Page 2 of 50 FirstFirst 12345678910111227 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 1492
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese) View Post
    "Whoops! Looks like you failed your Heraldic Lore check, so those guys you attacked were actually your allies. Now both the incumbents AND the rebels want you dead! Have fun!"
    I think that would be pretty fun, actually.

    F)

    I played it with the new rules as written. The game is fun, and great for new and veteran players alike.

  2. - Top - End - #32
    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 Seerow View Post
    Warlock I believe they said would be the AEDU caster. Or at least Warlock and Sorcerer were mentioned as part of them talking about introducing AEDU and Spell Point classes.
    Interesting. With the devs talking about having simple caster classes and complex martial classes to complement the simple fighter and complex wizard, I'd have figured they'd be making the warlock the simple caster again. if warlock is AEDU, I guess they'll both be overshadowing the martial types again.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4 View Post
    I also said I already thought the rogue sneak attack damage aw overpowered for how easy it is to get. And we're talking at will here. Let's look at our pregen dwarf. With a +6 to hit and average die rolls, our dwarf will reliably hit anything with a 16 or lower AC and deal 20 damage per round. Let's look at our bestiary, the level 5 fighter could pretty much solo anything in the bestiary at will and without breaking a sweat. I'm all for making the fighter the best at fighting, but even the toughest creature in there goes down in 3-4 rounds just from the fighter. To me that seems a bit much, though I do think it's reasonable as an infrequent thing. That's why I suggest something like burning every die spent past the first on a given maneuver, although that might require even more dice. Hmmm, I guess I'll have to run these through some play testing, see of something jumps out.
    1) The rogue gets 1d6 plus 1d6 per level, which is about the same amount of bonus damage a TWF rogue gets in 3e (1d6 per 2 levels, twice per round) except that the rogue is unlikely to get any more attacks as he levels, and HP looks like it'll be at roughly 3e levels. The sky isn't going to fall if the rogue can deal 1d6 per level per round semi-regularly.

    2) The fighter being able to slaughter a challenging monster in a few rounds is a good thing. Like I said before, the fighter could 1.5-round most even-HD monsters in AD&D; a 10th-level 2e fighter facing 6 trolls has a good chance of killing them all in under a minute and coming out alive. Considering 2e also tended toward using lots of monsters per combat like 5e is rather than one big baddie, this shouldn't be a 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!
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  3. - Top - End - #33
    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 Seerow View Post
    Level 4 is similarly pretty boring, except you also get a +1 to hit.
    Nitpick: also an ability boost, meaning a +1 increase to Wisdom checks/saves.
    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.

  4. - Top - End - #34
    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 Camelot View Post
    I played it with the new rules as written. The game is fun, and great for new and veteran players alike.
    At this stage, with the new rules on character creation and things like that, we are seeing the underlying math and mechanics of the Next edition, which is good - a step forward. There seems to still be a few kinks to work out, but the game seems to be playable and, more importantly, testable, as opposed to the early alpha packet we got last time.

    At this stage, I would be interested in playtesting this here in a play-by-post format (seeing as I can't play it in real-life). There's enough going on with the moving parts of the system that some more substantial and meaty feedback and data can be acquired. I wonder if, perhaps, Saph could be troubled to run something like this.

    I call Fighter!
    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!

  5. - Top - End - #35
    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 TopCheese View Post
    Actually I like the idea of taking away Channel Divinity and just giving the Cleric a special orison (minor magic or whatever they are calling it now) called Turn Undead/Rebuke Undead. This way it works just like a spell, you don't need more rules, and you don't have to worry about fanboys and fangirls complaining about the Cleric not feeling like a Cleric.
    I like channel divinity, for two reasons.

    First, I like that the cleric is less spell dependent than the wizard, the wizard is all about spells, and while the cleric is mostly about spells, there are supposed to be able to do other things. So the cleric has less spells per a day, weaker magical abilities, and a generally weaker(but suitably different) spell list. This means the cleric needs something else to make them comparable to the wizard. You can't buff direct combat ability too much without killing the fighter or rogue, so the domain spells/abilities and channel divinity are a good way of giving the cleric something extra. As an added bonus, it ensures the cleric will be the best healing/have the most undead hate even if another class with a very similar spell list(say druid), comes out.

