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

[Raineh Daze]

The D&D long sword is based on Viking swords, what is often called a broad sword. But historical weapon names are just as arbitrary; sure the Germans called their sword a long sword, but so did the Japanese. We don't think log sword when we hear katana, do we?

It's worth laughing at, but not really making a Thing of.

And its predecessor was simply called sword, despite being generally longer. Language is a wonderful thing.

[Dienekes]

The D&D long sword is based on Viking swords, what is often called a broad sword. But historical weapon names are just as arbitrary; sure the Germans called their sword a long sword, but so did the Japanese. We don't think log sword when we hear katana, do we?

It's worth laughing at, but not really making a Thing of.

I agree, it's really not a big deal. My response was to point out that saying a longsword is ok because Aragorn used one is ridiculous because if he did use what was called a longsword it would be the D&D equivalent of a greatsword. And in the movie, Anduril was, to use D&D parlance, at least a bastard sword possibly a greatsword.

[Flickerdart]

To put things even more in favour of big swords, IIRC Robin Hood, in addition to being a great archer, was also a master of the bastard sword.

[Raineh Daze]

Swords are heroic. Big swords are even more heroic. Rangers are meant to be heroes; the sort of elite that protect, well, everything. Therefore, rangers and big swords go together like peas in a pod. :D

How I wish I had an eye-roll emote right now...

[Felhammer]

Clerics having domains over deities? I suppose this makes them a little more flexible, but I'm of mixed opinions about it thematically.

When WotC makes a new Campaign Setting, they will make domains specific to each God, at least that is what they have said. So when you play in FR and you worship Amaunator, then you will have his Domain, not a generic sun domain.

[Whiteagle]

You know why you all are sounding like idiots to those of us arguing for Dragon Slayer/Horde Breaker Paths?

Ranger - Weapon Proficiencies: All simple and martial weapons.

The only Favored Enemy Features that even SPECIFY a weapon type are:

Hunter’s Volley - Once Per Turn, when you use your Action to make a Ranged Attack, you can make another Ranged Attack.
Only add your Ability Modifier to Damage on the Second Ranged Attack if the target is Large Size or Bigger.

Slayer's Hands - When you engage in two-weapon fighting (IE the thing ANY class can do with two light Melee Weapons), you can add your ability modifier to the damage of the second attack if you attack a different creature (The only real penalty for using a second Light Weapon in your off hand).

That's IT!
The REAL difference between this two is that one is a Sneak and Snipe Ranger, and the other is a Mob Ranger!

[Dienekes]

Weren't you the one just a page or two ago arguing that rangers shouldn't be able to wield greatswords? Now you're using as evidence that we're idiots the fact that they could always use greatswords?

I feel an error has occurred in your reasoning.

Also, no need to be rude and call people idiots because they disagree with you. Seriously, it's childish and forces people to get defensive and turn hostile against you and your opinions regardless of whether you are correct or are making a reasonable argument.

Now as to your reasoning I find it flawed based upon simple optimization. Yes, they can theoretically use any martial weapon. However, the class itself forces the optimized player only two options; two-weapon fighting and archery. Every other type of ranger is at a disadvantage. This is directly against what they were saying earlier that weapon specialties would not be part of the ranger class allowing further freedom of choice for the class. This also leads to weird scenarios where the evasion ranger is always going to be a better archer because WotC decided it was so (or whatever other ability they have I don't really feel like looking).

Personally as a class model goes, I think having weapon styles be purely within the realm of feats was fine. This allows more customization and does not put unnecessary restrictions on concepts which this current mechanic does.

Now is it the end of the world of D&D as we know it? Of course not. However, it is disappointing to repeatedly hear the developers come up with some decent ideas and then almost immediately disregarding them or forgetting about them. It's sad. This is just the most recent example.

[BayardSPSR]

Things.

I agree to those.

If you can choose between two advantages, and choose to use neither, you're handicapping yourself. You could technically play a 3.5 Ranger with a greatsword, but to do so would be to abandon the free advantages you get for not doing so.

It's sort of like using a Wizard as a crossbow-armed Fighter: you can, you're just ignoring the most useful things you can do with that class.

[Whiteagle]

Weren't you the one just a page or two ago arguing that rangers shouldn't be able to wield greatswords? Now you're using as evidence that we're idiots the fact that they could always use greatswords?

I was arguing why it was stupid, not that you couldn't do it.
Plus I realised how pointless this argument was after I had finished on the Computer for the night.

