What surprises might we see?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Just as the title says, what do you think might surprise us about 5e?

Basic D&D can't be the highlight of the system after all.

[CyberThread]

PDF enabled compaionn of book purchases.

[HunterOfJello]

PDF enabled compaionn of book purchases.

That would be a godsend. I don't expect it though.


~~~~~~~

As a 3.5 player I expect to be pleasantly surprised by the introduction of classes that first appeared in 4E making an appearance in 5E.

I hope that I will be surprised by a playable version of a soulknife.

[Inevitability]

As a 3.5 player I expect to be pleasantly surprised by the introduction of classes that first appeared in 4E making an appearance in 5E.

I'd like to have this. Wardens and Avengers were both nice classes, and it'd be a shame to have them disappear.

[Ichneumon]

I'd like more published campaign settings, even if it means less support for each setting or shorter books.

[rlc]

I think some of the races might get away from the standard bonus to two stats. I don't mean going back to offsetting bonuses with penalties like back in the day, but maybe a couple races could get +3 to one stat (I've actually already started homebrewing a race that gets this), or the half-human races will get +1 to three or four stats and an ability from their other half race (like maybe half-elves get the meditation thing).

[captpike]

I'd like to have this. Wardens and Avengers were both nice classes, and it'd be a shame to have them disappear.

personaly I use the warlord as a test for 5e. if the game can not handle a warlord the game is incomplete. if it could but they don't put it in then they are deciding not to support a large chunk of their fanbase.

[rlc]

personaly I use the warlord as a test for 5e. if the game can not handle a warlord the game is incomplete. if it could but they don't put it in then they are deciding not to support a large chunk of their fanbase.

well, there's supposed to be a bard college that does a lot of warlord stuff, so it's basically the warlord under another name.

[Tholomyes]

well, there's supposed to be a bard college that does a lot of warlord stuff, so it's basically the warlord under another name.

Also, there's a fighter's subclass, which supposedly gives some Warlord-options. I'll believe it when I see it, but if it's true, I'll be glad.


I'd like to have this. Wardens and Avengers were both nice classes, and it'd be a shame to have them disappear.

During the playtest, both had been (at various points in time) been subclasses for the Paladin. Wardens are less likely to take the third slot, after the changes they made in the playtest, but they might show up as a subclass of another class, like the ranger.

[Inevitability]

During the playtest, both had been (at various points in time) been subclasses for the Paladin. Wardens are less likely to take the third slot, after the changes they made in the playtest, but they might show up as a subclass of another class, like the ranger.

Or the druid! Wardens as a druid subclass make a lot of sense to me. You got the whole 'shapeshifting tree-hugger' theme going, and then you add some melee abilities.

[Tholomyes]

Or the druid! Wardens as a druid subclass make a lot of sense to me. You got the whole 'shapeshifting tree-hugger' theme going, and then you add some melee abilities.The problem with making them druid subclasses is that, if the Druid subclasses will be similar to the playtest, there already is a subclass which focuses on Wild Shape. which feels more like a classic druid, than a Warden-like subclass. If they added a third subclass, as the Warden (at least to core), that'd be close enough for overlap, but far enough away to not feel quite right.

The Ranger, being already a nature-focused half-caster martial class, would be easier to fit for the Warden. It wouldn't feel like it overlaps too much, since it's both closer to the base feel of the class, and it's also far enough away, in terms of playstyle, since the other ranger subclasses (assuming they stay roughly consistent with playtest) are more offense focused.

[Envyus]

I'd like more published campaign settings, even if it means less support for each setting or shorter books.

Well along with FR. Greyhawk, Ebberon and Dark Sun at least are confirmed to have some stuff coming for them.

I would love a Greyhawk setting book along with a remade Temple of Elemental Evil. (Which there have been hints about for a while.)

[Chaosvii7]

As far as campaign settings go, I'd love to see one sourcebook and one adventure per setting and no more. It's one thing to have multiple settings but sourcebook bloat is a huge concern of mine. Adventures aren't too bad, and they can even come with expanded player options, but I think putting setting-specific races and monsters as well as options for characters is best left to the main campaign setting book. The only campaign settings I can imagine making an appearance besides the big three(Greyhawk/Faeurn/Eberron) are Dark Sun and Ravenloft(considering that the Shadowfell was basically a 4e version of it, but it feels wrong for them not to go back to the setting after a break from it like that.) Maybe a few that they haven't tossed at us in a while, but I can't imagine them to be holding a lot of the licenses like they used to.