    Second, I like channel divinity for the flavor. Every class in Next thus far has some sort of "path" to customize your class(wizard doesn't but they have so many spells they don't need to). The channel divinity allows domains to have a little more flavor, without making them too good(as channel divinity is a very limited resource).
    "Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegander View Post
    At this stage, I would be interested in playtesting this here in a play-by-post format (seeing as I can't play it in real-life). There's enough going on with the moving parts of the system that some more substantial and meaty feedback and data can be acquired. I wonder if, perhaps, Saph could be troubled to run something like this.

    I call Fighter!
    Me too! I know there's another one going on, but it got full before I even noticed it. I wouldn't mind DMing either, though I'd want to try my hand at creating a custom adventure. Anyone interested?

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Kurald Galain's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2007

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

    I don't see the difference between a "channel divinity power" and a "cleric spell", neither thematically nor mechanically.
    Crystal Shard Studios - classy freeware games!

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

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    caden_varn's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male

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

    Finally had a chance to look through the packet in a bit of detail and catch up on the thread. Some things that jumped out at me:

    HP back to low pre-4E levels.
    Booo! I thought the higher starting HP was one of the good things that they brought over from 4E. Definitely a bad step for me.

    Rogue = criminal
    With thieves cant and a free background that has to be thief or thug. Leave thieves cant to the DM based on his world, or move it out of the class, and think about some other options for the free background. There are plenty of concepts that fit into a sneaky backstabbing combatant that aren't criminal, so lets not pigeon-hole the class unnecessarily.

    Combat Superiority for fighters
    It's a start, although a grudging one so far. I like the alternative being suggested, with more powerful options that require burning dice.
    Re. the concerns over the extra dice available for the more basic options - you can always give each maneouvre a maximum number of dice that can be used for it - say 2 for the basic 'do more damage' option. You can spend extra, but those extra dice are burnt.
    One concern I have - when you get up to 10 dice that you can presumably split to different manoeuvres and a load of options, it may slow play down deciding what to do. Although I guess limited actions per turn will rein it in.

    Back to rogues
    Can we have a similar system to Combat Superiority, based on sneak attack dice for them? At the moment they don't have a heap of options.

    Caster versatility
    Currently there aren't a great number of non-combat utility spells, but even if they start that way, spells are an easy way to bulk out expansions. They will get more, and we will be back to all-powerful wizards. Especially as they don't even need to use a spell slot if they can manage 10 minutes and a bit of change for a low level spell as a ritual.

    All in all - not sure. I am sure I'd prefer to play the game that is getting designed in this thread than the one in the playtest package though

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4
    With so many dice, I think you would either have to reduce the at will capabilities, or make any dice used over the first stay burned until a long rest. Otherwise at 5th level, your fighter is doing [w] + 3d8 per round at will damage. Even if you factor magic, it seems like that just moves the problem from linear fighter / quadratic wizard to quadratic wizard / cubic fighter. I guess arguably the fighter wont get AOE but I'm not sure that's enough of a damper. Even using your progression it's still 3d6 at will, half as much as the rogue sneak attack which is already a bit overpowered in my opinion.
    Using CS dice is not an at-will ability.

    An at-will ability does not have any opportunity cost other than an action/reaction, and that depends. Once you use your CS dice, you cannot use a different ability in a different phase of the turn or round that would require then expenditure of those CS dice, even if it would otherwise be triggered, so there's a much greater opportunity cost. They may not be as big a deal as a caster's daily resource slot, but they are best described as a round-based mana point system, not at-wills.
    *********
    Matters of Critical Insignificance - My Blog for all my favorite entertainment
    11/4: Announcing the Vow of Honor KS! (I contributed)

  10. - Top - End - #40
    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 caden_varn View Post
    Back to rogues
    Can we have a similar system to Combat Superiority, based on sneak attack dice for them? At the moment they don't have a heap of options.
    I think the rogue is supposed to be the skill dude again. The problem is that the current skill system doesn't really support this: a character can only be slightly better than average (i.e. +15%) in a slight number of skills (i.e. 3). Sure, rogues can take skills on their dump stat, but in practice most people want skills on their good stats anyway.
    Crystal Shard Studios - classy freeware games!

