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

[Knaight]

Originally Posted by Lictor of Thrax

Making Sorcerer spells genuinely different would completely ruin the class. Sorcerers are people who harness Vancian magic in a different way from wizards. Give them a new way to harness different magic and...well...they're Psions or something.

Given that sorcerers are distinguished mostly by spontaneous arcane casting, and everything else is largely irrelevant, an entirely different set of spells would fit with the class. If that makes them a lot more like the Psion, I'm entirely okay with that, which appears to be a point of agreement with most of the thread.

[Dienekes]

My one disagreement would be that I'd rather not have a list of spells that all do the exact same thing. But since the direction that WotC is going is that their spell casters get a huge amount of non-scaling spells that's more or less shot all to hell anyway. So why not, bring on the additional spell list.

[Siegel]

Originally Posted by Lictor of Thrax

Making Sorcerer spells genuinely different would completely ruin the class. Sorcerers are people who harness Vancian magic in a different way from wizards. Give them a new way to harness different magic and...well...they're Psions or something.

Can you prove that?

[DrBurr]

So last night in lieu of our normal session my group agreed to build Next characters to use on our secondary game night.

Built a Human War Cleric, Human Wizard with the Necromancer Specialty, A High Elf Duelist Fighter and Stout Halfling Sorcerer.

Both the Humans have some pretty good stats and I rolled rather Average for them, The Cleric is pulling a 19 in Str and 18 Wis and his lowest stat being a 9 in Dex which he doesn't really need. The Wizard came off pretty good to with 17 Con and 19 Int but as is usual for the player he has one bad dump stat a 7 in Wis. The Elf Fighter went the dual wielder route and picked up detect magic as his cantrip and has average stats.

And bringing up the Rear is the Halfling Sorcerer who is a complete joke character which should liven things up, his stats are average pulling nothing lower than a 10, but man Sorcerer's have a crappy spell list if it wasn't for the Arcane Dabbler feat I don't think there was a point to picking spells

Now I have to make a campaign for this assortment should be amusing got a Heretic, Professor, Merc and Food Critic

[Lictor of Thrax]

Originally Posted by Siegel

Can you prove that?

I don't even understand this question. What part did you want me to prove . . . the part that is a fact (what sorcerers have been in the past) or the part that's my opinion? Because one I shouldn't have to prove and the other would be impossible to.

[Friv]

Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4

We're going to disagree here, it appears to me that given that all low level characters in early D&D were to one degree or another fragile (even the fighter could fall to a lucky errant strike) combat was note supposed to be the first tool in your kit. This is further backed up by the fact that the majority of your experience will come from gold and not monsters killed (at almost 3:1), and by how much of the spells and equipment are not directly offensive combat devices, but exploration and utility devices.

Is combat a large part? Sure, but that doesn't mean that negotiating or talking your way out of a sticky situation wasn't an expected tactic. As for the portion of rules devoted to combat vs negotiations, I imagine that this was an assumption of the game designers that players didn't need rules to have a negotiation at the table.

I would generally argue that original D&D was built on two pillars - combat and exploration. Social interaction and negotiation mainly functioned as a tool of exploration, rather than being a pillar in their own right.

[DoctorStandard]

Originally Posted by oxybe

4th ed's warlord class was technically the battle socializer: he'd shout and point out openings for PCs to take advantage of, raise them from the brink of death with a few strong words and could push them beyond their normal means.

what was neat, is that the warlord was just one big bonus to the group. he wasn't needed for the party success. a party of a fighter, rogue, cleric & wizard works fine as is and no class "needs" a warlord to be useful. the warlord just allowed for better coordination between groups during combat.

that's how i would like to see combat socialization: as like combat exploration, not required for success, but when used is a boon.

The Warlord was my favorite class in 4E by far. There was nothing like him in 3.5 (maybe the Marshal, but nobody likes him), and I really hope they keep the Warlord in some form for 5E, even if it's just a specialty for Bards, Fighters, and Paladins.

[hamishspence]

The White Raven school in ToB was pretty warlord-ish- crusaders & warblades got it- so a crusader or warblade heavily investing in that (and maybe Devoted Spirit in the crusader's case) would fit.

[1337 b4k4]

I would generally argue that original D&D was built on two pillars - combat and exploration. Social interaction and negotiation mainly functioned as a tool of exploration, rather than being a pillar in their own right.

