D&D 5th Edition IX: Still in the Idea stage

[Scowling Dragon]

There's a 5th Edition of D&D coming out ("D&D Next") and there are playtests and such. So discuss the playtests (within the bounds of the NDA), what you want to see, what you don't want to see, and other aspects of game design that may be relevant.

Useful links:
Playtest sign up (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120109)
Enworld's info compilation (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showwiki.php?title=Books:D+and+D+Next)
Penny Arcade / PvP 5e Podcasts:
Part 1 of 4 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20120806)
Part 2 of 4 (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20120813)
Part 3 of 4 (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20120820)
Part 4 of 4 (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4pod/20120827)
Previous threads:
First edition (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=218549)
Second edition (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231033)
Third edition (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=242069)
3.5th edition (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245504)
Fourth edition (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=244672)
5^2 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245600)
6th Thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=252870)
Thread #7 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=257952)
8th revision (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=265084)



To continue from before:


I don't think that they are floundering without purpose. They are iterating. The purpose of iterating is to learn.

The good news is that they accept feedback. The bad news is that they accept feedback. You know how opinionated of a lot we can be.

I don't get that impression. Its not like they are jumping from one idea to another, or incorporating multiple counterclashing mechanics. They are just creating a SINGLE bland style D&D.

[Seerow]

What is a "blad" style? I'm not sure if that was a typo for bad, bland, or an intentional combination of the two (in which case it is a word that should catch on quickly).

[Scowling Dragon]

Lets just say blad in a new word.

[Kurald Galain]

"Still in the idea stage"? Really? Even if you're being sarcastic about that, I'm pretty sure many people won't get it.

[obryn]

The thing is that floundering with no direction is usually the result of "taking the best part from each edition". It sounds nice in theory, but when you actually try to do it, you end up with a hodge-podge like D&D Next. You need clear direction to make a good game, not cherry-picking from several other games, each of which had a different goal and theme.
I have to say that the most recent packet is the first time I've thought the Next team was focused on making a real, new edition of D&D with a unique identity as opposed to a hodge-podge.

My editions of choice are 4e, 1e, and RC. While I'd love for Next to be a cleaner, better 4e, it's not going to happen. From there, the only way I'll be interested is if they start staking out new territory rather than re-treading anything that's come before. Put simply, I think using previous editions of D&D as anything other than a bare baseline is a mistake. Class/Level, XP, HP, AC, and the 6 attributes are the starting point. From there, stake out new territory. Don't worry about feats, skills, specific spells, or any of those other trappings. Come up with something new and awesome.

The newest packet has both some actual innovation and shows influences of other games. The Exploration rules remind me a heck of a lot of Dungeon World, of all things. I think that's a good start, but it needs to do more. The sad truth, though, is that a large public playtest like this will almost invariably lead them in a more conservative direction with their design. That's too bad; I want something different.

-O

[Seerow]

"Still in the idea stage"? Really? Even if you're being sarcastic about that, I'm pretty sure many people won't get it.

Go to WotC forums. There's a number of users who insist we're still early in the playtest and the very foundations of the system are likely to change with any given packet.

[Kurald Galain]

Go to WotC forums. There's a number of users who insist we're still early in the playtest and the very foundations of the system are likely to change with any given packet.

Sure. But using it as a thread title here implies that most or all of the users here also think that, and that's simply not the case.

[Scowling Dragon]

So whats your name suggestion? I asked if you could give a better one I would change it.

[Kurald Galain]

So whats your name suggestion? I asked if you could give a better one I would change it.

Some quotes from the Mearls column,
"interesting people like to play the game"
"some renovation to the classes"
"managing dead levels"
"complexity is a big issue for me"

[Jacob.Tyr]

Okay... so I'm reading the new playtest packet finally and... are there actually rules for two weapon fighting? I can't for the life of me find anything besides the feats for it, and those don't really explain what two-weapon fight does. Looked in DM guidelines, classes, specialties, how to play, equipment.

Did they just decide they needed feats for it without it actually being a thing in game yet?

[Doug Lampert]

Okay... so I'm reading the new playtest packet finally and... are there actually rules for two weapon fighting? I can't for the life of me find anything besides the feats for it, and those don't really explain what two-weapon fight does. Looked in DM guidelines, classes, specialties, how to play, equipment.

Did they just decide they needed feats for it without it actually being a thing in game yet?

I'm pretty sure it's in how to play, there is a rule, by default you can use two light weapons and the second one doesn't add your strength to damage.

[Reverent-One]

Sure. But using it as a thread title here implies that most or all of the users here also think that, and that's simply not the case.

As the ninth thread title, I think it implies a more snarky meaning. I approve of it.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Some quotes from the Mearls column,
"interesting people like to play the game"
"some renovation to the classes"
"managing dead levels"
"complexity is a big issue for me"

D&D 5th Edition IX: Rock Climbing

[Flickerdart]

I think we should call it D&D 5th Edition Thread Next.

[navar100]

D&D 5th Edition IX: Rock Climbing

But are there any springs?

[Jacob.Tyr]

I'm pretty sure it's in how to play, there is a rule, by default you can use two light weapons and the second one doesn't add your strength to damage.

Found it, thanks! Apparently the header doesn't get picked up by search in the PDF.

I like the fighter changes... I was pretty sure I was going to hate them but I like it. I love the ranger and can't wait for it to get more options for favoured enemies; as it stands there is one for fighting crowds and two for fighting big enemies.

Wizards got a decent bump, but I don't think they're out of balance still...

[Octopusapult]

Some quotes from the Mearls column,
"interesting people like to play the game"
"some renovation to the classes"
"managing dead levels"
"complexity is a big issue for me"

Does anyone really trust Mearls?

I mean r e a l l y trust him?


As the ninth thread title, I think it implies a more snarky meaning. I approve of it.

I however, do not approve of the way that "Snarky" is not cleared by my spell check...

[Kurald Galain]

Does anyone really trust Mearls?

I mean r e a l l y trust him?

I trust him to be really good at origami... :smallbiggrin:

[Clawhound]

Oh, Mearls stuff is half marketeering and half information. It's up to you to determine which half is which.

What makes a good game for me is where the rules are well defined enough to be playable, but loose enough so that the players can play it completely wrong and still have fun.

[Octopusapult]

I trust him to be really good at origami... :smallbiggrin:

He can be an origami all-star, but how is he still working at WotC?


Oh, Mearls stuff is half marketeering and half information. It's up to you to determine which half is which.

What makes a good game for me is where the rules are well defined enough to be playable, but loose enough so that the players can play it completely wrong and still have fun.

Every game should be this way. Arkham Horror and D&D specifically...

[snoopy13a]

I'm pretty sure it's in how to play, there is a rule, by default you can use two light weapons and the second one doesn't add your strength to damage.

Yes, that's right (or potentially your dexterity to damage if it is a finesse weapon). Plus, if one gets the dual wielding feat, one can use a non-light weapon in the primarily hand.

Also, the way I read it, a sword-and-boarder with a shortsword and a spiked shield can attack with the sword and bash with the shield while a sword-and-boarder with a longsword and a spiked shield cannot (unless he has the dual wielding feat).

I like their treatment of finesse weapons because they allow a dexterity-based fighter.

[Stubbazubba]

PF base, Tracks from legend, Max level of spell 7 (Adjust damage dealing though and teleportation spells and such), Use Houserules handbook Spellpoints system as "core" and then release a classic spell slots version. Use elemental axis as new alignment system, have few monsters per book but with detailed level progression to allow for different leveled monsters or PCs as monsters. AC as DR, When using swords use a static Reflex save with a score of 10. Use Codex martialis martial dice and feats, and a more detailed acrobatics system with each move detailed to allow for mix and match acrobatic combat. Then combine GMS guide with the Players handbook, and just call it "Core Book" for easier accessibility. Design the game to favor the GMs word over even the books rules. Just altogether separate magic items from core progression and same thing with money. Fix the faulty math and your all set.

With all due respect, because that sounds like a very decent clone, it's hardly a SUPERGAME. Every other clone is designed to be just what you have described, a SUPERGAME that takes the best from everything so far. People's opinions on what is best are just different, is the problem. Which is why 5e's design looks like it does.


I don't get that impression. Its not like they are jumping from one idea to another, or incorporating multiple counterclashing mechanics. They are just creating a SINGLE bland style D&D.

You haven't followed along closely enough, then. They gave the Fighter Expertise Dice to be their Nice Thing, then decided to give it to everyone else, too, then pulled them all back. Martial Damage Dice, Martial Maneuvers, these things are here today, gone tomorrow. How many iterations has the skill system gone through? Yes, any one packet is a single bland D&D, but if you follow the threads of each mechanic we still have, there's a huge amount of variety and leap frog between the different packets. And nothing sounds like what they were talking about before they officially announced 5e anymore (when's the last time someone mentioned modules?).

[noparlpf]

And nothing sounds like what they were talking about before they officially announced 5e anymore (when's the last time someone mentioned modules?).

I think of them often. I also often think of the whole "three pillars" thing they're neglecting to focus on combat.

[Tengu_temp]

It's been ages since I caught news about 5e, so...

Did anything new appear about how modular the game will be? Especially the part where all non-casters use maneuvers? Or did they decide to abandon that aspect of the game somewhere mid-development?

[Stubbazubba]

I think of them often. I also often think of the whole "three pillars" thing they're neglecting to focus on combat.

Sorry, I meant someone at WotC.

[noparlpf]

Sorry, I meant someone at WotC.

Oh. Right. Well, when do they ever pay attention to what's going on with the game's development?

[Kerrin]

"You mean we're supposed to be developing a game? I thought we were just sitting around the pub BSing with each other."

"Nah, Mike's been writing down everything and posting it on the web. And dig this, people actually read it."

"Holy mother of ..."

:smalltongue:

[obryn]

(when's the last time someone mentioned modules?).
I think we're actually seeing some modules, right now. Just not really presented as such.

My understanding is that the "core" game - your basic red box equivalent - is basically set and no longer needs external playtesting. It's the "standard" game that we're testing right now.

Either that, or they came to their senses and realized there has to be a default, baseline experience which everyone - especially 3rd party publishers - can refer to.

-O

[Craft (Cheese)]

It's been ages since I caught news about 5e, so...

Did anything new appear about how modular the game will be? Especially the part where all non-casters use maneuvers? Or did they decide to abandon that aspect of the game somewhere mid-development?

Basically, the situation is exactly the same as it was when the playtest first started: They promise that modular design is one of their main goals, and occasionally they mention something that's "going to be a module later on", but modules don't fit at all into the organization of the current playtest and we have no idea as to what parts are "core" and what parts are "modules", though we've been told that the current playtest "has more than what will be in the core game."

[Kurald Galain]

I just noticed that WOTC made some improvements to the skill system, in that the previous playtest allowed random peasants to successfully perform feats of godlike power 5% of the time, and currently that's no longer possible. Since so many people were arguing that it's perfectly fine for an RPG if peasants can do godlike things, I'm glad WOTC decided differently :smallcool:

[Octopusapult]

though we've been told that the current playtest "has more than what will be in the core game."

Well there you go. We don't have to buy 5e then, everyone just get the playtest and insert your own art to call it a day.

[Anderlith]

I just want to ask a question, & I don't think it's actually been asked before (& if it has oh well)

Should a wizard be able to attain god-like powers? I can understand a wizard attaining supernatural powers, that to rival a fiend or an archon, dragon's & such, but gods???

Just some food for thought. Personally I think they should be the human equivalent of a dragon, fearsome, deadly, well defended & fortified & they like to toss fire.

[MukkTB]

Magic can get really weird when you start taking separate its and put them together. 3.5 Wizards are so powerful because of how many bits they can get together. Personally I'm in favor of limited thematic spell lists.

The most fun power level for wizards is probably not GODE MODE. THERE IS NO COW LEVEL. POWER OVERWHELMING. On the other hand magic requires some potency to be interesting. Theres also the DM to consider. If the magic system gets too weird and keeping track of it becomes too difficult then we have a problem. Slowing down the game while the DM tries to figure it out is not desirable.

The actual power magic provides on a sliding scale from pretty useless to godlike really depends on the goals of the setting. You can find specific settings with magic power levels that go all across the spectrum. A great deal of it depends on the story that is trying to be told.

[SiuiS]

Well there you go. We don't have to buy 5e then, everyone just get the playtest and insert your own art to call it a day.

Cool! How do I do that? I signed up at one point and never got any word back.


I just want to ask a question, & I don't think it's actually been asked before (& if it has oh well)

Should a wizard be able to attain god-like powers? I can understand a wizard attaining supernatural powers, that to rival a fiend or an archon, dragon's & such, but gods???

Yes and no.

A wizard should not become better than all other things because wizard. But becoming a god is sort of a staple of the genre, sometimes. It shouldn't be limited to the wizard but it shouldn't be removed entirely as an option.

That said, magic has gotten out of hand. God like wizards tend to have limits of some kind in fiction, and they've been systematically removed through the years in games. I'd like to see a wizard that ends up stronger but takes longer to get there and has issues now. But when I played wizards like that, I didn't like them either. Maybe I'm impossible to please?

[navar100]

I just want to ask a question, & I don't think it's actually been asked before (& if it has oh well)

Should a wizard be able to attain god-like powers? I can understand a wizard attaining supernatural powers, that to rival a fiend or an archon, dragon's & such, but gods???

Just some food for thought. Personally I think they should be the human equivalent of a dragon, fearsome, deadly, well defended & fortified & they like to toss fire.

Everyone has different tastes. It isn't a question of "should". Those who like high level play, play them. Those who don't, don't. One doesn't have to preclude the other. What is "should" is whatever power spellcasters can achieve, warriors should get their equivalence. If a wizard can teleport across the world, the least a fighter can do is divert a river to clean giant stables. If a cleric resurrects someone who was dead a week, the least the paladin can do is banish a devil back to hell. Give warriors Nice Things.

[Flickerdart]

Everyone should have a chance to attain deific strength. It's called Epic levels, and unfortunately it really sucked in 3.5.

[Evard]

Everyone should have a chance to attain deific strength. It's called Epic levels, and unfortunately it really sucked in 3.5.

Unless you was the first one to epic...

Or at least the first one to cast "Nail to the sky" .......

Or.. You know what, yeah you're right.

4e epic was the way to go though... Ultra badassery but not ridiculous (most of the time). Plus it was put right into normal game play instead of what seemed to be a seperate system.

[kieza]

The thing is, ascension to godlike power is a staple of mythology and the genre in general, not just for wizards. You've got Gilgamesh, probably the Ur-example, and then you've got Hercules, Odysseus, Guan Yu, the Boddhisattvas, and on a potentially controversial note, Christian saints. Uber-powerfulness shouldn't be restricted to casters.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that when a character ascends to godhood, it's no longer a suitable PC, but I know other people who feel differently. I think that, at the very least, apotheosis should be something covered in the DMG, not a function of a class.

[1337 b4k4]

The thing is, ascension to godlike power is a staple of mythology and the genre in general, not just for wizards.

The key word here is ascension. While not likely to occur with Next, I really feel that D&D needs to have separate and distinct tiers of play and power, similar to the old BECMI stuff but even more so. The fact is, that if you're a god, dungeon crawls aren't what you do. God level play should be distinct from low level play in more ways than just "bigger numbers"

[Grod_The_Giant]

The key word here is ascension. While not likely to occur with Next, I really feel that D&D needs to have separate and distinct tiers of play and power, similar to the old BECMI stuff but even more so. The fact is, that if you're a god, dungeon crawls aren't what you do. God level play should be distinct from low level play in more ways than just "bigger numbers"
This is something that's struck me as an issue in more ways than one. While there are certainly a lot of issues with 3.5, quite a few complains that I see on forums like this one seem to stem from DMs trying to run the same kind of plots at mid-high levels as at low levels. ("Teleport is ruining my game!") Explicitly calling that out, like 4e did, seems like a good idea.

[Octopusapult]

I just want to ask a question, & I don't think it's actually been asked before (& if it has oh well)

Should a wizard be able to attain god-like powers? I can understand a wizard attaining supernatural powers, that to rival a fiend or an archon, dragon's & such, but gods???

Just some food for thought. Personally I think they should be the human equivalent of a dragon, fearsome, deadly, well defended & fortified & they like to toss fire.

No. But they should be able to reach a pinnacle of powers that could only be rivaled by sorcerers, psions, warlocks, and other relative casting-ish classes.

Fighters, Barbarians, and the like should reach a pinnacle of powers that could only be rivaled by others of their type.

That fighter should have enough equipment in the way of magical items and contingency plans that if it came down to it, a lv-20 fighter and a lv-20 wizard fighting head to head should be the biggest, most epic, and difficult fight of both of their lives.