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

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    caden_varn's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    I think the rogue is supposed to be the skill dude again. The problem is that the current skill system doesn't really support this: a character can only be slightly better than average (i.e. +15%) in a slight number of skills (i.e. 3). Sure, rogues can take skills on their dump stat, but in practice most people want skills on their good stats anyway.
    That does seem to be the case, its just a shame the skill system is rather - basic - at the moment. I guess it is a bit inevitable in the system with such a mechanical combat focus as D&D. A skill-focused character seems a poor fit in such a system.

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    caden_varn's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    UK
    Gender
    Male

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

    bah, double-post
    Last edited by caden_varn; 2012-08-17 at 08:23 AM.

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009

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

    I could see maybe burning one die on any maneuver with over 1 die, but all dice over 1 is outrageous, especially if you go with my suggestion that higher level maneuvers require the max number of dice you have at the level you get it. (so a 5th level maneuver takes 3 dice, a 20th level one takes 10. Making that 20th level maneuver burn 9 dice is completely unnacceptable unless those maneuvers are far beyond the power of spells, which I doubt I will ever see happen.)
    Sorry, I should have been a bit more clear, I was really thinking "burn ay dice over the minimum required to activate the ability" so your 3 die minimum ability would have those dice reset each turn, but if you spent 2 extra dice to buff that ability, those 2 dice would be burnt until a long rest.

    Anyway, I'm going to point you back to "if that level of damage is a problem for the system, they've messed up their scaling", because hit points and damage should be scaling very quickly to make up for the lack of hit/AC bonuses. Honestly I find it a big compromise already to be stuck with flat AC/hit bonuses and have damage/hp still only progressing linearly.
    This is only true if the enemies scale that quickly too. There's no reason why they couldn't reduce the power scaling of monsters and keep a slow scaling for player HP and damage values. I mean, look at early D&D, a white dragon was only a 6HD creature with d4/d4/2d8 damage. In the current beastiary, we have a Gnoll Leader with 5HD + 5 and d12+3/d12+3 damage. So there's room to scale back the monsters if they wanted. But I do agree they need to pick a scaling system and use it.

    As for the fighter being able to take on any monster 1v1 within 4 rounds, the expectation of encounters in 5e seems to be many monsters. The expectation also seems to be a tendency towards fast combats, 2-3 rounds for the most part. A character taking out a single on level enemy is what the game expects. If that is not the intention, the designers got their scaling wrong when they dropped hit points down, and need to bring HP back up.
    Having thought this over a bit more, I'm actually tending to agree with you. That sort of damage output encourages the quick and deadly combat and can reduce the slow HP grind that some 4e encounters turned into.

    It's worth mentioning too that some of my hesitation likely comes from my own biases of running BECMI most of the time, and really the only other frame of reference (D&D wise) I have is 4e, I haven't spent nearly enough time in 3.x to accurately gauge where these numbers are falling in relation to that system.

    I don't see the difference between a "channel divinity power" and a "cleric spell", neither thematically nor mechanically.
    It seems to me it's mostly about giving standard clerical duties like healing a spell like resource, without forcing your cleric to expend his actual spell slots on that, or having to give the cleric a bunch of free spell slots. A reaction to the idea that a cleric needs to spend their spell slots on healing all the time. Whether it's a good mechanic and worth the additional mental space remains to be seen.

    With thieves cant and a free background that has to be thief or thug. Leave thieves cant to the DM based on his world, or move it out of the class, and think about some other options for the free background. There are plenty of concepts that fit into a sneaky backstabbing combatant that aren't criminal, so lets not pigeon-hole the class unnecessarily.
    ...