Absolutely, but I'm not arguing that social interaction was a pillar in its own right, just that early editions of D&D had an expectation that players would try to avoid combat, and on of the ways of doing that was via negotiation, and therefore languages had more importance in those editions, giving us the holdover of language skills today.

[DoctorStandard]

Oh yeah -. I always forget White Raven because I really only play Swordsages in ToB. And because I've only played Pathfinder for the past couple years.

[RebelRogue]

Indeed, many Warlord powers have "White Raven" in their names as a tip of the hat to ToB.

[TheOOB]

Originally Posted by Dienekes

My one disagreement would be that I'd rather not have a list of spells that all do the exact same thing. But since the direction that WotC is going is that their spell casters get a huge amount of non-scaling spells that's more or less shot all to hell anyway. So why not, bring on the additional spell list.

It's a balancing issue. One of the reasons casters were so broken in 3.x was that in addition to the fact that they got new, more powerful abilities every level, their old abilities got more powerful as well, so that by the time they reached double digits they had dozens of spells they could use, while other classes only had one or two abilities.

By making it so spells don't scale up, they have reduced that problem. A level 10 wizard won't have much use for their level 1 spells save beyond a little utility and as a back up when they run out(and the status inducing spells won't even work on foes by then). So while casters to get more and and more abilities, only their highest couple of spell levels will be truly relevant in most situations(but their lower levels spells are still there). I think it's a good balance, it's better than the alternative.

I like the sorcerer so far. I think the willpower system provides an interesting variation on the standard Vancian model, while keeping them similar enough to the wizard so the classes feel a little related. I'm not entirely convinced the draconic bloodline isn't at least a little too strong, but a bloodline will need to provide quite a bit of benefit to make up for the very few spells known a sorcerer has compared to a wizard, and once a wizard gains their, for lack of a better term, path, it might seem more balanced.

[noparlpf]

What do people think about the idea of spell prerequisites? Like how feats have trees, so should spells--lower-level spells lead to higher-level versions of the same theme. I think that would help balance some, and I like the flavour of it better. As it is now, I can spend eight levels practicing throwing fireballs, and then at my next level I can suddenly raise a sizable number of undead, with no previous practice raising even the weakest undead.
This would go better with non-scaling spells, I think.

[Kurald Galain]

Originally Posted by TheOOB

By making it so spells don't scale up, they have reduced that problem. A level 10 wizard won't have much use for their level 1 spells save beyond a little utility and as a back up when they run out(and the status inducing spells won't even work on foes by then).

I doubt that'll work out in practice. There are generally some good low-level tricks that remain relevant.

(note how the designers of 4E assumed that low-level powers and low-level items wouldn't be useful any more to a moderate-level character, and how they were dead wrong about that).

[Dienekes]

Originally Posted by TheOOB

It's a balancing issue. One of the reasons casters were so broken in 3.x was that in addition to the fact that they got new, more powerful abilities every level, their old abilities got more powerful as well, so that by the time they reached double digits they had dozens of spells they could use, while other classes only had one or two abilities.

By making it so spells don't scale up, they have reduced that problem. A level 10 wizard won't have much use for their level 1 spells save beyond a little utility and as a back up when they run out(and the status inducing spells won't even work on foes by then). So while casters to get more and and more abilities, only their highest couple of spell levels will be truly relevant in most situations(but their lower levels spells are still there). I think it's a good balance, it's better than the alternative.

Oh I understand the balance of it. However, I personally would have preferred fewer scaling spells to a huge amount of non-scaling ones. I don't get excited picking up: Lesser Flame Strike, Flame Strike, Greater Flame Strike, Lesser Fireball, Fireball, and Greater Fireball when it's all really the same thing with bigger numbers. I'd rather pick up just Fireball.

Now there are a few ups and downs to each method. My way, all else being equal, would make Wizards slightly weaker at earlier levels since they won't get a bunch of the weaker spells for their utility instead gaining it as they level up.

Personally I like that unintended consequence as well, but then I've always been up for hitting spellcasters with a nerfbat.

Originally Posted by noparlpf

What do people think about the idea of spell prerequisites? Like how feats have trees, so should spells--lower-level spells lead to higher-level versions of the same theme. I think that would help balance some, and I like the flavour of it better. As it is now, I can spend eight levels practicing throwing fireballs, and then at my next level I can suddenly raise a sizable number of undead, with no previous practice raising even the weakest undead.
This would go better with non-scaling spells, I think.

