Results 901 to 930 of 1486
Thread: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
-
2012-11-20, 08:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Ironically, some people are complaining on the WOTC boards that the fighter is too powerful--I'm serious. I haven't play-tested yet so I'm withholding judgment.
-
2012-11-20, 10:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2011
-
2012-11-20, 10:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
-
2012-11-20, 10:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
For reference, one of the Fighter's possible level 10 abilities is Whirlwind Attack. Which allows you to spend your Expertise Dice to get an additional attack that can only deal damage equal to that dice. Coupled with the fact that he only has 3d10 at that time by level 10 we're looking at a fighter who can spend all their dice to deal 5.5 damage to 3 opponents.
Others are even worse.
-
2012-11-20, 11:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Location
- Meridianville AL
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Nope, people who've noticed that most of the playtest fights are in narrow corridors, and that a fighter built for defense that optimizes AC, goes defensive, and gets Parry is effectively immune to most attacks.
He tanks, and the rest of the party kills the monster(s).
A level 5 fighter can fairly easily hold off the toughest monster they've got (in a playtest that goes to level 10) for long enough for a modest sized party to kill it easily. He doesn't even need clerical help to do it.
Monsters with higher attack bonuses will largely solve this since the parry roll can come up low and in any case can only stop one attack per round, but the current crop of monsters are helpless putty before two fighters who know what they're doing and are built to work as a team.
Oh, and incidentally, whirlwind attack is utter CRAP, if you want to attack at level 10 you have glancing blow and deadly strike, then you do an extra 3d10 of damage per round on a hit, and also do an extra 3d10 of damage per round on a miss. That plus two attacks give you plently of DPR compared to other classes, a rogue or cleric has no practical way to come close.
Edit: Looked at the manuever list for something else and noticed that Glancing Blow only applies the highest die worth of damage. So it's 1d10 extra damage per attack that misses, since you have two attacks if they BOTH miss, you've still got 1d10 of expertise left to use with Whirlwind attack if you need to and took whirlwind attack as one of your manuevers for some reason. But under no circumstance except being surrounded by 3 HP kobolds or something similar should whirlwind attack be your main way of spending expertise dice even if you have it.Last edited by Doug Lampert; 2012-11-22 at 12:10 AM.
-
2012-11-21, 12:18 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Call me unconvinced. Almost all of those goals have come out just weeks before a new playtest packet which addressed it was introduced. It's almost like they're a few weeks ahead of us in internal testing (which is fine and which they have said), and when they find something cool, they tell us about one of their "design goals," polish up what they already had, and then reveal it as a fulfillment of those goals. It's like rolling a Craft check first, seeing what the result is, then deciding what you were trying to make based on the result. The packet after they introduced bounded accuracy, they had let it slip a lot, and Mearls was talking about AC and attack bonus scaling with monster level again. These aren't design goals, they're drive-by marketing slogans.
Last edited by Stubbazubba; 2012-11-21 at 07:14 AM.
*********
Matters of Critical Insignificance - My Blog for all my favorite entertainment
11/4: Announcing the Vow of Honor KS! (I contributed)
-
2012-11-21, 09:49 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Call me unconvinced. Almost all of those goals have come out just weeks before a new playtest packet which addressed it was introduced.
It's almost like they're a few weeks ahead of us in internal testing (which is fine and which they have said), and when they find something cool, they tell us about one of their "design goals," polish up what they already had, and then reveal it as a fulfillment of those goals. It's like rolling a Craft check first, seeing what the result is, then deciding what you were trying to make based on the result.
-
2012-11-21, 10:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- Missouri
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Has there been any word on how multiclass characters will be implemented in 5e? IMHO, the most elegant implementation the split XP multiclass rules in 2e, e.g. a gish starts out as a fighter 1/mage 1 and whenever he gains XP, one half goes to his fighter side and one half to his mage side. So, what has Wizards said about multiclassing in D&D Next?
-
2012-11-21, 10:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2006
- Location
- Meridianville AL
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Allegedly it will be 3.5 style, pick a class each time you advance, but fixed so multiclasses don't get all the front end loaded stuff of a class for a one level dip and so multiclass casters won't suck.
I'll believe it when I see it.
But there are fairly clear signs of intent. There are class benefits labeled as being recieved your first class level is in the class. And the only reasonable explanation I've come up with for why all the non-caster classes are getting the same expertise die progression is that it makes multiclassing easier.