Sadly though, the fighter isn't usually granted anything more than "swing sword harder" abilities while the Wizard can melt his legs to his skull and ship him off to other dimensions...

Short answer, No. They shouldn't. Though they probably will.


Cool! How do I do that? I signed up at one point and never got any word back.

All I had to do was click a button, sign up, and got a download link almost immediately.

Specifically the red button on this page. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/dndnext.aspx)

[noparlpf]

Cool! How do I do that? I signed up at one point and never got any word back.

If that was back at the beginning, they handled the initial release awfully. They also don't send email updates half the time. You should be able to download the most recent now, though.

[Kurald Galain]

4e epic was the way to go though... Ultra badassery but not ridiculous (most of the time). Plus it was put right into normal game play instead of what seemed to be a seperate system.

I find 4E epic to be very unsatisfying, actually. You can do the exact same things you do earlier, except with slightly bigger numbers. Unlike paragon paths, which tend to be impressive and flashy in gameplay, epic destinies are basically all fluff. Even most capstone abilities are completely uninteresting.

[Scowling Dragon]

I find 4E epic to be very unsatisfying, actually. You can do the exact same things you do earlier, except with slightly bigger numbers. Unlike paragon paths, which tend to be impressive and flashy in gameplay, epic destinies are basically all fluff. Even most capstone abilities are completely uninteresting.

I have to agree. 10 extra levels above what was considered pretty high level play in 3e, was just bigger numbers in 4e.

Where are my armies of bound angels? My Golem Servants? My Floating Castle?

[kieza]

I find 4E epic to be very unsatisfying, actually. You can do the exact same things you do earlier, except with slightly bigger numbers. Unlike paragon paths, which tend to be impressive and flashy in gameplay, epic destinies are basically all fluff. Even most capstone abilities are completely uninteresting.

Personally, I like it when the same sorts of things are possible at different levels. I hate systems where you have to reach a certain level before you can even have a certain capability, like applying stuns or teleporting. What I prefer is for all of a character's options to available at level 1, and for the character to A) get better with his chosen options, and B) connect those options in a functional way.

As an example of what I want to see: A wizard should have Fireball available from level 1. I don't want to have a system where "oh, you have to be level 5 to cast a spell which does fire damage in a circular area." Instead, give the wizard a basic fireball option, and let him improve it--through meaningful choices--as he levels up. Let him choose between damage, accuracy, and area. Let him choose to set targets on fire, or set the area on fire, or use fire to burn away enchantments. Let him combine spells in interesting ways--for instance, make a feat that increases fire damage after you use a cold spell (i.e. suck all the heat out of something only to throw it back as fire).

The difference between low and high level should be one of "cool tricks," not damage bonuses or suddenly learning to teleport.

[JackRackham]

This last playtest was really disappointing. Certain classes (*ahem* Rogue *ahem*) looked SO much more interesting in the last packet. Even apart from certain mechanical problems in the latest iteration, there were just more interesting and significant build options within the class. It really expressed a range of rogue archetypes effectively. This latest version just feels really generic. The options seem too similar and none of them does anything that can't be done (better, mostly) by other classes.

[Scowling Dragon]

The difference between low and high level should be one of "cool tricks," not damage bonuses or suddenly learning to teleport.

Isn't teleport a "Cool Trick"? Isn't learning to transmute objects from one substance to another a "Cool Trick"?

Mind control (Not just the Dominated Status Effect), Conjuration, Creation, Divination.

All these are "Cool Tricks". I agree with you on not bothering with 50+ versions of the same spell.

Just make: Elemental Blast:

Pick a Element, Pick a damage level, pick a area of effect and pick insert other effect.

And the more powerful the spell is the higher level you need to be.

[hamishspence]

Elemental Blast:

Pick a Element, Pick a damage level, pick a area of effect and pick insert other effect.

And the more powerful the spell is the higher level you need to be.

Psionics took a small step in that direction- but the idea of "build your own spell on the fly" seemed to be a bit lacking in support.

Epic spells tended to involve large amounts of research, rather than the person putting it together as they cast it.

[1337 b4k4]

This last playtest was really disappointing. Certain classes (*ahem* Rogue *ahem*) looked SO much more interesting in the last packet. Even apart from certain mechanical problems in the latest iteration, there were just more interesting and significant build options within the class. It really expressed a range of rogue archetypes effectively. This latest version just feels really generic. The options seem too similar and none of them does anything that can't be done (better, mostly) by other classes.


Please note that, like the monk, the rogue is in transition and will receive further revision in a subsequent release.

Seems like they know that and plan on fixing it.

[Kurald Galain]

Hm, looking over previous iterations of the playtest and our threads about them, it looks like they had a number of cool and well-received ideas that they removed from the current iteration. Some of the earlier versions strike me as more fun to play than the product they have now.

[Flickerdart]

Calling it now: Next will be the first edition of D&D in which you'll have edition wars within the edition.

[Kurald Galain]

Calling it now: Next will be the first edition of D&D in which you'll have edition wars within the edition.

Nope, sorry. We already have those within 4E (mostly about the Heroes Of series), within 3E (mostly about Tome Of Battle) and even within 2E (mostly about the Player's Option series).

In a way, this is brilliant: WOTC wants 5E to reflect the most famous parts of all earlier editions, and clearly meta infighting about which sourcebooks are superior is part of that :P

[kieza]

Isn't teleport a "Cool Trick"? Isn't learning to transmute objects from one substance to another a "Cool Trick"?

Mind control (Not just the Dominated Status Effect), Conjuration, Creation, Divination.

If it's the core of a character concept, it's not a cool trick. It's what you do all the time. If I ask what a character does, and you say "I'm a teleporter" or "I mind control people," that basic capability should be available from level 1.

"Cool tricks" are expansions of the basic capability, which you get by investing feats into your basic capabilities. I wasn't suggesting that the fireball spell have all those riders as default options, but that there should be feats that allow you to do all of those things (and more).

As a comparison, let's say there's a basic short-range teleport, sort of like dimension door. At its basic level, it lets you teleport your speed (or twice your speed, or half your speed, or whatever; numbers don't matter at this point) as a move action. I want feats that:
-extend the range of the teleport
-let you carry adjacent allies with you
-let you teleport as a reaction to being attacked/hit/damaged
-give you combat advantage for your next action after teleporting
-let you use it as an attack, to teleport enemies away
-etc.

For mind control, a decent starting ability would be something that charms the target (cannot attack you, grants combat advantage), giving it an attempt to shake it off every turn. Feats would include:
-Every time the target fails to shake the effect, it must attack one of its allies
-If the target fails twice to shake the effect, it worsens to outright domination
-Charmed targets suffer penalties to attack your allies
-While charmed, the target suffers mental damage (pain, brain damage, psychic nosebleeds) as your spell warps and twists its mind
-You get a massive bonus to social skills against charmed targets
-You can implant post-hypnotic suggestions
etc.

The point is that a character can be a teleporter, or a mind-controller, or any basic archetype from level 1. As they level, they keep the same basic capabilities, but they invest feats into them that give them lots of cool tricks--and they can choose any of these tricks starting with their very first feats.

[Cavelcade]

So you'd prefer that every wizard actually be something like a Beguiler?

[Grod_The_Giant]

So you'd prefer that every wizard actually be something like a Beguiler?
Either that, or broad but shallow. Like, each level, you get a resource of some sort that could either be invested in improving an existing power, as kieza suggests, or to access a new ability. It would be cool... but at that point, you're really talking more about a point-buy system, so why have levels, so why... and it winds up not being D&D.

[kieza]

Well, I don't know about that. I'm working on a rewrite of 4e that runs on this basic design, and it's neither point-buy, or "not D&D." At least, that's what it feels like to my tastes.

[Ziegander]

Either that, or broad but shallow. Like, each level, you get a resource of some sort that could either be invested in improving an existing power, as kieza suggests, or to access a new ability. It would be cool... but at that point, you're really talking more about a point-buy system, so why have levels, so why... and it winds up not being D&D.

Y'know, point buy and character level are not mutually-exclusive. I've never seen a game utilize both in its design, but I can come up with a way that they could both be used to desirable effect.

For example, character level (CL) determines the minimum and maximum value ranges for game particulars like hit points and other stuff and establishes your basic RNG for d20 rolls and modifiers. From there, you gain points each level, let's call 'em Proficiency Points (PP), with which you buy and power up abilities. There could be classes if you wanted, with their own class proficiencies and related class features that improve and modify different aspects of a character, or not.

[RedWarlock]

Y'know, point buy and character level are not mutually-exclusive. I've never seen a game utilize both in its design, but I can come up with a way that they could both be used to desirable effect.

For example, character level (CL) determines the minimum and maximum value ranges for game particulars like hit points and other stuff and establishes your basic RNG for d20 rolls and modifiers. From there, you gain points each level, let's call 'em Proficiency Points (PP), with which you buy and power up abilities. There could be classes if you wanted, with their own class proficiencies and related class features that improve and modify different aspects of a character, or not.

Actually, it's still in the idea stage, but the mod I'm working on uses character levels AND, to a degree, point-buy concepts. It's fairly minor in that end, but the main concept is that the main class level is earned as normal, but you can buy additional gestalts on a level-to-level basis. (so a level 5 mage takes a level of rogue, stays level 5 for most purposes but gains the better hit die, saves, skills, for that first level's worth, plus level 1 rogue class features). I'm also rewriting everything else as well, so for most it's not D&D (and it's not, it's for a WarCraft game) but the base idea is one to consider. Feats and skills are still earned with levels like normal, but I'm also thinking that XP will be more of a spendable resource under this system, used to power magic items and cast major spells.

[Doug Lampert]

Y'know, point buy and character level are not mutually-exclusive. I've never seen a game utilize both in its design, but I can come up with a way that they could both be used to desirable effect.

For example, character level (CL) determines the minimum and maximum value ranges for game particulars like hit points and other stuff and establishes your basic RNG for d20 rolls and modifiers. From there, you gain points each level, let's call 'em Proficiency Points (PP), with which you buy and power up abilities. There could be classes if you wanted, with their own class proficiencies and related class features that improve and modify different aspects of a character, or not.

I've seen such games, the for example the PL in mutants and masterminds acts like that.

And Rolemaster was point based, level based, and class based. Your attributes gave you points every level which you used to buy things, off cost charts determined by your class.

[Kurald Galain]

Y'know, point buy and character level are not mutually-exclusive. I've never seen a game utilize both in its design, but I can come up with a way that they could both be used to desirable effect.

2E Skills & Powers does more-or-less that. I didn't say it does it well, but it tries to anyway.

[navar100]

If it's the core of a character concept, it's not a cool trick. It's what you do all the time. If I ask what a character does, and you say "I'm a teleporter" or "I mind control people," that basic capability should be available from level 1.

"Cool tricks" are expansions of the basic capability, which you get by investing feats into your basic capabilities. I wasn't suggesting that the fireball spell have all those riders as default options, but that there should be feats that allow you to do all of those things (and more).

As a comparison, let's say there's a basic short-range teleport, sort of like dimension door. At its basic level, it lets you teleport your speed (or twice your speed, or half your speed, or whatever; numbers don't matter at this point) as a move action. I want feats that:
-extend the range of the teleport
-let you carry adjacent allies with you
-let you teleport as a reaction to being attacked/hit/damaged
-give you combat advantage for your next action after teleporting
-let you use it as an attack, to teleport enemies away
-etc.

For mind control, a decent starting ability would be something that charms the target (cannot attack you, grants combat advantage), giving it an attempt to shake it off every turn. Feats would include:
-Every time the target fails to shake the effect, it must attack one of its allies
-If the target fails twice to shake the effect, it worsens to outright domination
-Charmed targets suffer penalties to attack your allies
-While charmed, the target suffers mental damage (pain, brain damage, psychic nosebleeds) as your spell warps and twists its mind
-You get a massive bonus to social skills against charmed targets
-You can implant post-hypnotic suggestions
etc.

The point is that a character can be a teleporter, or a mind-controller, or any basic archetype from level 1. As they level, they keep the same basic capabilities, but they invest feats into them that give them lots of cool tricks--and they can choose any of these tricks starting with their very first feats.

The question is what do you mean by "feat". If you mean the 3E/4E model of the physical word "feat" and how it works, then you are narrowly focusing a character into one shtick which is a big complaint for those who hate 3E Tier 4 classes and below because the number of feats you are getting, even in 5E so far, is quite limited. If you just mean a resource allocation of Something where each level you get a number of Somethings, like encounter powers of 4E or spells known of 3E spontaneous casters, then the idea could work. The character has a number of Somethings to improve more than one class ability to have a variety of stuff to do.

[huttj509]

Y'know, point buy and character level are not mutually-exclusive. I've never seen a game utilize both in its design, but I can come up with a way that they could both be used to desirable effect.

For example, character level (CL) determines the minimum and maximum value ranges for game particulars like hit points and other stuff and establishes your basic RNG for d20 rolls and modifiers. From there, you gain points each level, let's call 'em Proficiency Points (PP), with which you buy and power up abilities. There could be classes if you wanted, with their own class proficiencies and related class features that improve and modify different aspects of a character, or not.

L5R does something like that.

Skills and attributes are bought with XP, for increasing costs dependent on how big it currently is.

There's also Influence, which is (Skills + 10*attributes), and when it hits various thresholds you go up in level, which grants some abilities based on your clan and school (things like attack as a simple rather than a complex action, or adding your honor rank to damage rolls).

So you have general gains which are more often, but smaller bonuses, and then you have the school levels which is "I get something new and awesome."

[noparlpf]

I'd like casters to have to focus like the Beguiler, Dread Necro, &c., with an option to be a generalist, but then delay spell progression or something.

[Seerow]

I'd like casters to have to focus like the Beguiler, Dread Necro, &c., with an option to be a generalist, but then delay spell progression or something.

The only real problem with this is it means having something like 5-6 arcane caster classes at minimum. If you're going to have Clerics/Druids be similarly limited/divided, you're looking at around 15-20 classes just between those three, even before doing any mundane classes. That's a lot of space to devote to classes.

It seems more reasonable to use very broad classes in the core, and in supplements provide options to replace a single broad class with a bunch of specialist classes (So you have the Wizard in core, but then in Complete Arcane you have Beguiler, Dread Necro, Warmage, Summoner, and Oracle).

[noparlpf]

The only real problem with this is it means having something like 5-6 arcane caster classes at minimum. If you're going to have Clerics/Druids be similarly limited/divided, you're looking at around 15-20 classes just between those three, even before doing any mundane classes. That's a lot of space to devote to classes.

It seems more reasonable to use very broad classes in the core, and in supplements provide options to replace a single broad class with a bunch of specialist classes (So you have the Wizard in core, but then in Complete Arcane you have Beguiler, Dread Necro, Warmage, Summoner, and Oracle).

Or, you could restrict them during spell selection. One or two arcane classes, one or two divine classes, "pick one of these spell lists to pick from for the rest of your progression, or pick a spell [one or two] levels lower from another spell list", something like that. Then make another, broader list with a slower progression for generalists.

[WarlockLord]

Psion disciplines come to mind. The XPH had some real flaws, but I could see their power selection method working out.

Sadly, we will probably not see anything from 5e as the skill system is still in "argue with your DM" land. They're still retaining that godawful advice where the DM retroactively sets the DC after the roll. Remember that this is supposed to be most of the noncombat portion of the game.

Yeah, I have no idea why skills are this terrible.

[JackRackham]

Hm, looking over previous iterations of the playtest and our threads about them, it looks like they had a number of cool and well-received ideas that they removed from the current iteration. Some of the earlier versions strike me as more fun to play than the product they have now.

This is very much the case. I'm starting to wonder if they're not just squirreling things away once they find out people like them, so the final version will be completely different than any of the playtests. I mean, I doubt it, but I wish. I know they said the rogue is in progress, in transition, whatever. But that's not so comforting, since they didn't add anything worthwhile.

If something's in transition, it won't be perfect, but you should be able to see what they're going for, what direction it's headed in. I don't like the direction this is moving in now.

[navar100]

The only real problem with this is it means having something like 5-6 arcane caster classes at minimum. If you're going to have Clerics/Druids be similarly limited/divided, you're looking at around 15-20 classes just between those three, even before doing any mundane classes. That's a lot of space to devote to classes.

It seems more reasonable to use very broad classes in the core, and in supplements provide options to replace a single broad class with a bunch of specialist classes (So you have the Wizard in core, but then in Complete Arcane you have Beguiler, Dread Necro, Warmage, Summoner, and Oracle).

Not necessarily. Pathfinder does this in a way with Sorcerer and Oracle. You have the base class where you get an ability at certain levels. The pages that follow are the different abilities depending on Bloodline and Mystery. Cavalier is the same with Orders. Do the same with wizard schools. Each school provides particular abilities all wizard get at the same level. You could say one school is the main focus and the player chooses a few others for the spell list, not the abilities. You need only print the spell list and spell descriptions once as is done now.

