Rogue and Archer Fighter previews leaked!

[obryn]

A legit leak, not a marketing one. This is from a dude who got the books early.

I'm wishing it were clearer, but this is what we got.

http://i.imgur.com/U4jfTlZ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/QWNUUSy.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/CmDSKeQ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/uphsIGj.jpg

Also a random photo of the elf wizard's page, which eh.

[Kurald Galain]

Okay, so mechanically speaking the starter set is fairly boring for anyone already familiar with roleplaying games, and offers very little character progression over five levels except if you're a spellcaster.

No problem, I wasn't planning on getting the starter set anyway. I hope the basic set has more to offer though.

[Envyus]

I'm getting the starter set purely for the adventure.

[obryn]

I'm getting the starter set purely for the adventure.
Yeah, ditto. It's $12. If the adventure's any good, that's not a bad deal at all.

[Envyus]

Plus it contains 30 monsters and Basic d&d won't be updated with monsters until the players handbook is out I believe.

[obryn]

The Rogue looks even worse than in the playtest, and I thought the Rogue was the weakest one there.

Weird.

[rlc]

I hope the basic set has more to offer though.

I really wouldn't expect that. It's supposed to be a more...well...basic version, basically like the cyclopedia. I'm expecting bare bones.

[Kurald Galain]

I really wouldn't expect that. It's supposed to be a more...well...basic version, basically like the cyclopedia. I'm expecting bare bones.

You're expecting it to be more bare-bones than the starter set which is pregen-only, limited to five levels, and offers zero choices for character advancement other than for wizard spells?

[obryn]

Four classes (no subclasses; "simplest" subclass chosen), four races (with 2 subraces each), plus a handful of backgrounds (5-6, I think, is what I heard).

It's not really any worse than the old Basic set when it comes to choice.

[Kurald Galain]

Four classes (no subclasses; "simplest" subclass chosen), four races (with 2 subraces each), plus a handful of backgrounds (5-6, I think, is what I heard).

So it's going to be one of those "technically, but not really" sets again? Hm, that's pretty bad.

[Envyus]

So it's going to be one of those "technically, but not really" sets again? Hm, that's pretty bad.
It's the basic game. The Players Handbook is the advanced game. The basic is free. That sounds fine to me.

[obryn]

So it's going to be one of those "technically, but not really" sets again? Hm, that's pretty bad.
No, I think it looks like a decent enough amount of options, once the Basic pdf is included. It's not crippleware like the 3e or 4e boxes.

It hits all of my checkmarks, near as I can tell.

(1) It lets you make a variety of PCs, even though this variety isn't huge. That's fitting for a Basic set.
(2) It goes up past Level 3, all the way to 520, which is way more than I expected.
(3) It supports creating adventures beyond the bundled adventure, and gives a toolkit for a campaign. (the most important criterion, frankly.)
(4) Pregens are provided, but tools are there to make your own characters.
(5) It's fully compatible with the larger game.

If it has instructions on creating your own Backgrounds, that's plenty, IMO. I don't think anyone expected anything past the Classic 4 classes and Classic 4 races; having two subraces is more than I, personally, expected. Again, compare Red Box Basic, which had four main classes and three demihuman classes.

If it also hits (6) which is a fun and open-ended adventure which is both easy to run and fun for new players, I think it'll be just dandy.

e: I have to note, however, that Halflings of all races might be the OP ones this edition. Next is super-friendly to smaller PCs and lets characters leverage their Dexterity for everything far more easily than any other edition.

e2: I had forgotten - the free pdf Basic set goes all the way to 20th level, with all the tools you need for those classes for that whole level span. That's kind of great.

[da_chicken]

Okay, so mechanically speaking the starter set is fairly boring for anyone already familiar with roleplaying games, and offers very little character progression over five levels except if you're a spellcaster.

No problem, I wasn't planning on getting the starter set anyway. I hope the basic set has more to offer though.

They said in the opening video that the Starter was more or less supposed to be playable in the same way that a boardgame is. That's why all the choices short of character name have already been made.

I wouldn't expect Basic to offer that much more. They're going to be the same straightforward class paths. About all you're really getting out of Basic is levels 6-20. Well, and monsters and basic combat rules. That's pretty important, too.

[rlc]

This (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140527) came out about a month ago and says what the basic set has. Basically, you're getting information about levels 1-20 and some information on some other stuff. I'm sure the starter set will have all of the same stuff, not just levels 1-5.

[archaeo]

Meanwhile, this L&L article (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140630) just came out today and covers even more information about the Basic game.

[Ballbo Big'Uns]

The Rogue looks even worse than in the playtest, and I thought the Rogue was the weakest one there.

Weird.

The Rogue's hit die has been bumped up to 1d8, and the sneak attack progression is much faster. Also, the rogue doesn't appear to have lost any features from the playtest.

How is this worse o0?

[brocadecity]

Okay, maybe a basic question from a lurker, but I'm used to 3rd edition and pathfinder. I'm a little surprised that the shortsword counts as a dex based attack. I know that you can get a feat to do that in the aforementioned games, but it seems a little strange that it counts as a dex attack on the character sheet without mention in the features and traits. (Just an aside i discerned from the sneak attack description)

[da_chicken]

Okay, maybe a basic question from a lurker, but I'm used to 3rd edition and pathfinder. I'm a little surprised that the shortsword counts as a dex based attack. I know that you can get a feat to do that in the aforementioned games, but it seems a little strange that it counts as a dex attack on the character sheet without mention in the features and traits. (Just an aside i discerned from the sneak attack description)

Using Dex instead of Str is a feature of the weapon. No feats are required, which is good since feats are an optional rule. You simply choose a weapon with the Finesse property and you can elect to use Str or Dex.

Think of it this way: If you're Dex 16 and Str 10, when you do your training with Shortsword are you really going to focus on how to use your Str to attack with it? Alternately, would you consider someone "proficient" with a weapon that had two major styles if they only knew one? Daggers, darts (thrown weapons use Str by default), rapiers, scimitars, and shortswords are the only finesse weapons in the playtest that I see.

[Yorrin]

Okay, maybe a basic question from a lurker, but I'm used to 3rd edition and pathfinder. I'm a little surprised that the shortsword counts as a dex based attack. I know that you can get a feat to do that in the aforementioned games, but it seems a little strange that it counts as a dex attack on the character sheet without mention in the features and traits. (Just an aside i discerned from the sneak attack description)

If it's the way it was at the end of playtest then any weapon which can be finessed (Shortswords, Rapiers, etc) gets that ability for free without any feat expenditure. What's more it gets Dex to the damage as well when you finesse it, making Dex based weapon builds much more SAD. Probably my favorite "4e" feature that made it in.

[Person_Man]

The image resolution is too poor for me to read (or I just have terrible eyesight). Can someone summarize the Rogue's abilities?

[SpawnOfMorbo]

If it's the way it was at the end of playtest then any weapon which can be finessed (Shortswords, Rapiers, etc) gets that ability for free without any feat expenditure. What's more it gets Dex to the damage as well when you finesse it, making Dex based weapon builds much more SAD. Probably my favorite "4e" feature that made it in.

One common houserule I've seen is to allow strength to apply to some of the things that Dex applies toward.

Since Dex and Str both represent how physical you are, just in different ways.

Fireball coming at you? You can use Dex for your reflex save or you can use Str, because the stronger you are the faster you should move (leg muscles). Strength to AC and some Dex based skills work too.

But I'm not a fan of the current 6 score model representation but I work with what I got. .

[JBPuffin]

One common houserule I've seen is to allow strength to apply to some of the things that Dex applies toward.

Since Dex and Str both represent how physical you are, just in different ways.

Fireball coming at you? You can use Dex for your reflex save or you can use Str, because the stronger you are the faster you should move (leg muscles). Strength to AC and some Dex based skills work too.

But I'm not a fan of the current 6 score model representation but I work with what I got. .

And that was the day the fighter said, "screw Dex, I have 18 Strength!" and went on to Power Attack/Cleave his way to an empire.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

And that was the day the fighter said, "screw Dex, I have 18 Strength!" and went on to Power Attack/Cleave his way to an empire.

Are you really saying that a SAD fighter would be unstoppable or broken? Because I'm sorry that is the most ridiculous thing I've heard today.

And I read a couple posts by jedipotter.

[Person_Man]

RE: SAD/MAD in 5E

We won't know for sure until the Advanced rules come out. But based on what we've seen so far, it appears as if spellcasters are Intelligence (Wizard), Wisdom (Cleric), or Charisma (Warlock) SAD. They need/want 20 in their primary casting attribute, they need/want a decent Constitution so that their hit points don't suck horribly, and everything else is gravy.

So I have absolutely no problem with Strength and Dexterity being semi-interchangeable so that non-spellcasters can be Str or Dex SAD to the same degree. It basically eliminates the most common form of MAD problems.

Also, it's worth mentioning that the default Attribute generation method for 5E is likely to be random (like 3E/2E/1E) and not a standard array or point buy (like 4E). I'm guessing it will be the same as or similar to the default for 3E, which was;

Roll 4d6 and drop the lowest
Repeat step 1 six times
Scrap everything and reroll all six rolls if the sum of your modifiers (before adjustments because of race) is 0 or lower, or if your highest score is 13 or lower.
Assign the scores to your desired attributes


This is likely to create (http://catlikecoding.com/blog/post:4d6_drop_lowest) scores similar to the elite array point buy; 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9. Then you pick a race that grants +2 to your primary attribute and -2 to something you don't care about (Int, Wis, or Cha). So most players are likely to start with a +4ish to their primary attribute, +2ish to Con, and +1/0/-1 to everything else. Then if they didn't start with a 20 in it, they put their first ability score increase from levels into their primary ability score. Then they get Feats.

If 5E players instead choose to use a point buy, minmaxing players are likely to end up with an array around 18, 14, 10, 10, 10, 10. (Primary attribute, then Con, everything else). Then you pick a race that grants +2 to your primary attribute and -2 to something you don't care about. That nets minmaxing players the ability to gain a Feat at the earliest opportunity instead of having to invest it in their primary attribute. But overall their attributes are likely to be the same.


There are two losers in the 5E system. The first is the rare schmo who rolls 13, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 or a similar mathematical equivalent. He's just boned. This problem could be solved by having a higher "floor" on when to scrap all rolls.

The other loser is the guy who rolls a normal-ish array who wants to play a truly MAD class like the Paladin or Monk, which will require high Str or Dex plus high Wis or Cha plus a decent Con. Those classes should only be played by lucky players who roll three high attributes randomly. (Which was also the case in 2E/1E, which had minimum ability score requirements for classes).

I do not agree with the above results. This is just my current reading of the 5E system.

[Kurald Galain]

There are two losers in the 5E system.

The third is the guy who uses point buy and doesn't want any weaknesses, and ends up with all scores in the 12-14 range. I've seen that happen reasonably often in earlier editions, actually.

[Doug Lampert]

The third is the guy who uses point buy and doesn't want any weaknesses, and ends up with all scores in the 12-14 range. I've seen that happen reasonably often in earlier editions, actually.

Yep, one 3.5 campaign I massively nerfed all casters, most people took (bad) LA races (no buy off), and gave 36 point buy. One player took a human monk with all 14's, the lack of optimization and PC casters and the poor builds by others still did not make this a good build.

[obryn]

Are rolled stats actually the default for 3.x?

Keep in mind that Next has no attribute penalties.

[Kurald Galain]

This problem could be solved by having a higher "floor" on when to scrap all rolls.

I should say that I don't really see the point of this. The reason why people use random stat generation is so they can have a random character. It defies the purpose to then tack on all kinds of additional rules (such as arranging the stats in any order, or taking +X to one stat at the cost of -Y to another) that make it less random. If you don't want random results, don't use a random method, just use point buy.

The reason why random stats existed in earlier edition was that you couldn't play (e.g.) a ranger unless you got lucky rolls, and that you couldn't play the same class as you always do if you happen to roll low on a stat it needs. Not so that all players could have a similar-but-not-quite-identical array that they can shape into whatever they want.

[da_chicken]

I'm not so sure SAD is as big of an issue in general. Not that it doesn't exist, just that it doesn't have such impact.

Attributes don't contribute to spellcasters like they did in 3.x. No bonus spell slots, no minimum scores to cast. Instead, you have DC, spell attacks, and (apparently) number of spells prepared. The latter suffers diminishing returns because a) your most valuable spells get prepared first and b) it's also a function of character level. Sure, Wizards have many benefits from high Int and few from other ability scores, but I'm certain a War Cleric can do a Str/Con build with low Wis and be a fighting, buffing Cleric. Druids in the playtest have even less reliance on Wis than Clerics, and the way Wild Shape works encourages investment in Str/Dex/Con. Druids also get significantly fewer spells; I expect Bards will use the same chart since they get 9 spell levels in final.

I'm still really interested to see how hold person looks in the final. Hold, charm, and dominate look to be really potentially powerful spells for Wizards that focus on them, but whether that actually materializes or not... I don't know.

[da_chicken]

Are rolled stats actually the default for 3.x?

Yes.

Although you're directed to reroll if you have no score above 13, or if your total modifier is negative. So technically a 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8 is a valid character, although 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 13 is not.

[Jacob.Tyr]

I should say that I don't really see the point of this. The reason why people use random stat generation is so they can have a random character. It defies the purpose to then tack on all kinds of additional rules (such as arranging the stats in any order, or taking +X to one stat at the cost of -Y to another) that make it less random. If you don't want random results, don't use a random method, just use point buy.

The reason why random stats existed in earlier edition was that you couldn't play (e.g.) a ranger unless you got lucky rolls, and that you couldn't play the same class as you always do if you happen to roll low on a stat it needs. Not so that all players could have a similar-but-not-quite-identical array that they can shape into whatever they want.
Straight rolling is a ton of fun from a building perspective, point buy is good for balance. Personally I go with 27-25-23 for organic balanced characters these days, only rolling for one shots where I want to play them where they land.

[da_chicken]

I should say that I don't really see the point of this. The reason why people use random stat generation is so they can have a random character. It defies the purpose to then tack on all kinds of additional rules (such as arranging the stats in any order, or taking +X to one stat at the cost of -Y to another) that make it less random. If you don't want random results, don't use a random method, just use point buy.

We used rolling because we wanted more diverse characters. Some that are good and others that are great. We didn't want the players to be forced to play something they didn't want, however, so we allowed arrange to taste.


The reason why random stats existed in earlier edition was that you couldn't play (e.g.) a ranger unless you got lucky rolls, and that you couldn't play the same class as you always do if you happen to roll low on a stat it needs. Not so that all players could have a similar-but-not-quite-identical array that they can shape into whatever they want.

No, I think it's because nobody had come up with a fair way to do point buy, especially when percentile Strength exists. The only class truly difficult to qualify for was Paladin. I only ever saw one rolled fairly, and it was me that did it. I never saw a DM that wouldn't just give you the prereqs for the less useful abilities if you wanted to run a given class, though, and then just roll the remaining stats. Lots of Paladins got free 17s for Charisma.

[unwise]

The method I use for generating stats seems to give both diversity and balance. You pick your top three stats, assignment them using points values, or just 15,13,14 . So you cannot have a bad stats for your main roll. You then roll the three remaining stats in order.

This results in some very intelligent warriors, charismatic barbarians, bodybuilding wizards and brain-damaged rangers. So far I really like the results.

[Doug Lampert]

Straight rolling is a ton of fun from a building perspective, point buy is good for balance. Personally I go with 27-25-23 for organic balanced characters these days, only rolling for one shots where I want to play them where they land.

27-25-23 usually gives a +2 to one attribute of the player's choice, it's actually fairly close to "take 77 attribute points divided almost as you like as long as you have at least 3 odd scores". I'm pretty sure it averages well over a 40 points by the point buy rules if you place the +2 where it does the most good.

You're absolutely guaranteed to have a 16, and an 18 is seriously odds on. This assumes you aren't allowed any rerolls and aren't allowed any additional movement of points from one ability to another.

But seriously, EVERY method of rolling I've EVER seen suggested on this board other than "3d6 in order" or "3.x by the book" is far more generous on average than ANY of the listed point buy ranges in the rules.

And many times if you ask you'll find that bad rolls are still rejected. It is my firm belief that people use rolled ability scores because they've NEVER encountered a reasonable point buy total and want far more powerful characters than are possible by point buy.

If you think you like a rolled method like 27-25-23 then try 40 or so points for point buy or "pick some abilities that add up to 74" or something similar, it won't actually increase game power noticeably, and it will allow more customization and better balance.

Edited to add: The method above from unwise works as a possibly weaker method on average than 32 point buy with rolling (possibly, the point buy method of 3 abilities isn't specified nor the in order roll method for the other three). But if your fighter rolls 18 Charisma I'll bet he multi-classes paladin pretty quickly ditto for going rogue if he gets 18 dex.

[obryn]

Yes.

Although you're directed to reroll if you have no score above 13, or if your total modifier is negative. So technically a 14, 10, 10, 10, 10, 8 is a valid character, although 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 13 is not.
Huh! I think I gave up on rolling for stats in ... 2001 or so, when running 3.0. :smallbiggrin:


No, I think it's because nobody had come up with a fair way to do point buy, especially when percentile Strength exists. The only class truly difficult to qualify for was Paladin. I only ever saw one rolled fairly, and it was me that did it. I never saw a DM that wouldn't just give you the prereqs for the less useful abilities if you wanted to run a given class, though, and then just roll the remaining stats. Lots of Paladins got free 17s for Charisma.
Okay more history stuff, because AD&D 1e was actually way different from both OD&D and the B/X line, here. You probably know this, but I R bored.

In OD&D, you rolled 3d6 in order and ... well, it honestly didn't much matter. You got an XP bonus, and maybe something minor here or there like a whole +1 to hit points, but your stats were almost useless.

In Basic - I think starting with Holmes, but definitely by the time Moldvay came around - it was still 3d6 in order, with a lot more bonuses and penalties. You needed some stats of 9 or better to qualify for various classes (and when the Mystic came about, that kicked up to 13). Stat bonuses and penalties started pretty close to 10; you got penalties starting at 8, and bonuses starting at 13. Penalties and bonuses capped at +/-3, for 3 and 18, respectively.

But because you had to roll in order, you could trade stats! Once you picked your class, you could boost your Prime Requisite(s) on a 2-for-1 basis by sacking other scores that were too high. You couldn't reduce Constitution, Charisma, or Dexterity; only Strength, Intelligence, and Wisdom; and you couldn't lower them below 9.

In AD&D, things changed. Honestly, pretty dramatically. The default method of chargen was not, as you might expect, 3d6-in-order. Method I - the default - in the DMG was 4d6, drop low, arrange to taste. This was necessary, because the effects of both low and high stats got pushed to the periphery. Dexterity, Wisdom, and Constitution didn't get perks until you got a 15. (You needed a 16 in Strength!)

It was also necessary because classes had some tough entry requirements. You already mentioned the 17 Charisma for a Paladin; they also needed some 12's and 13's. Rangers needed a bunch of 13's and 14's. Monks? 15+ in a few. Illusionists needed a 15 Intelligence and 16 Dexterity, really high up on the bell curve!

Things got even crazier once Unearthed Arcana hit. UA introduced Method V of rolling and added in a new stat, Comeliness, because ... reasons? I dunno; like everything in UA, it's pretty iffy. You get to roll 9d6, best 3, for your prime requisite. Then 8, 7, 6, etc. all the way down to 3. And because AD&D was weird, only Humans could do this. Your stats were ... high ... with this method.

Moving on, I have nothing nice to say about AD&D 2e's return to 3d6-in-order or about Rath, the sample PC. Like so much stuff with 2e, the writers didn't understand the very good reasons that things were the way they were in 1e, but changed them anyway. 4d6 wasn't there in AD&D for powergaming. It was there because it pretty much had to be to match up with the stats tables and requirements. I don't know how in the world anyone ever qualified for Paladin legitimately; at least with 4d6s3, place to taste, you knew you had to throw that 17 into Charisma.

But ouch it's tired. Sorry 'bout that. :smallbiggrin:

[Felhammer]

If 5E players instead choose to use a point buy, minmaxing players are likely to end up with an array around 18, 14, 10, 10, 10, 10. (Primary attribute, then Con, everything else). Then you pick a race that grants +2 to your primary attribute and -2 to something you don't care about. That nets minmaxing players the ability to gain a Feat at the earliest opportunity instead of having to invest it in their primary attribute. But overall their attributes are likely to be the same.


In one of the Youtube videos, Rodney mentioned a desire to cap point buy's highest purchasable stat at 16, rather than 18. Not sure if that made it into the final game or not though.

[Jacob.Tyr]

27-25-23 usually gives a +2 to one attribute of the player's choice, it's actually fairly close to "take 77 attribute points divided almost as you like as long as you have at least 3 odd scores". I'm pretty sure it averages well over a 40 points by the point buy rules if you place the +2 where it does the most good.

You're absolutely guaranteed to have a 16, and an 18 is seriously odds on. This assumes you aren't allowed any rerolls and aren't allowed any additional movement of points from one ability to another.

But seriously, EVERY method of rolling I've EVER seen suggested on this board other than "3d6 in order" or "3.x by the book" is far more generous on average than ANY of the listed point buy ranges in the rules.

And many times if you ask you'll find that bad rolls are still rejected. It is my firm belief that people use rolled ability scores because they've NEVER encountered a reasonable point buy total and want far more powerful characters than are possible by point buy.

If you think you like a rolled method like 27-25-23 then try 40 or so points for point buy or "pick some abilities that add up to 74" or something similar, it won't actually increase game power noticeably, and it will allow more customization and better balance.

Edited to add: The method above from unwise works as a possibly weaker method on average than 32 point buy with rolling (possibly, the point buy method of 3 abilities isn't specified nor the in order roll method for the other three). But if your fighter rolls 18 Charisma I'll bet he multi-classes paladin pretty quickly ditto for going rogue if he gets 18 dex.
27-25-23 is just what I was introduced to the method as, although I've done it 25-23-21, and heard of grittier games using 23-21-19. At those levels you need to set some rules for what the lowest someone can set an ability as, though.

The thing about it I like most is that almost everyone has a few negatives. Sometimes some pretty decent negatives, too. Point buy typically winds up looking all the same, 18-14-10-10-10-10 etc, and even though you have "control", I feel the ways of arranging your stats in point buy typically wind up being more limited than 27-25-23. Sure you could build a character to be varied, but really you aren't going to give yourself penalties to x/y/z, you aren't going to take unoptimized primary stats, and I doubt you'll have a negative con mod.

Giving MAD classes 27-25-23, and everyone else 25-23-21 is something I rather like, in theory, as well.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

In one of the Youtube videos, Rodney mentioned a desire to cap point buy's highest purchasable stat at 16, rather than 18. Not sure if that made it into the final game or not though.

I... Actually like this.

I might try it out sometime.

[da_chicken]

In one of the Youtube videos, Rodney mentioned a desire to cap point buy's highest purchasable stat at 16, rather than 18. Not sure if that made it into the final game or not though.

That's how it's presented in final playtest. I think it probably made more sense when classes had ability mods, too. It still works, but I'm not sure everyone will like it.

[Person_Man]

The third is the guy who uses point buy and doesn't want any weaknesses, and ends up with all scores in the 12-14 range. I've seen that happen reasonably often in earlier editions, actually.

You're absolutely correct.

Avoiding weaknesses would be an intuitive decision for some new players. But it's also a huge trap, since you're likely to roll your primary attribute 80%+ of the time, your AC is the most likely defense targeted by enemies 80%+ of the time, and rolls with or against Int and Cha are very rare. (Unless it's your primary attribute or your DM calls for a lot of checks during roleplaying. But even then, having an additional +1 or +2 in Cha is unlikely to be important).

The alternative to this is that you could simply require 16 or higher in the primary attribute in order to select a class, or automatically grant players a +2 or +4 bonus in it, or just provide players with explicit guidance by telling them "you want your primary attribute to be as high as possible, and the primary attribute for each class is X."



I should say that I don't really see the point of this. The reason why people use random stat generation is so they can have a random character. It defies the purpose to then tack on all kinds of additional rules (such as arranging the stats in any order, or taking +X to one stat at the cost of -Y to another) that make it less random. If you don't want random results, don't use a random method, just use point buy.

I agree with you.

In my opinion, the reason it exists the way it does is that many players like the "feel" of having their character's attributes determined randomly. But if a player is unlucky on these initial rolls, it's very likely that they are going to die within the first few sessions, and/or they will just suck most of the time. Either way, the game will not be fun for most players who roll poorly for their attributes. In other words, some players want to gamble, but when they gamble they want to win. Very few players are truly willing to suffer through the difficulty of playing an "honest rolls" character for the sake of roleplaying or whatever. So WotC rigs the system to allow for the some degree of randomness, while ensuring that the vast majority of players get relatively good attributes.



The reason why random stats existed in earlier edition was that you couldn't play (e.g.) a ranger unless you got lucky rolls, and that you couldn't play the same class as you always do if you happen to roll low on a stat it needs. Not so that all players could have a similar-but-not-quite-identical array that they can shape into whatever they want.

The game could also be really, really deadly in early editions. Tome of Horrors was the most horrific example, but it was representative of many similar modules. Many DMs created similar Gygax-ian style dungeons. So you tended to cycle through characters pretty quickly by necessity. Modern players tend to get more attached to their characters, and so the game is far less deadly, and character creation is thus far less random.



I'm not so sure SAD is as big of an issue in general. Not that it doesn't exist, just that it doesn't have such impact.

I can't be sure until the final rules are out. I agree with you that having ability scores capped at 20 should help minimize the issue somewhat. But I still think it's a big deal to have 20 or 18 in your primary attribute, and not 14ish or lower.

Melee characters are going to be making Str or Dex rolls 80%ish+ of the time. If you have a 20 in your primary attribute instead of 14, you're likely to be 15%ish more successful in most combats. There's a big difference between hitting 50%ish of the time and hitting 65%ish of the time. The former feels very random, and you're likely to hit an unlucky streaks where you miss 2-5ish times in a row. The latter feels like you're a winner, because you hit more often then you miss.

I think 5E will end up with few to none spells with no attack roll and no Saving Throw. Thus casters will experience the same effectiveness issue I describe for non-casters. Also, casters get bonus spells per day equal to their primary attribute. If you're doing 4ish combats per day, there's a big difference between 7ish spells and 10ish spells. The former means that you're likely to use just 1 spell per combat and then conserve them in case you absolutely need them for a hard fight, and then spam cantrips. The latter means that you're likely to use 2 spells per combat, or maybe branch out and memorize some non-combat spells.

[obryn]

The game could also be really, really deadly in early editions. Tome of Horrors was the most horrific example, but it was representative of many similar modules. Many DMs created similar Gygax-ian style dungeons. So you tended to cycle through characters pretty quickly by necessity. Modern players tend to get more attached to their characters, and so the game is far less deadly, and character creation is thus far less random.
Also character creation takes far, far longer. You can get a Basic character ready in under 5 minutes, unless you do detailed shopping.


I think 5E will end up with few to none spells with no attack roll and no Saving Throw. Thus casters will experience the same effectiveness issue I describe for non-casters. Also, casters get bonus spells per day equal to their primary attribute. If you're doing 4ish combats per day, there's a big difference between 7ish spells and 10ish spells. The former means that you're likely to use just 1 spell per combat and then conserve them in case you absolutely need them for a hard fight, and then spam cantrips. The latter means that you're likely to use 2 spells per combat, or maybe branch out and memorize some non-combat spells.
I'm 99% sure high stats don't give you more spells to cast in Next. They give you a wider palette of spells to prepare, but you're still limited to a fairly low number of spells you can cast. It may also determine the number of Cantrips you know; both the Wizard and Cleric from the Starter Kit learned their 4th cantrip when their casting stat got bumped to 18.

It definitely influences your saving throw DCs, which are set to 8 + Stat + Proficiency.

[1337 b4k4]

Tome of Horrors was the most horrific example, but it was representative of many similar modules. Many DMs created similar Gygax-ian style dungeons. So you tended to cycle through characters pretty quickly by necessity.


One minor correction. Despite its legend and history, the Tomb of Horrors was not ever intended to be a representative dungeon. It was explicitly and purposefully a death trap, designed to be nigh unbeatable. It was never intended as a model or representation of the normal way of playing 1e.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

One minor correction. Despite its legend and history, the Tomb of Horrors was not ever intended to be a representative dungeon. It was explicitly and purposefully a death trap, designed to be nigh unbeatable. It was never intended as a model or representation of the normal way of playing 1e.

Unintended consequences. DMs and Players took the ToH and brouth those ideas to other games. The game was already pretty lethal so it was a natural connection.

[obryn]

One minor correction. Despite its legend and history, the Tomb of Horrors was not ever intended to be a representative dungeon. It was explicitly and purposefully a death trap, designed to be nigh unbeatable. It was never intended as a model or representation of the normal way of playing 1e.


Unintended consequences. DMs and Players took the ToH and brouth those ideas to other games. The game was already pretty lethal so it was a natural connection.
Yeah, it wasn't intended as the way to run a game, but a lot of people took it that way. I know I certainly went through a ToH phase when I was a kid. :smallsmile:

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Yeah, it wasn't intended as the way to run a game, but a lot of people took it that way. I know I certainly went through a ToH phase when I was a kid. :smallsmile:

Hey, if the entire table is good to go then it can be quite fun to blow your character up or whatever.

We ran it like a video game a few years back, save points and such. Super fun and you don't have to keep making new PCs and you aren't afraid to interact with things.

Played it with another houserule once things got to silly, if you died you got flicked with a rubber band... So while we had unlimited lives, dying could hurt haha.

[da_chicken]

I can't be sure until the final rules are out. I agree with you that having ability scores capped at 20 should help minimize the issue somewhat. But I still think it's a big deal to have 20 or 18 in your primary attribute, and not 14ish or lower.

Melee characters are going to be making Str or Dex rolls 80%ish+ of the time. If you have a 20 in your primary attribute instead of 14, you're likely to be 15%ish more successful in most combats. There's a big difference between hitting 50%ish of the time and hitting 65%ish of the time. The former feels very random, and you're likely to hit an unlucky streaks where you miss 2-5ish times in a row. The latter feels like you're a winner, because you hit more often then you miss.

Sure, every class is going to want to maximize their primary attack attribute. I don't think it's likely to see less than a 16 in whatever attribute the player chooses to use. However, it will depend on what attribute they choose to attack with, which may not be the class' traditional ability. A Fighter might well choose Dex as an archer. A Rogue might choose Str as a thug. Sure, a Barbarian is unlikely to go high Dex, but he is not punished for doing so... Rage works just fine with Finesse weapons. It looks to me like only a Wizard will have truly limited options if they don't focus strongly on Int.

Truly, though, I'm really only talking about spellcasters. Non-spellcasters are always going to have some physical stat reliance, automatically disqualifying them from traditional SAD. Spellcaster-wise, I think that SAD will only be true for Wizard. A Cleric might choose Str or Dex, and prepare only buffing spells. Look at the Basic spell list for clerics (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140630). Half the spells on the list are buffs, heals, or non-combat spells. It's not going to be hard to play a Cleric that doesn't target enemies with spells.

Here, look at the Cleric's actual spell list from Basic. I've copied it below. I've bolded any spell that has a save or attack roll. Spells with an * are new spells not listed in my playtest, but I'll give them to you. Every spell that's not bolded is cast equally well by a Cleric with Wis 3 as a Cleric with Wis 20.

Cleric Spells
Cantrips (0 Level)
Guidance
Light
Resistance
Sacred Flame
Spare the Dying
Thaumaturgy

1st Level
Bless
Command
Cure Wounds
Detect Magic
Guiding Bolt*
Healing Word
Inflict Wounds
Sanctuary
Shield of Faith

2nd Level
Aid
Augury
Hold Person
Lesser Restoration
Prayer of Healing
Silence
Spiritual Weapon
Warding Bond*

3rd Level
Beacon of Hope
Dispel Magic
Mass Healing Word
Protection from Energy
Remove Curse
Revivify (not defined, but this has never allowed a save)
Speak with Dead
Spirit Guardians*

4th Level
Death Ward
Divination
Freedom of Movement
Guardian of Faith*
Locate Creature (not defined, but this has never allowed a save)

5th Level
Commune
Flame Strike
Greater Restoration
Mass Cure Wounds
Raise Dead

6th Level
Blade Barrier
Find the Path (not defined, but this only had harmless saves)
Harm
Heal
Heroes’ Feast
True Seeing

7th Level
Etherealness
Fire Storm
Regenerate
Resurrection

8th Level
Antimagic Field
Earthquake
Holy Aura

9th Level
Astral Projection
Gate
Mass Heal
True Resurrection


I think 5E will end up with few to none spells with no attack roll and no Saving Throw. Thus casters will experience the same effectiveness issue I describe for non-casters. Also, casters get bonus spells per day equal to their primary attribute. If you're doing 4ish combats per day, there's a big difference between 7ish spells and 10ish spells. The former means that you're likely to use just 1 spell per combat and then conserve them in case you absolutely need them for a hard fight, and then spam cantrips. The latter means that you're likely to use 2 spells per combat, or maybe branch out and memorize some non-combat spells.

You get bonus spells prepared, but no bonus spell casting slots. Your spells prepared are equal to level + ability mod (not to mention bonus spells from class paths... although Wizards don't seem to get those, just divine casters). So, sure, at level 2 when you're talking about 3 (Int 12) vs 5 (Int 16) spells prepared it's pretty significant. At level 12 when it's 14 (Int 14) or 17 (Int 20)? Not so much. You've got more than enough prep room there, and in both cases you'll prepare the most powerful and broadest spells first, the narrowest and least powerful spells last. Hence diminishing returns. All it really lets divine casters prepare those extra Ritual spells you might need and wouldn't cast otherwise (actually, Wizards can cast Rituals right from their spell books, so they don't apply here... I'm assuming that combined with general arcane potency why they don't get any bonus prepared spells like divine casters do).