New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 47 of 50 FirstFirst ... 223738394041424344454647484950 LastLast
Results 1,381 to 1,410 of 1486
  1. - Top - End - #1381
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Siegel's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    meh meh meh

    nothing new to see here
    Quote Originally Posted by kyoryu View Post
    I swear, about 50% of what makes BW awesome is the little stuff like that that's applicable to just about any system.

  2. - Top - End - #1382
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    I'll be honest - this looks a lot more like a game I'd be interested in. Lots of changes for the better.

    It's still obviously a playtest, so typos and errors are expected.

    The spell descriptions and monsters are a bit neater, the backgrounds and specialties make more sense, and the Fighter and Rogue have been dragged back out of obscurity. We can also see the shape of the system a little clearer - Yes, you do get bigger bonuses to attack, for example.

    -O
    Last edited by obryn; 2012-08-14 at 10:59 AM.

  3. - Top - End - #1383
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    ElfRangerGuy

    Join Date
    Dec 2006

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Does anyone else see this as a problem.

    High Elf - Fighter
    Magic Missile (Racial)
    Protector Fighter focus Longsword (Has improved dmg for being an elf)

    End result
    -Within 100 ft I have a guaranteed 1d4+1 damage attack.
    -Best Armor based AC possible, reducing my need for DEX
    -Since I have MM I do not need to worry about using a bow, but if I do use one (vs low AC enemies) my damage is bumped up 1 die.
    -I have the best longsword damage possible for a PC.

    So
    STR High
    CON High
    DEX (almost unneeded)
    INT (Can be low, get a +1 from high elf either way)
    WIS (unneeded)
    CHA (unneeded)
    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle_Hunter in regards to playing a BoEF game with all female players View Post
    Why would you say this? His players are all for this kind of campaign - it's not like he said "Hello ladies. Roll up some whores, we're playin' Pimps 'n Prostitutes" or something

  4. - Top - End - #1384
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by kenjigoku View Post
    Does anyone else see this as a problem.

    High Elf - Fighter
    Magic Missile (Racial)
    Protector Fighter focus Longsword (Has improved dmg for being an elf)

    End result
    -Within 100 ft I have a guaranteed 1d4+1 damage attack.
    -Best Armor based AC possible, reducing my need for DEX
    -Since I have MM I do not need to worry about using a bow, but if I do use one (vs low AC enemies) my damage is bumped up 1 die.
    -I have the best longsword damage possible for a PC.

    So
    STR High
    CON High
    DEX (almost unneeded)
    INT (Can be low, get a +1 from high elf either way)
    WIS (unneeded)
    CHA (unneeded)
    I'm not sure why that's a problem. Your Longsword at level 1 is +6 1d10+3 damage. Your ranged attack is 1d4+1 damage, auto hit.

    Your stats are:
    Str: 16
    Con: 14
    Int: 14
    Dex: 12
    Wis: 10
    Cha: 8

    You could instead go:

    Human Fighter
    Sharpshooter or Duelist Style
    Str: 9 (don't need it at all)
    Dex: 18
    Con: 15
    Int: 14
    Wis: 13
    Cha: 11

    Your AC falls right between Ringmail and Chainmail. Your rapier is +7, 1d6+4. Your longbow is +7, 1d8+4, and your initiative is 4 points higher than the str fighter. And you can still pick up the guardian theme (using rapier + shield) and be just as good at defending allies as the Protector Fighter, because you only get 1 reaction per round anyway, so the Prot Fighter wouldn't be able to use both. In exchange you have either significantly better ranged attacks, or the ability to use the Dodge action while still dealing damage, blowing the Str Fighter's AC out of the water. In both cases you gain extra mobility from the Shift ability.



    Average damage comparisons against 14 AC:

    Str based Elf
    Melee:
    +6 1d10+3+1d6
    5%: 19
    60%: 12
    35%: 0

    Average: 8.15 damage

    Ranged:
    100%: 1d4+1

    Average: 3.5 damage


    Dex Based Human
    Melee:
    +7 2d6+4
    5%: 16
    65%: 11
    30%: 0

    Average: 7.95 damage

    Ranged:
    +7 1d8+4+1d6
    5%: 18
    65%: 12
    30%: 0

    Average: 8.7 damage



    You could eek out a bit more damage as a strength based human using a heavy weapon (getting you up to 1d12+4+1d6, with the +7 to hit bonus), but at the cost of sacrificing ranged weapon damage (your only real option is the handaxe, which will deal 1d4+4), and sacrificing AC (you're no longer using a shield, meaning the dex fighter matchers your AC even if you spend 8x more gold on chainmail), and you are still slower than him.


    Dex is still the god stat here.
    If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?


