D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

[noparlpf]

I should have specified that when I said "warrior classes" I didn't really mean the Rogue. It does make sense for the Rogues and caster classes to be restricted in their use of weapons, but martial classes - by which I mean Fighters, Rangers, Paladins and Barbarians - should be able to specialize in any melee or ranged weapon. Their flavor - weaponsmaster, wilderness survivor, religious warrior and savage warrior - is unchanged regardless of what sort of weapon they use.

Aye, purely martial classes should be able to choose to train with any weapon, whereas a Rogue or Wizard might not make sense to use a greatsword.

And that reminds me, I didn't like the 3.X proficiencies or "exotic weapons" systems much. I preferred the UA weapon groups feats system instead of the core proficiencies system. Makes sense to train with polearms, or swords, or bows, &c, not to be able to use a bow well because you trained with swords before and they're both "martial weapons". And then the really weird exotic weapons that are actually exotic (including racial weapons for members of other races, or some weird regional weapons, maybe) can require an extra feat. Have exotic weapons proficiency: [X group] lets you use any exotic weapons for that group (or maybe just have exotic weapons proficiency as an extra feat that allows use of all exotic weapons within the weapon groups whose feats you have).

[Yora]

If you have three sources of disadvantage on a roll and one source of advantage, do you make the roll with disadvantage or normally?
Usually, several sources of advantage or disadvantage do not stack, but in theory you could have 10 sources of disadvantage and just one really meager source for advantage, and I don't think that should negate all the unfavorable circumstances.
Either way, I think that's something the rules should explicitly spell out, as it is written it sounds like that really could lead to lots of confusion and arguments.

[Draz74]

If you have three sources of disadvantage on a roll and one source of advantage, do you make the roll with disadvantage or normally?
Usually, several sources of advantage or disadvantage do not stack, but in theory you could have 10 sources of disadvantage and just one really meager source for advantage, and I don't think that should negate all the unfavorable circumstances.
Either way, I think that's something the rules should explicitly spell out, as it is written it sounds like that really could lead to lots of confusion and arguments.

One advantage does indeed negate all the disadvantages by current RAW. This is something I complained about several playtest packets ago.

[Yora]

I see good reasons why that looks good on paper, but this is one point were a tiny increase in simplicity had cost a much too greater amount of versimilitude. The fact that there is fog does not negate the difficulty of sneaking up on someone while wearing a jesters costumes with bells and carrying a bag full of fighting cats.
That's still disadvantage.

[Aron Times]

Hey folks, I'd like to shift the conversation a bit towards stats and stat boosting items. Namely, how 5e deals with attribute enhancing items compared to 3.5.

Now, as many of you know, stat boosters in 5e work like the ones in 2e in that they set their wearer's stats to a specific amount. Off the top of my head, Gauntlets of Ogre Power set the wearer's strength to 18 instead of giving him a +2 bonus like in 3.5. I have come to realize that this mechanic makes randomly generated stats less of a problem because the stat booster always results in the same amount.

Contrast this with 3.5, where it's a waste to give Gauntlets of Ogre Power to the puny mage with 8 strength because he still won't be able to hit anything with it. On the other hand, giving it to the mighty warrior with 18 strength makes him that much better at hitting armored foes.

Perhaps a better example would be a wizard who rolled 15 for intelligence and a second one who rolled an 18. The first wizard will be forever behind in spell save DCs compared to the second wizard, and the latter will get more mileage out of a Headband of Intellect because his bonus spell slots will be higher level and his save DCs are that much closer to being impossible to beat.

Using the 2e and 5e system, the first wizard lags behind the second only until he finds a Headband of Intellect. If the headband sets the wearer's intelligence to 20, then the two wizards end up in the same spot. Basically, the second wizard gets an early game advantage which is negated at higher levels.

This means that having random stats is less of a balance issue in D&D Next, assuming the 2e style of stat enhancement items is kept.

What do you think?

[Draz74]

I see good reasons why that looks good on paper, but this is one point were a tiny increase in simplicity had cost a much too greater amount of versimilitude. The fact that there is fog does not negate the difficulty of sneaking up on someone while wearing a jesters costumes with bells and carrying a bag full of fighting cats.
That's still disadvantage.

Love your examples.