[rlc]

Maybe we'll get an all new setting, too

[Envyus]

As far as campaign settings go, I'd love to see one sourcebook and one adventure per setting and no more. It's one thing to have multiple settings but sourcebook bloat is a huge concern of mine. Adventures aren't too bad, and they can even come with expanded player options, but I think putting setting-specific races and monsters as well as options for characters is best left to the main campaign setting book. The only campaign settings I can imagine making an appearance besides the big three(Greyhawk/Faeurn/Eberron) are Dark Sun and Ravenloft(considering that the Shadowfell was basically a 4e version of it, but it feels wrong for them not to go back to the setting after a break from it like that.) Maybe a few that they haven't tossed at us in a while, but I can't imagine them to be holding a lot of the licenses like they used to.

Well the Shadowfell and Ravenloft are now the same thing.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Maybe we'll get an all new setting, too

I'm hoping that eberron is merged in with spell jammer. Like straight up from the get go.

[Inevitability]

I'm hoping that eberron is merged in with spell jammer. Like straight up from the get go.

I know nothing but the basics of the Eberron setting, but if this is going to be a real thing, 5e can't go wrong anymore.

[PinkysBrain]

As a 3.5 player I expect to be pleasantly surprised by the introduction of classes that first appeared in 4E making an appearance in 5E.
A lot of the mechanics of those classes are so alien to what 5e turned into that if they wanted to do this they should have done so during the playtest ... it will be very hard to retain some flavour of these classes now.

[PinkysBrain]

I'm hoping that eberron is merged in with spell jammer. Like straight up from the get go.

I don't want them to touch Eberron at all unless they make clear that natural alignments for races is purely a Forgotten Realms thing ... I don't want naturally evil orcs in Eberron.

Also I think settings function better in isolation ... Spell Jammer works better as an alternate universe, not a default assumption.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I know nothing but the basics of the Eberron setting, but if this is going to be a real thing, 5e can't go wrong anymore.

I've always felt that eberron was a baby setting being watched over by spell jammer. When eberron matures enough then spell jammer will let it into the federation... I've been watching to much south park though.


Only if they ditch the natural alignments for most races in Spell Jammer too ... naturally evil orcs don't belong in Eberron.

I keep forgetting about them, mainly cause I never use them.

It just promotes murder hobo psychopaths going around slaughtering things for the Lol of it.

[Inevitability]

A lot of the mechanics of those classes are so alien to what 5e turned into that if they wanted to do this they should have done so during the playtest ... it will be very hard to retain some flavour of these classes now.

Marking is simply imposing disadvantage on attack rolls vs. your allies. It is already in the game.
Oath of Enmity is an x times/day ability that gives you advantage on attack rolls against a single foe. If anything, it is even easier to put in 5e as the advantage mechanic is already in the rules.

There, those are the two core mechanics of those classes translated to 5e.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Marking is simply imposing disadvantage on attack rolls vs. your allies. It is already in the game.
Oath of Enmity is an x times/day ability that gives you advantage on attack rolls against a single foe. If anything, it is even easier to put in 5e as the advantage mechanic is already in the rules.

There, those are the two core mechanics of those classes translated to 5e.

Putting the shroud mechanic into 5e is quite simple too with the use of Bonus Action. However I'm not sure if you would want too :smalltongue:

I would love to see the essentials bard be ported over though. At will singing abilities would be nice (comparable to Cantrips).

[Tholomyes]

Marking is simply imposing disadvantage on attack rolls vs. your allies. It is already in the game.
Oath of Enmity is an x times/day ability that gives you advantage on attack rolls against a single foe. If anything, it is even easier to put in 5e as the advantage mechanic is already in the rules.

There, those are the two core mechanics of those classes translated to 5e.The issue, is, while yes that's kind of what marking is, it plays out differently from that. The marking mechanic was always predicated on the enemy knowing they were in fact marked. The whole notion of "marking" was based around making the Fighter (or Paladin or Warden or what have you) the less attractive target. 5e's similar mechanic, however, doesn't let the enemy know they're at disadvantage. Without that 'threat of activation' that would make the enemy know that you're the better target, you'd need to actually use your reaction on it, which means you give up threatening an AoO, which just makes you worse at protecting your allies.

