D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

[Craft (Cheese)]

What if base classes only went up to level 5-6, maybe 8, and then you have to branch into a more specific subset of, say, "Rogue", for example, "Assassin" or "Combat Trapsmith" or whatever.

That's the basic idea behind Paragon Paths, though you still advanced in your base class partially once you hit level 11. They worked better than 3.5's PrCs did, I think, but the main problem is you're forced to pick a path that's compatible with your class. If you don't think any of the ones in the books are a good fit for your character, then, well, tough ****. You're out of luck, unless your DM will let you homebrew something. I remember when I planned my first 4e character (that I never ended up playing) with nothing but the PHB1, and when it came time to decide what Wizard Paragon Path I wanted to take I thought "Wow, none of these appeal to me! Can I just not pick one and take extra wizard powers?"

[Scowling Dragon]

Well 2e essentially has kits. Where you replaced some of your classes core abilities in exchange for other ones that leveled with you.

So a bard could be.....a Cavalier, a Viking War chanter exetera.

So you had the ability to specify what kind of character you wanted strait from the beginning, and until the really bad stuff started coming out was pretty balanced.

[Yora]

3rd Edition did this with alternate class features and racial substitution levels. Those wer quite well recieved, I think.

[Oracle_Hunter]

That's the basic idea behind Paragon Paths, though you still advanced in your base class partially once you hit level 11. They worked better than 3.5's PrCs did, I think, but the main problem is you're forced to pick a path that's compatible with your class. If you don't think any of the ones in the books are a good fit for your character, then, well, tough ****. You're out of luck, unless your DM will let you homebrew something. I remember when I planned my first 4e character (that I never ended up playing) with nothing but the PHB1, and when it came time to decide what Wizard Paragon Path I wanted to take I thought "Wow, none of these appeal to me! Can I just not pick one and take extra wizard powers?"

I take it your DM had not noticed Paragon Multiclassing (PHB1 209) then

[Craft (Cheese)]

I take it your DM had not noticed Paragon Multiclassing (PHB1 209) then

Less than ideal, considering you have to dump at least 4 feats into Paragon Multiclassing to make it work.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I agree with Craft that PrCs won't satisfy the devs' design goals but that there are problems with forcing a Path/ACF on people, though those problems were mostly the fault of the 4e implementation. In 4e each class had a small selection of paths, a good number of which were keyed to certain builds or races, so you generally had 2-4 choices for your character barring multiclassing. If 5e has more general paths that are open to more classes, each character will have a lot more options and can probably find a better fit among 12+ PrCs than 2-4 Paths.

The real question with PrCs, I think, is how they're going to handle caster multiclassing. The problem with 3e caster PrCs was that either it advances casting at every level and is strictly better than the base class, advances it at all but one or two levels but is so good that it makes up for that, or advances it at fewer levels than that and generally isn't worth it. Even with the reduced power level and scaling of 5e casting, it'll likely be hard to figure out what "+1 level of spellcasting" is worth and balance it accordingly. Hopefully multiclassing is in the next packet and we can see what they're planning; I'd like to see something like the 3e archmage where you give up individual slots for more granularly-balanced powers, but there are lots of ways they could make it work (and lots more they could make it not work).

[Oracle_Hunter]

Less than ideal, considering you have to dump at least 4 feats into Paragon Multiclassing to make it work.

Oh sure, but you could have also multiclassed into another Class's Paragon Path (not great with just PHB1 admittedly) with just the one Feat. Basically I guess if you didn't like the Wizard PPs and none of the other PPs appealed, Paragon Multiclassing was there for a "build your own."

Was it great? No, but it was a solution to the very problem you noted.

[Draz74]

Could you imagine what types of PrCs would fit with goals like "I want to find the rare cure for my father's disease" or "I want to find a suitable husband for my sister" or "I want to spread the influence of my god's religion?" Me neither.

Nitpick: "I want to spread the influence of my god's religion" is pretty easy to turn into a PrC similar to the 3.5e Evangelist. But in general, your analysis is quite sound.

