D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones?

[Knaight]

I think they want to test their new copy editor. Eventually they'll change mage back to wizard and ask the copy editor to fix the wording and see what happens.

Axe: 1d6 dawizard.

Get a bigger sword or an axe? They sound a lot more helpful for keeping the horde at bay than a one-handed thing and some tiny little dagger.

They are. Spears and such are also pretty good at this sort of thing - speaking as someone who does some amount of armed sparring, if I have to fight multiple people I want a polearm of some sort to do it with, favoring a spear. If I'm stuck with a short weapon, I'd rather have a shield than a knife in my other hand. The horde-slaying items are honestly rather terrible for fighting hordes.

[Raineh Daze]

They are. Spears and such are also pretty good at this sort of thing - speaking as someone who does some amount of armed sparring, if I have to fight multiple people I want a polearm of some sort to do it with, favoring a spear. If I'm stuck with a short weapon, I'd rather have a shield than a knife in my other hand. The horde-slaying items are honestly rather terrible for fighting hordes.

That would be more realistic. Failing realism, a two handed sword of any size would be preferred for attacking an army. If I could toss this at them, that would also work. XD

[Grod_The_Giant]

On the subject of fighter maneuvers-- I'd almost like to see them set up like 3.5's tactical feats-- "after you fulfill these conditions, then you can do your super move." So you might get a "maneuver" where if you first successfully feint against a foe, then make a bull-rush attempt, you instead deal xd6 bonus damage and knock them back x squares.

Or possibly a similar recharge mechanic. "After using this maneuver, you must spend one turn fighting defensively and move at least ten feet before using it again."

Something flavorful, something to make a "maneuver" seem like just that-- a special technique that takes effort to set up and execute, but with devastating results if you pull it off.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Wiz Of The Coast has a dungeon set aside for me, for meee, for meeeeeeee!

Please don't make me write "Fifth Edition Rhapsody." It's a really long song and I'm still trying to compose a good post for my Gold & Glory thread

[Turalisj]

Do it Oracle! Do it!

[Raineh Daze]

Please don't make me write "Fifth Edition Rhapsody." It's a really long song and I'm still trying to compose a good post for my Gold & Glory thread

You know you want to~ >:3

[Oracle_Hunter]

You know you want to~ >:3

I already know what the last line is:

"Anyways, this game blows" *windchime*

[Whiteagle]

3) Combat Expertise: At first level you gain 1d6 martial damage die each round. You gain an addition 1d6 martial damage die every... When you successfully hit a target with a melee or ranged attack using a weapon with which you have proficiency, you can spend any or all of your martial damage dice to deal extra damage. Roll those dice, and add their total to the damage dealt by that attack. Martial damage dice that are not expended by the end of a round are lost, and are not accumulated from round to round. Now create a bunch of abilities and/or Feats that require X martial damage dice in order to activate them. (Basically at-will abilities, but scaled, and interchangeable with bonus damage for people who don't want to use the alternate abilities).

I LIKE it!
It's an excuse to have loads of dices that only get tacked onto attacks or physical actions instead of ordinary Skill Checks.

4) After successfully hitting and damaging an enemy (or kill an enemy, or whatever), you gain 1 Adrenaline point. You may spend 1 point of Adrenaline to use the X ability. Successfully hitting an enemy with the X ability does not give you additional Adrenaline points. (Basically you have to power up the ability to use it. Though I think this would work better with Barbarians as part of the Rage mechanic).

Yeah, sounds like a better Barbarian mechanic, especially for one whose expended his Rage.

5) After you've used the X ability, attempts to use it again on the same creature have Disadvantage. Or, after use use the X ability, attempts to use it on any creature that has seen you use it have Disadvantage. (In other words, using an ability depends on surprising your enemy with it - once they've seen it, they're no longer taken off guard by it. This encourages the PC to use other abilities, but doesn't require it).

Also good...

6) You may only use X ability against Y opponents. (Prone, Stunned, Grappled, Disadvantaged, etc. Triggered abilities will be very hard to use every round).

Good, but poses the possibility for chain abuse...
Then again, it would synergise well with spells like Grease, creating better Caster/Martial dynamics.

