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

[Kerrin]

As more about the game system is revealed, one thing I'm interested in seeing is how they address the spell caster / non-spell caster disparity.

When a spell caster gains access to a new spell level they potentially gain access to hundreds of new spells (aka feats or abilities). Non-spell casters are going to need something similar if the are to be on par (and those things will need to be on par with the power of the spell caster's spells).

[noparlpf]

Magic is kind of inherently better than not-magic. In a game, that's a problem. More strictly limiting access to spells?

[Thanatos 51-50]

Magic is kind of inherently better than not-magic. In a game, that's a problem. More strictly limiting access to spells?

This, right here, is why I'm on the 4e side of the so-called "edition wars". Because 3.5 and Pathfinder have crap like this, and it's something I dearly hope D&D Next doesn't fall into the trap of doing.

[Kerrin]

Magic is kind of inherently better than not-magic. In a game, that's a problem. More strictly limiting access to spells?

True, nerfing the spell casters would work too.

I'd be ecstatic if they can get all classes to be Tier 3ish.

[noparlpf]

This, right here, is why I'm on the 4e side of the so-called "edition wars". Because 3.5 and Pathfinder have crap like this, and it's something I dearly hope D&D Next doesn't fall into the trap of doing.

How does 4e do it?
The right way, in my opinion, is not to boost mundanes to godly levels, which is what I'm afraid you're going to say. I think it's to limit casters more; say maybe (I am pulling this out of my overtired butt) one spell per spell level, then a second 1st-level spell when the 4th-level spell becomes available. It would tend to make casters one-trick ponies, though. So not a great idea. Like I said, I'm tired. Maybe just restrict parties to all-mundanes or all-casters.

True, nerfing the spell casters would work too.

I'd be ecstatic if they can get all classes to be Tier 3ish.

I prefer Tier 4, but then, I like to play Barbarians and Rangers (with ACFs instead of spells).

[Thanatos 51-50]

How does 4e do it?
The right way, in my opinion, is not to boost mundanes to godly levels, which is what I'm afraid you're going to say. I think it's to limit casters more

Essentially, all classes run on the same engine. Martial Classes get combat tricks in roughly equivalent power and number to a wizard's spells. Non-combat spells are called "Rituals" and, while Wizards and Clerics can cast Rituals as a class feature, any character can burn a feat to have the same ability - and it doesn't count against mulitclassing.

Not optimal, but it's the right direction.

[noparlpf]

Essentially, all classes run on the same engine. Martial Classes get combat tricks in roughly equivalent power and number to a wizard's spells. Non-combat spells are called "Rituals" and, while Wizards and Clerics can cast Rituals as a class feature, any character can burn a feat to have the same ability - and it doesn't count against mulitclassing.

Not optimal, but it's the right direction.

By "combat tricks" do you mean things like from ToB in 3.5? I consider about half of that stuff to be "magic" anyway, even if it's not really magic.

[EatAtEmrakuls]

By "combat tricks" do you mean things like from ToB in 3.5? I consider about half of that stuff to be "magic" anyway, even if it's not really magic.

They all have powers of limited use, be it at-will, encounter, or daily.

It works beautifully and is the most balanced solution anyone will ever implement to fix linear warriors, quadratic wizards.

So of course everyone decries it as the death of Gigax's dnd.

[Dr. Yes]

By "combat tricks" do you mean things like from ToB in 3.5? I consider about half of that stuff to be "magic" anyway, even if it's not really magic.

Combat Tricks and Spells are the same thing in 4e iirc, just for different classes. With the exception of psionic classes, which work a little differently, every class has the same number of at-will, encounter, and daily abilities that they can use at any given level. Standard actions are pretty much always damage + extra effect, with the latter part being what distinguishes one class from the next---bards buff or heal, wizards position and snare, warriors root and demand enemies' attention, etc.

Compared to 3.5 or PF, full casters are more limited in the variety of things they can bring to the table, while everyone else is MUCH more versatile than before.

[Scowling Dragon]

They all have powers of limited use, be it at-will, encounter, or daily.

It works beautifully and is the most balanced solution anyone will ever implement to fix linear warriors, quadratic wizards.

So of course everyone decries it as the death of Gigax's dnd.

Ok man. Take a chill pill.

