D&D 5th Editon Discussion: 6th thread and counting

[Knaight]

Originally Posted by Starbuck_II

Why not availble? Wow, it never says you get it specifically.

You're clearly supposed to get it, but that leaves the question of when. Not answering that is sloppy at best, though I do generally like the sorcerer. It appears a bit unbalanced, but hey, at least it isn't at the Warlock level. It is also less typo ridden, given that there's nothing quite on the level of "lasts for ten" in fabrication of the weave. Rounds, minutes? We don't know.

[Ziegander]

If anyone's interested, I've put up a play-by-post thread for a new round of playtesting (on this forum, not via Skype or anything) HERE. Unfortunately, I will not be able to DM, but I really want to dig into all the new crunch we've got to work with. We have actual numbers and data to look at this time around and I'm pretty excited for it!

[caden_varn]

Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4

Bear in mind the ideas being tossed around in this thread are building on the playtest package. Getting these ideas fleshed out and sent in as feedback should push the game being designed at WotC in this direction.

Well, I've been discussing it with my friend, and it has become clear that there is more difference in our play preference and D&D rules preference than I would have guessed (bearing in mind that I started with red box basic, through BECMI then to Advanced (1E) and up, and he has similar experience). We play happily together, and we have both DMed the other for a number of years, and still there are playstyle differences that I did not really appreciate. Getting a game that engages both of us, and a FAR wider community is going to be tricky. I hope that they do not try too hard to please everyone and end up pleasing no one.
I really hope that WotC can pull off a good product, and I think the open playtest is a good thing to hopefully avoid some of the balance issues etc. that we have had earlier.
I think the best thing this thread has reminded me of is 'This is a playtest. If you don't like it, tell them why instead of quitting. You never know, the next iteration may have moved to where you wanted.'

Now if only I can get my players to go for it too...

[Excession]

Does anyone else find the "As a consequence of knowing this invocation..." lines from the Warlock to be so bad they're hilarious?

I'd also prefer Warlocks to use either Con or Cha for their casting. Maybe it's just me, but selling part of yourself to a being of unfathomable power seems to be one of the least Intelligent ways to gain arcane power.

[Knaight]

Originally Posted by Excession

Does anyone else find the "As a consequence of knowing this invocation..." lines from the Warlock to be so bad they're hilarious?

I'd also prefer Warlocks to use either Con or Cha for their casting. Maybe it's just me, but selling part of yourself to a being of unfathomable power seems to be one of the least Intelligent ways to gain arcane power.

They make the Boon lines seem entirely reasonable, and those could use work. As for the stat, I favor intelligence - it takes intellect to drudge through old tomes, piece together rituals to contact ancient entities, study up on ancient entities to contact, and cut a deal with them that doesn't horribly screw you over. Intelligence is fine, ideally enough for hubris to kick in big - which, given that Wisdom isn't exactly a high priority stat, isn't necessarily all that much.

[Madara]

I don't know if its something wrong on my end or what, but my playtest materials don't include the Warlock or Sorcerer, or at least I can't find them. Were they only at GenCon, or what?

[Kurald Galain]

Originally Posted by Excession

Does anyone else find the "As a consequence of knowing this invocation..." lines from the Warlock to be so bad they're hilarious?

Yes. The class has decent enough crunch, but the fluff of it ranges from the laughably bad to the sheer atrocious.

WOTC seems to try really hard to blend 3E and 4E elements, or use 3E elements with some 4E terminology tacked on, or vice versa. This strikes me as an attempt to appeal to the masses, but not as consistent good design; you can't have your cake and eat it. The warlock appears to be an odd mix of 3E's invocations with 4E's pact boons and per-encounter logic.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Originally Posted by Madara

I don't know if its something wrong on my end or what, but my playtest materials don't include the Warlock or Sorcerer, or at least I can't find them. Were they only at GenCon, or what?

They were recently added, so you'll need to re-download the playtest packet to get them.

[TopCheese]

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain

Yes. The class has decent enough crunch, but the fluff of it ranges from the laughably bad to the sheer atrocious.

WOTC seems to try really hard to blend 3E and 4E elements, or use 3E elements with some 4E terminology tacked on, or vice versa. This strikes me as an attempt to appeal to the masses, but not as consistent good design; you can't have your cake and eat it. The warlock appears to be an odd mix of 3E's invocations with 4E's pact boons and per-encounter logic.

The warlock really seems like they blended the 4e Warlock with the 3.5 Binder. If they bring even half the fluff from the Binder to the 5th ed Warlock then I'll be happy. If the mechanics are as decent as the rest of 5th so far then I'll try and play a warlock.

[TheOOB]

The biggest problem I'm seeing right now is that the rogue and fighter need a little more. The other classes get new special abilities every level, and rogue and fighter levels feel a little dead by comparison. Methinks a fighter should get more CS dice on even levels, and new style abilities on odd levels. Non spellcasters really need a new ability every level, something to look forward too.

Rogues I feel the same way, they feel incomplete. They need something cool every level. I also don't like Skill Mastery, I don't like taking the dice rolling away. I'd rather have a feature that is something like they roll for skills, but if they roll less than 5 they get a 5, and every even level their min goes up. This makes them less likely to win everything at low level, and means they always have the chance to toll high.

[Draz74]

Originally Posted by Ziegander

Ah, I misunderstood how the Rogue's Scheme feature actually worked. I don't know if I like that Rogues get a an additional background, but maybe it makes sense. They really should just call it Jack of all Trades and fully integrate the Rogue as the "Background Master" class and be done with it. It would give the Rogue his "one unique thing" and offer lots of additional options (as well as the ability to not be a criminal).

With so many skills, and such expertise with them, the Rogue does feel a bit more powerful now. Again, I really have to see how this stuff plays out now to get a good grasp on the overall balance.

I foresee one-level Rogue dips being popular. Seems pretty frontloaded.

[noparlpf]

I think casters get enough abilities already. They don't need very many special abilities because they can do bleeding magic. Mundanes are the ones that need special abilities every level.

[Seerow]

Originally Posted by noparlpf

I think casters get enough abilities already. They don't need very many special abilities because they can do bleeding magic. Mundanes are the ones that need special abilities every level.

Yeah Rogues need some form of resource to manage, and more abilities. Fighters need to be getting a CS ability every level, not just every other level. In an ideal world the Fighter would be able to learn more abilities beyond the default through study/training, and be the martial equivalent of wizard; but I could settle for one ability each level.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by Seerow

Yeah Rogues need some form of resource to manage, and more abilities. Fighters need to be getting a CS ability every level, not just every other level. In an ideal world the Fighter would be able to learn more abilities beyond the default through study/training, and be the martial equivalent of wizard; but I could settle for one ability each level.

I'm currently/sporadically working on reworking the whole system as a pet project sort of thing. I'm not even at the point of playtesting it, but I was giving mundanes one or two abilities per level and leaving casters mostly just casters.

[TheOOB]

Originally Posted by Draz74

I foresee one-level Rogue dips being popular. Seems pretty frontloaded.

They have not yet released any sort of multi classing rules, but I can pretty much guarantee it won't work like it does in 3e. My guess, It'll either be something like 4e where you can kinda sort get other class features, or like 2e where you can have a sort of dual advancement type deal.

[AgentPaper]

Out of curiosity, how often have you guys seen people multiclassing in 3.5 for RP/character identity reasons, rather than simply to improve the power/mechanical aspects of their character? For this purpose, I wouldn't count multiclassing if it was done for the sole purpose of getting a PrC.

[TheOOB]

Originally Posted by AgentPaper

Out of curiosity, how often have you guys seen people multiclassing in 3.5 for RP/character identity reasons, rather than simply to improve the power/mechanical aspects of their character? For this purpose, I wouldn't count multiclassing if it was done for the sole purpose of getting a PrC.

Not very often.

Honestly, and I hope I don't get digitally stoned for this, I hope PrCs go away and never come back. I think they ruined 3e. Considering how powerful feats are, I can't think of any PrC that couldn't be handled by feats or alternate class features in the new version, and if it's that different make a new class.

[Menteith]

Originally Posted by AgentPaper

Out of curiosity, how often have you guys seen people multiclassing in 3.5 for RP/character identity reasons, rather than simply to improve the power/mechanical aspects of their character? For this purpose, I wouldn't count multiclassing if it was done for the sole purpose of getting a PrC.

I don't see classes as in-game constructions. As a D&D3.5 example;

I have a Factotum 2, Duskblade 3, Trapsmith 1, Swiftblade 5 character. I don't see that character as a collection of different classes. Instead, it's an intelligent, magical rogue who knows how to handle himself in a fight. They didn't receive Duskblade training, the Duskblade class is simply the best way that I can represent my vision of the character. (Incidentally, this is a big reason I strongly dislike tying crunch to fluff. As an example of this in D&D Next, check out Thieves' Cant, which seriously limits the range of characters that can be expressed by the "Rogue" class.)

Unless you see a PrC as an in-game construct, I'm not sure why you'd have an issue with this. If the character is honestly best represented by a Prestige class, then the character should take that set of abilities. They don't need to include PrCs in D&D Next if they represent a wide enough range of mechanical abilities through other means, but there's nothing wrong with PrCs.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by AgentPaper

Out of curiosity, how often have you guys seen people multiclassing in 3.5 for RP/character identity reasons, rather than simply to improve the power/mechanical aspects of their character? For this purpose, I wouldn't count multiclassing if it was done for the sole purpose of getting a PrC.

Where I played at my old school before we all transferred or dropped out or whatever? Fairly often. We were low-to-medium-op, and fluff was bigger than crunch.

Originally Posted by TheOOB

Not very often.

Honestly, and I hope I don't get digitally stoned for this, I hope PrCs go away and never come back. I think they ruined 3e. Considering how powerful feats are, I can't think of any PrC that couldn't be handled by feats or alternate class features in the new version, and if it's that different make a new class.

I do like the concept of a Prestige Class because in theory it's a more specialised version of a class to branch into. In 3.X it does frequently end up being lots of dips for powergaming, unfortunately, but that's a player problem, not a game problem.

Originally Posted by Menteith

I don't see classes as in-game constructions. As a D&D3.5 example;

I have a Factotum 2, Duskblade 3, Trapsmith 1, Swiftblade 5 character. I don't see that character as a collection of different classes. Instead, it's an intelligent, magical rogue who knows how to handle himself in a fight. They didn't receive Duskblade training, the Duskblade class is simply the best way that I can represent my vision of the character. (Incidentally, this is a big reason I strongly dislike tying fluff to crunch. As an example of this in D&D Next, check out Thieves' Cant, which seriously limits the range of characters that can be expressed by the "Rogue" class.)

Unless you see a PrC as an in-game construct, I'm not sure why you'd have an issue with this. If the character is honestly best represented by a Prestige class, then the character should take that set of abilities. They don't need to include PrCs in D&D Next if they represent a wide enough range of mechanical abilities through other means, but there's nothing wrong with PrCs.

I don't multiclass much, but when I do, it's because another class or PrC better represents the character I want mechanically than the continuation of the class I'm currently in. More often, I spam alternative class features and racial substitution levels to mix things up for different characters. (Different spell selection doesn't work for me because I prefer mundane classes.)

[Wargor]

Originally Posted by Menteith

I don't see classes as in-game constructions. As a D&D3.5 example;

I have a Factotum 2, Duskblade 3, Trapsmith 1, Swiftblade 5 character. I don't see that character as a collection of different classes. Instead, it's an intelligent, magical rogue who knows how to handle himself in a fight. They didn't receive Duskblade training, the Duskblade class is simply the best way that I can represent my vision of the character. (Incidentally, this is a big reason I strongly dislike tying fluff to crunch. As an example of this in D&D Next, check out Thieves' Cant, which seriously limits the range of characters that can be expressed by the "Rogue" class.)

Unless you see a PrC as an in-game construct, I'm not sure why you'd have an issue with this. If the character is honestly best represented by a Prestige class, then the character should take that set of abilities. They don't need to include PrCs in D&D Next if they represent a wide enough range of mechanical abilities through other means, but there's nothing wrong with PrCs.

That's the thing, as presented they were in game constructions. As much as you'd like it to be otherwise, (and can quite happily do by ignoring the fluff) crunch and fluff were pretty strictly linked in 3.X, at least in the eyes of the creators. I myself do the same as you really, but I can see the benefits of both methods.

[navar100]

Originally Posted by AgentPaper

Out of curiosity, how often have you guys seen people multiclassing in 3.5 for RP/character identity reasons, rather than simply to improve the power/mechanical aspects of their character? For this purpose, I wouldn't count multiclassing if it was done for the sole purpose of getting a PrC.

Is there something wrong with that?

[Menteith]

Originally Posted by Wargor

That's the thing, as presented they were in game constructions. As much as you'd like it to be otherwise, (and can quite happily do by ignoring the fluff) crunch and fluff were pretty strictly linked in 3.X, at least in the eyes of the creators. I myself do the same as you really, but I can see the benefits of both methods.

I'm not sure why that's relevant to the question.

"Out of curiosity, how often have you guys seen people multiclassing in 3.5 for RP/character identity reasons, rather than simply to improve the power/mechanical aspects of their character?."

My answer was most of the time. Most of the time I multiclass it is to more fully express mechanically what my character is. Character identity is a primary reason I multiclass. The way I handle what a class is simply makes it more fluid and, (to me) more sensible.

[AgentPaper]

Originally Posted by Menteith

(Incidentally, this is a big reason I strongly dislike tying fluff to crunch. As an example of this in D&D Next, check out Thieves' Cant, which seriously limits the range of characters that can be expressed by the "Rogue" class.)

You mean, you don't like seeing fluff tied to crunch too much. If you were really to completely untie crunch from fluff, you'd get a purely mathematical game, and a set of books describing what a wizard and a fighter is, but with no correlation between them.

Personally, I don't see any issue with Rogue's being tied to Thieves' Cant. You learn to be a wizard by studying ancient tomes. You learn to be a fighter by fighting in battles. You learn to become a cleric by praying to the gods. Why is it any different for a rogue to learn to be a rogue by spending time associating with criminals?

If anything, I think this might help all the variations on the rogue that have classically been represented by the rogue class. Instead of being a catch-all skilled, sneaky character, the rogue can be a much more specific archetype, and so you can make other, equally specific archetypes into classes as well. It gives a lot more room for the assassin, the ranger, the duelist, the swashbuckler, and all the other classic "roguish" archetypes to come into their own.

What else is a class, but a description of how you became able to do what you currently can do? If you say any character that happens to be able to cast spells is a wizard, then what is a wizard? What makes him different from a sorcerer? Or a warlock? How is a paladin different from a cleric?

[TheOOB]

Originally Posted by noparlpf

I do like the concept of a Prestige Class because in theory it's a more specialised version of a class to branch into. In 3.X it does frequently end up being lots of dips for powergaming, unfortunately, but that's a player problem, not a game problem.

I guess my philosophy is that if a concept is so complex or alien that it can't be represented via feats, spells, or alternate class features, it should be a class in it's own right. PrC's were not a big deal when D&D 3rd came out, but they started getting used for everything, and ended up getting abused. They are an easy tool to make something that looks cool without caring over much about balance or how it interacts with other classes.

[Menteith]

Originally Posted by AgentPaper

Personally, I don't see any issue with Rogue's being tied to Thieves' Cant. You learn to be a wizard by studying ancient tomes. You learn to be a fighter by fighting in battles. You learn to become a cleric by praying to the gods. Why is it any different for a rogue to learn to be a rogue by spending time associating with criminals?

Because I might want to have a Half-Orc Rogue who grew up backstabbing amongst a savage clan, with no time for the dealing of humans. Or an elven watcher who stalks amongst the woodlands to protect them against incursions. Or a bounty hunter on retainer to the King, a pirate, a military specialist, a serial killer....

There are many archetypes of the Rogue that wouldn't logically have the ability to write in a "sekret speshial" language that all criminals magically understand. This ability dramatically limits what characters can be represented via the Rogue class. If the point was to limit the range of characters expressed by the class, as you suggest, then I strongly urge them to reconsider said point. I don't believe that they will introduce a wide range of base classes, and I believe they intended to have all "Sneaky" characters use the Rogue class as a base. Thieves' Cant doesn't make sense for all "Sneaky" characters; ergo, I have a problem. If they change one of those two things (all Sneaky characters are Rogues, all Rogues have Thieves' Cant) I'll be fine.

And I honestly don't have a problem with Clerics calling themselves Paladins if they're playing the Paladin archetype. /shrug. And you're right about tying fluff to mechanics vs. mechanics to fluff, I switched the words around in my initial post.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by TheOOB

I guess my philosophy is that if a concept is so complex or alien that it can't be represented via feats, spells, or alternate class features, it should be a class in it's own right. PrC's were not a big deal when D&D 3rd came out, but they started getting used for everything, and ended up getting abused. They are an easy tool to make something that looks cool without caring over much about balance or how it interacts with other classes.

Well they are their own classes. Just with prereqs. Doesn't it seem silly to have two classes, say Rogue A and Rogue B, with identical progressions for the first eight levels before they branch out and get different abilities?