I have a question that I probably should have had during the first or second packet.

Why didn't they call Thunder Damage... Sonic Damage? The explanation of Thunder Damage sounds as if it is nothing more than Sonic attack, because well it is.

Have they explained this in one of their post on the WoTC forum about the game?

Well personally I'd call it "Seismic Damage," since that's what's technically CAUSING both the sound AND hurting.

A Ranger with one combat style (Dragon) isn't completely boned against undead or against aquatic half-elves...

I think where they went with the Ranger was actually a good direction. It is leaps and bounds beyond anything they previously had.

Because WoTC is actually being realistic about something for once? There are certain styles that one uses to hunt down different prey.

When hunting deer you need a different gun then when hunting elephants...

When hunting turkeys you shouldn't wear bright colors because they can see them but when hunting deer you can wear a neon vest because they can't tell neon orange from a hole in the ground.

You go ahead and fight a Dragon (being play half smartly) while using a great axe and see how many attacks you get in... And how many attacks it gets in on you. The Longbow isn't just so you can shoot it and do damage but it keeps you at a distance from the Dragon where you are normally safer.

Yeah, though I'd change the name to something more generic like "The Path of the Colossi Slayer," as well as expanding the Favored Enemy Lore feature to Giants and other big creatures.

Then we could add "The Path of the Wild Hunter," who'd get Favored Enemy Features related to Animal Companions, Tracking, and Beast Lore.

And what's the justification for the horde-slaying path giving you bonuses to two-weapon fighting?

Because hordes attack you in hordes and you need to attack multiple enemies at once.

It represents the agile two weapon fighting type that weaves their way through the battle field slaying multiple foes with each weapon.

If you are surrounded by enemies and injure one of them enough maybe they will leave the fight? Maybe you pose a threat to more than one creature at a time they won't run past you and hit the party mage?

Indeed, it makes sense that this makes you an Aragorn-type ranger instead of a Legolas one.

You're the guy that wades in and slashes the frack out of everything in arms reach instead of the sniper plinking off targets.

[Raineh Daze]

Indeed, it makes sense that this makes you an Aragorn-type ranger instead of a Legolas one.

You're the guy that wades in and slashes the frack out of everything in arms reach instead of the sniper plinking off targets.

Except for the fact that Aragorn had the one sword, and having two weapons is more of a renaissance duelling thing than medieval battlefield.

[Perseus]

I think they want to test their new copy editor. Eventually they'll change mage back to wizard and ask the copy editor to fix the wording and see what happens.

Hey now, WoTC has always had a crack team working around the clock! You make it sound like they don't show up to do their job... I mean it isn't like in the packet the words Wizard and Mage get used interchangeably...

Get a bigger sword or an axe? They sound a lot more helpful for keeping the horde at bay than a one-handed thing and some tiny little dagger.

You can, and when they are finished with the game they might have a two handed style. But you might be surprised to know that a dagger can kill a man just as easy as a sword, heck the best way to kill a full plated person was with a dagger to the arm pit.

We have the famous Prayer Mantis Kung Fu that I'm sure was made for fighting a type of enemy but has been used against other enemies too.

Also like said below, the names should be changed to more general terms, but calling something Dragon Slaying Style doesn't really hurt it... Just makes it sound cooler than Archery Style.

Well personally I'd call it "Seismic Damage," since that's what's technically CAUSING both the sound AND hurting.



Yeah, though I'd change the name to something more generic like "The Path of the Colossi Slayer," as well as expanding the Favored Enemy Lore feature to Giants and other big creatures.

Then we could add "The Path of the Wild Hunter," who'd get Favored Enemy Features related to Animal Companions, Tracking, and Beast Lore.

Seismic Damage sounds cooler, however do you want people screaming "SEISMIC TOSS" at your table :p

Totally agree on the Colossi Slayer and expanding the Lore. It feels more realistic since most big game hunters don't hunt one type of animal. Though calling something Dragon Slayer Style seems more for cool points than anything else but in the end makes you to restricted I guess. *shrug*

I hope the Ranger gets the full progression for the Animal Companion, the druid really doesn't need more power/versatility.



