D&D 5th Edition XVI: Not resembling the final product, honestly!

[Just to Browse]

Thanks for Oracle Hunter for providing text that I can copy-paste.

As is (by now) well known to every RPGer who hasn’t spent the past year hiding under a rock, a new edition of D&D is coming out. When? Summer 2014. The playtest is officially closed, so if you were hiding under a rock then my apologies go out to you. Post a request for playtest materials in the thread!

Use this thread to discuss the old playtest, the weekly mostly-weekly Legends and Lore update articles from Mike Mearls, and other news relating to D&D’s new edition.

Useful links:
D&D launch announcement for summer 2014 (http://company.wizards.com/content/wizards-coast-announces-thrilling-dungeons-dragons-launch-summer-2014)
Legends and Lore Archive (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Archive.aspx?category=all&subcategory=legendslore)
EN World D&D Forum (http://www.enworld.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?3-D-amp-D-and-Pathfinder&prefixid=dndnext)
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)
D&D 5th Edition: the fifth edition of the discussion thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=245600)
D&D 5th Edition: 6th Thread and counting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=252870)
D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=257952)
D&D 5th Edition: 8th Revision and counting (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=265084)
Pathfinder, Next, and the Future of D&D (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=271218)
D&D 5th Edition IX: Still in the Idea Stage (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=277822)
D&D 5th Edition X: Where's the Craft (RPG System) skill? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=284560)
D&D 5th Edition XI: The 15-Minute Designer Workday (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=288661)
D&D 5th Edition XII: Peasant Militias Can Defeat Smartphones? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=293519)
D&D 5th Edition XIII: An Inherently Unfinished Product (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=298465)
D&D 5th Edition XIV: Hippy Druid Love, Baby! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=308000)
D&D 5th Edition XV: Desperately Playing it Safe (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16655490#post16655490)

[SiuiS]

So Adventurer, Conqueror, King, then?

If they bought Autarch and just rereleased ACKS renamed as 'Dungeons and Dragons' without touching anything else, D&D would finally have a book that surpasses the Rules Cyclopaedia.

Almost. ACKS is B/X, which is nice, but I actually miss the design choices that have fighter and stuff being only 3-8 levels long. I never got to use those. My preference would be to re-up the rules cyclopedia into a new D&D game. Then they could just continually release more and more complex components to slot in as needed. I want me some BECMI. And yes, even I.


He really said that? I'm used to RPG designers not bothering to make crossbows worth any effort, but that's something else entirely.

Yeah.


From the SKR thread over in the 3.x forum...

http://i.imgur.com/ggpamEu.jpg

I'm paraphrasing, but "crossbows are bad in real life and therefore they must be bad in the game, too" is the basic gist.

Arglegbarlgiwbaje *gargles and chokes on own blood*



...


Man, you know what else sucks in real life? Magic. In fact, hell, magic has the worst historical death count! Sorcerers have felled fewer enemies, statistically, from pre-classical to late renaissance, than muskets. Sorcery has felled fewer enemies, to the point that a sorcerer is more likely to kill himself than a foe!
So for realism all out wizards are dropping dead from handling guano, lead and mercury, right?


Also, crossbows were freaking fantastic.

Mein Celeste, this is attrocious.

[Lord Raziere]

.....

y'know, an idea has been percolating in my head.

its basically me going off and making my own version of DnD.

maybe call it I dunno....Chaos and Caverns. sounds about right for Yet Another DnD Ripoff.

and now I think I'll add "make crossbows awesome in it" to the list of things I would add to it.

because hey, lots of other people have made DnD ripoffs, because at this point, its probably better to do that than wait for the actual game.

so whatever.

[HammeredWharf]

Arglegbarlgiwbaje *gargles and chokes on own blood*

Still not as bad as the feat points system (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html). That thing is one of the worst D&D homebrews I've ever seen and I've skimmed through D&D Wiki. I'm not entirely sure which part of it is my favorite. Maybe it's Weapon Specialization: "a benchmark because a fighter with his chosen weapon will get to use this feat every round of combat, all day; the epitome of usefulness". Weapon Specialization is, of course, two times more expensive than any metamagic feat, because melee is so powerful. Another favorite is the description of Two-weapon Fighting, because he thinks it gives you an extra attack instead of reducing a penatly.

Buying feats with points is actually a decent idea and something that could've been incorporated in 5th Edition D&D. Too late for that, of course.

[Perseus]

.....

y'know, an idea has been percolating in my head.

its basically me going off and making my own version of DnD.

maybe call it I dunno....Chaos and Caverns. sounds about right for Yet Another DnD Ripoff.

and now I think I'll add "make crossbows awesome in it" to the list of things I would add to it.

because hey, lots of other people have made DnD ripoffs, because at this point, its probably better to do that than wait for the actual game.

so whatever.

Do it.

Hell, I would help.

[Morty]

I'd be okay with crossbows going back to a "fire and forget" first round sort of weapon, or something for peasants in a siege.

Has it ever been this kind of weapon, though? In all D&D versions I'm aware of, the crossbow's "advantage" is marginally better damage.



Man, you know what else sucks in real life? Magic. In fact, hell, magic has the worst historical death count! Sorcerers have felled fewer enemies, statistically, from pre-classical to late renaissance, than muskets. Sorcery has felled fewer enemies, to the point that a sorcerer is more likely to kill himself than a foe!
So for realism all out wizards are dropping dead from handling guano, lead and mercury, right?

Indeed, and historically, the skillset of a typical sorcerer consisted of convincing everyone you have special powers. Why, realistically, a wizard should only have a lot of bonuses to Bluff.

[Perseus]

Indeed, and historically, the skillset of a typical sorcerer consisted of convincing everyone you have special powers. Why, realistically, a wizard should only have a lot of bonuses to Bluff.

Don't you dare forget Perform (Hocus Pocus)!

You know for all those times where you need a bigger bonus to bluff.

[Max™]

OH WOW, BECMI is like a HUGE blast from the past, I remember wondering for years why I never saw that familiar red or blue box from my parents closet anywhere else.

Like, holy crap flashbacks, I think there was a jump from what, 86 or so until the next time I saw some D&D books when I found a few AD&D books in a friends closet in like 92... 93?

Yeesh, thanks for the help identifying something I didn't know I wanted to remember the name of!

[Joe the Rat]

Keep the title. All my ideas involve double secret publicly broadcast playtests.
Point based Sorcery metamagic.

On crossbows: A slower rate of fire is reasonable, and to an extent expected. They are easier to learn to use. They will put a hole through your knight and his armor.

So the baseline advantage is ease of use (simple weapon proficiency)... plus being able to carry loaded, carry loaded with one hand, fire from prone position, fire from horseback without argument... slightly better range, damage. Less fragile. You can put a bayonet on the front, and a compass on the stock. Keeping "simplicity" in mind, what are some quick and not-too-convoluted advantages that would even this out? If you allow light crossbows to be reloaded on the move, what extras should a heavy get? How much should it cost to add a pavise spike to a shield?

What are some not-quite magic doodads that would improve things? clockwork winders, double-bows, quick-drop stands for double-crank box-fed repeaters?


It's easy to become proficient. So what do you get when you aren't just proficient? What should a Feat spent on mastery give you?

What Would William Tell Do?

[obryn]

Still not as bad as the feat points system (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html). That thing is one of the worst D&D homebrews I've ever seen and I've skimmed through D&D Wiki. I'm not entirely sure which part of it is my favorite. Maybe it's Weapon Specialization: "a benchmark because a fighter with his chosen weapon will get to use this feat every round of combat, all day; the epitome of usefulness". Weapon Specialization is, of course, two times more expensive than any metamagic feat, because melee is so powerful. Another favorite is the description of Two-weapon Fighting, because he thinks it gives you an extra attack instead of reducing a penatly.

Buying feats with points is actually a decent idea and something that could've been incorporated in 5th Edition D&D. Too late for that, of course.
My favorite part is where getting a whole second dude is considered 20% less valuable than Weapon Focus.

[Svata]

At least he knew Power Attack was better than run and endurance... (even if he vastly underestimated the price of all caster feats) I remember someone did a revamp of ot on this site somewhere that was actually pretty decent. Good idea, awful execution.

[Merlin the Tuna]

My favorite part is where getting a whole second dude is considered 20% less valuable than Weapon Focus.God help you if that second dude picks up Weapon Focus.

[Lord Raziere]

Do it.

Hell, I would help.

Yea, but it will/would involve killing a lot of sacred cows in the process, you ok with that?

[Perseus]

Yea, but it will/would involve killing a lot of sacred cows in the process, you ok with that?

Sure thing, you don't put the sacred cow before the cart after all.

[Jacob.Tyr]

I gotta say that I heartily encourage this course of action. I wrote up a rough draft of an ala carte system, but lost time to work on it after that.

As far as homebrew d20 systems go, I'm really glad I've been following these threads. I frickin love Legends and can't wait to try it out when I finish traveling for work, and ACKS is damned nice, too.

[Perseus]

I gotta say that I heartily encourage this course of action. I wrote up a rough draft of an ala carte system, but lost time to work on it after that.

As far as homebrew d20 systems go, I'm really glad I've been following these threads. I frickin love Legends and can't wait to try it out when I finish traveling for work, and ACKS is damned nice, too.

If you are hosting the Legends game online I wouldn't mind trying it out, I can't find anyone in Pittsburgh that wants to touch it.

I'm currently in the process of making a catch all mundane class that can be played at low fantasy or high fantasy. I've been wanting to try new systems to get an idea of what mundanes are like in them but everyone Ive encountered plays 3.P or 4e D&D.

[Oracle_Hunter]

y'know, an idea has been percolating in my head.

its basically me going off and making my own version of DnD.

maybe call it I dunno....Chaos and Caverns. sounds about right for Yet Another DnD Ripoff.

and now I think I'll add "make crossbows awesome in it" to the list of things I would add to it.

because hey, lots of other people have made DnD ripoffs, because at this point, its probably better to do that than wait for the actual game.
Actually the Longbow v. Crossbow problem is something I'm worrying over in Gold & Glory (http://oraclehunter.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/project-overview-gold-glory/). Sensibly I'm tying all kinds of "fighting abilities" to the weapons themselves to explain why people bother making anything aside from Longswords and Greataxes but looking to history to distinguish Crossbows and Longbows is problematic from a game design perspective.

Faster rate of fire is, in fact, the primary benefit for Longbows while ease of training and penetrating power are the benefits of Crossbows. Altering RoF in either direction immediately results in Action Economy issues (which are thorny!) but there isn't a good way to model "extra penetration" in a D&D-style game that's worth the effort.

So yeah, there's no really easy answer here without having to basically redo the game from the ground up -- which is simply not reasonable for the sake of two weapons :smalleek:

[Morty]

Not for the sake of two weapons, perhaps, but the D&D combat system could very much use some redoing.

[Perseus]

Not for the sake of two weapons, perhaps, but the D&D combat system could very much use some redoing.

True.

You could just say that all crossbows are repeating crossbows. The world is a fantasy location so it isn't crazy to think the obsolete crossbow be thrown away and replaced with a shinier version. As more people buy the crossbow they would lower in price to what the normal non-repeating crossbows cost.

Kinda like going from console to console. The new one starts out suuuuuper expensive but then as the old one is pushed out the price for the new one comes down after a few years.

Think about that with respect to crossbows.

Handcrossbow: 4 shots
Light crossbow: 8 shots
Heavy Crossbow: 12 shots

Replacing a clip is a move or standard action... But you would only have to do it so many rounds or after battle. These Crossbows and Ammunition would weigh more than arrows and a bows.

[Felhammer]

Crossbows always seem to be terrible because the system does not have an easy way of showing why crossbows (being easier to use and requiring virtually no training) are so amazing. If this were Peasants and Badgers, crossbows would be one of the best weapons in the game. However, since D&D is based on the idea of extraordinarily well equipped and well trained individuals (all of whom have spent their lives prior to the start of an adventure training with a variety of difficult to master weapons), the benefits of the crossbow are more akin to flavor and thus are vastly outweighed by the deficits the weapon possesses (principally load time).

[1337 b4k4]

Actually the Longbow v. Crossbow problem is something I'm worrying over in Gold & Glory (http://oraclehunter.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/project-overview-gold-glory/). Sensibly I'm tying all kinds of "fighting abilities" to the weapons themselves to explain why people bother making anything aside from Longswords and Greataxes but looking to history to distinguish Crossbows and Longbows is problematic from a game design perspective.

Faster rate of fire is, in fact, the primary benefit for Longbows while ease of training and penetrating power are the benefits of Crossbows. Altering RoF in either direction immediately results in Action Economy issues (which are thorny!) but there isn't a good way to model "extra penetration" in a D&D-style game that's worth the effort.

So yeah, there's no really easy answer here without having to basically redo the game from the ground up -- which is simply not reasonable for the sake of two weapons :smalleek:

Assuming you're working with a standard D&D combat system Move / Action / (maybe) Minor you might consider working it something similar to the way OD&D magic worked:

Loading and aiming a crossbow is a normal action.

On the round following the load action, if the character did not suffer any damage they roll to hit with a bonus / advantage and deal max damage.

If they suffered damage, they roll to hit as normal, and roll damage as normal.

As an alternative, the player can "rush" loading, and roll to hit at a pentalty / disadvantage and roll damage as normal

[HammeredWharf]

Actually the Longbow v. Crossbow problem is something I'm worrying over in Gold & Glory (http://oraclehunter.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/project-overview-gold-glory/). Sensibly I'm tying all kinds of "fighting abilities" to the weapons themselves to explain why people bother making anything aside from Longswords and Greataxes but looking to history to distinguish Crossbows and Longbows is problematic from a game design perspective.

Faster rate of fire is, in fact, the primary benefit for Longbows while ease of training and penetrating power are the benefits of Crossbows. Altering RoF in either direction immediately results in Action Economy issues (which are thorny!) but there isn't a good way to model "extra penetration" in a D&D-style game that's worth the effort.

So yeah, there's no really easy answer here without having to basically redo the game from the ground up -- which is simply not reasonable for the sake of two weapons :smalleek:

Someone already mentioned ignoring non-touch armor and DR at least partially. To model the ease of use, you could use something like the Advantage mechanic of Next. It would make low-level crossbow characters quite deadly, but I don't see the problem there.

[Kurald Galain]

So this is thread 16? Looks like we've already written more about the game than there is text in its first rulebook :smallbiggrin:

Regarding the whole crossbow debate, well, if game design expects weapons that are subpar IRL to be also subpar in the game, then please explain double swords and spiked chains.

(not that xbows are subpar IRL...)

[Oracle_Hunter]

Not for the sake of two weapons, perhaps, but the D&D combat system could very much use some redoing.
That should go without saying :smalltongue:

Gold & Glory has a lot of common-sense tweaks to combat. In brief:
Fighting Style is independent of Class
Weapon List scaled back to meaningfully different weapons
Each Weapon has meaningfully different stats/abilities
Fighting Style Component has options that flavor usage of different weapons
Actual combat relies heavily on a short list of Standard Status Effects and expanded Combat Advantage/Disadvantage instead of 1001 modifiers and is basically designed to involve as little chart-reading as possible.

It's not hard to overhaul D&D-style combat, but apparently that's pretty far down WotC's list of "things to worry about" for 5e :smallsigh:

EDIT:
Responses in Spoilers

Assuming you're working with a standard D&D combat system Move / Action / (maybe) Minor you might consider working it something similar to the way OD&D magic worked:

Loading and aiming a crossbow is a normal action.

On the round following the load action, if the character did not suffer any damage they roll to hit with a bonus / advantage and deal max damage.

If they suffered damage, they roll to hit as normal, and roll damage as normal.

As an alternative, the player can "rush" loading, and roll to hit at a pentalty / disadvantage and roll damage as normal
So, as I'm sure you can see, adding these many rules for a single weapon is going to make it unwieldly. Why should it be so much harder to adjudicate using a crossbow than swinging a sword? The benefits simply do not outweigh the cost.


Someone already mentioned ignoring non-touch armor and DR at least partially. To model the ease of use, you could use something like the Advantage mechanic of Next. It would make low-level crossbow characters quite deadly, but I don't see the problem there.
This assumes I'm using 1001 AC variants in G&G, which I'm not. Touch AC is obviated by a Reflex Defense, and DR is another step to resolving hits which I'd rather avoid if I could. That said, permitting Crossbows to target Reflex or AC (whichever is lower) might be fine if I actually take their damage down a lot. That way you can be the Skilled Archer doing Massive Damage or just be a schlubb with a gun who is going to do really good at poor difficulties but not have room to grow.

This does, however, leave the Bow without a thing for itself. Which may be acceptable. So thanks for the idea :smallsmile:

[Zombimode]

Someone already mentioned ignoring non-touch armor and DR at least partially. To model the ease of use, you could use something like the Advantage mechanic of Next. It would make low-level crossbow characters quite deadly, but I don't see the problem there.

The problem is: this fails the what I like to call "Storm Giant with a Greatsword (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG121.jpg)"-test. If a Storm Giant with a Greatsword doesn't ignore armor, why should a in comparison rather pathetic crossbow?

[Morty]

Crossbows always seem to be terrible because the system does not have an easy way of showing why crossbows (being easier to use and requiring virtually no training) are so amazing. If this were Peasants and Badgers, crossbows would be one of the best weapons in the game. However, since D&D is based on the idea of extraordinarily well equipped and well trained individuals (all of whom have spent their lives prior to the start of an adventure training with a variety of difficult to master weapons), the benefits of the crossbow are more akin to flavor and thus are vastly outweighed by the deficits the weapon possesses (principally load time).

Except that, at the end of the day, crossbows have advantages over bows that go beyond the ease of use.


Assuming you're working with a standard D&D combat system Move / Action / (maybe) Minor you might consider working it something similar to the way OD&D magic worked:

Loading and aiming a crossbow is a normal action.

On the round following the load action, if the character did not suffer any damage they roll to hit with a bonus / advantage and deal max damage.

If they suffered damage, they roll to hit as normal, and roll damage as normal.

As an alternative, the player can "rush" loading, and roll to hit at a pentalty / disadvantage and roll damage as normal

Hm. I think it could work, if one wanted a non-intrusive way of doing it.


That should go without saying :smalltongue:

Gold & Glory has a lot of common-sense tweaks to combat. In brief:
Fighting Style is independent of Class
Weapon List scaled back to meaningfully different weapons
Each Weapon has meaningfully different stats/abilities
Fighting Style Component has options that flavor usage of different weapons
Actual combat relies heavily on a short list of Standard Status Effects and expanded Combat Advantage/Disadvantage instead of 1001 modifiers and is basically designed to involve as little chart-reading as possible.


That seems like a pretty decent start. My own ideas for a D&D-esque weapon and combat systems are more intrusive, perhaps, but of course I'm still far away from actually implementing them.

[Oracle_Hunter]

The problem is: this fails the what I like to call "Storm Giant with a Greatsword (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG121.jpg)"-test. If a Storm Giant with a Greatsword doesn't ignore armor, why should a in comparison rather pathetic crossbow?
Because the Storm Giant is no better at hitting things than anyone else with a Greatsword, but when he does hit, he does much more damage.

Ask me a hard one :smallbiggrin:

[Thrudd]

I would say extraordinary strength should decrease the amount of time required to load a crossbow. You would have to have extraordinary strength indeed to draw a 1200 lb heavy crossbow as easily/quickly as another person draws a 100lb bow, even with mechanical assistance. Depending on how you define the ability scores will determine how you want to treat this. Perhaps every point of strength bonus lets you reduce the loading by one round. If you are strong enough, you can use a goatsfoot or belt hook on a heavy crossbow instead of a windlass. And the supernaturally strong people can span and load that crossbow as fast as a common person can draw and fire a normal bow, once every round. Someone that strong will probably be smashing and chopping things rather than shooting things in general, but you never know.

Additionally, it would need to be some type of magical clockwork technology which could quickly span such a crossbow, or allow a repeating crossbow to deliver the same damage as other crossbows or even a normal bow. A real repeating crossbow is spanned by hand with a lever, and due to the size of the bow would generate significantly less penetrating power than a normal bow (I would say d4 damage). It's benefit is to allow someone with little training to throw out a volley of bolts quickly, although those bolts are mostly going to bounce off of any sort of armor, one of them might catch somebody in an eye or hand or thigh.
Including some type of magical technology as an integral part of everyday weapons says something about the setting that not everyone may want to have as part of their game.

A feat could be taken to give the crossbowman extraordinary skill in reloading the crossbow, reducing loading times and/or allow some movement while loading (which is all but impossible in real life), in addition to improving accuracy.

Also, heavy crossbows are physically large and heavy. D&D 3.5 PHB has them only weighing 8 lbs. A light crossbow should be at least 10-12 lbs. A heavy crossbow should be around 20 lbs, and the thing is long and unwieldy. It is not easy to carry around. This is why they are mostly reserved for sieges.

If you want to have light weight crossbows which still deal the same amount of damage, then we are talking about advanced/modern or magical materials and manufacturing processes. Which is fine, again, if these things are ubiquitous in the game setting. But are we saying that the default D&D setting should be one where modern or magical manufacturing and materials are something available in everyday weapons?

Or are we deciding that D&D is now a cinematic game, or one based on the sensibilities of video games, where realistic concerns of physics and the like are completely glossed over in favor of exciting action and cool-looking characters? I know many people have already decided this
However, I am arguing that this assumption should not be built into the system. I like exciting action scenes as much as anyone, but a game world which is based on somewhat realistic physics and materials does not exclude cool characters and exciting scenes. Anyone seen that show "Vikings" on the history channel? Or "Braveheart"?

[Perseus]

I would say extraordinary strength should decrease the amount of time required to load a crossbow. You would have to have extraordinary strength indeed to draw a 1200 lb heavy crossbow as easily/quickly as another person draws a 100lb bow, even with mechanical assistance. Depending on how you define the ability scores will determine how you want to treat this. Perhaps every point of strength bonus lets you reduce the loading by one round. If you are strong enough, you can use a goatsfoot or belt hook on a heavy crossbow instead of a windlass. And the supernaturally strong people can span and load that crossbow as fast as a common person can draw and fire a normal bow, once every round. Someone that strong will probably be smashing and chopping things rather than shooting things in general, but you never know.

Additionally, it would need to be some type of magical clockwork technology which could quickly span such a crossbow, or allow a repeating crossbow to deliver the same damage as other crossbows or even a normal bow. A real repeating crossbow is spanned by hand with a lever, and due to the size of the bow would generate significantly less penetrating power than a normal bow (I would say d4 damage). It's benefit is to allow someone with little training to throw out a volley of bolts quickly, although those bolts are mostly going to bounce off of any sort of armor, one of them might catch somebody in an eye or hand or thigh.
Including some type of magical technology as an integral part of everyday weapons says something about the setting that not everyone may want to have as part of their game.

A feat could be taken to give the crossbowman extraordinary skill in reloading the crossbow, reducing loading times and/or allow some movement while loading (which is all but impossible in real life), in addition to improving accuracy.

Also, heavy crossbows are physically large and heavy. D&D 3.5 PHB has them only weighing 8 lbs. A light crossbow should be at least 10-12 lbs. A heavy crossbow should be around 20 lbs, and the thing is long and unwieldy. It is not easy to carry around. This is why they are mostly reserved for sieges.