[Axinian]

This is very much the case. I'm starting to wonder if they're not just squirreling things away once they find out people like them, so the final version will be completely different than any of the playtests. I mean, I doubt it, but I wish. I know they said the rogue is in progress, in transition, whatever. But that's not so comforting, since they didn't add anything worthwhile.

If something's in transition, it won't be perfect, but you should be able to see what they're going for, what direction it's headed in. I don't like the direction this is moving in now.

I... would not be surprised if the final release is entirely different from what we see at the end of the playtest. I don't know how much longer the playtest will run, but I would hope that all the classes get major overhauls if this happens. I don't really like how any of them are turning out on the whole.

[MukkTB]

What if you deployed a Tier 3 wizard with the core book and made things like the Beguiler and the Dread Necromancer in supplements. I've always felt that the wizard could still fit his role thematically without needing phenomenal cosmic power. Their role could be shortened to just being the magic expert with some fireballs, a bit of utility thats helpful but doesn't invalidate other classes, and a solid bonus to use magic device and the knowledge skills relevant to magic.

[Cavelcade]

Well, have a generalist restricted to say, level 7 spells. And then if you choose to specialise, you get two schools (or 1 if you want to play it safe) and you can advance to level 9 spells with those, but you can't select from any other list.

[noparlpf]

Well, have a generalist restricted to say, level 7 spells. And then if you choose to specialise, you get two schools (or 1 if you want to play it safe) and you can advance to level 9 spells with those, but you can't select from any other list.

Except that I'd be happy enough to cap at level seven...that or just scale down the level nine spells in 5e to the level of level seven spells in 3.X.

[Scowling Dragon]

I suggest throw out 8-9th level spells overall. 8-9th level spells ALREADY feel very epic. So in epic level play its hard to top them.

Again, most 6-7th spells are already VERY impressive, and are cool enough for most spellcasters. Damage needs a bit of adjustment, yes.

But thats it. Save the 8-9th level spells for Artifacts, or Gods.

[Cavelcade]

Well - the idea would still stand. A generalist wizard can't access the top level spells, but the specialist can ONLY use their school.

[Felandria]

I continue to be very worried about Sorceror.

[noparlpf]

I suggest throw out 8-9th level spells overall. 8-9th level spells ALREADY feel very epic. So in epic level play its hard to top them.

Again, most 6-7th spells are already VERY impressive, and are cool enough for most spellcasters. Damage needs a bit of adjustment, yes.

But thats it. Save the 8-9th level spells for Artifacts, or Gods.

Well, levels zero through nine gives ten spell levels...but that's the only reason I can think of to keep level nine spells. If they do keep them, they need to scale them back.


Well - the idea would still stand. A generalist wizard can't access the top level spells, but the specialist can ONLY use their school.

I don't like the schools as in 3.X though. Better to have even narrower specialisations, maybe. After all, fighters are highly specialised. Can access spells from other schools but two levels lower, maybe?

[Cavelcade]

I would prefer the opposite - make the fighter less generalised. You could possibly broaden the schools, or allow more than one school.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Well, levels zero through nine gives ten spell levels...but that's the only reason I can think of to keep level nine spells.

Having seven levels of spells also fits nicely into 20 levels, at levels 1-4-7-10-13-16-19, and if it was good enough for the AD&D cleric it should be good enough for 5e.


I don't like the schools as in 3.X though. Better to have even narrower specialisations, maybe. After all, fighters are highly specialised. Can access spells from other schools but two levels lower, maybe?

If you want narrower specializations, it's not hard to split each of the 8 schools into multiple subschools (I prefer 3 each) and use those instead, so you might specialize as an Elementalist instead of an Evoker, a Summoner instead of a Conjurer, and so forth.

[noparlpf]

Having seven levels of spells also fits nicely into 20 levels, at levels 1-4-7-10-13-16-19, and if it was good enough for the AD&D cleric it should be good enough for 5e.

If you want narrower specializations, it's not hard to split each of the 8 schools into multiple subschools (I prefer 3 each) and use those instead, so you might specialize as an Elementalist instead of an Evoker, a Summoner instead of a Conjurer, and so forth.

Sounds good to me.

[Waspinator]

Yeah, you don't really need to make a Beguiler-style class for each specialization. Have there be a generic class framework that you have to pick a specialization for. They can all have the same number of spells per day, saves, and whatnot, just different spell lists. You could also have them get an ability related to their specialization at various levels. Like at level 5, the Necromancer gets a negative energy beam, the Elementalist gets to chuck mini fireballs at will, the Enchanter gets at will mini-illusions, the Conjurer gets a mini golem, etc...

[Stubbazubba]

If it's the core of a character concept, it's not a cool trick. It's what you do all the time. If I ask what a character does, and you say "I'm a teleporter" or "I mind control people," that basic capability should be available from level 1.

"Cool tricks" are expansions of the basic capability, which you get by investing feats into your basic capabilities. I wasn't suggesting that the fireball spell have all those riders as default options, but that there should be feats that allow you to do all of those things (and more).

As a comparison, let's say there's a basic short-range teleport, sort of like dimension door. At its basic level, it lets you teleport your speed (or twice your speed, or half your speed, or whatever; numbers don't matter at this point) as a move action. I want feats that:
-extend the range of the teleport
-let you carry adjacent allies with you
-let you teleport as a reaction to being attacked/hit/damaged
-give you combat advantage for your next action after teleporting
-let you use it as an attack, to teleport enemies away
-etc.

For mind control, a decent starting ability would be something that charms the target (cannot attack you, grants combat advantage), giving it an attempt to shake it off every turn. Feats would include:
-Every time the target fails to shake the effect, it must attack one of its allies
-If the target fails twice to shake the effect, it worsens to outright domination
-Charmed targets suffer penalties to attack your allies
-While charmed, the target suffers mental damage (pain, brain damage, psychic nosebleeds) as your spell warps and twists its mind
-You get a massive bonus to social skills against charmed targets
-You can implant post-hypnotic suggestions
etc.

The point is that a character can be a teleporter, or a mind-controller, or any basic archetype from level 1. As they level, they keep the same basic capabilities, but they invest feats into them that give them lots of cool tricks--and they can choose any of these tricks starting with their very first feats.

I agree with the above. And yes, I realize that many of these "classes" would not be able to support a 1-20 progression in the 3.5 caster sense, but I'm OK with the future of D&D having a much tighter focus, and releasing high level stuff separately.


Y'know, point buy and character level are not mutually-exclusive. I've never seen a game utilize both in its design, but I can come up with a way that they could both be used to desirable effect.

For example, character level (CL) determines the minimum and maximum value ranges for game particulars like hit points and other stuff and establishes your basic RNG for d20 rolls and modifiers. From there, you gain points each level, let's call 'em Proficiency Points (PP), with which you buy and power up abilities. There could be classes if you wanted, with their own class proficiencies and related class features that improve and modify different aspects of a character, or not.

D&D 3.5 had a class-and-level chassis with a skill system that was entirely point-buy (though still influenced heavily by the class and level system). Also, as has been mentioned, Mutants & Masterminds is even closer to what you have described. There are advantages and disadvantages to both class-and-level and point buy. Combining them to avoid the disadvantages of each is tricky, but a worthwhile endeavor.

[Grac]

Well considering D&D originally only had spells up to 6th level for Magic Users, and 5th level for Clerics, I don't see why we need to imagine that 9th level spells are necessary. Especially if they want to appeal to all the editions. :smallwink:

[Clawhound]

Yes, you can easily chop off the high end of spells can still have quite a playable game. I also have no issues with ancient and terrible spells that no one knows how to use any more. Having 7-9th level spells as one-off scrolls also works for me.

Levels 1-10 is where the game is really at. I expect that area to be the best developed and best supported. That's where the money is at. Eventually, I expect to see a higher-power arena in the 11+ level range, but that will need special development. Epic not feeling epic and not playing epic was a big criticism in 4th.

[obryn]

Yeah, so the new update is ... something. It's defiinitely something.

Do you think 1st level characters in the packet are about right, power-level-wise?

Good!

They're now 3rd level. You've just lost two whole levels of play and didn't even know it!

-O

[Anderlith]

I could almost like what I read about in the newest update, but pushing things back & adding in 3 levels of borderline useless levels is kind of asinine.

I'd rather have them do this
1-6- Fledgling Adventurers; you're just cutting your teeth on this whole "hero" thing. Orcs & Trolls are scary, you don't travel far from civilization, & taking an arrow to the chest is a big deal (also beware of arrows to the knee :smallwink:)
7-15- Big Damn Heroes; In this tier you are expected to be able to handle extended stays into the wilderness, treks into the vast unknown & kill trolls & save princes & princesses. You once took a balista to the gut, it wasn't fun but you did kill the orge that launched it
16-20- Hero King; You've saved the kingdom, married the princess, but the whole wide world is still out there waiting to be explored, perhaps you could lead a crusade into the depths of the Abyss or perhaps the slumbering evil that awaits in the Hollow Mountain is rising & threatens your new kingdom, perhaps you're aging & wish to add more heroic deeds to your name before you pass. You fell off the Black Salt Cliffs into the churning maw below, you might've actually died but you're not sure, the mermaid preistess that saved you didn't talk much

[Nizaris]

Yeah, so the new update is ... something. It's defiinitely something.

Do you think 1st level characters in the packet are about right, power-level-wise?

Good!

They're now 3rd level. You've just lost two whole levels of play and didn't even know it!

-O
Did they change anything for the 4/1 packet or just add another adventure? The read-first file is the same as the last and none of the other files show an updated date.

[Ziegander]

You guys know it's April 1st right?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

You guys know it's April 1st right?

What does it say about the current state of 5e that a frankly terrible idea posted as a joke seems very much in line with something Mearls would post on any other day of the year? :smallsigh:

[Seerow]

What does it say about the current state of 5e that a frankly terrible idea posted as a joke seems very much in line with something Mearls would post on any other day of the year? :smallsigh:

Has it been confirmed as an april fools prank?

Because the very first line of the article said it wasn't one, which kind of goes against the spirit of april fools.

[Kurald Galain]

WOTC is really bad at april fools jokes, aren't they? I remember from the last three or four years they uploaded something boring and pretended it was hilarious.

[Conundrum]

Mearls specifically says it isn't an April Fools joke, though. Link for posterity: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130401

EDIT: I suppose the Mines of Madness PDF could be the April Fools day thing, and the rest of the post could be serious?

I actually thought I'd seen a tier system similar to this proposed in an earlier thread. Commoners can now be depicted as level 0 or level 1 characters without having to ask "Why didn't they pick a level in a *good* class". Although, given the general lack of options already, spreading them over an additional 2 levels seems a bit much - Apprentice Tier play would be reserved only for complete newbies to D&D, I suppose?

It also sounds like character powers will stop progressing at level 15 - with the Legacy tier focusing more on leadership and stuff - which *may* help prevent casters spiraling too far out of control, with only 13 levels of real progression in the Adventurer Tier. Of course, this depends on WOTC designing it that way still, and not just cramming the same godlike stuff into less levels.

Basically I think the intent sounds good, but as with everything else released about 5e so far, the proof will be in the playtest.

[noparlpf]

WOTC is really bad at april fools jokes, aren't they? I remember from the last three or four years they uploaded something boring and pretended it was hilarious.

Wasn't there one with cats? And was the thing with the fiendish Monk gelatinous cube an April Fool's joke, or them being serious? Honestly it felt more like a joke than the cats thing. Oh, and a thirty-headed Tarrasque or something, right?

[Lupus753]

Did the cheesy Commoner Chicken-Infested feat come from April Fools'?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I actually thought I'd seen a tier system similar to this proposed in an earlier thread. Commoners can now be depicted as level 0 or level 1 characters without having to ask "Why didn't they pick a level in a *good* class". Although, given the general lack of options already, spreading them over an additional 2 levels seems a bit much - Apprentice Tier play would be reserved only for complete newbies to D&D, I suppose?

It also sounds like character powers will stop progressing at level 15 - with the Legacy tier focusing more on leadership and stuff - which *may* help prevent casters spiraling too far out of control, with only 13 levels of real progression in the Adventurer Tier. Of course, this depends on WOTC designing it that way still, and not just cramming the same godlike stuff into less levels.

A "commoner tier" similar to the one proposed would work in AD&D (obviously, since they did have 0-level creatures) or 3e (where once again 3.0 had rules for 0-level creatures) or 4e (where 1st level characters are as powerful as 3rd-level characters used to be), but not 5e.

There's no room to go down, really. AD&D could handle 0th-level characters because they were explicitly supposed to be the powerless nobodies that didn't merit having an actual class. 3e and 4e could handle 0th-level characters because in both cases you get some extras at 1st level (quadruple skill points, max HP, extra languages, etc. in 3e, lots of HP, extra powers, etc. in 4e). 5e gives you...a +1 or +2 to a few things, an X/[time unit] ability, and a few static features. Sure, you could split those off into sub-levels, but what's the point? Levels 1-3 are already lethal, swingy, and constrained enough as it is.

[undead hero]

I wonder if the creators understand yet that the tiers that the Internets have been talking about don't reference level but the different classes....

*sigh*

But anyways, I'm liking it but I don't think for a second that they won't completely screw up everything at the last second.

[Seerow]

I wonder if the creators understand yet that the tiers that the Internets have been talking about don't reference level but the different classes....

*sigh*

But anyways, I'm liking it but I don't think for a second that they won't completely screw up everything at the last second.

It's already screwed up given they're trying to take an already low baseline and cut it up further, and also considering "gets an army" as a good high level ability. I mean it should be an option, but so far it's the only option they've tried putting forth for their "legacy" system, despite this being the second or third article about it.

Level 15+ wizard? Get real ultimate power.
Level 15+ Fighter? Go retire, become an administrator.

[Anderlith]

One option would be to cut away most of the reality altering spells, then introduce them as Legacy Spells

[obryn]

I'll say the same thing here I did over on ENWorld.

I get wanting a "gritty" module. This should absolutely be supported by the Next rule set.

I think having a simple starting setup for newbies is vitally important. Not boring - but simple is good.*

I do not think these should be the same thing.

-O


* leaving aside that I think Next is, if anything, overly simple so far.

[Kurald Galain]

I like the idea of those tiers; not that they're anything new though. But yeah, there is just not enough material to spread out over another 2-3 levels. In the current playtest, most classes stop gaining feats and features around level 10, and the difference between level 1 and 20 is very very small (about 15% to hit and a bunch of hit points). So I suppose a top-level non-caster is easily taken down by a horde of peasants. That's another reason why bounded accuracy just isn't what it's cracked up to be.

[tommhans]

hm well right now the fighter is way more powerful than the wizard at level 6 as we are now, i as a fighter have 59 hp, he has 16, he has a couple of spells and it really feels down powered some of em, but some others take some damage, i as a fighter do a ****load of damage each attack as we have that deadly strike and i have some other awesome feats that do alot of damage.

The wizard constantly is near death every encounter, but the healer saves him. If this continues til we are level 10 or over he deserves to be uber buffed later on, he has hell to pay to climb to the top! While the fighter constantly is good , and would still deal alot of damage in level 15 and do his job just as fine ^^

[noparlpf]

hm well right now the fighter is way more powerful than the wizard at level 6 as we are now, i as a fighter have 59 hp, he has 16, he has a couple of spells and it really feels down powered some of em, but some others take some damage, i as a fighter do a ****load of damage each attack as we have that deadly strike and i have some other awesome feats that do alot of damage.

The wizard constantly is near death every encounter, but the healer saves him. If this continues til we are level 10 or over he deserves to be uber buffed later on, he has hell to pay to climb to the top! While the fighter constantly is good , and would still deal alot of damage in level 15 and do his job just as fine ^^

I'd rather see the wizard develop at the same rate as the fighter, if only for game balance. It's one thing to say "learning magic is hard, but has huge rewards later", so let's make wizards weak at first and gods later, but many groups won't play the entire progression, so it'll be unbalanced. I'm also not convinced that "unbalanced now, unbalanced the other way later" balances out.

[Jacob.Tyr]

I'd rather see the wizard develop at the same rate as the fighter, if only for game balance. It's one thing to say "learning magic is hard, but has huge rewards later", so let's make wizards weak at first and gods later, but many groups won't play the entire progression, so it'll be unbalanced. I'm also not convinced that "unbalanced now, unbalanced the other way later" balances out.

Yeah, this is something I'm horribly against. "Well, the game sucked for this guy earlier, so it'll suck for you now" is a pretty ****ty way to balance something. It may be balanced, but only in that it makes the game awful for everyone at one point or another.


hm well right now the fighter is way more powerful than the wizard at level 6 as we are now, i as a fighter have 59 hp, he has 16, he has a couple of spells and it really feels down powered some of em, but some others take some damage, i as a fighter do a ****load of damage each attack as we have that deadly strike and i have some other awesome feats that do alot of damage.

