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

[1337 b4k4]

It seems to me, the problem with alignment and the paladin is that stupid rule where in if a paladin even commits an "evil act" they lose their powers. Everywhere else in the books, alignment is a big thing, and an alignment shift is even bigger (so big, in some books you had to make a save when you shifted). No one act could or should cause you to shift alignments. Just because the BBEG saves a drowning kitten doesn't make him "Good" now. The paladin forced to choose between saving the falling maiden or the burning orphanage should not shift alignments because of this choice. If they keep alignment (and I assume they will), they need to make it very clear and very explicit that an alignment is a general overview of a person and how their actions shift their world as a whole towards one alignment or another. Alignment, and shifting them should be once again a very big deal, and it should be clear that while there may be temporary penalties for acting out of alignment (perhaps a temporary WIL or CON penalty) no permanent changes occur until you have seriously shifted your alignment.

Of course, I also think they should go back to the simple Law, Neutral, Chaos alignments, but I think they should replace "Law" with "Order" since that's really more what its about. Also, they need to be explicitly clear that two members of opposing alignments can be enemies or in conflict.

[Camelot]

Originally Posted by Kerrin

Reserve it for significant outsiders, deities, etc. For example, a devil is uppercase EVIL, but that swindling merchant down the street is not - he's just a cheat.

I especially like this idea, but instead of calling it "Evil", they just refer to it as "Devil". Creatures can have keywords so that certain effects work on them, kind of like Turn Undead. If a paladin has Smite Evil, it will say in the effect that it works on "devils, demons, elementals," etc (depending on the setting, I suppose, but there would be a core assumption) instead of just saying that it works on "creatures with the evil alignment." So maybe a paladin who follows a god that hates fey creatures can use a similar power to smite anything with the fey keyword.

[Menteith]

I'd rather see a [Holy] and [Unholy] tag for outsiders/powerful undead. They can still act in a consistent way that's defined according to rules, without getting into the mess that objective [Good] & [Evil] bring into it.

[Knaight]

There's verbiage about prestige classes in that interview. That's somewhat worrying, as they added a lot more complexity than necessary in 3.x. They might be handled well this time, but I'm not optimistic, particularly as they appear to be a mechanism to jam setting in to some extent.

[Kerrin]

Originally Posted by Camelot

I especially like this idea, but instead of calling it "Evil", they just refer to it as "Devil". Creatures can have keywords so that certain effects work on them, kind of like Turn Undead. If a paladin has Smite Evil, it will say in the effect that it works on "devils, demons, elementals," etc (depending on the setting, I suppose, but there would be a core assumption) instead of just saying that it works on "creatures with the evil alignment." So maybe a paladin who follows a god that hates fey creatures can use a similar power to smite anything with the fey keyword.

I like that - a base definition with the flexibility to expand, contract, or change based upon setting, character concept, etc.

[tuggyne]

Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4

It seems to me, the problem with alignment and the paladin is that stupid rule where in if a paladin even commits an "evil act" they lose their powers. Everywhere else in the books, alignment is a big thing, and an alignment shift is even bigger (so big, in some books you had to make a save when you shifted). No one act could or should cause you to shift alignments. Just because the BBEG saves a drowning kitten doesn't make him "Good" now. The paladin forced to choose between saving the falling maiden or the burning orphanage should not shift alignments because of this choice.

A paladin is actually a bad example here, because in at least some editions (3rd) they can fall without changing alignments — their code is more restrictive than their alignment, but they can easily be confused.

Which is really another thing they need to watch out for.

[TheOOB]

Originally Posted by 1337 b4k4

It seems to me, the problem with alignment and the paladin is that stupid rule where in if a paladin even commits an "evil act" they lose their powers.

I don't have a problem with that. I like the idea that a paladin is someone who promotes good and fights evil, and will tolerate no evil within himself.

[Anderlith]

Originally Posted by Menteith

I'd rather see a [Holy] and [Unholy] tag for outsiders/powerful undead. They can still act in a consistent way that's defined according to rules, without getting into the mess that objective [Good] & [Evil] bring into it.

This. So much this! I have it house rules that paladins detect holy/unholy that way when they use their detect on an altar or treasure the Duskblade didn't light up (Lawful Evil) in big red letters.

[1337 b4k4]

I don't have a problem with that. I like the idea that a paladin is someone who promotes good and fights evil, and will tolerate no evil within himself.

There's nothing wrong with the idea of a paladin who will not tolerate evil within themselves. The problem stems from having a system where by a single (and ambiguously defined) action can permanently alter a character. The fact of the matter is, as I said, bigger than just the individual actions you do. A murderer is not good because they rescue a drowning kitten. A hero does not become evil because he chooses one life over another. As I said, I'm happy to have temporary effects. Your paladin who will suffer no evil within themselves has their faith shaken to the core when they save the orphanage rather than the drowning damsel, and temporarily lose access to all their divine powers. Sure I buy that, and it even makes sense. But surely their god (unless they are the vengeful sort) recognizes that such an act does not make the paladin evil, and therefore has not dropped the paladin from favor.

If you really wanted individual actions to have consequences, perhaps then a paladins powers should be a resource, much like spells. Every time a paladin commits an evil act, they spend some of their "holiness" which in turn reduces the effectiveness of or the access to their powers, such that a paladin doesn't so much dramatically and suddenly fall, as they slowly become just another flawed mortal, until the final loss of their holiness is an alignment shift to neutral or chaotic (or good if they were an evil paladin). Of course the "holiness" should be recoverable, but it should require a great quest or other redemption.

[Craft (Cheese)]

The wizard is actually due for a major update. We’re planning on adding the concept of an arcane tradition to the class. A tradition reflects how you studied magic and what kind of magic you are skilled in wielding. For instance, you might pick evocation magic as your tradition, making you an invoker. This grants you some bonus weapon and armor proficiencies, plus it gives you a list of invocation school spells that are your tradition’s signature spells. When you cast such a spell, you retain a shard of its magic. Five minutes later, you regain the ability to cast that spell. You don’t need to rest or anything to get the spell back. You studies and techniques allow you to prepare the spell in such a way that you regain its power.

Vancian purists will hate this idea but I for one find it acceptable. It's a good enough compromise.

[Zeful]

They give me the exact thing I want to Wizards?

KK, problem with 5e solved.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese)

Vancian purists will hate this idea but I for one find it acceptable. It's a good enough compromise.

I'm confused. Is evocation called invocation now? Invocation means something very different.
This sounds nice as far as flavour goes but I definitely do not like the idea of mages getting even more shiny new toys.

[Zeful]

Originally Posted by noparlpf

I'm confused. Is evocation called invocation now? Invocation means something very different.
This sounds nice as far as flavour goes but I definitely do not like the idea of mages getting even more shiny new toys.

Not really I mean, they actually hold very similar meaning, especially concerning fantasy interpretations.

Spoiler

in·vo·ca·tion
noun
1. the act of invoking or calling upon a deity, spirit, etc., for aid, protection, inspiration, or the like; supplication.
2. any petitioning or supplication for help or aid.
3. a form of prayer invoking God's presence, especially one said at the beginning of a religious service or public ceremony.
4. an entreaty for aid and guidance from a Muse, deity, etc., at the beginning of an epic or epiclike poem.
5. the act of calling upon a spirit by incantation.

e·voke
verb (used with object), e·voked, e·vok·ing.
1. to call up or produce (memories, feelings, etc.): to evoke a memory.
2. to elicit or draw forth: His comment evoked protests from the shocked listeners.
3. to call up; cause to appear; summon: to evoke a spirit from the dead.
4. to produce or suggest through artistry and imagination a vivid impression of reality: a short passage that manages to evoke the smells, colors, sounds, and shapes of that metropolis.

[Anderlith]

Originally Posted by noparlpf

I'm confused. Is evocation called invocation now? Invocation means something very different.
This sounds nice as far as flavour goes but I definitely do not like the idea of mages getting even more shiny new toys.

I think this is just a mistype by the writer. Evoker & Invoker sound very similar. But they are calling the spirit forth not the spirit in, so they are evokers

[Frozen_Feet]

Alignment works when it's either regulated to a roleplaying device, or when it affects everyone equally.

I feel there's an oddly specific definition of "working" behind this train of thought. There are loads of things that affect characters inequally besides Alignment - sometimes it's a problem, sometimes it's not. Afterall, should Charisma, Intelligence or Strenght affect everyone equally? Should wealth be equally important to everyone? The answer is hardly always "yes". Why is Alignment a special case? There's a reason why the saying about "straight and narrow" exists.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet

I feel there's an oddly specific definition of "working" behind this train of thought. There are loads of things that affect characters inequally besides Alignment - sometimes it's a problem, sometimes it's not. Afterall, should Charisma, Intelligence or Strenght affect everyone equally? Should wealth be equally important to everyone? The answer is hardly always "yes". Why is Alignment a special case? There's a reason why the saying about "straight and narrow" exists.

Wealth should affect everyone equally, as far as game mechanics go, or that's another source of imbalance. It's a huge pain for the Fighter to be significantly more dependent on equipment than, say, the Cleric. All a Cleric really needs to function is a holy symbol tattooed on his arm. A Fighter needs magic armor, magic weapons, magic equipment, all provided by other mages of some sort.

[Frozen_Feet]

Should it really? What if I want to play an ascetic style character who eschews material possessions? Or a rich merchant whose whole lifestyle revolves around gathering and managing wealth?

The problem in D&D 3.X was that there was no way to implement some concepts in any reasonable manner due to overt dependence on magic items. From what I hear, the problem wasn't even half as bad in D&D 4, which included rules for character-inherent progression of "equipment bonuses", meaning the characters could make do with nearly any junk they just got their hands on.

[noparlpf]

Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet

Should it really? What if I want to play an ascetic style character who eschews material possessions? Or a rich merchant whose whole lifestyle revolves around gathering and managing wealth?

The problem in D&D 3.X was that there was no way to implement some concepts in any reasonable manner due to overt dependence on magic items. From what I hear, the problem wasn't even half as bad in D&D 4, which included rules for character-inherent progression of "equipment bonuses", meaning the characters could make do with nearly any junk they just got their hands on.

There should be specific options that allow for that kind of thing. Or, if wealth and magic items are designed to have little impact on character design, the ascetic character could function just as well, though the merchant would be harder to do.
I like the idea of classes giving bonuses to certain stats or modifiers as the character progresses, rather than depending on magic items for bonuses. A Fighter gets increased Str, Dex, and Con, for example, inherently granting bonuses to attack, damage, AC, and hp, and at 20th level you have a Beowulf or a Hercules. A Wizard spends his life studying, so he gets Int and Wis bonuses. A Cleric devotes her life to faith, and gets bonuses to Wis and Cha.

[navar100]

Originally Posted by noparlpf

I'm confused. Is evocation called invocation now? Invocation means something very different.
This sounds nice as far as flavour goes but I definitely do not like the idea of mages getting even more shiny new toys.

It was called invocation before 3E changed it to evocation.

[Camelot]

Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese)

Vancian purists will hate this idea but I for one find it acceptable. It's a good enough compromise.

Or, in simpler words, the spells from your tradition are encounter spells instead of daily spells. I wonder if that won't be too powerful.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Originally Posted by Camelot

Or, in simpler words, the spells from your tradition are encounter spells instead of daily spells. I wonder if that won't be too powerful.

If you read his words exactly, he says the tradition specifies a list of "signature spells." So a Conjurer won't get to cast every last conjuration spell in existence as an encounter power, they just get to do that with a special, closed list containing stuff like summon monster, dimension door, and the like.

Or at least I *hope* that's how it works. Getting every conjuration spell ever made as an encounter power could be really overpowered.

(Actually, there's one change I would like to make to the system as Mearls has described it: Let a Wizard spend a full-round action to gather their thoughts and get back one of their expended signature spells, like how a ToB Swordsage works. Then I think I could be pretty happy with the result.)

[MukkTB]

Are we going to have spellcasters towering over everyone else? I haven't seen the most recent material but it didn't look like the rogue or the fighter got anything too wonderful.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Originally Posted by MukkTB

Are we going to have spellcasters towering over everyone else? I haven't seen the most recent material but it didn't look like the rogue or the fighter got anything too wonderful.

That all depends on how the spell list gets flushed out. The only spells that are in the playtest right now are basically just healing and blasting, with a few buffs and debuffs here and there. Fixing the *really* broken spells has not even been attempted yet.

[Yora]

This is from just one page back, apparently a quote by the lead developer:

Some spells need to be reigned in, specifically utility spells that are too good for their level, spells that are really powerful when used in combination with other spells, and the ease of stocking up on magic items and spell slots to make those combinations possible.

Which mentions about 95% of all the things that went really bad with 3rd Edition.
I particularly like that they also aknowledge that being able to cast knock once per day if you have prepared it does not may not make rogues useless, but when you can have a cheap wand of 50 knock spells, the spell does make open lock redundant.
When judging a spell for being balanced, you don't just have to consider it being prepared once when you expect to be needing it, but to have it on wands and scroll every time you may need it. And they have learned that, which really is great to hear.

[TheOOB]

It seems they are sending out emails for surveys, so if you signed up for the playtest this is your chance to tell WotC what you think. I'm excited to see what will be in the October document.

[Ziegander]

How many of you guys have actually playtested the D&D Next material? Like actually ran or participated in a session with it? How many of you have ran a session using the playtest adventures provided, and how many of you just winged your own adventures?

[Craft (Cheese)]

Originally Posted by Ziegander

How many of you guys have actually playtested the D&D Next material? Like actually ran or participated in a session with it? How many of you have ran a session using the playtest adventures provided, and how many of you just winged your own adventures?

I ran a session with the first packet but not the second. Haven't played either packet.

[Camelot]

I've played both packets, using the Caves of Chaos adventure for the first one and making up my own for the second one. Everybody in my group loves it.

[Ziegander]

As much as I've wanted to play the game, especially since the 2nd playtest packet, I've not been able to. Most of the guys over at minmaxboards have been in the same boat. Many seem to want to try it out, but only 1 or maybe 2 have actually played it.

I just wonder what percentage of those downloading the playtest are actually playtesting it.

I think D&D Next is headed in the right direction in many ways, but it has a lot of kinks it needs to iron out. But there's lots of time for that.

[Ashdate]

I ran the first packet, for my group; we didn't dig it. The consensus was to stick with our 4e game until it got an official release, and then try it out.