Page 12 of 50 FirstFirst ... 234567891011121314151617181920212237 ... LastLast
Results 331 to 360 of 1492
  1. - Top - End - #331
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    huttj509's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by JoeMac307 View Post
    I also find it a bit limiting that both weapons have to be finesse weapons to use TWF. Unless you use a Quarterstaff (can you use both ends of the Quarterstaff to attack if you have TWF?), there are no d8 weapons. (I don't think you can use a katana for TWF, since that is two-handed, but only has one dangerous end, unlike the Quarterstaff). At a cost of 2 sp and 1d8 damage, every dual wielder will be running around with a Quarterstaff.

    On the other hand, Sniper, the Level 3 Feat in the Archer Speciality, seems pretty cool. Giving up an action to gain advantage and ignore cover can be worthwhile, I think, especially if you can sneak attack.
    Racial modifiers to weapon damage.

    For example, a halfling TWF could use short swords for 1d8 each.
    "Come out, Neville."

    R.I.P. Richard Matheson

  2. - Top - End - #332
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jul 2009

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    OK, thanks. That sounds good. All I had to go on was the playtest packet.

  3. - Top - End - #333
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    ShriekingDrake's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2009

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    I decided to play a halfling rogue in the our play test. I found myself completely outclassed by the other party members. I'm just wondering if others also think the rogue might be a bit under balanced.

  4. - Top - End - #334
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DwarfFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Could you give a little more info on your character?

  5. - Top - End - #335
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    huttj509's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by ShriekingDrake View Post
    I decided to play a halfling rogue in the our play test. I found myself completely outclassed by the other party members. I'm just wondering if others also think the rogue might be a bit under balanced.
    I find that a little odd, as my rogue (as previously stated) tore @#$% apart.

    How many other meleers did you have? Did you use stealth to get advantage (and thus SA)? Did you use the array, or roll for stats? Did you realize that for any skill check you cannot roll below a 10 (At GenCon I was apparently the first person all weekend to USE Take 10 at that GM's table for the playtest)?
    Last edited by huttj509; 2012-08-23 at 03:15 PM.
    "Come out, Neville."

    R.I.P. Richard Matheson

  6. - Top - End - #336
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Draz74's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    San Diego
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    New Penny Arcade podcast is up.

    Not much in the way of new mechanical information. The biggest thing was probably just a reaffirmation that WotC is trying to stay away from Encounter-based resources. Which isn't a good sign for my personal enthusiasm for 5e; I like Tome of Battle-style resource management.

    But what actually struck me about the podcast was a non-mechanical element that makes me like 5e MUCH MUCH more than 4e: the frank admission that there's nothing wrong with you if a previous edition of D&D already works perfectly for you. You're not "dooin it rawng!" You're free to keep playing that edition rather than buying into 5e, and some of you will actually do so!

    After 4e-previews' bashing of 3e and everyone who loved it, this approach is EXTREMELY REFRESHING. Up until now, while 5e previews have refrained from insulting previous editions, they've also made somewhat ridiculous claims about how 5e will be the best edition for any player, any playstyle. Now Mearls is putting a more realistic vision forward. I'm not sure what my opinion of Mearls as a game designer is, but he just won major points in my book as a marketer and as a human being.
    You can call me Draz.
    Trophies:
    Spoiler
    Show

    Also of note:

    Work on my homebrew system, CRE8, is still marching slowly onwards. I think I can see the light at the end of the tunnel -- an Alpha release -- in the distance now. Read my Design Goals here.

  7. - Top - End - #337
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ziegander's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Pabrygg Keep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74 View Post
    The biggest thing was probably just a reaffirmation that WotC is trying to stay away from Encounter-based resources. Which isn't a good sign for my personal enthusiasm for 5e; I like Tome of Battle-style resource management.
    But the bulk of a Warlock's power is Encounter-based. So, while they may be trying to stay away from it with "the big four," they've already given us a class that will, supposedly, be as well supported as all of the other classes which plays per-Encounter (or, rather, per short rest which is equivalent).
    The Lorewarden's Lair: My new blog. Stop by and read some stories, comic book scripts, and more! Also on Blogger!