-
2012-11-22, 04:39 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
After reading 2e I find it so elegant. And the idea of just rolling up a character isn't a crazy fantasy anymore.
Its so satisfying to get rid of feats, complicated skills, and 3e multiclassing.
In hindsight feats seem to exist to either underperform or overperform.
To add annoying time taking bonuses or to replicate things that don't need limited mechanical backing (Or at least in that form)
-
2012-11-22, 10:45 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
-
2012-11-22, 10:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
-
2012-11-23, 09:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- Missouri
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Hm... I just read the article on multiclassing in D&D Next, and I am interested in how Wizards is going to make multiclass casters viable. In D&D 3.5, a fighter 10/wizard 10 had none of the strengths of its component classes and all of its weaknesses. The Eldritch Knight prestige class was made as a band-aid fix to arcane caster multiclassing, and while it worked, it turned prestige classes from optional to mandatory when you wanted to replicate the fighter/mages of earlier editions.
I'm thinking that they're going to implement 1/2 caster progression for non-caster classes in a multiclass, and vice-versa. Kind of like how multiclass ToB classes work. For example, a fighter 2/wizard 2 would be the equivalent of a fighter 3/wizard 3, and a fighter 18/wizard 2 would be the equivalent of a fighter 18/wizard 11.
If you go 50/50, a fighter 10/wizard 10 is like a fighter 15/wizard 15. Is a gestalt fighter//wizard 15 the equivalent of a fighter 20 or a wizard 20? No, not in the horribly unbalanced mess of D&D 3.5. But if the classes were more balanced in D&D Next, perhaps it might be worth it.
What about 3/4 progression for your other class? A fighter 10/wizard 10 would then become fighter 17/wizard 17, which is close to how much fighter/mages lagged in levels from pure classes.
Can't wait to see how multiclass characters work in D&D Next...
-
2012-11-23, 10:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
The problem that D&D has experienced with multiclassing is mostly due to two factors: front loaded classes (i.e. the Ranger two-weapon fighting or Rogue skills) and simple class imbalance (the reason why Fighter 5/Wizard 5 is inferior to Wizard 10... but better than Fighter 10).
Fingers crosses, they look like they might be moving towards a system where they split the "level 1 gains" into two categories. The first you would get only if you choose it at level 1. The second you would get if you choose it at any other level. So you essentially would (as an example) get two-weapon fighting and favoured enemy if you choose ranger at level 1, but only favoured enemy if you multiclasses into ranger.
The second problem is really just a design issue. It's too early to tell if caster classes will generally trump what non-casters can do in DnD Next, but there are (of course) a few comments on that. Class balance is generally an internet obsession, not a table one; I don't think anyone expects them to create ten equally good classes, just ten classes that are hopefully good within some range. If the Monk turns out to be better than the Cleric, well, most probably won't notice.
That said, reducing the overall power level of spells wouldn't hurt (they're cutting back on spells/day which is huge), although it remains to be seen whether (if we're assuming a system like 3.5 multiclassing) "giving up" a level of spell casting is "justified" (it rarely was in 3.5).
Switching to a 2e style of multiclassing (particularly while including the somewhat exponential leveling curve) would likely address your issue too. It's one thing when 100,000 experience can get you a level 7 wizard, or a level 3 fighter/4 wizard. It's another thing if the trade-off is a level 7 wizard versus a level 6 fighter / 5 wizard, 2e style.
-
2012-11-24, 11:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
I could see an experience table that sets the number of your hit dice you can use to calculate your hp, attack bonus, and saves, and then a separate table that lists how much xp it takes to advance into each level of a class.
As long as you avoid front-loading class feature multiclassing gains, you could be a ftr3/wiz4/clr/2/rg5 and you'd be fairly balanced against say... a straight 9th level class as long as it works out on the table. This would work better if you define fractional progressions for attack and saves for each class and then round down the total.
In this example, you'd use the ftr, cl, and 4 rg hit dice for your hp (assuming ftr>clr>rg>wiz), and the 9 best class levels to determine each of your saves and attack bonus.
-
2012-11-25, 12:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2011
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
I don't find front loading necessarily a problem. I can accept not having lots and lots of juicy stuff for a 1 level dip, but for someone to multiclass 2 or 3 levels does not bother me. 3E Prestige Classes should have had a multiclass restriction of cannot go into another Prestige Class until you finish the one you started, but for base classes multiclass to your heart's content. I found multiclassing to be self-correcting anyway with the +2 to saving throws for good saves to be a feature, not a bug.