    Can we have a similar system to Combat Superiority, based on sneak attack dice for them? At the moment they don't have a heap of options.
    Going back to what I said a long time ago about dropping the "fighter" class entirely as it's been made redundant, the other option to fix this would be the reverse, which is dropping the specialized fighter classes, and rolling them all back into the fighter, using specializations and backgrounds to create the barbarian or the rogue from the fighter core. Along with that would include rolling specialty spell casters back into their core classes too. Forget having separate wizard, warlock and sorcerer classes, roll up a "Magic User" class which has access to arcane spells, and have the different casting styles be brought in via backgrounds and specializations again.

    All in all - not sure. I am sure I'd prefer to play the game that is getting designed in this thread than the one in the playtest package though
    Bear in mind the ideas being tossed around in this thread are building on the playtest package. Getting these ideas fleshed out and sent in as feedback should push the game being designed at WotC in this direction.

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Seerow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    Warlock and Sorcerer are up.


    Sorcerer seems to follow the spell level progression from 3.5, where he gets his spells a level later than the Wizard. He also has a more restricted spell list, in addition to getting only 1 spell known per level.

    In exchange for all of this, he gets to use spellpoints, which as far as I can tell have no logical progression to how many you get per level. It's almost like they tuned the spell point gains with the assumption the sorcerer would gain new spell levels at the same time as the Wizard, and then changed what level he gains his spells at the last second without modifying the spellpoints.

    Oh, and the Sorcerer also has bloodline abilities. In particular the Playtest Sorcerer is Draconic, and thus gets a Dragon Breath, Dragon Scales, and Dragon Strength.


    On the one hand, it is really annoying that, as predicted, the class is entrenched in its fluff. There is no way you could call this Sorcerer as Wizard, at all. On the other hand, the sorcerer does have one new mechanic that is interesting: After he has spent so many spellpoints, he manifests a passive ability. For example after spending 3 willpower, you gain +2 to melee damage rolls. After spending 10 willpower, you manifest dragon scales giving you resistance to an energy type. It may not be the best bonus in the world, but it's something I don't recall seeing before, and is fairly interesting.




    The Warlock, unfortunately, is far less interesting. Rather than AEDU, it's just AE. With some rituals thrown in as well. It gains no daily powers, and its utility powers are wrapped up with its Encounter Powers, and all of those powers are pretty underwhelming. You get 2 Lesser invocations per encounter, which is roughly comparable to how many spells a Wizard is casting each encounter... yet the Warlock's invocations are far weaker. They have one that lets them go Ethereal for a round, which is cool and potentially useful, but then they have one that lets them turn out the lights and gain darkvision (oh hey look at that guy who just screwed over the whole party), and one to deal like 2d6 damage in a tiny area.

    At least Eldritch Blast is a bit better than in 3.5, as it starts at 3d6 instead of 1d6. Unfortunately it doesn't scale as quickly, you hit 4d6 at level 3, but no bump at level 5.
    Last edited by Seerow; 2012-08-17 at 10:17 AM.
    If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?


  15. - Top - End - #45
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Va
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Seerow View Post
    Warlock and Sorcerer are up.


    Sorcerer seems to follow the spell level progression from 3.5, where he gets his spells a level later than the Wizard. He also has a more restricted spell list, in addition to getting only 1 spell known per level.

    In exchange for all of this, he gets to use spellpoints, which as far as I can tell have no logical progression to how many you get per level. It's almost like they tuned the spell point gains with the assumption the sorcerer would gain new spell levels at the same time as the Wizard, and then changed what level he gains his spells at the last second without modifying the spellpoints.

    Oh, and the Sorcerer also has bloodline abilities. In particular the Playtest Sorcerer is Draconic, and thus gets a Dragon Breath, Dragon Scales, and Dragon Strength.