Also, the issue with Oath of Enmity is that, since everything's advantage/disadvantage, now, there's no benefit to using it, if you already have advantage from some source, but even more importantly, it just isn't as impactful. What made it a signature ability for the Avenger, is that no one else rolled multiple d20s for anything. With 5e, it's just yet another way to get advantage (which also might just be a tad broken, if multiclassed with rogue).

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The issue, is, while yes that's kind of what marking is, it plays out differently from that. The marking mechanic was always predicated on the enemy knowing they were in fact marked. The whole notion of "marking" was based around making the Fighter (or Paladin or Warden or what have you) the less attractive target. 5e's similar mechanic, however, doesn't let the enemy know they're at disadvantage. Without that 'threat of activation' that would make the enemy know that you're the better target, you'd need to actually use your reaction on it, which means you give up threatening an AoO, which just makes you worse at protecting your allies.


Funny enough my groups always played 4e without letting targets know they are marked. Worked out fine.

The marking mechanic could be ported over to 5e just fine, I've seen it ported to 2e.

[Inevitability]

Also, the issue with Oath of Enmity is that, since everything's advantage/disadvantage, now, there's no benefit to using it, if you already have advantage from some source, but even more importantly, it just isn't as impactful. What made it a signature ability for the Avenger, is that no one else rolled multiple d20s for anything. With 5e, it's just yet another way to get advantage (which also might just be a tad broken, if multiclassed with rogue).

Then make it: 'whenever you have advantage against your OoE target, you roll 3 d20's to determine which one you use for your roll. The third d20 is rolled at a <insert balanced number here> penalty.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Then make it: 'whenever you have advantage against your OoE target, you roll 3 d20's to determine which one you use for your roll. The third d20 is rolled at a <insert balanced number here> penalty.

You don't even need to go that far.

Choose a OoE target. You have advantage on attack rolls versus that target and due to Divine Guidance you can never have disadvantage against it on attack rolls.

Powerful and awesome. Though you can limit it by short or long rest.

[PinkysBrain]

Marking is simply imposing disadvantage on attack rolls vs. your allies. It is already in the game.
That's an effect, not a cause ... a very 4e way of thinking which doesn't really work for 2.75e.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

That's an effect, not a cause ... a very 4e way of thinking which doesn't really work for 2.75e.

I wish I could hit the following button so damn hard...

:smallsigh:

[Tholomyes]

Funny enough my groups always played 4e without letting targets know they are marked. Worked out fine.

Perhaps it did work fine, for your group, but the point is, it's not the same as the baseline 4e's marking mechanic, which means, in practice, it plays out completely differently. It's reactive instead of proactive, and it means the enemy will still be attacking your allies. They may be less effective at it, but that's not really the point. Your Squishier allies are squishier not only because of AC but also HP.

Imposing disadvantage on attack rolls generally works out to be around a -4 or so to hit. Between a heavily armored Fighter of AC 20 and a Mage-armor wearing Wizard of maybe AC 15 or 16, the enemy is still better off attacking your ally, who can take fewer hits than you. Under a system more similar to 4e's marking, the foreknowledge that the fighter will interpose his shield to give disadvantage means most DMs will have monsters will attack the fighter. Only smarter foes might realize they're still better off attacking the wizard, at which point their being intelligent comes into play.

Even if you are improving the longevity of your allies, it doesn't feel like you're doing as much, where in 4e, you're forcing them to deal with you, and you're actively taking the hits for your squishier allies.


That's an effect, not a cause ... a very 4e way of thinking which doesn't really work for 2.75e.

Could you explain more what you mean there, because I'm not sure I entirely agree? I think there are easily ways that 4e mechanics could be added, even to the paired down back-to-basics 5e (it's just that they haven't really shown that they're doing that). While the base rules are different, I think they could if they chose to, add more 4e elements. For the Marking example, I agree that imposing Disadvantage isn't the same as marking (as I mentioned above) there's nothing inherent about 5e which says that 4e's marking couldn't work. They even had a version in one of the playtest packets, as a feat. I don't even think it'd be all that hard for 5e to support more of a 4e playstyle (an easy example is, since the system seems to be based around 2 encounters per day, just increase the number of Hit Dice, add a method of regaining Daily spells with a short rest [and make the wizard's ability more powerful to account for the overall increase] and decrease the time for a short rest. Suddenly it's a lot closer to 4e style)

My issues, more come down to the fact that, sure, I could house-rule up some stuff, to make it more my playstyle, but what else does it bring to the table beyond that? One of my biggest issues with 4e was the lack of ability to go outside the box with character concepts, and 5e seems to have the same issue. Sure backgrounds are a nice addition, to separate class from fluff, but if customization options within classes are so pared back, I don't see how two members of the same class will feel all that distinct.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Perhaps it did work fine, for your group, but the point is, it's not the same as the baseline 4e's marking mechanic, which means, in practice, it plays out completely differently. It's reactive instead of proactive, and it means the enemy will still be attacking your allies. They may be less effective at it, but that's not really the point. Your Squishier allies are squishier not only because of AC but also HP.