-
2012-11-25, 03:55 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
I only let the +2 count once for each saving throw and have AB and saves done fractionally. You can still "patch" a bad save with a 1-level dip but you don't get ridiculous cumulative bonuses from taking, say, four prestige classes with a good will save for example. Simply taking a prestige class shouldn't give you a free 10-20% advantage on saves compared to someone who goes straight base class, on top of all the other advantages from the prestige class.
-
2012-11-25, 03:58 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
If I might ask, what's the problem with one-level dips again?
-
2012-11-25, 08:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
in the right system? nothing.
however, "1 level dips" in the context of a system like 3rd ed made me cringe.
why? IMO system failure, pure and simple.
i had a hard time making some characters, like non-casters, feel useful or viable without abusing the dip due to the need of some resources, normally feats, to make some maneuvers more reliable or some combat styles capable of pressuring the enemy. on the flipside, multiclassing away from your normal caster progression was usually a penalty to yourself unless you were doing so specifically to meet the prerequisites to a PRC or feat.
multiclassing into a caster was just not done at all (unless, again, you needed it to meet some prereq), as the spells you gained were normally quite weak, often easily repelled and their duration ignorable.
now, a few characters i've seen had "in character" reason to multiclass as they had gotten a life-changing event happen, but IMO the multiclass system failed to properly show that.
very rarely was that multiclass something radical, like from 3rd ed paladin to wizard or vice versa as this would often hurt the character in either the short run, long run or both, and oftentimes such a character becomes the millstone of the group so it was usually into a "one class removed" (like from fighter to ranger) and didn't change much other then the character suddenly gaining a lot of front-loaded abilities.
a radical change in style, like from wizard to paladin, needs to be something the system can handle if it's going to do multiclassing in the dip fashion. in the most serious of cases, i've seen done and recommended a character rewrite: scrap the old sheet and redo it from scratch to match the character's new outlook as the current system failed to represent it mechanically without needing to play another 3 months to gain several levels.
if it's simply a multiclass because the character wants to dabble into something new, then i would say multiclassing is the wrong way to do so. a ranger who wants to learn a few arcane spells should not be a ranger/wizard and there should be a system in place to allow for a slight dabbling that doesn't require your character to give up his class progress.
do i believe a one-dip multiclass can work? yes, but for it to be balanced, it needs to be implemented alongside the rest of the system in a way that account for it.
from what i've seen with next, it currently doesn't seem like that system: it has lots of front-loading on the melee guys' side and casters lose out on their ever-important spells. multiclassing into a caster also seems like a rather bad idea unless you already have the stats to be a caster, and you're still going to be lacking the higher level spells & effects, basically making you a worst caster AND a weaker fighter at the same time then a single class of your level.
themes/specialties also don't seem to give enough IMO to represent dabbling. a fighter capable of casting "detect magic" or mage hand once per day at first level or a single casting of cure light wounds per day at level 3 doesn't feel like he's dabbling enough for my liking to take the Arcane initiate specialization or divine magic specialization seem worthwhile.
-
2012-11-25, 08:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Germany
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
In 3rd Edition and Pathfinder, the problem is that 1st level often grants significant better things than levels in other classes.
If you dip just one class, the effect is negible, but diping three or four classes is getting a bit out of hand.
And on the other hand, anything that is worth dipping for one level is almost certainly poorly designed. If you want to have a special ability and can get it with just one level in the class, taking more than one level looks like a relatively poor choice. If you introduce a new class, it should be worth taking all it's levels and not just one. Though this problem primarily applies to Prestige Classes. But also the Paladin to some degree.
A player taking a 1 level dip is not a big issue most of the time. But usually it means the class should never have been published in the first place and is badly written. If all you want is a single class feature, it could just have been a feat instead of a 5, 10, or even 20 level class.
There shouldn't be any classes that are worth dipping! That's a waste of pages for which customers pay.We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.
Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying
-
2012-11-25, 08:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Poland
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
I think another problem with muticlassing in 3.x is that there's little synergy between classes if you do it, unless it's just a one level dip. A Fighter 5/Wizard 5 is a worse warrior than Fighter 10 and a worse spellcaster than Wizard 10, and his two skillsets don't work well together - there are only so many actions per round, so he can't do both at the same time. If he's more powerful than Fighter 10, it's because of the gross class imbalance. A multiclass character ends up doing two things, but can do neither well enough. WotC seems to have realized it at some point, and we got the martial manuever progression and various feats that let you advance class features without taking levels in that class. It's an open question whether or not they'll implement something like that in D&D Next.
