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

[TheOOB]

Originally Posted by Zombimode

But... the 5e Sorcerer Bloodlines do precisely this. They have a huge impact on the general direction of the class.

Edit: aaaaand ninja'd big time by TheOOB

*With mouth moving much faster than appropriate for the words spoken*

The way on the ninja is shrouded in mystery and fast typing skills.

I would like to see a ninja class that doesn't suck some time, just an aside.

[Leeham]

Originally Posted by TheOOB

I would like to see a ninja class that doesn't suck some time, just an aside.

I guarantee there will be a rogue scheme for that eventually.

But more seriously, I don't think it's fair to judge the sorcerer based on
A) What we've seen so far
B) The fluff from that Legends and Lore article.

We've only seen one facet of the class so far, so come on guys, have a little patience. Secondly, and this is the part that really annoys me, the article wasn't a rules article, nor was it some some canonical D&D "If you don't play the game like this you're wrong" type of thing. It was FLUFF. Written by a guy who thought that was a cool back story for these mechanics. The sorcerer can be REFLUFFED however you like. In fact, it would probably be easier to refluff a sorcerer than say, a fighter or wizard.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by The New Bruceski

Paladins will get a class "feature" that prevents all their abilities from working within 50 feet of a rogue, to keep party dynamics interesting.

Where's your evidence for that? Rogues can be good-aligned, and "mistrustful" isn't something I'd call "interesting".

Originally Posted by TheOOB

*With mouth moving much faster than appropriate for the words spoken*

The way on the ninja is shrouded in mystery and fast typing skills.

I would like to see a ninja class that doesn't suck some time, just an aside.

The Rokugan ninja in 3.X wasn't too bad. Compared to the other ninja.

[Yora]

What does a ninja do that is different from a rogue?

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by Yora

What does a ninja do that is different from a rogue?

Mechanically or thematically? A ninja is a spy and an assassin. It's a subset of Rogue. It doesn't necessarily have to be a separate class in 5e, maybe just a variant.

[Dienekes]

Originally Posted by Yora

What does a ninja do that is different from a rogue?

It's about as different as an assassin is to a rogue. Meaning mostly, just one that decided to focus on some specific subset of the rogues abilities.

Honestly, I don't think either need to be separate classes, but it would help making a Rogue Scheme that is actually called: Assassin, Spy, Acrobat, and all that jazz so that folks who get caught up on names know what they're supposed to play. Now if they do that, which it looks like they will, my question would be what real difference would the ninja have to the assassin scheme to make it necessary?

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by Dienekes

It's about as different as an assassin is to a rogue. Meaning mostly, just one that decided to focus on some specific subset of the rogues abilities.

Honestly, I don't think either need to be separate classes, but it would help making a Rogue Scheme that is actually called: Assassin, Spy, Acrobat, and all that jazz so that folks who get caught up on names know what they're supposed to play. Now if they do that, which it looks like they will, my question would be what real difference would the ninja have to the assassin scheme to make it necessary?

More smoke and illusions?

[Dienekes]

Originally Posted by noparlpf

More smoke and illusions?

Smoke pellets should be an item, and as for illusions, I did not think we were going with the magic ninja variant but a more realistic take on them. If we're adding that sort of stuff then yeah, I guess it would be it's own scheme.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by Dienekes

Smoke pellets should be an item, and as for illusions, I did not think we were going with the magic ninja variant but a more realistic take on them. If we're adding that sort of stuff then yeah, I guess it would be it's own scheme.

Smoke pellets are an item.
I didn't mean magic illusions. But I guess a couple of magic ninjutsu are kind of the classic western view of the ninja. Not that that necessarily means the ninja should be Naruto or something ridiculous like that. I don't think I'd like a magic ninja.

[Zombimode]

Originally Posted by Dienekes

It's about as different as an assassin is to a rogue. Meaning mostly, just one that decided to focus on some specific subset of the rogues abilities.

Honestly, I don't think either need to be separate classes, but it would help making a Rogue Scheme that is actually called: Assassin, Spy, Acrobat, and all that jazz so that folks who get caught up on names know what they're supposed to play. Now if they do that, which it looks like they will, my question would be what real difference would the ninja have to the assassin scheme to make it necessary?

