Roleplaying GamesThe all-purpose forum for general advice or system-independent (or multi-system) discussion. Come discuss adventure plots, gamemastering dilemmas, or player advice here. For ruleset-specific discussions, see the subforums.
I find myself continually going back to my opinion that they really ought to pare the classes down to just 3 and leave all the other "classes" as backgrounds and specialties.
Call the 3 core classes "Fighter", "Magic User" and "Hybrid". Then drop all the other "classes" in as backgrounds and specialties. A Ranger becomes a Fighter with the "Tracker" background and the "Ranged Weapons" specialty. A Monk is just a Fighter with some "Endurance" background and an "Unarmed Combat" specialty.
Thieves are Hybrids with the Scoundrel Background and a Traps specialty. Clerics are hybrids with the Kight background and a Healing specialty. And so on and so forth.
I like the idea that WotC has of giving each class their own unique feel and mechanics, I just think that it's quite clear with how expertise dice are being spread around the martial classes that this won't be doable. Of course, for all I know that's actually what they're doing on the back end which is why martial classes are all sharing expertise dice.
Has there been said or indicated something as to the art in D&D next? (I'm not following the packets and such as much as I'd like.) Because that's one of my main reasons to love 3.5. Those start of chapter - panels were gorgeus!
I have not seen anything on the art at all. The layout of some of the text reminds me of 2E books.
For this, it's just dumb flavor text. It has no mechanical weight, so I can't rage about it too much other than calling it dumb.
It's when alignment starts creeping its tendrils into every aspect of the game system that I get mad. I want to be able to cleanly and surgically remove it from the game's mechanics like I could in 4e and like I can in other games.
For this, it's just dumb flavor text. It has no mechanical weight, so I can't rage about it too much other than calling it dumb.
It's when alignment starts creeping its tendrils into every aspect of the game system that I get mad. I want to be able to cleanly and surgically remove it from the game's mechanics like I could in 4e and like I can in other games.
-O
Agreed. Although if I were pressed, the Monk is a pretty good example of Lawful, at least in fighting style. But even that has counter arguments, if you also subscribe to Rumble in the Bronx theory. :)
2) For a company we're so sure is doing this in part because Hasbro doesn't like how the sales of 4e have gone, I really don't see "We're going to design our next flagship product which will carry our line through the next 5 years minimum by throwing random ideas at a dart board, and letting the internet decide on everything!" going over so well in the board meetings.
D&D is nowhere near WOTC's flagship product, though, and certainly not Hasbro's.
Why are they so insistent on making core parts of a class, like Sneak Attack and Flurry of Blows, so terrible? And why does a monk not even get to pick a single maneuver until level 4? I don't really understand.
My initial impression of the monk is that it's both weak and uninteresting. Some of the concepts are cool (like deflect arrows), but they ultimately fall flat for me (I would never take deflect arrows because maneuver slots are so limited, and the maneuver itself is so niche and even when it works it's marginal in effect, compare to Iron Root Defense).
D&D is nowhere near WOTC's flagship product, though, and certainly not Hasbro's.
D&D is absolutely one of WotC's flagships. Don't believe me, have a look at their home page and tell me what brands immediately come to mind. Check out their about page and tell me what two brands are mentioned by name.
Sure, it's not one of Hasbo's flagship products, but that doesn't matter when they're evaluating what WotC is doing (except insofar as it means Hasbro isn't above telling WotC D&D is losing too much money and to can it).
This Monk appears to repeat one of the problems with the 3.5 Monk. You can't use your mobility and flurry of blows on the same turn, because they both cost expertise dice.
Stunning Attack looks really underpowered. Once per day the enemy can make its save and waste my resource, because the big bads get advantage on the save.
Last edited by Excession : 11-13-2012 at 04:50 PM.
This Monk appears to repeat one of the problems with the 3.5 Monk. You can't use your mobility and flurry of blows on the same turn, because they both cost expertise dice.
Why is this a problem? It makes it a choice, rather than just "move a million miles every turn without sacrificing anything at all." Of course, it does make the monk less powerful, but if the monk ends up being too weak there's other ways to make them stronger.
This Monk appears to repeat one of the problems with the 3.5 Monk. You can't use your mobility and flurry of blows on the same turn, because they both cost expertise dice.
I'm not even sure what this comment is supposed to mean. Are you saying that their vision is that the monk should need to make meaningful choices in how they use their class resources in each round?