[Flickerdart]

Hey folks, I'd like to shift the conversation a bit towards stats and stat boosting items. Namely, how 5e deals with attribute enhancing items compared to 3.5.

Now, as many of you know, stat boosters in 5e work like the ones in 2e in that they set their wearer's stats to a specific amount. Off the top of my head, Gauntlets of Ogre Power set the wearer's strength to 18 instead of giving him a +2 bonus like in 3.5. I have come to realize that this mechanic makes randomly generated stats less of a problem because the stat booster always results in the same amount.

Contrast this with 3.5, where it's a waste to give Gauntlets of Ogre Power to the puny mage with 8 strength because he still won't be able to hit anything with it. On the other hand, giving it to the mighty warrior with 18 strength makes him that much better at hitting armored foes.

Perhaps a better example would be a wizard who rolled 15 for intelligence and a second one who rolled an 18. The first wizard will be forever behind in spell save DCs compared to the second wizard, and the latter will get more mileage out of a Headband of Intellect because his bonus spell slots will be higher level and his save DCs are that much closer to being impossible to beat.

Using the 2e and 5e system, the first wizard lags behind the second only until he finds a Headband of Intellect. If the headband sets the wearer's intelligence to 20, then the two wizards end up in the same spot. Basically, the second wizard gets an early game advantage which is negated at higher levels.

This means that having random stats is less of a balance issue in D&D Next, assuming the 2e style of stat enhancement items is kept.

What do you think?

This just perpetuates the Divine Power problem in 3.5, where with the application of a single thing, the Cleric is now just as good as the Fighter at combat, while still being good at everything he's normally good at. What's the point of being renowned as a mighty warrior with legendary strength when a random midget can slap on the same pair of gloves you have, and suddenly rival you in your primary attribute while benefiting from his own high primary attribute for his own class?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

This just perpetuates the Divine Power problem in 3.5, where with the application of a single thing, the Cleric is now just as good as the Fighter at combat, while still being good at everything he's normally good at. What's the point of being renowned as a mighty warrior with legendary strength when a random midget can slap on the same pair of gloves you have, and suddenly rival you in your primary attribute while benefiting from his own high primary attribute for his own class?

More than that, it becomes an item tax. Divine power just lets a cleric who wants to do melee have a fighter's BAB, but an item that just gave you 18 Wis is something that all clerics want regardless of build. Even a fighter with 16 Str wants to pick up those gloves because ability scores are so important in 5e and ways of raising them are comparatively rare.

[Aron Times]

This just perpetuates the Divine Power problem in 3.5, where with the application of a single thing, the Cleric is now just as good as the Fighter at combat, while still being good at everything he's normally good at. What's the point of being renowned as a mighty warrior with legendary strength when a random midget can slap on the same pair of gloves you have, and suddenly rival you in your primary attribute while benefiting from his own high primary attribute for his own class?

The cleric doesn't get maneuvers or expertise dice or proficiency in better weapons by wearing the abovementioned gauntlets. He hits as hard as a fighter on basic attacks, but he still won't match the fighter's fighting ability. All it really does is equalize ability scores among well-equipped adventurers.

You get the benefits of random stats (roleplaying hooks) without its main drawback (unbalanced stats).

[TuggyNE]

The cleric doesn't get maneuvers or expertise dice or proficiency in better weapons by wearing the abovementioned gauntlets. He hits as hard as a fighter on basic attacks, but he still won't match the fighter's fighting ability.

Note that this is asymmetrical: a cleric can mimic a fighter (presumably with at least somewhat diminished effectiveness, but not with anything approaching uselessness), but a fighter cannot hope to mimic a cleric, not even with a similar item that grants 20 wisdom.

All it really does is equalize ability scores among well-equipped adventurers.

I.e., item tax. At least this time it's a comparative thing between adventurers, and not quite so much about maintaining usefulness in the face of climbing monster stats, but it's still arguably a bad thing, and somewhat counter to the goal of reducing magic item dependency.

You get the benefits of random stats (roleplaying hooks) without its main drawback (unbalanced stats).

I'm not sure that's really the way to solve the problem, though, since it does so by eliminating some or all of the RP hooks introduced, and at the cost of extra magic items. It also introduces some RP strangeness, as already mentioned.

