Results 991 to 1,020 of 1492
-
2012-09-17, 11:22 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I suppose, but I'm not a huge fan of their execution of point buy. (And personally I think it can be more fun, albeit less predictably balanced, to use dice.)
I want the races to be as perfectly balanced as possible. I mean, elves are supposed to be superior to humans, in most fantasy, yet in 3.X playing an elf was generally a bad idea.Jude P.
-
2012-09-17, 11:30 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2012
- Location
- NY, USA
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
That's great for you, seriously, no sarcasm intended. I personally disagree, so do many other players, and since 5e is supposed to be the "big tent" D&D I really hope they aren't counting on everyone using any one chargen method.
I REALLY hope they drop the "Elves are Just Better" garbage from the standard fluff. It's cliche, insulting, vaguely racist, and adds absolutely nothing to the game. Backing that mary-sue stereotype up with mechanics... would be the absolute worst possible mistake they could make with Elves.
-
2012-09-17, 11:36 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I completely agree that point buy is a better method in general. I guess because there are the two sides to it they should probably write it expecting large groups to use either point buy or dice rolling.
I REALLY hope they drop the "Elves are Just Better" garbage from the standard fluff. It's cliche, insulting, vaguely racist, and adds absolutely nothing to the game. Backing that mary-sue stereotype up with mechanics... would be the absolute worst possible mistake they could make with Elves.Jude P.
-
2012-09-17, 11:38 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Seattle, USA
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I understand why roll for stats exist, and I understand why it's an option (though default option kind of mystifies me), that said, I'd use point buy even if it wasn't an option. I like to be able to control how powerful my players are, and I don't like one character being stronger than others before the build even starts. You even get things like one guy wanting to play a wizard, and rolling all 14 and 15's. You can make a good character with that, but not a wizard.
If I did allow rolls, I'd force you to roll for each stat in order, to make a truly random character.
As for humans, I do think they are a little too good. I'm fine with a floating +2 bonus compared to other races static +1, that's a good edge to give to humans, but the +1 to every stat is a little much. It screws up the human baseline, and with rolls and especially point buy it makes it too easy to make your character good at everything. I'd prefer a floating +2 to a stat, and like a bonus skill.
I also have to say Wood Elves special ability is too limited. It's only useful to characters who use stealth, and only in natural environments(which a) can be uncommon in some campaigns, and b) are difficult to define, are caves natural?) Stout Halflings just suck. If I'm going to spend my subrace to protect against an uncommon condition, I don't want to still lose an action every time it comes up."Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."
-Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion
-
2012-09-17, 11:44 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Speaking of skills: I don't like how in 3.X cross-class skills cost two skill points. Having a lower cap makes sense, because you spend less time studying it, but having it cost more skill points per rank makes it seem like you're spending more time studying it and getting less gain from it. Okay, so I'm a Chem student. I have less time to practice guitar this semester because I'm (supposed to be) studying more. So why should every ten hours practicing only give me the benefit of five hours' practice if I were majoring in music?
Jude P.
-
2012-09-17, 11:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
-
2012-09-17, 11:53 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Yeah, that's probably a problem with my expectations. I think the rules should simulate reality (besides the magic and stuff) at low levels. I should be able to simulate a real person (besides the magic and stuff) using the rules for levels 1-6, with level six being ridiculously amazing real people and level one being the masses of commoners.
Jude P.
-
2012-09-17, 11:55 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2011
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I don't think any of the 6 base stats should ever go below 1 or above 20 when just taking into account playable races.
In addition I think each of the bae stats should have a default question for the DM to ask each of his/her/hir/its players with 20 possible answers probably for each question corrisponding to the 1 - 20 value of that stat. And depending on how a player answers that question about his/her/hir/its character, will determine that player's character's corrisponding stat value as it will relate to the answer closest to the 1 the player gave within that race's range.
-
2012-09-17, 12:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I don't think this should be a priority; the D&D rules have always been an utter failure at simulating real persons (because that's not what they're written to do). D&D is a heroic game; if you want to simulate real-world people, there are plenty of other systems for that.
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!