My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.
-
2012-11-25, 08:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
2e continues to blast me away. I love it, love it, love it.
I think a critical part of that is the way its written. Its usually more wordy, with a bunch of very colorful disruptions.
The way it described venician spellcasting even made make sense for me!
Of course this is a drawback when describing something of 100% crunch.
When trying to learn BATTLESYSTEM (For Dark sun purposes) I wanted to beat the editor with a rusty shovel.
Still. If the writing captured the same feel as 2e it would be great. 2e had the best fluff.
-
2012-11-25, 11:26 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Germany
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Which points out the big problem of WotC-D&D. I will not use the G-word here, but WotC approached D&D very much as a game to create competitive character builds based on stats and class features.
Which isn't anything at all like what TSR-D&D was about.
To use another really bad word, about a year after its introduction, 3rd Edition changed from Roleplay to Rollplay. But the PHB already laid the foundation for that.
Previous editions seem to approach the game from the perspective of characters, social interaction, and fantastic society and then tacked on a mathmatical system to bring in a factor of uncertainty and some randomness in the success or failure of the PCs attempted action. 3rd Edition very quickly became a combat system with some decorative fluff as window dressing.
4th Edition saw a problem, but in my oppinion did exactly the wrong things by trying to create a game that works more smoothly but still focused on the WotC-paradigm of game design.
Now with 5th Edition, I do think I see some real evidence that the paradigm issue is actually aknowledged and there's real effort to deal with it. How much of it survives until the finished game reamains to be seen, with the reworked rogue and especially the monk again slipping back into class feature overload. Having fighters select from a pool of 20 or so maneuvers was a genuinly smart move to add some grit to a class that was always mechanically bland. But now there's some hints that the same stuff gets added to all other classes that already have class features of their own, creating bloat even before half of the core rules classes are developed.We are not standing on the shoulders of giants, but on very tall tower of other dwarves.
Spriggan's Den Heroic Fantasy Roleplaying
-
2012-11-25, 12:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
How can people see anything through their rose-coloured glasses?
1e wasn't a "roleplaying" game anymore than 4th is, and 4e isn't any more a "rollplaying" game than 1e was. 1e was still ultimately a game where players were presented with dungeons (and might have dragons in them), and death was sometimes arbitrary, so a certain amount of gaming was always expected ("you didn't look up as you entered this normal room! A spider descends and bites you. Save vs poison or die").
Even by 2nd Edition, you had players "optimizing" their character as best as the system would allow (Skills and Powers anyone?). That 3e and 4e allow a greater amount of optimization is, depending on your viewpoint, regrettable, but let's not pretend that people weren't trying to create dart-throwing fighters and bow-using elves to maximize their damage output (I've also heard nasty things about the Wizard's levitation spell).
-
2012-11-25, 01:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- NYC
- Gender
-
2012-11-25, 01:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2012
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
I like what I have read about the 5th edition fighter, but I won't let my hopes become too great.
Before the 4th edition what I read drove me to believe that 4th edition warrior classes would be essentially 3.5 classes plus some of ToB's manouvers and stances, that wizard would be some sort of enhanced and more powerful truenamer, and that sorcerers, bards, druids and clerics would remain almost the same.
I felt disappointed by 4th edition, it didn't feel like D&D to me. And now I fear that 5th edition won't be anything like I'm anticipating.
-
2012-11-25, 03:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Its not really Nostalgia goggles if im viewing this from a reverse perspective. Im going backwards through the editions and the older I go the more I like it.
Yes Min Maxing is always possible, but 2e seems to generally avoid that. Its one of the only games Ive even seen write to DMs: "Punish those that loose track of Roleplaying".
Yes the later year tacked on unplaytested rubbish kinda muddled it up, but the core and some of the very good books (The Bard Book is just a awesome idea buffe. Again, I used to hate bards before this book) achieve this roleplaying by giving power to the DM.
2e has THE BEST magic item creation system in the WORLD. Its a couple of pages that give DMS ideas for multiple ways to create magic items.
One ESPECIALLY creative. Stuff like "Ok in order to create your waterbreathing magic item you need the: "Skill of the Ogre, a unwilted rose, and mix it together using the disapointment of a long LONG LOOOOONG dead king" and then leave it to the player to figure what this trolling IS.
The skill system is easy (Its even OPTIONAL, and mentions adding it in will make creating a character take HOURS. How quaint. ), and character creation is simple as well.