.

The point was that it won't work in 5e because of the baseline thought of monsters knowing they are marked.

This is false because it worked just fine in other editions, including the one it was made for, in practiceby assuming the monsters did not know they were marked.

[Tholomyes]

The point was that it won't work in 5e because of the baseline thought of monsters knowing they are marked.

This is false because it worked just fine in other editions, including the one it was made for, in practiceby assuming the monsters did not know they were marked.

You are still missing the point though. You were not playing with the same mechanics as everyone else. It clearly says in the PHB that the enemy should know they were marked. By playing with a different set of rules, it's no surprise you don't see that the 5e rules seem effectively the same as the ones you played. But to others who played by the RAW, who understand that the foreknowledge of enemies knowing that they're marked means that they will choose different tactics than if they did not have this knowledge, this rule is only superficially similar to 4e's marking.

I'm sure your Houserule worked fine. It's just that it's a different playstyle, and those who want the mechanics similar to 4e's marking mechanics aren't going to, all of a sudden, not want them, because your house rule worked fine.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

You are still missing the point though. You were not playing with the same mechanics as everyone else. It clearly says in the PHB that the enemy should know they were marked. By playing with a different set of rules, it's no surprise you don't see that the 5e rules seem effectively the same as the ones you played. But to others who played by the RAW, who understand that the foreknowledge of enemies knowing that they're marked means that they will choose different tactics than if they did not have this knowledge, this rule is only superficially similar to 4e's marking.

I'm sure your Houserule worked fine. It's just that it's a different playstyle, and those who want the mechanics similar to 4e's marking mechanics aren't going to, all of a sudden, not want them, because your house rule worked fine.

Are you serious? I'm starting to think you are just messing with me.

We were playing by the very same mechanical rule that you say won't work in 5e. But guess what?

It. Worked. Fine.

Changing if the target knows they are marked or not doesn't change the mechanic. Marking will work fine in 5e wither the target knows they are marked or if the target doesn't know. Monster tactics may change, slightly, but the mechanics of marking still works and doesn't break or hurt the game in any way.

You know what, never mind I don't feel like dealing with this today. :smallsigh:

[Tholomyes]

Are you serious? I'm starting to think you are just messing with me.

We were playing by the very same mechanical rule that you say won't work in 5e. But guess what?

It. Worked. Fine.

Changing if the target knows they are marked or not doesn't change the mechanic. Marking will work fine in 5e wither the target knows they are marked or if the target doesn't know. Monster tactics may change, slightly, but the mechanics of marking still works and doesn't break or hurt the game in any way.

You know what, never mind I don't feel like dealing with this today. :smallsigh:I'm not saying it won't work, you dense ******. My point is that it's not the same thing as Marking, because it causes different tactical considerations. It may be nominally similar, but it plays out differently. In. Practice. Full f-ing stop.

You don't see it because you never played with the rule as it was written. It certainly changes the mechanics, because the mechanics are predicated around changing enemy tactics. That's the entire reason they exist. It's not for the fighter to get a chance to swing at an enemy, or to give the enemy a minor accuracy penalty. The consequences for violating a mark are the least important aspect of that mechanic. The important part is that the enemy is given enough of a disincentive to attack anyone but the fighter (or whatever class). This is how the rule was designed, and the entire purpose of the rule. You can't say that it won't change the mechanic, when it fundamentally changes the purpose for which the mechanic was designed and implemented.

Understand that this change in monster tactics, that you are so readily dismissing is the most important part of the mechanic. It was one of the bigger innovations that 4e provided, tactically, by, instead of having effects say "You can't do something" it made battlefield control (and yes, the defender's mark counts as that) have effects which mostly say "You don't want to do something." Essentially replacing "Hard control" with "soft Control." By ignoring that tactical consideration, you (and I suspect Mearles) can't possibly see the reason that having the protection Fighting style or other replacements for soft control mechanincs, or on a grander scale even, having Hit-dice (as a replacement for healing surges) or having effects which recharge on a short rest, or any of these things that come from 4e, doesn't appease people who enjoyed (at least those aspects of) 4e.

