Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #2

[NinjaStylerobot]

Plus, leaving it to the DM lessens the strain on a system designed for multiclassing.

Thing is if you want to play the mindless beat em up "break the system" game its incredibly easy. Just remove the fluff rule. Boom. Problem solved, a TERRIBLE, HORRIBLE difficult hurdle is overcome.

But If I want to add that fluff, I need to create the items, cost them, balance them, make spells around that. ect.

Its just easier to remove fluff then to add fluff.

Also: If Druids aren't supposed to use refined metals in order to respect nature, then why was it OK for them to use big honkin' steel scimitars?

They don't. At least I don't allow them.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Thing is if you want to play the mindless beat em up "break the system" game its incredibly easy. Just remove the fluff rule. Boom. Problem solved, a TERRIBLE, HORRIBLE difficult hurdle is overcome.

This works less well when the rules forbid wizards from casting in armor or really any fluff that has more than a "mother may I" effect on the game. Additionally, what items?

They don't. At least I don't allow them.

Good thing you have those rules about fluff to follow then

[Loren]

As a general rule I like what I'm seeing. I'm really excited to see that all the classes from the previous PHB's are going to be in the new one.

As for the modualness of it I don't think that's surprising coming from the man behind Unearthed Arcana. If they want an edition that encompasses many different play styles they probably picked the right guy.

I'm a little concerned with the dropping of skills. Not that I personally care too much, but I think that some players will be weirded out by a return to something akin to the proficiencies system.

Doe anyone know what the "rarity vs commonness" of classes would mean in play?

[NinjaStylerobot]

This works less well when the rules forbid wizards from casting in armor or really any fluff that has more than a "mother may I" effect on the game. Additionally, what items?

Why? Why must fluff be pointless, tacked on and superfluous (If I didn't get the word- PM me). Its easier to remove fluff then it is to add it on.

I get some people are here for the combat, and min maxing and optimizing builds- But its easier to remove fluff then it is to add it.

If you make pointless fluff you get stuff like 4e defiling (Ugh).

I meant Darkwood. It would not exist (Forcing me- The GM to create the spell, balance it, create the item, ect) if the fluff didn't uphold it.

In your campain you can just say "Yes they can". Its as easy as that.

Good thing you have those rules about fluff to follow then

Not sure whats this about.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Doe anyone know what the "rarity vs commonness" of classes would mean in play?

Probably nothing.

It just sounds like a rating system for play complexity -- the more confusing a class, the rarer. You could use it as an in-universe justification for why there are more Fighters than Wizards around but that's been tried before and seldom works: if System Mastery matters, you're going to have a party of Casters when you have experienced Players regardless of how "rare" they are supposed to be.

[Coplantor]

I like the way this is going, I really liked the 2nd edition aproach to complexity where pretty much everything was optional. When I was 12 we barely used any rule and slowly incorporated them as our understanding of the game advanced.

Return of vancian casting, silver pieces as the norm, more importance to mundane equipment and different situations call for different stat bonus applied to the same skill are so far, what I'm liking the most.

[Yora]

So that's what they meant with the silver standard? I wasn't really feeling like untangling that piece of info at that time. But silver pieces being the common type of money is good.

I heared that 4th Edition essentials had introduced character Themes in addition to Race and Class, which I assume is the inspiration for themes in 5th Edition. Can anyone tell me more about what these themes are? In other forums I saw some claims that its like a secondary class for all non-combat stuff, like noble, scholar, blacksmithm and so on, which you have in addition to your character class like wizard, fighter, or ranger.

[Kurald Galain]

Can anyone tell me more about what these themes are? In other forums I saw some claims that its like a secondary class for all non-combat stuff

It's like a secondary class, but it's really not non-combat stuff. Most themes give you a combat encounter power at level 1, +2 to two different skills at level 5, and a minor combat bonus or resistance at level 10; plus they give you a combat utility power at levels 2, 6, and 10 that you can take instead of a class power. There are a few exceptions; for example, the scholar gains the ability to read all languages, and the noble gains the ability to demand food and lodging from other nobles.

The bottom line is, they're like paragon paths for heroic tier, because WOTC realized that the overwhelming majority of characters are in heroic tier, and wanted more customization for them (because the earlier designed "backgrounds" are too generic and aren't really noticeable during gameplay).

Incidentally, themes debuted in the Dark Sun book, not in 4.4. Here's a sample theme from the Wizards website.

[Yora]

I like that. Might turn out to be something I could use for my game to implement DA-style blood magic without any weird multiclassing.

[Tengu_temp]

If you are interested in all the known facts about the new edition, Enworld has a very good summary of it here, which gets constantly updated.

Reading this stuff made me mostly feel positive about the new edition. Mostly, because this part worries me:

"So for example, if your fighter goes up a level and would normally get some bonus damage or a bonus to hit, or something simple, then maybe instead you could choose to replace that with an option or options that allow you to do some cool moves that allow you to push people around, or protect your allies a bit more, or control the battlefield a little more."