[AgentPaper]

Originally Posted by Menteith

Because I might want to have a Half-Orc Rogue who grew up backstabbing amongst a savage clan, with no time for the dealing of humans. Or an elven watcher who stalks amongst the woodlands to protect them against incursions. Or a bounty hunter on retainer to the King, a pirate, a military specialist, a serial killer....

There are many archetypes of the Rogue that wouldn't logically have the ability to write in a "sekret speshial" language that all criminals magically understand. This ability dramatically limits what characters can be represented via the Rogue class. If the point was to limit the range of characters expressed by the class, as you suggest, then I strongly urge them to reconsider said point. I don't believe that they will introduce a wide range of base classes, and I believe they intended to have all "Sneaky" characters use the Rogue class as a base. Thieves' Cant doesn't make sense for all "Sneaky" characters; ergo, I have a problem. If they change one of those two things (all Sneaky characters are Rogues, all Rogues have Thieves' Cant) I'll be fine.

And I honestly don't have a problem with Clerics calling themselves Paladins if they're playing the Paladin archetype. /shrug. And you're right about tying fluff to mechanics vs. mechanics to fluff, I switched the words around in my initial post.

And what I'm saying is, putting the "Rogue" label on your character should exactly define your character in that way. If you want to make a Wizard that learned his magic from raw, magical talent, you don't complain that the Wizard Class has rules for this stupid "spellbook" thing, you instead roll a sorcerer. If you want to play something that doesn't fit into a criminal background, then you should be playing a different class. Your Half-Orc should be an Assassin. Your Elf should be a Ranger. Your bounty hunter sounds like he'd have come from a criminal background, though he could just as easily be a fighter if you don't want to go that route.

Instead of trying to force the class to fit your character, you should choose a more appropriate class. If you think there is a significant archetype that the current classes don't cover, then that is a class that should be made, rather than ham-fisting some other class to fit that role as well.

[Water_Bear]

Originally Posted by AgentPaper

And what I'm saying is, putting the "Rogue" label on your character should exactly define your character in that way. If you want to make a Wizard that learned his magic from raw, magical talent, you don't complain that the Wizard Class has rules for this stupid "spellbook" thing, you instead roll a sorcerer. If you want to play something that doesn't fit into a criminal background, then you should be playing a different class. Your Half-Orc should be an Assassin. Your Elf should be a Ranger. Your bounty hunter sounds like he'd have come from a criminal background, though he could just as easily be a fighter if you don't want to go that route.

Instead of trying to force the class to fit your character, you should choose a more appropriate class. If you think there is a significant archetype that the current classes don't cover, then that is a class that should be made, rather than ham-fisting some other class to fit that role as well.

It seems like you're version of the system would, logically, either end up with a very small number of possible backgrounds or a vast number of classes. It doesn't seem very efficient or reasonable.

I'm usually not a fan of dissociated mechanics; I like my simulationism and fluff as much as the next guy. But it makes way more sense to me to say "here is what you can do" rather than "here is how you learned to do this."

One arbitrarily limits the kinds of characters you can make, the other gives a lot more freedom to players and cuts down on the number of classes the designers need to make and balance. Why make more work for the designers by putting stringent fluff requirements on classes, rather than letting the players define their character's backstory?

[noparlpf]

I prefer "here is what you can do" and "here are the mechanical prerequisites of that" along with "now go write your own backstory and fluff for how you do it/how you learned to do it".

[Menteith]

I would be just as irritated if they gave Wizards an ability that forced them all to come from a wizard college, or if they gave Fighters and ability that made them all into soldiers. There is no reason that Thieves' Cant shouldn't be on a background, rather than on the class itself, unless one is seeking to specifically limit what the Rogue class can be. You seem to be seeking to limit the Rogue class in this way.

And what I'm saying is, putting the "Rogue" label on your character should exactly define your character in that way...

This is the crux of what we disagree on. I don't see a reason that a Rogue has to be straight-jacketed into a single role when it could instead easily be used to represent a broad range of characters. You clearly disagree. I don't understand what you see in limiting character options when an equally viable design could be used that would result in a broader range of character options. Could you explain to me why you feel that limiting what a class can represent will result in a better game, especially in light of the fact that WotC does not seem likely to create a wide range of base classes?

Should they create a wide enough range of classes that can allow me to express a range of characters, then I won't have an issue, as I said above. But currently, I don't believe they plan to introduce such a wide range of classes, and they instead intend to use few classes to represent many characters. Do you have a reason to believe that they will create a broad range of classes, rather than sticking to the limited range they've specified in earlier information releases?