Results 421 to 450 of 1492
-
2012-08-26, 01:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
-
2012-08-26, 02:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
So I just happened to notice this lovely piece of work.
...Hoo boy, the guys who complained about the retcons, hasty revisions, and other instances of just plain bending over backwards necessary to make Eladrin and Dragonborn work in 4E settings are going to have a field day with this new... conception of sorcerers. I'm surprised it didn't come up in the bloodline discussion.
-
2012-08-26, 02:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Heavily edited quote;). This is how I'd do knock, or any number of spells. It eliminates jumps in powers, makes magic more linear. I don't want to make ranks in schools because it's another thing to track, and also it makes sense to me that a caster could be really good at knock, but not need to know much about bulls strength. Also then we don't have to balance the schools to perfection. Just every single spell, which should happen anyway.
Then I'd also like to see spells as prerequisites for other spells. Like jump to levitate to fly. Or abrupt jaunt to d door to teleport.
I'd like to see magic crawl before it walks before it runs, and each magic user (arcane or divine) do the same, with every power they get. Just like the martial classes do!
Of course, the alternative to all this rank malarkey is to rename the spells and make them all strict prerequisites.
Either way spell levels are unnecessary. If somebody wants to know a little about everything, they can. If they want to burn everything down to the ground from level 1 better than anybody else, they can do that too. But that's all they'll be able to do.
-
2012-08-26, 03:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Gender
-
2012-08-26, 03:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Actually, I liked the idea of tying feats to race/class, as a way of providing for additional differentiation within the race/class without just giving tons of stuff away for free.
Yeah, agreed. I think a lot of times it's to make powerful abilities cost more, without just saying "this costs two feats". Having a weaker version (cleave/great cleave) is fine, but may not be possible in all cases.
But even then, it still kinda sucks to have to buy a feat you don't want, so there's a presentation aspect to consider.
-
2012-08-26, 03:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I don't like the idea of tying more than a few feats to a race, which 3.X did. Why should a Dwarf be able to do something I can't? I'm a human, I'm adaptable, I'm stupid enough to try to immunise myself to poisons by eating snakes.
Class feats 3.X also had. Thing with prerequisites like "Divine casting" or "Nature Sense". Those make more sense because if I have no training with a sword why should I be able to take a sword feat?Jude P.
-
2012-08-26, 04:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Guide to the Magus, the Pathfinder Gish 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
Crystal Shard Studios - Freeware games designed by Kurald and others!
-
2012-08-26, 04:52 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I've already seen one guy railing against it . . . but I don't really understand what about it makes this any harder to fold into a fantasy setting than anything else.
Clerics - Force you to accept Gods.
Warlocks - Force you to accept pacts with powerful entities.
Wizards - Force you to accept blanket "it's magic".
Druids - Force you to accept some sort of Mother Earth/Natural Power
Monks - Force you to accept some sort of Chi/Qi power
I don't see what's so rough about forcing people to accept bloodlines.
Is that what you're talking about?
P.S. I really like what they appear to be doing with Sorcs, which seems to be making them a built in hybrid magic class of sorts. Fighter-mage? Dragon bloodline. Stealth-Mage? My guess will be fey bloodline.
Obviously, the above is just speculation based off of the dragon bloodline.Last edited by Lictor of Thrax; 2012-08-26 at 05:00 PM.
-
2012-08-26, 04:58 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
My only issue with it is that there's only one bloodline so far and it's a boring one that has very few real ties to the concept of the class. When they come out with more, hopefully it'll be better.
Jude P.
-
2012-08-26, 05:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I don't like this lore. If it were to find its way to a core book it would promote needless intra-party conflict between wizards and other arcane casters. I know I can rewrite fluff, but I would prefer rulebooks not to put ideas into players heads that would be destructive to good atmosphere at the table. I had enough of conflict between elves and dwarves turning into insult race between players. If I want this sort of themes in my campaign I will put them myself, thank you very much. What I'm saying is I want default lore to be neutral, with sorcerer witchhunts and mages guilds consisting of all arcane classes being equally possible.
Also it goes on about what wizards think of them, but it fails to show what they think of wizards and how they interact with each other. It should either describe all relations or none of them.