This playtest packet really gave me some hope for D&D Next. Sure there are some things that make me shake my head but it finally seems like that got some good concepts down... So it is slight hope, but hope none the less.

[Raineh Daze]

You can, and when they are finished with the game they might have a two handed style. But you might be surprised to know that a dagger can kill a man just as easy as a sword, heck the best way to kill a full plated person was with a dagger to the arm pit.

Unending hordes are, however, not known for being in full plate. They're known for being a teeming mass of flesh that you want to keep as far out of reach as possible and are better off killing through brute force than finesse.

Hence the weirdness of naming the TWF stuff for it.

[Knaight]

Unending hordes are, however, not known for being in full plate. They're known for being a teeming mass of flesh that you want to keep as far out of reach as possible and are better off killing through brute force than finesse.

More than that, the thing about daggers is you need to be up close and personal to use them. That's not a big deal against one guy, but when there are a whole bunch of people with weapons with some degree of reach, closing in on one of them is a pain. Stabbing one of them while out of reach of the lot? It's not such a big deal.

[Craft (Cheese)]

The arcane tradition of wizardry is ancient, stretching back to the earliest mortal discoveries of magic. It is firmly established in the worlds of D&D, with academic institutions dedicated to its study. Although other traditions exist—including sorcery and witchcraft—most mages study wizardry.

Sorcerer and Warlock classes = Mage traditions?

[Perseus]

Unending hordes are, however, not known for being in full plate. They're known for being a teeming mass of flesh that you want to keep as far out of reach as possible and are better off killing through brute force than finesse.

Hence the weirdness of naming the TWF stuff for it.

My dagger point was more for the fact that they aren't useless against enemies.

The image I have is mostly from Asian movies where a guy has two swords and is just demolishing the enemies. Even though that isn't realistic, the point where a Ranger has a different style used for different types of enemies (that can be applied to any enemy) is realistic...

Err..

Like if I have a gun and have trained for years to kill bears. I'm a bad mofo bear killer. Well when a human (full plate + sword)* or a tiger attacks me and I have my gun, I'll know that if I shoot them they will die.

I may use the same sort of feinting moves or aim for generally the same area (head or chest) and it may not be as effective as when I shoot bears... But I won't be completely useless against a full plate human or a bear (unlike the 3.e Ranger who took Favored enemy undead and the party is going to be fighting everything but undead).

*Deadliest Warrior had a pirate versus the full plate knight... The Pirate ended up putting hit gun in the Knight's face flap thingie since he couldn't shoot through his armor...I'm guessing something like that would happen.

Using TWF for offense is silly to begin with since the western fighting styles used it more as a defensive style. But hey got to keep up with the video games and let twf slash stuff to death.

Is it perfect? Nope, and it never will be. But for what they have aside from names isn't a bad set up.

I wouldn't mind seeing it set up as Lore and Style Abilities being 2 separate options... But then again that might get a bit crazy.

Edit:

Sorcerer and Warlock classes = Mage traditions?

I hope not.

I think they should drop the Sorcerer and stick with the Warlock as the main arcane alternative to Wizard.

Bard, Mage, and Warlock could be an interesting arcane party. Bards are good for charming humanoids, warlocks are good at charming demons/devils, and mages are good at charming the laws of physics/nature into becoming a copper piece harlot.

[SiuiS]

But the styles make sense now as they are tied directly to the kind of enemies they will be slaying.

You don't spend years training to become a great knife fighter if your end goal is to slay Dragons!

Plus, why can't the Ranger spend his normal feats to become better at fighting with different styles of combat?

Eh... Not, not really, no. Dragon slaying is as much a chaste and knightly pursuit as it is hunting. You need to get up close and slip a virgin's garter over it's muzzle to turn off its poison blood.

Bein at range? That's where it breathes on you. Too bad you don't have a shield...

Axe: 1d6 dawizard.

Heh.

They are. Spears and such are also pretty good at this sort of thing - speaking as someone who does some amount of armed sparring, if I have to fight multiple people I want a polearm of some sort to do it with, favoring a spear. If I'm stuck with a short weapon, I'd rather have a shield than a knife in my other hand. The horde-slaying items are honestly rather terrible for fighting hordes.