I found worked horribly:

In exchange for unique powers and systems everything was reduced to one system that makes little sense during encounter planning, actually increased the five minute adventuring day incentives (Which I don't mind but others do), and just made combat a rather dull thing.

Not everybody prefers exchanging uniqueness for balance.

[king.com]

Just a quick question, can you not make the wizard a specialist wizard that unlocks low level spells? Pick one school and can only use from that school except at level X you get access to cross-school level 1 and slowly going up the ladder.

Its not perfect but Im wondering if an experienced player can tell me why this wont work.

[Scots Dragon]

Just a quick question, can you not make the wizard a specialist wizard that unlocks low level spells? Pick one school and can only use from that school except at level X you get access to cross-school level 1 and slowly going up the ladder.

Its not perfect but Im wondering if an experienced player can tell me why this wont work.

Because wizards were never originally designed as specialists outside of having a separate illusionist class introduced in the AD&D 1e Player's Handbook. The rest of the ideas for specialist classes didn't turn up until late into AD&D 1e, and were only really made fully explicit at the beginning of 2e; and Basic D&D never adopted specialists at all. If you're going to unite the editions, shoehorning in concepts that don't need to be there would be a bad idea, I think. Especially since generalists are the 'baseline' concept in many of the more popular campaign settings, like the Forgotten Realms, and people were already pissed off enough by the Spellplague. Doing that again would be a bad idea.

The other major reason why it wouldn't work is because you'd get nothing else but conjurers and transmuters because not all of the eight schools are built with the same degree of power and versatility.

They all have powers of limited use, be it at-will, encounter, or daily.

It works beautifully and is the most balanced solution anyone will ever implement to fix linear warriors, quadratic wizards.

Funnily enough, not everyone actually agrees with that assertion. I agree with the latter part of that statement, in that it is in fact a potentially balanced solution, but I see very little that's beautiful about it. I personally see it as a ham-fisted shoehorning in of an unwelcome mechanic into classes which should not have been handled that way, and an idea which ultimately wound up eroding the central idea of Dungeons & Dragons to begin with.

The simple fact of the matter is that 4th edition's 'solution' didn't actually work to fix many of the real central problems of 3rd edition, and instead simply made many of them worse. For every one thing they fixed, another problem arose. These included the bloated nature of the system, the lack of ability to fulfil a given option without a class to represent it directly, the rise of dozens of splat-books to fulfil the concepts that should have taken only one or two books, the divorcing of gameplay mechanics from storytelling, and the suddenly-quite-unavoidable need to load up your entire party with as many magical items as could be found were all 3rd ediiton problems that were made genuinely worse with 4th edition.

And much of this can be laid at the feet of AEDU. The lack of options and diversity comes from the fact that everything must now be represented as a power. The bloat is because that everything must now be represented as a power unique to each class. As opposed to earlier editions allowing for spells like dispel magic and animate dead which did not work differently from class to class but which were simply spells with multiple possible origins.

Ultimately, though, I find that the worst aspects of 4th edition are those which have poisoned the well for future players, for instance. Because ultimately that is a problem they already face with 5th edition, with such a simple thing as a step back of one edition to talk about high elves and hill dwarves and lightfoot halflings rather than eladrin and tieflings and dragonborn. Concepts that had been very much central to Dungeons & Dragons for decades, and which are already something that I can see are confusing prospects for those who were introduced with 4th edition.

[Saph]

Especially since generalists are the 'baseline' concept in many of the more popular campaign settings, like the Forgotten Realms, and people were already pissed off enough by the Spellplague. Doing that again would be a bad idea.

I wonder what they're going to do with FR now? They pretty much gutted the old FR fanbase with the "let's change everything" Spellplague thing. What are they going to do this time - have yet another Spellplague that changes magic again? Honestly, it might actually be simpler for them to retcon the whole Spellplague as having never happened . . .

[Craft (Cheese)]

Ironically, I think 4E's biggest problem is it refused to go far enough from the mold of older editions. For example, classes don't really make sense in the context of the power system.

[Saph]

Ironically, I think 4E's biggest problem is it refused to go far enough from the mold of older editions.

One of the major reasons so many players abandoned 4e was that it felt and played very differently from the older editions. I doubt that making it totally different instead of very different would have helped much.

