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

[Dimers]

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".

I need mechanics to differentiate my characters mechanically. No, really, it's true.

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.

When I noticed that, I decided the design team must feel that spellcasting is now balanced against other kinds of single-action activity.

[Perseus]

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.

I'm hoping that casting will be harder than in 3/4 e while in melee reach of a creature. One of the things that really messed things up moving from 2e onward is that casting defensively and concentration checks are a walk in the park.

Perhaps something like... If you cast while threatened you always provoke AoO. This creature threatening the Wizard rolls a D6, if the die roll is higher than the Mage's (insert ability mod here... Con, Dex, or whatever) then the Mage looses the action (but not the spell) of casting the spell. If the roll is lower then the Mage takes that amount of Damage).

Like what the Gladiator gains.

[Morty]

When I noticed that, I decided the design team must feel that spellcasting is now balanced against other kinds of single-action activity.

Well, yeah. I mean, the fighter can make three attacks with a single action eventually. How cool is that?

I'm hoping that casting will be harder than in 3/4 e while in melee reach of a creature. One of the things that really messed things up moving from 2e onward is that casting defensively and concentration checks are a walk in the park.

Perhaps something like... If you cast while threatened you always provoke AoO. This creature threatening the Wizard rolls a D6, if the die roll is higher than the Mage's (insert ability mod here... Con, Dex, or whatever) then the Mage looses the action (but not the spell) of casting the spell. If the roll is lower then the Mage takes that amount of Damage).

Like what the Gladiator gains.

It would be good. Will they do it? I doubt it. One might say that after more than a year of playtests, such a basic feature of the combat system should have been introduced already.

[obryn]

When I noticed that, I decided the design team must feel that spellcasting is now balanced against other kinds of single-action activity.

Well... I have heard from various people that most of the really abusive spells have been toned down, rather quietly.

Combined with the overall number of spells per day (rather low), it's possible they're getting close to this, at least insofar as that's possible. I'm still very skeptical about balancing daily vs. at-will abilities because of the restrictive adventure design that creates, but I can easily believe it's a much more balanced situation that 3.x.

-O

[Perseus]

Well, yeah. I mean, the fighter can make three attacks with a single action eventually. How cool is that?



It would be good. Will they do it? I doubt it. One might say that after more than a year of playtests, such a basic feature of the combat system should have been introduced already.

Well I'm going to put this into the survey... And hope it gets to them -_-

Or this will just be my house rule *shrug*

[Knaight]

One of the minor changes in this packet is weight of weapons: greatsword weights now 7 pounds, and longsword weights 4 pounds. Everything is closer to real historical weights, if still on the heavy side. If longsword+shortsword combo wasn't too heavy for a ranger earlier, greatsword shouldn't be too heavy now.

They are better, but there is still some weirdness. 110 pound plate armor for use on foot, 10 pound axes while also having 10 pound sledge hammers*, so on and so forth.

*I assume WotC realizes that sledge hammers are terrible weapons, and as such if they have the same listed weight as top heavy weapons something went wrong somewhere.

[Doug Lampert]

They are better, but there is still some weirdness. 110 pound plate armor for use on foot, 10 pound axes while also having 10 pound sledge hammers*, so on and so forth.

*I assume WotC realizes that sledge hammers are terrible weapons, and as such if they have the same listed weight as top heavy weapons something went wrong somewhere.

I'm pretty sure there was (some) 110 pound plate armor intended for use on foot. There was armor specifically designed for sieges after all and which was used to inspect the works while under fire by hand-guns and light cannon. :)

Similarly, marines could wear very heavy armor since the length of two ships was about as far as they had to walk and falling overboard during a fight was pretty close to being a universal death sentance anyway.

Now if you're talking about field plate intended to be worn by infantry in the field on land, not a chance.

[obryn]

They are better, but there is still some weirdness. 110 pound plate armor for use on foot, 10 pound axes while also having 10 pound sledge hammers*, so on and so forth.

*I assume WotC realizes that sledge hammers are terrible weapons, and as such if they have the same listed weight as top heavy weapons something went wrong somewhere.

I'd say if we're at the point where item weights are a major concern, WotC is doing very well indeed.

-O

[BayardSPSR]

I'd say if we're at the point where item weights are a major concern, WotC is doing very well indeed.

-O

Haven't weights always been an issue, though?

As long as ten-foot ladders aren't cheaper than ten-foot poles...