If you want to have light weight crossbows which still deal the same amount of damage, then we are talking about advanced/modern or magical materials and manufacturing processes. Which is fine, again, if these things are ubiquitous in the game setting. But are we saying that the default D&D setting should be one where modern or magical manufacturing and materials are something available in everyday weapons?

Or are we deciding that D&D is now a cinematic game, or one based on the sensibilities of video games, where realistic concerns of physics and the like are completely glossed over in favor of exciting action and cool-looking characters? I know many people have already decided this
However, I am arguing that this assumption should not be built into the system. I like exciting action scenes as much as anyone, but a game world which is based on somewhat realistic physics and materials does not exclude cool characters and exciting scenes. Anyone seen that show "Vikings" on the history channel? Or "Braveheart"?

D&D has always been a Fantasy Game. How about we just admit that and bring everything into fantasy realm?

[Oracle_Hunter]

Or are we deciding that D&D is now a cinematic game, or one based on the sensibilities of video games, where realistic concerns of physics and the like are completely glossed over in favor of exciting action and cool-looking characters? I know many people have already decided this
However, I am arguing that this assumption should not be built into the system. I like exciting action scenes as much as anyone, but a game world which is based on somewhat realistic physics and materials does not exclude cool characters and exciting scenes. Anyone seen that show "Vikings" on the history channel? Or "Braveheart"?
The basic argument is that a page of rules to describe the function of a single weapon is perhaps too much detail on something of too little importance :smalltongue:

IMHO the days of building tabletop trebuchets to prove that your character can do so are done. It is easier and more fun to let a computer model the physics of firing a crossbow instead of having to grind through it using pen & paper every time you pick one up. I, for one, would not waste my precious time putting such a system together (much less trying to learn it!) and I seriously doubt many (if any) paid designers would bother with it today, let alone in the coming years.

[1337 b4k4]

So, as I'm sure you can see, adding these many rules for a single weapon is going to make it unwieldly. Why should it be so much harder to adjudicate using a crossbow than swinging a sword? The benefits simply do not outweigh the cost.

Aren't you the one adding weapon special effects / combat styles to the weapon itself? Isn't every weapon in your system going to have a handful of adjudication points?



Hm. I think it could work, if one wanted a non-intrusive way of doing it.


That would be the ideal.

[Thrudd]

D&D has always been a Fantasy Game. How about we just admit that and bring everything into fantasy realm?

What kind of fantasy realm? One where everything is made of magic? Or one which functions much like our own world except where magic and supernatural creatures exist?

I would rather just leave out renaissance style heavy crossbows altogether and say that the world is not at that level of technology. Crossbows can be easy to draw and do equal or less damage than bows.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Aren't you the one adding weapon special effects / combat styles to the weapon itself? Isn't every weapon in your system going to have a handful of adjudication points?
Nope, just enough to be interesting :smallamused:

Roughly speaking each weapon will have the following:
Name
Proficiency Type
Range
Damage
Trait

So, as an example:
War Hammer
Military Proficiency
Melee
1d6
Penetrating: May target AC or Reflex, whichever is lowest

[Morty]

I would rather just leave out renaissance style heavy crossbows altogether and say that the world is not at that level of technology. Crossbows can be easy to draw and do equal or less damage than bows.

Alternately, we could say that such heavy crossbows do exist - they're just not very practical for an adventurer because of the time and effort needed to reload them. Rank-and-file soldiers could still use them, because their role is completely different than that of a member of an adventuring party.

[Thrudd]

Alternately, we could say that such heavy crossbows do exist - they're just not very practical for an adventurer because of the time and effort needed to reload them. Rank-and-file soldiers could still use them, because their role is completely different than that of a member of an adventuring party.

Yes, exactly. This is equipment you can buy for your troops once you build your castle. The rules for it, therefore, are on mass-combat scale and not individual so much.
Though I feel like if it exists in the world, it will need to have rules on the individual scale as well, because it is possible for a character to encounter one, have one used against them, and/or want to pick one up and try to use it. There would be no reasonable explanation for disallowing a character to get one if they are in the proper situation, even if it is not ideal for adventuring in general.

[Kurald Galain]

What kind of fantasy realm? One where everything is made of magic? Or one which functions much like our own world except where magic and supernatural creatures exist?

Exactly. Many roleplayers enjoy the tropes Magic A Is Magic A (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagicAIsMagicA) and Like Reality Unless Noted (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LikeRealityUnlessNoted). You are likely to meet with strong resistance if you're trying for a world where everything can happen if we say so, because "magic".

[1337 b4k4]

Alternately, we could say that such heavy crossbows do exist - they're just not very practical for an adventurer because of the time and effort needed to reload them. Rank-and-file soldiers could still use them, because their role is completely different than that of a member of an adventuring party.

Well, to be fair, that's pretty much the effect of having crossbows take a turn to reload. It's worth remembering the the original equipment / weapons lists in D&D weren't supposed to be "recommended adventuring gear" lists. They were pretty much reference lists of setting common equipment. If your adventurers carry a crossbow, it's a "engage from a distance and then discard and go to swords" type deal.

[HammeredWharf]

The problem is: this fails the what I like to call "Storm Giant with a Greatsword (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG121.jpg)"-test. If a Storm Giant with a Greatsword doesn't ignore armor, why should a in comparison rather pathetic crossbow?

There's plenty a storm giant with a greatsword can't do, like cut a naked man in half with a single swing or be scarier than a level 5 idiot with a lute.

[Friv]

One possibility would be for bows to always use the strength of their user, but for crossbows to just have a flat strength. In normal D&D there's that whole "each bow has to be built for your exact Strength rating", which is flavorful but also kind of pointless.

If a longbow did (1d8 + Strength) and a crossbow did (1d10 +2), the crossbow is a far superior choice for people who aren't as strong, such as peasants and rogues. The longbow is still the superior choice for big, strong dudes.

[Oracle_Hunter]

One possibility would be for bows to always use the strength of their user, but for crossbows to just have a flat strength. In normal D&D there's that whole "each bow has to be built for your exact Strength rating", which is flavorful but also kind of pointless.

If a longbow did (1d8 + Strength) and a crossbow did (1d10 +2), the crossbow is a far superior choice for people who aren't as strong, such as peasants and rogues. The longbow is still the superior choice for big, strong dudes.
I actually had forgotten about Composite Bows from AD&D. They're very good because they make Fighters not terrible... but Javelins et al fit the same area.

So yeah, I'd probably leave the sniping to the DEX, but it is a thought.

[1337 b4k4]

So yeah, I'd probably leave the sniping to the DEX, but it is a thought.

Careful now, you wouldn't want someone accusing you of dictating which character concepts are valid with the mechanics of your system. :smallwink:

[squiggit]

Careful now, you wouldn't want someone accusing you of dictating which character concepts are valid with the mechanics of your system. :smallwink:

I actually really really really liked the Warlord STR archer build in 4e. It was cool. Shame there was nothin' like that for fighters or rangers too. Was also a bummer than weapon swapping styles were so bad in that game too (Rangers even had an optional class feature for it that looked good on paper but just didn't have the powers to support it).

[Morty]

One possibility would be for bows to always use the strength of their user, but for crossbows to just have a flat strength. In normal D&D there's that whole "each bow has to be built for your exact Strength rating", which is flavorful but also kind of pointless.

If a longbow did (1d8 + Strength) and a crossbow did (1d10 +2), the crossbow is a far superior choice for people who aren't as strong, such as peasants and rogues. The longbow is still the superior choice for big, strong dudes.

That could be a good baseline. Bows do require strength to draw. In my theoretical weapon style system that works on the basis of scaling dependency on Strength and Dexterity, bows are primarily Dexterity-dependent with a secondary Strength dependence, and crossbows are purely Dexterity-dependent.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Careful now, you wouldn't want someone accusing you of dictating which character concepts are valid with the mechanics of your system. :smallwink:
Winky aside, there is always going to be some dictation. You may want to be the STR 8 Barbarian with a Greataxe, but it just ain't gonna work.

One major draw for Gold & Glory is that it provides an order of magnitude more freedom in character creation than any version of D&D without leaving comforting shoreline of the Class System. It may not do everything, but I think it'll do enough to be attractive :smallamused:

[Lord Raziere]

Actually the Longbow v. Crossbow problem is something I'm worrying over in Gold & Glory (http://oraclehunter.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/project-overview-gold-glory/). Sensibly I'm tying all kinds of "fighting abilities" to the weapons themselves to explain why people bother making anything aside from Longswords and Greataxes but looking to history to distinguish Crossbows and Longbows is problematic from a game design perspective.

Faster rate of fire is, in fact, the primary benefit for Longbows while ease of training and penetrating power are the benefits of Crossbows. Altering RoF in either direction immediately results in Action Economy issues (which are thorny!) but there isn't a good way to model "extra penetration" in a D&D-style game that's worth the effort.

So yeah, there's no really easy answer here without having to basically redo the game from the ground up -- which is simply not reasonable for the sake of two weapons :smalleek:

You mean Longbows offer better rate of fire if trained well in it, and crossbow's offer ease of training AND better penetrating power?

I dunno, sounds like the longbow would be something that only say, a ranger would be proficient in and would get more feats about (in this situation, a feat that allows you to attack with longbow twice per turn), while other people would be able get a crossbow and it would simply deal more damage in some way (the ranger of course would actually deal far more damage with their skill at a longbow), but then again thats just my take on it. *shrug*

[Doug Lampert]

You mean Longbows offer better rate of fire if trained well in it, and crossbow's offer ease of training AND better penetrating power?

I dunno, sounds like the longbow would be something that only say, a ranger would be proficient in and would get more feats about (in this situation, a feat that allows you to attack with longbow twice per turn), while other people would be able get a crossbow and it would simply deal more damage in some way (the ranger of course would actually deal far more damage with their skill at a longbow), but then again thats just my take on it. *shrug*

Yeah, if your baseline for longbows is the Hundred Years War/War of the Roses Longbow then remember: "If you want to train a longbowman, start with his grandfather", that was said by Edward III, who was presumably familiar with what in D&D is called Martial Proficiency. One might even assume that the commander at Crecy had some clue how the things worked.

The Welsh Longbow was an extreme specialist's weapon. If you're trying to make bows that are as effective as the Welsh Longbow (which be it noted still couldn't break a massed charge, hence the use of obstacles to protect the archers), then using them is a major class ability, not just a fighter proficiency.

I'll also agree: Strength bows are stupid. Yes, a stronger guy will want a different bow than a weaker guy. He'll also wear different armor and carry a different greatsword. There's no reason to pick on bows here.

[Seerow]

I'll also agree: Strength bows are stupid. Yes, a stronger guy will want a different bow than a weaker guy. He'll also wear different armor and carry a different greatsword. There's no reason to pick on bows here.

I blame the Odyssey for this one.

[Lord Raziere]

Yeah, if your baseline for longbows is the Hundred Years War/War of the Roses Longbow then remember: "If you want to train a longbowman, start with his grandfather", that was said by Edward III, who was presumably familiar with what in D&D is called Martial Proficiency. One might even assume that the commander at Crecy had some clue how the things worked.

The Welsh Longbow was an extreme specialist's weapon. If you're trying to make bows that are as effective as the Welsh Longbow (which be it noted still couldn't break a massed charge, hence the use of obstacles to protect the archers), then using them is a major class ability, not just a fighter proficiency.

I'll also agree: Strength bows are stupid. Yes, a stronger guy will want a different bow than a weaker guy. He'll also wear different armor and carry a different greatsword. There's no reason to pick on bows here.

well, the reason I'd make that distinction IS so that it would be a major class feature-to give the ranger a special thing unto itself, while giving the crossbow something desirable about it that longbow doesn't: accessibility. thus making them both valuable. so that you can focus the longbow on the legendary archer archetype and so they have something to pull of legendary feats of archery with, while everyone else has a ranged weapon that both is functional, different and does something a longbow doesn't. but of course, not too different.

[nightwyrm]

I actually had forgotten about Composite Bows from AD&D. They're very good because they make Fighters not terrible... but Javelins et al fit the same area.

So yeah, I'd probably leave the sniping to the DEX, but it is a thought.

Oddly enough, in 2nd ed. you can add your Str bonus to hit for a bow (the Str bonus description does not restrict the bonus to melee attacks), but you still need a composite bow to add the Str bonus to damage.

[Doug Lampert]

well, the reason I'd make that distinction IS so that it would be a major class feature-to give the ranger a special thing unto itself, while giving the crossbow something desirable about it that longbow doesn't: accessibility. thus making them both valuable. so that you can focus the longbow on the legendary archer archetype and so they have something to pull of legendary feats of archery with, while everyone else has a ranged weapon that both is functional, different and does something a longbow doesn't. but of course, not too different.
Which is probably a better reason for the distinction for game design. But the history is useful for people who'd claim "crossbows sucked and of course any fighter type can use a longbow".

Technically almost anyone can use a longbow. AFAICT the term "short bow" is a game invention, the actual usage of longbow historically was for ANY bow that wasn't a crossbow. But that doesn't give you a militarily useful longbow that is practical against men in armor.

It's perfectly reasonable to say "the military bows in the rules are 100lb+ draw, you can't use that unless you're a ranger; use a crossbow or have fun with your 1d4 'short bow' and no strength bonus".

Light crossbow with a lever/goat's foot/whatever for the draw are fast enough that one shot a round when not moving is reasonable, and by the time you get your iterative attacks you're superhuman anyway. Those draw methods can reasonably have strength bonus applied, so do so.

Meanwhile heavy winched bows have a reload time that makes them effectively encounter weapons for PC type light skirmishers.

Then give rangers and any other dedicated archer types rapid shot and other bonuses so their longbow is clearly the best ranged weapon.

[captpike]

you should not force rangers to use longbows rather then crossbows by making longbows that much better. nor should you tell anyone else that they cant use bows cause "realism"

because D&D is a game you should make them roughly equal (but different, damage vs hit rate ect), and let people decide what they want to use.

[squiggit]

Model ease of use by making all crossbows 'simple weapons'.
Model ease of aiming by giving them a bonus to hit.


Then your "ranger" class gets free bow proficiency and you get this nice tree of bow feats and bow class features that make longbows more threatening in the hands of a trained expert.

Though I still sort of disagree with the idea of making crossbows only that sort of weapon, I don't really see a problem making someone who wants to be good with a crossbow some feats to speed up reloading or somesuch.


Strength bows are stupid. Yes, a stronger guy will want a different bow than a weaker guy. He'll also wear different armor and carry a different greatsword. There's no reason to pick on bows here.

I disagree with STR bows being stupid though. Draw and arm strength is a big deal in archery. Sure, hand eye coordination is really important too, but I don't think you can throw one away for the other.

Your other two examples aren't the best seeing how strength does factor into both.

[Doug Lampert]

I disagree with STR bows being stupid though. Draw and arm strength is a big deal in archery. Sure, hand eye coordination is really important too, but I don't think you can throw one away for the other.

Your other two examples aren't the best seeing how strength does factor into both.

I didn't say strength bows were stupid because strength doesn't matter. Quite the contrary. I want even light crossbows to add strength to damage.

I quite clearly said that strength bows are stupid because we don't have strength any other weapons, and in fact with hand made one off weapons everyone will in fact choose a weapon that suits his strength.

If there are no strength pikes, or strength staffs, or strength bastard swords, or strength clubs, then there's NO JUSTIFICATION for strength bows.

All weapons will be adjusted to the user, if nothing else by putting on a different hilt or drawing to a different point or half-swording. Bows and everything else.

If there are not strength weapons for anything but bows then there should not be strength bows.

[squiggit]

Yeah that's what I get for trying to read the forums while trying not to pass out. Apologies for misreading that.

[Perseus]

I didn't say strength bows were stupid because strength doesn't matter. Quite the contrary. I want even light crossbows to add strength to damage.

I quite clearly said that strength bows are stupid because we don't have strength any other weapons, and in fact with hand made one off weapons everyone will in fact choose a weapon that suits his strength.

If there are no strength pikes, or strength staffs, or strength bastard swords, or strength clubs, then there's NO JUSTIFICATION for strength bows.

All weapons will be adjusted to the user, if nothing else by putting on a different hilt or drawing to a different point or half-swording. Bows and everything else.

If there are not strength weapons for anything but bows then there should not be strength bows.

Bows however aren't what hits the creature or object. The arrows do, the bow just fires the arrow. So really comparing a bow to a staff or swords is apples to oranges. Comparing the arrow to a staff or sword is comparing apples to apples. The bow is more comparable to the person attacking with a staff or sword.

To hit something harder with a sword one needs high dex or higher strength. The bow, in order to hit harder needs to possess a higher strength score/rating just as a person hitting with a weapon needs to possess that score. Both transfers that damage to what is hitting the target (arrow or sword or staff). Currently we represent this as more expensive composite bows and such.

Nuts to that. I would like to see all bows be mechanically designed so that whoever using them could add their strength into the damage. Have weapon proficiencies be tied in with craft (weapon) and you have a very explainable reason why the ranger with 16 strength could upgrade his bow for cheap.

Tangent...

While we are at it... I would love to see in D&D Next masterwork bonuses stack with themselves like enhancement bonuses. But these masterwork bonuses don't stack with enhancement bonuses.

So a purely Noncaster forger could make a mystical perfect sword that is +5 longsword. This gives +5 to damage and to attack.

You could have a +1 masterwork longsword and eventually meet a mage that could enhance it further to a +2. The end result isn't a +3 but a +2 enhanced sword.

Some sort of system that shows the fantasy mundane blacksmith creating a masterpiece sword without the use of magic would be fantastic. This can be done for tools or armor too.

[Nargrakhan]

Or are we deciding that D&D is now a cinematic game, or one based on the sensibilities of video games, where realistic concerns of physics and the like are completely glossed over in favor of exciting action and cool-looking characters? I know many people have already decided this

IMHO it's not even that. Those kinds of games are like Scion or 7th Sea: where rolling and using stats to do something, are far less important and overruled by being able to describe the awesomeness of what's being done. Such game systems are more vague and flexible with their rules because of that method.

[Oracle_Hunter]

you should not force rangers to use longbows rather then crossbows by making longbows that much better. nor should you tell anyone else that they cant use bows cause "realism"

because D&D is a game you should make them roughly equal (but different, damage vs hit rate ect), and let people decide what they want to use.
Your first paragraph is contradicted by the second paragraph, unless you have a fine distinction between "much better" and "different."

If you don't want to impact Player gear choices with mechanics, then you need to make all gear identical, or nearly so. But, to date, I've not found a single D&D Player who wants to see that in a version of their game.

[captpike]

Your first paragraph is contradicted by the second paragraph, unless you have a fine distinction between "much better" and "different."

If you don't want to impact Player gear choices with mechanics, then you need to make all gear identical, or nearly so. But, to date, I've not found a single D&D Player who wants to see that in a version of their game.

mechanics will and should impact player choices but they should not make them for you. they should introduce meaningful choices.

for example +3prof 1d10 vs +2prof 1d12 is a meaningful choice. you can go either way have good reasons for doing so.

if it was +3prof 2d6 vs +2 1d6. it would not be, you would have no reason to pick the second over the first. if you wanted to use the second for RP reasons you would be shooting yourself in the foot.

this includes giving a class access to the best bow (via free feat or something) for RP reasons but not the best crossbow, javelin ect. this would be a RP tax on players would want to use certain weapons.

with proficiency, dice, range, simple/military/superior/exotic, crit, misc. there is more then enough to make the choices interesting and meaningful.

[Jacob.Tyr]

I gotta tout the Legend system for weapons. Weapons are mechanically distinct and have interesting features, but you're pretty much able to pick and choose what features are on the weapon you're using and call it whatever the hell you want.

[Seerow]

I gotta tout the Legend system for weapons. Weapons are mechanically distinct and have interesting features, but you're pretty much able to pick and choose what features are on the weapon you're using and call it whatever the hell you want.

Can you give some examples?

I seem to remember the last time I looked at it all weapons were identical and purely flavor based (like 2 1handers attack as 1 dealing 2d6+kom damage, 1 2hander attacks dealing 2d6+kom damage. No functional difference at all between the two)

[Just to Browse]

Can you give some examples?

I seem to remember the last time I looked at it all weapons were identical and purely flavor based (like 2 1handers attack as 1 dealing 2d6+kom damage, 1 2hander attacks dealing 2d6+kom damage. No functional difference at all between the two)

All weapons get three traits, like [Reach], [Brutal], [Elemental], etc. They deal identical base damage (one trait adds flat damage boosts), but they all do extra stuff because all weapons do that.

[Jacob.Tyr]

All weapons get three traits, like [Reach], [Brutal], [Elemental], etc. They deal identical base damage (one trait adds flat damage boosts), but they all do extra stuff because all weapons do that.

Pretty much, slap 3 traits that you think fit with your idea of the weapon and call it that weapon.

Barbed- Can stick into the enemy and causes damage on removal, reduces defenses until removal

Brutal- extra damage, scales with level of character

Deft- Improves initiative

Devastating- Doubles knockback from maneuvers

Disarming-Bonus to disarm maneuvers

Elemental-does elemental damage

Guardian-Bonus AC

Holdout-Easier to hide on person

Magnum-Ignore DR, Resistance


There are more, that's just about as far as I typed before realizing I had to use the bathroom. The core rules are free, though, from ruleofcool.com .

[Kurald Galain]

Pretty much, slap 3 traits that you think fit with your idea of the weapon and call it that weapon.
I'm not a fan of that, really. It means that whenever you find (e.g.) an axe or meet a character with an axe, you need to ask "so what does this axe do?"

[1337 b4k4]

I'm not a fan of that, really. It means that whenever you find (e.g.) an axe or meet a character with an axe, you need to ask "so what does this axe do?"

You could always do things the dungeon world way if you didn't want character choice to limit weapon choice: all classes have a damage die which is the one they roll when dealing damage, regardless of weapon used. All melee weapons use STR, all ranged weapons use DEX. Every weapon may (not must) have a number of optional tags that do things like add damage, swap the STR requirement for DEX, ignore armor etc. That way, any random weapon you come across is just as likely to be an ordinary version, that just deals the class' normal damage die, but unique weapons are still unique. The downside to this system is that you have to trust your DM to determine when it's appropriate for your weapon to work since unarmed vs armed with a tree trunk deals the same damage, it's up to the DM (within the context of the game world) to let you know that "no, you're not going to bare hand puch the dragon and do any appreciable damage"

[wumpus]

[hopefully not dragging out the crossbow discussion too far]

The problem with awesome crossbows is the problem of D&D levels. Originally (as in Dave Arneson's "Dungeon Game"), a 9th level "fighting man" was roughly equal to 9 men. Since then, 9th level characters have rarely had to worry about 9 mooks with crossbows being a fair fight (Pelar help the wizard caught flatfooted).

With something like at-will powers for 1st level wizards, crossbows have no place in "standard PC gear" and are merely the weapon of choice for fodder: kobolds turn into Tucker's Kobolds depending on how strong their crossbows are (that first strike with massed heavy crossbows can be a doozy). I would claim this determines the effectiveness of crossbows in D&D, above just about anything else.