Now as to your reasoning I find it flawed based upon simple optimization. Yes, they can theoretically use any martial weapon. However, the class itself forces the optimized player only two options; two-weapon fighting and archery. Every other type of ranger is at a disadvantage. This is directly against what they were saying earlier that weapon specialties would not be part of the ranger class allowing further freedom of choice for the class.

But THEY AREN'T!
Hunter's Volley only allows you to make two Ranged Attacks for an action, and you can only add your Ability Modifier to the Damage of the first if your attacking anything Medium Sized or smaller.
At best you are doing an extra 1d10 in exchange for giving every attack against you Advantage until your next turn!

Slayer's Hands only allows you to add the Ability Modifier to the Damage of your second Light Melee Weapon IF you attack a second Target with it.

Both are pretty much outmoded by Two Attacks at Level 8 (Unless it can be used WITH them, in which case an Archer gets THREE Shots to add his Modifier to the Damage of only two and TWF gets FOUR attacks that he has to split between at least two Targets), Slayer's Hands by Whirlwind Attack at Level 15.

[Craft (Cheese)]

And the Mage right now is Pigeonheld err Pigeonholded err what would be the right tense for that... Anyways right now the Mage is being forced to pick Illusion, Enchatnment, Evocation... And right now int he process of things there is nothing wrong with having limited choices.

Since the new "social" mechanics we were promised are basically a bust, I've arbitrarily decided I'll be interested in the playtest again when WotC adds the Conjurer and Transmuter arcane traditions to the Mage/Wizard/Whatever.

Well, I'M WAITING!!

[Anderlith]

Does anyone know if the "knight" fighter subclass gets more than one measly d4 as it gains levels? The whole subclass structure is out of wack

[Craft (Cheese)]

Does anyone know if the "knight" fighter subclass gets more than one measly d4 as it gains levels? The whole subclass structure is out of wack

Read as written, no, it doesn't advance as you gain levels like a Rogue's. It probably should though.

Say, has anyone noticed the highlighting pattern on the class tables? 1-5 is on a lighter background, 6-11 on a darker background, 12-17 on a light background again, and 18-20 on a dark background. This seems to be the case for each class.

My first guess is that these are the new "tiers" that just haven't been given official names yet.

[Moreb Benhk]

But THEY AREN'T!
Hunter's Volley only allows you to make two Ranged Attacks for an action, and you can only add your Ability Modifier to the Damage of the first if your attacking anything Medium Sized or smaller.
At best you are doing an extra 1d10 in exchange for giving every attack against you Advantage until your next turn!

I think you misread. The best you can do (against large or bigger) is make a free extra attack every turn. The 'small' ability of 'TWICE AS MANY ATTACKS' seems not so small to me, especially at low levels.

Furthermore it seems that if your argument that 'they just want to test bow dudes and TWF types' is true (which I do not think it is), they are going about it in an extremely hamfisted manner. Because all you will see is TWF and bow rangers. If you want to test the systems you say "here are the generic feats and stuffs around those fighting styles. tell us how it works out". You don't go... "yeh you are basically going to have to be a ranger, and if you are a ranger, you'd be foolish not to be one of these guys".

[SiuiS]

I agree, it's really not a big deal. My response was to point out that saying a longsword is ok because Aragorn used one is ridiculous because if he did use what was called a longsword it would be the D&D equivalent of a greatsword. And in the movie, Anduril was, to use D&D parlance, at least a bastard sword possibly a greatsword.

Aye. Just skimming the argument because it's silly, and this caught me. It's important to pull out of the tunnel vision sometimes.

You know why you all are sounding like idiots to those of us arguing for Dragon Slayer/Horde Breaker Paths?

We don't, and you're trying to make it look that way by using a rhetorical technique?

Look. Here is the problem. Ignore all your petty fluff quibbles about what rangers should or playtest a shouldn't and all that.

Why is a mechanic dedicated solely to what you target, involving a specific weapon set at all, which was sworn to be off the docket?


This is all that's important. Everything else is badinage and obfuscation.

Since the new "social" mechanics we were promised are basically a bust, I've arbitrarily decided I'll be interested in the playtest again when WotC adds the Conjurer and Transmuter arcane traditions to the Mage/Wizard/Whatever.

Well, I'M WAITING!!

On the topic of bein off topic, what's that word for a game interface problem again? I keep wanting to say "haptic" but I know that's wrong.

[Whiteagle]

Since the new "social" mechanics we were promised are basically a bust, I've arbitrarily decided I'll be interested in the playtest again when WotC adds the Conjurer and Transmuter arcane traditions to the Mage/Wizard/Whatever.

