Page 3 of 50 FirstFirst 1234567891011121328 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 1492
  1. - Top - End - #61
    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 Starbuck_II View Post
    Why not availble? Wow, it never says you get it specifically.
    You're clearly supposed to get it, but that leaves the question of when. Not answering that is sloppy at best, though I do generally like the sorcerer. It appears a bit unbalanced, but hey, at least it isn't at the Warlock level. It is also less typo ridden, given that there's nothing quite on the level of "lasts for ten" in fabrication of the weave. Rounds, minutes? We don't know.
    Last edited by Knaight; 2012-08-17 at 12:55 PM.
    Fudge Assistant in the Playground.

  2. - Top - End - #62
    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

    If anyone's interested, I've put up a play-by-post thread for a new round of playtesting (on this forum, not via Skype or anything) HERE. Unfortunately, I will not be able to DM, but I really want to dig into all the new crunch we've got to work with. We have actual numbers and data to look at this time around and I'm pretty excited for it!
    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!

  3. - Top - End - #63
    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 1337 b4k4 View Post
    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.
    Well, I've been discussing it with my friend, and it has become clear that there is more difference in our play preference and D&D rules preference than I would have guessed (bearing in mind that I started with red box basic, through BECMI then to Advanced (1E) and up, and he has similar experience). We play happily together, and we have both DMed the other for a number of years, and still there are playstyle differences that I did not really appreciate. Getting a game that engages both of us, and a FAR wider community is going to be tricky. I hope that they do not try too hard to please everyone and end up pleasing no one.
    I really hope that WotC can pull off a good product, and I think the open playtest is a good thing to hopefully avoid some of the balance issues etc. that we have had earlier.
    I think the best thing this thread has reminded me of is 'This is a playtest. If you don't like it, tell them why instead of quitting. You never know, the next iteration may have moved to where you wanted.'

    Now if only I can get my players to go for it too...

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Excession's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Gender
    Male

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

    Does anyone else find the "As a consequence of knowing this invocation..." lines from the Warlock to be so bad they're hilarious?

    I'd also prefer Warlocks to use either Con or Cha for their casting. Maybe it's just me, but selling part of yourself to a being of unfathomable power seems to be one of the least Intelligent ways to gain arcane power.
    Last edited by Excession; 2012-08-17 at 04:16 PM.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    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 Excession View Post
    Does anyone else find the "As a consequence of knowing this invocation..." lines from the Warlock to be so bad they're hilarious?

    I'd also prefer Warlocks to use either Con or Cha for their casting. Maybe it's just me, but selling part of yourself to a being of unfathomable power seems to be one of the least Intelligent ways to gain arcane power.
    They make the Boon lines seem entirely reasonable, and those could use work. As for the stat, I favor intelligence - it takes intellect to drudge through old tomes, piece together rituals to contact ancient entities, study up on ancient entities to contact, and cut a deal with them that doesn't horribly screw you over. Intelligence is fine, ideally enough for hubris to kick in big - which, given that Wisdom isn't exactly a high priority stat, isn't necessarily all that much.
    Fudge Assistant in the Playground.

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Madara's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Up north, dontcha' know
    Gender
    Male

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

    I don't know if its something wrong on my end or what, but my playtest materials don't include the Warlock or Sorcerer, or at least I can't find them. Were they only at GenCon, or what?
    Quotes:
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Hashmir View Post
    When I die, I donate my body to the cause of whatever ******* finds it first.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bloodgruve View Post
    Really though, how effin scary would the beach be if an octopus could launch itself outta the water at a 200' move speed every 6 seconds. I'd never go to the beach again... I thought flying sharks were scary...
    Blood~

  7. - Top - End - #67
    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 Excession View Post
    Does anyone else find the "As a consequence of knowing this invocation..." lines from the Warlock to be so bad they're hilarious?
    Yes. The class has decent enough crunch, but the fluff of it ranges from the laughably bad to the sheer atrocious.