Having a fun character with many options in combat should not come at a price of power. Because in a game that expects you to specialize, like DND, the powerful but boring option will tend to be the one everyone expects you to take, while the other one will tend to be incredibly underpowered. I don't want to see the return of 3e monks again.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Having a fun character with many options in combat should not come at a price of power. Because in a game that expects you to specialize, like DND, the powerful but boring option will tend to be the one everyone expects you to take, while the other one will tend to be incredibly underpowered. I don't want to see the return of 3e monks again.

Likewise, I was disturbed by this quote:

Fighter was the hardest class to design. Druid second hardest. Monk easy.

Bolded for emphatic alarm

[Tyndmyr]

Likewise, I was disturbed by this quote:

Bolded for emphatic alarm

That didn't actually bother me. I figure the designer was like "yeah, I googled it. Holy ****, there was like ten thousand monk threads. I kinda skimmed em, but they all said the same things. There was even a bunch of homebrew stuff to rip off. Easy day."

Fixing fighter is honestly harder than fixing monk. I mean, if you want it to remain similar in feel to fighter, and aren't just saying "hey, we renamed warblade".

[Tengu_temp]

Also, I hope Vancian casting will be an option, not a requirement. It's a clunky and outdated concept that does little but force the DM to put in a mandatory number of plot-unimportant encounters in order for the casters not to easily nova the plot bad guys into oblivion.

If anything, I'd like to see a game where all the characters only have at-will and encounter powers/spells, no daily ones. I hope 5e will let me build such a party.

[NinjaStylerobot]

If anything, I'd like to see a game where all the characters only have at-will and encounter powers/spells, no daily ones. I hope 5e will let me build such a party.

That will result in a game with no need for conservation or tactics (Thats what I think the word means). Its just going to be a room after a room.

[Seerow]

That didn't actually bother me. I figure the designer was like "yeah, I googled it. Holy ****, there was like ten thousand monk threads. I kinda skimmed em, but they all said the same things. There was even a bunch of homebrew stuff to rip off. Easy day."

Fixing fighter is honestly harder than fixing monk. I mean, if you want it to remain similar in feel to fighter, and aren't just saying "hey, we renamed warblade".

The biggest problem with the Fighter is there is no real direction. The druid probably suffers from a similar problem, but on the opposite end of the power spectrum.

Basically the Fighter was supposed to model every mundane martial type out there simultaneously. The Druid was supposed to model every nature type character out there simultaneously. Yes, both have classes that fill niches in their roles that are more specific, but the Druid/Fighter are the fallbacks.

Basically fixing the Fighter/Druid is hard because you have to make the decision "What is a Fighter/Druid?" which nobody's bothered to do before. If you decide to make the druid focus on nature casting, and give wildshape to a new class, and the pet to the ranger, well now you have a bunch of people up in arms because their druid can't do everything anymore. Similarly, if you decide to make the Fighter focus on reach weapon style and an emphasis on controlling, with Heavy Armor, people who liked making a swashbuckling Fighter are going to be upset. Or those who wanted a Fighter to do straight up damage. Or those who wanted a Fighter who cool do ranged combat.

At the other end, if you try to continue to allow them to fill all niches simultaneously, this is very hard to balance. How do you design a fighter who can be any or all styles of fighting that doesn't absolutely suck, but isn't overpowered? How do you design a druid who does everything people like about druids without overshadowing everything else? These are tough questions to handle.


By comparison, the Monk has a set niche, a pretty wide variety of powers tht people are willing to accept can work with that niche. Making a functioning monk isn't too hard.

[MukkTB]

I like what I'm hearing but I worry that what I'm hearing may not be internally consistent. It just seems that if you take their wild promises as design specs you end up with an almost impossible project.

It has weird implications. 'Fighter beats Wizard,' and 'Wizard beats Fighter' as given as a theoretical example earlier in this thread are incompatible in the same game. I guess the DM will have to choose between using the martial supremacy book or the magical supremacy book. A player who likes fighters is going to be frustrated he bought the martial supremacy book and the DM is using the other one.

How many books are we going to have to buy? I assume the big 3. But then it gets muddled. All of them to compete? I've never run into a problem where one player was using a bunch of splats and ruining my vanilla experience. I've just taken the feats and features I want from anywhere the DM allows. If that means borrowing a book so be it. If that means checking out an srd or prd so be it. Not personally owning the book hasn't stopped me from using specific content.

Buying a book for a single feat is not anything like buying the book to make use of its rules systems. I can't do without the rulebook I want to use. I physically cannot memorize or note down that much information.

Who really is going to get to decide which optional rulebooks are used? If its all up to the DM then players are much less motivated to buy beyond core. It would be the DMs responsibility to buy the modules he wants to use. That's bad business for Wizards but it also leaves the players with much less power. However a DM probably doesn't want players to have the ability to demand certain rules be included. They could entirely contradict the campaign he designed.

It seems like it could easily be a mess.

[Yora]

Vancian was confirmed for wizard and cleric, though apparently not in the classic way of 1st to 3rd Editions. For one thing, there was talk about low-level fire at will spells and keeping the high-power spells ready until you really need them. Also there was talk about something like augmentation in 3.5e psionics, as the basic damage of fireball is 5d6 and gets increased by using higher level slots.