Well, I'M WAITING!!

Well I think we're all waiting on Transmuter, it's the most fun Magic to Play after all!

I think you misread. The best you can do (against large or bigger) is make a free extra attack every turn. The 'small' ability of 'TWICE AS MANY ATTACKS' seems not so small to me, especially at low levels.

Well yes, it is rather powerful at low levels...
...Then you get Two Attacks at Level 8, except you don't give everything Advantage on Attack Roles against you for your next turn.

Basically, a Dragon Slaying Ranger is going to make himself an easier target if he uses Hunter's Volley, so it's only going to be useful for the six levels until he get Two Attacks.

Furthermore it seems that if your argument that 'they just want to test bow dudes and TWF types' is true (which I do not think it is), they are going about it in an extremely hamfisted manner. Because all you will see is TWF and bow rangers.

That's not MY argument, mine is that these are just the FIRST two Paths and we will hopefully see further Paths emphasizing other styles of Ranger Fighting, like one that uses Bolas and Nets to Restrain Target or Javelins, Spears, Tridents, and Pikes to keep them at a distance.

Why is a mechanic dedicated solely to what you target, involving a specific weapon set at all, which was sworn to be off the docket?

Well Favored Enemy wasn't "off the Docket" for one and two I don't think the Ranger is going to be limited to these two Paths, which only provide minor bonuses for a particular weapon set at low levels anyways...

[SiuiS]

Well Favored Enemy wasn't "off the Docket" for one and two I don't think the Ranger is going to be limited to these two Paths, which only provide minor bonuses for a particular weapon set at low levels anyways...

This does not answer the question of why Favored Enemy has not only included specific weapon clauses (is it favored weapon now? Favored style? I thought it was about knowing your enemy), but why it included specific weapon clauses which were off the docket.

Is that clearer?

[BayardSPSR]

Personally, I'm fine with different styles being good for different situations, and I'm fine with testing out such styles. It's just that when we're given only two of those, and they just so happen to be Ranger-specific, AND then just so happen to be bow and TWF-specialization, with nothing else yet, that's a lot of coincidences. That's not "testing out all the weapons", not yet; that's the 3.5-style Drizzt-itis that we were told was gone for good.

I don't want to speculate on the next packet (no pun intended). Let's discuss it when we see it. Let's work with the information we've been given, rather than making assumptions about the information we don't have.

[Whiteagle]

This does not answer the question of why Favored Enemy has not only included specific weapon clauses (is it favored weapon now? Favored style? I thought it was about knowing your enemy), but why it included specific weapon clauses which were off the docket.

Is that clearer?

Well I don't think they were "off the Docket," they just didn't want to LIMIT the Ranger to a choice Archery or Two-weapon Fighting...
That just unfortunately the first two types of Paths they could come up with.
Really it's only a single Feature apiece that has these specific weapon clauses, and they're not all that defining to the Path when you think about them.

Hunter's Volley basically gives you two Ranged Attacks for your Action at the cost of adding your Ability Modifier to the Damage of the second if the Target isn't Large Sized or bigger AND giving Opponents Advantage on Attack Rolls against you for basically an entire Round.
Yes, with a Long Bow this IS powerful... Until you get Two Attacks at Level 8, at which point it's completely useless.

Slayer's Hands just give you back the Ability Modifier to Damage on your Off-hand Weapon, and only when you use it to Attack a second Target.
More useful then the Volley in the long run sure, but it requires you to spread the Damage around which a Horde Ranger would be doing anyways.
Even then, you get Whirlwind Attack at Level 15, and that actually favors a Two-handed Heavy Weapon since you can only make a single Attack against every Target within five feet of you.

Ironically, the Dragon Slayer's Path has a better ability for Two-weapon Fighting at it's End Cap: Slayer's Momentum.
It does an extra 1d6 of Damage each time you Damage an Enemy before the End of your next Turn and, if Two Attacks doubles the amount of attacks you can make with Two-weapon Fighting, you could end up doing an extra 3d6 of Damage on TOP of the 2d6+Ability Modifierx2+2d6 both your Light Weapons are doing.
Even if it doesn't double up, you're still doing a potential 1d6+Modifier+2d6 with an additional chance to do 1d6+Modifier+3d6 on the same Target your next Turn.

Personally, I'm fine with different styles being good for different situations, and I'm fine with testing out such styles. It's just that when we're given only two of those, and they just so happen to be Ranger-specific, AND then just so happen to be bow and TWF-specialization, with nothing else yet, that's a lot of coincidences. That's not "testing out all the weapons", not yet; that's the 3.5-style Drizzt-itis that we were told was gone for good.

