if Casters get to solve the Ramayana by their own, then Martials should too.
In fairness, the idea of Magic Users being a "late bloomer" class, that starts off weaker than fighters and gets better at high levels, has always been around.
I don't disagree, though. There was a thread about this on here a couple of years ago which I can't find now, but to me the important question is "what does a 20th level fighter actually represent?". I don't think it's unreasonable to say that in a game with that many levels, a max level fighter should represent someone with superhuman levels of martial ability. BECMI may have had the right idea there, with saying that max-level characters are on their way to becoming gods. I haven't looked at the 3.x Epic Level Handbook in ages, so I can't remember if it had anything comparable.
Quote from: ForgottenF on March 26, 2025, 09:34:02 PMEven when you do play monsters, it's still assumed there will be other monsters for you to fight and kill. I'm sure someone has run an evil monsters campaign where the PCs set out to destroy civilization and spend the whole campaign fighting traditional "goodly" races. That sounds fun; I'd like to run one of those some day. But it'd be a vanishingly rare type of game.
I ran a campaign where the PCs were a literal rogues gallery of monsters; the main PC was a goblin thief and I think we had an orc fighter, githyanki bard, ogre fighter, few other weird things. It was fun, lots of mayhem. But always a "side game".
I think there are two layers of assumption for D&D looking across all the settings. (which had varied assumptions about play) You have what I'll call The Primary Assumptions, and then the Tertiary Assumptions.
Primary are basically required, or at least appear baseline in most D&D settings, while the Tertiary may be common or even important, but not essentials.
The Primary Assumptions.
1. The world is ancient and has suffered many civilizational collapses. hence why we see so many lost cities, dungeons, abandoned temples and strongholds and the like, it allows for the play space.
2. Adventurer is a real profession with incentives and benefits in setting, explaining why people do it, and which is supported (or at least tolerated) by civil authorities.
Tertiary Assumptions
1. what civilization there is, is fragile, and is constantly beset by monsters from without, and often within.
2. The gods are observably real and intercede or are active in affairs of mortals and people.
3. Magic is institutionalized on some level, be that by tradition and mystery cults, or by colleges and academics.
Notes: The one I'm the least easy on is TA-2, basically because D&D has handled religion as an excuse to have a priestly healer archetype and not much more, it neither comports to proper pantheist or henotheism despite the settings suggesting it would, it's more like assortments of bloodless lame monotheisms, but lacking any of the richness of an abrahamic faith either.
1) Normal people are pathetic and powerless creatures.
2) PCs start off with potential well beyond that of normal people, and they can grow to quasi-diety levels of power.
Arneson and Gygax were part of a wargaming community whose main approach to design was to think of something fun to play and then assemble the rules to make it happen. Part of this was born of necessity as there wasn't much in the way of published, ready-to-run wargames especially for miniature wargames.
In the case of D&D that "something fun to play" was bunch of folks pretending to have adventures as characters in the fantasy setting of Blackmoor against a backdrop of a war between Law and Chaos. Keep in mind that at first, both sides, Law and Chaos, were comprised of players.
While running the campaign, Dave Arneson made the Blackmoor Dungeons, which quickly became the most popular thing in his campaign. Just as important it was Dave brought and showed when he went to run a Blackmoor game for Gary Gygax and the Lake Geneva crew.
Inspired Gygax made a set of rules, run a campaign, choosing to set it in a dungeon of his own creation, Castle Greyhawk.
But unlike Dave Megarry and Dungeon! He didn't focus only on the Greyhawk dungeons and ran other types of adventures. Often as sublevels off the main dungeon that opened to other realms like the Isle of the Ape. Or the last room in the deepest level sends the PC to China, then they have to make their way back to Greyhawk.
So while the bulk of OD&D focused on aids and stuff useful for running dungeons it wasn't just about dungeons. However, the virtue of using dungeons was that the concept was straightforward to explain and to illustrate. The concept of a maze with rooms filled with monsters and treasure can be extended to encompass various types of adventures.
OD&D as a printed ruleset saved time and work for folks who wanted to run campaigns where players pretended to be characters having adventures in a fantasy setting. It included support for the popular fantasy tropes of the time, such as Tolkien-style races, dragons, mythological creatures, and Dracula-style vampires, among others.