I think the best way to "fix" PrCs would be to make them work like racial substitution levels: You can trade, say, your 4th level class feature in exchange for this alternate (but balanced) feature if you meet the requirements. Except the requirement is based on meeting an in-story requirement rather than being a particular race. If you meet the requirement later, you can switch out your substitution levels retroactively, and if your DM permits you can start the game having already met the requirement as part of your backstory. So, if you're a member of the Knights of the Black Axe, you can trade some of your Fighter maneuvers to get exclusive, special maneuvers in their place, and when you level up, you can learn more of the special Black Axe maneuvers instead of taking new ones from the standard Fighter list.

I was thinking something similar: if they want the role of PrCs to be "mechanical awards for characters accomplishing specific quests that fit their concept," then PrCs should be one-time perks, rather than new classes that PCs can take levels in.

But I disagree with needing to swap out your class's features in order to attain these features. One of the things 4e did right was saying "Paragon Paths don't detract from your base class's progression." I'd prefer limiting PrCs with a simple rule like "you only get one PrC-like 'perk' per 5 character levels." (And you gain them when you earn them in-game, not automatically when you reach level 5, 10, 15, or 20.)

For example, to use your Rainbow Serpent example, your arcane caster could gain the use of one spell from [Cleric-like thematic spell list] per quest that he's done for the Couatls. (And of course these count against the one-per-five-levels limit of "perks" that all PrCs share.)

[Craft (Cheese)]

I was thinking something similar: if they want the role of PrCs to be "mechanical awards for characters accomplishing specific quests that fit their concept," then PrCs should be one-time perks, rather than new classes that PCs can take levels in.

But I disagree with needing to swap out your class's features in order to attain these features. One of the things 4e did right was saying "Paragon Paths don't detract from your base class's progression." I'd prefer limiting PrCs with a simple rule like "you only get one PrC-like 'perk' per 5 character levels." (And you gain them when you earn them in-game, not automatically when you reach level 5, 10, 15, or 20.)

For example, to use your Rainbow Serpent example, your arcane caster could gain the use of one spell from [Cleric-like thematic spell list] per quest that he's done for the Couatls. (And of course these count against the one-per-five-levels limit of "perks" that all PrCs share.)

Or we could just call them what they actually are in that case, Grandmaster Boons. 4e had 'em too, though 4e had problems with players abusing getting a bajillion of them at once (which a simple houserule fixes). I've never played a game of 4E where the DM allowed them though, so I can't say from experience how they turn out.

My substitution level idea was intended to maintain the idea that a PrC represents a specialization or a reinterpretation of a class's abilites, which I think a series of substitution levels simulates better than a one-off boon.

[Scowling Dragon]

I don't like the Pyragon path ideas is that they just come out of nowhere.

Its like "Doo dee doo HOLY CRAP! Now im suddenly part of THIS specific subset!"

There seems to be no, FLOW, from ordinary class to sudden very specific character archetype.

[Clawhound]

In fantasy, complete disconnects can be true.

Joe the fighter gets hit by a lightning bolt then shows amazing lightning power.

Joe the fighter gets hired by a god and given new powers.

Joe the fighter discovers that he has elemental blood in his veins and finds new power.

Joe the fighter joins a strange cult just to get the powers.

Joe the fighter admits his secret to his comrads. He's been hiding his devil curse for years, but now it seems to be giving him power.

Almost defeated by Big Bad International, he proceeds to study their fighting style so that he is never defeated by them again.

I think that there's lots and lots of flow for prestige classes. I thought of six ways in two minutes, for a fighter no less, which is more than WotC has ever shown itself capable of inventing in ten years.

[Draz74]

Or we could just call them what they actually are in that case, Grandmaster Boons. 4e had 'em too, though 4e had problems with players abusing getting a bajillion of them at once (which a simple houserule fixes).

Fine by me. I'm not overly sentimental about the nomenclature "Prestige Classes."

My substitution level idea was intended to maintain the idea that a PrC represents a specialization or a reinterpretation of a class's abilites, which I think a series of substitution levels simulates better than a one-off boon.

