The D&D thread

[Morty]

It looks like PF2 attributes will be even more vestigial, what with classes getting bonuses to their main attributes. So your attribute spread will be even more dictated by which class you picked.

[Charlaquin]

It looks like PF2 attributes will be even more vestigial, what with classes getting bonuses to their main attributes. So your attribute spread will be even more dictated by which class you picked.

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

[Camilla]

You know, I really want to run an Original D&D sandbox campaign, most likely using either Delving Deeper or Full Metal Plate Mail (two faithful retro-clones of OD&D) but I am not sure where I want to host it or if I should run a World of Darkness sandbox game instead.

[Morty]

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

Less bad and more unnecessary. Attribute selection is a numbers game without any real meaning. I'd rather it was meaningful or gone.

[Charlaquin]

Less bad and more unnecessary. Attribute selection is a numbers game without any real meaning. I'd rather it was meaningful or gone.

Could you give me an example of what meaningful attribute selection might look like?

[Charlaquin]

Unpopular opinion: I really like old school fire-and-forget Vancian magic. I don’t think it’s right for every spellcasting class, but I do think it has its place. Clerics having to decide how many command spells to pray for that day is a little silly, but D&D’s scholarly wizard having to prepare three fireball spells if she wants to cast fireball three times in one day is very fitting. And I like the way that fire-and-forget makes every single use of a spell a limited resource, as opposed to 5e Vancian, where only the spell slot is a resource, and spell preparation is this pointless extra step that you still have to do because it wouldn’t “feel like D&D” otherwise. Either embrace Vancian casting or drop it, but the half-way measure 5e takes is just dumb.

[Caitiff Primogen]

It looks like PF2 attributes will be even more vestigial, what with classes getting bonuses to their main attributes. So your attribute spread will be even more dictated by which class you picked.

I mean... when has it not been? For real, I more or less progressed through every edition of D&D in order and whether you were rolling attributes then picking a class or picking a class and sorting attributes to match the idea that your class = attribute spread is pretty much baked into the game. You can/could always opt to play a class without the optimal attribute spread, but that's a conscious choice. If anything I see the idea of having classes provide bonuses to the attributes that make them function as promoting more attribute diversity than we've had.

[Caitiff Primogen]

Unpopular opinion: I really like old school fire-and-forget Vancian magic. I don’t think it’s right for every spellcasting class, but I do think it has its place. Clerics having to decide how many command spells to pray for that day is a little silly, but D&D’s scholarly wizard having to prepare three fireball spells if she wants to cast fireball three times in one day is very fitting. And I like the way that fire-and-forget makes every single use of a spell a limited resource, as opposed to 5e Vancian, where only the spell slot is a resource, and spell preparation is this pointless extra step that you still have to do because it wouldn’t “feel like D&D” otherwise. Either embrace Vancian casting or drop it, but the half-way measure 5e takes is just dumb.

I still find 5e Wizard spell prep to be the most unnecessarily clunky of all the classes because they're not only cramming a pseudo-Vancian system into the middle of their newer spell slot system but also cramming a spellbook into the middle of that system.

Wizard is the class that the Vancian system was built for and so it feels the most weird when transposed into other classes. To me it would make the most sense for Wizards to have fire-and-forget spell prep balanced out by generally having more powerful spells that can only be used once, but we don't really do exclusive spell lists the way we used to.

[Charlaquin]

I still find 5e Wizard spell prep to be the most unnecessarily clunky of all the classes because they're not only cramming a pseudo-Vancian system into the middle of their newer spell slot system but also cramming a spellbook into the middle of that system.

Wizard is the class that the Vancian system was built for and so it feels the most weird when transposed into other classes. To me it would make the most sense for Wizards to have fire-and-forget spell prep balanced out by generally having more powerful spells that can only be used once, but we don't really do exclusive spell lists the way we used to.