Personally, I have nothing against the idea of prerequisites as long as their fair. But I have to say, I really wish they tone down some of the prereqs for feats from 3.5 (don't remember how it's handled in 4e). A lot of good feats are ruined by the unnecessary and useless prereqs (sup whirlwind attack). If they have to do prereqs I'd personally follow the ToB route and make feats/spells into groups or styles and say you need X of these types of feat/spells to advance. For spells they can just use the schools they already have. For feats they'll have to invent groupings, maybe Power style for things like power attack, Defender style, Assassin style, and so forth but there needs to be enough feats per style to make it worthwhile.

[Lictor of Thrax]

Originally Posted by Dienekes

Personally, I have nothing against the idea of prerequisites as long as their fair. But I have to say, I really wish they tone down some of the prereqs for feats from 3.5 (don't remember how it's handled in 4e). A lot of good feats are ruined by the unnecessary and useless prereqs (sup whirlwind attack). If they have to do prereqs I'd personally follow the ToB route and make feats/spells into groups or styles and say you need X of these types of feat/spells to advance. For spells they can just use the schools they already have. For feats they'll have to invent groupings, maybe Power style for things like power attack, Defender style, Assassin style, and so forth but there needs to be enough feats per style to make it worthwhile.

I don't even think they'd have to add anything, considering that specialties seem to do that already.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by Dienekes

Personally, I have nothing against the idea of prerequisites as long as their fair. But I have to say, I really wish they tone down some of the prereqs for feats from 3.5 (don't remember how it's handled in 4e). A lot of good feats are ruined by the unnecessary and useless prereqs (sup whirlwind attack). If they have to do prereqs I'd personally follow the ToB route and make feats/spells into groups or styles and say you need X of these types of feat/spells to advance. For spells they can just use the schools they already have. For feats they'll have to invent groupings, maybe Power style for things like power attack, Defender style, Assassin style, and so forth but there needs to be enough feats per style to make it worthwhile.

For spells, I think the 3.X spell descriptors would be a better existing system to split things up with. Like, Fireball would require that you know at least one [Fire] spell each of second level and of first level. Maybe give different spells from same schools a "discount", like Lightning Bolt only requires one lower-level [Electricity] spell, of first or second level, if you know other Evocation spells of each second and first level, because you have some practice casting Evocations and some casting Electricity spells, so you combine your knowledge and "skip" some of the Electricity training.

[Ashdate]

Originally Posted by Dienekes

But I have to say, I really wish they tone down some of the prereqs for feats from 3.5 (don't remember how it's handled in 4e).

Feats ended up sort of weird in 4e; they didn't end up with the "chain" of prereqs, but many are restricted to race, class, and occasionally ability scores. I think it added more bloat than anything to the system, but overall I'm fairly neutral about them. I think I would prefer there to be fewer feats with less restrictions for 5e tho.

[TheOOB]

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain

I doubt that'll work out in practice. There are generally some good low-level tricks that remain relevant.

(note how the designers of 4E assumed that low-level powers and low-level items wouldn't be useful any more to a moderate-level character, and how they were dead wrong about that).

I'm not saying low levels spells won't be useful, but a higher level spell will always deal less damage, and really nasty lower levels save or lose spells(like hold person) won't work on higher level foes. A 3.x wizard's hold person was still insanely difficult to save agienst even for a high level foe if they had a bad will save.

Originally Posted by Ashdate

Feats ended up sort of weird in 4e; they didn't end up with the "chain" of prereqs, but many are restricted to race, class, and occasionally ability scores. I think it added more bloat than anything to the system, but overall I'm fairly neutral about them. I think I would prefer there to be fewer feats with less restrictions for 5e tho.

The problem with 4e feats, is since most offered small numerical bonuses, it was usually pretty obvious what feats were better than others(it just took some math), and too many feats amounted to "if you qualify you must take it". Feats wear not really used to customize your character, but where more like a math test at level up.

[Dienekes]

Originally Posted by Lictor of Thrax

I don't even think they'd have to add anything, considering that specialties seem to do that already.

You could base it off specialties, but the major difference between them is, specialties remove all choice from taking feats in the first place so there does not need to be prerequisites as it's all planned out for you. Now if they expanded it so that we get maybe 14 or more feats in a specialty so there is choice in what we pick in a specialty that'd be something.