Shields are the best offhand weapon. Actually, two weapon fighting is generally sub-optimal in Next compared to sword and board, because your shield is a weapon which provides armor and max offhand damage. So, I guess horde fighting makes sense if you're a Zulu.

[1337 b4k4]

I'm not sure why I can't play a dragon-slaying dwarven Ranger with a greataxe or an orc-hunting elven Ranger with a longbow.

I don't know, why can't you? Swap "hunter's volley" for "slayer's" hands and you've got it. Nothing else on that track appears to require you to have the original skill.

[Drachasor]

I honestly do not see how you can claim that people do not complain about anything you are mentioning. We have spent 6 years debating these issues on the WotC Forums, this forum, ENWorld and hordes of other forums. Maybe you haven't been in the trenches as long as I have but these concerns are not conjured up recently, nor will they disappear by applying a different veneer.

The Warblade has a Maneuver that does static +100 damage. People who are disinclined to like the idea of martial characters doing seemingly magical acts look at that and gasp. The fact that a Fighter in 4th edition is incompetent enough to only use his signature move once a day blows their minds.

There is a threshold argument to be made but you cannot lead off by claiming that people didn't complain quite bitterly about these issues.

I honestly don't think threshold is necessarily the direction you should look to since that is completely variable. However, we pretty much know the 3.5 Fighter is too bland for most and the ToB/4E Maneuver Power Classes are definitely the top end of acceptable. Obviously any middle ground you carve out has to be found between those two extremes.

Once you figure out where you want the threshold to be, you need to decide on presentation. The ToB style spell list was maligned, as was the 4E card system. If people don't like martial powers to look like spells or "WoW style buttons" then they need to be written out in the class' description like any other class ability. You sneak maneuvers into the game by disguising them as class abilities, which very few people object to (look at 3.5 PrCs).

My point about ToB is that I think a lot of it could be used if it didn't have the "maneuver levels" and "disciplines" written like spells. Once you go over a threshold though, people will complain about stuff that wouldn't otherwise bother them. +100 damage got complained about, but who here is complaining about auto-killing things with 20hp or less? Certainly no one has because they feel it is unrealistic that I've seen.

I think there's plenty of room for a system that allows Fighters and similar classes to have a wide variety of builds and options with reaching a point where any but a tiny minority would be bothered.

I did spend quite a bit of time on the WotC forums (and some on EnWorld), and the issues aren't as big as you make them out to be. The people that complain about Barbarian raging and stuff like that are very small in number and it didn't remotely stop 3.X from being successful.

[navar100]

On the subject of fighter maneuvers-- I'd almost like to see them set up like 3.5's tactical feats-- "after you fulfill these conditions, then you can do your super move." So you might get a "maneuver" where if you first successfully feint against a foe, then make a bull-rush attempt, you instead deal xd6 bonus damage and knock them back x squares.

Or possibly a similar recharge mechanic. "After using this maneuver, you must spend one turn fighting defensively and move at least ten feet before using it again."

Something flavorful, something to make a "maneuver" seem like just that-- a special technique that takes effort to set up and execute, but with devastating results if you pull it off.

Whatever the maneuver is and however long it takes to set up, it has to be awesome enough to be worth doing instead of attacking for damage for each of those rounds of set up and doing the maneuver. It could very well be more fun to do the maneuver, but combat reality will trump the fun if just "boring" attack for damage defeats the monster quicker.

Another problem is failing to hit. If it takes several rounds to set up a maneuver then when you do it you miss, that's going to be a real let down. A chance to miss is part of the game, but it doesn't hurt so bad for when it just for damage since you can just attack for damage next round. 3E Tome of Battle warriors really hate missing on their strikes, but another strike could be available next round and ease of recovery means they don't have to wait too long to try again. Of course, spellcasters have to face bad guys making their save against their awesome spell, but they have another spell next round.