    On the one hand, it is really annoying that, as predicted, the class is entrenched in its fluff. There is no way you could call this Sorcerer as Wizard, at all. On the other hand, the sorcerer does have one new mechanic that is interesting: After he has spent so many spellpoints, he manifests a passive ability. For example after spending 3 willpower, you gain +2 to melee damage rolls. After spending 10 willpower, you manifest dragon scales giving you resistance to an energy type. It may not be the best bonus in the world, but it's something I don't recall seeing before, and is fairly interesting.




    The Warlock, unfortunately, is far less interesting. Rather than AEDU, it's just AE. With some rituals thrown in as well. It gains no daily powers, and its utility powers are wrapped up with its Encounter Powers, and all of those powers are pretty underwhelming. You get 2 Lesser invocations per encounter, which is roughly comparable to how many spells a Wizard is casting each encounter... yet the Warlock's invocations are far weaker. They have one that lets them go Ethereal for a round, which is cool and potentially useful, but then they have one that lets them turn out the lights and gain darkvision (oh hey look at that guy who just screwed over the whole party), and one to deal like 2d6 damage in a tiny area.

    At least Eldritch Blast is a bit better than in 3.5, as it starts at 3d6 instead of 1d6. Unfortunately it doesn't scale as quickly, you hit 4d6 at level 3, but no bump at level 5.
    Wait, where are you seeing these?

  16. - Top - End - #46
    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 Seerow View Post
    Warlock and Sorcerer are up.
    EDIT: Link.

    These are two classes that really get so many different things, that operate and trigger from so many different angles, that I have to see them playtested to have any idea how they balance out.

    The Sorcerer is, for some reason, the arcane gish/cleric, and may be just as overpowered as the current Cleric is in Next.

    The Warlock is noticeably weaker with a strict 2-per-encounter structure to all of its relevant powers. The Rituals are almost meaningless because not only do you get them later than Wizards, but you also can only choose from the smallest, most niche, list of spells.

    I still find both classes to be quite interesting, and, in comparing them to the other classes, I would say that the new ranking is something like this:

    Cleric/Sorcerer > Wizard > Fighter/Warlock > Rogue. I put Fighter and Warlock as "equal" because, while the Fighter is much better in combat, the Warlock is much better out of combat. In many ways, strangely, the Warlock feels like it can do everything the Rogue wishes it could.
    Last edited by Ziegander; 2012-08-17 at 10:43 AM.
    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!

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Seerow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4 View Post
    Sorry, I should have been a bit more clear, I was really thinking "burn ay dice over the minimum required to activate the ability" so your 3 die minimum ability would have those dice reset each turn, but if you spent 2 extra dice to buff that ability, those 2 dice would be burnt until a long rest.
    Okay that's far more reasonable. I could go for something like along those lines.



    This is only true if the enemies scale that quickly too. There's no reason why they couldn't reduce the power scaling of monsters and keep a slow scaling for player HP and damage values. I mean, look at early D&D, a white dragon was only a 6HD creature with d4/d4/2d8 damage. In the current beastiary, we have a Gnoll Leader with 5HD + 5 and d12+3/d12+3 damage. So there's room to scale back the monsters if they wanted. But I do agree they need to pick a scaling system and use it.
    Well, PCs need an advantage against on level monsters. If high level PCs are dropping in one round, people will cry foul much faster than the other way around. Especially with the AD&D mindset of lots of monsters that are draining your resources, because in that type of environment it's perfectly okay if an average encounter never threatens the PCs with death on its own, and monsters only deal a portion of what the players can.

    Even so, 2 attacks at d12+3 is going to average 19 points of damage. A Fighter with a d8 weapon, +4 strength mod, and 3d8 CS dice, will deal 22 points of damage on a hit. That disparity really isn't that huge. With the 2d8 the Fighter has now, it's 17.5, almost identical to the Gnoll, even before accounting for the Gnoll getting an extra +4 damage on each of those attacks from Savagery. (also not accounting for hit/AC differences, which brings things back in the Fighter's favor).

    On a related note: I wish I could figure out why some of the to-hit numbers are so low. I mean do these monsters not have any sort of proficiency bonus to hit at all? The Gnoll actually looks like it has a -1 penalty to hit for some inexplicable reason.


    Having thought this over a bit more, I'm actually tending to agree with you. That sort of damage output encourages the quick and deadly combat and can reduce the slow HP grind that some 4e encounters turned into.

    It's worth mentioning too that some of my hesitation likely comes from my own biases of running BECMI most of the time, and really the only other frame of reference (D&D wise) I have is 4e, I haven't spent nearly enough time in 3.x to accurately gauge where these numbers are falling in relation to that system.
    4e was a better comparison for hp/damage numbers last playtest packet, because the hp growth was modeled on 4e. This packet they switched it to the 3.5 style hp growth (con mod each level rather than con score at level 1), which is a pretty big difference. It basically means anything with decent con is going to have MUCH more hp at high levels, and a fair bit less at low levels, balancing out around level 5 or so depending on con value.



    It seems to me it's mostly about giving standard clerical duties like healing a spell like resource, without forcing your cleric to expend his actual spell slots on that, or having to give the cleric a bunch of free spell slots. A reaction to the idea that a cleric needs to spend their spell slots on healing all the time. Whether it's a good mechanic and worth the additional mental space remains to be seen.
    If what they want is just to allow for more healing without eating up the Cleric's spell slots, then what they need is to make hit dice viable healing for a whole adventuring day on their own. Being able to heal yourself once per day for 1dX at level 1 does not cut it.

    I really don't get it, this is a problem they had solved in 4e, and now they're stepping back and trying to solve it again in a way that pisses off everyone except grognards who can't understand that hp is not meat damage.
    If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?


  18. - Top - End - #48
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese) View Post
    "Whoops! Looks like you failed your Heraldic Lore check, so those guys you attacked were actually your allies. Now both the incumbents AND the rebels want you dead! Have fun!"
    As a player I wouldn't really find that all that bad ... friendly fire happens, I'm sure we can work something out ... we'll negotiate, pay for the resurrection, put some more skill points in the skill for next time and move on.

  19. - Top - End - #49
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Seerow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegander View Post
    EDIT: Link.

    These are two classes that really get so many different things, that operate and trigger from so many different angles, that I have to see them playtested to have any idea how they balance out.

    The Sorcerer is, for some reason, the arcane gish/cleric, and may be just as overpowered as the current Cleric is in Next.

    The Warlock is noticeably weaker with a strict 2-per-encounter structure to all of its relevant powers. The Rituals are almost meaningless because not only do you get them later than Wizards, but you also can only choose from the smallest, most niche, list of spells.

    I still find both classes to be quite interesting, and, in comparing them to the other classes, I would say that the new ranking is something like this:

    Cleric/Sorcerer > Wizard > Fighter/Warlock > Rogue. I put Fighter and Warlock as "equal" because, while the Fighter is much better in combat, the Warlock is much better out of combat. In many ways, strangely, the Warlock feels like it can do everything the Rogue wishes it could.
    I'm not quite sure I agree here, mostly because while the Rogue is still the class with the least complexity, they have the ability to auto succeed on the majority of the DCs the game recommends you use with at least 6 skills. They also have the best attribute as primary, meaning versatile enough to be good at both melee and ranged, and in both of those areas they pump out the highest single target damage in the game. I would peg the Rogue as better than the Fighter, in and out of combat, and comparable to the Wizard in combat (Wizard shines in AoE, Rogue shines in single target); while the Wizard dominates out of combat. Warlock vs Rogue out of combat is tougher, I'd probably rank them as close to equal.

    Either way, Rogue's not at the bottom of the totem pole, he's got a fair bit of versatility and power behind him, he's just exceedingly simple, nearly as boring as the Fighter from the last playtest but not quite.
    If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?


  20. - Top - End - #50
    Titan 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 Craft (Cheese) View Post
    "You see strange glowing symbols on the wall."

    "Okay, I roll Knowledge (Arcana) to see if I know anything about them."


    The problem with this is the DM has probably already decided what they want you to know about the strange glowing symbols and what they don't. And if there's something that actually matters in it like a critical plot clue or something, they're not gonna leave that up to the roll of the dice.

    "Whoops! Looks like you failed your Heraldic Lore check, so those guys you attacked were actually your allies. Now both the incumbents AND the rebels want you dead! Have fun!"
    That depends on the GM - speaking personally, I probably wouldn't have decided how much of that information to give out, and am relying on the roll to see. As for the heraldic lore check, there are potentially any number of uses (e.g. interpreting completely unknown and very old heraldry to piece together a lost bit of genealogy during a succession crisis).
    Fudge Assistant in the Playground.

  21. - Top - End - #51
    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 Seerow View Post
    I'm not quite sure I agree here, mostly because while the Rogue is still the class with the least complexity, they have the ability to auto succeed on the majority of the DCs the game recommends you use with at least 6 skills. They also have the best attribute as primary, meaning versatile enough to be good at both melee and ranged, and in both of those areas they pump out the highest single target damage in the game. I would peg the Rogue as better than the Fighter, in and out of combat, and comparable to the Wizard in combat (Wizard shines in AoE, Rogue shines in single target); while the Wizard dominates out of combat. Warlock vs Rogue out of combat is tougher, I'd probably rank them as close to equal.

    Either way, Rogue's not at the bottom of the totem pole, he's got a fair bit of versatility and power behind him, he's just exceedingly simple, nearly as boring as the Fighter from the last playtest but not quite.
    Ah, I misunderstood how the Rogue's Scheme feature actually worked. I don't know if I like that Rogues get a an additional background, but maybe it makes sense. They really should just call it Jack of all Trades and fully integrate the Rogue as the "Background Master" class and be done with it. It would give the Rogue his "one unique thing" and offer lots of additional options (as well as the ability to not be a criminal).

    With so many skills, and such expertise with them, the Rogue does feel a bit more powerful now. Again, I really have to see how this stuff plays out now to get a good grasp on the overall balance.
    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!

  22. - Top - End - #52
    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
    The Sorcerer is, for some reason, the arcane gish/cleric
    To elaborate on this point: it seems, that the Bloodline has a huge impact on the general outline of the class. So, saying the Sorcerer is a gish would be rather inaccurate. The Dragon Sorcerer is a gish.


    Overall I really like the Sorcerer. It seems like a very interesting class to play. My favorite part are the changes/boni you accumulate at certain thresholds of spend willpower. It's both very flavorful and interesting to play

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Seerow View Post
    If what they want is just to allow for more healing without eating up the Cleric's spell slots, then what they need is to make hit dice viable healing for a whole adventuring day on their own. Being able to heal yourself once per day for 1dX at level 1 does not cut it.

    I really don't get it, this is a problem they had solved in 4e, and now they're stepping back and trying to solve it again in a way that pisses off everyone except grognards who can't understand that hp is not meat damage.
    Curious if they're trying real hard not to use Pathfinder's solution of Channeling Energy for healing/hurting undead and make Turn Undead a feat for those clerics and campaigns that need/want the Olde Ways. They'd be trying to come close as possible to similarity without it being exactly the same. In Pathfinder it works quite well. Multiple person simultaneous healing of multiple d6's at a range 3 + CHA modifier per day goes a long way to not needing to cast Cure Spells so often.

  24. - Top - End - #54
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2005

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Seerow View Post
    Basically, yes.

    When I did a write up a while ago, it started at a d4, so at level 5 you get d6, 10 is d8, 15 is d10, and you get d12s at 20. Yours would cap out at d12s by level 15, but either way works fine. The important thing is the # of dice, and the abilities that key off of them. Having dice scaling in number alongside spell levels makes it easier to balance the power of the abilities that key off them, and thus is better all around.
    I believe 1337 b4k4 was pointing out that in the playtest document, the superiority dice scale exactly as posted.


    Powers &8^]

  25. - Top - End - #55
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Seerow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by LtPowers View Post
    I believe 1337 b4k4 was pointing out that in the playtest document, the superiority dice scale exactly as posted.


    Powers &8^]

    No he wasn't. In the playtest document the superiority dice only increase to 2 dice at level 5. That's about half the scaling we were discussing.
    If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?


  26. - Top - End - #56
    Titan 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 Kurald Galain View Post
    I don't see the difference between a "channel divinity power" and a "cleric spell", neither thematically nor mechanically.
    There isn't much of one. That said, channel divinity powers can be run through domains for domain effects, which is nice. Sun gets a light burst, War gets Channel Divinity attached to an attack, and presumably more stuff will show up at higher levels. I actually like how they are handling Domains with Channel Divinity - the domains have a larger effect than just spell access (e.g. Fire and Radiant resistance), and Channel Divinity insures that you have healing spells, keeping the option to channel it into divine powers instead.

    The obvious worry is that the cleric is too powerful, but we're still at an early enough play test that I'm not too worried - though the subset of play testers with no mechanical aptitude giving bad data could screw things up if the developers show typical WotC competence.

    On the Sorcerer: It's nice to see them move somewhat over to Psion style casting, but the spell list just being a subset of the wizard spell list is not appreciated. Similarly, lagging a level behind in spells is not a feature that they needed to keep, and I'd rather they have avoided a bloodline flavored mechanic. They might also need to tone down the power a little bit, though there's obviously room for bringing other classes (Read: The Fighter) up. The Dragon origin could certainly use toning down, given that it pretty much equals the fighter even when not using spells - it rivals the Fighters melee attack, there's a free +2 damage, and you get resistance on top of it. Dragon Strength vastly outpaces Jab and Dragon Scales vastly outpaces Parry, though they do at least cost daily resources. This is without getting into Dragon Breath, which you don't appear to actually have access to despite it being written down.

    On the Warlock: It looks mostly good, though having to use favors on invocations is a bit irritating, particularly as you get a whole two of them at first level and never appear to get more - Granted, a short rest recovers them, but still. The balance of the invocations is also odd - Shadow Veil, a minor, is much better than most of the lesser invocations, and all of the invocations are really good (Eldritch Blast is fantastic, Visage of the Summer court is brokenly overpowered).
    Last edited by Knaight; 2012-08-17 at 12:50 PM.
    Fudge Assistant in the Playground.

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziegander View Post
    EDIT: Link.
    What is that supposed to link to?

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Seerow's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Yora View Post
    What is that supposed to link to?
    Looks like it goes to the main D&D page. From there click on the "Start Playtesting Now" link, and download the playtest packet (even if you did already previously). There's a new adventure and the new classes are added into the class pdf.
    If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?


  29. - Top - End - #59
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Germany

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

    Took me some time to figure it out, like always with that damn site.

    But that said: "YES! Yes! Sorcerers are arcane psions!"
    Thats the most optimal scenario I've not even dared hoping for.

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Starbuck_II's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Enterprise, Alabama
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Knaight View Post

    On the sorcerer: It's nice to see them move somewhat over to Psion style casting, but the spell list just being a subset of the wizard spell list is not appreciated. Similarly, lagging a level behind in spells is not a feature that they needed to keep, and I'd rather they have avoided a bloodline flavored mechanic. They might also need to tone down the power a little bit, though there's obviously room for bringing other classes (Read: The Fighter) up. The Dragon origin could certainly use toning down, given that it pretty much equals the fighter even when not using spells - it rivals the Fighters melee attack, there's a free +2 damage, and you get resistance on top of it. Dragon Strength vastly outpaces Jab and Dragon Scales vastly outpaces Parry, though they do at least cost daily resources. This is without getting into Dragon Breath, which you don't appear to actually have access to despite it being written down.
    Why not availble? Wow, it never says you get it specifically.

Posting Permissions

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