Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Now your playing with Playtests!

[Scots Dragon]

Agreed. This is also what I enjoyed most about magic in Morrowind.

I'm not sure about specifics, but I'm pretty sure Oblivion, which I played more thoroughly, also had telekinesis spells. Instantly a way to win points with me, that one, and kind of the reason I'll always, whether playing a Psychic Warrior, Wilder, Psion, etc. - wind up going for something that allows access to telekinetic powers.

[Zombimode]

Yeah. Different and flavorful kinds of teleportation, levitation, water-walking... all sacrificed for the goal of... what exactly? Lazy game design, I would say.

[Scowling Dragon]

Well, they where just squeezed into rituals that are too expensive to use.

[Ichneumon]

Even if they just ported the spells from 2e or 3.5 and called it a day, it would be good, to a certain extend.

[Kurald Galain]

Yeah. Different and flavorful kinds of teleportation, levitation, water-walking... all sacrificed for the goal of... what exactly? Lazy game design, I would say.

Balance, mostly. This is the game that considers e.g. ranged attacks that reach more than 15 meters to be overpowered (with a handful of wizard spells that go up to 30 meters, and 60 meters for the few classes that can effectively use a longbow).

[Zombimode]

Balance, mostly. This is the game that considers e.g. ranged attacks that reach more than 15 meters to be overpowered (with a handful of wizard spells that go up to 30 meters, and 60 meters for the few classes that can effectively use a longbow).

Heh I was talking about Elder Scrolls, but I guess it applies to 4e as well

[Craft (Cheese)]

Yeah. Different and flavorful kinds of teleportation, levitation, water-walking... all sacrificed for the goal of... what exactly? Lazy game design, I would say.

As much as I lament the death of Mark, Recall, and Levitate (and refuse to play Oblivion or Skyrim without having them modded in), they were removed for quite legitimate game design reasons. Levitate alone is very, very restraining in dungeon design (about half the dungeons in Skyrim can be partially or entirely skipped through with just levitation), and Mark/Recall mops the floor with most interesting quest ideas. Don't believe me? Play Skyrim with them yourself and see how much they can break things.

Still though, Morrowind's an exception to the rule. Most CRPGs won't even let you have decent and interesting buffs and debuffs to work with, let alone non-combat utility spells.

[Excession]

Well, they where just squeezed into rituals that are too expensive to use.

There will also be rituals in 5e, though there have been no details and they've said the playtest won't cover them. I would assume they'll look at the cost issues. I feel that ritual cost problems are tied into 4e's gold economy being more than a bit broken and pointless.

[Scowling Dragon]

Rituals should also be impressive for the cost.

They wherent.

[lesser_minion]

Balance, mostly. This is the game that considers e.g. ranged attacks that reach more than 15 meters to be overpowered (with a handful of wizard spells that go up to 30 meters, and 60 meters for the few classes that can effectively use a longbow).

I don't find that aspect of 4e too objectionable, really.

Slings and arrows can still be dangerous at 300m or even 400m, but you'd still have serious trouble even hitting the broad side of a barn at that range, regardless of how skilled you are.

As for spells, one 3e trope that really needs to eat a misaimed fireball is the ability to drop AoEs with pinpoint accuracy at ranges in excess of 400m, using nothing more than the untrained and unaided eye (in fact, you can even do it by ear. In the middle of a thunderstorm).

[Clawhound]

I DMed for some WOW raised kids. They loved D&D and had a great time, even with it being 4E. They threw me more curve balls than experienced players. I'd love to DM for them again.

That's to say, WoW is no hindrance to fun role-playing. No need to worry about kids these days.

[Rallicus]

I DMed for some WOW raised kids. They loved D&D and had a great time, even with it being 4E. They threw me more curve balls than experienced players. I'd love to DM for them again.

That's to say, WoW is no hindrance to fun role-playing. No need to worry about kids these days.

Well, anyone arguing against you can instantly finger your choice of edition, which is said to be catered to the MMO generation. I've never played so I don't know personally, but you might have a more compelling argument if you played, say, 2e with your group.