[Yora]

Is there any indicator on what character is affected by circumstances that are an advantage to one of them and a disadvantage to the other? Like sneaking up in someone in heavy fog. Advantage to Stealth or Disadvantage to Spot?
Since they don't stack but can negate each other, it could be a very important difference.
If a guard is distracted and can see poorly, that would be double disadvantage that is reduced to normal disadvantage. If the guard is distracted and the other character has advantage from heavy fog, the guard has disadvantage and the attacker has advantage.

One could say it always applies to everyone, but then you have things like heavy fog that always result in both advantage and disadvantage.

[Kaervaslol]

Hey folks, I'd like to shift the conversation a bit towards stats and stat boosting items. Namely, how 5e deals with attribute enhancing items compared to 3.5.

Now, as many of you know, stat boosters in 5e work like the ones in 2e in that they set their wearer's stats to a specific amount. Off the top of my head, Gauntlets of Ogre Power set the wearer's strength to 18 instead of giving him a +2 bonus like in 3.5. I have come to realize that this mechanic makes randomly generated stats less of a problem because the stat booster always results in the same amount.

Contrast this with 3.5, where it's a waste to give Gauntlets of Ogre Power to the puny mage with 8 strength because he still won't be able to hit anything with it. On the other hand, giving it to the mighty warrior with 18 strength makes him that much better at hitting armored foes.

Perhaps a better example would be a wizard who rolled 15 for intelligence and a second one who rolled an 18. The first wizard will be forever behind in spell save DCs compared to the second wizard, and the latter will get more mileage out of a Headband of Intellect because his bonus spell slots will be higher level and his save DCs are that much closer to being impossible to beat.

Using the 2e and 5e system, the first wizard lags behind the second only until he finds a Headband of Intellect. If the headband sets the wearer's intelligence to 20, then the two wizards end up in the same spot. Basically, the second wizard gets an early game advantage which is negated at higher levels.

This means that having random stats is less of a balance issue in D&D Next, assuming the 2e style of stat enhancement items is kept.

What do you think?

I think that magic items should not be taken for granted such as that situation. I've DMed countless games of 2e and only once have the PCs managed to get some Gauntlets of Ogre power. I like it that way, since I hate the dependency in magic items from part of the PCs to the point where there is a magic market and we all go and buy things cherry picking from a list. A wizard with 15 int shouldn't be expecting to get a Headband of Intellect (which does not exist in AD&D). If fortune wills it, he may encounter one in his travels and resolve in party what to do with it.

[Ashdate]

It sounds to me that the simplest solution is to not have any stat-boosting items at all; rather than having "Gauntlets of Ogre Power" grant bonus strength, simply have them grant advantage on any strength-related test (but not attack rolls). Ditto for Headbands of Intellect and the like.

[noparlpf]

I don't like stat-boosting items or the ridiculous item dependency of 3.X. I want magic items to actually be rare and powerful things that most characters won't see until upwards of level ten, usually through quests or similar.

[obryn]

So ... is anyone else kinda concerned about the new post by Mearls about Wizards or is it just me?

-O

[Flickerdart]

I think that magic items should not be taken for granted such as that situation. I've DMed countless games of 2e and only once have the PCs managed to get some Gauntlets of Ogre power. I like it that way, since I hate the dependency in magic items from part of the PCs to the point where there is a magic market and we all go and buy things cherry picking from a list. A wizard with 15 int shouldn't be expecting to get a Headband of Intellect (which does not exist in AD&D). If fortune wills it, he may encounter one in his travels and resolve in party what to do with it.

Why would a canny adventurer submit to the whims of fate when it comes to acquiring gear? If magic items are rare, then it should not prove difficult to find someone that has the one you need through rumours and hearsay, and then either trade for it (adventurers tend to have valuable things, not much point in risking your life constantly otherwise) or straight up steal it.

[Loki_42]

So ... is anyone else kinda concerned about the new post by Mearls about Wizards or is it just me?

-O

I was fine with it up until the point where he said that Fighters looked like they were currently the strongest.

They're not.

Not by a longshot.

[1337 b4k4]

Is there any indicator on what character is affected by circumstances that are an advantage to one of them and a disadvantage to the other? Like sneaking up in someone in heavy fog. Advantage to Stealth or Disadvantage to Spot?
Since they don't stack but can negate each other, it could be a very important difference.
If a guard is distracted and can see poorly, that would be double disadvantage that is reduced to normal disadvantage. If the guard is distracted and the other character has advantage from heavy fog, the guard has disadvantage and the attacker has advantage.