-
2012-09-17, 12:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
-
2012-09-17, 12:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Malsheem, Nessus
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
The oft-quoted Calibrating Your Expectations essay at the Alexandrian came to roughly that conclusion, the general consensus here being that it's flawed but fairly accurate, and there are a bunch of posts people have made supporting that general scale (examinations of the CR of Hercules's and Perseus's foes, examples of what you can do with 9 ranks in a skill, etc.) which I can link later today when I get back to my laptop, if you're interested.
-
2012-09-17, 12:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Seattle, USA
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
A deeper problem is with cross-class skills. Skills were meant to be a way to customize your character outside of their class. So why were they so intrinsically tied to your class which skills you can have. If I want to play a diplomatic fighter, or a stealthy wizard, why can't I?
"Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."
-Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion
-
2012-09-17, 12:50 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Jude P.
-
2012-09-17, 01:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2012
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Eh? 4e's divine classes have channel divinity ... it was released before PF, so I'm not seeing how Channel Divinity is now cribbing from PF.
The bloodlines bit, Pathfinder cribbed from WotC off the "draconic lineage" flavor and classes like the Dragon Disciple. It's not like it was an invention cut from whole cloth.
-O
-
2012-09-17, 02:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2011
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Point.
Maybe it's just me, but I think aesthetics is another factor. It sounds cooler to say you are <insert prestige class> than <insert base class>. Cleric or Sacred Exorcist? Wizard or Loremaster? Warblade or Eternal Blade? Rogue or Arcane Trickster? Certainly the mechanics of a prestige class and base class matter, but how many threads have we seen where someone is playing a base class but asking about prestige classes as if it's an automatic development-but-of-course-everyone-goes-into-a-prestige-class?
-
2012-09-17, 02:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2011
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Because otherwise non-humans get an unfair advantage in character creation. In point buy, an elf wizard with +2 Intelligence only needs to buy a 16 to get an 18. A human wizard must buy the more expensive 18 costing more than a -2 to another ability score in compensation to compare to an elf's -2 to Constitution. If rolling for stats, an elf player needs only roll a 16 to get an 18. If he rolls a natural 18 anyway, that can go into another stat and let something else get the +2 to Intelligence, a 16 if he's lucky or anything if not playing a wizard. The human player has to get a natural 18 no matter what.
Last edited by navar100; 2012-09-17 at 02:17 PM.
-
2012-09-17, 02:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- NYC
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
The problem with 3.5's prestige classes is the same problem as with 3.5's base classes. Half of them suck, and of the half that don't, half of those only have good features for the first few levels. Saying "I'm a Sacred Exorcist" might sound cool, but when you're also an Abjurant Champion and a Spellsword...
If 5e wants to use prestige classes as joining organizations or otherwise becoming special, then they need to distance that from a character's primary method of becoming more powerful, because offering the ability to join the guild of Harpers should be an actual reward, not a chore that the PCs try to get out of as much as possible because the Harpers suck.
-
2012-09-17, 02:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2011
-
2012-09-17, 02:33 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!
-
2012-09-17, 02:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I'd like that, yes please.
Personally I consider the 3.X system pretty flawed. I'd have to sit down and go through it again to come up with my reasons why, and that would also probably involve going outside and trying things like jumping off the fire escape to see how high it has to be for me to get hurt despite Tumbling.
I thought Elves had a bonus to Dex. I can't check the playtest for the 5e elf right now because for some reason I moved it to a different hard drive.
Anyway, there's nothing wrong with that. Going with your example, that elf wizard would be subpar for his own race. If elves are naturally smarter than humans, then of course they'll be better wizards. And a Con penalty really hurts, especially for a d4 hit die wizard. It balances out.Jude P.
-
2012-09-17, 02:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Malsheem, Nessus
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I might have missed the latest conversations about it, but as I recall the consensus was that the major flaws were that (A) trying to generalize things like door-breaking and Jump to all ability and skill checks was a terrible idea and (B) saying everyone in real life is 1st level and 5th level people are rare is bogus and the actual boundaries are more flexible than that, but that the general thrust (you can represent real-world people as low-level characters much more accurately than as high-level characters, and ability and skill checks at lower levels are more accurate to real-life benchmarks than a lot of people give them credit for) was sound.
If you have any links to more recent discussions about it, please post them, I should probably read up on that.
-
2012-09-17, 03:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Seattle, USA
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Actually, in later supplements there were whole suites of bloodline feats for 3e, so WotC can claim credit for sorcerer bloodlines, and Turn Undead has a long standing tradition in 3e of being used for other purposes. Now WotC is just building these ideas into the classes instead of being poorly executed later additions.
"Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."
-Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion
-
2012-09-17, 03:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Pathfinder built off of 3.5 & DDN is building off of that. It's a natural evolution that is working out well. The bloodlines have their root in 3.5 Heritage feats, Turn Undead from Turn Undead Feats, etc. Pathfinder did a lot to bring certain feat abilities into class abilities, D&D is just coming full circle.
-
2012-09-17, 03:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
The non-human races of D&D each have certain traits that are hard-wired into modern fantasy. Dwarves have really high constitution, as they can usually drink anyone under the table. Elves have really high intelligence, as they are known as the best spell-casters. This is, of course, in comparison to humans. From this logic, the toughest dwarf should be tougher than the toughest human, and the smartest elf should be smarter than the smartest human.
However, when you make a character in D&D Next, the rules don't support those tropes. Since a human can gain a racial bonus of +2 to an ability score, while each other race can only get +1, then you will always be able to make a human who has a higher stat than any other race can achieve. The toughest dwarf can get a 20 in Constitution with the right class, but the toughest human can have 21.
This is something that I think they should change; it's a trope that I would try to reinforce. Humans are supposed to be able to succeed at whatever they set their minds to, not surpass every other race. It results in something like "Where should we go to find the wisest person in the world?" "Well, they'll certainly be a human, so let's go with that."Dubhshlaine, Elf Mage, in Eberron D&D 4e
DM for Feiticeiro's Ergodic Dungeon (Always Open!), In-Game
-
2012-09-17, 03:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Location
- Maryland
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
A more reasonable interpretation is that it's just a pretty terrible system for simulating humans at all. Carrying capacity easily gets ludicrous. Speed...A human with the quick trait and the Run feat(ie, how else are you going to represent a runner?) is going to be able to run a mile in about two and a half minutes at level one. In the real world, the record is about 4 minutes.
It works pretty good from the standpoint of having a decently playable game, but for simulating reality? Not so much.
-
2012-09-17, 03:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Malsheem, Nessus
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Well, granted, D&D doesn't do a good job of simulating people compared to other systems, or do a good job at all in general. Given that there are always going to be players who either want to try to recreate some famous real or fictional character in D&D or who try to argue about what is or is not realistic about certain characters at certain levels, however, trying to figure out the least bad approximation seems like a worthwhile effort.
-
2012-09-17, 04:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Seattle, USA
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I care very little for simulating reality in D&D. The second goblins and wizards show up, I've suspended my disbelief enough to allow for improbable jumps and fast movement speeds.
I'd agree that there should be no way a human, for example, can have a higher CON than a dwarf. I'd prefer to take away the stat boosts from the classes, and make the races +2."Sometimes, we’re heroes. Sometimes, we shoot other people right in the face for money."
-Shadowrun 4e, Runner's Companion
-
2012-09-17, 05:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
However, when you make a character in D&D Next, the rules don't support those tropes. Since a human can gain a racial bonus of +2 to an ability score, while each other race can only get +1, then you will always be able to make a human who has a higher stat than any other race can achieve. The toughest dwarf can get a 20 in Constitution with the right class, but the toughest human can have 21.
-
2012-09-17, 05:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2011
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
I agree that letting humans be tougher than dwarves would be weird, but I'm okay with the toughest human being exactly as tough as the toughest dwarf, as long as average humans are less tough than average dwarves. How about giving humans a floating +1? It'll maintain the distinction for average members of the races, and while toughest humans will be as tough as toughest dwarves, they will (theoretically) be rarer.
-
2012-09-17, 05:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
Re: D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting
Correction: They support those tropes, but not in a way you (personally) expect or like.
(Hill) Dwarves in D&D Next are tougher then humans. It is represented by immunity to poison and +2 HP/level.
(High) Elves show their familiarity to magic by getting a minor spell, regardless of class.
(Wood) Elves show their grace by their movement speed and hiding abilities.
Likewise with Halflings. Typical Halfling and Hobbit tropes are very well represented by their traits (the mechanics could use some work, though).
Humans have a higher raw potential (= ability scores), which is pretty in line for the D&D human fluff.
I think most peoples criticism of the Humans in Next come more from the unorthodoxy then the mechanics themselves.