    WOTC seems to try really hard to blend 3E and 4E elements, or use 3E elements with some 4E terminology tacked on, or vice versa. This strikes me as an attempt to appeal to the masses, but not as consistent good design; you can't have your cake and eat it. The warlock appears to be an odd mix of 3E's invocations with 4E's pact boons and per-encounter logic.
    Crystal Shard Studios - classy freeware games!

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

  8. - Top - End - #68
    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 Madara View Post
    I don't know if its something wrong on my end or what, but my playtest materials don't include the Warlock or Sorcerer, or at least I can't find them. Were they only at GenCon, or what?
    They were recently added, so you'll need to re-download the playtest packet to get them.
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurald Galain View Post
    Yes. The class has decent enough crunch, but the fluff of it ranges from the laughably bad to the sheer atrocious.

    WOTC seems to try really hard to blend 3E and 4E elements, or use 3E elements with some 4E terminology tacked on, or vice versa. This strikes me as an attempt to appeal to the masses, but not as consistent good design; you can't have your cake and eat it. The warlock appears to be an odd mix of 3E's invocations with 4E's pact boons and per-encounter logic.
    The warlock really seems like they blended the 4e Warlock with the 3.5 Binder. If they bring even half the fluff from the Binder to the 5th ed Warlock then I'll be happy. If the mechanics are as decent as the rest of 5th so far then I'll try and play a warlock.

  10. - Top - End - #70
    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

    The biggest problem I'm seeing right now is that the rogue and fighter need a little more. The other classes get new special abilities every level, and rogue and fighter levels feel a little dead by comparison. Methinks a fighter should get more CS dice on even levels, and new style abilities on odd levels. Non spellcasters really need a new ability every level, something to look forward too.

    Rogues I feel the same way, they feel incomplete. They need something cool every level. I also don't like Skill Mastery, I don't like taking the dice rolling away. I'd rather have a feature that is something like they roll for skills, but if they roll less than 5 they get a 5, and every even level their min goes up. This makes them less likely to win everything at low level, and means they always have the chance to toll high.
    "Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  11. - Top - End - #71
    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 Ziegander View Post
    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.
    I foresee one-level Rogue dips being popular. Seems pretty frontloaded.
    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.

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

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

    I think casters get enough abilities already. They don't need very many special abilities because they can do bleeding magic. Mundanes are the ones that need special abilities every level.
    Jude P.

    Playing Pokémon X
    3DS friend code: 0705-3326-2027
    4- or 5-IV Pokémon available for trade listed on my Giant League Wiki page.

  13. - Top - End - #73
    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 noparlpf View Post
    I think casters get enough abilities already. They don't need very many special abilities because they can do bleeding magic. Mundanes are the ones that need special abilities every level.
    Yeah Rogues need some form of resource to manage, and more abilities. Fighters need to be getting a CS ability every level, not just every other level. In an ideal world the Fighter would be able to learn more abilities beyond the default through study/training, and be the martial equivalent of wizard; but I could settle for one ability each level.
    If my text is blue, I'm being sarcastic.But you already knew that, right?


  14. - Top - End - #74
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Seerow View Post
    Yeah Rogues need some form of resource to manage, and more abilities. Fighters need to be getting a CS ability every level, not just every other level. In an ideal world the Fighter would be able to learn more abilities beyond the default through study/training, and be the martial equivalent of wizard; but I could settle for one ability each level.
    I'm currently/sporadically working on reworking the whole system as a pet project sort of thing. I'm not even at the point of playtesting it, but I was giving mundanes one or two abilities per level and leaving casters mostly just casters.
    Jude P.

    Playing Pokémon X
    3DS friend code: 0705-3326-2027
    4- or 5-IV Pokémon available for trade listed on my Giant League Wiki page.