  5. - Top - End - #1385
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Seerow View Post
    You could eek out a bit more damage as a strength based human using a heavy weapon (getting you up to 1d12+4+1d6, with the +7 to hit bonus), but at the cost of sacrificing ranged weapon damage (your only real option is the handaxe, which will deal 1d4+4), and sacrificing AC (you're no longer using a shield, meaning the dex fighter matchers your AC even if you spend 8x more gold on chainmail), and you are still slower than him.


    Dex is still the god stat here.
    You can use a Throwing Axe, which would be 1d6+str. Or if you're a dwarf, 1d8. A dwarven warrior would definitely want to be strength-based, since all of the hammers/axes are strength weapons only.
    Last edited by AgentPaper; 2012-08-14 at 12:13 PM.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  6. - Top - End - #1386
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    oxybe's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2009

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    i got a strange email last night, about a certain play test.

    as i was afflicted by a bit of "still can't get to sleep" i decided to open it up as a bit of late night reading to do me in (i'm not saying the play test literally bored me to sleep, anything would have worked to finish me off in my state).

    it was slightly less boring a read then the first play test. as i said, i will admit i read this late at night and only really got to read the fighter & rogue pregen and character creation for the moment.

    it doesn't look too promising.

    fighter has "a lot" of options but once he picks a line he seems locked in. the combat dice mechanic seem neat but most look to be mainly circumstancial rather then truly at-will abilities. the recharge should also be changed to end of turn rather then the start, this way you can chose to react and lose your next turn's action rather then lose your turn's action and hopefully react.

    rogue was... meh... on first glance. i'll really need to look over him some more but one thing stood out: thieves' cant? really? in proper class design space rather then a background?

    i'll note that i haven't even begun to look at the spell list. if this is the future of the hobby, i'm glad i'm getting out of it. it really doesn't seem to be going anywhere i care for.

  7. - Top - End - #1387
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Dublock View Post
    The Wizard only getting a few non-blaster spells is something that I like because more utility spells means more likely to be broken like 3.5. All the top tier had spells and options to do anything and occasionally everything. The more they limit options the more likely they can lessen the gap between spell casters and melee. If its just damage in different forms it is a lot easier to balance out.
    The problem here is that the utility spells are what many people like about the wizard, myself included--I've made far more illusionist and utility wizards than I have blasters and controllers, personally, in 1e, 2e, and 3e. When most of the utility was moved into rituals in 4e, there was a pretty big outcry, and effects in the "noncombat" schools like enchantment, illusion, divination and necromancy are precisely those schools that got either bad support, late support, or no support in 4e. If 5e wants to please both the AD&D/3e people who really liked those kinds of spells and the 4e people who liked not having the wizard overshadow the rogue out of combat, they should be handling those spells first to get them right.

    Fireball hasn't changed much since they dropped the volumetric calculations, lightning bolt doesn't bounce anymore but otherwise works the same, and so forth, but building a new edition from the ground up is exactly the time to make knock, alter self, comprehend languages, and such play well with other classes in a fun yet more balanced fashion. We don't really need to playtest multiple Xd6 blasting spells yet again, but we do need to test how, say, illusions and enchantment interact with stealth and negotiation.

    Yes, wizards in previous editions have had a spell for everything, but being able to do fun stuff out of combat doesn't mean you need to be able to do everything out of combat. The problem in 3e was that individual spells were broken and the wizard could learn all of them; fix the individual spells and cap the number known (either hard cap like the 3e sorcerer or expanding cap like the 1e wizard) and that would go a long way toward fixing the problem.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  8. - Top - End - #1388
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    I suspect they have a lot of damage spells exactly because those are easy to make. I'm sure they're working on making the utility spells balanced, but they're trying to focus on other aspects of the playtest right now, so throwing in a bunch of untested spells that could easily break the game doesn't sound like a good idea. Rather, I'd expect a more concentrated "spell" push, where they release a playtest aimed specifically at trying to balance all the more complex spells.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  9. - Top - End - #1389
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by oxybe View Post
    i'll note that i haven't even begun to look at the spell list. if this is the future of the hobby, i'm glad i'm getting out of it. it really doesn't seem to be going anywhere i care for.
    Lets not conflate D&D 5e with the future of the hobby. Electronic publishing has ensured that D&D 5e is only a small part of the future of the hobby, along with a huge amount of independent games from small companies, including some very good games for very cheap. The hobby is not moving towards D&D 5e, and it has never really moved towards anything in particular, what it does is grows out, expanding in numerous directions at once.

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    You can use a Throwing Axe, which would be 1d6+str. Or if you're a dwarf, 1d8. A dwarven warrior would definitely want to be strength-based, since all of the hammers/axes are strength weapons only.
    Dwarven Weapon Focus adds +1 to damage on average. Because humans can get 18 strength instead of 16, they get an equivalent +1 with anything, and +1 to hit on top of it relative to a dwarf. Their stats are also better across the board (except for Con), though the Hill Dwarf increasing HD is nice, and the sensory advantage is also quite solid. Plus, even with all of this dexterity appears to be a bit of an overpowered stat, though being able to get 1d12+4 on melee attacks when using strength is certainly nice.