[Doug Lampert]

Pretend Lord of the Rings was never written. Pretend Robin Hood was never written. What weapons would you give a ranger?

Me?

Bow (including crossbow), spear and greatspear, javelin (including Atlatl), sling, blowgun, quarterstaff, club, hand-axe, battle-axe, knife/dagger, and I'd give them trapmaking and poison use and would probably give them sword simply because it's a nice sidearm for the bow wielders and I'd give them shield simply because shield based styles were so common historically.

Duel wielding is an almost entirely an urban style with the second weapon used to parry (go ahead, try to parry that wild boar's charge or that aurochs), it would never occur to me as a ranger style.

Archery styles would occur to me, but I'd have never considered one that wastes ammunition by taking more rapid shots or spreading fire. Replacing arrows in the wild is a non-trivial problem and most rangers aren't going to be adventurers with easy access to bags of holding. I want more damage per shot, probably concentrating on short range high damage attacks like a 3.x rogue could do within 30' with a sneak attack.

[Perseus]

Me?

Bow (including crossbow), spear and greatspear, javelin (including Atlatl), sling, blowgun, quarterstaff, club, hand-axe, battle-axe, knife/dagger, and I'd give them trapmaking and poison use and would probably give them sword simply because it's a nice sidearm for the bow wielders and I'd give them shield simply because shield based styles were so common historically.

Duel wielding is an almost entirely an urban style with the second weapon used to parry (go ahead, try to parry that wild boar's charge or that aurochs), it would never occur to me as a ranger style.

Archery styles would occur to me, but I'd have never considered one that wastes ammunition by taking more rapid shots or spreading fire. Replacing arrows in the wild is a non-trivial problem and most rangers aren't going to be adventurers with easy access to bags of holding. I want more damage per shot, probably concentrating on short range high damage attacks like a 3.x rogue could do within 30' with a sneak attack.

Hey hey now... Everyone knows to get more arrows one must only reach into their empty quiver that isn't there to get another arrow...

[Morty]

Archery styles would occur to me, but I'd have never considered one that wastes ammunition by taking more rapid shots or spreading fire. Replacing arrows in the wild is a non-trivial problem and most rangers aren't going to be adventurers with easy access to bags of holding. I want more damage per shot, probably concentrating on short range high damage attacks like a 3.x rogue could do within 30' with a sneak attack.

Unfortunately, it looks that in D&DN, much like in 3e, the only way to be an effective archer is to be a rapidly-firing archer. Sniping? What's that?

[Seerow]

Me?

Bow (including crossbow), spear and greatspear, javelin (including Atlatl), sling, blowgun, quarterstaff, club, hand-axe, battle-axe, knife/dagger, and I'd give them trapmaking and poison use and would probably give them sword simply because it's a nice sidearm for the bow wielders and I'd give them shield simply because shield based styles were so common historically.

Duel wielding is an almost entirely an urban style with the second weapon used to parry (go ahead, try to parry that wild boar's charge or that aurochs), it would never occur to me as a ranger style.

Archery styles would occur to me, but I'd have never considered one that wastes ammunition by taking more rapid shots or spreading fire. Replacing arrows in the wild is a non-trivial problem and most rangers aren't going to be adventurers with easy access to bags of holding. I want more damage per shot, probably concentrating on short range high damage attacks like a 3.x rogue could do within 30' with a sneak attack.

Agreed with all of this except I would expect the ranger to be more long ranged, analogous to a sniper, and capable of giving up the bonus attacks everyone else gets to get a bonus to damage on his one attack. And to have advantages to remain hidden while sniping.

[Doug Lampert]

Unfortunately, it looks that in D&DN, much like in 3e, the only way to be an effective archer is to be a rapidly-firing archer. Sniping? What's that?

I think of sniping as long range, so from my "what would you give a ranger" point of view I might not bother, all too often long range is another way to waste ammunition and the scenario of ranger vs. big group or dragon or whatever where he might want to avoid closing he probably wants to avoid areas with good long clear lines of sight too.

On a slightly different topic, on further reflection, if I give the ranger quarterstaff (which I do, a staff is a traditional wilderness warrior weapon) then I really need to also give two-handed swords, as the sword is lighter and handier and historically largely uses the same techniques. And as has been pointed out Scottish skirmishers and scouts used two-handed swords so it's perfectly reasonable on both versimilitude and realism grounds.

Edited to add:

Agreed with all of this except I would expect the ranger to be more long ranged, analogous to a sniper, and capable of giving up the bonus attacks everyone else gets to get a bonus to damage on his one attack. And to have advantages to remain hidden while sniping.

I'm thinking "Hunter" and hunting with a bow is all about shooting from within 30' or so. I can see the long range stuff you and Morty are talking about as a valid archetype, but it doesn't really scream wilderness style to me.

Clear long lines of sight are more farmland and mixed use land than outside the bounds of civilization to me.

Still, I wouldn't object to including sniper, it simply fails the "what would I personally give a ranger if these sources were missing" test.

Edited again to add:
You can't shoot a longbow prone. If we are including a hidden sniper archetype my "fails versimilitude" trigger goes off unless it's a crossbow based style. Which also fits with "one shot, one kill" being the goal given the time needed to reload a heavy crossbow, especially if remaining prone while doing so.

[Morty]

I think of sniping as long range, so from my "what would you give a ranger" point of view I might not bother, all too often long range is another way to waste ammunition and the scenario of ranger vs. big group or dragon or whatever where he might want to avoid closing he probably wants to avoid areas with good long clear lines of sight too.

It all comes down to the only good, consistent increase in damage on higher levels being more attacks. It was the case for archery in 3e, and it is the case for all weapons in the current iteration of DDN.

And I maintain that rangers should have access to all the weapons and styles in an equal measure. I see no reason to restrict them. It's not what this class is about.

[1337 b4k4]

And I maintain that rangers should have access to all the weapons and styles in an equal measure. I see no reason to restrict them. It's not what this class is about.

So what differentiates a Fighter from a Ranger?

[Grod_The_Giant]

So what differentiates a Fighter from a Ranger?

...aaaaaand now we come full circle back to fighter arguments.

I'd say that the ranger gets defined by having skills, abilities, and powers related to the wilderness. He's a druid//fighter gish, just like the paladin is cleric//fighter and the duskblade is a wizard//fighter.

[Doug Lampert]

It all comes down to the only good, consistent increase in damage on higher levels being more attacks. It was the case for archery in 3e, and it is the case for all weapons in the current iteration of DDN.

And I maintain that rangers should have access to all the weapons and styles in an equal measure. I see no reason to restrict them. It's not what this class is about.

Sure, giving a class extra options at the same general level of usefulness is usually harmless. The "generally useful options arround a theme" idea for ranger powers was a nice one.

Having all weapons doesn't HURT the ranger in any particular way, as long as the weapons are reasonably ballanced I can give him the ones I like and ignore the others.

And fewer, high damage attacks being useful for sniping doesn't make it less useful for what I see it as.

I'm more dubious about "shoot while remaining concealed" or other sniping specific options because those are powerful enough that if given they are likely to pigeon hole the ranger into a style I don't really see it using.

[Morty]

So what differentiates a Fighter from a Ranger?

The fact that the Fighter is more skilled at using those weapons than the Ranger, whose focus lies in other areas. The Fighter is a 'pure' combat class, whereas the Ranger is a 'hybrid' - some combat, some survival skills, some magic.

Sure, giving a class extra options at the same general level of usefulness is usually harmless. The "generally useful options arround a theme" idea for ranger powers was a nice one.

Having all weapons doesn't HURT the ranger in any particular way, as long as the weapons are reasonably ballanced I can give him the ones I like and ignore the others.

And fewer, high damage attacks being useful for sniping doesn't make it less useful for what I see it as.

I'm more dubious about "shoot while remaining concealed" or other sniping specific options because those are powerful enough that if given they are likely to pigeon hole the ranger into a style I don't really see it using.

That's exactly my point, yes. By allowing the ranger to use all weapons, you lose nothing and gain a wider range of character concepts.

I'm somewhat dubious about sniping being restricted to rangers, though. I could see it being a selectable ranger feature, and I could also see it as an option available to all weapon-users - including fighters and paladins.

[Raineh Daze]

So what differentiates a Fighter from a Ranger?

Wilderness stuff? Skills honed against specific types of enemy?

[Doug Lampert]

So what differentiates a Fighter from a Ranger?

If restricted weapon or style choices are all you see as differentiating a ranger from a fighter then I have to question why you want there to be a ranger class at all.

Rangers are differenciated by what they can DO that other classes can't. I hit it with two weapons or shoot it really fast is a lousy way to differentiate what the class does.

The dragon-hunter ranger is like a fighter, weaker in straight combat but with advantages that help vs. dragons like immunity to their fear effect and an evasion like power.

The horde-fighter ranger is like a fighter, weaker in straight combat but with a whirlwind attack like power that lets him blitz dozens of weak enemies at once.

The underdark ranger is like a fighter, weaker in straight combat but with blindsight and resistance to stun, daze, and poison effects.

Ext...

Notice the complete lack of any mention of weapons. Weapons may also HELP differenciate the class, but they can't be the core because weapon choices are ultimately not that big a deal if the weapon choices are ballanced.

[Perseus]

Agreed with all of this except I would expect the ranger to be more long ranged, analogous to a sniper, and capable of giving up the bonus attacks everyone else gets to get a bonus to damage on his one attack. And to have advantages to remain hidden while sniping.

This with an animal companion would be awesome.

[ImperiousLeader]

New Legends and Lore

While I'm still not sold on 5e, I understand the logic of this new character progression. Restricting options at first level makes character generation faster. That's a good thing.

This leads to a question about how tables are run:
- How many DMs enforce the idea that one must start at first level?
- Do your tables consist of PCs at different levels?

Coming from a 4e group, we start campaigns at different level. And we are the same level, even if a PC misses a week or two, they level with the rest, which is when the DM decides on we level. I don't really have a problem with starting campaigns at third level in 5e.

[Person_Man]

+1 to Perseus and Seerow's Ranger comments.

Archery has historically sucked in most editions of D&D. In early editions this was primarily due to the fact that you literally spent almost all of your combat time in a dungeon or other enclosed space, so non-magical ranged options weren't very useful. But I think it has a place in D&D Next.

For archery to be a meaningful option given the current setup, it really needs a class that's dedicated just to archery, plus some flexible supporting class features that support it, like an Animal Companion (mount or tackle dummy to stand between you and enemies), strong stealth ability, ability to ignore natural difficult terrain, etc.

And in general, I would say that if you're going to have such a rigid class based system, every class can and should have an explicitly stated role. Ranger can be archery, Barbarian melee damage, Fighter melee defense/control, Cleric leadership/healing, Wizard evocation/blow stuff up, Rogue sneaky glass cannon, Druid gish, etc.

[Flickerdart]

This leads to a question about how tables are run:
- How many DMs enforce the idea that one must start at first level?
- Do your tables consist of PCs at different levels?

I've played at 1st level...twice? over about 6 years of gaming, and neither game lasted more than one session.

As for PCs of different levels, I find the very idea abhorrent - how is it a punishment to the players for not showing up or whatever if I have to do more work balancing encounters?

[Morty]

The big problem with their plan is that they seem to be assuming everyone will play a given class once. What if I've already played a fighter and want to do it again? Why do I have to suffer two levels of being no different than any other fighter? Even if I haven't played a fighter yet, I may have played different classes, in which case I'm already familiar with the mechanics as well. Or, wonder of wonders, I'm playing D&D Next for the first time but manage to get a good enough grasp on the rules to get cracking with the more complicated parts.

Also, they're still dead-set on introducing 'simple options' alongside 'complicated options' and expecting it to work. Mearls tells us about one fighter path that lets you actually do different things and one that lets you say "I attack" every round... and seems to expect us to see it as a good thing. And of course, it's restrictive - what if I want to play a fighter whose concept, fighting style and background fit the warrior path, rather than the gladiator path, but want to actually have tactical options?

I think they're being way too hung up on making 'noob options' and easing new players in. It's a worthwhile and important goal, obviously, but it's far better served by proper explanations, clear rules and quick-start characters than dumbing down rules. Besides, the thing about new players is that they stop being new sooner or later. At which point the 'kid-friendly' rules become just boring and simplified.

[Felhammer]

The Ranger is to Fighters and Druids as the Paladin is to Fighters and Clerics. They are people who hang out in the hinterlands protecting civilization from the evil that lurks just beyond the next hill. They have both martial and magical abilities. They typically specialize in slaying specific kinds of evil creatures, and some times also specialize in fighting on/in specific terrain. They often have animal companions that aid them in their duties. Rangers also have solid outdoors-man skills (tracking, hunting, hiding, etc.).

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.

Skills aren't really that necessary for the basic game. They are fun to have as an option though.

Levels 1-2 is your proto-typical "early years" of adventuring, where you're just a farm boy who picks up a sword to defend his town from evil. By level 3, you've picked up a few tricks from adventuring and learned a bit from some masters of our craft.