    Homebrew


    Other Stuff
    Spoiler
    Show
    Special Thanks: Kymme! You and your awesome avatarist skills have made me a Lore Warden in addition to King of Fighter Fixes!

  8. - Top - End - #338
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2009

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegander View Post
    But the bulk of a Warlock's power is Encounter-based. So, while they may be trying to stay away from it with "the big four," they've already given us a class that will, supposedly, be as well supported as all of the other classes which plays per-Encounter (or, rather, per short rest which is equivalent).
    I think thats just the specific "keep on going" shtick of Warlocks they had in 3e.

  9. - Top - End - #339
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Draz74 View Post
    After 4e-previews' bashing of 3e and everyone who loved it, this approach is EXTREMELY REFRESHING. Up until now, while 5e previews have refrained from insulting previous editions, they've also made somewhat ridiculous claims about how 5e will be the best edition for any player, any playstyle. Now Mearls is putting a more realistic vision forward. I'm not sure what my opinion of Mearls as a game designer is, but he just won major points in my book as a marketer and as a human being.
    They're not saying that 5E will be the best edition for any player, they're saying that making it the best edition for any player is the primary goal of the system. Of course, it's impossible to please absolutely everyone, but they're doing their damndest to make it a great system for as many people as possible. That sounds like a laudable goal to me, and I doubt even they think they'll be able to pull it off 100%.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  10. - Top - End - #340
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Draz74's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    San Diego
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    They're not saying that 5E will be the best edition for any player, they're saying that making it the best edition for any player is the primary goal of the system. Of course, it's impossible to please absolutely everyone, but they're doing their damndest to make it a great system for as many people as possible. That sounds like a laudable goal to me, and I doubt even they think they'll be able to pull it off 100%.
    Absolutely. I just think their chances of succeeding are a little higher now that they've admitted that they won't be able to pull it off 100%.
    You can call me Draz.
    Trophies:
    Spoiler
    Show

    Also of note:

    Work on my homebrew system, CRE8, is still marching slowly onwards. I think I can see the light at the end of the tunnel -- an Alpha release -- in the distance now. Read my Design Goals here.

  11. - Top - End - #341
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    TheOOB's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Stubbazubba View Post
    It costs a Feat, it should be a distinct bump in power.
    It gives you versatility, and versatility is power. That said, I think the feat is a little underpowered. I like what it does, but I think a little something extra needs to be folded in. If it was me, I'd fold Two-Weapon defense into Two-Weapon Fighting. That way, in addition to the increased options, it does give you a statistical benefit.
    "Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  12. - Top - End - #342
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    What about this:

    Two-Weapon Fighting
    Whenever you attack, if you have a finesse weapon in your off-hand, you may make a off-hand attack using that weapon against any target within reach, in addition to your normal attack. Do not apply any bonus damage or effects to that attack other than those granted by the weapon itself.

    So, basically, you get a "free" attack that deals less damage, but your main attack remains unaffected. Since it has to be a finesse weapon, you'll only be able to deal an extra 1d6 damage (quarterstaff should be made to deal 1d6 damage for the off-hand portion). Assuming a 75% chance to hit, that's on average an extra 2.625 damage per turn. It also means you can wield a strength weapon in your main hand and a finesse in your off hand, but if your dex is low then you're less likely to hit with the off-hand attack.

    From there, I could definitely see adding on more feats to improve the off-hand swing's power, such as allowing strength weapons, allowing ability modifiers, and so on.

    I'm undecided on whether it should allow sneak attack or expertise dice to be added to the damage. I suppose it basically comes down to how powerful and plentiful other feats are. If nothing else, it could probably be included in a later feat.

    Edit: Some example further feats:

    Ambidexterity
    Requires: Two-Weapon Fighting, 13 dexterity
    You may wield any one-handed weapon in your off-hand. Additionally, you may apply your strength or dexterity score to off-hand attacks, as appropriate.

    Two-Weapon Mastery
    Requires: Ambidexterity, 15 dexterity
    Your off-hand attack is treated as a normal attack for all purposes, such as adding bonuses and allowing the use of class features such as Sneak Attack and Combat Expertise bonus damage.