Points to consider from tradition (D&D tradition):

Assassins have a "Death Attack" and dabble in magic. One could say, the archetype the D&D Assassin covers, is the stealthy killer that uses magic to boost its skills.

Ninjas have various Supernatural powers. One could say a Ninja is a stealthy guy that uses Ki to for superhuman feats.

Both opposed to the Rogue, who currently seems to be a shady McGuyver type.


Whether you think thats enough of a distinction to make an own class is your call.
Personally, I think the Mage/Thief killer type is distinct enough to warrant a class. Its narrow, but not narrower than the Druid or Paladin. I wouldn't mind if its included in D&D Next.

The Ninja on the other side is to specific for my tastes as a class. Some (line of) Feats would be better, like "Ki User: Acrobatic", "Ki User: Body" and "Ki User: Mind" or so.

Originally Posted by Dienekes

Now if they do that, which it looks like they will, my question would be what real difference would the ninja have to the assassin scheme to make it necessary?

Sorry if I'm harping on semantics, but very few things are necessary for a fantasy PnP system. One could argue that something qualifies for the genre some kind of magic user has to be available, likewise some kind of warrior. The Wizard and Fighter classes would satisfy this.

What is represented by a class, or by a feat (or whatever) or at all, is largely contingent. The reasons for including one thing or the other can vary. For Next tradition likely plays a big role, as well as player expectations and considerings what makes for an interesting game.

[Kurald Galain]

Originally Posted by Yora

What does a ninja do that is different from a rogue?

Flip out and kill people? That's what I call Real Ultimate Pwoer!

[Ashdate]

Originally Posted by Kurald Galain

Flip out and kill people? That's what I call Real Ultimate Pwoer!

I'm glad they got rid of them for 4e; before the heavy nerfs in 3e Ninjas had it all: Ninja Swords, Hippo Mounts, Rock Music... they were Tier -1 easy.

[Seerow]

Originally Posted by Ashdate

I'm glad they got rid of them for 4e; before the heavy nerfs in 3e Ninjas had it all: Ninja Swords, Hippo Mounts, Rock Music... they were Tier -1 easy.

Don't forget their OP no save just die frisbie ability.

[Starbuck_II]

Originally Posted by Yora

What does a ninja do that is different from a rogue?

Something like the Pathfinder version, I perfer the Eastern anime/fantasy version. They can Shadowclone (mirror Image) using Ki, turn invisible, Use ki for extra attack, wall climb, etc.

Rogues don't have magic/Ki, rogues are better at disabling traps however.

Both can find them easily.

[Menteith]

I'd rather see both a Rogue scheme for a nonmagical Ninja and a Monk scheme for a mystical Ninja. There's no reason both ideas couldn't be expressed through different ways.

[Zeful]

Originally Posted by Friv

I would argue that the fluff in question doesn't present wizards as individually stronger, just more organized. If a lone wizard was easily a match for a lone warlock, they wouldn't have any reason to fear them.

I mean, I still think it's not great fluff, since it locks down a class into an organization, and I'm not a fan of that, but I can certainly see it as a general trend. Warlocks practically exist as a pointed discussion on the dangers of reaching for power too quickly, and sorcerers have the ability to grasp what wizards do without the long training needed to properly control it. Both styles of magic are liable to be much more dangerous, just because their users are more likely to not have a thorough grounding in what the crap they're doing.

Originally Posted by Knaight

Worse than that, it hampers individual characters. There are a whole bunch of plausible reactions between members of the three classes regarding the others. A sorcerer could admire a wizard for achieving with hard work what the sorcerer can simply do, another could scorn them for having to struggle, yet another could have a fascination with wizard magic due to it seeming exotic, so on and so forth. In converse, a wizard could be envious of a sorcerer; another could pity them for having an easy route, considering them inferior as a result; yet another could have a love of sorcerers magic and generally be furious at sorcerers for taking it for granted. If you assume a character who is actually tied into magic in a big way, and is somewhat major, they would likely have a complex relationship with the types of magic, the various practitioners, individuals in each group, factions within the organizations that exist, and so much else. Instead, we get "Wizards hate these guys and hunt them down".

So, in regards to previous arguments in this thread:

How are either of these complaints actually valid, if my complaint on bloodlines being limited isn't?

[Dienekes]

Originally Posted by Menteith

I'd rather see both a Rogue scheme for a nonmagical Ninja and a Monk scheme for a mystical Ninja. There's no reason both ideas couldn't be expressed through different ways.