The wizard constantly is near death every encounter, but the healer saves him. If this continues til we are level 10 or over he deserves to be uber buffed later on, he has hell to pay to climb to the top! While the fighter constantly is good , and would still deal alot of damage in level 15 and do his job just as fine ^^

I don't understand how you're running into issues with fighters being more powerful than the wizard, though. Assuming your wizard has +0 con and +0 dex, your fighter has +4 str and +4 con...

The wizard can, using only magic missile, deal 23.5 damage on average per round with no chance of missing.

Fighter will deal 15 on average(assuming a d10 weapon) if he has no chance of missing. Against AC 10 he should miss 20% of the time, so he'll deal 10/round on average.

Wizard average health should be 23.5
Fighter 61.5

Throw in the effect of mirror image, and against that wizard the fighter is dealing 3.3 damage per round for the first 3 rounds of any fight. Wizard kills him before he, on average, takes more than 10 damage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know that isn't the best way to balance things, but if you're having trouble making a useful wizard then you're doing something wrong in 5e.

Considering the wizard can split those magic missiles between targets, he's better at dealing with crowds. Consider hold person and he can instantly lock down one combat threat. Thunderwave is pretty great for area damage and knockback, haste is an awesome buff (seriously, throw haste on the fighter and a wizard has done his part in combat anyway, especially if he's feeling outshined by the fighter). Sleep is like hold person but great on crowds.

Realize that most spells can be cast from higher slots for more effects, and that casting is different in that you use up a spell slot to cast a spell, but can still reuse that spell from other slots, and wizards get a lot better. You don't need to mem magic missile at level 3 to cast it at level 3, just have it for the day in your level 1 spells and have a level 3 slot open.

[Clawhound]

Low Tier = RED BOX SET

So, low tier is the very limited, size constrained, rules constrained beginner set. The players can then progress to the full game if they wish, but not feel like they were denied anything. On reaching X level, they gain the same options as a regular player who doesn't need to learn and just creates a normal character.

Will it work? I don't know. The intent is clear, though.

As for the leveling rate, I think it's far too fast.

[obryn]

Low Tier = RED BOX SET

So, low tier is the very limited, size constrained, rules constrained beginner set. The players can then progress to the full game if they wish, but not feel like they were denied anything. On reaching X level, they gain the same options as a regular player who doesn't need to learn and just creates a normal character.

Will it work? I don't know. The intent is clear, though.
If that's indeed the intention, it's going to be pretty terrible because this is in no way, shape, or form different from any of the other beginner sets WotC's tried to market.


As for the leveling rate, I think it's far too fast.
That's probably the easiest thing in the world to change, as long as they don't do anything ridiculous like turning XP into currency for other stuff.

(And if I'm right - that Apprentice Tier isn't intended to be gritty, just kind of boring degrees of simple to give newbies an on-ramp - fast leveling through those two levels is proper.)

[Kurald Galain]

As for the leveling rate, I think it's far too fast.
It has to be fast, because the differences between levels are very often only minor. The easiest way to keep a combat-focused game interesting to the players is to give their characters new abilities at a steady rate. Of course that could be accomplished by eliminating dead levels, but since WOTC doesn't do that (and since most feats are rather weak, and most players won't get excited over a +5% to-hit bonus), leveling has to be fast.


The only real problem with this is it means having something like 5-6 arcane caster classes at minimum.

Or eight kinds of specialist wizard that all use the same base mechanics but a different spell list, easy enough.

[Slipperychicken]

The only real problem with this is it means having something like 5-6 arcane caster classes at minimum. If you're going to have Clerics/Druids be similarly limited/divided, you're looking at around 15-20 classes just between those three, even before doing any mundane classes. That's a lot of space to devote to classes.

I think that's fine, because we'll already have 5-6 martial classes (Fighter, Ranger, Monk, Rogue, Paladin, Barbarian), and will surely get even more cripplingly-specialized non-magic classes with names like Warrior, Samurai, Ninja, Assassin, and Tactician.


Muggles already get split up into highly specialized archetypes, so why not the magic users too?

[Clawhound]

I prefer the specializing of magic classes. "Wizard" is a broad concept, which gets broad abilities. That's actually tough to design for. More specific magic classes, like illusionist or seer, give far better indication of what their strengths should be.

For clerics, each deity is really its own class. I'd be tempted to give each god its own spell list. I think it would be clumsy and awkward to maintain, but it would solve many issues with the cleric. Like spheres, but each spell list would be hand tuned designers. No freeform mixing and matching to find the best combo of spheres.

[navar100]

I prefer the specializing of magic classes. "Wizard" is a broad concept, which gets broad abilities. That's actually tough to design for. More specific magic classes, like illusionist or seer, give far better indication of what their strengths should be.

For clerics, each deity is really its own class. I'd be tempted to give each god its own spell list. I think it would be clumsy and awkward to maintain, but it would solve many issues with the cleric. Like spheres, but each spell list would be hand tuned designers. No freeform mixing and matching to find the best combo of spheres.

Ye olde 2E sphere system. The concept was cool despite the Priest's Handbook screwing it up. Guardian priests only having Guardian Sphere as a minor sphere. Another priest got Summoning as a minor, which is access to only third level spells, but there were no Summoning spells below 4th level until 2E Tome of Magic which was published after Priest's Handbook. It also placed too much influence on the number of spheres you got instead of the number and usefulness of spells. Astral, which only had two spells at the time, was given equal weight to Protection which had lots. The Player's Options series corrected this by giving spell spheres different costs comparable to their true strength. Again, though, I do like the idea of clerics of different faiths having different spell lists to reflect those faiths. Some spells due to their nature still need to be common among all clerics, which is fine. 2E had that with the All sphere.

[Lupus753]

I like the idea of having an Elementalist, an Illusionist, a Necromancer, someone who debuffs enemies or inflicts them with status ailments, the Druid would focus more on nature spells, and the Bard strengthens allies. You might count Psions among spellcasters. But, I'm getting ahead of myself.

[Anderlith]

I'd like to see the War Wizard, the Battle Caster as a class
You're just a wizard that specializes in warfare, a mix of tactician/warlord & a wizard

[Draz74]

I'd like to see the War Wizard, the Battle Caster as a class
You're just a wizard that specializes in warfare, a mix of tactician/warlord & a wizard

... have you looked into Legend? This is what their default wizard-type character looks like.

[Loki_42]

Am I the only one who likes the ideas they're talking about here? Like, the legacy game sounds like it could be interesting, if a little short(12 sessions, by their math), and I'm not the biggest fan of meatgrinder fantasy vietnam, usually, but it's easy to start at 3rd level, and I like "Apprentice tier" better than NPC classes, or whatever 4th editions solution for non-adventuring things was.

[noparlpf]

Low Tier = RED BOX SET

So, low tier is the very limited, size constrained, rules constrained beginner set. The players can then progress to the full game if they wish, but not feel like they were denied anything. On reaching X level, they gain the same options as a regular player who doesn't need to learn and just creates a normal character.

Will it work? I don't know. The intent is clear, though.

As for the leveling rate, I think it's far too fast.

I actually really disliked the red box in 4e. Not a fan of 4e anyway, but the red box just felt really boring to me, and like they were coddling me.

[obryn]

I actually really disliked the red box in 4e. Not a fan of 4e anyway, but the red box just felt really boring to me, and like they were coddling me.
WotC has never released anything like a quality intro box set. Anyone else remember that starter kit from 3e's release? Downright terrible.

-O

[Lupus753]

I played a DnD basic box once, but it was blue and I think it was just before 4E was released.

[1337 b4k4]

Am I the only one who likes the ideas they're talking about here? Like, the legacy game sounds like it could be interesting, if a little short(12 sessions, by their math), and I'm not the biggest fan of meatgrinder fantasy vietnam, usually, but it's easy to start at 3rd level, and I like "Apprentice tier" better than NPC classes, or whatever 4th editions solution for non-adventuring things was.

I've never quite understood why so many people seem to have an aversion to starting at a higher level if they don't like the low power of the lower levels. No one ever seems to freak out about the suggestion in point buy type games to start with more points for a more powerful game, but when it comes to level based games, people seem to have a problem with it. On the one side, some seem to be unable to cope with having levels below their preferred power level and on the other, some people seem to view starting at a higher level as cheating.

[TuggyNE]

No one ever seems to freak out about the suggestion in point buy type games to start with more points for a more powerful game

Au contraire; I've seen a lot of responses to 3.x 32-, 36-, or 40-point buy that strongly suggest that the proposers thereof are unashamed munchkins. (Apparently these objectors are unaware of exactly how slowly point buy really advances?)

So yeah, any sort of power/convenience increase is likely to get this sort of backlash from at least some people.

On the other hand, a recent thread about minimum starting levels shows a surprising number of people who like 3rd level.

[Lupus753]

I heard that it was common in 3.X. "The classes are boring at level 1. Can we start at level 3, where we actually have some features to mess around with?" People just don't like being forced to do something.

[noparlpf]

Third level is a good, safe place to start if you still want the low-level experience. Makes sense.

[Draz74]

Au contraire; I've seen a lot of responses to 3.x 32-, 36-, or 40-point buy that strongly suggest that the proposers thereof are unashamed munchkins.

He was talking about point-buy-character-building games (like GURPS or M&M), not point-buy-ability-score-generation.

[TuggyNE]

He was talking about point-buy-character-building games (like GURPS or M&M), not point-buy-ability-score-generation.

Ahhh, my mistake, the distinction was unclear to me.

[JackRackham]

I've never quite understood why so many people seem to have an aversion to starting at a higher level if they don't like the low power of the lower levels. No one ever seems to freak out about the suggestion in point buy type games to start with more points for a more powerful game, but when it comes to level based games, people seem to have a problem with it. On the one side, some seem to be unable to cope with having levels below their preferred power level and on the other, some people seem to view starting at a higher level as cheating.

Levels, numbered levels imply that you should start at the bottom, whether that's the intention or no.

[Excession]

Levels, numbered levels imply that you should start at the bottom, whether that's the intention or no.

This makes me wonder what would happen if you reset the number each tier, so you get:

Apprentice 1
Apprentice 2
Adventurer 1
Adventurer 2
⋮
Adventurer 12
Legacy 1
⋮


Looking at that, I'd also add (maybe via a module) multiple paths of advancement. So one game could go into "Epic" rather than "Legacy" after running out of Adventurer levels. Maybe "Survivor" levels to replace Adventurer for settings with Dark Sun amounts of lethality.

[MukkTB]

Starting at level 1 can have a different value depending on how you play the game. A hardcore gamist approach would be that leveling is its own rewards. You're out for the high score, and that core is measured in experience points. This is how most MMOs approach leveling.

On the far side of the coin is a the movie approach to roleplaying: We will be playing a scenario over 4-5 sessions. This scenario is a self contained adventure. Once we're done, we're done. This is the background information you need to know. Characters are starting at level x. Have fun.

I am a gamist at heart. Starting higher than level 1 feels like cheating to me. On the other hand I do enjoy the 'movie' playstyle on occasion. Its more elegant than the alternatives. Say you wanted to play Jurrasic Park. That doesn't call for a level 1 to 20 grinding campaign. Jurrasic Park would probably only a handful of sessions to play out. However the main characters are moderately leveled at the start of the movie. Maybe only 3 or so, but they have a bit of experience and they're obviously not just mooks.

As long as the players agree beforehand, either play style is workable. The problem would be if the agreement shifted midgame. Also, if you insist new players start at level 1, and you introduce a new player to a group with well leveled characters, you're being a **** if you don't all start some new level 1s to play with the noobie.

[Kurald Galain]

I've never quite understood why so many people seem to have an aversion to starting at a higher level if they don't like the low power of the lower levels.

Here's why. (tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StopHavingFunGuys)

[tommhans]

Yeah, this is something I'm horribly against. "Well, the game sucked for this guy earlier, so it'll suck for you now" is a pretty ****ty way to balance something. It may be balanced, but only in that it makes the game awful for everyone at one point or another.



I don't understand how you're running into issues with fighters being more powerful than the wizard, though. Assuming your wizard has +0 con and +0 dex, your fighter has +4 str and +4 con...

The wizard can, using only magic missile, deal 23.5 damage on average per round with no chance of missing.

Fighter will deal 15 on average(assuming a d10 weapon) if he has no chance of missing. Against AC 10 he should miss 20% of the time, so he'll deal 10/round on average.

Wizard average health should be 23.5
Fighter 61.5

Throw in the effect of mirror image, and against that wizard the fighter is dealing 3.3 damage per round for the first 3 rounds of any fight. Wizard kills him before he, on average, takes more than 10 damage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know that isn't the best way to balance things, but if you're having trouble making a useful wizard then you're doing something wrong in 5e.

Considering the wizard can split those magic missiles between targets, he's better at dealing with crowds. Consider hold person and he can instantly lock down one combat threat. Thunderwave is pretty great for area damage and knockback, haste is an awesome buff (seriously, throw haste on the fighter and a wizard has done his part in combat anyway, especially if he's feeling outshined by the fighter). Sleep is like hold person but great on crowds.

Realize that most spells can be cast from higher slots for more effects, and that casting is different in that you use up a spell slot to cast a spell, but can still reuse that spell from other slots, and wizards get a lot better. You don't need to mem magic missile at level 3 to cast it at level 3, just have it for the day in your level 1 spells and have a level 3 slot open.


what? you cant use eternal magic missiles they use magic slots, they do take alot of damage but you cant say thats ur average damage if you only have six attacks(which is not always a full encounter) , and besides its an attack you have to roll to hit, thats just how atleast we play, we even did that on healing as there didnt say anything about it(tbh its kinda weird that you can stand half the room away and still heal a dude withouth getting a check against it)

As a fighter i can get 30 hp or more every damn round if i use dual wield and deadly strike, which means 3 possible attacks.

I dont see how he is more powerful than me at this very moment, yes he has some awesome powers, but i guess he might be playing it wrong if you guys really mean the wizard should be superior in battles.

But yeah i do see the spells become more awesome after a while which is cool,

i do agree with the other one that quoted me that the progression should be similar to one another and they should be progressing at the same speed.

[Jacob.Tyr]

what? you cant use eternal magic missiles they use magic slots, they do take alot of damage but you cant say thats ur average damage if you only have six attacks(which is not always a full encounter) , and besides its an attack you have to roll to hit, thats just how atleast we play, we even did that on healing as there didnt say anything about it(tbh its kinda weird that you can stand half the room away and still heal a dude withouth getting a check against it)

As a fighter i can get 30 hp or more every damn round if i use dual wield and deadly strike, which means 3 possible attacks.

I dont see how he is more powerful than me at this very moment, yes he has some awesome powers, but i guess he might be playing it wrong if you guys really mean the wizard should be superior in battles.

But yeah i do see the spells become more awesome after a while which is cool,

i do agree with the other one that quoted me that the progression should be similar to one another and they should be progressing at the same speed.

Are you adding your strength twice to deadly strike? I'm reading it that it only doubles your (I'm assuming on this die) d8. 2d8+4(18str)+1d6 for your offhand, should give you an average of 16.5 damage/round without spending any MDD. Strength will only get added once for the deadly strike, and doesn't get added to your offhand at all.

Are you still playing with MDD refreshing every round, and being able to spend them all on a hit?

[Clawhound]

I had an aversion to high point buys, but that was mostly because the higher tiered classes benefited far more from such schemes than the lower tiered classes.

I also think that compromise is part of character creation.

That's my 2c. You don't have to buy it.

[tommhans]

Are you adding your strength twice to deadly strike? I'm reading it that it only doubles your (I'm assuming on this die) d8. 2d8+4(18str)+1d6 for your offhand, should give you an average of 16.5 damage/round without spending any MDD. Strength will only get added once for the deadly strike, and doesn't get added to your offhand at all.

Are you still playing with MDD refreshing every round, and being able to spend them all on a hit?

ah ofc, i misunderstood that one then and added str on both rolls for the deadly strike, but then its actually exactly what you wrote in your example ^^ (always good to things clarified :)

[Flickerdart]

I had an aversion to high point buys, but that was mostly because the higher tiered classes benefited far more from such schemes than the lower tiered classes.
Considering that lower-tier classes are usually more MAD, would it not be the opposite?

[Lupus753]

Considering that lower-tier classes are usually more MAD, would it not be the opposite?

No, because a SAD class using lots of points would pump them all into one stat. The MAD classes still have to spread out points, like always.

The solution is to give, say, the Monk a lot of points and give the Wizard or Barbarian comparatively few points.

[JackRackham]

Starting at level 1 can have a different value depending on how you play the game. A hardcore gamist approach would be that leveling is its own rewards. You're out for the high score, and that core is measured in experience points. This is how most MMOs approach leveling.