One could say it always applies to everyone, but then you have things like heavy fog that always result in both advantage and disadvantage.

This is one of those things that's probably best left to be resolved at table given the specific circumstances. For example, say your castle was in an area known for its fog. It would be reasonable to argue that castle guards were accustomed to dealing with fog and therefore would not be at a disadvantage for their spotting, where as a desert palace suddenly under a magical fog would find all the guards under disadvantage.

The way I read (and apply) the rules, advantage / disadvantage is applied on a per-character basis, with no regard to whether other characters may or may not have advantage.

[navar100]

I don't like stat-boosting items or the ridiculous item dependency of 3.X. I want magic items to actually be rare and powerful things that most characters won't see until upwards of level ten, usually through quests or similar.

That is campaign dependent. It would help if there tables or guidelines to reflect different tastes for scale of magic item rarity to commonality for the campaign, but a universal declaration would not be popular. It is evident you disapprove of the magic item commonality of RAW 3E. That's fine. Other people would then disapprove if your concept of magic item rarity was RAW 5E.

[noparlpf]

Even with magic items more common, it's ridiculous that some classes literally run on magic items.

[Clawhound]

For stat boosts, I would support finding rare items that give a stat boost. The thing that makes this interesting is that only one character can get it, but you can choose your boost. +4 if your stat is below 10, +2 if your stat is below 16, and +1 otherwise. Everyone benefits, but those with low stats benefit most.

[Ashdate]

For stat boosts, I would support finding rare items that give a stat boost. The thing that makes this interesting is that only one character can get it, but you can choose your boost. +4 if your stat is below 10, +2 if your stat is below 16, and +1 otherwise. Everyone benefits, but those with low stats benefit most.

I think that just leads to needlessly complicated items. You also have to consider that it's not just about making it so "Gauntlets of Ogre Strength" give a larger "benefit" to the party Wizard - they're unlikely to use them anyway, even if the bonus to the fighter is a mere +1. The danger, I think, is that you might do is create rare items that are potentially underwhelming to actually find.

Sure, that +1 to strength might okay for a fighter, but potentially not if its "rarity" also contains awesome magical blades (and who knows what not).

[Draz74]

It sounds to me that the simplest solution is to not have any stat-boosting items at all; rather than having "Gauntlets of Ogre Power" grant bonus strength, simply have them grant advantage on any strength-related test (but not attack rolls). Ditto for Headbands of Intellect and the like.

I'd like to see something kind of along these lines, yeah.

So ... is anyone else kinda concerned about the new post by Mearls about Wizards or is it just me?

Eh, it's a mixed bag (as usual). At least the part where WotC ostensibly knew they were making the Rogue suck in the most recent packet restores a little bit of my hope that they aren't completely incompetent.

Also, the "Rogues fight by making skill checks in combat" sounds potentially cool (IF implemented well, of course). And the ground-level plan for not all Rogues to be Sneak Attack-based is good too.

Skills being represented by bonus dice instead of a flat bonus is ... interesting. Could that actually help with the system's current problem where Training bonus doesn't matter enough? At least it reduces the number of modifiers players have to keep track of in their heads.

On the other hand, increased number of spells/day doesn't thrill me, even when they're getting rid of Signature Spells. Especially when at-wills are getting boosted too. I guess low-level casters did pretty much suck, but I'm wary of another Edition where high-level casters really never run out of spell slots.

Changing the Wizard over to the Spirit Shaman "prepared, but still spontaneous" model (like the 5e Cleric has had all along) is a small hit to the class's flavor, but I have to admit it would make me more likely to actually want to play the Wizard.

And no mention of the Fighter getting more maneuvers makes me sad.

[Doug Lampert]

I was fine with it up until the point where he said that Fighters looked like they were currently the strongest.

They're not.

Not by a longshot.

Eh? In straight combat, which he earlier in the article concluded was what people care about for balance, fighters are substantially stronger than any other class.

There were people on the wizards boards after the last packet came out trying desperately to show that wizards were still overpowered, they eventually gave up, even using multiple spells and polymoph cheeze and maximizing their blink spell (which makes it always succeed since the chance of blink working is a die roll and maximize is badly written at present) they simply couldn't match an at level fighter.