At some point you really are better off just calling it a new game rather than a new edition.

[Craft (Cheese)]

One of the major reasons so many players abandoned 4e was that it felt and played very differently from the older editions. I doubt that making it totally different instead of very different would have helped much.

At some point you really are better off just calling it a new game rather than a new edition.

I perfectly agree, and that's exactly why these awkward legacy elements were kept in. Still doesn't change the fact that these were an albatross around the neck of the design.

[Nightmarenny]

Because wizards were never originally designed as specialists outside of having a separate illusionist class introduced in the AD&D 1e Player's Handbook. The rest of the ideas for specialist classes didn't turn up until late into AD&D 1e, and were only really made fully explicit at the beginning of 2e; and Basic D&D never adopted specialists at all. If you're going to unite the editions, shoehorning in concepts that don't need to be there would be a bad idea, I think. Especially since generalists are the 'baseline' concept in many of the more popular campaign settings, like the Forgotten Realms, and people were already pissed off enough by the Spellplague. Doing that again would be a bad idea.

The other major reason why it wouldn't work is because you'd get nothing else but conjurers and transmuters because not all of the eight schools are built with the same degree of power and versatility.



Funnily enough, not everyone actually agrees with that assertion. I agree with the latter part of that statement, in that it is in fact a potentially balanced solution, but I see very little that's beautiful about it. I personally see it as a ham-fisted shoehorning in of an unwelcome mechanic into classes which should not have been handled that way, and an idea which ultimately wound up eroding the central idea of Dungeons & Dragons to begin with.

Haha, what?

And what pray tell is the central idea of DnD?

EDIT-Also you really think that a different list of Races will confuse and confound players? Poisoning the well? Have you any idea how silly that is? Did a concept as simple as using different races really make your head spin when you learned 4th edition?

Oh no there high elves are now called Eladrin and some races that were normally found in the MM are now player races and humanoid dragon!

How will the poor new players ever manage being told that Dragonborn arn't one of the core races and you can just call Eladrin High Elves from now one.

[Yora]

I wonder what they're going to do with FR now? They pretty much gutted the old FR fanbase with the "let's change everything" Spellplague thing. What are they going to do this time - have yet another Spellplague that changes magic again? Honestly, it might actually be simpler for them to retcon the whole Spellplague as having never happened . . .

Or threat Spellplague like the Knights of the Old Republic sub-setting. It's quite official, but so much removed in time that it is effectively an alternate universe. I really love KotOR-Star Wars, but don't care much for Empire/New Republic-Star Wars. There's only limited support for it, but that's enough for me. I think Spellplague fans can be kept happy with such a solution as well.

Now KotOR takes place 4,000 years earlier and the Spellplague Realms only 100 later, and you have the added difficulty that the Spellplague event takes place only 10 years after the 3rd Edition continuity, some some OFR-fans might still feel unhappy knowing that within 10 years the "official" timeline will destroy the world. But I think if the writers handle it well, OFR-fans can ignore and forgett the NFR exist and everything that mentions the spellplague is confined to works in the NFR.
Probably the best way there is to handle these things. IF anyone in charge actually considers changing anything and not just continue with NFR.

[Saph]

I perfectly agree, and that's exactly why these awkward legacy elements were kept in. Still doesn't change the fact that these were an albatross around the neck of the design.

What do you think would have worked better? Going to a points-based system instead of a class-based one?

Or threat Spellplague like the Knights of the Old Republic sub-setting. It's quite official, but so much removed in time that it is effectively an alternate universe. I really love KotOR-Star Wars, but don't care much for Empire/New Republic-Star Wars. There's only limited support for it, but that's enough for me. I think Spellplague fans can be kept happy with such a solution as well.

That's probably the most sensible way to do it - but if they'd been taking that approach, they should have made the Spellplague FR a separate setting in the first place, rather than doing a hatchet job onto the old FR to try and force it into a 4e shape.

Oh well, it's their problem now. We'll see what they do with it.

[Scots Dragon]

I wonder what they're going to do with FR now? They pretty much gutted the old FR fanbase with the "let's change everything" Spellplague thing. What are they going to do this time - have yet another Spellplague that changes magic again? Honestly, it might actually be simpler for them to retcon the whole Spellplague as having never happened . . .