On the far side of the coin is a the movie approach to roleplaying: We will be playing a scenario over 4-5 sessions. This scenario is a self contained adventure. Once we're done, we're done. This is the background information you need to know. Characters are starting at level x. Have fun.

I am a gamist at heart. Starting higher than level 1 feels like cheating to me. On the other hand I do enjoy the 'movie' playstyle on occasion. Its more elegant than the alternatives. Say you wanted to play Jurrasic Park. That doesn't call for a level 1 to 20 grinding campaign. Jurrasic Park would probably only a handful of sessions to play out. However the main characters are moderately leveled at the start of the movie. Maybe only 3 or so, but they have a bit of experience and they're obviously not just mooks.

As long as the players agree beforehand, either play style is workable. The problem would be if the agreement shifted midgame. Also, if you insist new players start at level 1, and you introduce a new player to a group with well leveled characters, you're being a **** if you don't all start some new level 1s to play with the noobie.

Well, even in longer campaigns, it boils down to the story you want to tell, and where you want it to begin. If your BBEG is an epic lich, and you don't think the campaign can last 2 years, you might start the party around levels 6-10. Even if time's not an issue, if you want to jump into the campaign right away, and you want it to be believable, you probably won't start at level 1. Now, if you have an idea for a series of adventures, you might.

[Seerow]

No, because a SAD class using lots of points would pump them all into one stat. The MAD classes still have to spread out points, like always.

The solution is to give, say, the Monk a lot of points and give the Wizard or Barbarian comparatively few points.

Implying Barbarians don't need the extra stats as badly as any other non-primary caster?

[noparlpf]

A good Barbarian in 3.X needs Str, Dex, and Con, and benefits from Wis and Int. Cha isn't particularly useful. In 5e, you still need Str, Dex, and Con, and benefit from decent mental stats.

[Draz74]

I had an aversion to high point buys, but that was mostly because the higher tiered classes benefited far more from such schemes than the lower tiered classes.


Considering that lower-tier classes are usually more MAD, would it not be the opposite?
This.


No, because a SAD class using lots of points would pump them all into one stat. The MAD classes still have to spread out points, like always.
Even if you're playing with 25-point buy, that's enough for a SAD class to get their main stat all the way to an 18. So below 25-point buy, your point might be relevant.

But when comparing 25, 28, 30, 32, and higher point-buys, the SAD class is getting relatively little marginal benefit from the increase, because the only stats she cares about are already good. "Fixing" a dump stat doesn't change much. Meanwhile, the MAD classes are turning less and less pathetic.


The solution is to give, say, the Monk a lot of points and give the Wizard or Barbarian comparatively few points.
This kind of "solution" gets wonky with the multiclassing rules. Or were you trying to convince Clerics to start with a one-level dip in Monk before they start using their main class?


I also think that compromise is part of character creation.

That's my 2c. You don't have to buy it.
This part, I agree with. This is why I prefer 28-point buy most of the time.


A good Barbarian in 3.X needs Str, Dex, and Con, and benefits from Wis and Int. Cha isn't particularly useful. In 5e, you still need Str, Dex, and Con, and benefit from decent mental stats.
Intimidating Rage and Imperious Command say hi.

[noparlpf]

Intimidating Rage and Imperious Command say hi.

There's a variant from somewhere that makes Intimidate based on Str, and gives some bonuses to it, I believe.

[Gwendol]

It's in the DMG actually.

[noparlpf]

It's in the DMG actually.

What is? I'm talking about a Barbarian ACF or something from Dragon.

[Lupus753]

A good Barbarian in 3.X needs Str, Dex, and Con, and benefits from Wis and Int. Cha isn't particularly useful. In 5e, you still need Str, Dex, and Con, and benefit from decent mental stats.

Weird. I was told that the Barbarian only ever needs STR and CON, with the other stats giving you minor bonuses. Then again, that was Pathfinder. Ehh, maybe it depends on things.

[noparlpf]

Weird. I was told that the Barbarian only ever needs STR and CON, with the other stats giving you minor bonuses. Then again, that was Pathfinder. Ehh, maybe it depends on things.

It's all you need, but I've played Barbarians with higher and lower other scores, and the higher scores usually help out some.

[Draz74]

There's a variant from somewhere that makes Intimidate based on Str, and gives some bonuses to it, I believe.

OK, yeah, skills are easy to boost. But Imperious Command still has a 15 Charisma prereq.

Nitpicking (both directions) aside, the point is that it's not a useless stat to typical Barbarians.

[Clawhound]

In 3rd, a melee style character with amazing stats only gets more plusses. They can't do anything more than a lesser melee character.

Spellcasters with higher stats, on the other hand, literally get more spells memorized with higher stats, and as those stats get larger, the level of those bonus spells get larger as well. The DCs go up as well. More spells equals more flexibility, less likely to fail, and higher reliability that your edgy combo will work.

So higher stats amplify all the existing disparities between the classes.

That's not true in 4th. Getting bonus powers has nothing to do with stats.

[Talakeal]

In 3rd, a melee style character with amazing stats only gets more plusses. They can't do anything more than a lesser melee character.

Spellcasters with higher stats, on the other hand, literally get more spells memorized with higher stats, and as those stats get larger, the level of those bonus spells get larger as well. The DCs go up as well. More spells equals more flexibility, less likely to fail, and higher reliability that your edgy combo will work.

So higher stats amplify all the existing disparities between the classes.

That's not true in 4th. Getting bonus powers has nothing to do with stats.

Right, but that is only in their primary casting stat, which you can sink an 18 into right of the bat with any reasonable point buy. All additional points do if allow you to pump up the secondary attributes, all of which benefit front line melee much more than casters, especially in cases like the monk and paladin who also need mental stats.

[Draz74]

Right, but that is only in their primary casting stat, which you can sink an 18 into right of the bat with any reasonable point buy. All additional points do if allow you to pump up the secondary attributes, all of which benefit front line melee much more than casters, especially in cases like the monk and paladin who also need mental stats.

Exactly. A Wizard with 50-point buy doesn't have a higher Intelligence than a Wizard with 30-point buy. They both have whatever Intelligence they could get from a starting base of 18.

[TuggyNE]

Exactly. A Wizard with 50-point buy doesn't have a higher Intelligence than a Wizard with 30-point buy. They both have whatever Intelligence they could get from a starting base of 18.

For that matter, it's possible for a Wizard at 16-point buy to still have 18 Int (and 8 everything else).

[Killer Angel]

This is my first post on the matter.
Keep in mind that I have only read “How to play”, and (very quickly) the part regardin’ the creation of the characters and just took a look at the bestiary; my strong impression is that they have simplified (too much?) the available options.

From combat, almost all the special moves disappeared, and some remain as feat, to simply have the possibility to make that particular attack.
The AoO remains, but only against an opponent that goes out of your reach and other actions, such as cast a spell or drink a potion, do not provoke AoOs.
It seems that characters cannot make multiple attacks.
Characters can optionally take a specialty: the effect is that it automatically assigns feats.
Of course, the ability of the monsters have been "compressed": hit points and damage more or less seems to go on the same level, but the armor class and the to hit are lowered (for example, a behir has 15 AC and to hit +6, while in 3.5 they were higher).

Some changes are really good, but I don’t know, it seems a sort of D&D for Dummies… Am I wrong?

[Talakeal]

The loss of AOOs and iterative attacks is not a bad thing at all. I have long since banished iterative attacks from my game and all AOOs save those caused by moving away from an engaged foe.

[1337 b4k4]

Some changes are really good, but I don’t know, it seems a sort of D&D for Dummies… Am I wrong?

This is not a bad thing. We tend to forget in our little echo chamber here on the net that there is a vast swarm of players and potential players out there who have no interest whatsoever in the minutia of the game or the rules. They don't endlessly pour over the rules and calculate the statistical effectiveness of the classes to 3 decimal places over 20 levels. They don't care about having infinite choices for powers. I have one such player in my game now. They chose a wizard, and they don't even care about the spells. I have to constantly remind them that they have spells available as an option rather than simply hitting things with a stick. But for some players, they just don't care. What they do care about is a story, or an adventure. Or poking buttons and pulling levers and seeing what happens. They like coming up with off the wall things. Or they simply like getting together with their friends and having a good time.

For these people, the massive tomes that the D&D rule books have morphed into over the years are a turn off. More than that, they are an active impediment to new blood in the hobby. Sure, lots of us were introduced to the hobby by someone else, who would sit there and explain the rules to us, but there are plenty more who simply picked up a book and started going. A simple, basic, no frills framework that is none the less complete enough to get through a basic game is exactly the sort of thing D&D needs to have. That isn't to say there shouldn't be options, and more complexity to be had, but your players should have the option of deciding how much complexity they want to deal with.

[Oracle_Hunter]

They chose a wizard, and they don't even care about the spells. I have to constantly remind them that they have spells available as an option rather than simply hitting things with a stick.
Have you asked your Player why he chose to play a Wizard then? :smallconfused:

[Kurald Galain]

This is not a bad thing. We tend to forget in our little echo chamber here on the net that there is a vast swarm of players and potential players out there who have no interest whatsoever in the minutia of the game or the rules.

Yes, that bears repeating. When you've been playing a game for awhile, it becomes easy to overlook how complex it really is, especially to a non-gamer. D&D would benefit from being easier to learn.

[1337 b4k4]

Have you asked your Player why he chose to play a Wizard then?

Because they wanted to, what other reason would they need?

[Killer Angel]

Q


Some changes are really good, but I don’t know, it seems a sort of D&D for Dummies… Am I wrong?

A

is not a bad thing at all.


This is not a bad thing.


D&D would benefit from being easier to learn.

you may have a point. Plus, given enough time, I'm sure there will be room to increase the available options and the complexity of the system (the various complete and so on).

[Draz74]

For that matter, it's possible for a Wizard at 16-point buy to still have 18 Int (and 8 everything else).

True, but at that point I actually think the Wizard would be better off dropping Intelligence to 16 in favor of boosting CON by 6 points.

Continuing on this really-quite-irrelevant tangent of theorycrafting:
After all, it's clear that at some point, ridiculously low point buy (which no one plays with) will indeed balance the Wizard and the Fighter. It's just the Intermediate Value Theorem. Since a zero-point buy Fighter is obviously way better than a zero-point buy Wizard. (Of course, at that point, both of them are massively outclassed by Warlocks and Wildshape Rangers, but eh.)

[Oracle_Hunter]

Because they wanted to, what other reason would they need?
As a rule, if someone says "I want to play a Wizard" and then neglects to use any relevant portions of the Wizard class, I would at least ask "why did you want to play a Wizard."

I mean, out of simple curiosity if nothing else :smalltongue:

[Grod_The_Giant]

As a rule, if someone says "I want to play a Wizard" and then neglects to use any relevant portions of the Wizard class, I would at least ask "why did you want to play a Wizard."

I mean, out of simple curiosity if nothing else :smalltongue:
Maybe they want to be Rincewind?

[noparlpf]

Maybe they want to be Rincewind?

Is it a gag game? :smallconfused:

[Lupus753]

If the player is given no magic but the spell Knock, and that takes up three spell slots, then they can do an accurate Rincewind.

[Doug Lampert]

As a rule, if someone says "I want to play a Wizard" and then neglects to use any relevant portions of the Wizard class, I would at least ask "why did you want to play a Wizard."

I mean, out of simple curiosity if nothing else :smalltongue:

I'm not the poster you're asking, but I have a somewhat similar player.

She collects powers like a magpie collects shiney things. She doesn't need to actually use them, and "I hit it" is simple, which is all she wants from the combat section of the game. She's there to socialize and do the less mechanical portions of the game.

But she'd NEVER play a character like a 3.x fighter who can't collect lots and lots of neato powers. She'll reliably forget what's on her sheet most of the time, but she wants that big sheet of powers.

[TuggyNE]

Low-end point buy digression
True, but at that point I actually think the Wizard would be better off dropping Intelligence to 16 in favor of boosting CON by 6 points.

Oh, definitely. I was just pointing out the theoretical limit; I don't think hardly anyone plays with 16-point buy in 3.5 anyway, so anything above that point basically just makes it somewhat easier for the Wizard to soak more damage, fire more accurate rays, and so on. Handy, but not as important to "core competencies" as Str is to a meleer.

[1337 b4k4]

I mean, out of simple curiosity if nothing else

As I said. They're there for the social aspect and the adventure. Using their character optimally (or even at all) except as a way to experience the adventure is something that they're not interested in (at least for now).

[Talakeal]

After all, it's clear that at some point, ridiculously low point buy (which no one plays with) will indeed balance the Wizard and the Fighter. It's just the Intermediate Value Theorem. Since a zero-point buy Fighter is obviously way better than a zero-point buy Wizard. (Of course, at that point, both of them are massively outclassed by Warlocks and Wildshape Rangers, but eh.)[/SPOILER]

Frankly I am not so sure. Sure, at low level they will both suck and the caster will suck slightly more, but once they have enough WBL to afford stat boosing items I think the caster will be way stronger than the melee character, even more so than in a standard game.

[Anderlith]

Just thought that i'd throw this out there as an idea/

Mundanes could have class abilities that grant Auras that make give combat bonuses. They'd be like the old Marshal & Dragon Shaman, but also granting/sharing feets like Combat Reflexes.

If fact I'm all for grafting the Warlord in the Fighter.

[Cavelcade]

To be honest, one of the best ways to make spellcasting 'more' balanced with melee has always seemed to me to be making it more MAD.

So a Cleric gets a number of spells (and Turns) based on CHA, and the spell level he can cast is based on INT and the spell level on WIS (or if you just want two, to be more reasonable, CHA and WIS).

The Wizard provides the most annoying character to figure this out for - maybe WIS and INT?

Or maybe have the speed you can cast your spells at dictated by your DEX - anything to stop them being so SAD.



Also, have as much text dedicated to fighting as you do to magic. There should be a bunch of maneuvers available to melee people that they're just able to do automatically. Maybe have some restricted to barbarian/rogue/ranger/fighter, but still. This latest playtest has gone away from this trend a bit, which I dislike.

[Friv]

To be honest, one of the best ways to make spellcasting 'more' balanced with melee has always seemed to me to be making it more MAD.

So a Cleric gets a number of spells (and Turns) based on CHA, and the spell level he can cast is based on INT and the spell level on WIS (or if you just want two, to be more reasonable, CHA and WIS).

The Wizard provides the most annoying character to figure this out for - maybe WIS and INT?

Or maybe have the speed you can cast your spells at dictated by your DEX - anything to stop them being so SAD.

Probably the fastest and easiest way to do this would be:

Reduce everyone's Spells Per Day of each level by 1.

Wizards determine Spell DCs with their Intelligence, but use Constitution to figure out bonus spells. The "Bonus Spells" Chart starts at +1 at a rating of 10 and for Level 1 spells, and goes up by an extra +1 for every four points you've got (and each spell level requires a higher base rating as usual).

Clerics and paladins use Wisdom for spells known and Charisma for casting.

Bards use Intelligence for spells known and Charisma for casting.

Druids and Rangers use Constitution for spells known and Wisdom for casting.

Sorcerers use Constitution for spells known and Charisma for casting.


Also, have as much text dedicated to fighting as you do to magic. There should be a bunch of maneuvers available to melee people that they're just able to do automatically. Maybe have some restricted to barbarian/rogue/ranger/fighter, but still. This latest playtest has gone away from this trend a bit, which I dislike.

[Doug Lampert]

Probably the fastest and easiest way to do this would be:

Reduce everyone's Spells Per Day of each level by 1.

Wizards determine Spell DCs with their Intelligence, but use Constitution to figure out bonus spells. The "Bonus Spells" Chart starts at +1 at a rating of 10 and for Level 1 spells, and goes up by an extra +1 for every four points you've got (and each spell level requires a higher base rating as usual).

Clerics and paladins use Wisdom for spells known and Charisma for casting.

Bards use Intelligence for spells known and Charisma for casting.

Druids and Rangers use Constitution for spells known and Wisdom for casting.

Sorcerers use Constitution for spells known and Charisma for casting.

I feel that reduced spells per day is EXACTLY the wrong way to go. That WotC is using this method is one of the worst things about their current playtest.

Level X characters should mostly be doing level X type things. If level isn't good for that then why are we bothering to have a level?

Combat relevant limits on spell availability inevitably results in individual spells being more powerful. Too powerful when casting and too weak when not casting isn't ballanced, it's unballanced TWICE.

And it turns out that the limits are never as relevant as they are claimed to be when the overpowered spells are put in the system.

Because when the cleric runs out of spells the party is done for the day. And if the cleric is casting in combat and healing out of combat and has approximately the same slots as the wizard then the fighter's HP/cleric healing (same resource pool) are the limit on the adventuring day and the wizard will ALWAYS have spells left at the end of the day. 2 slots or 56 slots, doesn't matter unless the fighter can heal substantial amounts without cleric support, the wizard inherently has "enough" slots if he comes close to matching the cleric.

Fewer slots simply constrains adventure design and results in the wizard's slots being overpowered. The wizard still has "enough" as the rest of the party won't continue with a dry cleric and the cleric runs out first.

Since the wizard WILL have "enough" slots, make "enough" a reasonably large number and balance the game based on spell slots not being a significant limit in combat.

[navar100]

The problem is not number of spells per day or only one ability score determining spells. The problem is the spells themselves, partially, and mundanes being MAD and not given Nice Things. Having spellcasters be DAD isn't a bad idea if mundanes are DAD as well, but a spellcaster having unused spell slots left over at the end of the day is not balance catastrophe. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a spellcaster Teleporting hundreds of miles away. When he's doing that, let the warrior at least jump 50 ft across the river or swim it in heavy armor or walk on the bottom to cross holding his breath for a good long time to keep some realism if you need. Spellcasters shouldn't be opening doors with Knock. Instead, they should be using Knock to give the skillmonkey a boost to pick the rusty lock of the long lost dungeon of doom.

[Jacob.Tyr]

I feel that reduced spells per day is EXACTLY the wrong way to go. That WotC is using this method is one of the worst things about their current playtest.

Level X characters should mostly be doing level X type things. If level isn't good for that then why are we bothering to have a level?

Combat relevant limits on spell availability inevitably results in individual spells being more powerful. Too powerful when casting and too weak when not casting isn't ballanced, it's unballanced TWICE.

And it turns out that the limits are never as relevant as they are claimed to be when the overpowered spells are put in the system.

Because when the cleric runs out of spells the party is done for the day. And if the cleric is casting in combat and healing out of combat and has approximately the same slots as the wizard then the fighter's HP/cleric healing (same resource pool) are the limit on the adventuring day and the wizard will ALWAYS have spells left at the end of the day. 2 slots or 56 slots, doesn't matter unless the fighter can heal substantial amounts without cleric support, the wizard inherently has "enough" slots if he comes close to matching the cleric.

Fewer slots simply constrains adventure design and results in the wizard's slots being overpowered. The wizard still has "enough" as the rest of the party won't continue with a dry cleric and the cleric runs out first.

Since the wizard WILL have "enough" slots, make "enough" a reasonably large number and balance the game based on spell slots not being a significant limit in combat.

Yes yes yes yes. This is like balancing wizards by making them bad early on, unbalanced twice is not balanced in the end. I'm fine with their being resources in place, but not in the used up and it's over way.

I actually really like the way the wizard's spells are being balanced (e.g. disintegration working on low HP enemies, spells requiring you to maintain concentration to keep up their save vs suck or buff capabilities). I'd almost prefer if it worked like this entirely; give them "magic missile" that scales with level and does okay damage and is at-will, and make their big spells things that either require the wizard to focus, require a setup, or give the enemies immunity if they save against them.

Keeping someone flying requires the wizard to concentrate and not cast other spells, same with keeping someone paralyzed. If your enemy breaks hold person, they're immune for 24 hours or something like that. Disintegration requires your enemy to be low on health, if they make the save vs death you can't use that spell on that target again. Things like this would make not only the save vs suck spells less awful when used on the players(They gain immunity as well, and an enemy spell caster locking someone down is locked down himself) but would make the only real limitation on "nova" be the fact that you can't blast your spells against your enemy over and over again. Finish up with that encounter and sure, you can cast those spells still and not have to waste 15 hours out of your day to move on. It makes things "sort of" per encounter, without really feeling like it.

I do not have any idea how to make healing function like this, though... Maybe "regeneration" buffs that require focus, but can be kept going on your tank throughout a fight.

[Morty]

Because when the cleric runs out of spells the party is done for the day. And if the cleric is casting in combat and healing out of combat and has approximately the same slots as the wizard then the fighter's HP/cleric healing (same resource pool) are the limit on the adventuring day and the wizard will ALWAYS have spells left at the end of the day. 2 slots or 56 slots, doesn't matter unless the fighter can heal substantial amounts without cleric support, the wizard inherently has "enough" slots if he comes close to matching the cleric.

I agree with the rest of your post, but not this paragraph. Mostly because the whole model of healing in D&D is rubbish and needs to be scrapped. The game shouldn't require one party member to devote a good part of their resources to keeping everyone on their feet. Instead, everyone should be able to mitigate, avoid and soak damage instead of sucking it up because the cleric will fix them up afterwards. Healing magic from whatever source should only be needed in dire situations when a party member didn't manage to avoid damage.

[Jacob.Tyr]

I agree with the rest of your post, but not this paragraph. Mostly because the whole model of healing in D&D is rubbish and needs to be scrapped. The game shouldn't require one party member to devote a good part of their resources to keeping everyone on their feet. Instead, everyone should be able to mitigate, avoid and soak damage instead of sucking it up because the cleric will fix them up afterwards. Healing magic from whatever source should only be needed in dire situations when a party member didn't manage to avoid damage.

I don't know that I would like a game that dealt with damage with "mitigate, avoid and soak". If you're just capable of dealing with all the damage without being hurt, then things would lack quite a bit of excitement, for me at least. My pathfinder group just went into a big fight, with me playing healer, and we had people fall into single digits a few times. I was glad to be able to knock them back up when this happened, and felt incredibly useful. Without buffs and channeled healing people would've dropped left and right, and even just seeing the numbers before applying resist energy made things more suspenseful.

I would prefer something along the lines of a regeneration spell that requires concentration, though. Things get tough and the cleric can go into prayer mode and stick in it to grant everyone some quantity of regeneration, and also use the same mechanic to get everyone up out of combat. A mechanic like this would require, in my opinion, that a cleric would need to be on part combat-wise with everyone else, so that deciding between getting someone back up in combat or helping end combat quicker was a tough decision (1 disabled person, do we lock down the cleric to get them back up sooner or should we finish this fight and get everyone up when it's safe?). Maybe grant a swift action that lets them do a half-heal for a round vs a concentrated full one as well at later levels.

[navar100]

While there are a few spells in 3E that require concentration to maintain, if every spell was like that it wouldn't make for fun play. A player doing nothing but "I concentrate", sitting there doing nothing while everyone else gets to play will be bored and annoyed he's not playing. It's irrelevant he's keeping one bad guy locked down; the DM has other bad guys to play with. It's nice to buff a party member. It's unfair your buffing means he gets to play while you do nothing.

[Cavelcade]

I wouldn't mind if they were still able to attack while they were doing so - they should already be worse at fighting than meleers, so I see no reason to make them even worse by inflicting penalties even.

[Talakeal]

I really like the idea of concentration duration buffs.

One problem with spells is most require no rolls to cast. Maybe if concentration spells required some sort of test every round to keep active it would both limit and engage the players. A good idea I think, but I am not sure how to actually work it in game.

[Jacob.Tyr]

I really like the idea of concentration duration buffs.

One problem with spells is most require no rolls to cast. Maybe if concentration spells required some sort of test every round to keep active it would both limit and engage the players. A good idea I think, but I am not sure how to actually work it in game.

Maybe work it as a move action to concentrate, with some sort of way to work it into a swift with advancement? At least then wizards would have a reason for carrying their crossbows around.

[noparlpf]

What if we made casting skill-based? And then the DC can depend on the HD of the thing you're targeting...

[Craft (Cheese)]

I already gave my opinion on this matter the last time it came up, but I'll repeat it: I think trying to balance things around Spells-Per-Encounter and Encounters-Per-Day and Days-Per-Level is the wrong way to go about this. The central problem here is that the numbers and mechanics are how you experience the game, not the game itself. The game is what happens at the table, the reactions it creates in the players.

The job of the game designer, as it is for all artists, is to use their medium to create the reactions that it desires out of the audience. Do you want your audience to laugh? To scream and crap their pants? To examine a part of their life or society in a new way? A skilled artist can use their medium to create life-changing experiences.

The main difference is as a game designer your job is indirect: They provide their audience, the players, with a set of tools they use to create these experiences for themselves. With your tools the players can create a piece of art only they experience and only they can truly understand, and if your tools are designed well they can do so without needing to be a skilled artist themselves.

That doesn't mean the mechanics aren't important, but it does mean they aren't the core of the game. When you talk about mechanics without considering the game they're supposed to create, it's like writing a poem caring only about the rhyme and meter without ever stopping to think about what the words you're using *mean* and how your audience will interpret them. No matter how flawless you make the rhyme and meter, your poem will be jumbled garbage.

[Flickerdart]

No matter how flawless you make the rhyme and meter, your poem will be jumbled garbage.
There's plenty of artistic merit in a poem that is intentionally technically perfect while being utter nonsense. Just not the same kind.

[Craft (Cheese)]

There's plenty of artistic merit in a poem that is intentionally technically perfect while being utter nonsense. Just not the same kind.

Even dadaist and postmodern work has to very carefully consider how the meanings of the words fit together (or, rather, don't fit together in exactly the right way) in order to be effective: Being truly thoughtless on the matter leaves you with the kind of stuff 5th graders write for class assignments.

[navar100]

What if we made casting skill-based? And then the DC can depend on the HD of the thing you're targeting...

Oh no, not another Truenamer! :smallwink:

[TuggyNE]

Oh no, not another Truenamer! :smallwink:

Well, the idea's nice, as long as you have sensible skill mechanics and work out the Laws properly.

*obligatory "of course 5e doesn't do that" remark*

[JackRackham]

Oh no, not another Truenamer! :smallwink:

I don't know. Spells are skills in GURPS and it works really, really well.

[huttj509]

Even dadaist and postmodern work has to very carefully consider how the meanings of the words fit together (or, rather, don't fit together in exactly the right way) in order to be effective: Being truly thoughtless on the matter leaves you with the kind of stuff 5th graders write for class assignments.

Twas brillig, and the slithey toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe. All mimsey were the morogroves, and the momeraths outgrabe.

[Draz74]

Twas brillig, and the slithey toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe. All mimsey were the morogroves, and the momeraths outgrabe.

My thoughts exactly. All hail the original origin of the Vorpal Sword!

[TuggyNE]

Twas brillig, and the slithey toves did gyre and gimble in the wabe. All mimsey were the morogroves, and the momeraths outgrabe.

And he meant every word of it! :smallwink:

[Kurald Galain]

Oh no, not another Truenamer! :smallwink:

Truenamers are a good idea, just poorly executed. That said, they don't particularly fit with the history of D&D.

[noparlpf]

Oh no, not another Truenamer! :smallwink:

:smalltongue:
Seriously though, I thought the Truenamer was a great idea until I started looking at it. Truenaming magic is a classic, and a skill-based casting system sounded neat. Until I saw what WotC had done with it. But it's not impossible to make a viable skill-based system.

[SiuiS]

Psionics took a small step in that direction- but the idea of "build your own spell on the fly" seemed to be a bit lacking in support.

Epic spells tended to involve large amounts of research, rather than the person putting it together as they cast it.

3.5 epic spells could actually be cast on the fly. A DC 0 spell had a creation cost – and thus creation time – of nothing. We ended up calling them impulses, spontaneous bursts of directed magic, and house ruled that no spell could exist in the gap between DC 0 and, I think DC 25.

I hear similar rules cropped up a lot.


Hm, looking over previous iterations of the playtest and our threads about them, it looks like they had a number of cool and well-received ideas that they removed from the current iteration. Some of the earlier versions strike me as more fun to play than the product they have now.

After reading ahead (lost my page, went jumping looking for the responses to my question) it occurs to me that WotC may actually be doing a goo job with this. They take in all the feedback, and give you what looks like a nonsequitur. Behind the scenes of R&D there is a vast connection, but in the interim you don't get to see it.

It's the modern version of where everyone has a different version of a test to prevent cheating. Because of the Internet and the nature of play testing they cannot give out multiple ideas at once and hope you don't network. They may instead break up ideas that shoul have run concurrently, and include little palate cleansers, scrubbed down classes designed to erase your expectations, so you can take in the next batch fresh.


Either that, or broad but shallow. Like, each level, you get a resource of some sort that could either be invested in improving an existing power, as kieza suggests, or to access a new ability.

We had that! We called it a fighter. It did not work.

The est you could get on this end, for example, would be removing monk, dusk blade, paladin, ranger, barbarian, swashbuckler, samurai, hex blade, etc. from the game, and somehow make them archetypes that a fighter can invest in (along with some generic capacity to preserve the fighter itself; I would use the Marshal which doesn't need to exist). Then you can either increase your current powers and skills, or branch out into new ones.

But here's the problem with the system when you go from abstract to concrete. There needs to be an even balance between focused specialists and multiple masters. I mean, some granularity is good – your build should matter – but... If you're a dedicated Barbarian type, with whatever that entails, and you decide to ranch out into Ranger (whatever that, also, means) then you should still be competitive with a straight barbarian. And you shouldn't be so generic as to have multiclassing make you redundant.

So you need, as was said, a core competency you get early, and fun dewdads to make you better at that core competency. The core needs to scale by level, so a multiclassing guy isn't killing his own effectiveness, but it also can't be so good that it's a binary choice, where a multiclassing guy is better than a chick with tons of dewdads because her focus can't compete with his +100% core competency.

It's an onerous balance. It can be achieved with a feat system, or a tree system, or a point buy system, but it needs to be done such that you don't lose that feeling of playing dungeons and dragons.

[Oscredwin]

About the wizard, I was always confused why that class got all the good powers first (with the exception of the druid and the cleric). At CL level 7 the wizard can cast Dimension Door, so that's when it's ok for other classes to start getting it (or 5 levels later if you're a monk). I think it would be ok for the wizard to get all the abilities, as long as (s)he gets them well after everyone else. Let the wizard cast buffs that let him fight as well as a fighter, 5 levels lower than him. Let the wizard cast buffs that let her run faster than any other character, except a monk. Let a wizard shapechange, worse than a druid. Let a wizard cast knock, and be less effective than a rogue. This works as long as the world isn't just level appropriate challenges. The great archmage (level 15) can still trounce an upstart knight (level 5) in a sword fight with polymorph/tensers/whatever but can't out fight the champion of the realm (level 14).

The (generalist) wizard should be a jack of all trades, have all the tricks, but get each of them later than anyone else. Give him one or two tricks of his own (ritual magic? AoE?) where he's a specialist the way a fighter is a specialist at swinging a greatsword, but otherwise he's "versatile".

Have modules or ACF or archetypes or other classes that allow the wizard to specialize to get abilities at the same "rate" as other classes. In 3.5 terms, this would be giving wizards a +2 LA (and a somewhat nerfed spell list) while beguilers and similar classes for a large amount of wizard archetypes (eg summoners, necromancers, evokers, etc) and warblades have +0LA.

A true wizard will be the only one throwing up real walls of stone along with illusory walls, but when he starts doing that the illusionist and the summoner have been using their own walls for a few levels. Ideally there would be good combos that only the wizard can take advantage of, but I assume the internet will find them and they don't have to be "designed" into the system if the spells aren't too focused in execution.

[navar100]

:smalltongue:
Seriously though, I thought the Truenamer was a great idea until I started looking at it. Truenaming magic is a classic, and a skill-based casting system sounded neat. Until I saw what WotC had done with it. But it's not impossible to make a viable skill-based system.

I'm not really opposed to the idea, but I am concerned about the fun factor. Let's say however it works, it works. Player fails the skill roll. Spell does not go off. Sucks, but not really different than a warrior who made an attack but missed the AC. Ok, that's the game. Now, don't add insult to injury by having a spell use lost because of that failed check. Let's assume that's not the case. Next round player makes the skill roll and spell goes off. Bad guy makes the saving throw. Spell fails. That's where the unfun happens. The spellcaster has two chances of his actions for the round to become nothing. To keep it fair to the spellcaster one of those two rolls has to go away - the skill check or saving throw. Even if spells aren't Game Can Not Be Played Because They're Too Powerful, spells should still be significantly potent. Not having a saving throw could make them Too Powerful anyway. That leaves the skill check to go away.

A possible solution to keep both rolls is that the spell still does Something even on a successful save. The devil in the details is what that Something is. Half-damage for damage spells is legacy, but what about non-damaging spells? With a spell like Slow, is the bad guy still staggered for a round? What about Hold Person? Do we even keep the spells that had no saving throw like Enervation as is?

[noparlpf]

I'm not really opposed to the idea, but I am concerned about the fun factor. Let's say however it works, it works. Player fails the skill roll. Spell does not go off. Sucks, but not really different than a warrior who made an attack but missed the AC. Ok, that's the game. Now, don't add insult to injury by having a spell use lost because of that failed check. Let's assume that's not the case. Next round player makes the skill roll and spell goes off. Bad guy makes the saving throw. Spell fails. That's where the unfun happens. The spellcaster has two chances of his actions for the round to become nothing. To keep it fair to the spellcaster one of those two rolls has to go away - the skill check or saving throw. Even if spells aren't Game Can Not Be Played Because They're Too Powerful, spells should still be significantly potent. Not having a saving throw could make them Too Powerful anyway. That leaves the skill check to go away.

A possible solution to keep both rolls is that the spell still does Something even on a successful save. The devil in the details is what that Something is. Half-damage for damage spells is legacy, but what about non-damaging spells? With a spell like Slow, is the bad guy still staggered for a round? What about Hold Person? Do we even keep the spells that had no saving throw like Enervation as is?

(I kind of like the roll-AC method myself, which is kind of analogous to that issue, but let's ignore that for now.)
Either eliminate saves and make the effect dependent on the amount over the DC the caster rolls, or keep saves and give partial effects.

[Emmerask]

My take on saves would be to:

-remove them :smallbiggrin:
-add a form of "success points" ie the caster rolls for his spell and subtracts some resistance value from the targeted character (or characters).

If the number of success points is < 0 the spell doesn´t work
If the number of success points is = 0 you get the very basic spell
If the number is > 0 you can spend the remaining points on bonus powers specific to the spell (make it hit harder, make it jump to another target, make it cost less spellpoints etc)

This would give spells a bit more variety then the binary hit or not hit we currently have and would also add a bit more flavor to casting.

[Talakeal]

Spells that are negated by saving throws are, however, usually far better than a melee attack. Many spells can end the fight right there, and unless you are playing with a very twinked out melee character damage will not, especially if you roll very poorly for damage (the equivalent of a failed save).

I agree that scaling difficulty to the targets HD is pretty strange. For offensive spells saving throws and HP already scale with HD, and for friendly targets low level buffs and heals become increasingly irrelevant as the Christmas tree effect makes the numbers proportionally smaller and the bonuses less likely to stack.

On a tangent about how I handle this:

My homebrew system has all spells requiring a skill test, with a different skill for each school (thus specialists have a major advantage over generalists in this department). All spells cost 1 spell point to cast, succeed or fail, although a critical success refunds this cost.

There are saving throws, but each point of success beyond what is required to cast the spell imposes a -1 penalty on their save. Thus if a high level mage wants to end the fight with one spell, casting Finger of Death or Dominate, it is very chancy, like playing Russian roulette. If they, however, stick to low level save or suck or lose a turn spells then they are almost guaranteed to go off.

As for direct damage, there are many variants of direct damage. Some target fortitude, some target reflex, some target will, others roll to hit using AC and don't allow saves at all. I find the odds are pretty similar to those of a melee character, albeit the mage has to expend a spell point (and has better odds in an AOE situation).

[SiuiS]

Okay. I have the packet now (apparently they lost my old info? Alas) where should I begin? What should I focus on, what should I look at going in? This stuff is easier to digest conversationally than just grinding rules, y'know?

[Oracle_Hunter]

Apropos 5e, I stumbled across this: 13th Age (http://www.pelgranepress.com/?cat=248) -- something cobbled together by Jonathan Tweet (Lead Designer 3rd Edition) and Rob Heinsoo (Lead Designer 4th Edition).

Now, I'm sure this is old news, but is anyone here familiar with it? From the looks of it, it looks a lot like an Alternate Universe 5e in which someone actually decided to make a new Edition of D&D instead of a retread of 3rd.

[Kurald Galain]

Okay. I have the packet now (apparently they lost my old info? Alas) where should I begin? What should I focus on, what should I look at going in? This stuff is easier to digest conversationally than just grinding rules, y'know?

Pick your favorite class, read what it does in 5E, and then come tell us how <your favorite edition here> does it much better! :smallbiggrin:



Apropos 5e, I stumbled across this: 13th Age (http://www.pelgranepress.com/?cat=248) -- something cobbled together by Jonathan Tweet (Lead Designer 3rd Edition) and Rob Heinsoo (Lead Designer 4th Edition).

"The formula for a skill check is d20 + the relevant ability modifier + your level + the number of points you have in a relevant background." Wow, they understand statistics better than WOTC does :smallcool:

[Scowling Dragon]

Now, I'm sure this is old news, but is anyone here familiar with it? From the looks of it, it looks a lot like an Alternate Universe 5e in which someone actually decided to make a new Edition of D&D instead of a retread of 3rd.

Well to be honest Each edition until 4th was sort of an update and a house-rules collection of the previous edition.

However 5e DOES feel both like a re-tread, and a clumsy and poorly made one at that.

13th age:

Hmmmm. Im not sure. Looks like it contains allot of the elements of 4e I don't like as much, yet also still contains some other elements. Until I read the full rules I can't comment much.

edit:

No wait. Psychic Damage. :smallsigh:

Nah. This is a continuation of 4e. Good for 4e lovers, but not for me.

[obryn]

Nah. This is a continuation of 4e. Good for 4e lovers, but not for me.
As a 4e lover, 13A doesn't do much for me. It's regressive in a lot of ways, like the perks that only pop up on an even/odd number. It was frequently billed as a "4.5" but it's a lot more of a typical OGL game with a really cool setting and a few neat narrative twists.

For a few months, it looked like it was taking the RPG world by storm, but the furor's calmed down a bit.

-O

[Dienekes]

No wait. Psychic Damage. :smallsigh:

Nah. This is a continuation of 4e. Good for 4e lovers, but not for me.

Out of curiosity, what was it about a single damage type that ruined it for you, and made you declare it a continuation of 4e?

[Scowling Dragon]

Out of curiosity, what was it about a single damage type that ruined it for you, and made you declare it a continuation of 4e?

Its just that damage type is generally what causes the critical disconnect for me as a player (Before you list off a list of stuff that causes disconnect in 3e, yes I know about it. But it doesn't bug me as much).

Psychic damage is the stuff that feels very...videogamey.

Psychic damage means that there is also Poison damage, and these types of damage point to there being no ability score damage or drain.

That stuff generally points towards more...different combat and character powers then what I like.

Like the artificial separation of Utility power, and Ordinary power.

[SiuiS]

Well to be honest Each edition until 4th was sort of an update and a house-rules collection of the previous edition.

However 5e DOES feel both like a re-tread, and a clumsy and poorly made one at that.

Hm. I dunno, the NEXT stuff feels, so ar, like a light0-hearted go at an OSRIC kinda thing. Although I can say that is about 60% because of formatting in the document. I'm not getting much of a retread vibe yet.



Nah. This is a continuation of 4e. Good for 4e lovers, but not for me.

In all fairness, 4e is usually easier to swallow if you work on it as a new system, and not D&D at all, for most who have that issue.


Its just that damage type is generally what causes the critical disconnect for me as a player (Before you list off a list of stuff that causes disconnect in 3e, yes I know about it. But it doesn't bug me as much).

Psychic damage is the stuff that feels very...videogamey.

Psychic damage means that there is also Poison damage, and these types of damage point to there being no ability score damage or drain.

That stuff generally points towards more...different combat and character powers then what I like.

Like the artificial separation of Utility power, and Ordinary power.

That makes sense. Consider though, do the mechanics do what they should? Or rather, are the mechanics that have been removed, really an issue?

Ability damage was kind of borked. it quickly took a game of heroism, in which you could survive dozens of sword cuts, and made it into a "three rolls and you're dead" thing. It felt like ability damaging situations were shoe-horned in to achieve an effect vastly at odds with the system specs, and then punished you for being subjected to it. 3.5 could mostly handle that, in that it made recovery easier at lower levels, and had more easy handwaves, but there is a very real idea that the whole "five minute adventuring day" was a product of bad low level design that transfered through.

I realize at this point I am rambling, sorry. You can skim now if you want, I've fully segued into my own naricissistic mumbles :smallsmile:

Low level games took forever, because the slightest scratch could leave you a hit away from death. The damage from a giant spider's bite, coupled with the con damage, could be the end of things forever. You've got a firend who has artillery, but it's limited.

And that never goes away, does it? As you level up, you accumulate a lot of resources, but most of them become obsolete. Those thirty or forty extra spells you've got at higher levels, they do nothing but make it look like book-keeping is gonna be hard when you'll probably just handwave through them. So the game trains you to get into one good scrap, and then sulk until it's all better at low levels, and then... it never presents an alternative.

Psychic damage, I have my own problems with, like, basically, psychic and magic being identical (Oddly, it's more accurate to say magic in D&D is a superstitious view of psychic phenomenon than to say psychism is magic with a sicenitific bent), but they've already made a case for acid being a damage type, and not always being acid. Corrosion as a fundamental concept has an element, now. And that actually made things better. PSychic damage, radiant damage, necrotic damage, same deal. It's not a limit, but a baseline. You can still modify it to work how you'd like, still have acid get through acid immunity because it's not just acid, but that sets up exceptions as high drama points, rather than just being a weasely thing to do. I've got what I refer to as ontological damage, for example, which is functionally negative energy effects that bypass negative energy immunity - It doesn't drain you, it makes you exist less.

So, as a construct, psychic damage notes that psychic phenomoen is part of the system. This overcomes stuff like Psionics being an appendix that nobody feels comfortable saying is part of the game. It removes a sidebar worth of exceptions, such as psychic enemies having multiple versions, and adds verisimilitude because now things that should be aware of the phenomena, are. And it is no more videogamey than force dmage, which isn't kinetic because weapons are kinetic, and they both interact differently with ghosts and such.

Psychic damage codifies a concept understood nebulously - attacking the mind, and therefor the creature - which is otherwise difficult to pin down in specifics. It makes it so there isn't a swingy save or die feel to it, like with old school ego whipping. Attribute damage should be rare, because it is directly attacking the substance of a thing, and permanently dsetting back someone's capacity. For a game, that isn't something to do lightly. It's not beating the other player, it is telling them to go home and sit out for a spell. And that sucks.

Ugh. Need to work on streamlining my thoughts, this probably doesn't even sem connected to the original topic. >_<

[Scowling Dragon]

That makes sense. Consider though, do the mechanics do what they should? Or rather, are the mechanics that have been removed, really an issue?

Yes. And for the 95% of the games I (Personally. Your Milage may Vary) have been involved in. There. End of story.

See, about a year ago, I would go into great detail to rebut every one of your arguments, but then I realized that D&D is such a subjective "Case by case" game that I may as well be criticizing your taste in bananas and tomatoes.

[SiuiS]

Yes. And for the 95% of the games I (Personally. Your Milage may Vary) have been involved in. There. End of story.

See, about a year ago, I would go into great detail to rebut every one of your arguments, but then I realized that D&D is such a subjective "Case by case" game that I may as well be criticizing your taste in bananas and tomatoes.

Nah, it's cool. If you put thought into it I'm not gonna judge or fuss. That was me half tryin to work out if I even had a cogent argument; the answer is yes, almost, but I need to refine it more or else it's just sorta mental fondling.

As a matter of curiosity, what benefit do you are in attribute damage? I find they work for disease but that's about it. But I have horribly slanted bias because the one DM who uses it abuses it, and is dumb as a rock besides.


Actual play test stuff!
Hit dice. I assume this is as older editions, and isn't changed by beig able to "spend" them? Except half the classes give a hit point number but no die. The Druid, for example. With 8 HP, averaging means that's a d14? Nope.

Spells. It almost talks like spells prepared and spells per day are separate numbers, but not quite? So you use the same number for spells "prepared" and blank slots you basically spontaneously cast your "prepared spells" list with? Ther has to be a better way to phrase that.

Critical hits. You don't roll damage, you just do maximum for your expression! But you also roll damage on top of that! Bwuh?
I'm assuming that means a crit is (max[W]+attribute)+[W], right?

[Scowling Dragon]

As a matter of curiosity, what benefit do you are in attribute damage? I find they work for disease but that's about it. But I have horribly slanted bias because the one DM who uses it abuses it, and is dumb as a rock besides.


Poisons, Mental attacks (I mostly roll in secret, and then leave my players to question if what they see is true or not), and a good way to scare players with some different enemies.

It just gives variety to attacks. And "YOH SOUL/STRENGTH IS MIEN" is a staple of high fantasy.

Also co-insides well with roleplaying.

Your character becomes from a Charismatic bombastic person to s quiet, tired hateful person as a parasite feeds on their soul.

Again, "Your Milage May Vary"

[SiuiS]

I'm not tryin to say you're wron or convince you of anything, luv. Just getting information for reflection, mature adult to mature adult. :smallsmile:

I am uncertain how ability damage coincides with hallucinations though. Unless damaged mental attributes cause hallucinations? That could have some merit, actually. Hmm. Will use at a later date.

[Scowling Dragon]

Pretty much they do. Low Wisdom= Insanity.

Wisdom Drain/Damage= Going Nutso, and eventually catatonic state.

[Yahya]

Sorry if you guys have already talked about this, but:

Is the level 1 Wizard spell "Sleep" overpowered?

At first glance, it seems to me to be. What do you guys think?

[Talakeal]

Sorry if you guys have already talked about this, but:

Is the level 1 Wizard spell "Sleep" overpowered?

At first glance, it seems to me to be. What do you guys think?

In comparison to what? To other save or lose spells no, compared to what other level one characters can do yes.

[Yahya]

In comparison to what? To other save or lose spells no, compared to what other level one characters can do yes.

To the second one, it just seems like no other level 1s, pc or npc, really have a chance against a wizard with sleep and initiative, which is kind of a bummer. Unless I'm overreacting?

[Talakeal]

Well, an elf or a monk, druid, or cleric will probably be able to make saves until they can either retaliate or the caster runs out of spell slots, and a fighter or barbarian can probably survive the coup de gras that follows a failed save if it was delivered by your typical level one caster. But yeah, that is a pretty potent ability, and it is certainly not what I would consider a level 1 spell.

In 2E it was even worse, affecting 2d4 HD worth of creatures and attacking a sleeping foe resulted in automatic death no matter what.

[Anderlith]

Any reason there wasn't a Legends & Lore this week?

[Doug Lampert]

Well, an elven monk, druid, or cleric will probably be able to make saves until they can either retaliate or the caster runs out of spell slots, and a fighter or barbarian can probably survive the coup de gras that follows a failed save if it was delivered by your typical level one caster. But yeah, that is a pretty potent ability, and it is certainly not what I would consider a level 1 spell.

In 2E it was even worse, affecting 2d4 HD worth of creatures and attacking a sleeping foe resulted in automatic death no matter what.

Original Game it was 2d8 vs. level 1 foes, 2d6 vs. level 2 foes, 1d6 vs. level 3 foes, and 1 vs. level 4 foes.

[Talakeal]

Original Game it was 2d8 vs. level 1 foes, 2d6 vs. level 2 foes, 1d6 vs. level 3 foes, and 1 vs. level 4 foes.

Wow. That is crazy. Did it still allow a saving throw?

[Emmerask]

Regarding the sleep spell.

Reading it there is nothing saying it freezes the target in place so what actually will happen on a failed safe:

target falls asleep, falls down, wakes up immediately since


Slapping or wounding awakens an affected creature

since falling on the ground is pretty equivalent to a slap, well it somewhat depends on how you land :smallwink:.

This would make the spell far more situational and well less op

[Seerow]

Regarding the sleep spell.

Reading it there is nothing saying it freezes the target in place so what actually will happen on a failed safe:

target falls asleep, falls down, wakes up immediately since



since falling on the ground is pretty equivalent to a slap, well it somewhat depends on how you land :smallwink:.

This would make the spell far more situational and well less op

lol I actually like this. Sleep becomes AoE trip unless the target's already tripped in which case it works as normal.

[snoopy13a]

Regarding the sleep spell.

Reading it there is nothing saying it freezes the target in place so what actually will happen on a failed safe:

target falls asleep, falls down, wakes up immediately since



since falling on the ground is pretty equivalent to a slap, well it somewhat depends on how you land :smallwink:.

This would make the spell far more situational and well less op

Actually, there is no save based on my reading from the 4-1-13 package. It isn't a save or lose; it is a lose if targeted on one character (unless the wizard rolls really, really low on the 5d8). Another creature must use an action to wake them up. Although, elves are immune.

As a side note, any hit on a coup de grace reduces the target to 0 hp (death if character is at 0 or lower).

Sleep is probably the most powerful level 1 spell, but the others aren't slouches. Even magic missile can do a guaranteed 3d4+6 damage.

I wouldn't worry too much now. The next package (which will turn levels 1 and 2 into "training levels") may change things up.

[Doug Lampert]

Wow. That is crazy. Did it still allow a saving throw?

My memory is that original game it was NO SAVE, just die.

But the copy of the spell I can find on the web doesn't mention saves, and the default was that you got one. So my memory may be off, or we may have just played it wrong back in the 70's, or the copy I found may be wrong. My copy of Men and Magic is God knows where.

Definitely a killer spell. Sleep was a real incentive to play elves since without at least one elf in the party ANY NPC magic user was a likely TPK till level 4 or so, and random monster tables had NPC magic users as encounters.

[1337 b4k4]

Sleep changed many times over the years. The initial spell didn't mention anything about saving throws one way or the other. The version that appears in Mentzer Basic affects 2d8 HD creatures with no saving throw, but it doesn't affect undead or very large creatures.

[Yahya]

Is there anywhere that says when the next playtest will come out? I googled it briefly, but my google-fu was insufficient. I just joined the playtest recently, is there a pattern to the releases, or not really?

[Seerow]

Is there anywhere that says when the next playtest will come out? I googled it briefly, but my google-fu was insufficient. I just joined the playtest recently, is there a pattern to the releases, or not really?

Seems to be every few months, but there's no exact schedule. It's whenever they feel like it.

[SiuiS]

Actually, there is no save based on my reading from the 4-1-13 package. It isn't a save or lose; it is a lose if targeted on one character (unless the wizard rolls really, really low on the 5d8). Another creature must use an action to wake them up. Although, elves are immune.

As a side note, any hit on a coup de grace reduces the target to 0 hp (death if character is at 0 or lower).

Sleep is probably the most powerful level 1 spell, but the others aren't slouches. Even magic missile can do a guaranteed 3d4+6 damage.

I wouldn't worry too much now. The next package (which will turn levels 1 and 2 into "training levels") may change things up.

Hmm.

Isn't sleep a burst? Like, you don't get to choose to affect just a single target, it affects everything in the area? 20 feet as a diameter I pretty small ("pretty small") and average 23 hit point cap on a single creature... Actually, thats a dumb rubric to use since monsters also tend towards average hit points, huh? So an enemy with good constitution still get hit half the time at 4HD.

Maybe that is too much...

[snoopy13a]

Hmm.

Isn't sleep a burst? Like, you don't get to choose to affect just a single target, it affects everything in the area? 20 feet as a diameter I pretty small ("pretty small") and average 23 hit point cap on a single creature... Actually, thats a dumb rubric to use since monsters also tend towards average hit points, huh? So an enemy with good constitution still get hit half the time at 4HD.

Maybe that is too much...

I used target in an "informal" sense. It is a 20' radius (20 feet from a chosen point). Sleep affects the lowest hit point character in the area first, and presumably can affect allies as well. A circle with a 20' radius is fairly large--roughly 1200 square feet. How many dungeon rooms are bigger than 1200 square feet?

Considering that goblins, for example, have 3 hit points, a wizard could realistically sleep 7-9 goblins at once--assuming all of them are within 20' of a single point, of course. Even better is that friendly fire isn't as normally an issue as the bad guys tend to have less hit points. Unless one of your friends is injured, chances are they won't be affected.

[SiuiS]

I used target in an "informal" sense. It is a 20' radius (20 feet from a chosen point). Sleep affects the lowest hit point character in the area first, and presumably can affect allies as well. A circle with a 20' radius is fairly large--roughly 1200 square feet. How many dungeon rooms are bigger than 1200 square feet?

Considering that goblins, for example, have 3 hit points, a wizard could realistically sleep 7-9 goblins at once--assuming all of them are within 20' of a single point, of course. Even better is that friendly fire isn't as normally an issue as the bad guys tend to have less hit points. Unless one of your friends is injured, chances are they won't be affected.

Ah, so it is radius. That makes me feel somewhat better.

20' is eight critters wide, and eight critters deep. I have no immediate problem with a wizard burning his resource to quell a goblin horde. My thoughts are that the large area dillutes the HP pool, you shouldn't just fight hordes or solos all the time anyway, it is a single use of a limited resource, and first level looks to be a grind so scything through half the battles doesn't cause me pain so much as relief. I can see the potential balance issue, but I am unsure of how bad it really is.


What is throwing off my understanding is currently that I have no idea how many players are "supposed" to be at a table, and so no real idea how many monsters are supposed to be there. If you could expect maybe eight goblins, but most likely 5, then blowing sleep on them is like using a shotgun on a butterfy and you can waste resources all you want. If it's the standard five members, and you fight five goblins each, dropping half of them is a godsend, even if it is temporary. You know?

[Flickerdart]

If it's the standard five members, and you fight five goblins each, dropping half of them is a godsend, even if it is temporary. You know?
Five? I thought the standard party was a four-man band of Fighter, Thief, Mage, Priest?

[SiuiS]

Well, it went, ten, ten-eight, five, four (for third edition), back up to five for fourth... *shrug* It's just weird for a game that concerns itself nominally with balance to say "throw 1d4+2 centipedes at em!" without mentioning anywhere how many "em" are getting throwed at.

[Notalion]

Seems to be every few months, but there's no exact schedule. It's whenever they feel like it.Lately, that also seems to be their policy with the 'weekly' updates.

[Stray]

New Legend&Lore. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130415) Each class gets feats at different rate and they can be used to increase ability scores instead of usual trick. I'm not sure what sort of special ability they have in mind that would be better than extra +1 to primary stat.

[Cavelcade]

Oh wow, I am actually genuinely intrigued by this idea. A way for the fighter to be a good class to choose more often because it lets you offset MAD by taking ability points - or get access to amazing feats.

Now just don't make any feats have prerequisites of other feats and everything will be good.

Also make some melee specific. If magic users will get meta-magic, fighters should get...meta-fighting? Well, the idea is sound.

[Kornaki]

Also make some melee specific. If magic users will get meta-magic, fighters should get...meta-fighting? Well, the idea is sound.

Improved bullrush

[Seerow]

Well at least they finally realized +1 to an attribute is not an Epic Ability (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/epic/feats.htm#greatStrength)

But seriously, making +1 to an attribute the baseline value for a feat seems really weak. Having attributes still capped at 20 doesn't seem any better. Turning all prestige classes into feat chains in combination with this just seems like a design destined to end in tears.

[Cavelcade]

Improved bullrush

Weapon specialization.

Oh god give me those +1s.


Well at least they finally realized +1 to an attribute is not an Epic Ability

But seriously, making +1 to an attribute the baseline value for a feat seems really weak. Having attributes still capped at 20 doesn't seem any better. Turning all prestige classes into feat chains in combination with this just seems like a design destined to end in tears.

Well, capping it at +20s means that SAD classes can't abuse it and MAD classes don't fall into a trap. It's not perfect, but if the least interesting feat has to be, as a minimum, as good as that, I think it's fine. Provided the meleers keep getting class abilities, I don't see a problem with this at all.

[Seerow]

Well, capping it at +20s means that SAD classes can't abuse it and MAD classes don't fall into a trap. It's not perfect, but if the least interesting feat has to be, as a minimum, as good as that, I think it's fine. Provided the meleers keep getting class abilities, I don't see a problem with this at all.

Have you looked at the packet? Non-casters don't get class abilities. The entire Fighter class can be summed up as "Add 1d6 to a given roll in combat". They're going to use the bonus feats as an excuse to not add any more depth to the characters, and we have all of the worst bits of 3.X all over again.

[Kurald Galain]

New Legend&Lore. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130415) Each class gets feats at different rate and they can be used to increase ability scores instead of usual trick. I'm not sure what sort of special ability they have in mind that would be better than extra +1 to primary stat.

Any well-written special abilities would be better than +5% to hit. And note that odd ranks in attributes don't do anything anyway.

5E is all about giving tiny bonuses to dice rolls and pretend they're a huge deal.

[Seerow]

Any well-written special abilities would be better than +5% to hit. And note that odd ranks in attributes don't do anything anyway.

5E is all about giving tiny bonuses to dice rolls and pretend they're a huge deal.

Judging by the comments on the article and This Thread (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/29874865/Legends__Lore:_This_Week_in_DD_(4152013)?pg=1) they're succeeding at that.

People are totally flipping out over the ability to increase attributes with a feat, nevermind how little of a bonus it may actually be in practice.

[Kornaki]

+1 to a stat is not gamebreaking at all. Take toughness instead of +1 to con, let alone +2 for most of the benefits. Weapon mastery with most weapons is better than +1 to damage, and surely you can find a feat that you consider worth more than weapon focus to substitute the other +1 strength.

I don't see the fighter getting bonus feats as inherently bad. The wizard's sole class feature is it gets to pick a bunch of class features to use. Why can't the fighter be the same way? The only problem right now is that everyone can basically pick feats, so if there's anything really cool the fighter can do, then other people can do it also. The problem with 3.x is that feat chains mean that you have to blow all your extra feats to get one level relevant special ability. But with the level cap this is fixed.

The other possible problem is a lack of enough feats. If I'm sword and board fighter, I need 20 feats that I can use, not 10 followed by "I can also fight dual wielding" for the second half of my class. But again this is not an inherent problem - wizards get like a hundred spells described for them, why can't fighters have a hundred feats described for them?

[Seerow]

But again this is not an inherent problem - wizards get like a hundred spells described for them, why can't fighters have a hundred feats described for them?

Because they are fighters.

[snoopy13a]

Because they are fighters.

I know you're making a punchline, but I think there's some truth to that. I don't spend too much time looking over those boards, but I remember there was a time when people were complaining that fighters were "too good."

It's almost like the community is conditioned to think that fighters=bad.

The game creators have a difficult task. No matter what they do, a sizable portion of people will disagree with it. Further, with the advent of e-bay and PDFs, even new gamers will not be restricted to playing the 5th edition. They'll have the option of playing any prior edition of D&D. So, the creators are in a tough spot.

[Craft (Cheese)]

New Legend&Lore. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130415) Each class gets feats at different rate and they can be used to increase ability scores instead of usual trick. I'm not sure what sort of special ability they have in mind that would be better than extra +1 to primary stat.

When I read this I had this rant go through my head. I even wrote down a few sentences of it before I just sighed and gave up. Let's be honest, I gave up hope of this turning out well a long time ago, and the only reason I'm still following this playtest is masochism.

[Notalion]

A couple of months ago it looked like Mearls might have finally cottoned on to the concept that Fighters need to be able to do more than hit things with incrementally larger dice rolls. It looks like that was a false alarm- Unless that theory is true, the one which says that they're essentially using the playtest as the proverbial wall to throw things at, then taking the things which stick and working on them in secret and without playtester input.

If that's true, then they'd be sacrificing the whole purpose of a playtest in exchange for a few moments of publicity when people find out that the finished game's different to what they were expecting. That's hardly a reasonable tradeoff.

[Draz74]

When I read this I had this rant go through my head. I even wrote down a few sentences of it before I just sighed and gave up. Let's be honest, I gave up hope of this turning out well a long time ago, and the only reason I'm still following this playtest is masochism.

Yep. I think I've moved beyond the "anger" stage to the "acceptance" stage. I read this morning's L&L article ... and just shook my head ruefully and closed the tab, with no desire to come to the forum and raise a cry of alarm.

[noparlpf]

"Feats have level requirements, and higher-level feats are more potent than lower-level ones."

Um, so, do the low-level feats scale? Or does, say, your +1 Dodge bonus against one enemy per round (I don't remember a Dodge feat in the playtest, so I'm using the 3.X one) just go from bad to worse as you level up?

[Notalion]

"Feats have level requirements, and higher-level feats are more potent than lower-level ones."

Um, so, do the low-level feats scale? Or does, say, your +1 Dodge bonus against one enemy per round (I don't remember a Dodge feat in the playtest, so I'm using the 3.X one) just go from bad to worse as you level up?Ooh, good catch. That'd be a feat tree in all but name.

[Notalion]

Well, there have been a number of odd clarifications on Mearls' twitter.


"If you're not using feats, you get +1 to an ability score instead of picking a feat. Classes are built on that assumption."

"[T]he assumption in the core game is that you can only take +1 to an ability. That levels the field in terms of power."

"There's basically a feat that says +1 to a stat. If using the optional feats system, you can instead take a new feature"

"Keep in mind that none of the feats we've shown match where they need to be if they equal +1 to an ability."

"Feats will look more like class features, powers, and special abilities - big, active, things. feats are non-class specific."

Q: "Will we have more feats, or still just 4?" A: "More."

Q: "Why Fighters have more feats than Wizards?" A: "Spellcasting fills in a lot of levels with new stuff."

Q: "So the idea is to eliminate dead levels?" A: "yes"

Q: Pickpocket and Ambush shouldn't be feats!" A: "agreed - those will not be feats"
Er.

Have I gone totally mad, or did he just say that Feats are now optional (and I pity the poor bastard who plays Fighter in a non-Feat game) but that bizarre stretching out of Level 1 over 3 Levels is baked in?

[Oracle_Hunter]

Have I gone totally mad, or did he just say that Feats are now optional (and I pity the poor bastard who plays Fighter in a non-Feat game) but that bizarre stretching out of Level 1 over 3 Levels is baked in?
Mearls is still operating under his assumption that practically everything in the game is "optional" because he is claiming to build a modular game "to rule them all."

The fact that a year has gone by and we've seen nothing of this modularity is yet another worrying sign about Mearls as a designer. 5e has been, and is, a slow-motion trainwreck -- I am simply waiting for the day the motion stops and Mearls (or the new Lead Designers) notes a "reboot" in the process.

[Notalion]

I know that, but- without Feats the Fighter has no reason to exist (not that he has much to live for with them), and of all systems to not make modular but to bake in he chose the one with no precedent while throwing Feats out?

I'm waiting for Skills to become optional too. If you don't take them, you just get a +1 to Things and Stuff.

[Emmerask]

Mearls is still operating under his assumption that practically everything in the game is "optional" because he is claiming to build a modular game "to rule them all."

The fact that a year has gone by and we've seen nothing of this modularity is yet another worrying sign about Mearls as a designer. 5e has been, and is, a slow-motion trainwreck -- I am simply waiting for the day the motion stops and Mearls (or the new Lead Designers) notes a "reboot" in the process.

Agreed, I mean I absolutely love modular systems and completely agree with this idea from the lead-designer (ie I was actually excited about the new d&d).

But as of yet we have seen zero modularity... having a feat that gives +1 stats is not modular its just another stupid (and very boring) feat...

What I would love to see is more (optional) depth a wound system, a more complex swordplay system a complex magic system all of these as optional modules that can be added easily... but atm I´m almost certain that the only modular options we get is to make the EXTREMELY shallow rules d&d has even more so by removing aspects like feats...
:smallfurious:

[Morty]

Apparently when Mearls and the rest say "modular design" they mean "we'll give you the option to remove everything remotely complicated and just get +1 to something every once in a while". Although of course, pages upon pages of spells are here to stay.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Apparently when Mearls and the rest say "modular design" they mean "we'll give you the option to remove everything remotely complicated and just get +1 to something every once in a while". Although of course, pages upon pages of spells are here to stay.
No no, spells are modular. The default is for Casters to win (Level) Encounters per day as a Standard Action.

Making mundane classes feel useless is a Free Action as usual :smallamused:

[DrBurr]

Pretty sure Feats will be considered core, its just if your Fighter doesn't want to take Improved AoO or the like he can instead grab a +1 to strength and thus can now jump 22 feet in to the air.

At least thats how I read the Legends and Lore Article

[Notalion]

"If you're not using feats, you get +1 to an ability score instead of picking a feat. Classes are built on that assumption."

...

"There's basically a feat that says +1 to a stat. If using the optional feats system, you can instead take a new feature"

Given what's written, I'm having a hard time interpreting it any other way. But I honestly wouldn't be surprised if this clarification was clarified again in a way that supported your interpretation.

[Emmerask]

Pretty sure Feats will be considered core, its just if your Fighter doesn't want to take Improved AoO or the like he can instead grab a +1 to strength and thus can now jump 22 feet in to the air.

At least thats how I read the Legends and Lore Article

So why don´t they come up with actually interesting/strong martial feats,
to me it very much feels like a cop out "look we´ve added 100 NEW FEATS"!

You don´t need to waste space with boring mechanically inferior feats if you actually have something interesting in the works...

I wouldn´t even be surprised if each stat got its own +1 feat just to pad the very disappointing current """"""""""innovation""""""""""" some more :-/

[DrBurr]

So why don´t they come up with actually interesting/strong martial feats,
to me it very much feels like a cop out "look we´ve added 100 NEW FEATS"!

You don´t need to waste space with boring mechanically inferior feats if you actually have something interesting in the works...

I wouldn´t even be surprised if each stat got its own +1 feat just to pad the very disappointing current "innovation" some more :-/

Apparently that's what they're working on, I don't think they have declared look here are 100 useless feats, I pretty sure they're only around 50 in the packet. The purpose of the +1 Feats according to Mearls is to give simple options and that they are trying to make more meaningful options of equal value mechanically. Whether not they can do that remains to be seen.