  15. - Top - End - #75
    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 Draz74 View Post
    I foresee one-level Rogue dips being popular. Seems pretty frontloaded.
    They have not yet released any sort of multi classing rules, but I can pretty much guarantee it won't work like it does in 3e. My guess, It'll either be something like 4e where you can kinda sort get other class features, or like 2e where you can have a sort of dual advancement type deal.
    "Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    AgentPaper's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

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

    Out of curiosity, how often have you guys seen people multiclassing in 3.5 for RP/character identity reasons, rather than simply to improve the power/mechanical aspects of their character? For this purpose, I wouldn't count multiclassing if it was done for the sole purpose of getting a PrC.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  17. - Top - End - #77
    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
    Out of curiosity, how often have you guys seen people multiclassing in 3.5 for RP/character identity reasons, rather than simply to improve the power/mechanical aspects of their character? For this purpose, I wouldn't count multiclassing if it was done for the sole purpose of getting a PrC.
    Not very often.

    Honestly, and I hope I don't get digitally stoned for this, I hope PrCs go away and never come back. I think they ruined 3e. Considering how powerful feats are, I can't think of any PrC that couldn't be handled by feats or alternate class features in the new version, and if it's that different make a new class.
    "Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Menteith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minnesnowta

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    Out of curiosity, how often have you guys seen people multiclassing in 3.5 for RP/character identity reasons, rather than simply to improve the power/mechanical aspects of their character? For this purpose, I wouldn't count multiclassing if it was done for the sole purpose of getting a PrC.
    I don't see classes as in-game constructions. As a D&D3.5 example;

    I have a Factotum 2, Duskblade 3, Trapsmith 1, Swiftblade 5 character. I don't see that character as a collection of different classes. Instead, it's an intelligent, magical rogue who knows how to handle himself in a fight. They didn't receive Duskblade training, the Duskblade class is simply the best way that I can represent my vision of the character. (Incidentally, this is a big reason I strongly dislike tying crunch to fluff. As an example of this in D&D Next, check out Thieves' Cant, which seriously limits the range of characters that can be expressed by the "Rogue" class.)

    Unless you see a PrC as an in-game construct, I'm not sure why you'd have an issue with this. If the character is honestly best represented by a Prestige class, then the character should take that set of abilities. They don't need to include PrCs in D&D Next if they represent a wide enough range of mechanical abilities through other means, but there's nothing wrong with PrCs.
    Last edited by Menteith; 2012-08-17 at 10:05 PM.
    There is the moral of all human tales;
    'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
    First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
    Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
    And History, with all her volumes vast,
    Hath but one page...

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    Out of curiosity, how often have you guys seen people multiclassing in 3.5 for RP/character identity reasons, rather than simply to improve the power/mechanical aspects of their character? For this purpose, I wouldn't count multiclassing if it was done for the sole purpose of getting a PrC.
    Where I played at my old school before we all transferred or dropped out or whatever? Fairly often. We were low-to-medium-op, and fluff was bigger than crunch.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    Not very often.

    Honestly, and I hope I don't get digitally stoned for this, I hope PrCs go away and never come back. I think they ruined 3e. Considering how powerful feats are, I can't think of any PrC that couldn't be handled by feats or alternate class features in the new version, and if it's that different make a new class.
    I do like the concept of a Prestige Class because in theory it's a more specialised version of a class to branch into. In 3.X it does frequently end up being lots of dips for powergaming, unfortunately, but that's a player problem, not a game problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    I don't see classes as in-game constructions. As a D&D3.5 example;

    I have a Factotum 2, Duskblade 3, Trapsmith 1, Swiftblade 5 character. I don't see that character as a collection of different classes. Instead, it's an intelligent, magical rogue who knows how to handle himself in a fight. They didn't receive Duskblade training, the Duskblade class is simply the best way that I can represent my vision of the character. (Incidentally, this is a big reason I strongly dislike tying fluff to crunch. As an example of this in D&D Next, check out Thieves' Cant, which seriously limits the range of characters that can be expressed by the "Rogue" class.)

    Unless you see a PrC as an in-game construct, I'm not sure why you'd have an issue with this. If the character is honestly best represented by a Prestige class, then the character should take that set of abilities. They don't need to include PrCs in D&D Next if they represent a wide enough range of mechanical abilities through other means, but there's nothing wrong with PrCs.
    I don't multiclass much, but when I do, it's because another class or PrC better represents the character I want mechanically than the continuation of the class I'm currently in. More often, I spam alternative class features and racial substitution levels to mix things up for different characters. (Different spell selection doesn't work for me because I prefer mundane classes.)
    Jude P.

    Playing Pokémon X
    3DS friend code: 0705-3326-2027
    4- or 5-IV Pokémon available for trade listed on my Giant League Wiki page.

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Wargor's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    London - England
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Menteith View Post
    I don't see classes as in-game constructions. As a D&D3.5 example;

    I have a Factotum 2, Duskblade 3, Trapsmith 1, Swiftblade 5 character. I don't see that character as a collection of different classes. Instead, it's an intelligent, magical rogue who knows how to handle himself in a fight. They didn't receive Duskblade training, the Duskblade class is simply the best way that I can represent my vision of the character. (Incidentally, this is a big reason I strongly dislike tying fluff to crunch. As an example of this in D&D Next, check out Thieves' Cant, which seriously limits the range of characters that can be expressed by the "Rogue" class.)

    Unless you see a PrC as an in-game construct, I'm not sure why you'd have an issue with this. If the character is honestly best represented by a Prestige class, then the character should take that set of abilities. They don't need to include PrCs in D&D Next if they represent a wide enough range of mechanical abilities through other means, but there's nothing wrong with PrCs.
    That's the thing, as presented they were in game constructions. As much as you'd like it to be otherwise, (and can quite happily do by ignoring the fluff) crunch and fluff were pretty strictly linked in 3.X, at least in the eyes of the creators. I myself do the same as you really, but I can see the benefits of both methods.
    Last edited by Wargor; 2012-08-17 at 08:42 PM.
    Currently Playing:
    Ozrik - Atlan Dur (Dungeon World)

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    Out of curiosity, how often have you guys seen people multiclassing in 3.5 for RP/character identity reasons, rather than simply to improve the power/mechanical aspects of their character? For this purpose, I wouldn't count multiclassing if it was done for the sole purpose of getting a PrC.
    Is there something wrong with that?

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Menteith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minnesnowta

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Wargor View Post
    That's the thing, as presented they were in game constructions. As much as you'd like it to be otherwise, (and can quite happily do by ignoring the fluff) crunch and fluff were pretty strictly linked in 3.X, at least in the eyes of the creators. I myself do the same as you really, but I can see the benefits of both methods.
    I'm not sure why that's relevant to the question.

    "Out of curiosity, how often have you guys seen people multiclassing in 3.5 for RP/character identity reasons, rather than simply to improve the power/mechanical aspects of their character?."

    My answer was most of the time. Most of the time I multiclass it is to more fully express mechanically what my character is. Character identity is a primary reason I multiclass. The way I handle what a class is simply makes it more fluid and, (to me) more sensible.
    There is the moral of all human tales;
    'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
    First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
    Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
    And History, with all her volumes vast,
    Hath but one page...

  23. - Top - End - #83
    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 Menteith View Post
    (Incidentally, this is a big reason I strongly dislike tying fluff to crunch. As an example of this in D&D Next, check out Thieves' Cant, which seriously limits the range of characters that can be expressed by the "Rogue" class.)
    You mean, you don't like seeing fluff tied to crunch too much. If you were really to completely untie crunch from fluff, you'd get a purely mathematical game, and a set of books describing what a wizard and a fighter is, but with no correlation between them.

    Personally, I don't see any issue with Rogue's being tied to Thieves' Cant. You learn to be a wizard by studying ancient tomes. You learn to be a fighter by fighting in battles. You learn to become a cleric by praying to the gods. Why is it any different for a rogue to learn to be a rogue by spending time associating with criminals?

    If anything, I think this might help all the variations on the rogue that have classically been represented by the rogue class. Instead of being a catch-all skilled, sneaky character, the rogue can be a much more specific archetype, and so you can make other, equally specific archetypes into classes as well. It gives a lot more room for the assassin, the ranger, the duelist, the swashbuckler, and all the other classic "roguish" archetypes to come into their own.

    What else is a class, but a description of how you became able to do what you currently can do? If you say any character that happens to be able to cast spells is a wizard, then what is a wizard? What makes him different from a sorcerer? Or a warlock? How is a paladin different from a cleric?
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  24. - Top - End - #84
    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 noparlpf View Post
    I do like the concept of a Prestige Class because in theory it's a more specialised version of a class to branch into. In 3.X it does frequently end up being lots of dips for powergaming, unfortunately, but that's a player problem, not a game problem.
    I guess my philosophy is that if a concept is so complex or alien that it can't be represented via feats, spells, or alternate class features, it should be a class in it's own right. PrC's were not a big deal when D&D 3rd came out, but they started getting used for everything, and ended up getting abused. They are an easy tool to make something that looks cool without caring over much about balance or how it interacts with other classes.
    "Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."

    -Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Menteith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minnesnowta

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    Personally, I don't see any issue with Rogue's being tied to Thieves' Cant. You learn to be a wizard by studying ancient tomes. You learn to be a fighter by fighting in battles. You learn to become a cleric by praying to the gods. Why is it any different for a rogue to learn to be a rogue by spending time associating with criminals?
    Because I might want to have a Half-Orc Rogue who grew up backstabbing amongst a savage clan, with no time for the dealing of humans. Or an elven watcher who stalks amongst the woodlands to protect them against incursions. Or a bounty hunter on retainer to the King, a pirate, a military specialist, a serial killer....

    There are many archetypes of the Rogue that wouldn't logically have the ability to write in a "sekret speshial" language that all criminals magically understand. This ability dramatically limits what characters can be represented via the Rogue class. If the point was to limit the range of characters expressed by the class, as you suggest, then I strongly urge them to reconsider said point. I don't believe that they will introduce a wide range of base classes, and I believe they intended to have all "Sneaky" characters use the Rogue class as a base. Thieves' Cant doesn't make sense for all "Sneaky" characters; ergo, I have a problem. If they change one of those two things (all Sneaky characters are Rogues, all Rogues have Thieves' Cant) I'll be fine.

    And I honestly don't have a problem with Clerics calling themselves Paladins if they're playing the Paladin archetype. /shrug. And you're right about tying fluff to mechanics vs. mechanics to fluff, I switched the words around in my initial post.
    Last edited by Menteith; 2012-08-17 at 10:05 PM.
    There is the moral of all human tales;
    'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
    First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
    Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
    And History, with all her volumes vast,
    Hath but one page...

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by TheOOB View Post
    I guess my philosophy is that if a concept is so complex or alien that it can't be represented via feats, spells, or alternate class features, it should be a class in it's own right. PrC's were not a big deal when D&D 3rd came out, but they started getting used for everything, and ended up getting abused. They are an easy tool to make something that looks cool without caring over much about balance or how it interacts with other classes.
    Well they are their own classes. Just with prereqs. Doesn't it seem silly to have two classes, say Rogue A and Rogue B, with identical progressions for the first eight levels before they branch out and get different abilities?
    Jude P.

    Playing Pokémon X
    3DS friend code: 0705-3326-2027
    4- or 5-IV Pokémon available for trade listed on my Giant League Wiki page.

  27. - Top - End - #87
    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 Menteith View Post
    Because I might want to have a Half-Orc Rogue who grew up backstabbing amongst a savage clan, with no time for the dealing of humans. Or an elven watcher who stalks amongst the woodlands to protect them against incursions. Or a bounty hunter on retainer to the King, a pirate, a military specialist, a serial killer....

    There are many archetypes of the Rogue that wouldn't logically have the ability to write in a "sekret speshial" language that all criminals magically understand. This ability dramatically limits what characters can be represented via the Rogue class. If the point was to limit the range of characters expressed by the class, as you suggest, then I strongly urge them to reconsider said point. I don't believe that they will introduce a wide range of base classes, and I believe they intended to have all "Sneaky" characters use the Rogue class as a base. Thieves' Cant doesn't make sense for all "Sneaky" characters; ergo, I have a problem. If they change one of those two things (all Sneaky characters are Rogues, all Rogues have Thieves' Cant) I'll be fine.