Which is again something that they've thoroughly screwed up. The entire debacle of the Spellplague is a very good microcosm of the changes and the mindset behind them. Basically put, 4th edition was developed, detailed and given life by changing details and concepts and ideas that people complained about, or which were simply things that the authors didn't like. The end result was that of something which scarecely resembled the source from which it was created.

I remember, back during the latter years of 4th edition, that one of the biggest recurring complaints on the Wizards of the Coast forums was the whole Chosen of Mystra deal with the Forgotten Realms. Now, naturally this was people complaining about a setting they didn't like or participate in, and it was generally just a recurring minority. But Wizards of the Coast actually listened to the people who complained about Elminster and the Simbul and Alustriel and Storm Silverhand being too powerful. But they also listened to the fact that Forgotten Realms was popular, and what they were presented with was the following list of facts;

1. A setting which they thought needed to be severely altered
2. A setting which was, despite this, extremely popular
3. And they needed a new setting to showcase their new edition.

What happened as a result of these three facts is only a surprise to those who weren't paying attention whatsoever.

[Yora]

That's probably the most sensible way to do it - but if they'd been taking that approach, they should have made the Spellplague FR a separate setting in the first place, rather than doing a hatchet job onto the old FR to try and force it into a 4e shape.

I am not saying it was a good idea in the first place.

But now that the djinn is out of the bottle and the New FR have fans, you need to find some way to deal with it.

[Conundrum]

I liked the Spellplague...

[Scots Dragon]

Haha, what?

And what pray tell is the central idea of DnD?

My meaning there is generally that 4th edition's AEDU system more or less eroded the basic feeling of Dungeons & Dragons. It did not at any point feel like Dungeons & Dragons to me, and that therefore represents an erosion of its core themes and concepts.

When the game calling itself D&D doesn't feel like D&D, then perhaps it's time to consider that maybe something's a little off.

EDIT-Also you really think that a different list of Races will confuse and confound players? Poisoning the well? Have you any idea how silly that is? Did a concept as simple as using different races really make your head spin when you learned 4th edition?

Your mistake here is assuming that I'm referring to only the races. Really, there are so many minor and major details which were radically changed over in the switch to 4th edition, and to try and reconcile that with the previous editions in 5th edition is what poisoned the well. Almost everything about 4th edition was horribly mismanaged and didn't fit in with the actual core of Dungeons & Dragons.

The races were just a convenient initial point to draw upon. There were severe changes to monsters, alignment, cosmology, magic-users in general, classes, races, settings and even individual characters. I find that pretty much every single fan of Open Grave might be suddenly surprised to realise that Strahd von Zarovitch is supposed to cast spells like a wizard, for instance.

Oh no there high elves are now called Eladrin and some races that were normally found in the MM are now player races and humanoid dragon!

How will the poor new players ever manage being told that Dragonborn arn't one of the core races and you can just call Eladrin High Elves from now one.

Scroll back three pages ago. I had to explain this whole deal to people who didn't know how the old system actually worked, and they were somewhat confused by it. I'm not saying 'people will be confused', I'm saying 'people have already been confused'.

[Nightmarenny]

Like you have some good points Narsil but those two things are so ridiculous that it really gets in the way.

[Nightmarenny]

Having read the post you were talking about that you are really over selling the problem. Someone asked how elves were divided now and you told them. They should read the books for explanations about the Races anyway.

I see the problem with say the FR setting but frankly the "traditional way of doing elves is kinda stupid. The reason the Elves need explanation is because in 3.5 and then 5th is overly complicated and ends up weird.

They should have kept the Eladrin. They make things a whole lot simpler.

Though I also gotta say that this is a very toxic way of thought.

"We can't change any lore because the people who come in on this edition might be confused" leads to stagnation. DnD's representation is all ready so old fashioned and out of touch with current fantasy the designer should be more encouraged to improve lore, not less.

As for the "It doesn't feel like DnD" thing well, that is an opinion some people share and some people don't. It seems pretty weird to claim that the "point" of DnD was lost because it moved away from what you enjoyed about it.

Everything else was a solid critique of the problems with the system however.

I may been cruel, sorry.

[Scowling Dragon]

Also you really think that a different list of Races will confuse and confound players? Poisoning the well? Have you any idea how silly that is? Did a concept as simple as using different races really make your head spin when you learned 4th edition?

Here is how it works:

Lets have the classic high elf and wood elf. Both are generic enough to be adapted to multiple sources and tastes and campaign settings.

But a horrible mistake 4e did was have too detialed fluff IN THE CORE GAME.

Eladrin are "Not just High elves". They have detailed fluff, teleportation magic, being from another plane and are tied to MANY parygon paths and magic items.

Not only that but they have to be forced into other campaign settings as well. Suddenly Dark Sun has eladrin, Eberon has em, and even Spelljammer would have them.

This would scare away people that did not want any dam Eladrin in thier dark sun (Seriously! WHY ADD ANOTHER IDEALISTIC WONDER PLAN TO A SETTING THAT WAS ABOUT NO ESCAPE FROM THE WORLD! AAAAARGH!) they won't buy the setting book.

Now lets say the next edition suddenly says "back to high elves". Now suddenly if you liked eladrin their whole gimmick is suddenly gone alongside with parygon paths, epic destinies and ect.

This is very fracturing.

And thats just eladrin. What about the even more radical races like Dragonborn and Tieflings (That where minor races before)?

This is very fracturing.

[Nightmarenny]

Here is how it works:

Lets have the classic high elf and wood elf. Both are generic enough to be adapted to multiple sources and tastes and campaign settings.

But a horrible mistake 4e did was have too detialed fluff IN THE CORE GAME.

Eladrin are "Not just High elves". They have detailed fluff, teleportation magic, being from another plane and are tied to MANY parygon paths and magic items.

Not only that but they have to be forced into other campaign settings as well. Suddenly Dark Sun has eladrin, Eberon has em, and even Spelljammer would have them.

This would scare away people that did not want any dam Eladrin in thier dark sun (Seriously! WHY ADD ANOTHER IDEALISTIC WONDER PLAN TO A SETTING THAT WAS ABOUT NO ESCAPE FROM THE WORLD! AAAAARGH!) they won't buy the setting book.

Now lets say the next edition suddenly says "back to high elves". Now suddenly if you liked eladrin their whole gimmick is suddenly gone alongside with parygon paths, epic destinies and ect.

This is very fracturing.

And thats just eladrin. What about the even more radical races like Dragonborn and Tieflings (That where minor races before)?

This is very fracturing.

Why would Eladrin even be in dark Sun? The setting could have made its own race list.


Both Dragonborn and Tieflings existed in previous editions. As did Eladrin though they were so far away from what they became that you could pretty much call it a new race.

3.5 Elves had a LOT of backstory, Classes and abilities representing it, too.

Not to mention the 30 variant's to them.

[Scowling Dragon]

Why would Eladrin even be in dark Sun? The setting could have made its own race list.

It did. But because High elves/ Wood elves no longer existed in the core they where forced to shove them in the setting.

Both Dragonborn and Tieflings existed in previous editions. As did Eladrin though they were so far away from what they became that you could pretty much call it a new race.

Again- They where a minor race. Not a major one.

3.5 Elves had a LOT of backstory, Classes and abilities representing it, too.

But it was all generic "elfy" stuff. Stuff that could easily be removed. I could have made it that they where made by the god of lemonade and the majority of thier fluff would still fit. Second of all all that fluff was non-core.

[Nightmarenny]

It did. But because High elves/ Wood elves no longer existed in the core they where forced to shove them in the setting.



Again- They where a minor race. Not a major one.



But it was all generic "elfy" stuff. Stuff that could easily be removed. I could have made it that they where made by the god of lemonade and the majority of thier fluff would still fit. Second of all all that fluff was non-core.

They really wern't forced to use every race from core. I've never played dark Sun so I can't say whether the Eladrin were used well so that's all I'll say about it.

So you say that nothing that isn't core counts for this? Eladrin by core
-Exist in the Feywild
-Are stuck up
-Used to be the same race as elves
-Have Elegant Cities
-Are magically inclined

And any racial paths exist only outside of core. Does that seem that specific to you?

The racial character backstory's are about half the size that the 3.5 ones were.

[Yora]

What really annoyed me about the eladrin is the name.

Because it's the name of an already existing race of outsiders that had to disappear for the name to become available. They could just have called them High Elves and Wood Elves, and there wouldn't have been a problem.