And that's why it bugs me. I, overall, wasn't all that big a fan of 4e. There really were only a couple things from the player's side that I liked about 4e. Those were a) the way encounter resources worked, so it felt like less of a battle of attrition, and more like every battle was, individually, more dangerous, and b) the soft control mechanics, Especially the defender's mark. Your inability to understand why the tactical considerations of a mechanic such as marking are in fact the most important aspect of that mechanic mirror that of the designers of this lopsided Flesh-golem of a system. They try to add in well-liked mechanics from various systems, but they don't understand why they were well-liked. The "Aw, yes!" moment of a 4e defender wasn't when an enemy missed your ally because of your mark, but when you managed to completely lock down an enemy, because they couldn't move, couldn't shift, and couldn't attack anyone but you. 5e misses that completely, and only contains the flayed skin of the old mechanics, stitched onto an amalgamation of old corpses, trying to convince you that it's still the same.

[1337 b4k4]

I'm not saying it won't work, you dense ******. My point is that it's not the same thing as Marking, because it causes different tactical considerations. It may be nominally similar, but it plays out differently. In. Practice. Full f-ing stop.

This is a bit un-called for. If the person is telling you that their experience is that it plays the same way, then that's their experience. They might be playing it "wrong" or not the way that you do, but then the proper response is to hash out where the disconnect is. Maybe you should take a break, you're getting rather worked up over magic elf games.

[Tholomyes]

This is a bit un-called for. If the person is telling you that their experience is that it plays the same way, then that's their experience. They might be playing it "wrong" or not the way that you do, but then the proper response is to hash out where the disconnect is. Maybe you should take a break, you're getting rather worked up over magic elf games.Maybe I'm getting a bit worked up, but I disagree that it's simply a matter of differing experience. It's not as bad as the 'My opinion is just as valid as your facts' fallacy, since mine is also an opinion, but the fact of the matter is Morbo admitted that he already effectively house-ruled the way marking works in his games. Thus in the argument of 'Is the Protection fighting style fundamentally different from 4e's marking?' his experience is coming from a house-ruled version of the system, which is applicable to his group, and any with similar house-rules. My experience comes from using the marking rules as written, which comes from the design of the system, and is applicable to the vast majority of groups who did not house-rule marking, in that fashion. So, is it fundamentally different from Morbo's house-ruling? No, probably not. But for the rest of the people who played 4e without that house-rule, they will find it fundamentally different.

[Leon]

I don't want them to touch Eberron at all unless they make clear that natural alignments for races is purely a Forgotten Realms thing ... I don't want naturally evil orcs in Eberron.


Then don't have naturally evil orcs...

Much in the way that Privateer admitted that making Dire Trolls CE was a silly thing and the actual alignment should have been Chaotic Hungry.

[Sartharina]

This is false because it worked just fine in other editions, including the one it was made for, in practiceby assuming the monsters did not know they were marked.Except monsters WOULD know they were marked in 4e - all marking mechanics were some way of the guardian saying "I'm you're target, you're messing with ME!"

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Except monsters WOULD know they were marked in 4e - all marking mechanics were some way of the guardian saying "I'm you're target, you're messing with ME!"

And as you obviously read, because why would you comment without reading?...

My group has played 4e (and other editions) where the MONSTER DID NOT KNOW THEY WERE MARKED and it didnt hurt the mechanic or game at all.

Why are you and the other missing this? I have played the game in the way it is being said will mess things up and I'm reporting in that it in fact DOES NOT hurt the mechanic or game.

Yeah we put marking mechanics in 2e, 3e, PF, and now 5e as houserules. The monsters not knowing they are marked actually worked better because they only know that they will take an AoO and not have any additional abilities placed on them. Because why would they know the specific fighter has X ability and other fighter has Y ability?

[charcoalninja]

And as you obviously read, because why would you comment without reading?...

My group has played 4e (and other editions) where the MONSTER DID NOT KNOW THEY WERE MARKED and it didnt hurt the mechanic or game at all.

Why are you and the other missing this? I have played the game in the way it is being said will mess things up and I'm reporting in that it in fact DOES NOT hurt the mechanic or game.

Yeah we put marking mechanics in 2e, 3e, PF, and now 5e as houserules. The monsters not knowing they are marked actually worked better because they only know that they will take an AoO and not have any additional abilities placed on them. Because why would they know the specific fighter has X ability and other fighter has Y ability?