    Twin Strike:
    Requires: Two-Weapon Mastery, 17 dexterity
    If you hit a target with both attacks, treat both hits as critical strikes.
    (If they buff criticals a lot, probably change it to make just your main-hand attack a crit)
    Last edited by AgentPaper; 2012-08-23 at 06:04 PM.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  13. - Top - End - #343
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    It gives you versatility, and versatility is power. That said, I think the feat is a little underpowered. I like what it does, but I think a little something extra needs to be folded in. If it was me, I'd fold Two-Weapon defense into Two-Weapon Fighting. That way, in addition to the increased options, it does give you a statistical benefit.
    I agree with your general idea here, but sometimes versatility just isn't enough. Yeah, it's nice that you still have the option use one weapon to hit things while admiring your reflection in the other, but... Well, let's look at the three main fighting styles. Two-handed weapons deal more damage, sword and board gives more AC, two-weapon fighting deals less damage, thanks to everything rounding down, costs twice as much money, AND requires a feat to use. It's not even better at mook-killing, since even the most basic of mooks have enough health that you'll need both attacks to kill them anyway. If the best thing you can say about TWF is that a character who revolves around that fighting style doesn't actually have to use it and can just pretend to be a standard sword and board warrior, it needs some serious reworking.
    Last edited by Lanaya; 2012-08-23 at 05:55 PM.

  14. - Top - End - #344
    Pixie in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2012

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Can anyone tell me when the playtest packet was first released? That is, when the playtest began?

  15. - Top - End - #345
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Lanaya View Post
    I agree with your general idea here, but sometimes versatility just isn't enough. Yeah, it's nice that you still have the option use one weapon to hit things while admiring your reflection in the other, but... Well, let's look at the three main fighting styles. Two-handed weapons deal more damage, sword and board gives more AC, two-weapon fighting deals less damage, thanks to everything rounding down, costs twice as much money, AND requires a feat to use. It's not even better at mook-killing, since even the most basic of mooks have enough health that you'll need both attacks to kill them anyway. If the best thing you can say about TWF is that a character who revolves around that fighting style doesn't actually have to use it and can just pretend to be a standard sword and board warrior, it needs some serious reworking.
    Given that you can hold two weapons and just attack with one of them, the damage loss is relatively minor. That said, with the feat cost it should be more powerful than it is, though being less powerful against single opponents and better against groups is fine in concept.
    Fudge Assistant in the Playground.

  16. - Top - End - #346
    Orc in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    The problem with Two-Weapon Fighting and the Rapid Shot feats in the packet are really based on the new design philosophy of feats. If you listened to some of the podcasts and recordings from GenCon you would have heard that the idea of Combat feats in Next is not to make you stronger but to give you more options in Battle. (I believe it was the Making of the Core Panel)

    The reason for this is to make spending feats on Interaction or Exploration worthwhile because we all know from a meta game perspective learning Elven will not be as useful to you then an extra +2 to attacks every turn. This boils down that theres no way to keep them balanced and please at the same time. (At least not from what I can see) You could make the second attack from TWF be the penalized attack but then theres no reason not to use the feature.

  17. - Top - End - #347
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Roguenewb's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    See, that's the kind of philosophy I hate. Because with that kind of philosophy, you have the standard combat options available to anyone, and then beyond those, there is this whole nebula of "premium" combat options that you can't even begin to try without a feat =(

    I much preferred the 3.5 methodology of, here are a bunch of combat options, anyone can try them. But, they're hard to succeed at. If you succeed, good work. If you have the feat, woosh, +4 on the check and no AoO. This tended to make it significantly easier. Now, you're *expected* to pull it off as opposed to it being a lucky shot.

    I don't like the premium option mentality. I have absolutely *no* training with a sword. Yet, in 3.5 I can try to disarm someone. My chances aren't great, and when I botch it, they have a chance to take my sword. In 5e, I can remember seeing Bob disarm, and I can't even *try* what Bob did. It's like there is an invisibile reality wall saying "NO DISARMING WITHOUT A FEAT". It breaks immersion and hurts versatility.