Most of them assumed the defensive manuevers were a trap, they're not, they're the KEY to a fighter's power, you can negate most or all damage while still doing damage. It doesn't matter that you're doing less damage, because PCs do more damage than monsters so reducing both sides by equal amounts is a big win for the PCs.

Now if they give monsters a higher hit chance and fix a few other details then fighters may not look so strong, but in the current packet a couple of level 6 fighters can probably take that green dragon (strongest monster they've given us) even if it tries to fly or manuever (one fighter uses a bow, the other a sword and board), and a level 10 fighter can easily solo the dragon.

[Kurald Galain]

Skills being represented by bonus dice instead of a flat bonus is ... interesting. Could that actually help with the system's current problem where Training bonus doesn't matter enough?

Maybe. It reminds me of Alternity (TSR's old D&D-in-spaaace game), but Alternity had the problem that you rolled different dice for every skill, so you have to start each check by figuring out what to roll. If 5E's system does not have this delay factor then it could be good.

On the other hand, increased number of spells/day doesn't thrill me, even when they're getting rid of Signature Spells.

I'm not convinced wizards need more slots, but I really don't like giving them an at-will/encounter (signature)/daily mechanic. If I want to play 4E, I'll go and play 4E.

[Excession]

Also, the "Rogues fight by making skill checks in combat" sounds potentially cool (IF implemented well, of course). And the ground-level plan for not all Rogues to be Sneak Attack-based is good too.

I agree that it's good flavour. The risk is that you have two chances to fail for whatever you do, and one roll becomes "first, roll to see if you suck". Unless one of these rolls has a substantial bonus you may be better off using something less damaging but more consistent, such as a Fighter.

Another risk, that hopefully they learned from 4e, is that attacks that make monsters attack something are a trap. Monsters are less accurate and less damaging, so you're better off attacking by yourself, or having the Fighter attack again. It's the double roll problem, now combined with lower damage. If it is balanced for the lower hit rate and damage of monsters, you can break it by targeting the Fighter instead.

I'm a little confused by the comments about Sneak Attack, and having to give up advantage to use it. The Fighter can have advantage and use Deadly Strike just fine. I assume they're going to have SA do more damage than we saw in the last packet.

I'm glad they're simplifying Turn Undead. 455 words of rules was hilariously over-complicated.

Overall I did really like most of what he said this week though, but I'll be keeping an eye on these things in the next packet to give appropriate feedback.

I'm not convinced wizards need more slots, but I really don't like giving them an at-will/encounter (signature)/daily mechanic. If I want to play 4E, I'll go and play 4E.

Mike Mearls said that along with boosting at-will spells they're likely to remove signature spells. I agree with that change. Encounter powers make it hard to create short or "easy" encounters that are still taxing to daily resources, pushing the game back toward the "balanced encounters" pattern of 4e. Taking out a sentry struggles to be a challenge when encounter powers exist.

[obryn]

If I want to play X, I'll go and play X.

Note: Any edition of D&D can substitute for 4e in your statement and I think you've summed up the problem with D&D Next pretty well.

If you put out a Fighter and 50% of your survey responses think he's overpowered and 50% of your survey responses think he's underpowered, it doesn't mean you've hit a happy medium.

-O

[Craft (Cheese)]

So Turn Undead's gone from being a spell to being a class feature again back to being a spell under an entirely separate spellcasting subsystem in addition to daily spells for Clerics.

What. The. ****!?

So, the wizard changes. Meh. Tbh I'm more interested in seeing how they plan to implement the "standardize spellcasting so you can freely switch between casting subsystems" idea.

[Draz74]

So, the wizard changes. Meh. Tbh I'm more interested in seeing how they plan to implement the "standardize spellcasting so you can freely switch between casting subsystems" idea.

QFT. This, and the non-frontloaded-versions of classes (for multiclassing) are two very big ideas that they've promised, which will be very hard to write well but very powerful mechanics if they're pulled off.

[Flickerdart]

So Turn Undead's gone from being a spell to being a class feature again back to being a spell under an entirely separate spellcasting subsystem in addition to daily spells for Clerics.

What. The. ****!?

So, the wizard changes. Meh. Tbh I'm more interested in seeing how they plan to implement the "standardize spellcasting so you can freely switch between casting subsystems" idea.

As long as they don't make it a psionic attack mode...