The problem is that, unless the specializations are tied to specific classes (e.g. only Fighters can become Purple Dragon Knights; never Paladins or any other warriors), this would lead to balancing nightmares where e.g. a Fighter's Level 6 feature has to be the same strength as the Paladin's Level 6 feature, and neither of them can be fundamentally crucial to the class concept, so that they will be equally replaceable by the Purple Dragon Knight Level 6 feature.

[Morty]

Personally, I think that the purpose of prestige classes should be to facilitate concepts which are too narrow and exotic to be reasonably covered by the base classes. They shouldn't be ways to make an existing build better. I agree with WotC on that, but little else, it seems.

[Anderlith]

Anyone else having difficulty getting the new playtest? I'm eastcoast & I can only download the November update

[Craft (Cheese)]

I haven't gotten my email yet so I'd presume the packet still isn't up, unless you have evidence that some people already have it.

[Seerow]

I haven't gotten my email yet so I'd presume the packet still isn't up, unless you have evidence that some people already have it.

People on the WotC forum are saying they have it and discussing it. I haven't gotten my e-mail yet though, trying to check the site directly now.

Edit: Yeah, it's up now. And apparently goes all the way to level 20. Quick look at the spell list and classes is... not encouraging.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Hoo boy, guess I'd better give it a look myself.

[Seerow]

Hoo boy, guess I'd better give it a look myself.

If you're hoping for anything resembling an interesting fighter, or at least one balanced against their casters, I'd recommend avoiding it and saving yourself the disappointment.

[Doug Lampert]

If you're hoping for anything resembling an interesting fighter, or at least one balanced against their casters, I'd recommend avoiding it and saving yourself the disappointment.

On the other hand, they did fix the monsters, which was my "You WILL fix this prior to my next playtest session, because there won't be a next playtest till you fix it" problem.

Skill dice strikes me as complexity and die rolling for its own sake.

Looks like there are going to be LOTS of dead levels for upper level characters.

Magic item described distributions and random tables are still from two totally different games.

No feats at level 11+, so four is all you ever get.

Fighter parry MAY still be good enough to make them playable at high level (it's even better than the manuever was as you also get your skill die), but this requires that there be a way to make parry apply vs. things other than melee attacks or more than once per reaction (I haven't really looked at all the options and manuevers yet). And at best fighters will simply be the best at killing and surviving in melee combat.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I just read the new spell list for spell levels 6-9. And the new "high level" content in general.

The most comforting response I can think of is they just have no clue what they want to do with it, so they're just tossing a broken mess at us and hoping we give them feedback that gives them an idea of what direction they need to take.

This probably isn't the case.

I'll be back, I need to make a booze run.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Well this packet is certainly underwhelming. First impressions:

Classes
--Dead levels, dead levels everywhere.
--The cleric has 4d6 martial damage dice while the fighter and rogue have 6d6; CoDzilla may rise again
--Fewer spells per day overall

Spells
--Hit point threshold for spells are back and are being overused.
--Finger of death has a free Fell Animate effect now.
--Everything is clunky about the descriptions, from the circumlocution to avoid using keywords to harm's "roll 13d6, compare it to their HP, if it's higher do this, else deal the rolled damage unless they save for half"

Skills
--People were complaining in the last packet that +7 to a skill check was too much...so now skill dice go up to 1d12, and everyone has the same die size
--Like Doug said, skill dice are rolling for rolling's sake

...

I'm just going to stop there.

Overall impression:

[Anderlith]

Still hating the Armor section of the Equipment, & hating what they have done with Expertise.

Also, when reading the description of Mage Armor, I couldn't help but imagine a wizard doing the transformation scene from Sailor Moon

[Seerow]

So apparently charging and 5ft stepping have been relegated to feats. Which you only ever get 4 of.

Wish and Time Stop have both been buffed relative to 3.5. Other spells probably have been as well.

Fighters never get more than 5 maneuvers, ever. Their list of maneuvers to pick from is limited to 11. The Monk has more interesting maneuvers (a couple of them are things I would have been happy to see on the Fighter), but is restricted to 3 maneuvers for his entire career, and has even fewer to pick from.