Sorcerers and other classes are supposed to use something very different, to make them clearly separate from wizards. I really hope that also goes for priests and maybe a druid themed class as well.

[NinjaStylerobot]

I think flurry of blows was tying the monk down. The monk comes off as a "Kund fu jump with a single powerfull kick" kind of guy. Flurry of blows slows him down considerably except he cannot take a punch.

[Dusk Eclipse]

I like what I read, the only thing that saddens me is that Forgotten Realms will be the first setting to be supported, don't misunderstand me I like the forgotten realms (the little what I have read/played); but I feel that Greyhawk should be the first to be supported, as from my understanding it is the assumed generic world.

I will also be on the edge of my seat waiting for news about Eberron...

[Kurald Galain]

Also, I hope Vancian casting will be an option, not a requirement. It's a clunky and outdated concept that does little but force the DM to put in a mandatory number of plot-unimportant encounters in order for the casters not to easily nova the plot bad guys into oblivion.

Funnily enough, 4E wizards are Vancian (albeit with a very low limit on spells known and spells-per-day).

And yes, any kind of daily power is a potential cause for the 15-minute adventuring day problem. Then again, omitting daily powers entirely potentially causes all combats to work the same for the PCs. Nobody said game design was easy

[Yora]

The only good sloution for the 15 minute adventure days is DMs coming up with plots in which bad things happen when the PCs take too long.

[NinjaStylerobot]

The only good sloution for the 15 minute adventure days is DMs coming up with plots in which bad things happen when the PCs take too long.

Realistically Dms should discourage that with Logic.

If there is no REASON not to go nova you WILL go Nova.

[Yora]

If all spells are at will, wizards would be at nova level all the time. Also really not a nice thought.
Solution to that would be to make all spells very weak, which also doesn't please anyone.

So it has to be the DMs job to come up with reasons why you don't spend 97% of the adventure resting.

[NinjaStylerobot]

So it has to be the DMs job to come up with reasons why you don't spend 97% of the adventure resting.

Which to be honest- Is realistic.

[Tyndmyr]

So it has to be the DMs job to come up with reasons why you don't spend 97% of the adventure resting.

If I were the sort of person who didn't hold down a real job, but instead tried to scrounge up stuff to sell out of abandoned old dangerous places now and then, I too would basically spend most of my time resting.

Hobos seem to be a sleepy lot.

[deuterio12]

If all spells are at will, wizards would be at nova level all the time. Also really not a nice thought.

Indeed, it just doesn't feel right that the players return to full combat power with just a few minutes of rest. Some things should take a good bit of time to recover from.

So it has to be the DMs job to come up with reasons why you don't spend 97% of the adventure resting.

Pfft, what kind of villain doesn't send minions and assassins against the party now and then? If the players don't go to the ecounter, the ecounter can go to them!

And in the case of rope trick and the like, just camp the entrance and wait patiently.

[NinjaStylerobot]

Pretty much. Or just pour acid into the hole.

[Oracle_Hunter]

If all spells are at will, wizards would be at nova level all the time. Also really not a nice thought.
Solution to that would be to make all spells very weak, which also doesn't please anyone.

No, that doesn't follow at all.

"Going Nova" exists because WotC believes that things which are usable less often need to be made more powerful in order to remain attractive. The problem is that campaigns are not structured with the optimal number of "use cycles" in mind: ideally, a Daily Power would be used less frequently than an At-Will Power but in practice the difference is often too small to matter. Needless to say, getting this balance right has been difficult for WotC to manage.

If all powers are At-Will Powers, then they could all be At-Will strength: you could not overwhelm an Encounter with them in the sense that "going nova" implies. They would only be seen as "weak" in comparison to hypothetical Daily Powers that do not exist in the system; in practice nobody would notice anything was missing.

If you accept that power & usage need to be related then the easiest solution is At-Will and Encounter Powers -- some things you can use once per combat, some things you can use as often as you like in that combat. Unlike Daily Powers, the usage gap between the two can be pretty well measured across DMs. The only problem is if you give characters enough Encounter Powers that they never use At-Wills (a problem in 4e) but, again, this is something you can easily fix.

[Yora]

Pfft, what kind of villain doesn't send minions and assassins against the party now and then? If the players don't go to the ecounter, the ecounter can go to them!

Just have the players stumble into the last cavern of the caves where they find an abandoned ogre camp and the princesses dress next to a pile of human bones. that should teach them.

[Treblain]

I'm concerned about the idea of varying complexities of classes. It seems to me that they can't possibly playtest the complex options properly, and we'll end up with the same problems as 3.5.

When they do open playtests, learning to generate and play the complex classes will take too long for casual playtesters, so the designers will reserve them for more controlled playtesting in a smaller group. They'll get stuck in their own assumptions based on their personal experiences about how things should work. It would ruin the whole plan if the design team is unable to see how the more advanced mechanics function in unexpected situations.