Originally Posted by noparlpf

For spells, I think the 3.X spell descriptors would be a better existing system to split things up with. Like, Fireball would require that you know at least one [Fire] spell each of second level and of first level. Maybe give different spells from same schools a "discount", like Lightning Bolt only requires one lower-level [Electricity] spell, of first or second level, if you know other Evocation spells of each second and first level, because you have some practice casting Evocations and some casting Electricity spells, so you combine your knowledge and "skip" some of the Electricity training.

Honestly, while I suppose if they made a wide, wide verity of spells all about fire, I think it would be easier to just make it based off the schools, maybe add one or two more. And honestly, it's also a way to force specialization of spells. So in any case, I like that.

[TheOOB]

Originally Posted by noparlpf

For spells, I think the 3.X spell descriptors would be a better existing system to split things up with. Like, Fireball would require that you know at least one [Fire] spell each of second level and of first level. Maybe give different spells from same schools a "discount", like Lightning Bolt only requires one lower-level [Electricity] spell, of first or second level, if you know other Evocation spells of each second and first level, because you have some practice casting Evocations and some casting Electricity spells, so you combine your knowledge and "skip" some of the Electricity training.

I *really* don't like that. Part of the reason I like to play a wizard is that I like to play a toolbox, I like to have lots of different types of abilities I can use. I can accept that the price I pay for my versatility is less raw power, but forcing any specialization ruins the class entirely.

[Starbuck_II]

Originally Posted by Dienekes

Oh I understand the balance of it. However, I personally would have preferred fewer scaling spells to a huge amount of non-scaling ones. I don't get excited picking up: Lesser Flame Strike, Flame Strike, Greater Flame Strike, Lesser Fireball, Fireball, and Greater Fireball when it's all really the same thing with bigger numbers. I'd rather pick up just Fireball.

Then don't take the lower level versions.
If we redoing 3.5.
Nah, I want a level 1 fireball (Least Fireball), 2nd level Fireball (Lesser Fireball), 3rd level Firebal (as is Fireball), etc.

1st level (Least) Fireball has short range (not long), 15 foot area burst (not 20), etc and deals 2d6 fire.

2nd level (lesser) Fireball Med range, 15 ft area (not 20) and deals 4d6.

3rd level Fireball: Long range, 20 ft area, and deals 6d6 fire.

Those who only want Fireball wait till 5th level.

Greater Fireball already exists in 3.5 (delayed Fireball)

But the idea from 5th to add casting stat to damage is a neat idea.

[Craft (Cheese)]

On prerequisites: I can say this, taking an option at level-up you aren't interested in just so you can qualify for something you want later isn't fun. It actually kinda sucks considering you basically walk out of that level with no new shiny toys, it's bad for the same reasons dead levels are bad.

[Lictor of Thrax]

Originally Posted by Dienekes

You could base it off specialties, but the major difference between them is, specialties remove all choice from taking feats in the first place so there does not need to be prerequisites as it's all planned out for you. Now if they expanded it so that we get maybe 14 or more feats in a specialty so there is choice in what we pick in a specialty that'd be something.

True. My assumption after seeing what they had done so far, was that all feats would fall under a category of a specialty and each specialty would then have a bunch of feats to choose from at each level.

The reason I assume that there'll be more feats added to each specialty at each level is because the Lurker specialty forces Skulker on you at third level, which only benefits ranged attacks . . . which to me says that eventually they have to add more options there for those who don't want to focus on ranged combat.

Just thinking of how I would handle it, there'd be some general feats that anyone could take, some feats that fell under multiple specialty umbrellas and some feats that were only available through a certain specialty. Then incorporating the suggestion of more lax requirements would be quite easy. As mentioned, much like how ToB doesn't require that you know every precursor to a higher level manuever/stance but instead just requires that you know X amount from Y school.


Conceptually, I really like that idea.

Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese)

On prerequisites: I can say this, taking an option at level-up you aren't interested in just so you can qualify for something you want later isn't fun. It actually kinda sucks considering you basically walk out of that level with no new shiny toys, it's bad for the same reasons dead levels are bad.

Agreed. In one of my games I'm doing exactly that this upcoming level. Take a feat that won't do squat for me but is necessary for an ability that will be a primary aspect of my character . . . so my level up is basically that I add about 5 HP and 1 BAB. Woohoo!

However, I think that could be greatly minimized if not eliminated by making the requirement aspects much broader, as per Dieneke's idea.

[TheOOB]

Originally Posted by Starbuck_II

But the idea from 5th to add casting stat to damage is a neat idea.

I'm not convinced that's the case. The rules seem to imply that, but the spell description and sample characters don't.

Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese)

On prerequisites: I can say this, taking an option at level-up you aren't interested in just so you can qualify for something you want later isn't fun. It actually kinda sucks considering you basically walk out of that level with no new shiny toys, it's bad for the same reasons dead levels are bad.

I would agree whole completely. Balancing costs via prerequisites is a terrible idea(for an example, see Exalted). The only reason one feat should require another is if a)it's an improved version of the first one, or b)the ability doesn't make sense unless they have the other feat first. In 3.x, Cleave requiring power attack or mobility requiring dodge was silly, the abilities are unrelated, but Great Cleave requiring Cleave, or Spring Attack requiring Mobility made sense(don't get me started on Whirlwind Attack).

If a feat is too powerful to just offer outright, make a weaker version of it.

[Grundy]

Originally Posted by noparlpf

What do people think about the idea of spell prerequisites?

I love this idea. Any fiction I can think of has this concept built into it. I'd like so see it combined with something like skill ranks, but in spells.
Start all spells weak, something that an irl human could do. One rank in Knock gives a +3 to disable device, for example. This applies at any caster level. As ranks are gained, knock will not only open doors, it'll open other stuff, morph into dispel magic and break enchantment.
So then produce flame morphs into fireball into meteor swarm. Entangle into web into evards tentacles, etc.
I could see a few basic spells for each of the schools. Higher level spells require these lower level spells, at a specific skill rank.
Then you can have a generalist wizard, balanced with a specialized one. Also it's logical how power within a school or even a spell grows.
Also you could have a 15th level wizard who's specialized in illusion, say, struggling to open a locked chest, even with magic. And that makes me smile, and it makes sense.

[TheOOB]

Originally Posted by Grundy

I love this idea. Any fiction I can think of has this concept built into it. I'd like so see it combined with something like skill ranks, but in spells.
Start all spells weak, something that an irl human could do. One rank in Knock gives a +3 to disable device, for example. This applies at any caster level. As ranks are gained, knock will not only open doors, it'll open other stuff, morph into dispel magic and break enchantment.
So then produce flame morphs into fireball into meteor swarm. Entangle into web into evards tentacles, etc.
I could see a few basic spells for each of the schools. Higher level spells require these lower level spells, at a specific skill rank.
Then you can have a generalist wizard, balanced with a specialized one. Also it's logical how power within a school or even a spell grows.
Also you could have a 15th level wizard who's specialized in illusion, say, struggling to open a locked chest, even with magic. And that makes me smile, and it makes sense.

But whats the point of the spell system then? Fighters and rogues already get abilities that naturally get better at a linear rate like that. Why make casters work the same way?

[Stubbazubba]

Originally Posted by TheOOB

But whats the point of the spell system then? Fighters and rogues already get abilities that naturally get better at a linear rate like that. Why make casters work the same way?

What's the alternative? Something that gets better either way faster or slower? I don't understand what you're asking here.

I think splitting up points into different schools sounds awesome. I would split it on two axes, though; you would put points into a school, and also learn spells within that school. When you raised a school's skill rank, all the spells you know in that school would rise, too. So if your Transmutation rank was just 1, Knock would give you Advantage on Disable Device checks or other attempts to get through a door, while at Transmutation 2 it would open locked, stuck or barred doors, and at Transmutation 3 it could be used on held doors, and at Transmutation 4 it could be used on arcane locked doors. Transmutation 5 would open up a new tier of spells, probably including Fly and Polymorph. This way you could have a 1-20 progression for each school (of course the spells in each school would have to be re-tooled or shuffled around to be relatively balanced).

I suppose that would be equivalent to just having a different class for each school, and each level of each class simply giving you additional spell picks, with spell effects based on your level in that class, and tiers of spell lists to pick from.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by TheOOB

But whats the point of the spell system then? Fighters and rogues already get abilities that naturally get better at a linear rate like that. Why make casters work the same way?

...for balance? I hate the linear vs. quadratic thing going on. Casters shouldn't go from suck to epic while mundanes go from alright to pretty good.

[HMS Invincible]

Sorry to interrupt, but does anyone know when the next update for the playtest is coming?