OD&D as a concept was a loose framework that people extended to cover all kinds of different types of fantasy subgenres and settings. The further away they got from the above the more work they had to do to prepare the campaign.
Subsequent editions took the above and either tweaked or focused on different things.
Holmes D&D, B/X D&D, and BECMI D&D, tweaked the above to be easier to understand and easier to use.
AD&D 1e was a second bite at the same apple for Gygax. He consolidated, edited, and rewrote OD&D and popular add-ons into a more consistent set of rules that define what D&D was.
While possessing good parts that endured in subsequent editions, AD&D 1e fell short in terms of consistency and clarity. Plus, the company felt it needed to address various social criticisms of the time. The result was AD&D 2e. In addition AD&D 2e was designed to be lightly customized to allow the core rules to support a variety of different fantasy settings. Late in its history, that customization aspect morphed into something more substantial.
D&D 3.X, D&D 4e, D&D 5e, and D&D 2024 each layered their own unique focuses and concerns on the foundation of OD&D. Along with third-party efforts like Pathfinder and the OSR.
While not designed as a toolkit like GURPS or Savage Worlds, the core concepts and mechanics of D&D have proven flexible across several editions. So while core rulebooks of any particular edition reflect author design sentiments of the moment layered on top of the core assumption as laid out in OD&D, the fundamental flexibility of the D&D system remains.
The only notable exception is D&D 4e, and that only because its exception based design made changing things far more work than even the most dedicated hobbyist wants to put in. Rather than adding some new classes or tweaking some abilities and subsystems, D&D 4e requires the equivalent of creating an entire Magic: The Gathering release in order to substantially alter its feel.
I'd agree that probably 90% of D&D games in practice are set in something very close to Faerun or Greyhawk, while other settings like Dark Sun, Planescape, Gothic Earth, and Rokugan or subsettings like Kara-Tur and Maztica are rarities not covered by the assumptions.
Based on this, the basic assumptions would be that all the standards of the core books apply as written (PH, MM, DMG). So it's medieval faux-European fantasy with elves and dwarves and dragons. But even more specifically, there are halflings and gnomes and martial-arts monks and a longsword costs 15 gold pieces (which has remained true from AD&D 1E to 5E).
These are the most common assumptions.
I guess to the FishMeisterSupreme - what are you looking to get out of the collection of assumptions?
Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 27, 2025, 01:45:09 AMPrimary are basically required, or at least appear baseline in most D&D settings, while the Tertiary may be common or even important, but not essentials.
The Primary Assumptions.
1. The world is ancient and has suffered many civilizational collapses. hence why we see so many lost cities, dungeons, abandoned temples and strongholds and the like, it allows for the play space.
2. Adventurer is a real profession with incentives and benefits in setting, explaining why people do it, and which is supported (or at least tolerated) by civil authorities.
These are common, but I don't think they're required any more than elves and dwarves. I had a recent thread on "Adventurers and PC Background" (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/adventurers-and-pc-background-in-ddosr/) that talked some about alternatives to the adventurer profession.
In my most recent campaign, I kept all the core races and classes and magic - though equipment and treasure was different. I also kept to most of the common action - fighting monsters almost every session, with dungeons being maybe half of sessions. But the PCs were agents of a semi-divine patron, freelance adventurers collecting gold. Also, the world was around two thousand something years old, which is old enough to have past civilizations and ruins, but pretty new compared to the real world or most settings.
So neither #1 nor #2 were true in it. Nothing wrong with having those in worlds, but I think D&D works fine without them.
I guess to the FishMeisterSupreme - what are you looking to get out of the collection of assumptions?
Flip and change them. Not all. Just some. Or most.
Quote from: jhkim on March 27, 2025, 02:07:53 PMwhile other settings like Dark Sun, Planescape, Gothic Earth, and Rokugan or subsettings like Kara-Tur and Maztica are rarities not covered by the assumptions.
I am not familiar with all those specific settings, I will note the first primary assumption still applies to them for the most part.
Quote from: jhkim on March 27, 2025, 02:07:53 PMThese are common, but I don't think they're required any more than elves and dwarves. I had a recent thread on "Adventurers and PC Background" (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/adventurers-and-pc-background-in-ddosr/) that talked some about alternatives to the adventurer profession.