Maybe I'm giving this "problem" more weight than truly exists, but it harkens to a personal beef with once a day abilities even in 3E that are attacks. If you fail to hit or opponent makes the save, sucks to be you. Risk of failure in combat has to exist for there to be a game, but I'm concerned for when failure does happen is the character screwed out of luck for the rest of the day.

[Dienekes]

Wiz Of The Coast has a dungeon set aside for me, for meee, for meeeeeeee!

So you think you can nerf me with no reason why?
Give me a capstone that makes me cry?

[Felandria]

Sorcerer and Warlock classes = Mage traditions?

Is Sorcerer back?

[Craft (Cheese)]

Is Sorcerer back?

No, but that paragraph makes me believe the "sorcerer" will just be a Mage subclass.

[Thrudd]

If the Sorcerer is coming back, it will need to be significantly different from what it was in 3e. The 5e wizard already basically combines the mechanics of both the wizard and sorcerer of 3e. I think the subclasses of wizard are just going to be the schools of magic. Sorcerer will have to be a class with various magical special features, its own spell list, maybe bloodlines as subclasses. A warlock could even be a sublass of sorcerer, if they ever create one. It would be nice to have a charisma based full caster class, just to make things feel "even". Though I'm thinking the bard may end up being a stronger caster than it was in previous editions, based on something I read in the new packet.

[BayardSPSR]

The two-weapon-fighting against groups kind of makes sense - I think Miyamoto Musashi recommends it. Of course, that's within the context of swords (polearms being battlefield weapons), and shields weren't used in Japan in that era.

What doesn't make sense is forcing the ranger to choose between two weapons. Having them specialize in archery? Sure; it differentiates them from the Fighter. But honestly, focusing on the weapons at all just doesn't seem very ranger-y to me.

[Thrudd]

RE: Making crossbows relevant, I had some thoughts

Don't think a longbow should cost as much as a heavy crossbow, nor a shortbow as much as a light crossbow. IRL, a crossbow was 3-5 times the price of a longbow. So Shortbow 7gp, longbow 10 gp, light crossbow 30gp, heavy crossbow 50gp.
1d4 hand crossbow, 1d6 shortbow, 1d8 light crossbow and longbow, 1d10 heavy crossbow.
Light crossbow requires a full turn to load, and should weight a bit more than 6lb, probably closer to 12 lb.
Heavy crossbow requires 2 turns to load (and that's probably being generous given the 6 second round).
Light and heavy crossbows ignore some amount of armor at short range. I'm thinking 7-8 points of armor based on the fact that a crossbow bolt can pierce steel plate at over 50 yards. (this is why you'd pay the price, carry the extra weight, and put up with long loading times). Bows ignore a smaller amount of armor at short range, maybe 4-5 points, but require at least average strength to wield (or alternatively any strength penalites apply to your attack roll with bows). Armor piercing range for crossbows is longer than armor piercing range for long or shortbow. Shields still give their AC bonus against bolts and arrows.
Take a feat "crossbow master" to reduce the loading time and ignore cover, or somesuch.

light crossbow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIkxyjVu9gc
heavy crossbow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEOeZTV9wiA

[Whiteagle]

Unending hordes are, however, not known for being in full plate. They're known for being a teeming mass of flesh that you want to keep as far out of reach as possible and are better off killing through brute force than finesse.

Hence the weirdness of naming the TWF stuff for it.

Yes but the idea isn't to KILL the teeming mass of flesh, it's to make yourself a whirling dervish of slicy hurt to make the Horde think twice about approaching you.

Shields are the best offhand weapon. Actually, two weapon fighting is generally sub-optimal in Next compared to sword and board, because your shield is a weapon which provides armor and max offhand damage. So, I guess horde fighting makes sense if you're a Zulu.

Actually Shields don't do damage in this packet...

What doesn't make sense is forcing the ranger to choose between two weapons. Having them specialize in archery? Sure; it differentiates them from the Fighter. But honestly, focusing on the weapons at all just doesn't seem very ranger-y to me.

Well realise that these Rangers live in a world where hordes of Monstrous Humanoids are just something you come across in the wild.
Being able to turn yourself into a Humanoid blender to deter the more savage from trying to eat you is a useful skill.