The big problem with their plan is that they seem to be assuming everyone will play a given class once. What if I've already played a fighter and want to do it again? Why do I have to suffer two levels of being no different than any other fighter?

Who says you have to start at level 1? Levels 1 and 2 do not seem targeted to your playstyle, so skip them. Remember, just because you don't like a particular level, doesn't mean other people don't like those levels. If this game is all about appealing to a wider swathe of the gaming community, then there are going to be aspects that may not jive with your vision of the game. That is why the designers are making the system so modular, so that you can add, remove or change the bits you don't like.

[obryn]

This leads to a question about how tables are run:
- How many DMs enforce the idea that one must start at first level?
- Do your tables consist of PCs at different levels?

Coming from a 4e group, we start campaigns at different level. And we are the same level, even if a PC misses a week or two, they level with the rest, which is when the DM decides on we level. I don't really have a problem with starting campaigns at third level in 5e.

(1) I like to start campaigns at 1st level, but new characters start equal with the party.
(2) Also running 4e, I prefer everyone to be the same level. I used to have different levels when I ran 3e, but right now the only editions I'd run with varied PC levels are AD&D and RC/BECMI/BX.

The big problem with their plan is that they seem to be assuming everyone will play a given class once. What if I've already played a fighter and want to do it again? Why do I have to suffer two levels of being no different than any other fighter? Even if I haven't played a fighter yet, I may have played different classes, in which case I'm already familiar with the mechanics as well. Or, wonder of wonders, I'm playing D&D Next for the first time but manage to get a good enough grasp on the rules to get cracking with the more complicated parts.

I think they are really, actually serious about that "start at 3rd level if you want options" bit. Levels 1 & 2 aren't for experienced, gear-headed players once they get used to the system.

Like I mentioned above, looking through the D&D Rules Cyclopedia - one of the best editions to date imo - has kind of sold me on the concept, or at least convinced me it's not an utterly terrible idea. It's exactly how the Basic line worked, but you have a few more options in Next.

Also, they're still dead-set on introducing 'simple options' alongside 'complicated options' and expecting it to work. Mearls tells us about one fighter path that lets you actually do different things and one that lets you say "I attack" every round... and seems to expect us to see it as a good thing.

...I do see that as a good thing? I think it's delicate to balance it, but ideally I want every player to be able to dial the level of complexity they're comfortable with, without being left behind in effectiveness. Quite a few of the 4e Essentials classes managed this (though a few failed at it), and it made the game richer as a whole to add those options in. (Of course, as an aside, they messed up one critical bit - the real complexity of a character is in picking feats, not picking powers. They cut the wrong part.)

And of course, it's restrictive - what if I want to play a fighter whose concept, fighting style and background fit the warrior path, rather than the gladiator path, but want to actually have tactical options?

You make a Gladiator and add your own flavor? The Warrior line has minimal flavor options, just power-ups like "I can critically hit more."

Also, this is how you have three Fighters at the same table, but none of them play very much like one another.

I want to be clear - I feel like bizzaro-Obryn here, because I've been extremely skeptical of Next at every step. I haven't liked much about it at all. And here I am saying it looks pretty good, and that people aren't really being fair about it. But this is the very first packet period where I see the seeds of a game I'd run or play instead of any other edition of D&D, here. There's plenty of rough bits, and some stuff that may not work. But overall, it's unexpected and welcome that they changed up the game so much and actually took some risks, this time around.

-O

[Person_Man]

Also, they're still dead-set on introducing 'simple options' alongside 'complicated options' and expecting it to work. Mearls tells us about one fighter path that lets you actually do different things and one that lets you say "I attack" every round... and seems to expect us to see it as a good thing.

More importantly, how is a new player supposed to know that some classes or sub-classes are simple, and others are complicated? If I'm 12 years old and just pick up a D&D book in a used book store because the pictures were awesome (which is exactly how I discovered 1st edition D&D), and I just read through the rules and try and play it with a few of my friends, how am I supposed to figure out that we should all just be Fighters for the first few games until we have a better grasp on the rules? Wouldn't it make more sense to have the first 5 levels of every core class be dirt simple, and just be honest with players about it?

[obryn]

Wouldn't it make more sense to have the first 5 levels of every core class be dirt simple, and just be honest with players about it?

I think the first 2 levels of every class are dirt-simple, already.

But yes, a sidebar about relative class complexity would be great to include. Along with notes about all the modularity, right up front and center.

-O