WoW is no hinderance to fun roleplaying - I don't think anyone in this thread accused it of such? What I gathered from the last page was that the focus was on damage dealing spells and basically MMO-like combat builds, at least in the beta.

[Tyndmyr]

I don't find that aspect of 4e too objectionable, really.

Slings and arrows can still be dangerous at 300m or even 400m, but you'd still have serious trouble even hitting the broad side of a barn at that range, regardless of how skilled you are.

As for spells, one 3e trope that really needs to eat a misaimed fireball is the ability to drop AoEs with pinpoint accuracy at ranges in excess of 400m, using nothing more than the untrained and unaided eye (in fact, you can even do it by ear. In the middle of a thunderstorm).

I do. I can, in real life, hit people with a bow at ranges greater than 60m. It's pretty hard to feel heroic when your char is less capable than you are.

[J.Gellert]

I'm guessing it's easy to forget that damage spells were the norm back in 2nd Ed. AD&D as well. MMOs have nothing to do with it, players will simply use whatever is more effective, or whatever they perceive as more effective.

Older D&D offered really good scaling to the damage spells. 3rd Edition offered really good scaling saving throw DCs. 3,5 offer a lot of ugly "combos".

I don't imagine D&D 5th will not include all options we're used to, at least after a couple splatbooks, but certain options will surely be better than others, as they have always been.

Personally: I'm all for more options. I don't care what comes up as the "best build", I just don't want to get shoved into a strict role such as "controller" or "blaster" or "the guy with the utility belt".

[hamlet]

I do. I can, in real life, hit people with a bow at ranges greater than 60m. It's pretty hard to feel heroic when your char is less capable than you are.

To be fair, there's a difference between hitting a target past 60 meters in a controlled situation, and hitting a target at all under combat conditions where the "target" is shooting right back at you.

[Seerow]

Personally: I'm all for more options. I don't care what comes up as the "best build", I just don't want to get shoved into a strict role such as "controller" or "blaster" or "the guy with the utility belt".

The problem with this is if you don't have defined roles, then "The guy with the utility belt" becomes by default the best role. When you have defined roles, everyone has a job, and they generally are limited in what they can do outside that job. Because once roles are defined, role protection becomes a thing.

However if you don't have roles, you can't protect character niches. So inevitably you'll have someone like the 3.5 cleric or wizard who can do everything as well as anyone else, making them by default the best options.

[Reverent-One]

To be fair, there's a difference between hitting a target past 60 meters in a controlled situation, and hitting a target at all under combat conditions where the "target" is shooting right back at you.

Also, the normal max longbow ranges in 4e in 120 meters, not 60.

EDIT: Math fail. Never mind.

[Seerow]

Also, the normal max longbow ranges in 4e in 120 meters, not 60.

I thought it was 120ft not meters? Which would make it closer to 40 meters.

[Reverent-One]

I thought it was 120ft not meters? Which would make it closer to 40 meters.

40 squares, or 200 feet. Which is 60 meters. Darn metric system.

[hamlet]

40 squares, or 200 feet. Which is 60 meters. Darn metric system.

"My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it!"

[Seerow]

40 squares, or 200 feet. Which is 60 meters. Darn metric system.

Okay for some reason I thought the range was 12(short)/24(long) squares.

[Kurald Galain]

To be fair, there's a difference between hitting a target past 60 meters in a controlled situation, and hitting a target at all under combat conditions where the "target" is shooting right back at you.

Yes, and that should be handled with attack penalties, not by flat out forbidding it.

I do agree that a fireball at long range should likewise have attack penalties (or saving throw bonuses).

[J.Gellert]

However if you don't have roles, you can't protect character niches. So inevitably you'll have someone like the 3.5 cleric or wizard who can do everything as well as anyone else, making them by default the best options.

That's partly what I mean by saying I don't want to be shoved into one role or another.

I believe we don't need niches.

And from what little they've said so far, they might be agreeing, at least a bit.

[hamlet]

Yes, and that should be handled with attack penalties, not by flat out forbidding it.

I do agree that a fireball at long range should likewise have attack penalties (or saving throw bonuses).