[Moreb Benhk]

It seems to me that fairly well any argument for 'two weapons' as the hoard fighting style can be countered by the same or equivalent ones for any other type of weapon. I was happy when they said it was a thing of the past. I'm tired of rangers being so tied to fighting styles that really have nothing to do with the rest of their flavour. Then I was sad when they showed up agian.

[lesser_minion]

But the styles make sense now as they are tied directly to the kind of enemies they will be slaying.

Are dragons a common enough threat in the setting that it's worth training people specifically to slay dragons to the exclusion of all else? And even if they are, will that be reflected in games? Because if not, we have a problem here.

Now sure, you can apply what you've learned to other situations. That is a reasonable idea, but how sensible is it really?

This game was literally named after dungeons -- which tend to feature lots of twisty caverns, winding passageways and small rooms that make it very difficult for any character to keep their distance from their opponents without losing sight of them. A bow is extremely difficult to use in such situations (so are many spells, but we all know how well the rules will reflect that).

So, from a gameplay perspective, we're seeing that a major part of the game is practically designed to screw over people who overspecialise in the bow. And while D&D wasn't named for it, many games also feature lots of wilderness stuff where a ranged weapon is far more useful than a couple of pointy things. Expecting -- or even allowing -- characters to be this over-specialised is not a good thing for gameplay. And if you think it's impractical for these characters not to over-specialise, then why isn't it similarly impractical for casters?

... the hoard fighting style ...

In so far as fighting 'hoards' is a thing, I believe it's normal to use a rag and some polish.

[Morty]

Because hordes attack you in hordes and you need to attack multiple enemies at once.

It represents the agile two weapon fighting type that weaves their way through the battle field slaying multiple foes with each weapon.

If you are surrounded by enemies and injure one of them enough maybe they will leave the fight? Maybe you pose a threat to more than one creature at a time they won't run past you and hit the party mage?

Other people have already explained why that's nonsense. And the point is that despite WotC's claims to the contrary, Rangers are once again pigeon-holed into those two fighting styles, for no good reason.

You can run around slaying Dragons with a Great Axe, you just have to purchase those feats on your own rather than have them given to you.

Right. See also: wasting class features. If I choose to be a Ranger who fights with a greatsword or a spear, a part of my class abilities is useless to me.

The whole discussion and your frantic justifications for WotC's inability to let go of a legacy mechanic that never had any point in the first place reinforces my belief that DDN is doomed to failure not just because of the designers' lack of skill, but because it's got too much baggage and legacy. Years and years of bad design choices that people have taken for granted and are unwilling to let go of in favour of something better. The same goes for people who would rather have a fighter class that's a wonderful cure for insomnia than have it stray too much from the 'I hit it again' model.

[Whiteagle]

Are dragons a common enough threat in the setting that it's worth training people specifically to slay dragons to the exclusion of all else? And even if they are, will that be reflected in games? Because if not, we have a problem here.

To quote myself:

Yeah, though I'd change the name to something more generic like "The Path of the Colossi Slayer," as well as expanding the Favored Enemy Lore feature to Giants and other big creatures.

Now sure, you can apply what you've learned to other situations. That is a reasonable idea, but how sensible is it really?

This game was literally named after dungeons -- which tend to feature lots of twisty caverns, winding passageways and small rooms that make it very difficult for any character to keep their distance from their opponents without losing sight of them. A bow is extremely difficult to use in such situations (so are many spells, but we all know how well the rules will reflect that).

So, from a gameplay perspective, requiring characters to choose between specialising in the bow as opposed to specialising in any other weapon is not a good thing. And from a realism perspective, why would any monster hunter ever allow herself to be this over-specialised? If it's because of the limits of what she can study, why aren't the same limitations anywhere near as onerous for casters?

To be fair, the Ranger's whole shtick is "I'm the guy specialising in everything OUTSIDE!"

Right. See also: wasting class features. If I choose to be a Ranger who fights with a greatsword or a spear, a part of my class abilities is useless to me.

...Then why are you PLAYING a "Ranger?"

[Morty]

...Then why are you PLAYING a "Ranger?"

...because I want to play an outdoorsman and a tracker?