In my most recent campaign, I kept all the core races and classes and magic - though equipment and treasure was different. I also kept to most of the common action - fighting monsters almost every session, with dungeons being maybe half of sessions. But the PCs were agents of a semi-divine patron, freelance adventurers collecting gold. Also, the world was around two thousand something years old, which is old enough to have past civilizations and ruins, but pretty new compared to the real world or most settings.
So neither #1 nor #2 were true in it. Nothing wrong with having those in worlds, but I think D&D works fine without them.
A lot of this also comes down to the question. "What is playing D&D?" is it playing a system called D&D or based on D&D? or playing by the assumptions and conventions of D&D? I'd say most people of a reasonable mind would fall somewhere between those two camps.
EDIT: As a side note, I don't see a lot of settings go for young earth model. unless it's a game set in a mythic first age type setting. so you've certainly inquired my interesting on a world only two-thousand years old.
Quote from: Socratic-DM on March 27, 2025, 02:38:34 PMQuote from: jhkim on March 27, 2025, 02:07:53 PMThese are common, but I don't think they're required any more than elves and dwarves. I had a recent thread on "Adventurers and PC Background" (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/adventurers-and-pc-background-in-ddosr/) that talked some about alternatives to the adventurer profession.
In my most recent campaign, I kept all the core races and classes and magic - though equipment and treasure was different. I also kept to most of the common action - fighting monsters almost every session, with dungeons being maybe half of sessions. But the PCs were agents of a semi-divine patron, freelance adventurers collecting gold. Also, the world was around two thousand something years old, which is old enough to have past civilizations and ruins, but pretty new compared to the real world or most settings.
So neither #1 nor #2 were true in it. Nothing wrong with having those in worlds, but I think D&D works fine without them.
A lot of this also comes down to the question. "What is playing D&D?" is it playing a system called D&D or based on D&D? or playing by the assumptions and conventions of D&D? I'd say most people of a reasonable mind would fall somewhere between those two camps.
EDIT: As a side note, I don't see a lot of settings go for young earth model. unless it's a game set in a mythic first age type setting. so you've certainly inquired my interesting on a world only two-thousand years old.
That last campaign is Incan-inspired fantasy. The real Incan Empire was new and historically short-lived, lasting less than two centuries. Probably as a result, their mythology doesn't emphasize ancient lineage.
So the fantasy world is a sort of First Age type setting in that it has been relatively recent since the great wonders. For example, one of the dungeons that the PCs explored was created before the Sun and the Moon were placed in the sky. There isn't a sense of everything having been done. I like it because the complete history of the world is at once wondrous but also comprehensible.
There isn't a huge laundry list of earlier ages. There are five stages of creation that took place over many centuries, then a period of turmoil before the Solar Empire was founded, then the Solar Empire was founded, which has lasted for about 250 years.
Tolkien's Middle Earth has about 6600 years since the Sun and Moon were put in the sky, which is long, but it's still comprehensible in the split of three ages. D&D fantasy, though, more often takes after the pulp fantasy of H.P. Lovecraft, R.E. Howard, and others like August Derleth - where all of human civilization is only an insignificant speck compared to the dozens of prior ages. This shows its roots in cosmic horror, and can make PCs and their actions feel trivial - which I think contributes to an ethos of "grab what gold you can" rather than the more "save the world" ethos of Tolkien's stories.
In Land of New Horizons, PCs are working to save the one and only true empire that the world has ever seen, founded by the God of the Sun. It has a more positive, hopeful tone - more like Tolkien or King Arthur than Lovecraft or Howard.
Quote from: estar on March 27, 2025, 10:33:19 AMThe only notable exception is D&D 4e, and that only because its exception based design made changing things far more work than even the most dedicated hobbyist wants to put in. Rather than adding some new classes or tweaking some abilities and subsystems, D&D 4e requires the equivalent of creating an entire Magic: The Gathering release in order to substantially alter its feel.
TBH this is mostly only a problem because 4E was so math-heavy, and has 30 levels. Crunching the level range to 10 (which is what most people play anyway) isn't much heavier than say 3E or 5E. Possibly even lighter in the case of spellcasting classes, which have way fewer powers/abilities to care about than in any other edition.