Having downloaded the package, it seems that the list of finesse weapons is decently sized, although it could use to be more varied. But I guess I could use a katana and describe it as a Western-style longsword with no problem.
__________________
My FFRP characters. Avatar by Kid Kris. Sigatars by Gulaghar, Kid Kris, Zefir and billtodamax, respectively.
I'm not even sure what this comment is supposed to mean. Are you saying that their vision is that the monk should need to make meaningful choices in how they use their class resources in each round?
I think the question that needs to be asked here is this: What are monks supposed to be doing?
I'm not even sure what this comment is supposed to mean. Are you saying that their vision is that the monk should need to make meaningful choices in how they use their class resources in each round?
They should have to make meaningful choices in how they use their class resources. IMO, this shouldn't be it. Running up walls should be part of what the monk does alongside a powerful attack, not instead of it.
Because standing still and punching is just not very monk-ish, if you ask me.
I'm not even sure what this comment is supposed to mean. Are you saying that their vision is that the monk should need to make meaningful choices in how they use their class resources in each round?
One of the problems I have with expertise dice is that it's hard to make a "meaningful decision" when the results can be so random. Using Step of the Wind is more like a gamble--you may reach your destination, you may not, that's for the dice to decide (and not you). Granted, it does become a bit more meaningful once you have 2-3 dice and can make certain definite effects happen, though it's all situationally useful at best.
It's another reason why I'm very dismissive of maneuvers like Flurry of Blows, Whirlwind Attack, and Volley. Since they don't get any modifiers for damage, there's no solid base of damage to fall back on, and the results can be quite random. I prefer the approach of Cleave.
Or to put it more succinctly, just because a game has some large flaws does not mean the game is ultimately a bad game. No product is ever perfect, and every abstraction and simulation has holes. The ultimate test of whether or not a game is any good is do the players come back time and time again, even if they have alternatives? I think D&D has proven itself to be a quality game, despite its "glaring flaws."
Three words: Worse. Is. Better. (Whether you consider this an indictment or a defense is up to you.)
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Water_Bear
That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hamishspence
"Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid"
I often hop into threads for just one thing
I just downloaded the playtest now, and I have to say....it seems....different. I must ask, since I know little of ballance are the casters still OP compared to the martial classes despite being limited to 5th level spells? Or are things slightly more balanced out then 3.5e?
I just downloaded the playtest now, and I have to say....it seems....different. I must ask, since I know little of ballance are the casters still OP compared to the martial classes despite being limited to 5th level spells? Or are things slightly more balanced out then 3.5e?
Spells per day has been brought low. Almost cripplingly low. The spells themselves though don't seem to have that much of a difference between 3.5's versions though: Unless I'm missing something Polymorph is even less restricted than before.
Three words: Worse. Is. Better. (Whether you consider this an indictment or a defense is up to you.)
Unless you linked to the wrong place, that's an article talking about how simplicity is better than efficiency in computer programming. Which doesn't have anything at all to do with DnD.
__________________
Excellent avatar by Elder Tsofu.
Last edited by AgentPaper : 11-13-2012 at 06:01 PM.
Yeah, it's possible for a player to make that choice, but the mechanics should ideally recognize intelligent players making somewhat optimized decisions.
I'm sorry, there's is quite frankly no part of that remark, or the concept and thought processes that it's built upon that is not blatantly offensive. If optimization means boring by-the-numbers play than that form of optimization should be excised in full for something that is both interesting and dynamic, not elevated as something for "intelligent players". That direction leads to traps and poor design that made 3.5 such a terribly balanced and written system for it's genre.
Making a game where the fun aspects of play are outright worse is the way crappy games get made, and in this case especially, is based in bad logic, as it's not necessary for preparatory challenges to so strongly influence execution challenges.
__________________
Thanks to Ninja Chocobo for the avatar.
I am not perfect, nor do I pretend to be, if you find an error in something I've said, show me.
The honest truth is, I think, that there's enough kinds of D&D games now targeted to their audiences that the best Next can hope for is to be everyone's second-favorite edition. Which is fine, I suppose, but not something I can really get excited about.
This basically sums up my feelings. I think 5e has a decent chance of becoming "everyone's second-favorite system;" I'm even kind of rooting for it. I hope that it can keep the D&D name alive (financially) in that role. But I don't foresee it attracting a large market of die-hard fans when faced with competition from 3e, 4e, Pathfinder, OSRIC, C&C, Legend, Dungeon World, CRE8, 13th Age, OldSchoolHack, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noparlpf
There's an update today? Man I wish their system worked. I don't get emails anymore.
Try their Facebook page. That's how I usually find out about the updates. Or you could just keep finding out from this thread, of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nu
It's another reason why I'm very dismissive of maneuvers like Flurry of Blows, Whirlwind Attack, and Volley. Since they don't get any modifiers for damage, there's no solid base of damage to fall back on, and the results can be quite random. I prefer the approach of Cleave.
I'm less worried about these maneuvers being "too random" and more about their being simply obsolete (due to low damage) at higher levels. But I can definitely see why they're more limited in damage bonuses than Cleave -- that's for balance, since Cleave has another fairly harsh restriction (reducing a target to 0 HP) built into it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese)
Spells per day has been brought low. Almost cripplingly low.
I like the small number of spells/day at higher levels. If they're going to stick with a Vancian casting model at all, and if spells aren't uniformly completely boring, then spells/day has to be a meaningful limitation at all levels if spellcasters aren't going to take over the game. And the 50+ spells/day that a high-level 3e Wizard gets just doesn't qualify.
Quote:
The spells themselves though don't seem to have that much of a difference between 3.5's versions though: Unless I'm missing something Polymorph is even less restricted than before.
Polymorph is definitely still broken, but I think it's the exception rather than the rule; most spells seem to be nerfed to sanity in the latest packet. And even Pathfinder is an improvement over 3e's version: it doesn't allow you to use any of your normal abilities (e.g. spellcasting) while polymorphed.
__________________
You can call me Draz. Trophies:
Work on my homebrew system, CRE8, is still marching slowly onwards. I think I can see the light at the end of the tunnel -- an Alpha release -- in the distance now. Read my Design Goals here.
I like the small number of spells/day at higher levels. If they're going to stick with a Vancian casting model at all, and if spells aren't uniformly completely boring, then spells/day has to be a meaningful limitation at all levels if spellcasters aren't going to take over the game. And the 50+ spells/day that a high-level 3e Wizard gets just doesn't qualify.
At high levels I'd agree with you, but the low levels are even more ludicrous than before. A fifth level wizard gets, at most, 6 meaningful spells per day. Less if you pick another tradition, since signature and at-will spells take up your daily spell slots. The supposed utility of these signature/at-will spells to counter it is also questionable since they don't scale in level: I'm willing to bet those 0th-level spells will be just as relevant at low-mid levels in 5E as they were in 3.5, that is, not at all.
Given that, I think all the lower slots will accomplish is encourage players to use the 15-minute workday even more.
EDIT: For posterity, here's a system that I think would work better: Wizards get 4 spell slots of the highest level they can cast, and 6 slots of the second-highest level. This never increases except for the choice of tradition and potentially feats. You can still prepare a lower-level spell into a higher-level slot if you so choose.
The at-will and signature spell lists for each tradition should include spells of every level. In addition, at-will and signature spells should take up separate spell slots and not restrict your use of dailies.
Last edited by Craft (Cheese) : 11-13-2012 at 07:13 PM.
My first impression on the monk is that (like in 3E) it gets a large amount of mostly arbitrary class features that sound much more impressive than they are. Though thankfully they are proficient in unarmed strikes now. Overall only their different maneuver list and the 1/day stun attack make it meaningfully different from the fighter.
My second impression is that the designers are getting carried away with "expertise dice" and are shoehorning all kinds of classic class features into something vaguely related to dice. I'm just reading over some of the longer powers maneuvers on the list and am wondering why on earth some of those require expertise dice in that convoluted fashion. The way this is going, I'm actually surprised that they didn't shoehorn all monk features (including ki) into expertise dice somehow.
Example: composed attack. Normally, when you have disadvantage, you roll two dice and pick the lowest. That is an elegant mechanic. With a composed attack, however, you roll 2d20, pick the lowest, roll 2d6, pick the lowest of that, add that to the lowest d20 rolled, then use either that result or the other d20, whichever is lowest. Try having a beginning player use that consistently; this is not an elegant mechanic, it's just rolling dice for the sake of it.
My first impression on the monk is that (like in 3E) it gets a large amount of mostly arbitrary class features that sound much more impressive than they are. Though thankfully they are proficient in unarmed strikes now. Overall only their different maneuver list and the 1/day stun attack make it meaningfully different from the fighter.
My second impression is that the designers are getting carried away with "expertise dice" and are shoehorning all kinds of classic class features into something vaguely related to dice. I'm just reading over some of the longer powers maneuvers on the list and am wondering why on earth some of those require expertise dice in that convoluted fashion. The way this is going, I'm actually surprised that they didn't shoehorn all monk features (including ki) into expertise dice somehow.
Example: composed attack. Normally, when you have disadvantage, you roll two dice and pick the lowest. That is an elegant mechanic. With a composed attack, however, you roll 2d20, pick the lowest, roll 2d6, pick the lowest of that, add that to the lowest d20 rolled, then use either that result or the other d20, whichever is lowest. Try having a beginning player use that consistently; this is not an elegant mechanic, it's just rolling dice for the sake of it.
What. I understood the process completely my first read through, but I'd still rather just fail the roll than have to go through that nonsense.
Example: composed attack. Normally, when you have disadvantage, you roll two dice and pick the lowest. That is an elegant mechanic. With a composed attack, however, you roll 2d20, pick the lowest, roll 2d6, pick the lowest of that, add that to the lowest d20 rolled, then use either that result or the other d20, whichever is lowest. Try having a beginning player use that consistently; this is not an elegant mechanic, it's just rolling dice for the sake of it.
But but but, players like rolling dice! It doesn't matter at all why you're doing it or what the results mean, all that matters is that bits of plastic are flying around and you get excited when big numbers show up.
At high levels I'd agree with you, but the low levels are even more ludicrous than before. A fifth level wizard gets, at most, 6 meaningful spells per day. Less if you pick another tradition, since signature and at-will spells take up your daily spell slots. The supposed utility of these signature/at-will spells to counter it is also questionable since they don't scale in level: I'm willing to bet those 0th-level spells will be just as relevant at low-mid levels in 5E as they were in 3.5, that is, not at all.
Given that, I think all the lower slots will accomplish is encourage players to use the 15-minute workday even more.
Yeah, fair enough. Although at least the signature spells mechanic (not at-will spells, which will indeed be nearly useless at higher levels) will take a little bit of the pressure off of low-level casters. For example (on the extreme end), Level 1 Wizards have no special incentive toward the 15-minute workday, since all they would recover is their 1/day use of their signature spell, which they can use after every 10-minute rest anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese)
EDIT: For posterity, here's a system that I think would work better: Wizards get 4 spell slots of the highest level they can cast, and 6 slots of the second-highest level. This never increases except for the choice of tradition and potentially feats. You can still prepare a lower-level spell into a higher-level slot if you so choose.
Something along these lines would be ok with me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurald Galain
My second impression is that the designers are getting carried away with "expertise dice" and are shoehorning all kinds of classic class features into something vaguely related to dice. I'm just reading over some of the longer powers maneuvers on the list and am wondering why on earth some of those require expertise dice in that convoluted fashion. The way this is going, I'm actually surprised that they didn't shoehorn all monk features (including ki) into expertise dice somehow.
Example: composed attack. Normally, when you have disadvantage, you roll two dice and pick the lowest. That is an elegant mechanic. With a composed attack, however, you roll 2d20, pick the lowest, roll 2d6, pick the lowest of that, add that to the lowest d20 rolled, then use either that result or the other d20, whichever is lowest. Try having a beginning player use that consistently; this is not an elegant mechanic, it's just rolling dice for the sake of it.
Yeah, the problem is that Expertise Dice are the second actually innovative thing that the team has come up with for this game (the first being Advantage/Disadvantage, which isn't all that ground-breaking IMO). So when they came up with a brand new "shiny" mechanic and it quickly got some positive survey feedback, they quickly latched on and decided to integrate it to a central position in the system. Never mind the fact that (1) Expertise dice are not really an awesome enough mechanic to bridge the gap between mundanes and spellcasters, and (2) the mechanic that was dreamed up specifically as a way to make the Fighter distinctive from all the other warrior classes ... is now being used by all the other warrior classes.
__________________
You can call me Draz. Trophies:
Work on my homebrew system, CRE8, is still marching slowly onwards. I think I can see the light at the end of the tunnel -- an Alpha release -- in the distance now. Read my Design Goals here.
RSS Feeds: 
Re: D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7
)