Well you have to realize those two were probably the easiest to shove out the door and, as I just explained, they're not as Specialized as you might think.
I mean, a Ranger based around pointy sticks or Restraining is kind of new ground, especially for the latter since I believe it is a new mechanic...

[Felhammer]

This whole debate about the Ranger is so silly. Accusing the designers of lying? That's just silly. Everyone needs to take a chill pill and move on to another topic.

Since the new "social" mechanics we were promised are basically a bust, I've arbitrarily decided I'll be interested in the playtest again when WotC adds the Conjurer and Transmuter arcane traditions to the Mage/Wizard/Whatever.

Well, I'M WAITING!!

The new RP mechanics were not promised for this packet but one in the future.

[Master_Rahl22]

Does anybody else feel like they're removing customization bit by bit? With skills gone, and feats optional (which I hate by the way) and classes not picking their path until level 3, characters of each class will play nearly identical to each other.

One of the things I like about 3.5 and 4E is that even at level 1, my fighter can be different than your fighter. In Next, not so much.

[Flickerdart]

I can see a few advantages, however dubious, to low customizability at low levels.

1) Characters are really easy to make, which means it's easier for people to get into the hobby. If every level 1 fighter is made the same, walking people through the process will be extremely easy.

2) Without mechanics to differentiate early characters, people will be forced to roleplay for meaningful differences. By the time the character can pick stuff, they will have a personality that can guide those decisions - hopefully, away from the optimized options and towards more "flavorful" picks that mask how broken the game is.

3) In a lethal 2e style game, you can quickly whip up a backup guy after Grognath the Destroyer #23 dies to a boulder trap, without needing a lot of system mastery.

4) Given that all of 5e is basically E6, the early levels become that "level zero" that some people keep trying to get. Some people just want to play a very simple game, and levels 1 and 2 of 5e are catering to those people.

[Dimers]

1) Characters are really easy to make, which means it's easier for people to get into the hobby. If every level 1 fighter is made the same, walking people through the process will be extremely easy.

2) Without mechanics to differentiate early characters, people will be forced to roleplay for meaningful differences. By the time the character can pick stuff, they will have a personality that can guide those decisions - hopefully, away from the optimized options and towards more "flavorful" picks that mask how broken the game is.

3) In a lethal 2e style game, you can quickly whip up a backup guy after Grognath the Destroyer #23 dies to a boulder trap, without needing a lot of system mastery.

4) Given that all of 5e is basically E6, the early levels become that "level zero" that some people keep trying to get. Some people just want to play a very simple game, and levels 1 and 2 of 5e are catering to those people.

Point 1 brings up another goal mismatch. Trying to unite the existing fanbases and trying to get new people involved can lead away from each other quickly. As a member of an existing fanbase, I've seen a thousand nearly-identical low-level fighters already. But if the design lets me do something interestingly different, it may be too complex for newbies.

I think your second point is off entirely. People who like to roleplay -- new or not, incidentally -- will do so whether or not they have boring mechanics, and people who don't aren't going to be forced to by boring mechanics. Furthermore, trying to impose roleplaying (which I don't think they were trying to do and which I don't think would see any success) disregards other valued aspects of the game, like combat and exploration. And your point 3 is a great illustration of that. Forcing yourself to come up with RP to differentiate Grognath #23 from Grognath #24 ... ?

[Kurald Galain]

1) Characters are really easy to make, which means it's easier for people to get into the hobby. If every level 1 fighter is made the same, walking people through the process will be extremely easy.

In that case, they're overdoing it. "Pick four skills you like from this list of twenty" is absolutely not too complicated for beginners. By refusing to include a skill system in the default rules, WOTC is just reinforcing the idea that D&D is all about combat.

The primary thing that makes character creation hard is feats, actually. Pick one feat out of this list of 1000 of them, yeah, that's not going to fly with beginners. To a lesser extent, this applies to spells in 3E and powers in 4E. But skills? Not hard.

[Flickerdart]

I did say they were dubious. I personally don't endorse any of them, but they are possible reasons some people might give for doing such a thing, and the designers may subscribe to some or all of them.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Especially when it was "pick 4 skills out of this list of 8 class skills."

Feats were worse because they were both scattered and there were tons of trap options. But remember the default progressions in the PHB2? Include those and all you have to do to be a (moderately) workable character is say "OK, I want to be a Destroyer Barbarian."

[1337 b4k4]

As a member of an existing fanbase, I've seen a thousand nearly-identical low-level fighters already. But if the design lets me do something interestingly different, it may be too complex for newbies.