Quote from: FishMeisterSupreme on March 26, 2025, 08:25:46 AMWhat are the basic assumptions DND assumes for a setting to work with it under the rules of DND? Assumptions like:
- paladins recieve powers
- paladins are seperate from clerics
- casters rule martials drool
- etc...
This again?
1: Paladins AND Rangers get powers from some outside source. Paladins go the celestial route. Rangers go the nature route.
2: Paladins AND Rangers are separate from clerics and fighters. Paladins get a bit more HP and can use all those pointy pointy things Clerics cant. Rangers get spells that fighters do not.
3: False.
4: The current land is whats left after some apocalyptic battle. Theres ruins everywhere. This is especially true in Greyhawk. But the basic terrain gen rules will produce alot of ruins. In FR orcs periodically sweep down from the north to completely devastate as much of civilization as they can. Whole dwarven kingdoms are completely lost, elven nations laid waste, and more. Even Dragonlance is set long after the gods blasted the land and then said fuck this we are hands off till you morons learn. And of course Dark sun.
Mystara is set long after a magitech cataclysm tilts the planet off its axis when Blackmoor detonates.
Red Steel and Birthright are set after a godwar messes up the land. Red Steel in particular.
Eberron has had a series of disasters.
So yeah. Ruins everywhere.
5: Alignment isnt set in stone. Way the fuck too many miss this one. True for PCs, True for monsters.
3: False.
have to disagree here. it's a very common idea that martials should also be allowed to be superhuman like how casters are completely absurd in the context of fantasy stories. a high level caster would completely solve several fantasy plots by themselves (lotr). this was at its worst in 3.5e. personally when martials can do stupid crap like jump to the moon without any sort of magical gear (just being really strong) then the divide is lessening. warblade was a good start.
Quote from: FishMeisterSupreme on March 28, 2025, 04:05:31 AM3: False.
have to disagree here. it's a very common idea that martials should also be allowed to be superhuman like how casters are completely absurd in the context of fantasy stories. a high level caster would completely solve several fantasy plots by themselves (lotr). this was at its worst in 3.5e. personally when martials can do stupid crap like jump to the moon without any sort of magical gear (just being really strong) then the divide is lessening. warblade was a good start.
It's easier and better to just shave off that top level of power for magic users. A couple extra damage dice on a fireball is no big deal, but the higher end utility abilities, particularly the ones that allow players to bypass travel or obstacles or make it too easy to obtain information; those can be campaign-killers. They force DMs to resort to ever more arbitrary and contrived ways of challenging PCs. Giving similar abilities to fighters might make the game more fair, but it only compounds the issue.
Also, no offense, but did you step out of a time warp from 2009? :p
As long as the fighter types are gradually getting better gear as they go then they will always be on par with or better than a caster in the damage output area because they can go on effectively all day whereas the casters run out of juice eventually.
5e though fucks this all up with short rests.
Quote from: Omega on March 29, 2025, 12:02:06 AM5e though fucks this all up with short rests.
In what way? Aside from Warlocks, Short Rests typically benefit non-casters (particularly Fighter and Monk) more than casters.
Quote from: ForgottenF on March 28, 2025, 10:40:03 AMQuote from: FishMeisterSupreme on March 28, 2025, 04:05:31 AM3: False.
have to disagree here. it's a very common idea that martials should also be allowed to be superhuman like how casters are completely absurd in the context of fantasy stories. a high level caster would completely solve several fantasy plots by themselves (lotr). this was at its worst in 3.5e. personally when martials can do stupid crap like jump to the moon without any sort of magical gear (just being really strong) then the divide is lessening. warblade was a good start.
It's easier and better to just shave off that top level of power for magic users. A couple extra damage dice on a fireball is no big deal, but the higher end utility abilities, particularly the ones that allow players to bypass travel or obstacles or make it too easy to obtain information; those can be campaign-killers. They force DMs to resort to ever more arbitrary and contrived ways of challenging PCs. Giving similar abilities to fighters might make the game more fair, but it only compounds the issue.
That's what I've been thinking. If I want to play superheroes, there are plenty of superhero RPGs out there.
But I also think an offical D&D version that removed the crazy high level spells would piss off the fans.