    I'd also note that all reach weapons are strength based currently, and if reach is anywhere near as nice as it was in 3.5 (so far it isn't, reach doesn't apply to AoOs) that could make Strength a more viable stat.
    Last edited by Knaight; 2012-08-14 at 01:00 PM.
    I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.

    I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that.
    -- ChubbyRain

    Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.

  10. - Top - End - #1390
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    I suspect they have a lot of damage spells exactly because those are easy to make. I'm sure they're working on making the utility spells balanced, but they're trying to focus on other aspects of the playtest right now, so throwing in a bunch of untested spells that could easily break the game doesn't sound like a good idea. Rather, I'd expect a more concentrated "spell" push, where they release a playtest aimed specifically at trying to balance all the more complex spells.
    I suppose after the way they botched ray of frost last time it's a good idea to hold off on anything too complex so we can see how classes play without broken spells, but I don't think there are going to be enough playtest rounds to hold off on the complex spells for a later round; the longer WotC puts them off, the fewer playtest cycles they have to fix them and get more feedback afterwards.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  11. - Top - End - #1391
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    I'm guessing that we're supposed to update the Caves of Chaos and continue playing that adventure? Or are we encouraged to make up our own now?

  12. - Top - End - #1392
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Camelot View Post
    I'm guessing that we're supposed to update the Caves of Chaos and continue playing that adventure? Or are we encouraged to make up our own now?
    The first is probably intended. I'll have some information on how well that actually works Saturday. That said, they could probably use testing for how easy it is to design adventures, and can almost certainly use testing on how improvisation friendly D&D 5e is.
    I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.

    I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that.
    -- ChubbyRain

    Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.

  13. - Top - End - #1393
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Draz74's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Oracle_Hunter View Post
    So, I listened through this and there were a few interesting tidbits that weren't already obvious to me. Foremost among these was the info that "only daily powers will provoke saving throws." (Later softened to allow that encounter-limited abilities might provoke saves too.) Apparently this is a "streamlining" feature to "speed up" the game, since apparently saving throws take a long time compared to attacks.

    This helps alleviate concerns about six different saves vs. just one ability score that determines Save DCs. (But it's not enough IMO, since Wizards tend to have a LOT of "daily abilities" to draw from.)

    But on the other hand, it makes me more concerned about whether warrior types will really have a proper ability to provoke saves, since they don't tend to be given a lot of daily abilities. For example, I thought bull rush and trip were going to be things that provoke Strength Saves. So, what, bull rush and trip are 1/encounter things now?

    The other major revelation in the podcast is that they're planning to introduce "traditions" into the Wizard class, which will be subclasses just like the other classes get (Domains, Fighting Styles, and Schemes). I'm not sure what traditional D&D things they're planning to include in Traditions, other than the obvious Wu Jen. I hope Traditions don't have as far-reaching effects as Domains ... like a pre-determined package of Spells Prepared ...

    So in the current draft, there are actually basically three things you need to choose to determine your character's combat build: class, sub-class, and specialty. In some ways, I actually think this has the potential to make for an elegant game, if it's done right. For example, if a Fighter with the right Fighting Style and Specialty can make an excellent Warlord, Swashbuckler, etc., without a need for separate classes for those archetypes. On the other hand, the three-wide design space kind of shoots WotC's stated goal of super-duper-simple character creation for newbies in the foot.

    Quote Originally Posted by The-Mage-King View Post
    Ah, so it's allowed by the terms? Good to know.
    Yeah, they softened their stance on this a while ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yora View Post
    Are specializations the same as traits?
    Traits are minor non-combat, non-skill abilities granted by backgrounds. Specializations are packages of feats.

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    Thoughts on spells in general;

    - I wish that spells scaled with caster level to some degree. If I understand it right, a level 1 Cleric and a level 20 heal the same amount casting Cure Light Wounds, which seems odd to me.
    They've talked about the possibility that spells will scale, not with caster level, but with spell slot used. So the L20 Cleric's spell will be different, but only if he uses a higher-level slot for it. I don't know if they're going to stick with that idea or not.

    It strikes me as a good solution game-design-wise, but awkward if it involves using tons of book space to add additional details to every spell. The Spells chapter already represents a silly-disproportionate fraction of the rules.

    - Also, it looks like it's way too easy for Wizards to target every single stat, and they'll be able to hit a character's lowest one most of the time without a problem. The difficulty for a saving throw increases with the Wizard's level and Int mod, but that Fighter's Wisdom is probably always going to be rubbish. Saving throws don't scale beyond a dump attribute, and spell DCs scale with both level and a Wizard's primary stat.
    Yup.