  18. - Top - End - #348
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    I also have some reservations for the "feats provide options, not increase power" idea. I think in the end, you're going to end up with most of the feats being rather worthless, to the point that getting a feat just doesn't feel very cool anymore.

    What I'd rather see, is for them to accept that Feats are, in general, combat-focused. Instead of trying to pull down combat feats so non-combat feats can have a chance, they should either buff non-combat feats to be powerful enough that they're competitive, or remove non-combat feats completely and add those effects in some other way.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  19. - Top - End - #349
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Knaight's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    What I'd rather see, is for them to accept that Feats are, in general, combat-focused. Instead of trying to pull down combat feats so non-combat feats can have a chance, they should either buff non-combat feats to be powerful enough that they're competitive, or remove non-combat feats completely and add those effects in some other way.
    Alternately, you could get a combat feat every 2 levels, and a non-combat feat every level you don't get a combat feat. That way, they don't directly compete with each other.
    Fudge Assistant in the Playground.

  20. - Top - End - #350
    Orc in the Playground
     
    OldWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    The problem with buffing Noncombat feats is even if you say gain 3 languages instead of 1 you still aren't as likely to use that feature then you feel like an idiot for not grabbing that +2. Unless Social and Exploration feats become incredibly powerful like Advantage in all social encounters or something like that.

    Really I like the idea of feats being a path for more options especially because I don't like the idea of now your level 3 pick a +1 to Accuracy or a +1 to damage that most combat feats result in. But the current method leads much to be desired. Of course I could be an idiot and miss interpreting their attentions so take my relying of this philosophy with a grain of salt ;P

  21. - Top - End - #351
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by DrBurr View Post
    The problem with buffing Noncombat feats is even if you say gain 3 languages instead of 1 you still aren't as likely to use that feature then you feel like an idiot for not grabbing that +2. Unless Social and Exploration feats become incredibly powerful like Advantage in all social encounters or something like that.

    Really I like the idea of feats being a path for more options especially because I don't like the idea of now your level 3 pick a +1 to Accuracy or a +1 to damage that most combat feats result in. But the current method leads much to be desired. Of course I could be an idiot and miss interpreting their attentions so take my relying of this philosophy with a grain of salt ;P
    Why couldn't non-combat feats be that powerful? Is it really going to break the game if you allow a player to have advantage in social situations? Some other ideas:

    Master of Language
    Requirement: 15 intelligence
    You can read, write, and speak all common languages fluently. You can also read and write most uncommon languages, and have at least a rough understanding of many rare and dead languages. You gain advantage on any checks related to understanding or deciphering written or spoken text.

    Blacksmith
    Requirement: 15 strength
    You can create weapons, armor, and other metal items. To do so, you must use materials equal to 20% of the normal cost of the item, and spend a day creating that item. You can also craft masterwork weapons and armor using rare materials worth ten times the item's normal value, and by spending a week crafting that item. Masterwork weapons have their weapon dice size increased by 1 (d6 to d8, d8 to d10, etc). Masterwork armor weighs half as much, and grants and additional 1 AC.

    Enchanter
    Requirement: 17 intelligence
    You can enchant weapons and armor with magical properties. To do so, you must obtain the item you wish to enchant, as well as rare resources equal to the value of the enchantment, and spend a week creating and enchanting that item. Your DM may also require that you gather rare, specific materials based on the item you wish to create, especially for more powerful items.


    Edit: Also, feats should never be "+X damage with your attacks." Or at least, those types of feats should be rare and (slightly) less powerful than more complex and interesting feats.
    Last edited by AgentPaper; 2012-08-23 at 10:31 PM.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  22. - Top - End - #352
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ziegander's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Pabrygg Keep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    remove non-combat feats completely and add those effects in some other way.
    I've been thinking about working on some kind of "utility" system like this myself recently. Every character would get an array of "utilities," perhaps at different rates, perhaps not, and every class would have their own list of utilities which are always non-combat actions.

    Maybe each class could even have its own unique mechanics for resolving utilities (Clerics pray for divine miracles, Wizards cast arduous rituals, Rogues just use specialized skill checks, Fighters appropriate battlefield insight for "civilian" use, etc).

    The concept might be a little too "4e-esque" to some people, but I thought 4e's introduction of utilities was interesting, although, too often, 4e's utilities were just moar combat boost! effects. For Next, I would want and expect utilities to only ever be useful outside of combat.
    The Lorewarden's Lair: My new blog. Stop by and read some stories, comic book scripts, and more! Also on Blogger!

    Homebrew


    Other Stuff
    Spoiler
    Show
    Special Thanks: Kymme! You and your awesome avatarist skills have made me a Lore Warden in addition to King of Fighter Fixes!

  23. - Top - End - #353
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2011

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Feats are valuable. If combat feats don't add any mechanical bonus over someone who doesn't have them then I wont touch them.

  24. - Top - End - #354
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Nu's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Beyond the flow of time

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegander View Post
    I've been thinking about working on some kind of "utility" system like this myself recently. Every character would get an array of "utilities," perhaps at different rates, perhaps not, and every class would have their own list of utilities which are always non-combat actions.

    Maybe each class could even have its own unique mechanics for resolving utilities (Clerics pray for divine miracles, Wizards cast arduous rituals, Rogues just use specialized skill checks, Fighters appropriate battlefield insight for "civilian" use, etc).

    The concept might be a little too "4e-esque" to some people, but I thought 4e's introduction of utilities was interesting, although, too often, 4e's utilities were just moar combat boost! effects. For Next, I would want and expect utilities to only ever be useful outside of combat.
    If they do this, they should also make it apply for spells imo. Though I suppose that could irritate a lot of 3rd edition fans, but I would much prefer for combat abilities and utilities be in two different categories myself.

    And yes, keep the stuff that's 4E-ish utility that actually is mostly for combat in the combat category. Utility stuff should be focused on skills or other things that might happen out of combat (but could still happen in combat).

  25. - Top - End - #355
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Nu View Post
    If they do this, they should also make it apply for spells imo. Though I suppose that could irritate a lot of 3rd edition fans, but I would much prefer for combat abilities and utilities be in two different categories myself.

    And yes, keep the stuff that's 4E-ish utility that actually is mostly for combat in the combat category. Utility stuff should be focused on skills or other things that might happen out of combat (but could still happen in combat).
    I'd rather they didn't split up combat and utility. Partly because it can be hard to define what's utility--it's not hard to define combat, because anything can have a combat use given creativity and preparation, but most of the time people try to force noncombat stuff by making it take too long or some other arbitrary distinction, and that takes the fun out of using noncombat stuff in combat. Partly because having them both in the same slots means you can build an entirely-utility character just as much as an entirely-combat character, and that's the kind of caster that tends to get neglected. Partly because I honestly don't trust WotC to do utility magic well; look at how 4e rituals turned out. And partly because the main reason to use Vancian magic at all is to encourage preparation and planning, and deciding how to divvy up combat and utility slots is part of that.
    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!
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  26. - Top - End - #356
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Ziegander's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Pabrygg Keep
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    And yet I'm not talking about "utility magic." I'm talking about a system of non-combat effects for characters regardless of class. Okay, sure, I'm all for allowing utilities to be used in combat, and, with creativity, generate a positive, mechanical effect on the encounter. BUT, utilities shouldn't be stuff like, "ENCOUNTER POWER: you move without provoking opportunity attacks this turn." 4e was filled with "utilities" like that, which were strictly combat-only effects.

    I'm not selling it as a 100% good idea, I just think that it's worth exploring the design space of. And, yes, in doing so, spells without direct attack/defense applications would be shunted over to "miracle/ritual" design space, and that's not necessarily so bad. So long as every character has access to out-of-combat utility with equal effectiveness (even if not always equal versatility).

    Your concept of a character that is strictly utility only works for certain classes. For example, it flies in the face of the Fighter class. Clearly, by name alone, the Fighter is meant to kick butt in combat. Having the option to be a utility-only Fighter makes absolutely no sense. Having the option to be a utility-only Rogue? Sure. A utility-only Wizard? Yeah, why not? As long as it's always an option, and as long as choosing to focus on utilities takes something away from a character's combat effectiveness, then there isn't really a problem.

    And this brings me to the "three pillars design" that Mearls and company keep touting, but ultimately, I predict, will fail horribly to deliver. If each of the three pillars (Combat, Social, Exploration) were given equal weight with regards to design as well as importance to character and inter-party balance, then sacrificing combat effectiveness for utility in one of the other areas would be acceptable. However, nothing we have seen thus far indicates that the Social and Exploration pillars hold any significance to player characters whatsoever. Which is sad, especially when you consider that the Rogue was originally imagined as, and continues to be designed as if it were, the "out-of-combat guy." We have the Rogue set up to be the skills master, except, just like in 3.5 and 4e, skills don't matter. Maybe they matter a little bit more than in 3.5 or 4e, or maybe they matter even less it's really hard to tell so far. But in the first playtest, because of this, the Rogue was the weakest class. In the second playtest, we didn't get an increased importance to the non-combat "pillars" of adventuring, no, we got a Rogue with increased combat power.
    The Lorewarden's Lair: My new blog. Stop by and read some stories, comic book scripts, and more! Also on Blogger!

    Homebrew


    Other Stuff
    Spoiler
    Show
    Special Thanks: Kymme! You and your awesome avatarist skills have made me a Lore Warden in addition to King of Fighter Fixes!

  27. - Top - End - #357
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegander View Post
    And yet I'm not talking about "utility magic." I'm talking about a system of non-combat effects for characters regardless of class.

    [...]

    Your concept of a character that is strictly utility only works for certain classes.
    I was responding specifically to Nu's suggestion to split spells by combat vs. utility, hence the reference to Vancian magic and 4e rituals, not to your general suggestion of giving everyone utility abilities. I'm fully in favor of spreading the noncombat ability love around to every class, though as I said I doubt WotC will deliver. They did a pretty good job of it in SWSE, but that was a different team at the helm and they didn't learn anything from it for 4e.

    And this brings me to the "three pillars design" that Mearls and company keep touting, but ultimately, I predict, will fail horribly to deliver. If each of the three pillars (Combat, Social, Exploration) were given equal weight with regards to design as well as importance to character and inter-party balance, then sacrificing combat effectiveness for utility in one of the other areas would be acceptable. However, nothing we have seen thus far indicates that the Social and Exploration pillars hold any significance to player characters whatsoever. Which is sad, especially when you consider that the Rogue was originally imagined as, and continues to be designed as if it were, the "out-of-combat guy." We have the Rogue set up to be the skills master, except, just like in 3.5 and 4e, skills don't matter. Maybe they matter a little bit more than in 3.5 or 4e, or maybe they matter even less it's really hard to tell so far. But in the first playtest, because of this, the Rogue was the weakest class. In the second playtest, we didn't get an increased importance to the non-combat "pillars" of adventuring, no, we got a Rogue with increased combat power.
    I hate to jump on the "SWSE is the direction 4e/5e should have taken" bandwagon, but...yeah, SWSE did a good job with the utility abilities. Skills actually do stuff (hello, Use Computer, Mechanics, Persuasion, Knowledge [Tactics], Pilot, Use the Bleepin' Force...), most of the Noble, Scout, and Scoundrel talents are noncombat-related, you can build a character of any class (except Soldier, really, and even then it has some good noncombat abilities to splash in) as an all-utility character, and the exploration and interaction portions of the game just generally were better mechanically supported.

    I liked the suggestion someone made right after the first playtest packet came out, when some people were complaining about themes and backgrounds not doing enough for noncombat situations, that class should give you combat abilities, specialty/theme should give you utility/exploration abilities, and background should give you interaction abilities. On the magic side, you might pick the Wizard or Sorcerer class for your typical warmage blaster spells and features, the Conjurer theme/specialty for transportation (or Illusionist for illusions or Transmuter for terrain shaping and so forth), and the Court Magician (or Hedge Witch or Spell-for-Hire) background for various social abilities and features; on the nonmagic side, your Fighter or Barbarian class might give you tanky front-line combat feats and features while your theme/specialty of Scout gave you exploration and movement abilities (or teamwork stuff from Warlord or wilderness stuff from Ranger or whatever) and your background of Knight (or Mercenary or Samurai) accounted for social stuff.

    Instead, we get backgrounds that are just a package of the same dubiously-useful-for-social-stuff skills and specialties that don't even pretend to be noncombat-focused. Not very promising.
    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!
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  28. - Top - End - #358
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    I would generally shy away from dividing the game into discreet areas such as combat/utility/social. If you do that too much, you end up playing three different games with very little interaction between them. For example, you might end up playing a character who fights in-combat with swords, but then once they're out of combat their only notable skill is casting illusions and teleporting around.

    Not that I have anything wrong with a warrior-mage/gish character, but if you're able to use magic, it makes sense that you should be able to use it in combat applications, while if you're a strong fighter, you should be good at climbing and other physical tasks. If you're a sneaky rogue in combat, but don't take the scout theme, does that mean you're suddenly no good at sneaking around if you're not in combat? What defines in and out of combat at that point?

    I don't think that there's an inherent issue with feats or other character options offering both combat and out of combat options. In 3.5, the in-combat options were definitely the right choice, but I think this is simply because the non-combat options that were presented were so weak and worthless.

    There's also a lot of room for stuff that toes the line between combat and non-combat. Blacksmithing, for example, and other item-creation feats, are all about stuff you do out of combat, but it can have very big effects on what happens in combat, too. For example, the Master Blacksmith feat I suggested, would allow you to save a lot of gold with normal items, or spend a lot of gold to get superior weapons and armor. These are things you do outside of combat, but they have effects in combat. Another example:

    Baleful Gaze
    Requirements: 15 charisma
    You gain advantage when attempting to intimidate people or monsters. If you successfully intimidate an enemy in combat, that creature become shaken until the end of it's next turn.

    This has plenty of out of combat use (intimidating people for fun and profit!), but it also has a distinct in-combat use, making Intimidation a very real and very useful action for you to use in combat. If you separate feats to combat feats and utility feats, which would this be? Where do you draw the line? The player who wants to be a combat powerhouse will simply pick the utility feats that grant them the most options in-combat, while the player who wants to focus on non-combat abilities would arbitrarily be forced to choose some combat feats, rather than being able to choose tons of utility feats that might also have some effect on what they can do in combat.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  29. - Top - End - #359
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    TheOOB's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle, USA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    I also have some reservations for the "feats provide options, not increase power" idea. I think in the end, you're going to end up with most of the feats being rather worthless, to the point that getting a feat just doesn't feel very cool anymore.

    What I'd rather see, is for them to accept that Feats are, in general, combat-focused. Instead of trying to pull down combat feats so non-combat feats can have a chance, they should either buff non-combat feats to be powerful enough that they're competitive, or remove non-combat feats completely and add those effects in some other way.
    The problem with feats power increasing is inevitably players will find a way to combine them to make their characters really powerful, also boring. Anyone who plays Shadowrun 4e will know that having bonuses to your rolls can get out of hand really quick.
    Last edited by TheOOB; 2012-08-24 at 03:06 AM.
    "Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  30. - Top - End - #360
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

    Default Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    I also have some reservations for the "feats provide options, not increase power" idea. I think in the end, you're going to end up with most of the feats being rather worthless, to the point that getting a feat just doesn't feel very cool anymore.
    Sure, but the opposite doesn't work either. 4E went mostly with "feats povide numerical bonuses, not options", and most feats there aren't exciting either. Although a +4 to initiative isn't worthless, it isn't very cool either.

    I don't like the notion of splitting between "combat" and "utility" feats or powers, because that implies that the latter don't work in combat and the former don't work outside combat. You end up with two non-compatible subsystems, and that's just weird.
    Crystal Shard Studios - classy freeware games!

    Utility Belt wizard (Batman 4E-style) * Chocolate!

Posting Permissions

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