This is a good idea. But they'll probably rename them so there aren't two schemes floating around called ninja.

Originally Posted by Zeful

So, in regards to previous arguments in this thread:

How are either of these complaints actually valid, if my complaint on bloodlines being limited isn't?

Because they are entirely basing their argument on disliking the fluff. Fine, if you said you don't like the fluff of bloodlines there'd be no argument. IBut you try to tie your dislike of the fluff into an argument of the mechanics saying that bloodlines will have no changes in altering the class which is as yet unproven. That's what gets pointed out, repeatedly.

Now personally, after a quick read through the sorc/warlock thing without thinking of implications or whatnot, I thought the fluff was interesting. Not the best thing I've ever read, but interesting.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by Menteith

I'd rather see both a Rogue scheme for a nonmagical Ninja and a Monk scheme for a mystical Ninja. There's no reason both ideas couldn't be expressed through different ways.

I think I'd like to see that.

[Lictor of Thrax]

Originally Posted by Dienekes

It's about as different as an assassin is to a rogue. Meaning mostly, just one that decided to focus on some specific subset of the rogues abilities.

Honestly, I don't think either need to be separate classes, but it would help making a Rogue Scheme that is actually called: Assassin, Spy, Acrobat, and all that jazz so that folks who get caught up on names know what they're supposed to play. Now if they do that, which it looks like they will, my question would be what real difference would the ninja have to the assassin scheme to make it necessary?

As mentioned, a ninja isn't just an assassin, he's also a spy, an infiltrator. Really, the real difference between a ninja and a samurai wasn't so much their fighting styles but how they applied themselves. Samurai were the honorable face of their lord, ninja were the guys that did their business on the sly.

I see them having all sorts of diversionary tactics/abilities. Maybe focused on more cinematic and acrobatic abilities. I see them more diverse and spread out.

Assassin's were killers, flat and simple. While there'd definitely be some cross-over in some areas, I see them as completely focused on something that ninja simply dabble in.

[noparlpf]

Ninja deserve Hide in Plain Sight, definitely. Maybe an ability to avoid an attack by leaving a dummy image behind, and moving to behind the enemy. Fast movement. Possibly illusionary doubles. Maybe the ninjutsu abilities could be based on some Ki points system similar to the Sorcerer's Willpower in 5e. Uhh...some water-walk and wall-walk abilities. And maybe a fire-based ability. That's what I think of for Ninja.

[Yora]

That's a spellcaster with the Stealth Skill.

I like my ninja as just some guys who are really got at sneaking and silent killing with knives and poison and some scouting ability.

[huttj509]

Originally Posted by Yora

That's a spellcaster with the Stealth Skill.

I like my ninja as just some guys who are really got at sneaking and silent killing with knives and poison and some scouting ability.

Aaaaaaand there's the problem. You ask 5 people what's necessary to be a 'Ninja' and you get 6 contradictory answers.

And worse? All of them are right.

[Knaight]

Originally Posted by huttj509

Aaaaaaand there's the problem. You ask 5 people what's necessary to be a 'Ninja' and you get 6 contradictory answers.

And worse? All of them are right.

Fortunately, just about all of them could easily be represented, though it works best if there isn't an explicitly delineated Ninja class or theme or whatever. Yora's conception can be handled with a rogue with the right equipment and skills really easily, Lictor's is represented easily enough with skills in disguise and deceit, a high dexterity score, and the rogue class. Noparlpf's is the only listed conception which requires quite a bit of new stuff, and even then, I wouldn't be surprised if the Monk class ended up having quite a bit of it built in.

[Talakeal]

I think the new sorcerer is a really good idea. A "possessed" character isn't a well represented arch-type in D&D, and the idea of a caster who becomes more melee focused as he runs low on spell slots is a creative new dynamic that turns the concept of going nova and the 15 minute work day on its ear.

The problem is, that isn't what a sorcerer is in D&D. It's a great idea for a new class, but it is a drastic betrayal of an existing concept, and that is exactly the type of thing they should be shying away from if they are trying to win back fans of older additions and not alienate anyone.

[AgentPaper]

How is that not what the sorcerer has been about historically? In 3.5, the sorcerer was just a re-hash of the wizard with slightly different casting. It wasn't until 4E that the sorcerer got their own distinct identity, and that identity is basically exactly what the 5E sorcerer is doing, just taken a step further.

As for specifically becoming more of a melee character when the spells are out, that's what the dragonblooded sorcerer does, not all sorcerers. We don't know what the other types do yet.

[Leeham]

Originally Posted by Talakeal

I think the new sorcerer is a really good idea. A "possessed" character isn't a well represented arch-type in D&D, and the idea of a caster who becomes more melee focused as he runs low on spell slots is a creative new dynamic that turns the concept of going nova and the 15 minute work day on its ear.

The problem is, that isn't what a sorcerer is in D&D. It's a great idea for a new class, but it is a drastic betrayal of an existing concept, and that is exactly the type of thing they should be shying away from if they are trying to win back fans of older additions and not alienate anyone.

Emphasis mine.

I don't think it is really. In 3e the idea of sorcerer as the mage who draws his power from his supernatural heritage was right there in his fluff if not in the mechanics, and in 4e it appeared again, with mechanical representation. Now this iteration of the sorcerer might seem a little extreme, but if you ask me it's the logical conclusion of this concept, mechanically supported so that now the class focuses on that concept to the point where the class is all about power from supernatural heritage, instead of that theme just being a minor feature of the class.

[mhensley]

fun with d&d character generation - I give you Belkar Bitterleaf

1st level Halfling Fighter CE

Str- 12
Dex- 17
Con- 14
Int- 10
Wis- 8
Cha- 13

AC- 15 (studded leather)
HP- 12
2 x dagger 1d6 (+6 to hit, +3 to damage)

Halfling-
Speed- 25 ft.
Lucky
Halfling Weapon Training
Halfling Nimbleness
Lightfoot- naturally stealthy

Thug-
intimidate- 4
stealth- 6
streetwise- 4

Duelist - tumbling
Dual Wielder- two weapon fighting

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by huttj509

Aaaaaaand there's the problem. You ask 5 people what's necessary to be a 'Ninja' and you get 6 contradictory answers.

And worse? All of them are right.

Exactly. That's why making a game to appeal to everyone is so hard.

Originally Posted by Knaight

Fortunately, just about all of them could easily be represented, though it works best if there isn't an explicitly delineated Ninja class or theme or whatever. Yora's conception can be handled with a rogue with the right equipment and skills really easily, Lictor's is represented easily enough with skills in disguise and deceit, a high dexterity score, and the rogue class. Noparlpf's is the only listed conception which requires quite a bit of new stuff, and even then, I wouldn't be surprised if the Monk class ended up having quite a bit of it built in.

Admittedly, half the things I listed came from Kirby's Ninja form in one of the DS games.

[Zeful]

Originally Posted by Leeham

Emphasis mine.

I don't think it is really. In 3e the idea of sorcerer as the mage who draws his power from his supernatural heritage was right there in his fluff if not in the mechanics, and in 4e it appeared again, with mechanical representation. Now this iteration of the sorcerer might seem a little extreme, but if you ask me it's the logical conclusion of this concept, mechanically supported so that now the class focuses on that concept to the point where the class is all about power from supernatural heritage, instead of that theme just being a minor feature of the class.

How 'bout no. Yes, there was a line in reference to supernatural heritage, but unlike the rest of the body of that text, it was written as myth-making than a statement of fact (and yes, there is a difference). The sorcerer fluff in 3e did not officially support any specific factor for why he could cast, making it the player's job to come up with all that background, if he felt it necessary.

Or to put it in a way that people will understand, the fighter. What did his class' fluff endorse for archetype? Anything you wanted it to. What if all fighters were in 5e mechanically forced to be mercenaries? How do you think people would take it?

[AgentPaper]

Originally Posted by Zeful

Or to put it in a way that people will understand, the fighter. What did his class' fluff endorse for archetype? Anything you wanted it to. What if all fighters were in 5e mechanically forced to be mercenaries? How do you think people would take it?

How are those in any way comparable? The sorcerer's fluff dictates only that you were born with strange powers. It says nothing about what you did with those powers, or anything else about your life at all. You could be a farmer who didn't know about his power until very late in his life, or you could be a scion of a noble bloodline that has nurtured their sorcerous bloodline for generations, or you could be a mercenary that uses their bloodline powers for coin.