There's a distinction that should be made here, a monster knows it's marked because it's an actual condition inflicted on it, the fighter is actively getting in his way, the Paladin has place a magical compulsion on it, etc. but as you've said, the monster does not know the additional effects of that mark unless it's specified in the power. For example, a Fighter's Mark does not tell the monster that the fighter has combat superiority and will hit him if he attacks someone else, because nothing in the fighter's mark has anything to do with that, it's the Fighter's Combat Challenge ability that does. While a monster affected by Divine Challenge from a Paladin DOES know that he's going to turn into a crispy critter if he attacks someone else because the radiant damage is directly linked in the power that creates the mark in the first place.

Another example would be a monster would know he would take Radiant damage from a paladin's mark, but not that violating the mark will cause his target's to be healed if the marking Paladin is a Hospitalor, since the healing effect is a class feature augmenting the Paladin's Divine challenge not detailed in the power.

Just my 2cents on marking crunch.

[Devils_Advocate]

SpawnOfMorbo, consider the following conversations:

Person A: "You can't make unarmed strikes with manufactured weapons."
Person B: "Actually, unarmed strikes work just fine with manufactured weapons."

Person C: "You can't mark a target without the target knowing it's marked."
Person D: "Actually, marking works just fine without targets knowing they're marked."

Can you see how Person B is missing Person A's point?

If so, you should be able to see how Person D is missing Person C's point.


My group has played 4e (and other editions) where the MONSTER DID NOT KNOW THEY WERE MARKED and it didnt hurt the mechanic or game at all.
But you said that you "always played 4e without letting targets know they are marked" (emphasis mine). So you don't know from experience that the element you excluded doesn't improve play. You can speculate that this is the case, but your speculation isn't more informed than that of people who always used all of the aspects of marking, just differently informed.

Furthermore, shockingly, different people sometimes have different preferences! It's possible for someone else to like something that you dislike, and vice versa. That doesn't even constitute a disagreement. (Even saying that others' preferences are "wrong" seems to just be a strange way of saying that you dislike them liking what they like, at least most of the time, so it's hard to see how even that constitutes an actual factual dispute. Of course, it's also possible to claim that people don't actually like and/or dislike the things that they think they do, but can you do that without being a crackpot is the question.)

Honestly, I'm not sure that even an argument about which of two options is objectively better is actually a meaningful disagreement, because as far as I can tell "objectively better" doesn't actually mean anything in particular.


Why are you and the other missing this?
What makes you think that they are? It's possible for people to read your posts and still disagree with you. Why does that seem to be a foreign concept to so many people?

It's not a complicated concept: If something really is self-evidently correct, then people will tend to agree with it. If most people disagree with something, that shows that it's NOT obviously correct, which means that if you thought it was obviously correct, you were wrong. Honestly, probably it's incorrect, because there's probably an error in your reasoning, because that's probably why what seems obvious to you isn't obvious to most people.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

stuff

Sorry you wasted your time.

I implemented a new forum rule for myself (like an hour ago). If there was ever a discussion or argument on this forum that is more than a day old, I don't care anymore.

It is a pretty good feeling so far. I'm going to try to keep this up.

[Devils_Advocate]

That's okay. The last half of my post wasn't really aimed at you in particular anyway.

At some point in the future, I ought to start a thread about how to engage in a productive exchange of ideas. I alone have several pieces of advice to give on the subject, such as for example

- Other people think words mean different things than you think they mean
- How you feel about something is a fact about you, not an inherent attribute of said thing
- Maybe you're wrong, and maybe that's why someone disagrees with you
- You should at least consider the possibility that someone is being sincere

and so on.

Bleh, if only typing up my thoughts on stuff didn't always wind up taking so much time.

[Theodoxus]

That's okay. The last half of my post wasn't really aimed at you in particular anyway.

At some point in the future, I ought to start a thread about how to engage in a productive exchange of ideas. I alone have several pieces of advice to give on the subject, such as for example

- Other people think words mean different things than you think they mean
- How you feel about something is a fact about you, not an inherent attribute of said thing
- Maybe you're wrong, and maybe that's why someone disagrees with you
- You should at least consider the possibility that someone is being sincere

and so on.

Bleh, if only typing up my thoughts on stuff didn't always wind up taking so much time.


Wait, I'm confused... so 4th Ed style marking can't work in 5th Ed because there's not a mechanic in the rules that say an as-yet-to-be-developed class doesn't have the marking feature... and that creating such an ability can't work with simple disadvantage because the mob doesn't know it's marked? Wait wut?

So you houserule (the whole class currently is a houserule, fyi) that the mob knows it's marked and has disadvantage - boom, done. Y'all were talking past each other trying to prove your prospective points, that you forgot to critically think.

Man I can't wait for the PHB so I can try to grok the whole Ad/Disad thing - it seems super convenient for a lot of things, but the basic rules just gloss over them for the most part.

[Devils_Advocate]

You don't seem to be replying to the thing you quoted...?

You don't have to quote anyone to reply to a thread, you can just hit the "Reply to Thread" button at the bottom.

[Inevitability]

You don't have to quote anyone to reply to a thread, you can just hit the "Reply to Thread" button at the bottom.

I think someone who's been on those forums for 9 years can figure that out himself. :smallsigh:

[Joe the Rat]

During the playtest, both had been (at various points in time) been subclasses for the Paladin. Wardens are less likely to take the third slot, after the changes they made in the playtest, but they might show up as a subclass of another class, like the ranger.

7/28 update: They're all Paladin Oaths. How much the implementation matches the old mechanics remains to be seen.

[r2d2go]

Imposing disadvantage on attack rolls generally works out to be around a -4 or so to hit.

Disclaimer: I'm not disputing this, Tholomyes is pretty much exactly right and that's the number anyone who's not a pedant like me would estimate :smalltongue:

But for anyone that wants it, the chance of each die roll is as follows:

Chance of 20: 1/400
Chance of 19: 3/400
Chance of 18: 5/400
...
Chance of 3: 35/400
Chance of 2: 37/400
Chance of 1: 39/400

Basically, 41 - (2*die roll).

You can check to see that those add up to 400 if you'd like, and/or count a few examples to check it. I'm pretty good at math but I'm very good at making silly mistakes, so checking would be helpful :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, adding each of those multiplied by the number you get (IE 1*20, 3*19, 37*2, 39*1), you have a total of 2870. Divide by 400 and you have 7.175 as your average die roll, which is 4.325 less than the average 10.5. It also makes crits really hard though, so perhaps Wizards will throw us some crit hitting things and compensate with disadvantage (hey, check it out, I managed to stay sort of on topic!). That said, gaining advantage has the exact opposite effect, meaning you only need a 15-20 critical range to crit half the time with advantage.

Some other things I'd like to see: Dragonfire adepts! They're awesome. I've played a bit of 4e, and the closest you get is a Dragonborn caster, which isn't nearly as fun as my old dragonfire adept (from the first 3.5 campaign I ever finished, which stretched three years :smalltongue:). Plus, the class was fairly balanced (other than fivefold breath of Tiamat, maybe). I'm hoping they put in some sort of rule or disclaimer for converting 3.5 to 5 as well, so that we can immediately have a big base of feats for people to use by RAW, while people who don't want their games broken can stick to what's out. This is mostly because I think it's a lot easier to get a DM to use even a suggested rule over something that'd be 100% houserule, especially when they know it will generate more work for them fixing and getting rid of feats. Perhaps something like "D&D 5e is somewhat compatible with 3.5e. Optionally, you can let your players ask for spells and feats on a case by case basis."

I don't really know what I expect to see though. 4e kind of disappointed me, so I'm trying not to get my hopes up :smallbiggrin:

[Lokiare]

That's okay. The last half of my post wasn't really aimed at you in particular anyway.

At some point in the future, I ought to start a thread about how to engage in a productive exchange of ideas. I alone have several pieces of advice to give on the subject, such as for example

- Other people think words mean different things than you think they mean
- How you feel about something is a fact about you, not an inherent attribute of said thing
- Maybe you're wrong, and maybe that's why someone disagrees with you
- You should at least consider the possibility that someone is being sincere

and so on.

Bleh, if only typing up my thoughts on stuff didn't always wind up taking so much time.

Yeah, there are entire treatise on this subject and when I point them out people start shouting "this isn't debate club" or other equally nonsensical stuff.


Wait, I'm confused... so 4th Ed style marking can't work in 5th Ed because there's not a mechanic in the rules that say an as-yet-to-be-developed class doesn't have the marking feature... and that creating such an ability can't work with simple disadvantage because the mob doesn't know it's marked? Wait wut?

So you houserule (the whole class currently is a houserule, fyi) that the mob knows it's marked and has disadvantage - boom, done. Y'all were talking past each other trying to prove your prospective points, that you forgot to critically think.

Man I can't wait for the PHB so I can try to grok the whole Ad/Disad thing - it seems super convenient for a lot of things, but the basic rules just gloss over them for the most part.

They could take the mechanic and slap it right onto a new fighter sub-class, but without the other mechanics to interact with it, and with the current million things to spend your reaction on, it would be pretty pointless.


Disclaimer: I'm not disputing this, Tholomyes is pretty much exactly right and that's the number anyone who's not a pedant like me would estimate :smalltongue:

But for anyone that wants it, the chance of each die roll is as follows:

Chance of 20: 1/400
Chance of 19: 3/400
Chance of 18: 5/400
...
Chance of 3: 35/400
Chance of 2: 37/400
Chance of 1: 39/400

Basically, 41 - (2*die roll).

You can check to see that those add up to 400 if you'd like, and/or count a few examples to check it. I'm pretty good at math but I'm very good at making silly mistakes, so checking would be helpful :smallbiggrin:

Anyway, adding each of those multiplied by the number you get (IE 1*20, 3*19, 37*2, 39*1), you have a total of 2870. Divide by 400 and you have 7.175 as your average die roll, which is 4.325 less than the average 10.5. It also makes crits really hard though, so perhaps Wizards will throw us some crit hitting things and compensate with disadvantage (hey, check it out, I managed to stay sort of on topic!). That said, gaining advantage has the exact opposite effect, meaning you only need a 15-20 critical range to crit half the time with advantage.

Some other things I'd like to see: Dragonfire adepts! They're awesome. I've played a bit of 4e, and the closest you get is a Dragonborn caster, which isn't nearly as fun as my old dragonfire adept (from the first 3.5 campaign I ever finished, which stretched three years :smalltongue:). Plus, the class was fairly balanced (other than fivefold breath of Tiamat, maybe). I'm hoping they put in some sort of rule or disclaimer for converting 3.5 to 5 as well, so that we can immediately have a big base of feats for people to use by RAW, while people who don't want their games broken can stick to what's out. This is mostly because I think it's a lot easier to get a DM to use even a suggested rule over something that'd be 100% houserule, especially when they know it will generate more work for them fixing and getting rid of feats. Perhaps something like "D&D 5e is somewhat compatible with 3.5e. Optionally, you can let your players ask for spells and feats on a case by case basis."

I don't really know what I expect to see though. 4e kind of disappointed me, so I'm trying not to get my hopes up :smallbiggrin:

Actually I just use http://anydice.com/program/168e

If you click the 'at least' button and then calculate it gives you the percentage chance of each target number on the dice. So if you have a +3 bonus and your DC is 22 then you need to roll a natural 19 in order to succeed. Depending on the natural roll required the virtual 'bonus' goes up or down. for instance on a regular d20 you have a 30% chance to roll a natural 15. With advantage you have a 51% chance to roll a natural 15. That is a virtual bonus of +21% or around +4. However if you need to roll a natural 19 then that's a 10% chance. With advantage that's 19% which means its only equivalent to a +2 rounded up. If you have to hit a natural 10 its 55% chance. with advantage its a 79.75% chance. That's a virtual bonus of +5. So advantage is very swingy in the value it adds to your rolls and it entirely depends on your target number. If you have to give something up to gain advantage its really only worth it if the target d20 number is in the sweet spot in the center.

[rlc]

Some other things I'd like to see: Dragonfire adepts! They're awesome. I've played a bit of 4e, and the closest you get is a Dragonborn caster, which isn't nearly as fun as my old dragonfire adept (from the first 3.5 campaign I ever finished, which stretched three years :smalltongue:). Plus, the class was fairly balanced (other than fivefold breath of Tiamat, maybe). I'm hoping they put in some sort of rule or disclaimer for converting 3.5 to 5 as well, so that we can immediately have a big base of feats for people to use by RAW, while people who don't want their games broken can stick to what's out. This is mostly because I think it's a lot easier to get a DM to use even a suggested rule over something that'd be 100% houserule, especially when they know it will generate more work for them fixing and getting rid of feats. Perhaps something like "D&D 5e is somewhat compatible with 3.5e. Optionally, you can let your players ask for spells and feats on a case by case basis."

I don't really know what I expect to see though. 4e kind of disappointed me, so I'm trying not to get my hopes up :smallbiggrin:

there's a dragon sorcerer or whatever it's called that was previewed recently. the picture for it is even a dragonborn.

[rlc]

i was also thinking the other day that it might be cool if they gave aasimar truesight.