    - I feel like there are too many damage types. Sort of a commentary in general, but the limited spells in the playtest alone can cause thunder, radiant, necrotic, poison, force, lightning, holy, unholy, cold, acid, and fire damage. Maybe it's just me, but that seems a bit much.
    This is kind of a part of the rules that has to be expanded from the get-go, rather than expanded gradually through splatbooks and subsystems. So that things like resistances are judged properly in their power.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yora View Post
    Apparently, nonabilities have been scrapped entirely for now. Which might not been have the worst idea. I think this is actually something unique to 3rd Edition that is found in no other system I know off.
    Mutants & Masterminds has it too, for what it's worth. Oh, and 2e D&D did it as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by obryn View Post
    I'll be honest - this looks a lot more like a game I'd be interested in. Lots of changes for the better.
    Yeah, there's a lot of things I'm still not loving about 5e -- especially the focus on ability scores in general, which I'm pretty sure isn't going to change -- but they're definitely improving it a lot from playtest package to playtest package.

    Quote Originally Posted by kenjigoku View Post
    Does anyone else see this as a problem.

    STR High
    CON High
    DEX (almost unneeded)
    INT (Can be low, get a +1 from high elf either way)
    WIS (unneeded)
    CHA (unneeded)
    I'm not liking the dependency levels of ability scores in general. Especially not the return to "everybody needs CON as their second-highest stat."

    This example doesn't strike me as much worse than any other build.
    Quote Originally Posted by oxybe View Post
    the recharge should also be changed to end of turn rather then the start, this way you can chose to react and lose your next turn's action rather then lose your turn's action and hopefully react.
    Interesting ...

    but one thing stood out: thieves' cant? really? in proper class design space rather then a background?
    True dat.
    You can call me Draz.
    Trophies:
    Spoiler
    Show

    Also of note:

    I have a number of ongoing projects that I manically jump between to spend my free time ... so don't be surprised when I post a lot about something for a few days, then burn out and abandon it.
    ... yes, I need to be tested for ADHD.

  14. - Top - End - #1394
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74 View Post
    So in the current draft, there are actually basically three things you need to choose to determine your character's combat build: class, sub-class, and specialty. In some ways, I actually think this has the potential to make for an elegant game, if it's done right. For example, if a Fighter with the right Fighting Style and Specialty can make an excellent Warlord, Swashbuckler, etc., without a need for separate classes for those archetypes. On the other hand, the three-wide design space kind of shoots WotC's stated goal of super-duper-simple character creation for newbies in the foot.
    Sub Class, Background, and Specialty are all optional mechanics. I'm actually fine with this, as it is a fairly elegant way to allow customization of complexity (which is sorely lacking elsewhere, such as in the equipment system, but whatever). That said, you don't appear to gain anything by not taking a Sub Class, Background, or Specialty, which undercuts the design goal of mixing detailed characters with not detailed characters within a class.
    I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.

    I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that.
    -- ChubbyRain

    Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.

  15. - Top - End - #1395
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    oxybe's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2009

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    this is an example of play over 4 turns between different refresh times.

    refresh at start of turn

    Fighter Turn 1 :
    -points refresh
    -do i deal more damage or save it? save it for this turn & attacks.

    Monster Turn 1 :
    -swings at fighter, misses
    -fighter wastes his saved up point

    Fighter Turn 2 :
    -points refresh
    -do i deal more damage or save it? use it this turn & attacks.

    Monster Turn 2 :
    -swings at fighter, misses
    -fighter's point not wasted

    Fighter Turn 3 :
    -points refresh
    -do i deal more damage or save it? use it this turn & attacks.

    Monster Turn 3 :
    -swings at fighter, hits
    -fighter can't use his point

    Fighter Turn 4 :
    -points refresh
    -do i deal more damage or save it? saves it this turn & attacks.

    Monster Turn 4 :
    -swings at fighter, hits
    -fighter uses his point to negate some damage
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    refresh at end of turn:

    Fighter Turn 1 :
    -guess i should deal more damage. uses it this turn & attacks.
    -points refresh

    Monster Turn 1 :
    -swings at fighter, misses
    -fighter doesn't have to use saved up point

    Fighter Turn 2 :
    -guess i should deal more damage. uses it this turn & attacks.
    -points refresh

    Monster Turn 2 :
    -swings at fighter, misses
    -fighter doesn't have to use saved up point

    Fighter Turn 3 :
    -guess i should deal more damage. uses it this turn & attacks.
    -points refresh

    Monster Turn 3 :
    -swings at fighter, hits
    -fighter uses his point to negate some damage

    Fighter turn 4
    -guess i don't have a point to use, normal attack.
    -points refresh

    Monster Turn 4 :
    -swings at fighter, hits
    -fighter decided to not use his point to negate some damage, keeping it for next turn

    it's a small difference when read, but IMO makes a rather large difference in play.
    Last edited by oxybe; 2012-08-14 at 02:09 PM.