It is handled with attack penalties at range. You're assuming that the ranges in the book are absolute ranges. They are not. They are effective ranges beyond which you could probably send an arrow, but it would be a case of diminishing returns.

[Seerow]

That's partly what I mean by saying I don't want to be shoved into one role or another.

I believe we don't need niches.

And from what little they've said so far, they might be agreeing, at least a bit.

But if every character can do anything, why have a party? Why have classes?

[Saph]

But if every character can do anything, why have a party? Why have classes?

You don't have to make every class able to do anything. But there's a middle ground between "everyone can do anything" and "every class must be shoehorned into one of four roles no matter what".

[Seerow]

You don't have to make every class able to do anything. But there's a middle ground between "everyone can do anything" and "every class must be shoehorned into one of four roles no matter what".

On the contrary, your role is defined by what you are capable of doing. Even in a game where roles are not clearly defined. The problem is when you don't try to make sure everyone has a set role, you end up with **** like in 3.5, where you have the Fighter whose role is "Dumb guy who can't do anything" and the Wizard whose role is "If it's magic I can do it. And magic can do anything"

Either you DO need to narrow down what a given class can do, in which case you are putting them into a role whether you want to call it that or not, or you need to let everyone do everything, which makes for a pretty boring game.

[Stubbazubba]

This isn't about proving the Wizard can be more then a glass cannon, yet, right now they want to make the wizard fun but not OP so I think they'll go the blaster route later in the summer though when we get customization rules I expect a lot of non-combat spells

Blasters do not break games, ever. They may be a little OP or UP depending on who they're next to, but blasting effects are not the crux of the OP wizard problem. If they want to make the wizard fun but not OP, then show us good non-damage dealing spells that don't completely remove the need for another party member. If Finger of Death is too reliable, you don't need a Fighter. If Knock is such a low level spell, you don't need a Rogue. If Natural Spell exists, you don't need a party. Proving that the wizard is not OP by showing us a blaster build is doable in D&D as-is, and obfuscates the real issues with wizard, which is not in the class mechanics, but the spells themselves. If that's what they're "proving" here, then this sounds less like a play-test and more like an ad campaign.

[navar100]

I'm guessing it's easy to forget that damage spells were the norm back in 2nd Ed. AD&D as well. MMOs have nothing to do with it, players will simply use whatever is more effective, or whatever they perceive as more effective.

Older D&D offered really good scaling to the damage spells. 3rd Edition offered really good scaling saving throw DCs. 3,5 offer a lot of ugly "combos".

I don't imagine D&D 5th will not include all options we're used to, at least after a couple splatbooks, but certain options will surely be better than others, as they have always been.

Personally: I'm all for more options. I don't care what comes up as the "best build", I just don't want to get shoved into a strict role such as "controller" or "blaster" or "the guy with the utility belt".

What combos does 3E have that 2E did not? I understand Spell Compendium has lots of new spells, but 2E had its share of non-PHB spells as well. At high enough caster level, a 2E wizard could cast a 1st level save or die spell. (Chromatic Orb, the precursor to 3E Orb spells.) 2E also had spells that were the precursor to metamagic feats - Extend I, Extend II, Vocalize, Persistancy.

[hamlet]

What combos does 3E have that 2E did not? I understand Spell Compendium has lots of new spells, but 2E had its share of non-PHB spells as well. At high enough caster level, a 2E wizard could cast a 1st level save or die spell. (Chromatic Orb, the precursor to 3E Orb spells.) 2E also had spells that were the precursor to metamagic feats - Extend I, Extend II, Vocalize, Persistancy.

Just for reference, 2e also had the spell compendiums, a 4 and 3 volume set for wizrds and priests respectively containing HUNDREDS of spells with oodles of good stuff in them about alternate specialists and schools of magic and all that jazz. Very good books if you were going hog wild, or were just quietly importing a few things on the sly to your otherwise core game.

I don't think 2ed had anything that 3ed didn't, or vice versa, except stronger controls on the power of wizards. They seemed minor, but in reality, they went MILES towards making sure that, yes, while wizards were very powerful and dangerous, they were never so far out of line that they effectively won D&D and made most other classes superfluous.