[Excession]

--The cleric has 4d6 martial damage dice while the fighter and rogue have 6d6; CoDzilla may rise again

They've also added "Martial Damage Bonus", so while the Cleric is (at level 20) adding 4d6 + 5, the Fighter is adding 6d6 + 20.

Also, am I reading it right that you get your Martial Damage Dice back every turn now rather than every round?

--Dead levels, dead levels everywhere.

According Mike Mearls on twitter, the dead levels are a work in progress. Also, they're going to start telling us that sort of thing via L&L columns before the playtest is released in future.

[Scowling Dragon]

Well......at least they are trying. I just feel kinda bad for them.

[Kurald Galain]

First thoughts,

• Channel divinity is back again, after being removed in the previous package - why do clerics need two forms of spellcasting gain? WOTC seems incapable of making up their mind here.
• Why do clerics get a lot of "martial damage dice"? For that matter, "martial damage bonus" is redundant to "martial damage dice".
• Long and decent list of deities.
• The playtest is still pretending that getting +1 to a single ability score is a big deal for any of the classes. Now you get to pick the ability to get +1 to, which further dilutes the effect.
• Not a lot of character options after level 10, for anyone.
• Fighters get way less 'packages' than clerics do, and for no apparent reason.
• Instead of getting 2 attacks per round at level 6, fighters are now back to getting one extra attack per day, and it starts at level 11.
• WOTC still doesn't understand the concept of centralizing rules, instead opting to copy/pasting all rules on what martial damage dice do to every class that has them.
• The rules now have situations for "having advantage but not disadvantage". Clumsy much?
• I don't understand why "rogue talents" aren't a "skill trick". They occupy the same design space.
• Really weird to see the wizard's progression table be completely empty after first level.
• Wizard encounter powers are gone again.
• I didn't bother reading the monk, but I wonder what happened to the sorc and warlock.
• There appear to be fewer maneuvers now, and they are more elegantly worded.
• Decently long spell list with pretty much all of the classics there. I'm not going to bother reading up on individual spell effects now.
• I agree that skill dice are rolling for the sake of it. Also, way to go in making skill training matter even less.
• Skill list got better by combining some redundancies, but it still contains junk like "use rope". There are still ten knowledge skills, and still no repair skill.
• Magic item rules still clunky.

Overall verdict: getting worse than the previous playtest. I'm not impressed by WOTC's attempt at crowdsourcing this.

[Excession]

The Monk level 17 class feature:

You understand all spoken languages, and any creature capable of understanding speech can understand what you say regardless of what language you use.

Monks are now dubbed.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

So apparently charging and 5ft stepping have been relegated to feats. Which you only ever get 4 of.

I didn't notice the 5 foot step part. That just makes things worse.

They've also added "Martial Damage Bonus", so while the Cleric is (at level 20) adding 4d6 + 5, the Fighter is adding 6d6 + 20.

It's not the damage that's the problem, it's the dice you can spend on maneuvers. The playtest maneuvers may suck but at least before only martial characters could use them, whereas now if a cleric picks up a maneuver via feats or multiclassing or whatever he'll be almost as good at it as a fighter is, and he has plenty of dice to spend on the "spend one die to do X" maneuvers. The cleric should really be getting 1 or 2 dice at most, if any; the strong caster/strong martial mix is more of a paladin thing.

[Excession]

It's not the damage that's the problem, it's the dice you can spend on maneuvers. The playtest maneuvers may suck but at least before only martial characters could use them, whereas now if a cleric picks up a maneuver via feats or multiclassing or whatever he'll be almost as good at it as a fighter is, and he has plenty of dice to spend on the "spend one die to do X" maneuvers. The cleric should really be getting 1 or 2 dice at most, if any; the strong caster/strong martial mix is more of a paladin thing.

Ah, I see your point. I am wondering why Clerics need melee, spells, and their own spell system via Channel Divinity.

[Zeful]

Ah, I see your point. I am wondering why Clerics need melee, spells, and their own spell system via Channel Divinity.

They don't. Just like there isn't really a good mechanical need for variant spellcasting system, regardless of the amount of complaining about the Vancian system. It's WoTC not really understanding how to actually go about the modularity they claimed to want to embody.