In my ideal D&D, Arcane (or “learned magic”) casters would do traditional Vancian spell preparation, Divine (or “granted magic”) casters would do something closer to a spell slot system where they prey for a selection of spells that they can cast from that day, and Psionic (or “inherent magic”) casters would use a spell point system where they spend points to cast spells they know. Of course, in that D&D, wizards and bards would be Arcane, clerics and warlocks would be Divine, and sorcerers and monks would be Psionic. Still on the fence about Druid/nature magic being Divine or its own thing. Also, if that version of D&D used the 6 traditional attributes (which I’m not sure it would, but if it did), Arcane magic would key off Intelligence, Divine would key off Charisma, and Psionic would key off Wisdom. So, you know, probably wouldn’t “feel like D&D.”

[Morty]

Could you give me an example of what meaningful attribute selection might look like?

If I play a wizard, is there any ability spread that doesn't boil down to "intelligence highest, then constitution or dexterity second, the rest whatever?" How much of a difference does it make where I put my attributes, once I max out the one I use for my spells/attacks? Is it just going to shuffle numbers around without notably affecting who my character is and what they do?

Given how defining classes are in modern D&D, and how many moving parts there are besides classes (feats, spells, powers, maneuvers and archetypes, depending on the version), I think attribute scores may be simply obsolete.

Unpopular opinion: I really like old school fire-and-forget Vancian magic. I don’t think it’s right for every spellcasting class, but I do think it has its place. Clerics having to decide how many command spells to pray for that day is a little silly, but D&D’s scholarly wizard having to prepare three fireball spells if she wants to cast fireball three times in one day is very fitting. And I like the way that fire-and-forget makes every single use of a spell a limited resource, as opposed to 5e Vancian, where only the spell slot is a resource, and spell preparation is this pointless extra step that you still have to do because it wouldn’t “feel like D&D” otherwise. Either embrace Vancian casting or drop it, but the half-way measure 5e takes is just dumb.

I have a soft spot for Vancian casting myself. It has a way of making every spell feel like a big deal. But I'm not sure if it fits the game D&D has become. It's a nightmare on pacing, for one thing. A caster's power varies wildly based on how often they have to use spells before resting... which wouldn't be a problem if it didn't have to be balanced against characters without daily limits.

I certainly agree about the half-measures 5e takes with it, though. D&D has been trying to keep the label of Vancian casting while altering it for a while now, and the result is... weird.

I mean... when has it not been? For real, I more or less progressed through every edition of D&D in order and whether you were rolling attributes then picking a class or picking a class and sorting attributes to match the idea that your class = attribute spread is pretty much baked into the game. You can/could always opt to play a class without the optimal attribute spread, but that's a conscious choice. If anything I see the idea of having classes provide bonuses to the attributes that make them function as promoting more attribute diversity than we've had.

It's always been an illusion of choice. That means it should change, right?

[Satcom]

Does anyone have suggestions of good artists for commissioned character art?

[Mk2scorpion]

Does anyone have suggestions of good artists for commissioned character art?

You may try asking in this Facebook group (if you use it): https://www.facebook.com/groups/747028982139688/
You can also find some artists who take commissions on DA, depending on the price that you're willing to pay, and/or on your preferred style
Examples:

https://icedwingsart.deviantart.com/

https://serafleur.deviantart.com/

https://chaosringen.deviantart.com/

https://leejun35.deviantart.com/

https://nanfe.deviantart.com/

[Satcom]

Thanks, most of the artists I found either required patreon subscription or were closed.

[Mk2scorpion]

Thanks, most of the artists I found either required patreon subscription or were closed.

https://icedwingsart.deviantart.com/ The waiting list is long, but commissions are currently open
https://serafleur.deviantart.com/ You're right, she has just closed. Last time I checked, commissions were open. She wrote that they will be open again soon, tho.
https://chaosringen.deviantart.com/ You may try to email him: "chaosringen at gmail dot com"
https://leejun35.deviantart.com/ Commissions are open. If you like her style just send her a note or a mail, I guess.
https://nanfe.deviantart.com/ Commissions seem to be open. You may try to send her a note, but, checking it better, I see that her waiting list is huge

[Satcom]

Oh, sorry, I wasn't referring to the list you sent. I'm still looking through it. I meant most artists I find in general are unavailable (or quite expensive). Such is my luck, hah.