Results 1,381 to 1,410 of 1486
-
2012-08-14, 09:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
-
2012-08-14, 10:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2012
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.
-OLast edited by obryn; 2012-08-14 at 10:59 AM.
-
2012-08-14, 11:04 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
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)
-
2012-08-14, 11:30 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
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?
-
2012-08-14, 12:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
Last edited by AgentPaper; 2012-08-14 at 12:13 PM.
5e Homebrew: Death Knight (Class), Kensai (Monk Subclass)Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.
-
2012-08-14, 12:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
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.
-
2012-08-14, 12:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Malsheem, Nessus
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
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.
-
2012-08-14, 12:38 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
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.
5e Homebrew: Death Knight (Class), Kensai (Monk Subclass)Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.
-
2012-08-14, 12:53 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
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.
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.
-
2012-08-14, 01:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Malsheem, Nessus
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
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.
-
2012-08-14, 01:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Gender
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?
Dubhshlaine, Elf Mage, in Eberron D&D 4e
DM for Feiticeiro's Ergodic Dungeon (Always Open!), In-Game
-
2012-08-14, 01:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
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.
-
2012-08-14, 01:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- Utah
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
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.
Yeah, they softened their stance on this a while ago.
Traits are minor non-combat, non-skill abilities granted by backgrounds. Specializations are packages of feats.
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.
- 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.
Mutants & Masterminds has it too, for what it's worth. Oh, and 2e D&D did it as well.
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.
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.
Interesting ...
but one thing stood out: thieves' cant? really? in proper class design space rather then a background?You can call me Draz.
Trophies:
Spoiler
Also of note:
- Winning Entry of Gestalt Build Challenge IV
- 3rd Place in Iron Chef XI (Blade Bravo)
- Judge of Iron Chef XXIII (Divine Champion)
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.
-
2012-08-14, 02:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
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.
-
2012-08-14, 02:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
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.
-
2012-08-14, 02:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Malsheem, Nessus
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
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 ...
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.
-
2012-08-14, 03:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Location
- Utah
- Gender
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.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sub-Classes aren't optional.
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.
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.)
or on the functional end like traditional schools (beguiler/dread necro/warmage style plus some pyromancy/summoning/etc. classifications).
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.
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
Also of note:
- Winning Entry of Gestalt Build Challenge IV
- 3rd Place in Iron Chef XI (Blade Bravo)
- Judge of Iron Chef XXIII (Divine Champion)
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.
-
2012-08-14, 03:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
-
2012-08-14, 03:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2012
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
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
-
2012-08-14, 03:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
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.
-
2012-08-14, 03:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Malsheem, Nessus
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
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.
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.
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.
Would seem more likely if there weren't a Necromancer Specialty in the latest packet.
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.
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.
-
2012-08-14, 04:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- Enterprise, Alabama
- Gender
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)
Not to mention Dragom breath/fireball.
Wis for will saves like Sleep/Command.Last edited by Starbuck_II; 2012-08-14 at 04:09 PM.
-
2012-08-14, 04:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
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?
-
2012-08-14, 04:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
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.
-
2012-08-14, 04:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Location
- The Hurricane State
- Gender
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.
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.
-
2012-08-14, 05:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2004
- Location
- Enterprise, Alabama
- Gender
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.Last edited by Starbuck_II; 2012-08-14 at 05:04 PM.
-
2012-08-14, 05:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
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.
-
2012-08-14, 05:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Malsheem, Nessus
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
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.
-
2012-08-14, 05:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Germany
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
Last edited by Yora; 2012-08-14 at 05:39 PM.
-
2012-08-14, 06:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Location
- New Zealand
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread
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.