    And I honestly don't have a problem with Clerics calling themselves Paladins if they're playing the Paladin archetype. /shrug. And you're right about tying fluff to mechanics vs. mechanics to fluff, I switched the words around in my initial post.
    And what I'm saying is, putting the "Rogue" label on your character should exactly define your character in that way. If you want to make a Wizard that learned his magic from raw, magical talent, you don't complain that the Wizard Class has rules for this stupid "spellbook" thing, you instead roll a sorcerer. If you want to play something that doesn't fit into a criminal background, then you should be playing a different class. Your Half-Orc should be an Assassin. Your Elf should be a Ranger. Your bounty hunter sounds like he'd have come from a criminal background, though he could just as easily be a fighter if you don't want to go that route.

    Instead of trying to force the class to fit your character, you should choose a more appropriate class. If you think there is a significant archetype that the current classes don't cover, then that is a class that should be made, rather than ham-fisting some other class to fit that role as well.
    Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    NY, USA
    Gender
    Male

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

    Quote Originally Posted by AgentPaper View Post
    And what I'm saying is, putting the "Rogue" label on your character should exactly define your character in that way. If you want to make a Wizard that learned his magic from raw, magical talent, you don't complain that the Wizard Class has rules for this stupid "spellbook" thing, you instead roll a sorcerer. If you want to play something that doesn't fit into a criminal background, then you should be playing a different class. Your Half-Orc should be an Assassin. Your Elf should be a Ranger. Your bounty hunter sounds like he'd have come from a criminal background, though he could just as easily be a fighter if you don't want to go that route.

    Instead of trying to force the class to fit your character, you should choose a more appropriate class. If you think there is a significant archetype that the current classes don't cover, then that is a class that should be made, rather than ham-fisting some other class to fit that role as well.
    It seems like you're version of the system would, logically, either end up with a very small number of possible backgrounds or a vast number of classes. It doesn't seem very efficient or reasonable.

    I'm usually not a fan of dissociated mechanics; I like my simulationism and fluff as much as the next guy. But it makes way more sense to me to say "here is what you can do" rather than "here is how you learned to do this."

    One arbitrarily limits the kinds of characters you can make, the other gives a lot more freedom to players and cuts down on the number of classes the designers need to make and balance. Why make more work for the designers by putting stringent fluff requirements on classes, rather than letting the players define their character's backstory?

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    noparlpf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male

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

    I prefer "here is what you can do" and "here are the mechanical prerequisites of that" along with "now go write your own backstory and fluff for how you do it/how you learned to do it".
    Jude P.

    Playing Pokémon X
    3DS friend code: 0705-3326-2027
    4- or 5-IV Pokémon available for trade listed on my Giant League Wiki page.

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Menteith's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Minnesnowta

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

    I would be just as irritated if they gave Wizards an ability that forced them all to come from a wizard college, or if they gave Fighters and ability that made them all into soldiers. There is no reason that Thieves' Cant shouldn't be on a background, rather than on the class itself, unless one is seeking to specifically limit what the Rogue class can be. You seem to be seeking to limit the Rogue class in this way.

    And what I'm saying is, putting the "Rogue" label on your character should exactly define your character in that way...
    This is the crux of what we disagree on. I don't see a reason that a Rogue has to be straight-jacketed into a single role when it could instead easily be used to represent a broad range of characters. You clearly disagree. I don't understand what you see in limiting character options when an equally viable design could be used that would result in a broader range of character options. Could you explain to me why you feel that limiting what a class can represent will result in a better game, especially in light of the fact that WotC does not seem likely to create a wide range of base classes?

    Should they create a wide enough range of classes that can allow me to express a range of characters, then I won't have an issue, as I said above. But currently, I don't believe they plan to introduce such a wide range of classes, and they instead intend to use few classes to represent many characters. Do you have a reason to believe that they will create a broad range of classes, rather than sticking to the limited range they've specified in earlier information releases?
    Last edited by Menteith; 2012-08-17 at 11:03 PM.
    There is the moral of all human tales;
    'Tis but the same rehearsal of the past.
    First freedom and then Glory - when that fails,
    Wealth, vice, corruption - barbarism at last.
    And History, with all her volumes vast,
    Hath but one page...

Posting Permissions

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