I can't help but feel that, unless the system is actively hindering you from differentiating them, if you need mechanics to differentiate your characters "you're doing it wrong".

Don't get me wrong, options are great and if the system gives you options that's great too. But the system should also have a way to get up and running without needing to puzzle through all of those options. You should be able to be presented with a default path that's capable and effective without needing to know anything more about the game. There's a reason pre-gens are a recommended way for getting people to try a game the first time these days, because the character creation mini-game is only part of the experience, but for a new person can dominate the entire first session.

[BayardSPSR]

It seems like a decent change to me - it gets away from having to plan a character ten levels in advance, unlike 3.5. It always seemed a little unfair that it took a fair bit of experience for new players to learn what not to do to avoid permanently gimping their characters (Toughness, I'm looking at you).

I've always felt like the most interesting differences demanded sub-optimal multiclassing, anyway. I like having lots of options for my characters, and I dislike class-and-level systems for that reason, but if you're going to do a class-and-level system you might as well play to its advantages.

So good things! For now.

[obryn]

I can see a few advantages, however dubious, to low customizability at low levels.

1) Characters are really easy to make, which means it's easier for people to get into the hobby. If every level 1 fighter is made the same, walking people through the process will be extremely easy.

I can't object to this too much, after spending a whole lot of time with my RC D&D stuff. That's a fabulous game for scaling complexity; it's dead-simple to make a character, and they only get complicated once you've put a few levels into them. I've been huffing and puffing about the whole "just start at 3rd/4th level!" advice, but I'm slowly coming to terms with it for the game Next is trying to be.

In that case, they're overdoing it. "Pick four skills you like from this list of twenty" is absolutely not too complicated for beginners. By refusing to include a skill system in the default rules, WOTC is just reinforcing the idea that D&D is all about combat.

My understanding is that there will be a bolt-on skill system, but they don't know where to go with it yet. They have said that the DCs are way, way off. It's weird for me to take Next's side here ... but give it a packet.

The primary thing that makes character creation hard is feats, actually. Pick one feat out of this list of 1000 of them, yeah, that's not going to fly with beginners. To a lesser extent, this applies to spells in 3E and powers in 4E. But skills? Not hard.

Feats are, indeed, utterly terrible and bloated and the worst part of both 3e and 4e character generation and leveling. Skills aren't hard, but they also aren't as necessary when you have backgrounds and classes to pull from.

A saving grace here is that you don't need to worry about feats until 4th level, at least, which fits into simple-to-make characters nicely. And with the way feats seem designed, there's no "trees" to worry about because each one is a sort of self-contained feat tree in and of itself. And arguably, the stat bumps are usually a better option after you pick up your skill set, anyway.

I find myself hating feats a lot less in 5e for these two reasons.

As I've said, I think this packet is a vast improvement over the previous one. Plenty of rough edges, but I honestly didn't expect this large a shift. I don't think the game's hopeless at this point.

-O

[Flickerdart]

I like feats as a design space. I don't mind class-based distinctions - it makes perfect sense that a guy who makes a living by knocking heads off orcs with his axe is going to be a substantially different person than the bookworm. If anything, 3e kind of got away from itself and completely lost the reason for having classes, what with all the PrCs and dips and stuff that let you be a wizard tougher than a barbarian.

But I digress. Feats, at their best, represent skillsets which are shared among different professions. The barbarian might get angry while the monk meditates, but they both hit guys right afterwards, so making "hit the guy special-like" a feat just makes sense. You can also avoid things like every melee build starting with Barbarian 1 by making Pounce a feat. The awkward thing is that feats that improve a specific class are lumped in with these general feats, which is more of a formatting issue than anything.

In late 3.5, feats were also used as an effective way of low-impact multiclassing. Drop a few feats, now you're an amateur incarnum user or initiator or binder. Cool stuff, but now feats are up to three different things, which is going to be really confusing for new players. Given that we haven't seen any multiclass stuff yet, it's possible this category won't even exist, but it feels like feats that improve class features and feats that are general should be divided more thoroughly.

There is a distinction to be made somewhere between "special technique that anyone can learn" and "special technique that only members of this class can learn". The easiest way to do that would simply be to make anything with an attack roll a feat, and leave class features to cool abilities (like Dungeoncrasher).

[Morty]

Continuing my random observations, it seems that there are still no rules for casting while being attacked. There are rules for being damaged while casting a spell that requires more than one round, and for concentration, but it looks like there's no way to interrupt a single action spell.