-
2012-08-26, 05:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
A lot of the speculation is that Sorcerers and Warlocks were sort of tossed out there as a real basic concept 1) To have something to show people for the new playtest and GenCon and 2) to start getting some input.
Right now the sorcerer doesn't even make sense great sense because they get shield proficiency but need a hand free to cast and even though they don't have heavy weapon proficiency, their suggested weapon is a two-handed sword.
-
2012-08-26, 05:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Gender
-
2012-08-26, 06:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Seattle, USA
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Dude, seriously, uncool. Complaining about whats there is fine, but complaining about what they're going to make is silly and juvenile. You don't know what they are going to make, there may be a sorcerer bloodline so cool you'll be wanted to roll your first official 5e character a sorc. You can't know that yet.
If they don't release something during PAX(This weekend), I wouldn't expect something for a few more weeks/a month.Last edited by TheOOB; 2012-08-26 at 06:11 PM.
"Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."
-Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion
-
2012-08-26, 07:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
- Location
- New Zealand
- Gender
-
2012-08-26, 08:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I'd also note that it is unnecessary, as one could just have all spells have a scaling mechanic. I'm thinking of something like a per spell metamagic effect, where you have a spell, and you can increase its level to do specific things, which effectively has spells at a range of levels (to use the Fireball example being thrown around, you might have that end up being level 1-5 or so, with a level 1 base spell, up to 2 levels of increase in damage, and up to 2 levels of increase in spread).
On Sorcerers and Warlocks: I'm not liking the whole "class X hates class Y" nonsense this is setting up, and the fluff is a little overbearing, particularly as spontaneous mages are prevalent within fantasy and currently can't be represented well due to the way sorcerers and warlocks appear to be handled. However, both the sorcerer and warlock are close to workable. The core concept of the warlock as someone who has traded something for power is a usable one with precedent in the literature under various names, and if the inner power concept is broadened so that the trapped soul is just a subset of sorcerers, that should work as well.Last edited by Knaight; 2012-08-26 at 08:07 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.
-
2012-08-26, 08:55 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
No point being pessimistic about it before it's even happened.
Even something like that might be nice.
On Sorcerers and Warlocks: I'm not liking the whole "class X hates class Y" nonsense this is setting up, and the fluff is a little overbearing, particularly as spontaneous mages are prevalent within fantasy and currently can't be represented well due to the way sorcerers and warlocks appear to be handled. However, both the sorcerer and warlock are close to workable. The core concept of the warlock as someone who has traded something for power is a usable one with precedent in the literature under various names, and if the inner power concept is broadened so that the trapped soul is just a subset of sorcerers, that should work as well.Jude P.
-
2012-08-26, 09:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- NYC
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I don't have a problem with the Sorcerer and Warlock fluff...if it were for other classes. The core base classes are supposed to be "vanilla" and easy to integrate into almost any setting. Stuff like this should be relegated to various specialized supplements like the Tome of Magic was.
-
2012-08-26, 09:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2011
-
2012-08-26, 09:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Yes I can. I've seen this pattern before, it's why I'm against bloodlines being implemented like this. All of them are random buffs to the wrong things for a class. If you're adding archetype changes to a class they should actually affect the things the class does. Bloodlines most notable do not do this. The change the what the character is, not the how the class does things; because of this, they'll have to be a shallow as every other bloodline attempt ever made, and thus fail to do anything interesting or meaningful.
-
2012-08-26, 09:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
See I can understand your hatred of bloodlines. Ok, no that's a lie, but I can understand that you hate bloodlines. But I don't get the bloodline doesn't change the class, only the character from what we've seen.
It looks like bloodlines do a lot of stuff, admittedly it's harder to see exactly how far they go with it since we only have 1 to work on, but Draconic Heritage determines HP, armor and weapon proficiencies, and three abilities all focusing on getting relatively close combat, effectively turning the Sorcerer class into a gish. Or at least, to me that seems to be the intended goal.
If they keep up that sort of stuff I can't see how bloodlines would not greatly change the class. And honestly seems fairly comparable to what they're doing with a Cleric's Domains.
-
2012-08-26, 10:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
The bigger problem, I think, is how this fluff is basically casting Wizards as if they're the superior class when, in theory, wizards/warlocks/sorcerers are supposed to be balanced against each other. It makes me seriously worried if this favoritism is going to seep through into other parts of the design.
-
2012-08-26, 10:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
That could be a problem. The upside is that the article was written by one person, so it is quite possible that that person is a big fan of the wizard, but it isn't a trait of the team as a whole. Plus, there is always the possibility that the wizard being a favorite doesn't translate into them actually being any better; I'm hoping WotC incompetence works for us for once. That said, I can't say I'm optimistic about it.
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.
-
2012-08-26, 11:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I suffer from a strong case of wizard favoritism myself. I can say from experience that resisting the temptation to make them just a little bit more powerful (and then a bit more, and then a bit more, until eventually they're seriously overpowered) takes a strong sense of self-control (and sometimes I still give in to it, even subconsciously). Incompetence means that sense of control isn't there.
Plus, IIRC (cba to check the article again), this was written by Mearls himself. He's probably the most powerful individual on the team when it comes to determining what design direction 5e is going to take.
-
2012-08-27, 12:39 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Paladins will get a class "feature" that prevents all their abilities from working within 50 feet of a rogue, to keep party dynamics interesting.
Now with half the calories!
-
2012-08-27, 01:20 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Location
- My 🐧🏰
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Actually, 3.x was filled with this kind of fluff, especially Wizards being anti-Warlock. It's not new for Wizards (who represent organized magic) to rail against people who use magic naturally or, essentially, cheat to get the power.
I agree, Mearls should have written a "How do Sorcerers and Warlocks feel about Wizard" but, in all honesty, we can easily see how they feel about Wizards. Wizards are haughty, holier-than-thou people who obsess over book learning. They neglect, criticize and condemn all the other ways of using arcane magic.
-
2012-08-27, 01:37 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
- Toronto, Canada
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I would argue that the fluff in question doesn't present wizards as individually stronger, just more organized. If a lone wizard was easily a match for a lone warlock, they wouldn't have any reason to fear them.
I mean, I still think it's not great fluff, since it locks down a class into an organization, and I'm not a fan of that, but I can certainly see it as a general trend. Warlocks practically exist as a pointed discussion on the dangers of reaching for power too quickly, and sorcerers have the ability to grasp what wizards do without the long training needed to properly control it. Both styles of magic are liable to be much more dangerous, just because their users are more likely to not have a thorough grounding in what the crap they're doing.If you like my thoughts, you'll love my writing. Visit me at www.mishahandman.com.
-
2012-08-27, 01:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Worse than that, it hampers individual characters. There are a whole bunch of plausible reactions between members of the three classes regarding the others. A sorcerer could admire a wizard for achieving with hard work what the sorcerer can simply do, another could scorn them for having to struggle, yet another could have a fascination with wizard magic due to it seeming exotic, so on and so forth. In converse, a wizard could be envious of a sorcerer; another could pity them for having an easy route, considering them inferior as a result; yet another could have a love of sorcerers magic and generally be furious at sorcerers for taking it for granted. If you assume a character who is actually tied into magic in a big way, and is somewhat major, they would likely have a complex relationship with the types of magic, the various practitioners, individuals in each group, factions within the organizations that exist, and so much else. Instead, we get "Wizards hate these guys and hunt them down".
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.
-
2012-08-27, 02:43 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
But these are generalized concepts. No where does it say that any of this is how every player has to view things, just that that is the generic atmosphere.
While I don't think it's awesome fluff or anything, it by no means forces individual characters into feeling one way . . . but hell, my elf may have no problem at all with Half-Orcs, though technically the general elven feeling towards them is distrust.
Hopefully when they actually write out the real history and fluff they are more creative and in depth . . . but I also don't think there's some huge sin going on here.
-
2012-08-27, 04:20 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Seattle, USA
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
{{Scrubbed}}
Last edited by LibraryOgre; 2012-08-28 at 11:25 PM.
"Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."
-Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion
-
2012-08-27, 04:20 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009