- historical note: in 1e ballista simply ignored armor and treated all opponets as AC10 (trebuchets and other lofted attacks used AC0, 2 grades higher than platemaile and shield). There were also big advantages against (L)arge opponents. It turned out that 4 men at arms (who wouldn't follow you into the dungeon anyway) with a balista were noticably superior to 4 mooks with crossbows (plus, if one of them had levels (or a heroism potion), he adds his THAC0 bonus to the entire balista). I never got a chance to see what dragging a few ballista teams through the wilderness and/or pulling monsters to the main base would work.

[Just to Browse]

I'm not a fan of that, really. It means that whenever you find (e.g.) an axe or meet a character with an axe, you need to ask "so what does this axe do?"

Would you expect a throwing axe to behave the same as a hatchet + shield or an axe forged from nevermelt ice?

[Oracle_Hunter]

Would you expect a throwing axe to behave the same as a hatchet + shield or an axe forged from nevermelt ice?
Wait, "hatchet + shield" counts as a single weapon? :smallconfused:

Basically, it's a bit hard on the world-building when there's no such thing as a standard sword. Like, if you see a guy with a pointy bit of metal on a length of wood it sounds like you have no idea what sort of threat it represents.

This is one reason I'm making mundane gear more important in Gold & Glory. I've always found it weird that you could see a naked dude and a dude wearing full plate and have no idea which one was harder to hit or kill.

In 4e I noticed this problem when I once I wanted a town where Law & Order were important. So I set up a reasonable real-world precaution (arms control) and suddenly realized that not only would it not have an impact, but it was largely impossible to effectively "disarm" any 4e entity. When 99% of a character's threat comes from his powers, he's going to be a threat so long as he can grab a stick (or less, for many classes!)

As an aside, I made a setting based off of the 4e assumptions about character power. It ended up feeling very Wuxia and I'm still a little sad I never got a chance to run it.

[Just to Browse]

Indeed, Legend treats sword-and-board, or parrying weapons, as possessing the [Guardian] trait.

And there is a "standard sword". It's a [Melee] range weapon with [Brutal 1] [Guardian] [Quickdraw].

[Dienekes]

Would you expect a throwing axe to behave the same as a hatchet + shield or an axe forged from nevermelt ice?

No but I would assume two great axes to behave the same.

Personally, I prefer FantasyCraft's way of handling weapons. All weapons have a distinct set of stats that make all of them have a use (though investing in more advanced weapon proficiencies does give you a weapon that can be a bit better), but every type of weapon has feats dedicated to it to make them perfectly viable, and not spending a proficiency to get an advanced weapon means you can spend it on something else that's useful.

[Kurald Galain]

No but I would assume two great axes to behave the same.
Yes. I do not subscribe to the notion that everything can be refluffed to everything else. For example, imho it's a strong point of 4E that the eladrin enemies in the monster manual have the same Fey Step ability as eladrin PCs, and conversely a weak point of 4E that players can play a dwarf and "pretend" it's an eladrin just because they'll get +1 to hit that way.

(and yes, that actually happened)

Anyway, I find there is a limit to what (many but not all) players and DMs accept in terms of refluffability. Peronally, I'd say that just because a dagger can have the "easy-to-hide" tag and a halberd can have the "reach" tag, that doesn't mean that a dagger could have reach or that a halbard could have easy-to-hide.

[Lord Raziere]

you should not force rangers to use longbows rather then crossbows by making longbows that much better. nor should you tell anyone else that they cant use bows cause "realism"

because D&D is a game you should make them roughly equal (but different, damage vs hit rate ect), and let people decide what they want to use.

I have thought upon this.

and I have decided that while everyone can get bows as you say, Rangers would be able to get better bows than other people at character creation.

[captpike]

I have thought upon this.

and I have decided that while everyone can get bows as you say, Rangers would be able to get better bows than other people at character creation.

I have no problem with this, if for example rangers are ranged damage weapon users then they probably should be given a choice with proficiency of any one ranged weapon. so greatbow, crossbow ect.

[Morty]

No but I would assume two great axes to behave the same.

Personally, I prefer FantasyCraft's way of handling weapons. All weapons have a distinct set of stats that make all of them have a use (though investing in more advanced weapon proficiencies does give you a weapon that can be a bit better), but every type of weapon has feats dedicated to it to make them perfectly viable, and not spending a proficiency to get an advanced weapon means you can spend it on something else that's useful.

I agree that ultimately the best way to differentiate weapons is defining what you can do with them, in addition to baseline traits that apply even if you're equally ignorant of how to use both. I have this theoretical project in which I have several different weapon styles such as heavy two handed, light two handed, dual wielding or cut-and-thrust, which provide maneuvers, and some of those maneuvers can only be performed using a certain weapon type.

As for bows and crossbows, I think the bows' main advantage over crossbows, to offset for the lesser damage and penetration, should be versatility. With a bow, you can decide how often you shoot - whether you loose one fully-drawn, well-aimed shot, two fully-drawn but not as well-aimed ones or a flurry of quick, weak shots. With a crossbow, you crank it and you shoot, and that's more or less it, but it's more reliably and consistently powerful. So it's basically divorcing rate of fire from the action economy a little, since I think we all know messing with action economy leads to bad things.

[Petal_Reader]

This is a bit of a twist in the topic, but while you're discussing the relationship between the evolution of D&D and your G&G, Oracle Hunter, I'd like to hear what you have brewing so far about your magic system. That was one of the notes on your blog that really caught my eye. I've played around with similar systems to this before, and I'd be pleased so see how you do it.

[Stray]

Last weeks Legends & Lore (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140217), about basically nothing. But this week... Mearls spills the beans about sorcerer. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140224) Same number of spells a day as a wizard, spontaneous casting, smaller spell list, but on top of that sorcery points that allow metamagic, extra spells and bloodline related features. Sounds promising. I hope there will be more bloodlines in the core book than mentioned in the article draconic and wild mage though.

Also, last weeks Wandering Monsters (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20140219), where John Wyatt writes about approach to religion in D&D, if you are interested in that sort of thing.

[Kurald Galain]

Mearls spills the beans about sorcerer. Same number of spells a day as a wizard, spontaneous casting, smaller spell list, but on top of that sorcery points that allow metamagic, extra spells and bloodline related features.

I still don't get why they consider it good design to give one character class two separate resource tracking mechanics, in this case spell slots and sorc points.

(edit) I mean two tracking mechanics for the same thing, obviously.

[SiuiS]

I still don't get why they consider it good design to give one character class two separate resource tracking mechanics, in this case spell slots and sorc points.

Why do you consider it bad design?

[Doug Lampert]

Why do you consider it bad design?

Multiple tracks is more for the player to keep track of. If the tracks do largely the same thing its pointless complexity for complexity's sake. How do you make a spell more powerful in D&DN? Higher level slot or sorcerer "points", why two ways for the same character to do the same thing? Especially when the sorcerer is a good chance to build a simpler caster.

So we're building a simpler caster, that's presumably the main appeal of the class, and then we add pointless complexity to it. How is this good?

IMAO it's fine to have multiple tracks that do substantially different things. Wizards have HP and spell slots, one is a passive resource to avoid dying, the other an active resource to do stuff.

If you accept that every class needs a way to get to the action, a way to participate in the action (which may be combat or non-combat), and a way to survive the action then up to four tracks would be reasonable.

But in this case they've got two tracks one of which (spells) can be used to do any of those things, and one of which (points) can only be used in conjunction with spells to make the spells do more spell stuff.

If you want someone to have stronger spells there's an existing mechanism, higher level slots. If you want someone to be able to do a particular metamagic type thing then write that in as a default use of a higher level slot. Simpler, more consistent, easier to balance.

[Joe the Rat]

Good thing we got rid of expertise dice then, eh? It's be awful for fighters and rogues to have to track their expertise resource pool and hit points.

And ammunition. And potions. And hit dice for short rest healing.

Lords of Light, what about those poor multiclassers?

I'm not gonna do a full reducio and say everything should be hitpoints... that way lies GURPS. But multiple resources - in this case three as opposed to two (at base) is not a killer. Plus with the "spontaneous from prepared" approach, the resource gives Sorcerers a real mechanical difference - something you couldn't do with a Wizard. Isn't that what we want, classes that are distinct in more than just name?


This also means that the sorcerer is not strictly "wizard for dummies," but a different focus on the magic: a smaller repertoire, but a lot more control and mastery of those specific tricks. Unless we're talking about double secret probation hint (Mike's got all the subtlety of a dwarf in a all-metal tux), in which case it's explicitly less control. Wild, man.

[Stray]

If you want someone to have stronger spells there's an existing mechanism, higher level slots. If you want someone to be able to do a particular metamagic type thing then write that in as a default use of a higher level slot. Simpler, more consistent, easier to balance.

How is giving a higher level slot just for metamagic functionally different than giving a bunch of points that can be used on metamagic instead of bumbing the spell level? It's an extra resource that isn't a regular spell slot anyway. Calling it a sorcery point at least avoids namespace confusions.

DM:"Are you using a higher level spell slot or higher level metamagic spell slot?"
Novice player:"Uuuugh?"


(Mike's got all the subtlety of a dwarf in a all-metal tux)

Are you referencing his player character in WotC's livestreams?:smalltongue:

[Seerow]

Last weeks Legends & Lore (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140217), about basically nothing. But this week... Mearls spills the beans about sorcerer. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140224) Same number of spells a day as a wizard, spontaneous casting, smaller spell list, but on top of that sorcery points that allow metamagic, extra spells and bloodline related features. Sounds promising. I hope there will be more bloodlines in the core book than mentioned in the article draconic and wild mage though.

Also, last weeks Wandering Monsters (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4wand/20140219), where John Wyatt writes about approach to religion in D&D, if you are interested in that sort of thing.

So much for getting a simple casting class.


Also I don't understand why we need a spellcasting class whose thing is "Spontaneous casting" when we have every other class in the game capable of "Spontaneous casting but change spells known daily"

[SiuiS]

Multiple tracks is more for the player to keep track of. If the tracks do largely the same thing its pointless complexity for complexity's sake. How do you make a spell more powerful in D&DN? Higher level slot or sorcerer "points", why two ways for the same character to do the same thing? Especially when the sorcerer is a good chance to build a simpler caster.

So we're building a simpler caster, that's presumably the main appeal of the class, and then we add pointless complexity to it. How is this good?

IMAO it's fine to have multiple tracks that do substantially different things. Wizards have HP and spell slots, one is a passive resource to avoid dying, the other an active resource to do stuff.

If you accept that every class needs a way to get to the action, a way to participate in the action (which may be combat or non-combat), and a way to survive the action then up to four tracks would be reasonable.

But in this case they've got two tracks one of which (spells) can be used to do any of those things, and one of which (points) can only be used in conjunction with spells to make the spells do more spell stuff.

If you want someone to have stronger spells there's an existing mechanism, higher level slots. If you want someone to be able to do a particular metamagic type thing then write that in as a default use of a higher level slot. Simpler, more consistent, easier to balance.

How is "I cast spells from slots and also modify spells with points" much more complicated than "I cast spells and also modify them from points"?

[Morty]

I don't give a toss about the sorcerer class, honestly, but I do find it amusing how they feel they need to slap points on top of regular daily spells to do the concept justice, but chickened out when trying to give warriors a resource mechanic of any sort.

[Seerow]

Also Warrior-Mages are the realm of the "Fighter class".

Which tells me that Gishes are going to be godawful in 5e, because we all know they couldn't actually give Fighters nice things.

This is what I've got my money on for the Gish Fighter: In the same place where you can choose the Expertise Dice package, you can choose Spellcasting. Get spells per day as a Ranger/Paladin. You can spend those spells to gain +1d6 per spell level on various rolls.

[Merlin the Tuna]

I don't give a toss about the sorcerer class, honestly, but I do find it amusing how they feel they need to slap points on top of regular daily spells to do the concept justice, but chickened out when trying to give warriors a resource mechanic of any sort.
It's at least nice to see that they were a little bit more adventurous than "What if we just used the Black Mage from Final Fantasy? As in, the first one."

Maybe it's a sign that we'll eventually get past "Fight, Use Item, Run" for Fighters. 4 or 5 editions from now.

[Petal_Reader]

It's at least nice to see that they were a little bit more adventurous than "What if we just used the Black Mage from Final Fantasy? As in, the first one."

Maybe it's a sign that we'll eventually get past "Fight, Use Item, Run" for Fighters. 4 or 5 editions from now.
I love this because of how apt a comparison it is.
And if we're lucky we'll advance to be like Final Fantasy III or V where a warrior character gets a very specific command like Jump or Provoke, and we'll say "See! Fighters DO get cool stuff! How about that Provoke, huh? Betcha rather have that than some whole spell list."

Meanwhile we're all actually ready for Bravely Default.

And the article about sorcerers rather highlights what I was thinking about when the psion came up last thread, and in the issue of magic systems in general for my last post.

I don't like the idea of psion being folded into mage/wizard for the same reasons that people like for sorcerer to be it's own class and to not just be wizard with a variation in ability structure. We come to envision the character concepts gaining life and traction in our collective imagination, and we get to a point where our spark of inspiration becomes "I want to play a powerful psychic," and all the imagery that such a thought brings with it, rather than thinking "I want to play a mage, but I'd like a slightly different mechanic, and I might refluff it."

There's probably a slippery slope in there that leads to make-up free--samurai MUST be different from fighter, etc.--but at it's essence, I feel this idea is one of the conceits of D&D in the first place.

So I like them wanting to give sorcerer significantly different crunch, and in particular I like making them naturals at metamagic. However, as has already been pointed out, it's questionable if that niche really leads us to significantly different crunch at all.

I think 4E took great steps towards realizing the sorcerer, one of which was it having its own unique spells. Like, an entire class list of them. Generally, I think we should move away from wizard and cleric spell lists as the baseline.

To take it even further: if we must continue to have spell slots per level for magic, I'd like to see the sorcerer at least break from this pattern and have some distinct new method of categorizing, learning, and casting spells altogether.

[Perseus]

Speaking of the legend and lore...

Why not just make the Sorcerer a Fighter sub class? Give the Fighter his dice back and then allow the sorcerer to gain spells (1st through 6th level like what the paladin and bard would get) and the the expertise dice can modify spells instead of martial maneuvers...

I don't think the Sorcerer needs to be it's own class. I also don't think there really needs to be so many base classes *shrug*

[obryn]

Proposed title change: "Relentlessly striving towards mediocrity" :smallsmile:

[Merlin the Tuna]

"Save against pooping the bed"

[Oracle_Hunter]

This is a bit of a twist in the topic, but while you're discussing the relationship between the evolution of D&D and your G&G, Oracle Hunter, I'd like to hear what you have brewing so far about your magic system. That was one of the notes on your blog that really caught my eye. I've played around with similar systems to this before, and I'd be pleased so see how you do it.
Gladly! I'll spoiler it because it's not even remotely about 5e :smalltongue:
The primary issue with magic in the WotC era is that it just does too much. The same system lets you shoot little bolts of energy at your enemy and do literally anything -- it has way too much scope. That said, being able to do anything is a major draw for people who want to play a Heroic Fantasy game -- they came to play Gandalf, not Sizemore (http://www.erfworld.com/wiki/index.php/Sizemore_Rockwell).

So, I split up the traditional spread of D&D magic a bit.
Combat Magic: At-Will Spontaneous Casting to do away with Crossbow Wizards. Also detached from the "Arcanist" Profession so that anyone can decide to fight with magic. Divine Combat Magic is along similar lines, but distinguishable.
Exploration Magic: At-Will or Daily Spontaneous Casting, some with non-trivial casting times. These are designed mostly to augment skills, but this is also the domain of Divination magic. Assigned into the "Exploration Knack" area so that anyone can get a bit of magic if they want.
Arcane Spells: Vancian Prepared Casting. This should hold all the other traditional "Wizard Spells" from D&D but I plan to do a bunch of trimming. It has a few combat spells, but they can be interrupted and are much more persistent in scope. "Summon Fog" below is an example of a low-level Combat Arcane Spell.
Divine Prayers: Sorcerer-style Spontaneous Casting. This helps to distinguish it from Arcane Spells better than the old "Divine is for Healing" bit. I think it will focus more on Defense while Arcana focuses on Offense -- so Protection from Evil for example. It can probably be disrupted the same way Arcane spells can, but I haven't decided.
Rituals: "High Magic." You need to be an Arcanist of a given level to attempt, but they take lots of time and lots of exotic ingredients to cast. This is where the high-level spells like Earthquake will live, as well as other "big impact" spells. I'm not sure if I want Divine Rituals as well, but I haven't ruled them out.

Summon Fog
The caster fills the immediate area with a light fog that he can bend to his will.
EFFECT: all spaces within 100' of the Caster that she has Line of Effect to grant Concealment due to being filled with fog. Once per Turn, the Caster can create a wall of dense fog within 50' of him, with maximum dimensions of 20' x 20' x 5'. The Wall blocks Line of Sight and makes Hidden anything within it. The Caster can mentally shape the fog within this area however he likes, but the fog returns to normal if the Caster chooses another area to affect.
So, that's the summary. Did you have any specific questions? :smallsmile:

[Knaight]

The problem is: this fails the what I like to call "Storm Giant with a Greatsword (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG121.jpg)"-test. If a Storm Giant with a Greatsword doesn't ignore armor, why should a in comparison rather pathetic crossbow?

I'm entirely good with armor having size categories and scaling - the Storm Giant with a Greatsword should just ignore armor. Similarly, the storm giant's armor should be far harder to penetrate*. This also makes crossbows easier to handle - fairly heavy crossbows count as a size higher for armor piercing, and the really heavy stuff might even count as two sizes higher.

Heck, you could even have both through and around modeled - both values exist, and you use the lower of the two against any given attack. Both also provide ways to differentiate armor. You might have plates which are enchanted to actively push back magically against incoming hits, which boost through. You might have mail which is a ridiculously fine mesh that is completely excessive against things your own size, but that are really helpful when dealing with small things. Etc.

*Though it might well be easier to go through, in that gaps are going to be bigger, and if it is Storm Giant made something like mail will probably have larger links.

[Doug Lampert]

Good thing we got rid of expertise dice then, eh? It's be awful for fighters and rogues to have to track their expertise resource pool and hit points.

FAIL. I explicitly and clearly used HP and a resource that lets you do something as a case where two separate tracks was reasonable.

Expertise dice were a resource that let you do something, not a HP type resource so separate tracks are fine.


How is "I cast spells from slots and also modify spells with points" much more complicated than "I cast spells and also modify them from points"?

What?

The simple alternative is "I cast spells with slots and modify them with higher level slots", which is in they system already. No points since slots aren't actually tracked as points but rather as atomic items and spell modification using the system they're already using for spell casting.

The alternative being offered is "I cast spells with slots and modify them with higher level slots and ALSO use a separate system of points to modify them SEPARATELY according to a different set of rules for how points modify spells."

How is one of these not more complicated than the other? One has an extra set of points and an extra set of modifications and doesn't do anything the original system couldn't do.

[Perseus]

I'm entirely good with armor having size categories and scaling - the Storm Giant with a Greatsword should just ignore armor. Similarly, the storm giant's armor should be far harder to penetrate*. This also makes crossbows easier to handle - fairly heavy crossbows count as a size higher for armor piercing, and the really heavy stuff might even count as two sizes higher.

Heck, you could even have both through and around modeled - both values exist, and you use the lower of the two against any given attack. Both also provide ways to differentiate armor. You might have plates which are enchanted to actively push back magically against incoming hits, which boost through. You might have mail which is a ridiculously fine mesh that is completely excessive against things your own size, but that are really helpful when dealing with small things. Etc.

*Though it might well be easier to go through, in that gaps are going to be bigger, and if it is Storm Giant made something like mail will probably have larger links.

A hit doesn't mean you cut through armor, it can mean that, but it doesn't always.

The storm giant, when it hits the AC, it can very well mean that the storm giant's weapon glanced a blow off the fighter's armor which hurt like hell.

To many people want to take AC and make it mean hit/miss when AC has always been described as much much more than that because HP doesn't always mean meat.

Roll: 1: Complete Miss
Roll: < AC: Complete Miss or Glancing Blow (no damage)
Roll: = or > AC: Glancing Blow (damage) or Penetrating Hit.

The storm giant, when attacking doesn't make a solid hit against the fighter... The strike could easily be a glancing blow. So using this as a base idea for attack roll versus ac, you don't have to change anything with the mechanics (like what can or can not ignore armor).

Also tour idea that getting through the storm giants armor should be harder... Is a bit silly. The openings on the armor would be bigger or there would be bigger areas on the giant's body in order to land a solid blow... Which is why bigger creatures get a -1 AC in 3.P. When you strike a storm giant and get through their AC, you aren't hitting on the most defended part of the armor but in a gap or low defended area.

[Knaight]

Also tour idea that getting through the storm giants armor should be harder... Is a bit silly. The openings on the armor would be bigger or there would be bigger areas on the giant's body in order to land a solid blow... Which is why bigger creatures get a -1 AC in 3.P. When you strike a storm giant and get through their AC, you aren't hitting on the most defended part of the armor but in a gap or low defended area.
Which gets to the whole coverage aspect, wherein smaller combatants can exploit that. As for getting through, hitting the armor directly hard enough to harm the person in it is in that category. It would be most of that category for the heavier armors where through is less common.

Put simply, armor is extremely useful against someone approximately your size. That utility is obviously greatly diminished when getting smacked around by something far larger - it's not completely removed (particularly as hard armors are suddenly pertinent to not getting grabbed and squished), but it's reduced. Having a mechanic reflect that would make total sense, and having crossbows handle well against armor would as well.

[SiuiS]

What?

I'm not sure how to take not having a question answered and then being posed the same question. I will assume "what" is your answer, and genuine lack of knowing, then?

What would be the practical difference between this sorcerer (I cast spells from slots, and also spend points to modify those spells), and a 3e psion (I cast spells from points and can modify those spells with points)?

Or flip it, reduce point value significantly. What's the difference between "I use a 3rd level slot and also a fourth level slot", and "I use a third level slot and one point"? Points could be viewed as slots set aside for specific use; after all, the sorcerer can cast with them.

What they said, basically, was sorcerer has a unique mechanic but they can't be arsed to replace the basic mechanic. My question is asking you, if you don't understand why they would do something, to rotate it 45° and look again, see if a different direction and perspective helps.

[Morty]

I don't think the Sorcerer needs to be it's own class. I also don't think there really needs to be so many base classes *shrug*

I think the Sorcerer may have a place as a base class, but not as someone who casts magic because they're just Special from birth, which is what the 3e sorcerer comes down to. I think the proper place for the class is to basically present an alternate style of using arcane magic - spontaneous and straightforward as opposed to the studious wizard who relies on preparation. From a more meta perspective, it would also be a simpler alternative for people who can't or don't feel like dealing with the nitty-gritty of wizard spellcasting.

[TheLoneCleric]

I'm more interested in how this expands outward. The Sorcerer is a Wizard reskin for spontanous casting via spell points? Cool.

What are they going to do for Gishes under the Fighter? Give them a selection of spells like a Paladin? How do they handle the whole armor/hand free for casting? Etc.

I do have a question for most folks: What is your best reference for Next info? ie. Where do you go to read up on the current updates? Wiki?

[Kurald Galain]

I'm more interested in how this expands outward. The Sorcerer is a Wizard reskin for spontanous casting via spell points? Cool.
Of course, since the psion is traditionally the wizard reskin for spontaneous casting via spell points, it makes one wonder what they have in mind for 5E's psion :smallbiggrin:

[TheLoneCleric]

Of course, since the psion is traditionally the wizard reskin for spontaneous casting via spell points, it makes one wonder what they have in mind for 5E's psion :smallbiggrin:

They did mention they were moving away from it being a Wizard reskin due to fan reaction. No idea, but I'm looking forward to it. I'd love Psion options for all the classes. A Psionic Bard variant or a Rogue Psi trickster, etc.

1E Psi was more a 'tack on' of options. But frankly that would be a great way to give all the classes psi tricks if you want to dabble and avoids weirdly overly specific classes like the Ardent, Mind Blade, etc.

[Just to Browse]

No but I would assume two great axes to behave the same.

Well that's excellent, because that's how the system works!

[Dienekes]

Well that's excellent, because that's how the system works!

That's not how you described it though, or I misread you. What I got out of it was: you get a weapon, you can call it whatever you want, plus pick 3 traits for it from this list. Meaning a great axe could have anything from devastating, disarming, and holdout to deft, barbed, and elemental and still be called a great axe (names taken from the Jacob.Tyr post no idea if they actually mean anything in Legend).

[Petal_Reader]

So, that's the summary. Did you have any specific questions? :smallsmile:
A few, and some thoughts.

I especially like this concept of Willpower points you mentioned in your blog. Are you still planning on making a system for those? In particular, built-in ability modify one's own spells really shines. I've wanted a design like this for magical abilities for a long time, and while many games have something likeit --including D&D at times (remember the 3.5 warlock and all its invocations)--D&D continues to have a lot of unexplored space for this concept.

Would Combat magics empowered with Willpower have similar dearth and value to a "full" spell, or would they function more like augmented at-wills as with 4E psionics? Or, perhaps--as your summary seemed to suggest--Combat magics + Willpower would fill the role of "encounter attack powers" whereas prayers and spells would have a deeper utility/environmental underpinning.

I love the separation of magic into categories by intended use--4E tried this (with a good bit of success IMO) such as with rituals, so creating a different subsystem for a cleric's sacred flames, distinguishing from their impromptu rite praying over an area to sanctify it, feels very natural and--for those that might worry about it--helps ceremonial or "big magic" feel less pew-pew.

In your system, what would be the range of possibility for, say, an invoker--someone who wants to pray to deities to besiege the army of kobolds with plagues, rather than the traditional divine emphasis on helping over hurting? In other words, would spell options vary by role in addition to power source?

Lastly, what do you think about letting go of the very idea of "spells" as they traditionally work in D&D? Perhaps not eradicating the idea so much as making a range of magical effects not tied to a spell block, and broadening to include a variety of magic-themed mechanics. Similar to how we've had eldritch blasts, invocations, spell-like abilities, ki powers, channel divinity, etc, etc, accumulating throughout the editions.

I'd like to see more possibility for a character that is very magic focused without necessarily having a "spell list" per se, insofar as we would have typically seen. I'll mention more on this below.



Why not just make the Sorcerer a Fighter sub class? Give the Fighter his dice back and then allow the sorcerer to gain spells (1st through 6th level like what the paladin and bard would get) and the the expertise dice can modify spells instead of martial maneuvers...

I don't think the Sorcerer needs to be it's own class. I also don't think there really needs to be so many base classes *shrug*
I disagree . . . with a caveat.

I'd really rather see a shift in class design, to have fewer of them but be much broader, with a wide range of choice and personalization within them. Not merely in selecting a sub-class or a linear progression of added abilities, but an almost point-buy-like level of flexibility as to how you want to use that class.

So, a larger "fighter" class could be built like our classic paladin, or barbarian, or ranger, but there wouldn't have to be very clear lines between those choices--you could also blend the concepts together without need for a multiclassing mechanic and without having to give up any basic combat ability. This would make classes in D&D a little more like True20 Roles, with some subsystem for selecting and qualifying for abilities. Thus instead of 15-20 classes (from fighter to cleric all the way to assassin and seeker), we could have 6-9 classes (e.g. fighter, mage, monk, shaman, cleric, rogue, psion, with all the rest folded into those), each one with a lot of depth and versatility, and templates for those who want to just pick a class and be done.

However, I disagree that we should cut base classes because that's not how class design tends to work in D&D. The shift required to achieve what I described above would be bigger than I'd bet the design crew is quite willing to make right now. They really innovated with 4E design and the fanbase response was very complex and divided. It's a risk I'd love for them to take, but I understand them not wanting to.

As such, D&D classes are much more singular and focused. The ideas always seems to have been that a class create traction for an archetype--that it should be your major choice, instead of giving you major choices. Look at how subclasses/paths work in the 5E material now. They're a bit like talent trees in d20 Modern or even paragon paths from 4E--which is lovely, but not the depth of finesse needed to really make one class carry a whole host of concepts. For instance, sorcerer as a part of fighter? What would that path look like? I do not believe one could replicate a traditional sorcerer that way unless they really reinvented the wheel of class design in a way like I was saying.

Keeping all this in mind, what I'd REALLY like to see in 5E is some set-up for magic/superpowers like this:

Arcane (wizard): Spellcaster from knowledge, drawing from a universal list of spells that have been discovered over the centuries, and using ingredients, etc, to cast them. Our classic specialist or generalist wizard, with ideally some sleek touch-up on the Vancian mechanic. I'd really like to see some simple system for spell ingredients, such that you would prepare your spell parts each day and be able to cast spells as long as you have the requisite components. Gestures/words would be assumed always available, with materials and exotic components being represented with a x/day or x/rest resource. Each spell would be kind of special in the game world, and you could research your own spells, imbue them into wands and staves, so on.

Arcane (sorcerer): Mage with very fluid command of arcane magic, probably tied to a character theme. They would obtain spells similar in flavor to wizard spells, but the lists would not be the same. Sorcerers would have a greater range of at-will magic effects than wizards, and their spells would feel more rudimentary and generalized. In addition, they'd have some ability to stretch and play with their spells on the fly (e.g. the natural metamagic that's been under discussion). Sorcerers wouldn't then "research" new spells, but creating spell stunts would be an elementary part of their magic. I also think sorcerer spells shouldn't be divided by school (transmutation, divination, etc.), but by theme (elemental, celestial, ethereal, etc.).

Warlock: This could be arcane, shadow, demonic, whatever we want to call it. The concept would emphasize at-will magics more than the sorcerer. In addition, warlocks would acquire curses, which could range in power and frequency of use. Curses would have a feel akin to spells, but would mechanically be similar to a reverse-bardic-performance. Curses could be sustained for a whole encounter, possibly only one at a time, and do anything from amplifying the warlock's offense to blinding to charming.

Divine (clerics and their ilk): An agreement seems to exist that the cleric is a natural for being a halfway between being as prepared as the wizard and as spontaneous as the sorcerer. We could follow this to let them fiddle with their choice of prayers/spells each day and build it into the Channel Divinity mechanic somehow, which works kind of like rotating encounter powers. For instance, I like the idea of them having a certain pool of domain invocations as well as general magic. Rituals, or even mini-rituals, are a clear flavor win for both most divine characters and for wizards. I also really would want for an option to exist for a divine answer to the fluidity of sorcerer and warlock, even if it's just a variant mechanic.

Primal (druid/shaman): I'm a fan of distinguishing primal from divine. These could share the spell mechanics of their divine cousins, but perhaps a little pared down for simplicity, considering they also have animal forms and spirits to interact with. One wouldn't need to take it any further than that, but perhaps we could flesh out the wild shape, spirit companion, communicate-with-nature concepts to take on some of the burden of their spellcasting in order to deemphasize organized magic for them.

Psionic characters: My personal favorite, psionic characters have a bit of a language issue--many fans don't like the sci-fi feel of "psionics." But whether we mean psions, psychic warriors, wilders, mystics, attuners, etc, they should not only have powers distinct in feel from divine/arcane but have a simple, unique system. Naturally they have psionic powers, yet these are no longer psionic equivalents to spells. A manifester really wouldn't have a list of discrete "spells" at all; they'd choose psionic disciplines/talents, working as wide pools of effects, almost like a skill. One would combine these effects for tailor-made manifestations of ability each time one uses them. At the root, they'd be simple and at-will, such as the telepathic discipline giving you mindlink and communication, and better effects like read thoughts as your level improves. The manifester would amass power points, a per-rest resource relatively small in number used to activate stronger effects or combinations. Back to the telepath example, she could probably charm people as easily as with a check, but would need to use power points to try for a dominate effect. Power points/rest might be as few as 10 at high levels to make for light tracking.

[Just to Browse]

That's not how you described it though, or I misread you. What I got out of it was: you get a weapon, you can call it whatever you want, plus pick 3 traits for it from this list. Meaning a great axe could have anything from devastating, disarming, and holdout to deft, barbed, and elemental and still be called a great axe (names taken from the Jacob.Tyr post no idea if they actually mean anything in Legend).

Ah, I see. It's not that, but that all weapons are composed of a base stat line, and then described by 3 traits from a predetermined list. So when you write up a weapon, you don't need to jigger critical ranges, weapon damage, enchantments, etc. You pick the three traits that fit that weapon, and then that's the weapon. An axe is always the same as another axe, and a fire axe is the same as another fire axe, but now the weapon systems are modular so it's easy to brew up fire axes by switching out the least-relevant trait for [Elemental: Fire].

[Kurald Galain]

You pick the three traits that fit that weapon, and then that's the weapon. An axe is always the same as another axe,

So as I understand it, an axe is the same as another axe not because the rules say so, but only if the DM remembers what stats he wrote down for his previous axe and reuses those, yes? If two players who independently create a character both use an axe, they're likely to end up with two different ones unless they both consult the DM first?

[NotAnAardvark]

Out of curiosity. What sort of classes are you guys looking for coming into 5e other than the "basic set"?

For everything I hate about 4th edition (hint:everything) one of the things I did like was some of the stuff they threw into core. Dragonborn as a basic race. Warlord and Warlocks are core classes (warlord, incidentally, might be the only thing I like in 4e. The class is a brilliant execution of the concept).

I'd like to see 'em try it in 5th, though I'm not sure how well they could execute it given the mechanical differences between the systems.

Also would like to see them give things like Invoker another shot. The 4th edition falls flat to me because it's basically a recolored wizard, but the "fire and brimstone sermon that has actual fire and brimstone" schtick they had going on was kind of cool.

Also kinda wanna see something factotum-ish. I don't really LIKE the 3.5 factotum, it's a mess of a class, but I like the idea of someone who isn't a dedicated caster who's not dumb as rocks.


I'm also hoping they look at class mechanics from other games to give them some more variation. The "Final Fantasy I" fighter analogy is really apt here. Gunslinger's in pathfinder are far from a great class, but their pseudo-spellbook/grit mechanics can act as a sort of proof of concept for a mundane who does something other than "Make an attack" every turn without going so far in the other direction that you get 4e's "everyone is a wizard" bull****.

[Zweisteine]

Quick advice question:
I'm going to be joining an adventure tomorrow, at level 2 (but going to 4). The party already has a Cleric (war)/Rogue and a Wizard, and I'm at a loss as to what to play.

I was going to go Fighter/Rogue, but I'll be completely outclassed in combat by the cleric (because divine power is way too powerful), so I decided to not play a melee character. I'm thinking about being an archer with some magical ability, but I can't decide how to go about it. I'm also going to be the party face, though I doubt that that will come up much.

My top two choices are bard/rogue and mage/rogue. I'm rather frustrated by the lack of hit points, but I'll have to deal with that myself. Mage can get me a familiar, which has uncountable practical uses, but bard gets more skills, which let me get all the skills I need to be both a sneak-rogue and a social character. I was considering Mage 1/Bard 1/Rogue 2, but I can't really decide what order to take them in, as each has abilities I want at each level (more movement, bardic music, and magic).

As for race, I was considering these: Lightfoot Halfling, (High) Elf, and Forest Gnome. My rolled ability scores are 16, 16, 15, 14, 13, 13.
Also, on a related note, I've noticed that fighter is still completely outclassed in terms of damage at lower levels, until multiple extra attacks come in (i.e. high levels). Rogues have a similar problem, because the extra 1d6 damage is not enough to compare to divine power. Clerics, of all classes, seem to be able to deal more damage than almost anyone else at low levels. Is this old news, or new?

Maybe fighters need a flat bonus to damage...

[Kurald Galain]

Out of curiosity. What sort of classes are you guys looking for coming into 5e other than the "basic set"?

That depends entirely on how flexible these "basic" classes are. For example, do the summoner and necromancer need to be separate classes, or can that be handled by a standard wizard?

Generally speaking I'm in favor of broad classes, and I find that both PF and 4E have far too many classes as it stands. For example, I don't think that "wizard but with spell points" (i.e. psion) or "wizard but by heritage rather than by learning" (sorcerer) deserve to be separate classes from "wizard".

Aside from the 11 classes in the 3E PHB1 and the 8 classes in the 4E PHB1, the only two that strike me as desirable are the Artificer and a Gish (duskblade/swordmage/bladesinger).

[Zweisteine]

Out of curiosity. What sort of classes are you guys looking for coming into 5e other than the "basic set"?

For everything I hate about 4th edition (hint:everything) one of the things I did like was some of the stuff they threw into core. Dragonborn as a basic race. Warlord and Warlocks are core classes (warlord, incidentally, might be the only thing I like in 4e. The class is a brilliant execution of the concept).

Also kinda wanna see something factotum-ish. I don't really LIKE the 3.5 factotum, it's a mess of a class, but I like the idea of someone who isn't a dedicated caster who's not dumb as rocks.

Other classes? Psionic classes most certainly. Something like factotum as well—a class that specializes in skills above combat, and uses its skills to create special effects.

I agree that dragonborn is cool. Warlord, though, I can't agree with. That could have been integrated as a fighter path, which would have given it a hint of the breadth it has always lacked, or a paladin path, which would fit well into some of the existing paladin flavor. There doesn't need to be a class that is implicitly (or explicitly) made to be a leader, as any class should be able to fill that role.

[NotAnAardvark]

Generally speaking I'm in favor of broad classes, and I find that both PF and 4E have far too many classes as it stands. For example, I don't think that "wizard but with spell points" (i.e. psion) or "wizard but by heritage rather than by learning" (sorcerer) deserve to be separate classes from "wizard".
Broad classes are nice, I just see a potential problem where the subclasses either become too similar to really feel right or so differentiated that the class category ends up being meaningless or just a design hurdle.

Aside from the 11 classes in the 3E PHB1 and the 8 classes in the 4E PHB1, the only two that strike me as desirable are the Artificer and a Gish (duskblade/swordmage/bladesinger).

Well on that same token a gish could just be a wizard who gets better BAB and proficiencies in exchange for a restricted spellbook and re-oriented noncasting class features. Or vice versa and a fighter who gets reduced offensive stats in exchange for limited casting options.


There doesn't need to be a class that is implicitly (or explicitly) made to be a leader, as any class should be able to fill that role.
In real DnD? Yes. But 4e was very restrictive in terms of class identity so it makes sense.

Don't get too hung up on the name either, you have to remember that "leader" in 4e doesn't actually mean leader, it's just a clever marketing tool: Everyone wants to be in charge and no one wants to be the support who only makes the rest of the characters look better. So WoTC slaps the former's name on the latter's role to try to trick people into being team players.

Even then buffing/enabling/healing isn't really in the fighter purview. Could be a fighter subclass in 5e though for sure.

[Kurald Galain]

Well on that same token a gish could just be a wizard who gets better BAB and proficiencies in exchange for a restricted spellbook and re-oriented noncasting class features. Or vice versa and a fighter who gets reduced offensive stats in exchange for limited casting options.
A good Gish should not just be a character that can cast spells and can use a sword, but one that has class features that combine the two. So that makes it distinct from the fighter and wizard classes.

On the other hand, if there are no meaningful differences between wiz spells, sorc spells, and psion spells, then there's no need to have three classes there. All three are straightforward spellcasters with very little class features other than casting, and just different ways of limiting the amount of castings per day.

[squiggit]

A good Gish should not just be a character that can cast spells and can use a sword, but one that has class features that combine the two. So that makes it distinct from the fighter and wizard classes.

This. Slapping a ****ty fighter and a ****ty wizard together and calling it a battlemage is the worst way to go about playing the class. If we're complaining about Final Fantasy I fighters we certainly shouldn't be talking about playing Final Fantasy I red mages either.

"Battlemage" as an extra class with things like soulknives and swordmages and psychic warriors and bladesingers keying off of it is a much better idea.

[captpike]

Generally speaking I'm in favor of broad classes, and I find that both PF and 4E have far too many classes as it stands. For example, I don't think that "wizard but with spell points" (i.e. psion) or "wizard but by heritage rather than by learning" (sorcerer) deserve to be separate classes from "wizard".


if all a class is is a new resource system to do something someone else already then its a waste of a class. so 3,x sorc's, all 3.x non-casters ect should not be different classes.

any casters that share spell lists, or have the same defining features should not be different classes.

if a psion is just a psionic wizard then someone failed epicly, it is more then possible to have them fill the same combat role but feel very different.






Well on that same token a gish could just be a wizard who gets better BAB and proficiencies in exchange for a restricted spellbook and re-oriented noncasting class features. Or vice versa and a fighter who gets reduced offensive stats in exchange for limited casting options.

so you want a gish to be a bad fighter or a bad wizard every round? what is the point of that class?

a gish should be someone who casts spells with attacks, and I don't mean wizard spells I mean spells made to work with a gish playstyle.

wizards are not and should not be the end and beginning of arcane spells. a well made gish class should be able to do things no wizard can, just as the reverse is true.





Don't get too hung up on the name either, you have to remember that "leader" in 4e doesn't actually mean leader, it's just a clever marketing tool: Everyone wants to be in charge and no one wants to be the support who only makes the rest of the characters look better. So WoTC slaps the former's name on the latter's role to try to trick people into being team players.

Even then buffing/enabling/healing isn't really in the fighter purview. Could be a fighter subclass in 5e though for sure.

even if you take the fluff in warlord as holy writ all it means is that in a fight the warlord helps out given directions and such. after the fight he has no more reason to be the leader then anyone else.

if you made a warlord a subclass of anyone then it would either cripple him or overpower whoever he is a subclass of.

[captpike]

On the other hand, if there are no meaningful differences between wiz spells, sorc spells, and psion spells, then there's no need to have three classes there. All three are straightforward spellcasters with very little class features other than casting, and just different ways of limiting the amount of castings per day.

if what I bolded is true then I would argue they are not even different classes, a class should be more then how you cast spells, it should be what spells you cast and what they do.

[tcrudisi]

Can someone give me an unbiased report on 5e and the differences between it and 3.x and 4e?

I began the 5e playtest when it first started but ... I didn't care for it. I'm hoping things changed.

[Morty]

This. Slapping a ****ty fighter and a ****ty wizard together and calling it a battlemage is the worst way to go about playing the class. If we're complaining about Final Fantasy I fighters we certainly shouldn't be talking about playing Final Fantasy I red mages either.

"Battlemage" as an extra class with things like soulknives and swordmages and psychic warriors and bladesingers keying off of it is a much better idea.

Yeah. This is something that has plagued hybrids of all sorts in D&D since 3e - I make no statements about the older editions, as usual, since I don't feel confident in doing so. If a class is to combine two different "power sources", so to speak, it shouldn't just do both, but crappily. It should have something unique that melds the two areas of expertise.

[captpike]

I also want at least 10 or so races, because why not? I honestly don't get why they only seam to put a few in each PHB, they take 1, maybe 2 pages, are easy to make.

[Kurald Galain]

Can someone give me an unbiased report on 5e and the differences between it and 3.x and 4e?
It's basically a stripped-down version of 3E with flawed math. All novel ideas from earlier playtests were removed in later ones except for ad/disad, and it doesn't really take anything from 4E except for healing surges. Most people agree that the latest (and final) playtest version is crap; opinions differ on how much the upcoming release of 5E will resemble this last playtest package.

[captpike]

it doesn't really take anything from 4E except for healing surges.

it even misses the point of healing surges and does them very poorly.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Can someone give me an unbiased report on 5e and the differences between it and 3.x and 4e?

I began the 5e playtest when it first started but ... I didn't care for it. I'm hoping things changed.

In all honesty what we have seen in the play test up till now... Could very well be nothing like what they will release.

There are accounts of D&D Next that is nothing like the public playtest.

[Zweisteine]

At the very least, the final playtest serves well as a way to introduce new players to D&D. It looks a bit like 3.5e, but is less complicated, so it's easier for new players to understand, especially when it comes to magic.

Some of the things it does are interesting, but a lot is lackluster, and some seems far too restricting.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Oh, they so far are reusing the Sorcerer image from 3.5... Yeah the one where he has a short spear and a shining hand.

-_-

[obryn]

It's basically a stripped-down version of 3E with flawed math. All novel ideas from earlier playtests were removed in later ones except for ad/disad, and it doesn't really take anything from 4E except for healing surges. Most people agree that the latest (and final) playtest version is crap; opinions differ on how much the upcoming release of 5E will resemble this last playtest package.
Yeah, it resembles 3.x more than any other edition, though it has a few 4e elements that are still causing crazy-weird edition-wars-by-proxy. Like At-Will magic for spellcasters, (lame) maneuvers for Fighters, that sort of thing.

I don't think the math is very broken for combat applications. For skill use, the question's less clear.


it even misses the point of healing surges and does them very poorly.
This is also true. The self-healing part was kept, but their use as a pacing mechanism was scrapped.


Oh, they so far are reusing the Sorcerer image from 3.5... Yeah the one where he has a short spear and a shining hand.

-_-
Don't expect that to be the final image. :smallsmile:

[Oracle_Hunter]

A few, and some thoughts.

I especially like this concept of Willpower points you mentioned in your blog. Are you still planning on making a system for those? In particular, built-in ability modify one's own spells really shines. I've wanted a design like this for magical abilities for a long time, and while many games have something likeit --including D&D at times (remember the 3.5 warlock and all its invocations)--D&D continues to have a lot of unexplored space for this concept.

Would Combat magics empowered with Willpower have similar dearth and value to a "full" spell, or would they function more like augmented at-wills as with 4E psionics? Or, perhaps--as your summary seemed to suggest--Combat magics + Willpower would fill the role of "encounter attack powers" whereas prayers and spells would have a deeper utility/environmental underpinning.

I love the separation of magic into categories by intended use--4E tried this (with a good bit of success IMO) such as with rituals, so creating a different subsystem for a cleric's sacred flames, distinguishing from their impromptu rite praying over an area to sanctify it, feels very natural and--for those that might worry about it--helps ceremonial or "big magic" feel less pew-pew.

In your system, what would be the range of possibility for, say, an invoker--someone who wants to pray to deities to besiege the army of kobolds with plagues, rather than the traditional divine emphasis on helping over hurting? In other words, would spell options vary by role in addition to power source?

Lastly, what do you think about letting go of the very idea of "spells" as they traditionally work in D&D? Perhaps not eradicating the idea so much as making a range of magical effects not tied to a spell block, and broadening to include a variety of magic-themed mechanics. Similar to how we've had eldritch blasts, invocations, spell-like abilities, ki powers, channel divinity, etc, etc, accumulating throughout the editions.

I'd like to see more possibility for a character that is very magic focused without necessarily having a "spell list" per se, insofar as we would have typically seen. I'll mention more on this below.

Responses!
So, "Willpower" is the modifier for Combat Magics. Roughly it works like this:

If you take the Sorcery Combat Style, you pick an element (acid, fire, ice, lightning) and you now have a ranged at-will attack that does some damage (let's call it a d10) that does element-type damage. By and large I don't plan typing to have strong mechanical elements, but weak flavor elements (e.g. Fire Sorcery could be used to light fires from pipes to hay-bales). You can use your base Sorcery all day, every day -- no limit.

Now, each level of Sorcery you take gives you a pool of Willpower Points ("WP") that refresh when you rest at Town or up to 1/2 if you Camp. WP can be spent to enhance one usage of that attack. Examples include:
Turn it into a Burst. 1 WP = 1 Burst Radius
Turn it into a Blast. 1 WP = 50' x 15' x 5' Blast. +1 WP for +5'
Shoot with Advantage.
Add ongoing damage
Add extra damage dice
Do half damage on a miss
All of those are probably not base, but you may choose, say, 1 of 3 per Sorcery Level.

Divine Combat Magic, I'm a bit fuzzier on. So far I'm thinking Curse (ranged attack) and Smite (empowering melee attacks). You'd have Piety Points that function like Willpower Points (or I might use the same nomenclature) but instead of elements you get to choose Radiant (extra damage to Undead/Demon) or Necrotic (extra damage to Living) damage. I'd probably have different Piety Modifiers based on typing with an eye to making Radiant stronger (since "Living" opponents are much more likely).

The reason I'm sticking within the D&D Spell area is because that's what the customer wants. For reasons passing my understanding, the return of Vancian Casting has been much ballyhooed and let it not be said that when the winds change, I do not also blow :smalltongue:

In G&G a "magical character" as you described would have Magic Combat and Magic Exploration but choose neither Magic Profession. I can't have Anymagic in D&D (because it is impossible to balance against Vancian) but I have an excellent Anymagic system I whipped up to fix oWoD Mage that still needs a (copyright-free) home :smallbiggrin:
I hope that answers everything. If not, say it again using smaller, simpler words so that I don't miss it again :smallsmile:

[Pex]

The simple alternative is "I cast spells with slots and modify them with higher level slots", which is in they system already. No points since slots aren't actually tracked as points but rather as atomic items and spell modification using the system they're already using for spell casting.

The alternative being offered is "I cast spells with slots and modify them with higher level slots and ALSO use a separate system of points to modify them SEPARATELY according to a different set of rules for how points modify spells."

How is one of these not more complicated than the other? One has an extra set of points and an extra set of modifications and doesn't do anything the original system couldn't do.

Are we certain that's the case? Maybe the sorcerer will use spell points to modify his spells instead of using a higher level spell slot as the wizard.

[Doug Lampert]

I'm not sure how to take not having a question answered and then being posed the same question. I will assume "what" is your answer, and genuine lack of knowing, then?

"What?" Is that your question is a total nonsequetor and makes no sense.

Slots aren't points. You don't need points in any form to improve a spell.


Or flip it, reduce point value significantly. What's the difference between "I use a 3rd level slot and also a fourth level slot", and "I use a third level slot and one point"? Points could be viewed as slots set aside for specific use; after all, the sorcerer can cast with them.

Why in the world would you use a third level slot and ALSO a fourth level slot? They've PUBLISHED their system where you use ONE SLOT and a higher level slot modifies the spell. That's how their magic WORKS.

That's simple. Adding points is adding complexity to do something they already do simply.

You are MAKING SOMETHING UP where you use slots as if they were points and then arguing against that total strawman.

[squiggit]

Slots aren't points. You don't need points in any form to improve a spell.

When we're talking about a hypothetical point system... yes, you do.

I'm not sure why you're so confused the point was pretty straight forward: Modifying spells with points isn't notably more complicated than modifying spells with other spell slots.

Hell I'd argue it's probably easier to track it with a secondary resource, especially for a newer player who might not be as familiar with the system.

Basically: See what Pex says. I'm not sure why you're getting so flustered here.

[Just to Browse]

So as I understand it, an axe is the same as another axe not because the rules say so, but only if the DM remembers what stats he wrote down for his previous axe and reuses those, yes? If two players who independently create a character both use an axe, they're likely to end up with two different ones unless they both consult the DM first?

No, it's because the rules for the axe are in the section labeled "Weapons" in the game. But now because of the 3-trait rule, if the DM wants to invent weapons, he can do so by picking the three most relevant traits, and if the player wants to forge a new weapon, he can get DM permission and do the same. This way every weapon is relatively balanced, and you don't need to read people's rants about katanas being "thrice as sharp" or whatever.

If two new players use an axe, they look up "Axe" and write down the axe's traits. Then they use those traits for their axe. If one of them wants a weapon not detailed in the book, they do the usual and ask the DM.


Oh, they so far are reusing the Sorcerer image from 3.5... Yeah the one where he has a short spear and a shining hand.

-_-

The one with a hundred buckles for pants?

[Ziegander]

Also, Doug, I'm not saying it's not more complex, it is, but the Sorcerer has the option to modify/improve his spells with Sorcery Points (or whatever they'll be called) before he or the Wizard has access to higher level spell slots. So they could potentially make their spells more powerful with Sorcery Points before other classes are able to make their spells more powerful by casting them from higher spell slots. They can also, theoretically, simply spend their Sorcery Points to cast more spells.

[SiuiS]

Can someone give me an unbiased report on 5e and the differences between it and 3.x and 4e?

I began the 5e playtest when it first started but ... I didn't care for it. I'm hoping things changed.

Nope!


It's basically a stripped-down version of 3E with flawed math. All novel ideas from earlier playtests were removed in later ones except for ad/disad, and it doesn't really take anything from 4E except for healing surges. Most people agree that the latest (and final) playtest version is crap; opinions differ on how much the upcoming release of 5E will resemble this last playtest package.

See?


"What?" Is that your question is a total nonsequetor and makes no sense.

I find it funny that "I don't get that" or "I don't know what you mean" is somehow rendered in Internet Angryface as "you're speaking actual gibberish and also have the IQ of a melon".

If three other people get it, and you don't, I'm not the one with the issue.

[TuggyNE]

If three other people get it, and you don't, I'm not the one with the issue.

Well, there's a spectrum of miscommunication between "one person totally failed to write" and "other person totally failed to read", so I generally try to assume there was some sort of transient glitch and rephrase until something clicks.

It doesn't always come naturally though.

[Perseus]

Don't expect that to be the final image. :smallsmile:

Yeah, it isn't like wotc has ever reused artwork from one edition to another edition coughswordsagecough.

:smalltongue:

[Avilan the Grey]

But... I LIKE 5e.
Been playing a campaign now for several weeks.

Best D&D system I have played yet.

[Madfellow]

But... I LIKE 5e.
Been playing a campaign now for several weeks.

Best D&D system I have played yet.

First of all, I agree with you. I've always had issues with 3.5 and 4th, and I like a lot of the changes 5th has made.

Second, some advice: If you like 5th so far, leave this thread! This thread has no place for people like you and I.

[SiuiS]

Well, there's a spectrum of miscommunication between "one person totally failed to write" and "other person totally failed to read", so I generally try to assume there was some sort of transient glitch and rephrase until something clicks.

It doesn't always come naturally though.

I find that rephrasing sounds like making arguments or 'shifting goalposts', and it's not worth the effort when someone seems less intent on communication and more intent on being right.

[DeltaEmil]

But... I LIKE 5e.
Been playing a campaign now for several weeks.

Best D&D system I have played yet.


First of all, I agree with you. I've always had issues with 3.5 and 4th, and I like a lot of the changes 5th has made.

Second, some advice: If you like 5th so far, leave this thread! This thread has no place for people like you and I.You can both stay and write in this thread. Just write why you like it, how you think it could be improved further, which ideas you'd like to see implemented, or which ideas you think should be removed to make room for something else.

What you definitely never should in this thread is engage in edition wars (especially the 3e vs. 4e that happens all too often), or even worse, edition wars where you criticize one (or even more) edition(s) you practically know nothing about except through hearsay.

[obryn]

What you definitely never should in this thread is engage in edition wars (especially the 3e vs. 4e that happens all too often), or even worse, edition wars where you criticize one (or even more) edition(s) you practically know nothing about except through hearsay.
What's been very surprising is that a lot of the hate directed towards Next in this thread shows little or no connection with the last public playtest.

I think there's plenty wrong with Next; I didn't love our playtest of the system, and don't think it fits a unique gaming niche for me. But a lot of complaints brought up here just seem to come out of left field.

[Just to Browse]

But... I LIKE 5e.
Been playing a campaign now for several weeks.

Best D&D system I have played yet.

I have played fun games of D&D 4e, Danger Patrol, and Pokemon Tabletop Adventures. But those games are still objectively terrible.

Remember the anecdotal fallacy.

Edit: In fact, the one 4e series I played was more fun than half of the 3e series I played, but that doesn't excuse the failures in leadership and bad math that the design team came up with.

[Zweisteine]

Most people agree that the latest (and final) playtest version is crap.
The biggest reason I've heard for this complaint is that it too much resembles 3.5e. To that, I can say one thing:
Rather than looking at the playtest for new system with interesting innovations, look at it as a remaking of the old system, to be simpler and more appealing to (newer) players.

That in mind, I would guess that everyone's complaint is actually "I wanted something new, and the playtest doesn't have much of that at all."

I also agree with that complaint, though I like the playtest well enough.



Other random ideas:
Fighters should get ability caps increased, and more ability boosts (other classes should probably have it too, but fighters most of all).
Races should add their racial ability modifiers to their ability caps. This will benefit some races more than others, but for most races, it will be more of a fluff thing.
Fighters need more damage! Everyone outdoes them at low levels, including non-casters, and that is a problem. It's starting to look like linear fighters, quadratic wizards, logarithmic paladins (not too accurate, but it fits the naming pattern).

And a couple rules/character questions, if you don't mind answering them:
Can you dual-wield hand crossbows?
What tool proficiencies/languages should I get from background, if my classes got me thieves' tools and instruments? (and I'm either a high elf or one of the small folk)
What should I apply my expertise bonus to? (out of stealth, perception, persuasion, deception, insight, search, athletics, acrobatics, performance, and thieves' tools)
Playing a rogue/bard (starting at 1/1 and going to 2/1/mage 1), with final ability scores 13, 17, 14, 16, 13, 16 regardless of race, should I play a High Elf, a Lightfoot Halfling, or a Forest Gnome? I like the free cantrips, but halflings have the neat "move through enemy" thing, elves get perception and better speed, and gnomes get save advantage, which are all too good for me to choose between. The gnome ability to talk to small animals also is nice, because rat spies can be cool.

[Merlin the Tuna]

The biggest reason I've heard for this complaint is that it too much resembles 3.5e. To that, I can say one thing:
Rather than looking at the playtest for new system with interesting innovations, look at it as a remaking of the old system, to be simpler and more appealing to (newer) players.

That in mind, I would guess that everyone's complaint is actually "I wanted something new, and the playtest doesn't have much of that at all."The point (or at least, my gaming group's point) is that an incremental tuning of a mostly-bad system is still mostly-bad.

Setting out to make the fourth big-budget flavor of 3E is already a pretty underwhelming goal. I would argue that they've failed to appreciably simplify or set it up to be a more exciting to play, and they've done so while ALSO failing to fix some of the most glaring issues with the 3E chassis.

[Talderas]

I would argue that they've failed to appreciably simplify or set it up to be a more exciting to play, and they've done so while ALSO failing to fix some of the most glaring issues with the 3E chassis.

Would you care to elaborate on that? Because everything I've seen in 5th doesn't have, on the surface impression, the same level of exploitability or power that was inherent in 3.5. Many of the spells which caused issues have been drastically scaled back in what you can do with them.

Next's Proficiency system is drastically simplified in comparison to 3.5. Maybe you've never took the time to look at how varied and distinct any given class is but making a universal template for 3.5 was a huge PITA or required significant effort to do so. I've created a template for Next without much effort and as far as I can tell it works and calculates pretty much everything for the classes that I've checked against. If that isn't simplification then I don't know what is.

[Joe the Rat]

I have played fun games of D&D 4e, Danger Patrol, and Pokemon Tabletop Adventures. But those games are still objectively terrible.

Remember the anecdotal fallacy.Indeed. Given that people have been having fun with these games since the get-go (when the rules were brilliant or rubbish, as you prefer), enjoyment and mechanical quality are not synonymous.

I still think it has potential.

[Kurald Galain]

The biggest reason I've heard for this complaint is that it too much resembles 3.5e. To that, I can say one thing:
Rather than looking at the playtest for new system with interesting innovations, look at it as a remaking of the old system, to be simpler and more appealing to (newer) players.
I question the need for that. Assuming core-only, 3E is not particularly harder than 5E.


That in mind, I would guess that everyone's complaint is actually "I wanted something new, and the playtest doesn't have much of that at all."
While that's a valid complaint, it's far from the only one.


Would you care to elaborate on that? Because everything I've seen in 5th doesn't have, on the surface impression, the same level of exploitability or power that was inherent in 3.5.
Oh, but it is; it's just that 5E's exploits aren't as well-known yet. For instance, it does have a nasty diplomancer build starting at first level.

Now it's probably true for overpowered tricks that either people don't play with them or the DM vetoes them. But that goes for 3E and 4E as well.

[Zweisteine]

The point (or at least, my gaming group's point) is that an incremental tuning of a mostly-bad system is still mostly-bad.

Setting out to make the fourth big-budget flavor of 3E is already a pretty underwhelming goal. I would argue that they've failed to appreciably simplify or set it up to be a more exciting to play, and they've done so while ALSO failing to fix some of the most glaring issues with the 3E chassis.
1. 3.5e is not "bad." The system is incredibly powerful, allowing for a huge amount of variation. Even within core, the system is extraordinary. The balance issues do not make it a bad system.

2. The fourth version of 3.5? I suppose pathfinder might count...

3. They simplified a whole lot. Skills and feats are simpler, calculations are simpler (because of the few stacking static bonuses), the combat rules are simpler...

4. Even if it is just a streamlined version of 3e, Wizards will make money, and that is their biggest goal. We will buy the books, because we want to have them, and Wizards will make money. As long as it doesn't crash too hard, this one will attract an audience, and Wizards will keep D&D going.


My personal complaint about 5e is the lack of monsters being people. So far as I can tell, they are not created using the same rules as characters, so you can not play a monster, except for those with PC rules provided. What if I want to play a dragon some time, or a troll? (and if they do include rules for monster PCs, will the abilities monstrous PCs get from their race be the same as those the base monster gets?)


On another note, as soon as 5e comes out, I'm going to start a dysfunctional rules thread, just to see how dysfunctional the rules actually are.

Here's my first entry: A paladin 7/cleric 1 does not have Extra Attack, because it is a multiclass character who does not have 8 levels in classes with Extra Attack.


EDIT:
And no answers for my questions from my previous post?

[Morty]

1. 3.5e is not "bad." The system is incredibly powerful, allowing for a huge amount of variation. Even within core, the system is extraordinary. The balance issues do not make it a bad system.


3.5 only gives anything resembling variation if you use a ton of splatbooks. In core, it's suffocatingly restrictive. To give credit where credit's due, at least D&D Next is slightly more forgiving of certain character concepts. You can make a swashbuckler type using the last playtest packet without getting drunk on despair, for instance.

[Zweisteine]

3.5 only gives anything resembling variation if you use a ton of splatbooks. In core, it's suffocatingly restrictive.
I respectfully disagree. If you look at RAW and special abilities as a source of flavor, that may be true, but the fluff says otherwise. The fighter could be anything from a battle-hardened mercenary to a renowned general. A wizard can be a shadowy necromancer or a noble enchanter. Sure, splatbooks get you special powers based on your fluff, but core works well enough to have all the variation a D&D world might need. (Except psionics. You need the EPH for that.)

Sure, it might not do the best job at making each concept feel special, but the possibilities are there.

[Avilan the Grey]

I have played fun games of D&D 4e, Danger Patrol, and Pokemon Tabletop Adventures. But those games are still objectively terrible.

Remember the anecdotal fallacy.

Edit: In fact, the one 4e series I played was more fun than half of the 3e series I played, but that doesn't excuse the failures in leadership and bad math that the design team came up with.

What anecdotal fallacy? It doesn't apply to my statement, since I was very clearly stating a personal preference.

[Knaight]

I respectfully disagree. If you look at RAW and special abilities as a source of flavor, that may be true, but the fluff says otherwise. The fighter could be anything from a battle-hardened mercenary to a renowned general. A wizard can be a shadowy necromancer or a noble enchanter. Sure, splatbooks get you special powers based on your fluff, but core works well enough to have all the variation a D&D world might need. (Except psionics. You need the EPH for that.)

The fluff does claim to have a lot of variety, yes. The problem is that the mechanics don't bear that out - as the example of the swashbuckler illustrates.

[Ceiling_Squid]

I have played fun games of D&D 4e, Danger Patrol, and Pokemon Tabletop Adventures. But those games are still objectively terrible.

Remember the anecdotal fallacy.

Edit: In fact, the one 4e series I played was more fun than half of the 3e series I played, but that doesn't excuse the failures in leadership and bad math that the design team came up with.

I need to resist being goaded by any sort of "objective" comments about 4e's quality as a game system. I really do, but it grinds my gears to put up with comments about how my favorite DnD edition is "objectively terrible". And look! WoTC's abandonment of the system and jump back towards 3e-style mechanics will feel like vindication for every single edition-warrior.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: WoTC's reactive backpedaling has alienated my group from the very outset. We cut our teeth on 4e and enjoyed it tremendously. I don't think WoTC knows how to retain a fanbase. Not every edition shift needs to be met with bitterness, but there ya go.

We've been occasionally checking up on Next, and it still fails to grab our attention. Just not the edition for us, I guess. So much for the marketing-speak about uniting the playerbase. Maybe if their efforts to take good lessons from 4e were something other than token gestures, I might actually give them my money.

WoTC's management during the late stages of 4e, and the way they've been handling Next is not filling me with any degree of confidence. DnD, as an ongoing brand, is largely dead to me at the present time. I'll wait until I see the finished product to make a final judgement call, but I do not have high expectations.

[Kurald Galain]

The fluff does claim to have a lot of variety, yes. The problem is that the mechanics don't bear that out - as the example of the swashbuckler illustrates.

I'm not sure which edition you were talking about, but this strikes me as one of the biggest problems in 5E at the moment.

[Morty]

5E suffers from this problem to a similar degree as 3E does, I think, with some exceptions. For instance, using Dexterity in melee is not a terrible idea, even if the list of weapons you can do it with is still small.

[Pex]

3.5 only gives anything resembling variation if you use a ton of splatbooks. In core, it's suffocatingly restrictive. To give credit where credit's due, at least D&D Next is slightly less forgiving of certain character concepts. You can make a swashbuckler type using the last playtest packet without getting drunk on despair, for instance.


You can both stay and write in this thread. Just write why you like it, how you think it could be improved further, which ideas you'd like to see implemented, or which ideas you think should be removed to make room for something else.

What you definitely never should in this thread is engage in edition wars (especially the 3e vs. 4e that happens all too often), or even worse, edition wars where you criticize one (or even more) edition(s) you practically know nothing about except through hearsay.

Case in point.

:smallsigh:

[Doug Lampert]

When we're talking about a hypothetical point system... yes, you do.
And that is more complicated than the system they have in place.


I'm not sure why you're so confused the point was pretty straight forward: Modifying spells with points isn't notably more complicated than modifying spells with other spell slots.
A system absolutely no one has advocated in any way on this thread. Suis CLAIMED I advocated this when I pointed out that we already have a system using higher level slots to upgrade spells.


Hell I'd argue it's probably easier to track it with a secondary resource, especially for a newer player who might not be as familiar with the system.

Basically: See what Pex says. I'm not sure why you're getting so flustered here.
Because you people are arguing against something I didn't suggest. Go back and read my posts again. There's nothing there about spending multiple slots.

[Morty]

Since I'm in a credit-giving sort of mood right now... I do like that D&D Next seems to follow in 4e's footsteps and doesn't give dragons spellcasting by default. It's a small thing, but dragons are a pretty big part of the game (duh) and they're better off not casting spells.

[NotAnAardvark]

I need to resist being goaded by any sort of "objective" comments about 4e's quality as a game system. I really do, but it grinds my gears to put up with comments about how my favorite DnD edition is "objectively terrible". And look! WoTC's abandonment of the system and jump back towards 3e-style mechanics will feel like vindication for every single edition-warrior.

I've said it once and I'll say it again: WoTC's reactive backpedaling has alienated my group from the very outset. We cut our teeth on 4e and enjoyed it tremendously. I don't think WoTC knows how to retain a fanbase. Not every edition shift needs to be met with bitterness, but there ya go.

We've been occasionally checking up on Next, and it still fails to grab our attention. Just not the edition for us, I guess. So much for the marketing-speak about uniting the playerbase. Maybe if their efforts to take good lessons from 4e were something other than token gestures, I might actually give them my money.

WoTC's management during the late stages of 4e, and the way they've been handling Next is not filling me with any degree of confidence. DnD, as an ongoing brand, is largely dead to me at the present time. I'll wait until I see the finished product to make a final judgement call, but I do not have high expectations.

Obviously you're just a terrible person for not understanding
what's "objectively terrible" and "objectively amazing".

More seriously, relax. We're here to talk about Next. Just giggle at anyone who actually thinks third edition is a well designed game (either "objectively" or even compared to 1st, 2nd, 4th or 5th edition) and move on. Edition wars are dumb.

[obryn]

Case in point.

:smallsigh:
as opposed to...

I have played fun games of D&D 4e, Danger Patrol, and Pokemon Tabletop Adventures. But those games are still objectively terrible.
...? :smallbiggrin:

[Madfellow]

WoTC's management during the late stages of 4e, and the way they've been handling Next is not filling me with any degree of confidence. DnD, as an ongoing brand, is largely dead to me at the present time. I'll wait until I see the finished product to make a final judgement call, but I do not have high expectations.

I think the way Wizards expects to appeal to 4e fans is in (a) the improved game balance and play guides and (b) the "tactical combat" module they keep mentioning. In a perfect world, a game could exist that could appeal equally to both 3e and 4e fans without such a module, but we don't live in a perfect world. They had to make a call.

And I'm with you on this. I enjoyed 4e more than 3e, and I enjoy 5e more than 4e. Each one has their bugs, but each one is a legitimate improvement on what came before, in my own humble opinion.

[Zweisteine]

And I'm with you on this. I enjoyed 4e more than 3e, and I enjoy 5e more than 4e. Each one has their bugs, but each one is a legitimate improvement on what came before, in my own humble opinion.How accurate are these guesses at your reasons for the order of preference:
3e was too complex, and too imbalanced.
4e is less complicated, but also less realistic/logical.
5e is like 3e, but a bit more balanced, and far, far less complicated.

[Madfellow]

How accurate are these guesses at your reasons for the order of preference:
3e was too complex, and too imbalanced.
4e is less complicated, but also less realistic/logical.
5e is like 3e, but a bit more balanced, and far, far less complicated.

No, more like:

3e was decent, but unbalanced and relied too much on magic.
4e was good, but needlessly complex.
5e is good and doesn't really have any problems that stand out to me.

[squiggit]

5e is like 3e, but a bit more balanced, and far, far less complicated.

My worry though... is 5e balanced because it's actually "3e but more well put together" or because we don't have splatbooks and haven't had months/years to break the system over our knees yet?


In a perfect world, a game could exist that could appeal equally to both 3e and 4e fans without such a module, but we don't live in a perfect world. They had to make a call.

Honestly I think the best 'perfect world' answer is to have an AD&D-ish style game (i.e. Next) and a 'tactics' style game after 4e. Hell could even throw in an OD&D game in there too.

I have trouble buying the idea that WoTC/Hasbro could only make/sell one game at a time.


How accurate are these guesses at your reasons for the order of preference:
3e was too complex, and too imbalanced.
4e is less complicated, but also less realistic/logical.

I know I'm not him but personally my biggest problem with 4e is that the game felt like it was abandoned before it was finished

My personal problems with 3e would be harder to quantify, mostly I guess the lack of polish and coherence of mechanics and lots of weird balance decisions. Magic being god is one thing but the degree to which the developers seemed to need to make sure martial classes weren't "too strong" really boggles the mind.


I think the way Wizards expects to appeal to 4e fans is in (a) the improved game balance and play guides and (b) the "tactical combat" module they keep mentioning.
Improved balance should theoretically be a plus for a lot of people, and I'm not sure what the latter is really going to do, it's not like 3e wasn't a grid game in many respects too. Not sure what other tactical ideas they have.

I know it's purely anecdotal but most of my friends that prefer 4e to 3e complain about character progression*: 7 feats and class features that are mostly static vs 4e's power selection mechanics. 5e is a bit better in that regard but a lot of them still cringe at the core system for martials being largely back to "I make an attack" gameplay.

*Oddly enough despite the general consensus that 4e is a more stifling game here a lot of my 4e gaming group seem to feel 3e makes it too hard to customize their character unless they're playing a spellcaster.

[huttj509]

My worry though... is 5e balanced because it's actually "3e but more well put together" or because we don't have splatbooks and haven't had months/years to break the system over our knees yet?


3e's broken in core...

[squiggit]

3e's broken in core...

Oh of course, but not as broken and it wasn't completely torn apart before the game was even released.

[SiuiS]

What anecdotal fallacy? It doesn't apply to my statement, since I was very clearly stating a personal preference.

Reminders are not accusations, friend.


The fluff does claim to have a lot of variety, yes. The problem is that the mechanics don't bear that out - as the example of the swashbuckler illustrates.

Swashbuckler?
Ranger. Rogue. Monk. Fighter. Depends on if you prefer swashbuckler to be high damage precision dueling, case rapiers and skillful maneuvering, the presentation of finesse, or actual capacity for detailed melee engagement.

Rangers make phenomenal monks, too. So do clerics (ironically), wizards make good priests, paladins make fine diplomats, archers and secret agents, sorcerers make good martial artists, barbarians have plenty of roles...

What is this hypothetical swashbuckler problem?


as opposed to...

...? :smallbiggrin:

Yep!

I don't think 4e was objectively bad by all rubrics. 4e was artfully and mechanically beautiful. It was a fantastically elegant game of parcheesi dropped into a poker tournament like it belonged.

And let's face it, by "gives experience of 3e with better mechanical elegance" 4e is objectively terrible.

[Talakeal]

Oh of course, but not as broken and it wasn't completely torn apart before the game was even released.

The moment the first wizard learned to cast shape-change the game was broken beyond repair.

[Grac]

Honestly I think the best 'perfect world' answer is to have an AD&D-ish style game (i.e. Next) and a 'tactics' style game after 4e. Hell could even throw in an OD&D game in there too.

I have trouble buying the idea that WoTC/Hasbro could only make/sell one game at a time.


I would really like it if they followed that line:
Basic Dungeons and Dragons
Advanced Dungeons and Dragons
Tactical Dungeons and Dragons

EXCEPT... I already love ACKS and am pretty monogamous with it now, and that is all the Basic I need <3

[Just to Browse]

What anecdotal fallacy? It doesn't apply to my statement, since I was very clearly stating a personal preference.

My deepest apologies for assuming you meant to stimulate discourse.

[Morty]

I don't agree with the view that 3e is balanced in core but becomes broken as you introduce splatbooks. It's broken well enough in core, and adding books actually improves balance, because weaker classes and concepts get options that help them. Poor Fighters, for instance, get a little less sad because they actually have interesting feats to spend their only class feature on. Rangers and Paladins benefit quite a bit from some of the spells introduced in Complete Warrior and Complete Adventurer. It becomes easier to build a rogue who uses ranged weapons and still manages to get some Sneak Attacks in. You can make a decent duellist type by multiclassing Swashbuckler with Rogue and taking the Daring Outlaw feat. And so on. Yes, spellcasters also get new toys, a lot of which are ludicrously powerful - but they don't really need them to dominate other characters if they want to, so I think it ends up in favour of a bit more balance between classes. That, and splatbooks actually introduce more balanced options for playing magic-users, such as Beguilers, the Shapeshifting Druid variant, or arguably Warlocks.

[obryn]

I don't agree with the view that 3e is balanced in core but becomes broken as you introduce splatbooks. It's broken well enough in core, and adding books actually improves balance, because weaker classes and concepts get options that help them.
This is true of both 3e and 4e. In 3e, the Wizard, Cleric, and Druid, using only PHB1 spells, feats, etc., are still at the top of Tier 1 and only get moreso as they get more spells & options.

Part of it is an inevitable naivete about the system; thousands of pairs of eyes and countless hours of play will be more revealing than even a thorough playtest. At this point, for example, it's easy to see that the 4e authors didn't really understand the workings of their own system when the PHB1/DMG1/MM1 were introduced. Random, weird stuff like V-shaped classes with two prime stats, non-functional monster templates, magic item thresholds for NPCs, the entire MM1... And, much like in 3e, the top tier members of each Role are PHB1 classes - Fighter, Ranger, Wizard, and Warlord. The good part is that they figured it out as the game went on and actually bothered to publish errata to fix most of the early mechanical issues, so the game right now in 2014 is slick and polished.

I think we'll see the same in Next, but not until we have the final game. When you have so many moving parts, as in any RPG that tends towards the rules-heavy side, there are bound to be unexpected synergies.

[SiuiS]

What's a V-shaped class?

[Madfellow]

It's a class that has 2 primary stats and 1 secondary stat, as opposed to 1 primary stat and 2 secondaries. It's 4e's equivalent to a MAD class, though not nearly as crippling.

[Morty]

This is true of both 3e and 4e. In 3e, the Wizard, Cleric, and Druid, using only PHB1 spells, feats, etc., are still at the top of Tier 1 and only get moreso as they get more spells & options.

Part of it is an inevitable naivete about the system; thousands of pairs of eyes and countless hours of play will be more revealing than even a thorough playtest. At this point, for example, it's easy to see that the 4e authors didn't really understand the workings of their own system when the PHB1/DMG1/MM1 were introduced. Random, weird stuff like V-shaped classes with two prime stats, non-functional monster templates, magic item thresholds for NPCs, the entire MM1... And, much like in 3e, the top tier members of each Role are PHB1 classes - Fighter, Ranger, Wizard, and Warlord. The good part is that they figured it out as the game went on and actually bothered to publish errata to fix most of the early mechanical issues, so the game right now in 2014 is slick and polished.

I think we'll see the same in Next, but not until we have the final game. When you have so many moving parts, as in any RPG that tends towards the rules-heavy side, there are bound to be unexpected synergies.

It's also something people noticed in the New World of Darkness, in a way. The notion of balance doesn't really apply there, but nonetheless, the earlier games, like Werewolf and Vampire, have simpler rules, and their supernatural powers are sometimes too watered down. Later gamelines have more interesting features and powers. This is why they're doing rules revisions now. So, all in all, "balanced at first, broken by supplements" doesn't apply as often as some think.


It's a class that has 2 primary stats and 1 secondary stat, as opposed to 1 primary stat and 2 secondaries. It's 4e's equivalent to a MAD class, though not nearly as crippling.

In my limited experience with 4e, the main problem with such classes is that about half of the class's powers will end up useless to you.

[squiggit]

My point wasn't supposed to be that 3e was balanced at core so much as that the game wasn't completely broken on day 1 and I think it's way too early to start calling Next balanced when we're not even that far along.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

My point wasn't supposed to be that 3e was balanced at core so much as that the game wasn't completely broken on day 1 and I think it's way too early to start calling Next balanced when we're not even that far along.

But 3e was, people may not have been able to see it, but it was broken. Very very broken.

At one time we didn't have a speed for light. Now we do. Does that mean that light before we measured it didn't have that speed? No, light still traveled at the same velocity even before we recognized that light traveled at a certain velocity.

[SiuiS]

It's a class that has 2 primary stats and 1 secondary stat, as opposed to 1 primary stat and 2 secondaries. It's 4e's equivalent to a MAD class, though not nearly as crippling.

Huh. I never had a problem there. 16s are considered good stats.

I never did grok this whole "I need a +1 to attack per tier or THE GAME IS BROKEN OH MY GOD" mentality. It's five freaking percent. Why not just lower defense?


My point wasn't supposed to be that 3e was balanced at core so much as that the game wasn't completely broken on day 1 and I think it's way too early to start calling Next balanced when we're not even that far along.

This is demonstratably untrue. The 3.5 revision was specifically because the game was so broken on day 1 that it could not have supported it's own weight for long. They kept up on inertia, but some thigs were so bad they were laughable; any character with 1 level of bard had full bardic music. One level of paladin got you immunity to everything and Cha for saves. A two weapon cleaving whirlwind attack fighter was a hecatoncheire, throwing a jar of flies to the ground and then unloading a flurry of dozens of attacks. Color spray still meant a level one sorcerer with accidentally good spell selection was shutting down entire encounters by herself while the fighter had to rely on grit and teamwork.

Oh ho! Very clever. You almost got me to make an abstract statement about how a system could be evaluated, which would have led to me actually giving a damn about Next. Well played.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Huh. I never had a problem there. 16s are considered good stats.

I never did grok this whole "I need a +1 to attack per tier or THE GAME IS BROKEN OH MY GOD" mentality. It's five freaking percent. Why not just lower defense?



This is demonstratably untrue. The 3.5 revision was specifically because the game was so broken on day 1 that it could not have supported it's own weight for long. They kept up on inertia, but some thigs were so bad they were laughable; any character with 1 level of bard had full bardic music. One level of paladin got you immunity to everything and Cha for saves. A two weapon cleaving whirlwind attack fighter was a hecatoncheire, throwing a jar of flies to the ground and then unloading a flurry of dozens of attacks. Color spray still meant a level one sorcerer with accidentally good spell selection was shutting down entire encounters by herself while the fighter had to rely on grit and teamwork.

Oh ho! Very clever. You almost got me to make an abstract statement about how a system could be evaluated, which would have led to me actually giving a damn about Next. Well played.

I read this with a stuffy gentlemen voice and pictured your avatar with a monocol, top hat, and handlebar mustache.

Thank you, that was a good laugh/mental image.

[captpike]

I read this with a stuffy gentlemen voice and pictured your avatar with a monocol, top hat, and handlebar mustache.

Thank you, that was a good laugh/mental image.

you know I think the internet would be a cooler place if you imagine everyone like that, imagine flame wars between people with tophats and monocols arguing politely.

[obryn]

Huh. I never had a problem there. 16s are considered good stats.

I never did grok this whole "I need a +1 to attack per tier or THE GAME IS BROKEN OH MY GOD" mentality. It's five freaking percent. Why not just lower defense?
Without getting into it on the math, it's basically a MAD issue. Not as big a MAD issue as, say, 3.5 Paladins, but still. :smallsmile:

The majors problem with it are (1) while having a +1 difference isn't a big deal at first, you can't raise 3 stats in a reasonable fashion to keep up moving forward, requiring specialization down one branch or sacrifice of your rider effects; and (2) if you specialize down one branch as you almost must, half the class's powers are useless to you. Early on in the edition, you also had (3) there aren't enough powers to specialize down one branch; for example, Paladins only had Charisma-based powers for their Level 9 Daily, IIRC.

Star-pact warlocks are one of the main cases in point, here, showcasing why I consider V-shaped classes a design flaw instead of just a quirk. They had to have both Charisma and Constitution as their casting stats, and then Intelligence as their tertiary "rider" stat. This was compounded because Intelligence was what they needed for their AC to improve, and they couldn't afford to be yet more MAD to qualify for heavier armor proficiencies.

Design moved on, though, and PHB2 and onward only featured "A-shaped" classes. And books like Divine Power filled in gaps, making both branches for V-shaped classes viable. (And the Star Pact Warlock? Some of their powers, including Dire Radiance, their required At-Will, were errata'd to use either casting stat, making them much more viable.) So it's not as insoluble a problem as MM1 monster math, but I still consider it a design error.

[Morty]

I vaguely remember homebrewing some goblin enemies for 4e, years ago, and when I followed the guidelines for monster creation, I wound up with a 3rd level goblin artillery who chucked bombs at people, and could apparently wipe up a party real quick because of how much damage he dealt. Something was a bit wrong there, I think.

As for the "was 3e broken at the start" debate, perhaps a better way of putting it would be to say that all the problems people perceive with the game were there the moment the Core Trio hit the shelves. Splatbooks didn't really make them worse, and in some cases made them better.

[squiggit]

At one time we didn't have a speed for light. Now we do. Does that mean that light before we measured it didn't have that speed? No, light still traveled at the same velocity even before we recognized that light traveled at a certain velocity.
I'm not talking about objective fact but subjective perception
At one time the people designing and playtesting 3.5 thought the fighter, monk and paladin were reasonably effective and that things like elaborate feat trees were required to keep martial characters in check.

So I'm skeptical about calling 5e a well balanced game when the product hasn't even come out yet, which was the whole point of my comment.

[captpike]

I'm not talking about objective fact but subjective perception
At one time the people designing and playtesting 3.5 thought the fighter, monk and paladin were reasonably effective and that things like elaborate feat trees were required to keep martial characters in check.

So I'm skeptical about calling 5e a well balanced game when the product hasn't even come out yet, which was the whole point of my comment.

honestly I doubt their competence if they though PHB1 3e lv20 fighter was equal to a PHB1 3e Lv20 wizard in power and usefulness. and they certainly knew it was the case in 3.5

I think they either wanted non-casters to be much weaker for "realism" or "because that is how D&D is" or they just did not know what they were doing.

[Merlin the Tuna]

Without getting into it on the math, it's basically a MAD issue. Not as big a MAD issue as, say, 3.5 Paladins, but still. :smallsmile:


<snip>This is a pretty good breakdown. The only other piece I would add is that a V-class inherently weakens the class' archetype. If I say "Barbarian" or "Berserker" in the context of an RPG, the mind immediately jumps to Darth Conan, muscle-bound, veinous, and screaming bloody murder. Your particular Barb might be strong and quick, strong and tough, strong and perceptive, or strong and imposing, but a/the major unifying theme of the class is a strong guy. As soon as you show me a barbarian that is quick and perceptive but not strong, I'm left scratching my head as to what "Barbarian" actually means. Double that if his quickness ends up functioning essentially the same way as the first guy's strength.

Only having half a class' worth of powers like you mention is inherently related to that. But I'd argue that they never really learned their lesson completely, if only because of the huge numbers of Fighter and Ranger spin-offs that kept getting introduced. Even though they frequently worked stat-wise, there were other limiting factors (must have a 2H weapon/shield/2 weapons/an open hand/a thrown weapon/a bow/etc., various keywords like for the Battlerager) that similarly split the class into a number of wildly different kinds of characters. Class flexibility is great, but you need to remember that the entire idea of a "class" is to categorize character types & skillsets. If your class encompasses both <A> and <The exact opposite of A>, you probably haven't defined the class appropriately.

[obryn]

The only time where I think a class did that is actually a late-game addition called the Bladesinger. It was a wizard, but it wasn't wizard-ish at all. It was also really bad, but that's neither here nor there. It basically used some of the same class features and parts of the power list, but it turned a ranged controller into a melee striker (with weak control).

The Strength Cleric was a bit weird, though, I'll grant. It was a new archetype, and is now arguably the best kind of cleric you can make. :smallsmile: Fortunately, there was never a quick, charismatic barbarian!

[Morty]

I have no trouble imagining a barbarian who is more quick than strong, concept-wise. D&D has always been too hung up on making warriors strong first and foremost. There's nothing really wrong with a class getting to pick between two "primary" attributes. It just didn't fit 4e's design for class powers.

[Kurald Galain]

The only time where I think a class did that is actually a late-game addition called the Bladesinger. It was a wizard, but it wasn't wizard-ish at all. It was also really bad, but that's neither here nor there. It basically used some of the same class features and parts of the power list, but it turned a ranged controller into a melee striker (with weak control).

Oh, there's a few more. There's the barbarian that pretends to be a defender, there's the fighter that's suddenly dex-based and a striker, there's the wizard that gains power from a pact with an otherworldly entity (which is the warlock's shtick) and a warlock that runs on elemental power (which is the sorcerer's shtick), and I'm sure a few others as well.

The thing is: WOTC has to do it to please its fans. When 4E first came out, there were people who wanted to play an agile fighter wielding two weapons. And they were told sure, you can do that, just use the Ranger class, because the fighter class is the heavily armored guy with a big weapon. But enough people were angry or disappointed at that, that WOTC eventually had to print an agile fighter wielding two weapons, essentially reprinting the ranger class under a different name.

I think the lesson we can take from this is that trying to please everyone erodes a game's design philosophy.

[captpike]

I have no trouble imagining a barbarian who is more quick than strong, concept-wise. D&D has always been too hung up on making warriors strong first and foremost. There's nothing really wrong with a class getting to pick between two "primary" attributes. It just didn't fit 4e's design for class powers.

this.

you could for example have given paladins the ability to be cha or str primary, and have all of their powers reflect that choice and it could work, but that is not what they did.

[Merlin the Tuna]

I have no trouble imagining a barbarian who is more quick than strong, concept-wise.

I agree that that's fine as a little-b barbarian, it just doesn't work as a capital-B Barbarian whose concept is built around the idea of hulking out. Build the character as a Monk or Rogue or whatever and play him as a wild man and an outsider. There's no point making him a Barbarian mechanically if you're avoiding or subverting all of the Barbarian's mechanics.

[Morty]

I think there's little point in the Barbarian class period, so I guess we agree.

[obryn]

I have no trouble imagining a barbarian who is more quick than strong, concept-wise. D&D has always been too hung up on making warriors strong first and foremost. There's nothing really wrong with a class getting to pick between two "primary" attributes. It just didn't fit 4e's design for class powers.
I think we're on the same page, more or less. The main issue is how it fits in with the rest of the system. I agree, there's good design space for non-standard concepts, but with how characters improved and how powers were written, there just wasn't a good way to go about it. V-shaped classes were, I think, attempting to do just this, but they had issues.

[Ceiling_Squid]

I know I'm not him but personally my biggest problem with 4e is that the game felt like it was abandoned before it was finished

...

I know it's purely anecdotal but most of my friends that prefer 4e to 3e complain about character progression*: 7 feats and class features that are mostly static vs 4e's power selection mechanics. 5e is a bit better in that regard but a lot of them still cringe at the core system for martials being largely back to "I make an attack" gameplay.

*Oddly enough despite the general consensus that 4e is a more stifling game here a lot of my 4e gaming group seem to feel 3e makes it too hard to customize their character unless they're playing a spellcaster.

I have to agree with you.

Sorry about the somewhat angry post earlier, but this post better articulates my issue with Next, and I think it pinpoints the source of a lot of my bitterness. 4e felt like it was aborted as an edition, rather than finished. It sort of just guttered out rather than was definitively ended. Lots of splats were outright cancelled in its final year, and WoTC left many dangling threads (Seeker and other under-supported classes being a good example).

4e fans were already burned before the new edition was trotted out, because of mismanagement and poor quality-control (looking at you, Heroes of Shadow). It's just salt in the wound, really, when well-received concepts from 4e (like the Warlord) were actively badmouthed by devs because they're trying to court the old 3.5 fanbase. It felt like "We're so sorry! Everyone who was complaining loudly about 4e was completely right. Screw our current fans! Reverse course!"

And the return of 3.5 core concepts like boring martial characters and caster supremacy is largely what sets me completely against Next from the outset. The gutting of interesting Fighter subsystems from the playtest did not please me.

Maybe 4e spoiled me with the idea that each member of a party could be a contributor. I felt like it helped for the party to meet up and collaborate about making an ensemble of characters who could operate like a well-oiled machine in battle, rather than building in a vacuum.

Sorry, just needed to gripe. I'm probably restating things that have been stated many times before, but I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who entered the DnD fandom as a 4e fan (I played a few one-shot games of 3.5 beforehand, but didn't really hit the DMing chair or play anything ongoing until 4e). This is almost all the DnD experience I have to work with, and I think they are burning an entire niche. In my estimation, WoTC has not handled the transition from 4e to Next with any level of grace or good PR.

I'll play Next when its out to give it a fair shake, but if its a step backwards, I'm not going to invest in it. I've already played a slightly-revamped 3.5 (Pathfinder), and I'm frankly not impressed. If that's all Next is going to be (stripped down, cleaned up 3.5), I cannot see myself enjoying it. There are too many core assumptions that I find odious.

[Dienekes]

I agree that that's fine as a little-b barbarian, it just doesn't work as a capital-B Barbarian whose concept is built around the idea of hulking out. Build the character as a Monk or Rogue or whatever and play him as a wild man and an outsider. There's no point making him a Barbarian mechanically if you're avoiding or subverting all of the Barbarian's mechanics.

Why? The closest thing to a D&D Barbarian I can think of is Cu Chulainn and his battle frenzy, when that happened he supposedly became as fast as lightning.

[1337 b4k4]

In my limited experience with 4e, the main problem with such classes is that about half of the class's powers will end up useless to you.

This is an inherent problem with tying class abilities and features to the numerical representation of the fiction. When attributes have very little impact on abilities (say a max of +3 from an attribute) and abilities are determined by some other measure (BAB, THAC0, or pre-3.x saving throws) then an intelligent barbarian, or a strong wizard or any of the other odder combinations are both easier for the player to implement and less likely to need their own special snowflake path that's useless to the rest of the people playing that class. Unfortunately, the more WotC goes down the "your stats are what matter for EVERYTHING, and the more they do so an use the reduced granularity mod system with a flat d20 rather than a roll under with a bell curve a la GURPS, the more this problem will present itself. In order to satisfy the "I want a strong raging barbarian" and the "I want a soft and sensitive barbarian that uses his wits and flits from limb to limb like a tiger, but no he's not a ranger because I don't envision him as a ranger", you need to have a set of powers and abilities that either one can access for their chosen stat and that the other will find useless.

In order for a class based system with attribute defined powers to work, classes MUST be strongly typed. The game must be willing to do what (as noted) 4e tried to do but failed, tell the player "you can play a DEX based fighter, they're called Rangers". Without this, you have classes with giant lists of powers that they won't need or find useful because they don't fit the instance of the class.


My point wasn't supposed to be that 3e was balanced at core so much as that the game wasn't completely broken on day 1 and I think it's way too early to start calling Next balanced when we're not even that far along.

Well, to start, 3e was broken on day one, since the issues people have with 3e are issues with 3e, not issues introduced by later rules changes. But further, it's worth remembering that (to my knowledge) 3e didn't have a half assed public play test broadcast across the internet for people to try and break before day 1 either.


honestly I doubt their competence if they though PHB1 3e lv20 fighter was equal to a PHB1 3e Lv20 wizard in power and usefulness. and they certainly knew it was the case in 3.5

I think they either wanted non-casters to be much weaker for "realism" or "because that is how D&D is" or they just did not know what they were doing.

Alternatively they missed the distinction between level and XP that earlier editions of D&D maintained, and in their attempt to have a unified class progression scheme lost the important power throttling that previous editions of D&D had, and since they were likely playing as adults, and playing under a lot of unconscious assumptions from being adults and players of old D&D, didn't realize what would happen when you placed those "unthrottled" classes in the hands of kids, teens and socially awkward geeks who are unable to self regulate. Yes, a Level 20 wizard and a Level 20 fighter aren't the same power, but they weren't supposed to be. Before 3e, a level 20 wizard (1,950,000 XP per the RC) would be going up against a Level 23 Fighter (1,920,000 XP per the RC). Don't get me wrong, there's a lot more they unthrottled than just XP and levels when they redid the wizard, but it doesn't need to be incompetence or malice, just and existing system with unexamined assumptions and a lack of consulting the primary source for reasons.


I have no trouble imagining a barbarian who is more quick than strong, concept-wise. D&D has always been too hung up on making warriors strong first and foremost. There's nothing really wrong with a class getting to pick between two "primary" attributes. It just didn't fit 4e's design for class powers.

Except there is something wrong, at least in a system where what you are good at is all about your stats. As you pointed out, allowing a class to blur their boundaries means that when you design for that bluring you introduce things that are useless to other users of that class.

Ultimately, the problem is that the core 4 classes (Fighter, Theif/Rogue, Cleric and Wizard/Magic User) were originally very strongly typed classes, each with one attribute that was "the attribute" and each with a strong about of thematic and rules structure and rails built around them. But players wanted to break out of those restrictions, and that's fine, it really really is, but D&D has been stuck for a while now between weak typed generic classes (hello Fighter) and extremely strongly typed classes that probably shouldn't be their own class (hello Paladin). My preference (as I've mentioned before) would be for WotC to nuke all the specific classes, come up with some core classes that are extremely general and SAD and then later release class books that give back the more specific implementations, with each specific one noting the parent class they inherit from, such that all of their specific powers can be easily back ported to the parent generic class. So for example your core classes might be:

Defender (STR), Striker (DEX), Artillery (INT), Support (WIS), Leader (CHA)

Basically, take 4e's roles and make them the true Classes that they actually were, then you can re-introduce old classes as strict subclasses of one of the core classes, who's powers can be back ported.

[Whiteagle]

Well, to be fair, that's pretty much the effect of having crossbows take a turn to reload. It's worth remembering the the original equipment / weapons lists in D&D weren't supposed to be "recommended adventuring gear" lists. They were pretty much reference lists of setting common equipment. If your adventurers carry a crossbow, it's a "engage from a distance and then discard and go to swords" type deal.
Isn't this how it is in Next?
All Crossbows have the Loading Property, which limits them to one shot per turn.

A Shortbow is better than a Light Crossbow if you have an Extra Attack, but Clerics, Monks, and Wizards don't have that anyways.

Meanwhile the Hand Crossbow can be used with a Shield, allowing Sword and Boarder's a Ranged Option that doesn't compromise their defense...

...The only REAL odd man out is Heavy Crossbow, which would only be useful for a War Cleric as he lacks Extra Attacks to put more Arrows down range with a Longbow.


What are they going to do for Gishes under the Fighter? Give them a selection of spells like a Paladin? How do they handle the whole armor/hand free for casting? Etc.
You can cast in any armor you are Proficient in, hence Dwarven Full Plate Wizards.

All Primary Casters need a Focus to add their Proficiency Bonus to Casting.


Of course, since the psion is traditionally the wizard reskin for spontaneous casting via spell points, it makes one wonder what they have in mind for 5E's psion :smallbiggrin:
Yeah, honestly I'd rather Psion be a Sorcerer Reskin instead of a Wizard, both intuitively shape the raw energies of the Universe after all.


At the very least, the final playtest serves well as a way to introduce new players to D&D. It looks a bit like 3.5e, but is less complicated, so it's easier for new players to understand, especially when it comes to magic.

Some of the things it does are interesting, but a lot is lackluster, and some seems far too restricting.
Indeed, most of the whining has been "But it's just simplified 3.x with nothing spectacular!"

I like this system, it's something I can see teaching to my Nephews, and that might be important now that the Baby Boomers are going to start dying out.


My personal complaint about 5e is the lack of monsters being people. So far as I can tell, they are not created using the same rules as characters, so you can not play a monster, except for those with PC rules provided. What if I want to play a dragon some time, or a troll? (and if they do include rules for monster PCs, will the abilities monstrous PCs get from their race be the same as those the base monster gets?)
Agreed.
My idea for the concept runs off the idea that Monster can be separated into a base Monster Race and a "Monster Class."
So something with the Race "Dragon" only has equivalent Racial Abilities and Modifiers to any other Player Race, but they can take their levels in the "Draconic Terror" Monster Class to gain more.


Since I'm in a credit-giving sort of mood right now... I do like that D&D Next seems to follow in 4e's footsteps and doesn't give dragons spellcasting by default. It's a small thing, but dragons are a pretty big part of the game (duh) and they're better off not casting spells.
Yes, they should take Spell Casting Classes just like everyone else!

[Lokiare]

My problem with 5E is that they claim it will allow everyone to play with their own play styles. This clearly isn't the case.

The general 4E play styles is not 'big powers that you click' or whatever. Its balanced tactical options on level up and from round to round during encounters (whether combat or not).

5e really fails to be balanced (quadratic casters and linear non-casters anyone? encounter ending spells anyone?), it fails to give options on level up (You get to choose a sub-class and level 3 and sometimes if your lucky you get to pick a feature every 3-4 levels or so), and certainly it fails to give tactical options from round to round (hitting it and killing it in 2-3 rounds is still better than reducing its effectiveness 99% of the time, unlike editions like 4E and in some cases 3.5E).

Then there is the problem of having to trade character concept for mechanical effectiveness. If you want to be a light armor heavy weapon fighter, you are pretty much out of luck. If you want to be a heavily armored Wizard (that isn't a dwarf) you are out of luck until you hit mid to high levels and even then you have to spend every feat you get on it.

There are a lot of things in 5E that I have problems with. I'm itching to get into an online game of 5E so I can totally destroy it by picking the 'wrong' spells or class features.

[Knaight]

I'm not sure which edition you were talking about, but this strikes me as one of the biggest problems in 5E at the moment.

The comment was about 3e core. As for it being one of the biggest problems in 5e, sure. It's not like it being a glaring flaw in one somehow means it isn't a glaring flaw in the other. Given that they are different editions of one game (though fairly divergent), I'd even go so far as to say that a glaring flaw in one makes the same glaring flaw in the other more likely. See: The decker problem in Shadowrun, which has plagued just about every edition to varying degrees.

[Lord Raziere]

Agreed.
My idea for the concept runs off the idea that Monster can be separated into a base Monster Race and a "Monster Class."
So something with the Race "Dragon" only has equivalent Racial Abilities and Modifiers to any other Player Race, but they can take their levels in the "Draconic Terror" Monster Class to gain more.


I have a similar idea, yes. make baseline versions of all races, then find explanations and ways to explain the more powerful ones.

but then again there is something to be said for that Evolutionist homebrew that allows you customize what you evolve into from any race.

which kind of brings up the General Vs. Specific problem in RPG's, where General is more flexible yet less flavorful, while Specific is more evocative and captures the concept better, it is less flexible and relatively wasteful. I mean while designing a race and race-class for every monster sounds good, where would we get the time and the room?

[Whiteagle]

which kind of brings up the General Vs. Specific problem in RPG's, where General is more flexible yet less flavorful, while Specific is more evocative and captures the concept better, it is less flexible and relatively wasteful. I mean while designing a race and race-class for every monster sounds good, where would we get the time and the room?
Supplements?
They have to have SOMETHING to fill all those splat books...

[Avilan the Grey]

Well, Someobody asked me what I like about DnDNext:

I don't have much to say... Never really looked at 4e. Played some 1e, some 2e and some 3.5e.

Next, to me, is everything that 3.5e should have been. Easy. Quick. Flexible. Adaptable. It is simplified, but I honestly don't feel like anything it cut out is missed. At all.
It might also boild down to the fact that we are playing with a hell of a good DM, of course, one of those who can improvise at a tip of a hat if we go off the rails, knows exactly how to get us back ON the rails without well, feeling like we are going back on the rails, and is very very good at describing, decisions and everything else important.

[Talderas]

Then there is the problem of having to trade character concept for mechanical effectiveness. If you want to be a light armor heavy weapon fighter, you are pretty much out of luck.

They exist. They're barbarians. Except they wear no armor, not light armor. They also get to add their constitution bonus and dexterity bonus to AC.


If you want to be a heavily armored Wizard (that isn't a dwarf) you are out of luck until you hit mid to high levels and even then you have to spend every feat you get on it.

If you want to be a heavy armor mage, all you need to do is be willing to give up your level 20 capstone ability and start out as a fighter, paladin, or cleric varient that gets heavy armor proficiency with mage level stats.

Next has done two things, they have rather strongly typed classes. If you want to do X then you should be playing class Y. There's a little variant and cross over in some cases but they make up for this by providing the "paths" for a lot of classes. If you want to provide party support and battlefield control? Then a college of wit bard is probably a better choice than a college of valor bard.

D&D has never had untyped classes. In fact the term "untyped classes" is pretty silly when you get down to it. They've had loosely typed classes but that's the extent. If what you want is an untyped system where you can create exactly what you want then you should be looking at classless RPG systems. May I suggest Paranoia?

--


Next, to me, is everything that 3.5e should have been. Easy. Quick. Flexible. Adaptable. It is simplified, but I honestly don't feel like anything it cut out is missed. At all.

This is what I like about Next. Easy. Quick. Flexible. It means it's easier to pick up and start a game. That was the nightmare of 3.5. It took me forever to create a damn character.

[Whiteagle]

That was the nightmare of 3.5. It took me forever to create a damn character.
I find Pathfinder even worse in this regard, with Point allocations and Modifiers all over the place...

[Talderas]

I find Pathfinder even worse in this regard, with Point allocations and Modifiers all over the place...

The problem is that with a typed system (class based) you have to mangle stuff together to make what you want if the class doesn't provide it on the box. This can require some rather imaginative gymnastics to create a character that can do what you want within the level constraint you're given. You need to get X class, which requires A, B, C, and D feat but you only have 6 class levels. So you need to find the right mixes of classe that either grant A/B/C/D or gives you bonus feats to take A/B/C/D while not dilluting yourself so much as to be ineffective.

Next is a bit simpler than 3.5 in this regard because everything revolves around proficiency so multiclassing is, on the surface, initially for increasing proficiencies and later for abilities.

Untyped systems are far easier to build to a concept because you don't have the rigid types to work with. You need X, Y, and Z to do A. So all you need to do is increase or add things until you have X, Y, and Z. Then you're done.

[Morty]

Except there is something wrong, at least in a system where what you are good at is all about your stats. As you pointed out, allowing a class to blur their boundaries means that when you design for that bluring you introduce things that are useless to other users of that class.


I did say "concept-wise". My argument was against Merlin's point that a barbarian shouldn't be more quick than strong from a flavour perspective, which wasn't actually his argument anyway. Mechanically speaking, I certainly understand the risks of mucking about with attribute dependencies.


Isn't this how it is in Next?
All Crossbows have the Loading Property, which limits them to one shot per turn.

A Shortbow is better than a Light Crossbow if you have an Extra Attack, but Clerics, Monks, and Wizards don't have that anyways.

Meanwhile the Hand Crossbow can be used with a Shield, allowing Sword and Boarder's a Ranged Option that doesn't compromise their defense...

...The only REAL odd man out is Heavy Crossbow, which would only be useful for a War Cleric as he lacks Extra Attacks to put more Arrows down range with a Longbow.


The actual problem is that the only thing the crossbows get in exchange for the necessity to load is a piddling increase in damage. That's what it comes down to. Even the classes that only get access to crossbows have better things to do with their actions.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I think there's little point in the Barbarian class period, so I guess we agree.

There really isn't a point for more than one class of each type and then allowing specializations ...

Warrior

Mage

Cleric

Make everything else a sub class option (sorcerer bard paladin rogue barbarian...) And give players more choices to take up subclass options.

Level 1, level 3, level 4, level 6, level 7, level 9 ...etc

Level 20 can be a cap stone. Have all subclass choices be based on ECL and not on what you took before or what ability scores you have.

At every four ECL you can gain a bonus to 2 ability scores. One of your choice and the other is a option between ones that your subclass gives you (rogue subclasses would allow dex and int or cha and barbarian subclass options would give you a choice between str and con or dex).

Actually I think I might just make a system where you can do that... Hmm.

You could make multiclassing be taking other classes subclass options and gaining a class ability from the new class but not get all the added stuff (attack bonuses and proficiencies) of the new class.

A Mage may want to take the warrior subclass (rogue) ability "sneak attack" for a multi class option. The mage would gain sneak attack of that level but would need to further invest to gain more sneak attack damage and effects (just as a warrior (rogue) would). A Warrior who wants to cast spells could take the mage (evoker) subclass options and gain x evocation spells that a mage would normally gain from taking that subclass but the warrior wouldn't gain as many spells per day.

I need to think this out more.

[Merlin the Tuna]

There really isn't a point for more than one class of each type and then allowing specializations ...

Warrior

Mage

Cleric

<snip>Do the Wizard and Cleric need to be different classes? Isn't the cleric just a mage that happens to have healing magic and can wear armor for some reason?

At the risk of being too glib: a system needs as many classes as it needs. There's no magic number that's too high or too low. Sometimes the number is 0. For d20 Modern the 6 base classes (Strong Hero, Tough Hero, Smart Hero, etc.) are a pretty apt breakdown for putting together an ensemble action movie. It clearly does not port well to playing Call of Cthulhu though, despite the fact that both star ostensibly star a bunch of basically normal dudes.

For what it's worth, I don't think Mearls & company have adequately thought through the level of specificity a class should have in the system or how the class should serve the system. There's a lot of navel gazing along the lines of "We need to have a Sorcerer because people want to play a capital-S Sorcerer," but not a lot of figuring out why a Sorcerer needs to exist beyond the name. The Sorc is a particularly egregious example in my eyes, given the wild swing from the magical-shapeshifter from the playtest to the Wizard-With-Points that Mearls described in his last column.

[Merlin the Tuna]

Well, to start, 3e was broken on day one, since the issues people have with 3e are issues with 3e, not issues introduced by later rules changes. But further, it's worth remembering that (to my knowledge) 3e didn't have a half assed public play test broadcast across the internet for people to try and break before day 1 either.I may be screwing up my history here, but I thought that 3E had a humongous playtest but 3.5E did not. Or at the very least that 3.5E didn't credit the playtesters in the book whereas 3E did. Anybody have an old PHB they can check?

Also I seem to recall the 3E playtest only going up to around level 8 or so, and everything beyond was just put together based off of what looked right to the devs. That coincidentally is where the system basically breaks in half, so... yeah. There's that. :smallwink:

[Kurald Galain]

Do the Wizard and Cleric need to be different classes? Isn't the cleric just a mage that happens to have healing magic and can wear armor for some reason?
Well, it's fun to involve competing gods and pantheons. But yes, by origin the cleric is exactly a healing mage.


For d20 Modern the 6 base classes (Strong Hero, Tough Hero, Smart Hero, etc.) are a pretty apt breakdown for putting together an ensemble action movie.
Considering I can't think of a single action movie that has six characters like that, no, I don't think that's apt at all.


For what it's worth, I don't think Mearls & company have adequately thought through the level of specificity a class should have in the system. There's a lot of navel gazing along the lines of "We need to have a Sorcerer because people want to play a capital-S Sorcerer," but not a lot of figuring out why a Sorcerer needs to exist beyond the name.
I think that WOTC is (again) banking on the idea that if you include some game element named Foo, then that will satisfy fans of Foo even if it works completely differently from Foo in other games. We'll have to see how well that works for them this time.

[Svata]

Which one would the rogue and bard be subclasses OF, though?

[SiuiS]

Do the Wizard and Cleric need to be different classes? Isn't the cleric just a mage that happens to have healing magic and can wear armor for some reason?


No, a cleric and a Mage are quite different. That D&D used a generic magic system and ported it across everything is sad, but a Mage is not defined by having magic, but by how they do magic.

A fighting man is a professional warrior (NOT solider!).
A cleric is a holy warrior of the faith, bringing miracles and basic training and striking at the heart of darkness.
A Mage invokes mysteries, pacts, and obscure mystic laws. They make agreements in darkness, pay tribute for power and play with fire, in both regards.

That puts a fighter above the other two in ways that matter, and differentiates the cleric – a skilled man at arms, though no heroic one-man-army, who calls down Pelor/etc. – and the wizard – who relies on lore, obscure rules, and loopholes in agreements to get reality to behave as they like – admirably and along the same lines that the genre honors (in fluff at least) for the last fifty years.

Wizard being the user of magic who can learn all magics and load the right bullets from his book, and cleric being the user of magic who can wear armor, and wield HOLY against undeads, and load chosen bullets from his godlist, are both only one way of handling it, and not the best.

I see Morty's point, now. D&D has existed for so long, it influenced fantasy media, which in turn fed back into D&D. Generations of people now take the description of what any one D&D class is as prescribing what it must be to be that class. What the next game designer needs to do is say "four asterisk all this baggage. I want wizards to be actual reality lawyers who propitiate for magics, and I want clerics to be the church militant, who bring forth miracles through piety, and any other concept can go boink itself until after we have that sorted".

I am going to set up my next game so all wizards are Shadow Casters and all clerics are True namers. Because however weak they may be, that makes a hell of a lot more sense.

[Friv]

There really isn't a point for more than one class of each type and then allowing specializations ...

Warrior

Mage

Cleric

Make everything else a sub class option (sorcerer bard paladin rogue barbarian...) And give players more choices to take up subclass options.

Level 1, level 3, level 4, level 6, level 7, level 9 ...etc

I could make a strong case for a four-class base system:

Warrior (specializing in combat)
Explorer (specializing in non-combat abilities)
Mage (specializing in spells)
Cleric (specializing in divine favor)

Notably, in this system, the cleric wouldn't really be a spellcaster in the traditional sense without taking a subclass for it; instead, they would have a small subset of divine gifts that they could use at will. A cleric who wanted spells as well would take a mage subclass, a rogue would be an explorer subclass that produces a lot of thieving skills, while the warrior's Assassin subclass provides in-combat sneak attacks and stealth, and so on. Clerical subclasses such as the Paladin or Druid provide specific sorts of divine powers in addition to the general ones.

I'm not sure how important the subclasses are if you can switch between them, mind you.

[Merlin the Tuna]

No, a cleric and a Mage are quite different. That D&D used a generic magic system and ported it across everything is sad, but a Mage is not defined by having magic, but by how they do magic.

A fighting man is a professional warrior (NOT solider!).
A cleric is a holy warrior of the faith, bringing miracles and basic training and striking at the heart of darkness.
A Mage invokes mysteries, pacts, and obscure mystic laws. They make agreements in darkness, pay tribute for power and play with fire, in both regards.It was more a devil's advocate question than anything, but I'll bite with another one.

What is faith (in D&D especially) but paying tribute and swearing oaths to a higher power? What are miracles but the power you get for playing with that fire?

I agree with you that there's a very different mental picture for the two. (Although in mine the Cleric is not a walking tank because I think that's a stupid D&Dism. YMMV.) But like you said, D&D uses the same mechanics for both and ends up in pretty similar places for both. (Yes there is some nuance between Righteous Might vs Enlarge Person and Fireball vs. Flame Strike, but I hope we can agree on that much.) And you're right, it's unfortunate, especially as soon as we start using the Cleric as the template for petitioners of evil gods, warrior gods, magic gods, demons, and everything else. The distinction largely breaks down at that point.

If we want to make the case that Wizards and Clerics are different, then the system should actually reflect that by drawing boundaries and making them different.

Edit: I'm rereading the rest of your post and I think I may have just re-stated the whole thing? Oops. Sorry.

[squiggit]

What is faith (in D&D especially) but paying tribute and swearing oaths to a higher power? What are miracles but the power you get for playing with that fire?

That reminds me of an old thread I saw talking about clerics as divine pact warlocks.

[obryn]

The older I get, the more I'd rather see many narrow, interesting, flavorful classes with limited multiclassing. As opposed to a handful of bland & generic ones with abundant multiclassing.

Part of it is that I hate multiclassing, period. Part of it is that I like flipping through Archetypes in games like Feng Shui or Dungeon World and saying, "THAT. That's what I want to play." And a third part is a game design concern - when you get down to the point where your class is nothing but a framework to hang other stuff onto, why not bite the bullet and just do full point-buy or skill-based characters, already.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Which one would the rogue and bard be subclasses OF, though?

Bard would be a Mage Subclass.

Rogue would be a Warrior Subclass...

Actually change the name warrior to Adventurer or some other catch all name.

Also first level subclass options would give spell casting to a mage, however a cleric or warrior couldn't pickup the first level sub class option... Only the supporting ones.

So a mage could pick up their daily allotment for spells and such and the rest of the sub class option a will be lesser add one.

This would need to be balanced and dealt with but I think it could work.

First level subclasses would also include...

Ability Score changes (take away from races)
Added Skills to base class
Add or Remove armor and weapons of base class. (Warriors may be able to use all weapons but rogues specialize in sneaky weapons and thus would stop practicing with all weapons to gain better use of small weapons.)


There is no reason a rogue would have a different attack bonus (BAB) than a warrior... They both hit things hard just in different ways.

[1337 b4k4]

The older I get, the more I'd rather see many narrow, interesting, flavorful classes with limited multiclassing. As opposed to a handful of bland & generic ones with abundant multiclassing.

Part of it is that I hate multiclassing, period. Part of it is that I like flipping through Archetypes in games like Feng Shui or Dungeon World and saying, "THAT. That's what I want to play." And a third part is a game design concern - when you get down to the point where your class is nothing but a framework to hang other stuff onto, why not bite the bullet and just do full point-buy or skill-based characters, already.

Personally, I would much prefer that myself. But given the continual pressure on the game system to be law for all tables and have every table play the exact same way every time, and if it's not in the book in black and white then it's not in the game, I strongly suspect that won't happen. Strongly typed classes require people to create their own stuff outside the books because there's no way the designers will think of everything you could want. They also require a "fluff as mechanics" mindset, something a lot of people don't seem comfortable with. That's why I thought my earlier idea might be a reasonable compromise, where every very specific and strongly typed subclass lists their parent class for each ability and power so that those that want to build their own concept with multi classing and the like can simply work from the generic classes down.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Actually...

You could make all subclasses not connected to any main class.

You just add the subclass as a template overtop your normal class.

So you could be a Cleric that takes the first level rogue subclass or you could be a Warrior who takes first level necromancer subclass...

Hmm I like this.

[obryn]

Personally, I would much prefer that myself. But given the continual pressure on the game system to be law for all tables and have every table play the exact same way every time, and if it's not in the book in black and white then it's not in the game, I strongly suspect that won't happen.
Yeah, not at first - but it's one of the reasons I love seeing late-edition supplements. That's when we start to see crazy new non-generic stuff.


Actually...

You could make all subclasses not connected to any main class.

You just add the subclass as a template overtop your normal class.

So you could be a Cleric that takes the first level rogue subclass or you could be a Warrior who takes first level necromancer subclass...

Hmm I like this.
Once you get to this stage, what are you getting from class-based mechanics that you couldn't get from point-buy or skill-based character generation?

[Lokiare]

To me the class break down goes like this:
Fighter-Direct action based weapon and armor master.
Rogue-Uses deception to overcome obstacles.
wizard-Master of knowledge and preparation through magic.
Cleric-Holy knight that can perform miracles.

Just about every class falls under one of those. some fall under two or more. Like the ranger is part fighter rogue and cleric of nature. The paladin is a mix of cleric and fighter. The druid is just a cleric of nature. The barbarian is just a type of fighter. etc...etc...

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Yeah, not at first - but it's one of the reasons I love seeing late-edition supplements. That's when we start to see crazy new non-generic stuff.


Once you get to this stage, what are you getting from class-based mechanics that you couldn't get from point-buy or skill-based character generation?

People like classes. I know that is a horrid answer but people like the idea of classes and what that brings.

I figured if you can give people classes but give them the flexibility of the point or skill systems then people from both sides will like it enough to play it.


To me the class break down goes like this:
Fighter-Direct action based weapon and armor master.
Rogue-Uses deception to overcome obstacles.
wizard-Master of knowledge and preparation through magic.
Cleric-Holy knight that can perform miracles.

Just about every class falls under one of those. some fall under two or more. Like the ranger is part fighter rogue and cleric of nature. The paladin is a mix of cleric and fighter. The druid is just a cleric of nature. The barbarian is just a type of fighter. etc...etc...

I don't see why the Rogue and Warrior are different though. Warriors/Soldiers or whatever use deception just as a street thug/Con artist could. A general of an army my con their enemies into using horrible tactics etc etc.

It just seems like you could go... Non-Caster, DeBuffer, Buffer for your basic classes and then let people decide what to do from there.

More freedom = happier fan base (for the most part).

[Lokiare]

People like classes. I know that is a horrid answer but people like the idea of classes and what that brings.

I figured if you can give people classes but give them the flexibility of the point or skill systems then people from both sides will like it enough to play it.



I don't see why the Rogue and Warrior are different though. Warriors/Soldiers or whatever use deception just as a street thug/Con artist could. A general of an army my con their enemies into using horrible tactics etc etc.

It just seems like you could go... Non-Caster, DeBuffer, Buffer for your basic classes and then let people decide what to do from there.

More freedom = happier fan base (for the most part).

Well if you really want to generalize at that level you should just break it down into magic-man and non-magic-man.

However a Rogue approaches all problems with deception, trickery, and manipulation, whereas a fighter rarely does. They might try to outwit their enemy but their entire strategy almost never relies totally on deception. If your fighter is sneaking around dropping poison into food and manipulating people, then you know you picked the wrong class.

Generals are warlords not fighters. They direct others and lead them into battle. We are talking about a plain old fighter here.

Fighters don't sneak, bluff, or anything like that as far as how they fight. They seek out advantages and things like that instead based on their skill with weapons and armor.

Using skills you could probably build a fighter that might use deception, but they will always be second string to the rogue in that department.

I'd also just like to say the idea of a Rogue as a skill monkey only comes from one edition: 3E. In 2E they had a really horrible chance at only 4 things and everyone got non-weapon proficiencies. In 1E they could attempt certain things, but most of the time it was better for a caster to use a spell or the fighter to just take the hit from the trap or smash the door down because the rogues chances of detecting and disabling the trap or opening the lock were extremely low. In 0E their was no thief only the Fighting Man and he did everything the thief did. In 4E they get the same number of skills as most classes.

So this should be optional, not core.

[squiggit]

Personally I always thought "fighter" was such a broad term that I didn't like how narrow the scope of it usually is.

I mean why not have a cha or int secondary fighter who plays like a warlord? Or another sort of Cha fighter who relies on deception and bluffing and intimidation ( like the 3.5 samurai except not terrible and with more expansion on the concept). Or another sort of int fighter that gets warblade like tactical bonuses. Then there's plenty of room for your traditional str/con brute or str/wis combat awareness fighter.

A dex-y fighter could in turn be an archer or a finesse/TWF sort (like the 4e ranger, which is practically a fighter variation anyways).

Personally I don't have a problem with having a lot of classes, what tends to get to me though is when those extra classes are a variation on a core class. That's what 5e's subclass system should be built to do.

[NotAnAardvark]

Another random thought:

What campaign settings would people like to see 5e supporting? Any particular ones you want back? Or want abandoned? Or hoping they spend resources on something new instead of just pouring all their effort into that craptastic forgotten realms bull****?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Well if you really want to generalize at that level you should just break it down into magic-man and non-magic-man.

However a Rogue approaches all problems with deception, trickery, and manipulation, whereas a fighter rarely does. They might try to outwit their enemy but their entire strategy almost never relies totally on deception. If your fighter is sneaking around dropping poison into food and manipulating people, then you know you picked the wrong class.

Generals are warlords not fighters. They direct others and lead them into battle. We are talking about a plain old fighter here.

Fighters don't sneak, bluff, or anything like that as far as how they fight. They seek out advantages and things like that instead based on their skill with weapons and armor.

Using skills you could probably build a fighter that might use deception, but they will always be second string to the rogue in that department.

I'd also just like to say the idea of a Rogue as a skill monkey only comes from one edition: 3E. In 2E they had a really horrible chance at only 4 things and everyone got non-weapon proficiencies. In 1E they could attempt certain things, but most of the time it was better for a caster to use a spell or the fighter to just take the hit from the trap or smash the door down because the rogues chances of detecting and disabling the trap or opening the lock were extremely low. In 0E their was no thief only the Fighting Man and he did everything the thief did. In 4E they get the same number of skills as most classes.

So this should be optional, not core.

See, there is no good reason for this.

Why force people to play a certain why? What possible reason could there be that a Fighter couldn't choose to work on Stealth, Perception, and Bluff instead of Jump, Ride, and Intimidate?


Personally I always thought "fighter" was such a broad term that I didn't like how narrow the scope of it usually is.

I mean why not have a cha or int secondary fighter who plays like a warlord? Or another sort of Cha fighter who relies on deception and bluffing and intimidation ( like the 3.5 samurai except not terrible and with more expansion on the concept). Or another sort of int fighter that gets warblade like tactical bonuses. Then there's plenty of room for your traditional str/con brute or str/wis combat awareness fighter.

A dex-y fighter could in turn be an archer or a finesse/TWF sort (like the 4e ranger, which is practically a fighter variation anyways).

Personally I don't have a problem with having a lot of classes, what tends to get to me though is when those extra classes are a variation on a core
class. That's what 5e's subclass system should be built to do.

Very 4e of you. I love the idea of multiple options for each class. I just think if we expanded all those extra options to each class... We could open up a crazy amount of options that could be balanced.



Another random thought:

What campaign settings would people like to see 5e supporting? Any particular ones you want back? Or want abandoned? Or hoping they spend resources on something new instead of just pouring all their effort into that craptastic forgotten realms bull****?

Dark Sun, Spell Jammer, Planescape, Tippyverse, and Post Apocalyptic Tippyverse.

[Surrealistik]

Just went over the Alpha PHB. Upon perusing the multiclassing and spellcasting rules, as well as the spell lists (and the Transmutation specialist, lol; christ), it seems like WotC indeed opted to make the system 3.5 broken; pass. It's really such a shame because there's so much of it that otherwise looks fun to play and relatively balanced (Monk, Rogue).

[obryn]

Just went over the Alpha PHB. Upon perusing the multiclassing and spellcasting rules, as well as the spell lists (and the Transmutation specialist, lol; christ), it seems like WotC indeed opted to make the system 3.5 broken; pass. It's really such a shame because there's so much of it that otherwise looks fun to play and relatively balanced (Monk, Rogue).
Wait, the Alpha PHB? More recent than the October playtest?

Most borked thing in the last packet was the Enchanter's L2 feature. "Disadvantage on all attack rolls against me" is kind of intensely insane.

[Surrealistik]

What's worse is a loop of gold/weapon/armour production and simulacrums chaining into infinity.

[SiuiS]

Actually...

You could make all subclasses not connected to any main class.

You just add the subclass as a template overtop your normal class.

So you could be a Cleric that takes the first level rogue subclass or you could be a Warrior who takes first level necromancer subclass...

Hmm I like this.

That is identical to having bland classes and better feats.

[Ziegander]

Just went over the Alpha PHB. Upon perusing the multiclassing and spellcasting rules, as well as the spell lists (and the Transmutation specialist, lol; christ), it seems like WotC indeed opted to make the system 3.5 broken; pass. It's really such a shame because there's so much of it that otherwise looks fun to play and relatively balanced (Monk, Rogue).


What's worse is a loop of gold/weapon/armour production and simulacrums chaining into infinity.

I call bull****. What the hell are you talking about?

[Felhammer]

Another random thought:

What campaign settings would people like to see 5e supporting? Any particular ones you want back? Or want abandoned? Or hoping they spend resources on something new instead of just pouring all their effort into that craptastic forgotten realms bull****?

FR is going to be their poster child setting again, which makes sense. It is their most developed and popular setting by a wide margin. Plus, it is very traditional in its themes, look and feel. So, like I said, it makes sense that FR is their go to setting.

The setting I really want WotC to push is Eberron. I just cannot get enough of that setting. Perhaps advance the timeline by a year, thus giving the Devs the ability to really gnash their teeth on some new material (and by the same token, not force everyone to buy the same content again).

After that it just becomes a "please update every setting you have ever produced" ( Al-Qadim, Birthright, Blackmoor, Council of Wyrms, Dark Sun, Dragonlance, Ghostwalk, Greyhawk, Mystara, Nentir Vale, Oriental Adventures, Planescape, Ravenloft, and Spelljammer). Out of those, I'd say Dragonlance, Ravenloft and Dark Sun grab me the most right now but I have to admit, it would be cool to go back to the Nentir Vale in 5th edition.

[Axinian]

I'd want Ravenloft and Spelljammer back the most. I mean, those are both immensely popular and iconic settings, and if they're trying to recapture some "iconic D&D" you can't go wrong with bringing back these.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I would also like to see a no magic campaign setting that has steam punk items that replace magic. It isn't that magic is frowned upon... Just that magic doesn't exist. Classes like the wizard and cleric still exist, it they use items (they get for free through their class) to do their "spells".

Yeah quite a lot of changes for a D&D campaign setting right there but it would be bold and exciting.

It could introduce the Gedgeteer (no magic, steam punk tech artificer) and Desperado (gunslinger). It could also introduce steampunk battle armor (think FF mech suits).

It would need some tweaking and it isn't for everyone but... I think it could do nicely.

[Madfellow]

Another random thought:

What campaign settings would people like to see 5e supporting? Any particular ones you want back? Or want abandoned? Or hoping they spend resources on something new instead of just pouring all their effort into that craptastic forgotten realms bull****?

Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Rakugan, and Kalamar. A steampunk or Tippyverse setting sounds fun too, but I think either one would end up too similar to Eberron.

[SiuiS]

Rokugan is not a D&D world, really. It's the L5R property, though I believe Hasbro bought AEG.

[Madfellow]

Rokugan is not a D&D world, really. It's the L5R property, though I believe Hasbro bought AEG.

It started out as a campaign setting for 3e in the Oriental Adventures book.

[BWR]

It started out as a campaign setting for 3e in the Oriental Adventures book.

No.

Roughly, it started out as, and is primarily, a CCG by AEG. It's first edition RPG was published by AEG. Then some silly stuff happened and one of its story arcs was done under WotC management, which means today AEG can't even call the period by its real name and can't go into detail on what happened then. About this time IRL the second edition of the RPG came out, more or less simultaneously with OA, and WOTC decided to use Rokugan as the default oriental setting instead of something like Kara-tur. AEG published their own, far superior d20 version of the setting and all other supplements were dual-stat d20 and R&K. Then AEG got the rights back and could move on with the story. Since d20 Rokugan didn't do too well they didn't bother with it for subsequent editions of the RPG.

[SiuiS]

It started out as a campaign setting for 3e in the Oriental Adventures book.

As covered, legend of the five rings was it's own thing before any D&D company got ahold of it. It's actually quite a smashing standalone RPG. I don't think the d20 can do it justice, honestly.

[Madfellow]

My bad. Sorry.

[SiuiS]

No worries. It is a fun campaign setting, and very rich with lots of fun things to cherry pick (especially the feats, which had a lot of nice things for melee). If you liked it, try to get ahold of the lates L5R core book, give it a look-see and browse for cool ideas and concepts!

[BWR]

No worries. It is a fun campaign setting, and very rich with lots of fun things to cherry pick (especially the feats, which had a lot of nice things for melee). If you liked it, try to get ahold of the lates L5R core book, give it a look-see and browse for cool ideas and concepts!

What she said. The AEG designers were a bit shaky on d20 mechanics (even more so than WotC's designers), so you end up with some weird stuff sometimes, but on the whole it's pretty decent as far as 3rd party material is concerned.

[Felhammer]

Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Rakugan, and Kalamar. A steampunk or Tippyverse setting sounds fun too, but I think either one would end up too similar to Eberron.

The Kingdoms of Kalamar was created by Kenzer and Company. During 3rd edition, they purchased a license to the use of the D&D logo, thus making their products "official." The license was not renewed in 2007. There after, Kenzer and Company used the setting for non-GSL 4e books, as well as being the default setting in HackMaster.

[Lokiare]

I'm wondering if anyone heard of anybody that will buy 5E and play it as their main game.

Everyone I've asked laughed at me or walked away.

I asked one of my players to look at it, and they came back and said they deleted it off their computer and 'to never speak of this again.'

I'm wondering if 5E will become 'the edition that must not be named'?

[NotAnAardvark]

I'm wondering if anyone heard of anybody that will buy 5E and play it as their main game.

Everyone I've asked laughed at me or walked away.

I asked one of my players to look at it, and they came back and said they deleted it off their computer and 'to never speak of this again.'

I'm wondering if 5E will become 'the edition that must not be named'?

That's how 4e was leading up to its release too. And hell I remember more than a few people reacting negatively to 3e when it was new too (either because of some rules nuance or design issue or because there was no OD&D 3).

What I'm curious to see is whether or not we'll get a bunch of 4e grognards pushing a third party company into making a "this is totally not 4e guys" game that makes all the mistakes 4e did but still gets rabidly defended by its fans because "WOTC threw us under the bus with their new edition" and that's all they have left outside trying to homebrew which is messy, time consuming and hard to agree upon.

[Oracle_Hunter]

That's how 4e was leading up to its release too. And hell I remember more than a few people reacting negatively to 3e when it was new too (either because of some rules nuance or design issue or because there was no OD&D 3).

What I'm curious to see is whether or not we'll get a bunch of 4e grognards pushing a third party company into making a "this is totally not 4e guys" game that makes all the mistakes 4e did but still gets rabidly defended by its fans because "WOTC threw us under the bus with their new edition" and that's all they have left outside trying to homebrew which is messy, time consuming and hard to agree upon.
No, because WotC didn't spend eight years building up 4e as a brand before announcing 5e. Heck, they didn't even have branded stores this time around!

IMHO, folks reacting negatively to 5e is because there are fundamental problems with what we've seen. This isn't really about aesthetic differences -- it's just built badly.

That said, I've spoken with a super-secret playtester who says that, indeed, the current playtest looks nothing like what the public has seen. So there may be hope yet :smallamused:

[obryn]

I'm wondering if anyone heard of anybody that will buy 5E and play it as their main game.
I'll buy it, but I doubt it'll be my main game. Who knows, though, I saw some interesting stuff in the final public playtest and it might surprise me.


That's how 4e was leading up to its release too. And hell I remember more than a few people reacting negatively to 3e when it was new too (either because of some rules nuance or design issue or because there was no OD&D 3).

What I'm curious to see is whether or not we'll get a bunch of 4e grognards pushing a third party company into making a "this is totally not 4e guys" game that makes all the mistakes 4e did but still gets rabidly defended by its fans because "WOTC threw us under the bus with their new edition" and that's all they have left outside trying to homebrew which is messy, time consuming and hard to agree upon.
A few people are working on such things, but there's no consensus on moving to something else. I'm still running 4e as 4e and I'm happy with it. Hopefully if someone steps forward to do such a thing - much harder since it's not OGL, but still - they'll be better at design than Paizo. :smallsmile:

[1337 b4k4]

I'm wondering if anyone heard of anybody that will buy 5E and play it as their main game.


I would imagine the vast and silent majority of people who play D&D and don't actually care enough to get online and edition war will do so.


I'm wondering if 5E will become 'the edition that must not be named'?

Only to the overly dramatic.

[Broken Twin]

What I'm curious to see is whether or not we'll get a bunch of 4e grognards pushing a third party company into making a "this is totally not 4e guys" game that makes all the mistakes 4e did but still gets rabidly defended by its fans because "WOTC threw us under the bus with their new edition" and that's all they have left outside trying to homebrew which is messy, time consuming and hard to agree upon.

While I have neither played nor read it myself, I've been led to believe by a few that 13th Age takes a lot of the mechanics used in D&D 4E for their own. Not to the point that Pathfinder does for 3.5, but to a noticable degree. I would love if someone who has actually experienced it could chime in here.

[obryn]

While I have neither played nor read it myself, I've been led to believe by a few that 13th Age takes a lot of the mechanics used in D&D 4E for their own. Not to the point that Pathfinder does for 3.5, but to a noticable degree. I would love if someone who has actually experienced it could chime in here.
It doesn't. That was the rumor going around, but I didn't find it to be the case. It's more an outgrowth of 3e, with a few 4e-style mechanics and a lot of narrative stuff pulled in.

[Felhammer]

That said, I've spoken with a super-secret playtester who says that, indeed, the current playtest looks nothing like what the public has seen. So there may be hope yet :smallamused:

Which is why I have always laughed when people got so heated about the playtest. We were never playing the real game, just a simulacrum of various ideas and concepts the devs wanted to get feedback on. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't get me wrong, we definitely played with bits and pieces of the real game, just never all at once.

[Knaight]

I'm wondering if 5E will become 'the edition that must not be named'?

That would take screw ups far, far worse than those I've seen thus far. Synnibar levels of badness might get this. Heck, FATAL levels of badness wouldn't guarantee it, and there is no way 5e will even approach those (even the mechanical screwiness with that game, which is a side note to the main course of horrifically offensive stupidity).

[Jacob.Tyr]

Which is why I have always laughed when people got so heated about the playtest. We were never playing the real game, just a simulacrum of various ideas and concepts the devs wanted to get feedback on. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't get me wrong, we definitely played with bits and pieces of the real game, just never all at once.

I want to be upset by this idea, but at least it means maybe they might not be godawful at game design and just really terrible at marketing and PR.

"Test Drive this car for us!"
"Well... okay. It doesn't have seats or a windshield, so that's pretty awful. And the catheter system is awkward and painful. I guess the engine works pretty much like you'd expect an engine to work?"
"It's just a test drive, ignore all the missing parts and incomplete features, duh!"
"Yeah no, I'm never getting in one of these cars again. The having to stand up while driving and the tube in my penis are just too uncomfortable."
"You can't judge the final product based solely on a test drive! You should've seen the last test drive, you'd have liked it then. It was just a seat on top of an engine block!"

They might have some good parts, but seriously what marketing team would let you do that with your product?

[Morty]

Which is why I have always laughed when people got so heated about the playtest. We were never playing the real game, just a simulacrum of various ideas and concepts the devs wanted to get feedback on. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't get me wrong, we definitely played with bits and pieces of the real game, just never all at once.

The "bits and pieces" we've been given show terrible design, lack of imagination, a frantic desperation to play it safe and befuddling goals. More than that - Mearls's blogs show those qualities just as plainly. I'm honestly not sure why I'm supposed to take anyone's word that the final product will be good, since it'll presumably still be written with such charming goals as "the player can't think about a combat round for longer than it'd last in real time", "weapon-based abilities for martial characters are totally complicated", "plot-altering spells are balanced against more attacks" or "hit points are the best measure of a character's power in a world filled with disabling or instantly killing powers".

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The "bits and pieces" we've been given show terrible design, lack of imagination, a frantic desperation to play it safe and befuddling goals. More than that - Mearls's blogs show those qualities just as plainly. I'm honestly not sure why I'm supposed to take anyone's word that the final product will be good, since it'll presumably still be written with such charming goals as "the player can't think about a combat round for longer than it'd last in real time", "weapon-based abilities for martial characters are totally complicated", "plot-altering spells are balanced against more attacks" or "hit points are the best measure of a character's power in a world filled with disabling or instantly killing powers".

Maybe... Just maybe...

Like the playtest, perhaps Mike Mearls is a decoy? Perhaps he really isn't in charge of the game development but in charge of keeping people distracted?

Like... in a stupid attempt to keep things under wraps in such a way that no one would really believe it.

It sounds so stupid it just might be true...

[Ziegander]

I want to be upset by this idea, but at least it means maybe they might not be godawful at game design and just really terrible at marketing and PR.

"Test Drive this car for us!"
"Well... okay. It doesn't have seats or a windshield, so that's pretty awful. And the catheter system is awkward and painful. I guess the engine works pretty much like you'd expect an engine to work?"
"It's just a test drive, ignore all the missing parts and incomplete features, duh!"
"Yeah no, I'm never getting in one of these cars again. The having to stand up while driving and the tube in my penis are just too uncomfortable."
"You can't judge the final product based solely on a test drive! You should've seen the last test drive, you'd have liked it then. It was just a seat on top of an engine block!"

They might have some good parts, but seriously what marketing team would let you do that with your product?

I agree, it's stupid and it's insulting that they've called it a public playtest and we were never even given a beta product. I may have resented Jason Buhlman's initial approach to the Pathfinder playtest, and the final product still isn't some godsend to 3.5 fans, but at least Paizo gave their fanbase a complete, unfiltered alpha and beta test of their rules set that went through many different revisions before going to print. The Pathfinder playtest was done correctly, and if WotC was trying to model that sort of success they failed miserably. If they weren't on the other hand, one has to wonder what exactly they were trying to do. From a strategic, monetizing standpoint, I hardly think that Paizo lost any money from offering up a full beta product to customers. In fact, I would assume that it only increased the money that they would have otherwise made on Pathfinder if they hadn't done so.