You get 1 track progression of a character class. No Feats, and no skill points, traits, no prestigie classes, no swapping out levels.
You can duel class or multiclass but those are also handled well as the multiclassing handles well, and has simple solid limits.
Thus minimizing character optimization and streamlining character creation.
And if you want something more specialized, get a kit.
And it even mentions how ability scores shouldn't matter (And they don't as much) in a good roleplaying session. They still suggest re-rolling them if they are horrible, but the randomness is a tool for CREATING a character.
Like just now it led me to create a Self Conscious Orc because of my incredibly low wisdom.
And 2e is already modular. Lots of its rules are presented as optional, and most of the other books present more optional options.
So is 5e just trying to achieve what 2e did 20 years ago?
edit:
There are some flaws though in 2e. I wish it gave some better optional rules for more detailed monsters. I enjoy having monster stats that can be written on a napkin but for the times I do want the stats I would like the option.Last edited by Scowling Dragon; 2012-11-25 at 03:16 PM.
-
2012-11-25, 03:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
-
2012-11-25, 03:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
I meant to the player. Mechanics wise the importance on ability scores is still reduced, but still exists.
Again pathetic ability scores are still suggested to be re-rolled.
-
2012-11-25, 03:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Location
- Malsheem, Nessus
- Gender
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
Sort of; rather, 5e seems to be trying to do the 2e-3e transition over again. 3e's goals, as far as dev articles, hindsight, and such can tell us, were to (A) update the core of 2e to be more mathematically stable and intuitive, (B) shift some of the effort of DM adjudication to the rules themselves so you spend less time making rulings and more time playing NPCs and such, (C) empower players by codifying their abilities, letting them know how things worked (i.e. not hiding things in the DMG that contradict the PHB), and so forth, and (D) give all classes more options to make them more customizable and interesting.
3e accomplished A for the most part, but a few seemingly-small changes (like adding +stat to spell DCs) had unforeseen consequences (like making SoS/SoD spells a lot more powerful). 3e accomplished B for the most part, but the emphasis on consistency and uniformity made some things (like creating monsters and building NPCs) time-consuming and aggravating. 3e accomplished C for the most part, but in plenty of cases the rules were over-codified ("You need a feat for that!") which required either knowing the rules well or ignoring them. 3e accomplished D for the most part, but a lot of those options were too weak or boring for martial classes or too good for casting classes.
So the basic goals of 3e were sound, really. Mechanical customization is good, just like flavor customization is good; just like having a Wis stat and rolling low inspired an idea for your character's personality, attaching mechanics to choice of weapon, choice of god, etc. can inspire characters and encourage creativity. Preventing optimizing is impossible, and trying to do so usually causes more problems than it solves. Take it from someone who learned to play on AD&D: you can optimize it just as much as 3e, you just optimize for different things and there are fewer moving parts to mess with--ask people who played 2e back in the day about 1e bards, the bladesinger kit, the benefits of magic-user/thieves for various races, the best break points for dual-classing, and stuff like that, and whether they're the kind of people who optimized with those things or disdained caring about them as "rollplaying" you'll see what I mean.
AD&D is often praised for telling DMs that you shouldn't let a player use the rules as a bludgeon to make the game less fun for others...but then, 4e is often praised for telling DMs that there are players who like exploring things and players who like killing things, and both of those are pretty basic advice that I figured out when I started DMing back in elementary school. The grandiloquent excesses of Gygaxian prose style in 1e can be fun to read (and educational for one's vocabulary), but the actual advice offered in it is just as good or bad as that of 2e, 3e, and 4e.
So, to bring this back to 5e, it seems like the devs are trying to (A) change the math around to prevent number inflation, (B) make simple and intuitive general rules for the DM to use to resolve lots of actions, (C) associate mechanics with certain flavor so playing a noble or knight or whatever actually means something mechanically, and (D) ensure that all classes have something mechanically unique and interesting. Like I said above, it basically looks like they're trying 3rd Edition Transition 2.0, and whether you like the results will depend on what you thought was wrong with 3e and what you think of the current 5e design choices. For instance, I personally think that the drawbacks of 3e's B were worth it and that the problems with C and D are easily fixable with enough effort (the fixes for problem spells are easy, it's just that going through every one of 3e's 2000+ spells takes time), while I think 5e's A is mathematically unsound and its C is a bad idea, but you probably feel differently and everyone else has their own opinion as well.
Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese)