Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #2

[Yora]

You can find the first thread here.

If you are interested in all the known facts about the new edition, Enworld has a very good summary of it here, which gets constantly updated.

[NinjaStylerobot]

My only worry about ability check saves is that their mostly pointless.

Your force of will is always your Cha (Aka Will)

Your ability to dodge is Dex.

The only thing I see this useful for is the occasional STR check to resist wind.

Still, its nice and simple to use, but not oversimplified.

[Kurald Galain]

My only worry about ability check saves is that their mostly pointless.

Maybe not.

Str => Grapples and disarms
Dex => Rays and fireballs
Con => Poison and body alteration
Int => Illusions
Wis => Mental spells
Cha => Bluff and intimidate

[Yora]

Really hadn't thought off illusion, but it does make a lot of sense for illusions.

[DigoDragon]

I'll have to see it in action to really know how I feel about the next edition. I'm curious to see how they plan to make this one an edition that brings the various D&D groups together. Hopefully it doesn't turn into one of those effects that in trying to please everyone, they please no one.
Though what I WOULD like to see down the line is a new campaign setting created for this new edition. Maybe something post-apocalyptic akin to Dark Sun?

[Gwendol]

Thanks for the link Yora! Looks interesting.

[Yora]

I think the plan for that is the attempt at modularity. If you want miniatures, add the rules for grid-based-combat. If you want skill points like in 3rd Edition, add the rules for Advanced Skills. Want to use a sabre instead of a medium sword, use the expanded equipment list.

My oppinion is, that everything Monte Cook says about what all is possible should be taken with an entire salt shaker worth of salt. So many times he makes claims about what they have planned and a few minutes later someone else elaborates on it by saying something that essentially means "it's not entirely wrong, but actually means something different than he made it sound like".

[ClothedInVelvet]

Did anyone else notice that they seem to be splitting the cleric into a martial/healer side and a priest/spellcaster side? Feelings?

[Yora]

I did.
Feeling: Finally!!!

The Combat Cleric is a viable concept for a class. But the exclusion of a spellcasting priest class always greatly annoyed me. To play one in D&D, you just played a cleric who did not wear the heavy armor he was perfectly capable of wearing.
Cloistered Cleric was a kind of fix, but I really welcome priests becomming its own class that will hopefully be in the PHB1.

[NinjaStylerobot]

Maybe not.

Str => Grapples and disarms
Dex => Rays and fireballs
Con => Poison and body alteration
Int => Illusions
Wis => Mental spells
Cha => Bluff and intimidate

I stand corrected.

This edition is starting to look up already!

There is allot of spells/ class abilities that can interact with those saves.

[Tyndmyr]

So, classes offer ability boosts, eh?

How will this interact with multiclassing?

Wild melee dipping might be in style still.

[NinjaStylerobot]

So, classes offer ability boosts, eh?

I said this- CAN. Not will

[Oracle_Hunter]

If you are interested in all the known facts about the new edition, Enworld has a very good summary of it here, which gets constantly updated.

...interesting.

I'm still not sure how they can do most of the things they're talking about (3E-style multiclassing and balanced classes? "Complex" and "Simple" options existing side-by-side but not competing for effectiveness?) but maybe they can pull them off.

[Tiki Snakes]

Quite frankly, it sounds like it could end up being a really complex system.

[ClothedInVelvet]

My concern too. However, despite that we often find a lot of problems in WotC's stuff, they have done some amazing stuff. I'm optimistic.

I'm also worried about the ability boosts. If ability scores are especially important, and certain classes give a +1 boost, those classes might be mandatory dips. We'll see.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Quite frankly, it sounds like it could end up being a really complex system.

Not just complex, but long - like GURPS long.

IMHO, they're building a kitchen-sink system in order to fix what they perceive to be their biggest problem -- Edition Warz. You want Vancian Casting? Bam, you got it! Fighters who can beat wizards? Bam! Wizards who beat fighters? Bam! Rules that say you're an ex-bouncer? Done. Being able to say you're an ex-bouncer without using rules? We can do that too.

If they sell these books in stores they'll need specially reinforced bookshelves to support the weight. Perhaps this will be an all-digital edition as a result

[ClothedInVelvet]

Not just complex, but long - like GURPS long.

IMHO, they're building a kitchen-sink system in order to fix what they perceive to be their biggest problem -- Edition Warz. You want Vancian Casting? Bam, you got it! Fighters who can beat wizards? Bam! Wizards who beat fighters? Bam! Rules that say you're an ex-bouncer? Done. Being able to say you're an ex-bouncer without using rules? We can do that too.

If they sell these books in stores they'll need specially reinforced bookshelves to support the weight. Perhaps this will be an all-digital edition as a result

But they keep enforcing the modual-ness of it all. I'm betting it just comes in book after book. Good money for them, hopefully, good choices for us.

[Yora]

My concern too. However, despite that we often find a lot of problems in WotC's stuff, they have done some amazing stuff. I'm optimistic.

I'm also worried about the ability boosts. If ability scores are especially important, and certain classes give a +1 boost, those classes might be mandatory dips. We'll see.

No, I think that every class gets a boost to its own primary stat. Probably easiest if those bonuses don't stack.

The effect would be, that you can get a good score in your primary stat while in the case of point buy not having to use as many points on it, which leaves more to put into other stats. Which might help avoid dump stats.

[Tyndmyr]

No, I think that every class gets a boost to its own primary stat. Probably easiest if those bonuses don't stack.

The effect would be, that you can get a good score in your primary stat while in the case of point buy not having to use as many points on it, which leaves more to put into other stats. Which might help avoid dump stats.

That seems to be the case, yes...cleric's are confirmed to be wis, so assuming primary stat is logical.

Still, even if they don't stack, having boosts to multiple abilities is a very handy thing.

[Oracle_Hunter]

But they keep enforcing the modual-ness of it all. I'm betting it just comes in book after book. Good money for them, hopefully, good choices for us.

GURPS is also marketed as a "module system" -- it just had a lot of rules in the main book.

Spoiler

Show

Nobody likes having to buy a lot of books to play a game. D&D Players have been conditioned to buying a minimum of 3 to play the game (i.e. PHB, DMG, MM) but most other systems require only 1 for good reason. One major complaint about 3.X was that Core had broken elements that were only fixed via expansion books (e.g. Paladins with Crusaders, Monks with Unarmed Swordsages) which acted like a bait & switch for the uninitiated. A truly modular system might end up being the same way thanks to "dip classes" and "feat powers" -- if your class doesn't work OK out of the box but with the addition of one feat from another sourcebook does, then you will feel compelled to buy that sourcebook. And, of course, Players who don't spend their time buying/memorizing dozens of sourcebooks are going to be at a disadvantage and feel at a disadvantage when their buddy shows up with a build cobbled together from a hundred sources that does things his "vanilla" build could never have dreamed about.

In short, optional modules can easily become mandatory if the Core rules are lacking. A system with so much "optional" material cannot, by necessity, have very much substance at its base; the more substantial the base the more likely that it will conflict with potential modules.

Or to put it another way: when everything is optional, nothing is

[Eldan]

I'd probably assume a wording like "You only get a stat boost from your primary class". For some definition of primary class. Probably similar to only having HP from your first class maximized and only having skill points from your first class quadrupled in 3E.

[Saph]

Have to say that I like the look of the information in that ENworld thread. Obviously it's too early to come to any conclusions, but so far it looks good!

The idea of having simple classes which can be made more complex is a good one, and it'll be very useful it they can get it to work. It's very handy for a system to have simple classes that you can give to a newbie and complicated classes that can hold the interest of veterans.

[Myth]

My contact with AD&D comes trough Baldur's Gate I and II. Clerics could only use simple weapons, thus a mace or flail + shield made sense.

But forcing a cleric to go sword&board is stupid in light of things like 3.5's Power Attack and all the +BAB, +size, +Str etc. buffs they had.

Not sure if 4E has PA but if it does, then sword&board is still pretty weak as far as effective melee combat is concerned.

Forcing clerics to go mace and shield (and possibly the option to get their deity's favoured weapon) seems like a return to races as classes, no metal weapons for druids etc. which was a bit suffocating.

Acknowledging that being a healbot is "iconic" is also somewhat for me.

They said they sat down and played everything from 1e to Essentials and wrote down the things that made DnD DnD. AC was mentioned as one of them, yet AC has never been balanced OR important up until 4E with which I have no experience. 3.5 particularly has this absolutely worthless compared to miss chances, polymorhping and going first. I doubt their trial run trough 3.5 was anything different than standard WOTC Tordeks wth Toughness and Healbots based on their lists. The only allusion to 3.5 for 5e is character sheet complexity in which they say "you can have your guy be more complex, detailed and customized but he won't be more powerful than the average Joe who is using a pre-rolled Tordek"

That they would say 3.5's main thing is just the complexity of the char design process means they are far from apt in their own system. I really hope they would grasp the customization, detail, the way a player with a high level of system mastery can make a finely tuned clockwork character that performs in a stellar way and the player may feel good about the way they've made their character achieve it.

Oh, and I am actually one who is looking forward to books in PDF format and olnine tools such as dungeon builders, online character sheets and character builders etc. since I only play PbP and that would make my life so much easier...

[Tyndmyr]

Oh, and I am actually one who is looking forward to books in PDF format and olnine tools such as dungeon builders, online character sheets and character builders etc. since I only play PbP and that would make my life so much easier...

*shrug* I already have online char sheets at myth-weavers. Dungeon builders and such exist too. I'll grant that official tools are a handy thing, but unless they have a tool for actually playing in online, the rest of it mostly isn't the main bit I'm interested in.

[NinjaStylerobot]

I also believe that classes SHOULD have more fluffy limitations.

I LIKE Druids not getting metal weapons. It just fits thematically.

[warmachine]

One thing that worries me is that ability scores have a major influence but the scores, by default, are still random. A character can steal more of the limelight by being lucky in character creation, much more than 3e. Attributes in GURPS are highly important but that's point buy.

[Oracle_Hunter]

I also believe that classes SHOULD have more fluffy limitations.

I LIKE Druids not getting metal weapons. It just fits thematically.

This becomes awkward with multiclassing.

It was already awkward in 2E ("My Fighter/Wizard/Cleric can wear armor to cast cleric spells, but not wizard spells, and has to use blunt weapons.") and 3E-style multiclassing will only make it worse. It will probably be better to follow the 4e route of leaving fluff decisions up to the DMs and keeping the rules as "mechanical" as possible.

[NinjaStylerobot]

This becomes awkward with multiclassing.

And it should be. And there always is the convenience of that metal-like wood.

If My druid decides it wants to join an army, then I doubt the forces of nature would be "OK" with that. While ore is a natural resource, metal represents the strangling of it.

By separating Fluff from The rules the result is something rather dull.

There are some things that simply work by dancing with the fluff.

This disconnect is why defiling in 4e dark sun SUCKS.

edit:

Removing things is easier then adding them.

If I want to add that fluff, then I also have to create spells, costs and other things around that fluff. By removing fluff you just need to remove.

[Alexander1996]

I did.
Feeling: Finally!!!

The Combat Cleric is a viable concept for a class. But the exclusion of a spellcasting priest class always greatly annoyed me. To play one in D&D, you just played a cleric who did not wear the heavy armor he was perfectly capable of wearing.
Cloistered Cleric was a kind of fix, but I really welcome priests becomming its own class that will hopefully be in the PHB1.

Of course you could have always played a Shugenja and roleplayed the divine power in. But that's just me being nitpicky.

[Oracle_Hunter]

And it should be. And there always is the convenience of that metal-like wood.

...so now we're talking about "fluff restrictions that don't restrict"

Listen, I'm all for fluff but fluff-enforced-by-rules does nothing but create another hurdle I need to clear while homebrewing worlds. Plus, leaving it to the DM lessens the strain on a system designed for multiclassing.

Also: If Druids aren't supposed to use refined metals in order to respect nature, then why was it OK for them to use big honkin' steel scimitars?