  16. - Top - End - #1396
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74 View Post
    So, I listened through this and there were a few interesting tidbits that weren't already obvious to me. Foremost among these was the info that "only daily powers will provoke saving throws." (Later softened to allow that encounter-limited abilities might provoke saves too.) Apparently this is a "streamlining" feature to "speed up" the game, since apparently saving throws take a long time compared to attacks.

    This helps alleviate concerns about six different saves vs. just one ability score that determines Save DCs. (But it's not enough IMO, since Wizards tend to have a LOT of "daily abilities" to draw from.)

    But on the other hand, it makes me more concerned about whether warrior types will really have a proper ability to provoke saves, since they don't tend to be given a lot of daily abilities. For example, I thought bull rush and trip were going to be things that provoke Strength Saves. So, what, bull rush and trip are 1/encounter things now?
    From the looks of it, fighter abilities are requiring the expenditure of CS dice rather than allowing saves. A generic bull rush maneuver via eventual combat maneuver rules or Improvise might be a Str/Str contest or require a Str save, but the fighter's Push ability is just "spend a die when you hit, push a guy 10 feet," no save required. It seems to be a compromise between the 4e-style "add a push rider to your attack with no extra rolls" and the pre-4e-style "anyone can bull rush, but fighters with X ability do it better."

    If that's what the devs meant, that some abiliities just let you decide to do something instead of "roll attack, provoke AoO, roll Str check, enemy rolls a save, etc.," I can get behind that. A potential problem with that approach, of course, is that you have the same issue with pushing and tripping and such that you did with 4e, where you can push/prone/etc. creatures without regard for their size, strength, or other factors; I'd at least like to see lip service paid to the idea that it's hard to push back something bigger and stronger than it is to push something smaller and weaker.

    The other major revelation in the podcast is that they're planning to introduce "traditions" into the Wizard class, which will be subclasses just like the other classes get (Domains, Fighting Styles, and Schemes). I'm not sure what traditional D&D things they're planning to include in Traditions, other than the obvious Wu Jen. I hope Traditions don't have as far-reaching effects as Domains ... like a pre-determined package of Spells Prepared ...
    Remember in the early 4e previews when they had the Emerald Griffon and similar fluffy feats that ended up as Astral Fire and such after the major backlash? My guess is that traditions will either end up on the fluffy end like that (wu jen, stormlord, diabolist, etc.) or on the functional end like traditional schools (beguiler/dread necro/warmage style plus some pyromancy/summoning/etc. classifications). It's a good concept, but I'd have to see the implementation first.

    So in the current draft, there are actually basically three things you need to choose to determine your character's combat build: class, sub-class, and specialty. In some ways, I actually think this has the potential to make for an elegant game, if it's done right. For example, if a Fighter with the right Fighting Style and Specialty can make an excellent Warlord, Swashbuckler, etc., without a need for separate classes for those archetypes. On the other hand, the three-wide design space kind of shoots WotC's stated goal of super-duper-simple character creation for newbies in the foot.
    The suggested subclass and suggested specialty would definitely help newbies without making the overall structure too simple; it's essentially like giving a 2e newbie the basic fighter to play with and introducing kits and weapon specialization later.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  17. - Top - End - #1397
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Draz74's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Incidentally, the game seems to be moving more and more in a pro-re-fluffing direction. The podcast talks about how drawing and sheathing weapons -- including switching between them -- has become basically the job of the players to come up with appropriate fluff for, with the simplified action economy.

    Likewise, the Human race's mechanics require a bit of re-fluffing -- at least, if they're going to make any sense to me at all. I mean, I'm definitely not going to be happy about a non-refluffed version of "Humans get +1 to all ability scores." That would imply that the average human is as agile as a lightfoot halfling, as strong as a half-orc, as tough as a hill dwarf, as intelligent as a high elf, etc. (Plus even better, in one of the six ability scores.) Which is patently ridiculous.

    The humans only make sense if you refluff them as "they're not actually as strong/intelligent/etc. as their ability scores would indicate; but they treat those scores as being higher because they basically just get a +1/2 racial bonus on all ability checks because of their luck/determination/whatever."

    Now, there's nothing wrong with refluffing fundamentally. But it's not a traditional thing for D&D to embrace ... and frankly, if I'm going to play an RPG where it's up to the players to make their character's mechanics make sense like this, I'd rather play Legend or Risus or something.

    Quote Originally Posted by Knaight View Post
    Sub Class, Background, and Specialty are all optional mechanics.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sub-Classes aren't optional.

    Quote Originally Posted by oxybe View Post
    it's a small difference when read, but IMO makes a rather large difference in play.
    Agreed. My "interesting." comment was just indicating that I hadn't considered the difference yet, and that I'll need to mull it over for a while before I decide which version I like better.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    From the looks of it, fighter abilities are requiring the expenditure of CS dice rather than allowing saves.
    Yes, that appears to be the direction they're headed. Which I don't love, even though I feel like the CS dice mechanic has some potential. It leads to fluff problems like you mention, where targets of differing Strength are equally easy to push around.

    This also means that Paladins/Berserkers/etc. won't be able to do things like bull rushes very effectively (since they don't have CS dice), unless they have separate class abilities of their own that enable such maneuvers. If they do, that could actually be OK -- I'm fine with Fighters being the only class who are able to be good at all combat maneuvers, as long as Monks can be good at Tripping, Berserkers can be good at Bull Rushing, etc.

    Remember in the early 4e previews when they had the Emerald Griffon and similar fluffy feats that ended up as Astral Fire and such after the major backlash? My guess is that traditions will either end up on the fluffy end like that (wu jen, stormlord, diabolist, etc.)
    Hmmm, refresh my memory. All I remember about those feats' mechanics is that one of them allowed you to avoid friendly fire with your AoE spells.

    or on the functional end like traditional schools (beguiler/dread necro/warmage style plus some pyromancy/summoning/etc. classifications).
    Would seem more likely if there weren't a Necromancer Specialty in the latest packet.

    The suggested subclass and suggested specialty would definitely help newbies without making the overall structure too simple; it's essentially like giving a 2e newbie the basic fighter to play with and introducing kits and weapon specialization later.
    Yeah, it's not too crazy. But it's more complex than it was before they decided that every class should have subclasses.

    I guess my real concern about the three-width build structure is that there will be some Sub-Classes and some Specialties that overlap too much, i.e. cover the exact same archetype/concept, but with wildly different mechanics. That would be very not-elegant.
    You can call me Draz.
    Trophies:
    Spoiler
    Show

    Also of note:

    I have a number of ongoing projects that I manically jump between to spend my free time ... so don't be surprised when I post a lot about something for a few days, then burn out and abandon it.
    ... yes, I need to be tested for ADHD.

  18. - Top - End - #1398
    Orc in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2012

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by oxybe View Post
    fighter hit dice & refresh at end/start of turn [...]
    it's a small difference when read, but IMO makes a rather large difference in play.
    So I'm the only one who think it's normal ?

    I mean, you play a fighter who focus on defending your mates, why would you attack better when your enemy misses ?

  19. - Top - End - #1399
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2012

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by TomPliss View Post
    So I'm the only one who think it's normal ?

    I mean, you play a fighter who focus on defending your mates, why would you attack better when your enemy misses ?
    Because they missed and they are out of position, allowing you to capitalize on their error.

    End of Turn is great - but it's also significantly more powerful than Start of Turn. It's a good suggestion, but IMO it will depend on whether Combat Superiority as-is seems kinda strong or kinda weak.

    -O

  20. - Top - End - #1400
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by TomPliss View Post
    So I'm the only one who think it's normal ?

    I mean, you play a fighter who focus on defending your mates, why would you attack better when your enemy misses ?
    If they aren't going to hit anyways, you have a nice opening. From recent experience - I was recently in a skirmish which involved a shield line holding a gate, while I was behind the shield line with a short spear (6' 6"). I spent a lot of time intercepting a big glaive that would have done serious damage to the shield wall, before it picked up the sort of momentum needed to make blocking difficult. If the glaive guy was going to miss anyways, I could have gone for a lunge that left me out of position to block a glaive strike.
    I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.

    I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that.
    -- ChubbyRain

    Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.

  21. - Top - End - #1401
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74 View Post
    Now, there's nothing wrong with refluffing fundamentally. But it's not a traditional thing for D&D to embrace ... and frankly, if I'm going to play an RPG where it's up to the players to make their character's mechanics make sense like this, I'd rather play Legend or Risus or something.
    Yeah, I think it's important to note that while D&D has always encouraged re-fluffing and homebrewing, there has generally always been default fluff to be refluffed from, with the devs trying to make things make sense even if their explanations occasionally suck. Leaving things at "humans get +1 to stuff, up to you to explain why" doesn't sit well with me either.

    Yes, that appears to be the direction they're headed. Which I don't love, even though I feel like the CS dice mechanic has some potential. It leads to fluff problems like you mention, where targets of differing Strength are equally easy to push around.
    I have mixed feelings about those abilities. The parts I like about them are that WotC isn't afraid to let fighters do damage and a combat maneuver with the same action, and that they're not putting usage limits on them (at least so far); if you know how to knock someone over, you can keep doing that.

    On the other hand, the lack of logical constraints that makes a Str 8 wizard and a Large horse equally easy to knock over is not a good thing in my book, and I'm not a fan of the lack of customizability. 3e fighters might not have had all that many options, but at least they could pick and choose what they got, whereas currently you have you have to be one particular sort of fighter to be good at knocking people over and a different particular sort of fighter to be good at tumbling. Unless they're going to provide other, more selectable class abilities, they really need to open things up a bit more...and honestly, most of those abilities don't seem to be worth an entire level's worth of ability slots as it stands.

    This also means that Paladins/Berserkers/etc. won't be able to do things like bull rushes very effectively (since they don't have CS dice), unless they have separate class abilities of their own that enable such maneuvers. If they do, that could actually be OK -- I'm fine with Fighters being the only class who are able to be good at all combat maneuvers, as long as Monks can be good at Tripping, Berserkers can be good at Bull Rushing, etc.
    You're assuming they'll be separate classes. If paladin is a subclass of fighter and berserker is a specialty, they'd have access to CS dice as well. Given the three-tier setup they have, I wouldn't be too surprised if that's the way they're going. In fact, that's how 2e worked on a big-picture level with the class/subclass/kit structure, and that's how I've been structuring my 3e revamp to try to give some of the more niche classes and mechanics a way to exist (thanks for making me look unoriginal, WotC! ), so it's definitely doable. I just don't know if WotC has the guts to stick with that instead of their usual "release a bazillion classes" model.

    Hmmm, refresh my memory. All I remember about those feats' mechanics is that one of them allowed you to avoid friendly fire with your AoE spells.
    I don't really remember the specifics myself, you could probably find it in the Wayback Machine, but the gist was that there were a bunch of traditions with fluffy names with no D&D traction (mostly Adjective Noun names), and they gave various benefits like shaping spells to turn bursts into lines or avoid allies in AoE, or combining energy types for different damage types or extra status effects, and so forth. They were perfectly functional feat chains except for the fact that they were very heavily tied into the game world and people didn't like that at all. If they did a more generic version of that for 5e involving thematic abilities instead of functional ones, where you have a "stormlord" tradition (all about lightning, thunder, fogs, and such) instead of an "evoker" and a "diabolist" tradition (all about summoning devils, granting devil traits, and such) instead of a "conjurer," it could work out fairly well.

    Would seem more likely if there weren't a Necromancer Specialty in the latest packet.
    There's a difference between school specialists and the full-list 3e casters, though. The schools are more about your abilities' theme while the full-list casters are also about playstyle, which is what I was getting at with the thematic/functional distinction. Take the beguiler, for example: it's often used as a shorthand for an illusion/enchantment specialist, but if you look at its actual class abilities it has a few different schticks. For one, it gains benefits for surprising/ambushing its targets; for another, it doesn't just get illusions and enchantments, it gets spells from other schools themed around nonlethal takedowns and immobilization. Similarly, the dread necromancer is about controlling tons of minions and gaining undead traits, not just casting necromancy spells, and the warmage is about metamagic and becoming an armored caster in addition to blasting things. If they were turned into specialties and divorced from their spell lists, they'd be better termed something along the lines of "sneaky caster"/"minion-mancer"/"close-combat wizard" more than beguiler/dread necro/warmage, of course.

    So you could have an "illusionist" specialty that's basically the 1e illusionist, and you could also have a "beguiler" specialty which could support an illusion/enchantment focus or could, say, be added to a blaster wizard to give a DC boost to a ray of frost fired from ambush and add a short-term blinding rider to a fireball, and they could both co-exist just fine. That's really the kind of thing I'd like to see from a specialty more than just "guy who casts X kind of spell."

    I guess my real concern about the three-width build structure is that there will be some Sub-Classes and some Specialties that overlap too much, i.e. cover the exact same archetype/concept, but with wildly different mechanics. That would be very not-elegant.
    The easy solution to that is to simply not publish a [class/subclass/specialty] if its theme is already covered by one of the other two.

    Overlap shouldn't really be a big problem, since the size of a given concept's implementation should depend on what the concept is itself. The 4e barbarian has a bunch of different things going on conceptually while the one real schtick of the 3e barbarian is rage, barring a few ACFs, and the only thing that really makes the 3e wilder different from a psion is the lack of discipline powers and the wild surge, so a barbarian class/subclass (4e barbarian style) could exist alongside a berserker specialty (3e barbarian style) easily enough, or a psion class/subclass alongside a wilder specialty.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  22. - Top - End - #1402
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Starbuck_II's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Does anyone else see this as a problem.

    STR High
    CON High
    DEX (almost unneeded)
    INT (Can be low, get a +1 from high elf either way)
    WIS (unneeded)
    CHA (unneeded)
    Dex save for grease or balancing, you don't want to fall inb a pit trap, do you?
    Not to mention Dragom breath/fireball.
    Wis for will saves like Sleep/Command.

  23. - Top - End - #1403
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Starbuck_II View Post
    Dex save for grease or balancing, you don't want to fall inb a pit trap, do you?
    Not to mention Dragom breath/fireball.
    Wis for will saves like Sleep/Command.

    The problem with this is that since every stat is used for a save now, the stat being usable for a save is no longer an argument for keeping it high. Whatever you're boosting in its place will be just as important to you.

    So sure, you may be more vulnerable to sleep, but in exchange your more resistant to stinking cloud, or bull rush, or whatever.
    If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?


  24. - Top - End - #1404
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Actually, while every stat can be a save, I checked through the spells and they only seem to target Will, Dex, and Con so, that's pretty good so far.

  25. - Top - End - #1405
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PirateCaptain

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The Hurricane State
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    If they placed a hard cap on spells and fixed the major problem spells I would be happy.

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    You're assuming they'll be separate classes. If paladin is a subclass of fighter and berserker is a specialty, they'd have access to CS dice as well. Given the three-tier setup they have, I wouldn't be too surprised if that's the way they're going.
    That I would enjoy. I don't know if they could stick to it either. Also that would impact multi-classing as well.

    I am not worried about overlapping yet.

    I honestly think the fluff is mostly just to have it in there and they have a team working on it but decided its not worth it for the playtest to have actual fluff so people focus on the mechanics. At least, this is what I am really hoping.
    Boo!

    Steam ID: Dublock

    Battle tag: Dublock 1-7-2-5

    Feel free to add me but say GitP :)

  26. - Top - End - #1406
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Starbuck_II's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    So, any idea while the Pregen they give out is only "Hiding" Rogue?
    Why not give us two pregens of each class?
    a. "hiding" rogue: 2 E and 4E type
    b. "Flanking" rogue: 3.5 type

    I perfer B because it means if you have enough guys helping you flank, you get sneak attack. You don't need to hide and snipe like A.

    I mean, the class PDF document had both if you make a character, but they decided to only give A path.

  27. - Top - End - #1407
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Starbuck_II View Post
    So, any idea while the Pregen they give out is only "Hiding" Rogue?
    Why not give us two pregens of each class?
    a. "hiding" rogue: 2 E and 4E type
    b. "Flanking" rogue: 3.5 type

    I perfer B because it means if you have enough guys helping you flank, you get sneak attack. You don't need to hide and snipe like A.

    I mean, the class PDF document had both if you make a character, but they decided to only give A path.
    There's not much point in having too many pregens, and several from each class is overkill. Given that they seem to expect 5 players, I'd rather they had at least 6, but now that character creation is visible that isn't really a problem.
    I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.

    I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that.
    -- ChubbyRain

    Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.

  28. - Top - End - #1408
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Dienekes View Post
    Actually, while every stat can be a save, I checked through the spells and they only seem to target Will, Dex, and Con so, that's pretty good so far.
    All of the current spells, that is. When they were discussing 6-stat saves originally (and they might have this in the playtest packet, I don't have access right now to check), they mentioned that you'd probably use Str saves for movement-related effects, Int for "puzzle-related" effects (for lack of a better term), and Cha for morale-related effects. If and when telekinesis and black tentacles (Str), illusions and confusion effects (Int), and fear and charm effects (Cha) are (re)introduced, the stats will probably be a lot more even in terms of number of effects targeting them.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  29. - Top - End - #1409
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Touch AC is now a Dexterity saving throw. I like that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Starbuck_II View Post
    So, any idea while the Pregen they give out is only "Hiding" Rogue?
    Why not give us two pregens of each class?
    a. "hiding" rogue: 2 E and 4E type
    b. "Flanking" rogue: 3.5 type

    I perfer B because it means if you have enough guys helping you flank, you get sneak attack. You don't need to hide and snipe like A.

    I mean, the class PDF document had both if you make a character, but they decided to only give A path.
    Though personally, I think that turns the rogue into a warrior class, and the game should have a thief class.
    Last edited by Yora; 2012-08-14 at 05:39 PM.

  30. - Top - End - #1410
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Excession's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    All of the current spells, that is. When they were discussing 6-stat saves originally (and they might have this in the playtest packet, I don't have access right now to check), they mentioned that you'd probably use Str saves for movement-related effects, Int for "puzzle-related" effects (for lack of a better term), and Cha for morale-related effects. If and when telekinesis and black tentacles (Str), illusions and confusion effects (Int), and fear and charm effects (Cha) are (re)introduced, the stats will probably be a lot more even in terms of number of effects targeting them.
    Fear and charm spells already exist. Cause Fear, Charm Person, Command and Suggestion all use a Wisdom save. Mirror Image and Silence, the only illusions I found, allow no save at all.

    With the spells presented so far, including charms and illusions, it just looks like Ref=Dex, Will=Wis, and Fort=Con. The weakness I see with this structure is that if your class uses Str, Int, or Cha as their primary stat you end up weaker than a class that uses Con, Dex, or Wis. If stats are going to be so important, it'd be nice if they were equally valuable.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •