PDA

View Full Version : Am I missing something?



Magesmiley
2014-07-21, 10:26 AM
Ok... I haven't been following the 5e development in too great detail, but went and bought the basic set and looked through it over the weekend.

I have to say that I'm not terribly impressed with the balance between the classes. Particularly with what was done to the wizard, compared to the fighter. I'd actually say why bother playing a fighter at all. This seems even worse than 3rd edition, as even a 1st-level wizard seems to be better choice.

Cantrips that let the wizard do 1d8 ranged attack damage at will for free.
Fireball for 8d6 at 5th level
Armor for wizards by just choosing a particular race.

Maybe I'm missing something. I sure hope that I'm missing something. If I'm not, this is going to go back on my shelf and I'll probably end up sticking with 3rd or moving to Pathfinder.

Sartharina
2014-07-21, 10:49 AM
Wizards have fewer spell slots than they used to. At low levels, spells are easier to resist than attacks. Also, 1d20+5 for 1d8 at 60' or so is inferior to 1d20+7 for 1d8+3 at over 300 ft (Bow). It's certainly less than 1d8+5, 2d6(Reroll 1s+2s)+3, or (1d6+3)x2. Also, 1d6 HP is worse than 1d10, and while proficient with armor if you're a dwarf (Sacrificing INT), Fighters get even better armor.

Fighters get not-insignificant healing and double actions every short rest, and more feats/ability score increases. They're pretty front-loaded, but those abilities scale, and other class features augment their core effectiveness.

Wizards get much fewer spells per day than they used to.

obryn
2014-07-21, 10:55 AM
It looks like spellcaster supremacy is back, but not to nearly the same degree as it is in 3.x/PF. You'll be going from the frying pan to the fire if you jump that way!

charcoalninja
2014-07-21, 11:00 AM
Seriously, you say caster/fighter power discrepency bothers you... so you'll play the system where it's the worst it has ever been?

Don't follow.

Person_Man
2014-07-21, 11:05 AM
You are correct.

5E is basically a mix of 2E AD&D, updated "Old School" D&D clones (OSD&D), 3.0, 3.5, and third party 3.5 clones (mainly Pathfinder, but also FATE, Iron Kingdoms, etc) with a few minor additions.

The reasoning was simple:

There's not going to be a true OGL/SRD, because their corporate Hasbro overseers won't allow it, because they never fully committed to an Open Source business model with 3.0/3.5, and instead just created competitors.
The customer base of people who currently play non-4E versions of previous editions of D&D is pretty large.
The customer base of people who play 4E is comparatively smaller.
If they make a truly new edition that was a distinct evolution forward without an OGL/SRD, they'd just further fracture their customer base into even smaller groups.
Therefore, they should make a game which clones the "best parts" of AD&D, OSD&D, 3.5, and Pathfinder, and hope that this will somehow win those customers over.


It'll be very interesting to see whether or not they consider it a success. It will make millions of dollars, because any new edition of D&D is going to sell a lot of core books. But who knows whether or not it will have any staying power, or if they'll just continue to churn out a new edition or half edition every 3ish years, as they've done since 3.0 was released.

Madfellow
2014-07-21, 11:48 AM
Let's compare the 5e fighter and wizard to the 3e fighter and wizard, shall we?

The 5e fighter gets EXCLUSIVE access to multiple attacks per round, up to 8 of them at higher levels. With a greatsword, a fighter can deal 16d6 + Str*8 damage in a single turn, and can do this twice before needing to rest for one hour. He also gets to reroll any 1s or 2s on his damage rolls, and his crit range is 18-20, and while he's attacking he can move freely around the battlefield. He can throw all his attacks at different targets, or all on the same target, his choice. And all of those attacks are made with his maximum attack bonus; no diminishing returns like you get in 3e. The 5e fighter also gets free self-healing and the ability to reroll saving throws.

A 3e wizard at level 20 has 40 spell slots just from being a wizard, plus additional spell slots at each level equal to his Int modifier, which is usually 4. When you add scrolls, wands, and staffs, it's a trivial manner for a 3e wizard to have in excess of 100 spell slots by level 20.

A 5e wizard at level 20 has 20 spell slots, period. No intelligence bonus, no scrolls or wands, just 20 spell slots. And a majority of those are for low-level spells. A level 20 wizard has two 7th-level slots, one 8th, and one 9th. Yes, these spell slots are powerful, but they are also a very limited resource. And no spell of any level is an instant-win button anymore.

Yes, wizards can still do cool things that nobody else can do, but now SO CAN THE FIGHTERS. The difference between fighters and wizards, as it has always been, is that fighters are cool all the time, while wizards are Awesome only some of the time. The difference now is that fighters are much cooler than before, while wizards are far less Awesome. The gap has closed considerably.

WotC playtested these classes meticulously over the course of two years, constantly tweaking and re-tweaking their numbers and abilities to get to where they are today. They were designed to be fun, and to be fun in different ways. They both contribute significantly to the party, but they do so in a unique manner.

Sartharina
2014-07-21, 11:54 AM
From an intraclass/weapon balance perspective, I'm really hoping the "Reroll 1s and 2s" applies only to the dice total of a given attack, not the individual die rolls. Greatswords give more reliable damage, but Greataxes would have a higher chance of dealing max damage. Right now, Greataxes are worthless compared to Greatswords because Greatswords reroll damage on a 2-3(Instead of 1-2), with a chance of rerolling on a 4-7. :smallannoyed:

Unfortunately, Fighters DON'T get advantage on all saving throws - they can reroll a single failed saving throw 1-3 times per day.

Madfellow
2014-07-21, 11:59 AM
Unfortunately, Fighters DON'T get advantage on all saving throws - they can reroll a single failed saving throw 1-3 times per day.

My bad. Still very useful, though.

Merlin the Tuna
2014-07-21, 12:10 PM
5E is basically a mix of 2E AD&D, updated "Old School" D&D clones (OSD&D), 3.0, 3.5, and third party 3.5 clones (mainly Pathfinder, but also FATE, Iron Kingdoms, etc) with a few minor additions.Curious what you mean here. The only similarity to Fate I see (and admittedly I've got only a basic understanding of it by way of the Dresden Files RPG) is Inspiration. Which is unfortunately presented as optional, and even more unfortunately looks like a bolted-on afterthought rather than a well-considered mechanic. I'm glad to see it, but wish a little more had been done with it.

But even in a broader sense, I'm not sure how you figure Fate is a 3.5E clone. That just a typo?


Yes, wizards can still do cool things that nobody else can do, but now SO CAN THE FIGHTERS. The difference between fighters and wizards, as it has always been, is that fighters are cool all the time, while wizards are Awesome only some of the time. The difference now is that fighters are much cooler than before, while wizards are far less Awesome. The gap has closed considerably.Fighters don't do cool things that nobody else can do. Fighters do boring things that everyone else does, they just do them particularly well.

Incremental progress was made from the spellcaster extravaganza of 3E -- cutting down on spell slots & moving some spells (like Teleport) up to higher levels. But it doesn't fix the fundamental problem that Fighters sit inside of an incredibly rules-heavy yet strategically-simple combat engine and flex large individual numbers, whereas spellcasters have the ability to Actually Do Stuff. It's tantamount to the people who read a few CharOp posts that said Wizards Rule and Fighters Drool and decided to "fix" the problem by giving the Fighter 5000 more damage. The math was not the problem. The problem is that they presented 3 pillars of gameplay - Combat, Exploration, and Social Interaction - and gave the Wizard ways to be a baller in all 3, but left the Fighter useless at 2 and boring-but-effective in the last. 5E's Wizard balls less hard than 3E's, but the nature of the issue has not changed.

obryn
2014-07-21, 12:19 PM
Incremental progress was made from the spellcaster extravaganza of 3E -- cutting down on spell slots & moving some spells (like Teleport) up to higher levels. But it doesn't fix the fundamental problem that Fighters sit inside of an incredibly rules-heavy yet strategically-simple combat engine and flex large individual numbers, whereas spellcasters have the ability to Actually Do Stuff. It's tantamount to the people who read a few CharOp posts that said Wizards Rule and Fighters Drool and decided to "fix" the problem by giving the Fighter 5000 more damage. The math was not the problem. The problem is that they presented 3 pillars of gameplay - Combat, Exploration, and Social Interaction - and gave the Wizard ways to be a baller in all 3, but left the Fighter useless at 2 and boring-but-effective in the last. 5E's Wizard balls less hard than 3E's, but the nature of the issue has not changed.
Thank you for putting it better than I was going to, which was mostly just Q*bert-esque strings of punctuation.

What's frustrating to me is to see "incremental progress from 3E" as something laudable when there's an entire edition that made a whole lot more progress on this front. (Oh, and let's not forget the Book of Nine Swords for 3e itself.)

Madfellow
2014-07-21, 01:23 PM
The problem that WotC faces is that their fandom is split almost down the middle on this issue. A lot of players want fighters to have cool things, but more players want them to be simple so that noobs can learn the game and wizards can still be the flashy guys. Every time WotC has tried to give fighters nice things (the Tome of Battle in 3e and Everything in 4e), they have received considerable backlash from a large and vocal fanbase.

It's like Tony Stark's line from The Avengers. "You don't understand; there is no throne! There is no scenario in which you come out on top!" WotC is stuck in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. If they give fighters nice things, wizards fans raise their voices. If they don't, fighter fans raise theirs. What they've tried to do here is to split the difference and give them just a few nice things, and now EVERYBODY is raising their voices.

People need to face facts, and the fact here is this: most people do not want the same thing you want. It doesn't matter who you are, you are an individual with unique tastes and desires. One company is trying to please a large fanbase coming from myriad different backgrounds. Everyone wants something different out of this game. If you are not receiving 100% of what you want out of this one game, guess what: neither is anybody else. Deal with it.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-21, 01:40 PM
The problem that WotC faces is that their fandom is split almost down the middle on this issue. A lot of players want fighters to have cool things, but more players want them to be simple so that noobs can learn the game and wizards can still be the flashy guys. Every time WotC has tried to give fighters nice things (the Tome of Battle in 3e and Everything in 4e), they have received considerable backlash from a large and vocal fanbase.

It's like Tony Stark's line from The Avengers. "You don't understand; there is no throne! There is no scenario in which you come out on top!" WotC is stuck in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. If they give fighters nice things, wizards fans raise their voices. If they don't, fighter fans raise theirs. What they've tried to do here is to split the difference and give them just a few nice things, and now EVERYBODY is raising their voices.

People need to face facts, and the fact here is this: most people do not want the same thing you want. It doesn't matter who you are, you are an individual with unique tastes and desires. One company is trying to please a large fanbase coming from myriad different backgrounds. Everyone wants something different out of this game. If you are not receiving 100% of what you want out of this one game, guess what: neither is anybody else. Deal with it.

How's the saying go?

A compromise is a situation in which all parties are unhappy?

Person_Man
2014-07-21, 01:41 PM
Curious what you mean here. The only similarity to Fate I see (and admittedly I've got only a basic understanding of it by way of the Dresden Files RPG) is Inspiration. Which is unfortunately presented as optional, and even more unfortunately looks like a bolted-on afterthought rather than a well-considered mechanic. I'm glad to see it, but wish a little more had been done with it.

But even in a broader sense, I'm not sure how you figure Fate is a 3.5E clone. That just a typo?


Clone was a very poor way for me to put it.

The few times I've played FATE or Fudge (which FATE is based off of) has been at conventions. The GMs were either running the Dresdon Files, or running what felt like a very typical D&D game but with simplified math in the theater of the mind. So the 5E default focus on the theater of the mind and simplified math feels like playing FATE or Fudge to me, but without the FATE Points, which are sorta kinda added in through Inspiration Points. Also, FATE and FUDGE are both in the OGL now, so I know DMs who borrow elements from them for their 3.5-sih homebrew games.

It wasn't a great comparison on my part. The larger message I was trying (and obviously failed) to communicate was "the designers took a bunch of elements from previously popular D&D-ish RPGs instead of developing a new RPG."

Dienekes
2014-07-21, 01:44 PM
The problem that WotC faces is that their fandom is split almost down the middle on this issue. A lot of players want fighters to have cool things, but more players want them to be simple so that noobs can learn the game and wizards can still be the flashy guys. Every time WotC has tried to give fighters nice things (the Tome of Battle in 3e and Everything in 4e), they have received considerable backlash from a large and vocal fanbase.

It's like Tony Stark's line from The Avengers. "You don't understand; there is no throne! There is no scenario in which you come out on top!" WotC is stuck in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. If they give fighters nice things, wizards fans raise their voices. If they don't, fighter fans raise theirs. What they've tried to do here is to split the difference and give them just a few nice things, and now EVERYBODY is raising their voices.

People need to face facts, and the fact here is this: most people do not want the same thing you want. It doesn't matter who you are, you are an individual with unique tastes and desires. One company is trying to please a large fanbase coming from myriad different backgrounds. Everyone wants something different out of this game. If you are not receiving 100% of what you want out of this one game, guess what: neither is anybody else. Deal with it.

Unfortunately, when you're trying to get customers, the tagline "No one is getting what they want. Deal with it." is unlikely to make a particularly strong incentive to buy their product.

Tholomyes
2014-07-21, 02:30 PM
Remember, we've only seen the Basic rules. We are going to see a more complex fighter, who is actually interesting to play. LFQW may still be a thing somewhat, but it looks like it'll be much less than it used to be, and fighters have an option which isn't just auto-attack every round.

My feeling is basically a wait and see approach. It could easily end up being another version of D&D I just ignore in favor of better designed systems, but I think there's potential. I'll probably still need to house-rule things a bit, to fix up bad math and make things fit my playstyle, but I think writing it off based on the basic game, which, by definition, is probably not going to appeal to the people who want more interesting fighters and more options for complexity, is not the best approach.

Craft (Cheese)
2014-07-21, 02:34 PM
The problem that WotC faces is that their fandom is split almost down the middle on this issue. A lot of players want fighters to have cool things, but more players want them to be simple so that noobs can learn the game and wizards can still be the flashy guys. Every time WotC has tried to give fighters nice things (the Tome of Battle in 3e and Everything in 4e), they have received considerable backlash from a large and vocal fanbase.

It's like Tony Stark's line from The Avengers. "You don't understand; there is no throne! There is no scenario in which you come out on top!" WotC is stuck in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. If they give fighters nice things, wizards fans raise their voices. If they don't, fighter fans raise theirs. What they've tried to do here is to split the difference and give them just a few nice things, and now EVERYBODY is raising their voices.

Hey guys, remember when the tagline for 5E was "Modularity to customize the game to your group's needs!"

I do. Sadly in practice Wizards is taking only token stabs at modular game design, and where they're actually trying to respond to the concerns of the fanbase (e.g. Multiclassing, Battlemaster) they don't seem to actually understand what the problems are or how to solve them.

huttj509
2014-07-21, 03:58 PM
I do. Sadly in practice Wizards is taking only token stabs at modular game design, and where they're actually trying to respond to the concerns of the fanbase (e.g. Multiclassing, Battlemaster) they don't seem to actually understand what the problems are or how to solve them.

Sadly, in practice, the DMG isn't out yet.

Morty
2014-07-21, 04:08 PM
The problem that WotC faces is that their fandom is split almost down the middle on this issue. A lot of players want fighters to have cool things, but more players want them to be simple so that noobs can learn the game and wizards can still be the flashy guys. Every time WotC has tried to give fighters nice things (the Tome of Battle in 3e and Everything in 4e), they have received considerable backlash from a large and vocal fanbase.

It's like Tony Stark's line from The Avengers. "You don't understand; there is no throne! There is no scenario in which you come out on top!" WotC is stuck in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. If they give fighters nice things, wizards fans raise their voices. If they don't, fighter fans raise theirs. What they've tried to do here is to split the difference and give them just a few nice things, and now EVERYBODY is raising their voices.

People need to face facts, and the fact here is this: most people do not want the same thing you want. It doesn't matter who you are, you are an individual with unique tastes and desires. One company is trying to please a large fanbase coming from myriad different backgrounds. Everyone wants something different out of this game. If you are not receiving 100% of what you want out of this one game, guess what: neither is anybody else. Deal with it.

That, of course, is not what's happening. What is happening is that the people who prefer the old division of non-magic characters being simple and repetitive, with complexity being reserved for magicians, are being catered to in full. They do get 100% of what they want from the game, with the baseline Fighter being only capable of hitting things a lot and the cleric and wizard retaining their old versatiliy. The other 'group', inasmuch as we can make such divisions, will quite likely be given some scraps of their preferred style. Unless the information about the Battlemaster fighter sub-class turns out to be false and they're much more complex than that, or other non-magical classes are far better than the playtests made them look. No matter which way you look at it, one playstyle is being favoured.

akaddk
2014-07-21, 04:31 PM
Now that a feat list (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140721) is out I'm more convinced than ever that the fighter will be just fine as it is. These feats are packed with power and punch and versatility as well as allowing a great deal of customisation. The fighter gets two more feats than the wizard. Sure, not at 1st-level, but the progression is a lot faster. The fighter gets one at 4, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16 & 19 whereas the wizard gets one at 4, 8, 12, 16 & 19. So by 6th-level he's already one feat ahead and by 14th-level he's two feats ahead.

Feats being optional means that a base game will see a discrepancy the higher you go up, but even then I don't think it's as profound as people think. Using feats I think helps in a big way to balance things out. I still think Wizards probably get one feat too many in the grand scheme of things but even that won't really be noticed until about 19th-level.

Regardless, 5e is meant to be a "living" game so by all means let WotC know what you think about it when they put out their surveys. Discuss it on the WotC boards as well. Most importantly, play the game as it is now and actually get a feel for how it plays at the table. I truly believe that theorycrafting is the biggest and most detrimental thing to have entered the hobby and that it creates far more problems than it solves. Play experience is the only true measure of a system.

Psyren
2014-07-21, 04:36 PM
Now that a feat list (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20140721) is out I'm more convinced than ever that the fighter will be just fine as it is. These feats are packed with power and punch and versatility as well as allowing a great deal of customisation.

Am I missing something? All I see are the names of the feats, not what they do.

And call me crazy, but the one they describe - Lucky - seems like it might as well say "you are immune to disadvantage." I'm wondering if there is going to be some kind of daily limit or activation on that.

da_chicken
2014-07-21, 04:47 PM
Sadly, in practice, the DMG isn't out yet.

So much this.

Basic = Beginner

PHB = Intermediate

DMG = Advanced

Sartharina
2014-07-21, 04:48 PM
That, of course, is not what's happening. What is happening is that the people who prefer the old division of non-magic characters being simple and repetitive, with complexity being reserved for magicians, are being catered to in full. They do get 100% of what they want from the game, with the baseline Fighter being only capable of hitting things a lot and the cleric and wizard retaining their old versatiliy. The other 'group', inasmuch as we can make such divisions, will quite likely be given some scraps of their preferred style. Unless the information about the Battlemaster fighter sub-class turns out to be false and they're much more complex than that, or other non-magical classes are far better than the playtests made them look. No matter which way you look at it, one playstyle is being favoured.
Actually, a nonmagical character is capable of doing anything physically possible. The only reason spells have more rules for them is because magic isn't something we interact with in the normal world, and thus needs rules defining what it is and what it can do, instead of merely providing a framework for resolving actions a player wants to take.

akaddk
2014-07-21, 05:31 PM
Am I missing something?

Yes, read the article.

Psyren
2014-07-21, 05:48 PM
Yes, read the article.

"To tide you over until the release of the Player’s Handbook, here’s a list of all the feats in the book."

Nothing about what they do beyond the names. Which is why your statement - "These feats are packed with power and punch and versatility as well as allowing a great deal of customisation." - confused me, as it sounds like you have some kind of information that isn't present in the article.

Got anything, you know, helpful to add?

akaddk
2014-07-21, 06:11 PM
Got anything, you know, helpful to add?

https://i.imgur.com/xLHw4sQ.gif

Merlin the Tuna
2014-07-21, 06:24 PM
So much this.

Basic = Beginner

PHB = Intermediate

DMG = AdvancedYou understand that "wait for the [book x]" is really not convincing for anyone with their doubts, right? We've had two years of playtest packets, an endless stream of blog posts, a 110-page Basic Edition packet, and a handful of marketing "leaks" as teasers. That's really not a small sample size in terms of establishing (troubling) trends. You're pretty much suggesting that, if we wait just a bit longer to drop $100 on literally 1000 more pages of D&D rules, the red flags that we've been seeing for a long time might be turn out to not be an issue at all.

In contrast... Dungeon World, Fate Core, and Fiasco are all $25 for book+PDF combos with less than half the page count and smaller dimensions (6"x9") to boot. Lady Blackbird is a free 16 page module that has spawned a loyal following for the system it presents. If you want to stick with d20 systems, 13th Age is $45 for a 320-page system.

I hate to be a jerk, but framed in that context, does "wait longer and buy more books" not sound a little silly as a solution to our concerns, especially given that they haven't established faith with what they've been showing?

obryn
2014-07-21, 06:40 PM
Yeah, the PHB is basically going to answer whether my D&D money stays in the D&D family, or goes to both of the 13A supplements that were just released.

akaddk
2014-07-21, 07:34 PM
You're pretty much suggesting that, if we wait just a bit longer to drop $100 on literally 1000 more pages of D&D rules, the red flags that we've been seeing for a long time might be turn out to not be an issue at all.

My suggestion is that you actually play the game before issuing any sort of proclamation at all, specially one based entirely on theorycrafting.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-21, 07:35 PM
Well...

I couldn't give a rat's butt if there is balanced between the classes. Classes aren't made to fight each other but to compliment each other.

Now that being said...

What they need is balance between each class and the game. If you do that then it doesn't matter if the wizard is stronger than the fighter.

Like having a group of Crusader, Incarnate, and Sorcerer in 3.5. Sure the sorcerer can be miles ahead in power but the other two have options and things to do that can help them keep up with the game.

And the DM doesn't have to hold their hands along the way.

Dienekes
2014-07-21, 07:41 PM
Well...

I couldn't give a rat's butt if there is balanced between the classes. Classes aren't made to fight each other but to compliment each other.

Now that being said...

What they need is balance between each class and the game. If you do that then it doesn't matter if the wizard is stronger than the fighter.

Like having a group of Crusader, Incarnate, and Sorcerer in 3.5. Sure the sorcerer can be miles ahead in power but the other two have options and things to do that can help them keep up with the game.

And the DM doesn't have to hold their hands along the way.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the classes be balanced off of fighting each other, there's a reason that the Bard is as high on the tier list as it is, and it's not because it's killing everything below it in a one on one fight.

Just that, as it stands so far, the Fighter isn't even in the Crusader's league in things it can do to the campaign world. It can make basic attacks, a lot of them, but that's all it comes down to.

I've always felt more than haggling over exactly what balances with what, it be limited to, what cool things can my class do? So far, the Fighter has it's surge ability, and a 3 a day reroll on saves. Not really all that exciting, though probably very useful. Meanwhile, the wizard and cleric gets amazing world altering spells, as always.

Sartharina
2014-07-21, 07:49 PM
Just that, as it stands so far, the Fighter isn't even in the Crusader's league in things it can do to the campaign world. It can make basic attacks, a lot of them, but that's all it comes down to.
The fighter can effectively fight at melee or range, and swap between multiple styles to fit the situation. The fighter can also use its action surge to take an action OTHER than making attacks, or swap its attacks out for more creative and freeform options.

It can also heal itself, and reroll failed saves... though nowhere near as often as I'd have liked.

Dienekes
2014-07-21, 08:08 PM
The fighter can effectively fight at melee or range, and swap between multiple styles to fit the situation. The fighter can also use its action surge to take an action OTHER than making attacks, or swap its attacks out for more creative and freeform options.

It can also heal itself, and reroll failed saves... though nowhere near as often as I'd have liked.

On the melee or ranged bit. Whoopy? I mean, I thought every fighter worth their salt brought along some form of a ranged weapon come level 3. The ability to pick the the Archer fighting style come level 9 is it? is not particularly impressive since it's a rather boring ability in itself. It still just hits things.

It can action surge to do other things, sure. But what it can actually do is make basic attacks, move, and maybe Intimidate something. On the other hand, if it's going to be freeform gameplay and I'm just going to be making up the cool stuff my character is going to do in combat, then why the Hell would I spend money on a rulebook when it just tells me I need to make stuff up to be interesting?

Fwiffo86
2014-07-21, 08:08 PM
I don't think anyone is suggesting that the classes be balanced off of fighting each other, there's a reason that the Bard is as high on the tier list as it is, and it's not because it's killing everything below it in a one on one fight.

Just that, as it stands so far, the Fighter isn't even in the Crusader's league in things it can do to the campaign world. It can make basic attacks, a lot of them, but that's all it comes down to.

I've always felt more than haggling over exactly what balances with what, it be limited to, what cool things can my class do? So far, the Fighter has it's surge ability, and a 3 a day reroll on saves. Not really all that exciting, though probably very useful. Meanwhile, the wizard and cleric gets amazing world altering spells, as always.

Simple solution. Take away all damage dealing spells, spells used in social situations, and all travel spells. Take away any spell from the cleric that is not directly related to their religion. If you have a god of nature, you don't need holy word as an example. No more common lists to choose from. You don't even need a new mechanic. You just hack away the crap that makes the casters "supposedly" better.

Dienekes
2014-07-21, 08:10 PM
Simple solution. Take away all damage dealing spells, spells used in social situations, and all travel spells. Take away any spell from the cleric that is not directly related to their religion. No more common lists to choose from. You don't even need a new mechanic. You just hack away the crap that makes the casters "supposedly" better.

So your solution to the problem that some characters are boring to play, is to make every character less interesting to play? That seems backwards to me.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-21, 08:10 PM
So your solution to the problem that some characters are boring to play, is to make every character less interesting to play? That seems backwards to me.

I thought you were complaining that the wizard and cleric have world altering spells? If you measure of how boring something is in comparison to X or Y class, why not address why they are so much better instead. Perhaps the problem is that everyone is so busy comparing Fighters to Casters that they are completely ignoring the fact that the Casters might actually be the problem.

Just some out of the box thinking for you.

Dienekes
2014-07-21, 08:21 PM
I thought you were complaining that the wizard and cleric have world altering spells? If you measure of how boring something is in comparison to X or Y class, why not address why they are so much better instead. Perhaps the problem is that everyone is so busy comparing Fighters to Casters that they are completely ignoring the fact that the Casters might actually be the problem.

Just some out of the box thinking for you.

SpawnofMorbo claimed that you should consider balancing the classes based off of how they alter the world around them.

I responded that's a great idea, I wish they'd do it. Since mages can alter the world around them a good deal, and fighters can do one or two things.

Now, I'll be honest, if the pinnacles of power that a 3.5 wizard is reached in 5e I actually would suggest hitting them with a nerf hammer repeatedly. However, I don't know if that's needed as I have not taken a good look through the full spell list. But it doesn't actually interfere with the main point that Fighter's can only barely interact with the world around them in any meaningful way. They're a boring class with one or two semi-interesting abilities over 20 levels.

Fwiffo86
2014-07-21, 08:30 PM
SpawnofMorbo claimed that you should consider balancing the classes based off of how they alter the world around them.

I responded that's a great idea, I wish they'd do it. Since mages can alter the world around them a good deal, and fighters can do one or two things.

Now, I'll be honest, if the pinnacles of power that a 3.5 wizard is reached in 5e I actually would suggest hitting them with a nerf hammer repeatedly. However, I don't know if that's needed as I have not taken a good look through the full spell list. But it doesn't actually interfere with the main point that Fighter's can only barely interact with the world around them in any meaningful way. They're a boring class with one or two semi-interesting abilities over 20 levels.

That is a valid point. But my definition of interact and yours apparently differ. More accurately, I don't measure a class by its codified class abilities and how they are spread around. One can hardly call attacking with a weapon a class ability, especially since every class can do it. If you can find it, I recommend my "Fighters Win" idea.

Sartharina
2014-07-21, 08:50 PM
On the melee or ranged bit. Whoopy? I mean, I thought every fighter worth their salt brought along some form of a ranged weapon come level 3. The ability to pick the the Archer fighting style come level 9 is it? is not particularly impressive since it's a rather boring ability in itself. It still just hits things.In previous editions, characters LOST the ability to switch between melee and range by level 3. Archery is more than just hitting things - it's a way to move an object from one point on the battlefield to another without having to move yourself. Or hit someone from afar.


It can action surge to do other things, sure. But what it can actually do is make basic attacks, move, and maybe Intimidate something. On the other hand, if it's going to be freeform gameplay and I'm just going to be making up the cool stuff my character is going to do in combat, then why the Hell would I spend money on a rulebook when it just tells me I need to make stuff up to be interesting?Or shove someone, or crash a chandelier on someone, or send a pack of berzerk booze barrels at the enemies, or vault over a minion to stab a BBEG, or

The rulebook provides the framework to adjudicate actions, and the character sheet indicates how good your character is at things through Ability Scores and Proficiency. Whether that's hitting someone with a sword, bashing them across the room with a shield, running people over with a chariot or cart... While there may not be rules for everything, the framework to adjudicate actions is still provided.

huttj509
2014-07-21, 09:48 PM
You understand that "wait for the [book x]" is really not convincing for anyone with their doubts, right? We've had two years of playtest packets, an endless stream of blog posts, a 110-page Basic Edition packet, and a handful of marketing "leaks" as teasers. That's really not a small sample size in terms of establishing (troubling) trends. You're pretty much suggesting that, if we wait just a bit longer to drop $100 on literally 1000 more pages of D&D rules, the red flags that we've been seeing for a long time might be turn out to not be an issue at all.

In contrast... Dungeon World, Fate Core, and Fiasco are all $25 for book+PDF combos with less than half the page count and smaller dimensions (6"x9") to boot. Lady Blackbird is a free 16 page module that has spawned a loyal following for the system it presents. If you want to stick with d20 systems, 13th Age is $45 for a 320-page system.

I hate to be a jerk, but framed in that context, does "wait longer and buy more books" not sound a little silly as a solution to our concerns, especially given that they haven't established faith with what they've been showing?

The complaint was about lack of modularity.

From what we've been told, the place modularity would be is in the DMG.

All our specific info is regarding the PHB.

It's thus too early to declare modularity fail.

If something that would be a dealmaker or dealbreaker for you is in a book getting released later, wait for more info on that book before making a purchase. You don't gotta get the PHB as soon as it's available, and be invested if the DMG sucks.

Psyren
2014-07-22, 02:01 AM
*snip*

Didn't think so.


You understand that "wait for the [book x]" is really not convincing for anyone with their doubts, right? We've had two years of playtest packets, an endless stream of blog posts, a 110-page Basic Edition packet, and a handful of marketing "leaks" as teasers. That's really not a small sample size in terms of establishing (troubling) trends. You're pretty much suggesting that, if we wait just a bit longer to drop $100 on literally 1000 more pages of D&D rules, the red flags that we've been seeing for a long time might be turn out to not be an issue at all.

In contrast... Dungeon World, Fate Core, and Fiasco are all $25 for book+PDF combos with less than half the page count and smaller dimensions (6"x9") to boot. Lady Blackbird is a free 16 page module that has spawned a loyal following for the system it presents. If you want to stick with d20 systems, 13th Age is $45 for a 320-page system.

I hate to be a jerk, but framed in that context, does "wait longer and buy more books" not sound a little silly as a solution to our concerns, especially given that they haven't established faith with what they've been showing?

I'm lucky - one of my friends is already committed to getting it, so I will peek at their copy of the closed content and see if any of it is worthwhile before deciding if WotC gets my gaming dollar. Based on how things are shaping up with the (so far nonexistent) OGL though, I'm guessing no.


In previous editions, characters LOST the ability to switch between melee and range by level 3.

Wait, what? Switch-hitter builds are quite common in 3.5/PF actually.

akaddk
2014-07-22, 02:48 AM
Didn't think so.
And therein lies your problem.

U dun reed two gud itha.

Psyren
2014-07-22, 03:36 AM
And therein lies your problem.

U dun reed two gud itha.

The irony is palpable. And yes, I did read the article, but all it lays out is their intent for the feats. Evaluating the success of their execution before you actually have the finished product is nothing more than blind fanboyism.

akaddk
2014-07-22, 04:14 AM
The irony is palpable. And yes, I did read the article, but all it lays out is their intent for the feats. Evaluating the success of their execution before you actually have the finished product is nothing more than blind fanboyism.

You asked a question and were told an answer and then decided that the answer wasn't good enough. The answers were in the article which, judging by your response, you read but didn't seem to understand. You then decided to be a smart-arse so I responded in kind. If you don't want to be treated like that, then don't act like it in the first place.

Psyren
2014-07-22, 04:18 AM
You asked a question and were told an answer and then decided that the answer wasn't good enough. The answers were in the article which, judging by your response, you read but didn't seem to understand. You then decided to be a smart-arse so I responded in kind. If you don't want to be treated like that, then don't act like it in the first place.

My question is simple: Do you have the specific text for what the feats in the article do, or not?

If not, your conclusion about WotC's execution is not based on anything rational. As I said, it's simple.

akaddk
2014-07-22, 05:19 AM
My question is simple: Do you have the specific text for what the feats in the article do, or not?
No, that was not your original question and it was not phrased like that.

Here's a reminder of what you posted:

Got anything, you know, helpful to add?
Why should anyone give you the time of day when you act like this?

And then you ad in personal attacks:

If not, your conclusion about WotC's execution is not based on anything rational.
I'm an ******* so I don't expect people to treat me with any kind of respect. But you seem to think you're not and yet expect everyone to treat you as if you're deserving of the best and most important treatment. You want respect? Act respectful.

Held
2014-07-22, 05:50 AM
"To tide you over until the release of the Player’s Handbook, here’s a list of all the feats in the book."

Nothing about what they do beyond the names. Which is why your statement - "These feats are packed with power and punch and versatility as well as allowing a great deal of customisation." - confused me, as it sounds like you have some kind of information that isn't present in the article.

Got anything, you know, helpful to add?


In fifth edition, each feat is like a focused multiclass option. It comes with everything you need to realize a new dimension to your character. Most feats either give you a number of small upgrades bundled together, a significant new class feature that you’ll use a lot, or a lesser benefit bundled with a +1 bonus to a single ability score.


I took the Lucky feat, which gives me the ability to roll an additional d20 when making an attack roll, ability check, or saving throw, and choose which result to use.

For alpha testers, there's also more descriptions of the actual feats, but the article describes the way they approach feats and gave an example. A number of small upgrades bundled together and significant new class feature that you'll use a lot and lesser benefit bundled with a +1 bonus to an ability score are descriptions of what they do, and that'd be enough to assert that the new feats have interesting things they do, I think. If you see a feat named "Mage Slayer" in the same list as "Tough", you'll know that there's quite some versatility there, and you can derive power and punch from the description they gave of "lucky" and the three categories feats fall under.



Personally I think Fighter and Wizard aren't that badly interposed against one-another. Maybe to you, magic is the answer to everything, and that's fine. Let's take a look at the skill proficiencies of level 1 characters:

Cleric (pick 2)
History, Insight, Medicine, Persuasion and Religion. The cleric is your go-to guy for medicine, to see people persuaded, and your religious knowledge.

Fighter (pick 2)
Acrobatics, Animal Handling, Athletics, History, Insight, Intimidation, Perception and Survival. If you need someone to handle that mule, or intimidate that bully, or even forage for food, you can turn to the Fighter. If that doesn't sit well with you, the Fighter can be your scout as well.

Rogue (pick 4)
Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Insight, Intimidation, Investigation, Perception, Performance, Persuasion, Sleight-of-hand and Stealth. Solid, considering the Rogue is a skill monkey. Still, he has no access to Medicine, Animal Handling and Survival, so it's unlikely he'll be beating the Fighter or Cleric at any of those.

Wizard (pick 2)
Arcana, History, Insight, Investigation, Medicine and Religion. Okay, so the wizard can do medicine and investigate, and he's got knowledge. When you're not in combat, that rather limits you.


So out of these, the wizard is the clear loser, with the most narrow package. When it comes to social situations, at best your wizard will be seeing through bluffs, but he isn't going to be adding his proficiency die to Charisma skills any time soon. Don't count on him for foraging or animal handling either.

Well, maybe spells will fix that. Let's see, spells for a level 1 wizard.

Burning hands? That'd be the worst diplomacy ever. Charm person? Yes, that fixes our lack of Persuasion! ... Wait, hang on, it makes the target treat us as a friendly acquaintance. So that means we're not even friends, and we only get a bonus to our Persuasion roll? The cleric'd best handle that, then. Comprehend languages? Speaking a language doesn't automatically make your diplomacy succeed. Maybe detect magic? Nope. Identify is nice, but it won't let the wizard provide food or calm animals. We can't even find salvation in magic missile. No amount of shield is going to trick the bandits we're actually their allies, and while silent image can distract, it's mostly that. A bonus to Charisma skills, maybe. Of course, a good sleep won't fix your social dilemmas either, let alone find you food. To say nothing of thunderwave.

When you look at all of that, it's clear that until at least level 3, when you get level 2 spells, you won't be doing a whole lot out of combat. There's exactly one spell that has a direct effect for you, and that's charm person, which only makes the target friendly towards you. Great in the right conditions, but always followed by Persuasion by cleric or rogue, none of which is a wizard's forte. It isn't until 5th level spells that you can dominate a person, and the spider climb is one of few out-of-combat spells before that. You still have no real proficiencies from your class itself, and if you use the backgrounds module, you'll need to pick specific ones to complement your lack of innate proficiencies.

There's no wizard spell to help you navigate, though. Sounds like they're not dominating the field that hard.

Tehnar
2014-07-22, 06:29 AM
Spoilered as its getting off topic.


No, that was not your original question and it was not phrased like that.

Here's a reminder of what you posted:

Why should anyone give you the time of day when you act like this?

And then you ad in personal attacks:

I'm an ******* so I don't expect people to treat me with any kind of respect. But you seem to think you're not and yet expect everyone to treat you as if you're deserving of the best and most important treatment. You want respect? Act respectful.

You actually started with the smart talk, when Psyren asked you a simple question about content. Quote below.


Yes, read the article.


On topic:
We don't know what the feats will do a of yet, except one, and that one is incomplete (how often can it be used is a big question). Without any knowledge we can't judge if feats are going to be of any importance. Their names tell me very little.

A number of small upgrades bundled together and significant new class feature that you'll use a lot and lesser benefit bundled with a +1 bonus to an ability score is saying nothing concrete (except that some feats will give +1 to a stat). Other then that no useful information can be gained from that statement.

With WotC's track record of feats I am not holding my breath however.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-22, 07:37 AM
SpawnofMorbo claimed that you should consider balancing the classes based off of how they alter the world around them.

I responded that's a great idea, I wish they'd do it. Since mages can alter the world around them a good deal, and fighters can do one or two things.

Now, I'll be honest, if the pinnacles of power that a 3.5 wizard is reached in 5e I actually would suggest hitting them with a nerf hammer repeatedly. However, I don't know if that's needed as I have not taken a good look through the full spell list. But it doesn't actually interfere with the main point that Fighter's can only barely interact with the world around them in any meaningful way. They're a boring class with one or two semi-interesting abilities over 20 levels.

I normally prefer picking other classes up instead of hitting others with a Nerf bat... But test 3.5 tier 1 classes should be brought down to tier 2 at least.

I just think that if you have a Fighter that can do his thing well, and do some other things decently, then that player won't care that the wizard is more powerful than him.

Why?

Because then the wizard won't have to do everything all the time or pick the fighter up all the time. The wizard can focus on other areas to round out their team when they don't have to play with kid gloves with the fighter.

Thus bringing the fighter up to what is known as tier 3helps not only that class, the player, the DM, BUT also the wizard class and the wizard player because then that player doesn't have to deal with the fighter lagging behind.

It is a win-win-win-win situation.

Edit:

This will also allow optimizers to pick less optimized spells if they feel like having fun with those other spells and not have to worry that their party will get LOLstomped.

Psyren
2014-07-22, 08:31 AM
No, that was not your original question and it was not phrased like that.

Here's a reminder of what you posted:

Why should anyone give you the time of day when you act like this?

And then you ad in personal attacks:

I'm an ******* so I don't expect people to treat me with any kind of respect. But you seem to think you're not and yet expect everyone to treat you as if you're deserving of the best and most important treatment. You want respect? Act respectful.

I rest my case.

Also, thank you Tehnar.


For alpha testers, there's also more descriptions of the actual feats, but the article describes the way they approach feats and gave an example. A number of small upgrades bundled together and significant new class feature that you'll use a lot and lesser benefit bundled with a +1 bonus to an ability score are descriptions of what they do, and that'd be enough to assert that the new feats have interesting things they do, I think. If you see a feat named "Mage Slayer" in the same list as "Tough", you'll know that there's quite some versatility there, and you can derive power and punch from the description they gave of "lucky" and the three categories feats fall under.


Yeah, I read that part and it's fine, but again - that only points out what they intended. Until we see the feats themselves, any judgments are premature.

Lucky is the only one we've seen, and it seems a bit strong - it seems to basically mean that you can never be affected by disadvantage again, Considering how many conditions and debuffs rely on that mechanic, I question why everybody wouldn't just take Lucky unless there's some kind of limitation as far as uses/day. (And if it's 3/day or more, even then I would see everyone wanting it regardless of class or build.)

obryn
2014-07-22, 08:52 AM
Lucky is, indeed, 3x/day.

Particle_Man
2014-07-22, 08:54 AM
I think what some people are missing is that there are players that want the "boring old fighter". They want to say "I attack!". That is what is fun for them. They want a character where they don't have to think about too many options.

This game provides that (at least as an option - I imagine there will be more complex fighter options too later on). There is now an option (the human fighter) where you can just improve your stats, not worrying about feats, and just, well, fight things (hence the name "fighter"). I think this is not a bug; it is a feature.

For those that want more from their fighters, and their humans, wait for the core books.

Just because they start with vanilla doesn't mean they won't bust out the other flavours.

Psyren
2014-07-22, 09:01 AM
Lucky is, indeed, 3x/day.

So effectively it's 3x rerolls per day of any d20. Which leads me to say again, why wouldn't anyone pick this feat?

Fwiffo86
2014-07-22, 09:12 AM
Pretend your goal isn't to optimize your character, thus making you feel you have to take X ability or Y feat?

Held
2014-07-22, 09:25 AM
Yeah, I read that part and it's fine, but again - that only points out what they intended. Until we see the feats themselves, any judgments are premature.

Lucky is the only one we've seen, and it seems a bit strong - it seems to basically mean that you can never be affected by disadvantage again, Considering how many conditions and debuffs rely on that mechanic, I question why everybody wouldn't just take Lucky unless there's some kind of limitation as far as uses/day. (And if it's 3/day or more, even then I would see everyone wanting it regardless of class or build.)

Fair enough, I was only trying to explain what your discussion partner might have meant, considering he would not.

I did see an alpha test feat that basically gives 5e characters the same capabilities a 4e fighter has in terms of defender mechanics (OA against shifters, stop movement when hit with OA etc), and it makes me worry about feat taxes. I sincerely hope that is not the case!

I'd definitely very likely pick Lucky, unless other feats would be competitive to its massive benefit. And in that case, I'd probably opt to run and run in games that feature no feats for 5th.

Kurald Galain
2014-07-22, 09:28 AM
So effectively it's 3x rerolls per day of any d20. Which leads me to say again, why wouldn't anyone pick this feat?

...the fact that most characters only have one or two feats for the majority of their career? With the possible exception of a human fighter, every character in 5E is extremely feat-starved.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-22, 09:38 AM
I think what some people are missing is that there are players that want the "boring old fighter". They want to say "I attack!". That is what is fun for them. They want a character where they don't have to think about too many options.

This game provides that (at least as an option - I imagine there will be more complex fighter options too later on). There is now an option (the human fighter) where you can just improve your stats, not worrying about feats, and just, well, fight things (hence the name "fighter"). I think this is not a bug; it is a feature.

For those that want more from their fighters, and their humans, wait for the core books.

Just because they start with vanilla doesn't mean they won't bust out the other flavours.

The thing is, those people apparently can't wrap their head the concept that if you have the more active (not complex, active) fighter then you also have the boring less active fighter.

My end judgment will wait till I get the PHB but so far it is sad to see if I want to play an active melee type then I'll have to homebrew something.

Note:

Active and Inactive are my new go to terms for the fighter.

Morty
2014-07-22, 09:41 AM
Actually, a nonmagical character is capable of doing anything physically possible. The only reason spells have more rules for them is because magic isn't something we interact with in the normal world, and thus needs rules defining what it is and what it can do, instead of merely providing a framework for resolving actions a player wants to take.

That's great. It's also irrelevant. Yes, if you believe that non-magical exploits don't need to be codified in the rules, good for you - 5e supports your point of view fully. The claim I was proving false was that it equally supports the other point of view, that they do need to be codified.

Psyren
2014-07-22, 10:29 AM
...the fact that most characters only have one or two feats for the majority of their career? With the possible exception of a human fighter, every character in 5E is extremely feat-starved.

That's more reason to pick one that can reliably save your bacon regardless of class or concept, not less.

I'm reminded of Neverwinter Nights, where every single guide on Gamefaqs told people "just take Luck of Heroes" as their first feat.


Pretend your goal isn't to optimize your character, thus making you feel you have to take X ability or Y feat?

It's less about feeling I have to and more about wondering what the others could possibly offer that competes with (effective) 3/day rerolls for my entire career.

The best part is, any time I have advantage I can simply choose to save them for later.

obryn
2014-07-22, 10:32 AM
It's less about feeling I have to and more about wondering what the others could possibly offer that competes with (effective) 3/day rerolls for my entire career.
It will honestly depend. But yes, that's going to be at least a dark blue pick, I'd expect, in future CharOp guides. The only limitation is that it doesn't help with some of the stuff where it would have the most impact - enemy spell saves.

Sartharina
2014-07-22, 10:37 AM
Lucky is, indeed, 3x/day.I can hear the fighter's Indomitable class feature crying now. Why the heck wasn't that a 1-3/short rest, instead of long rest?


I normally prefer picking other classes up instead of hitting others with a Nerf bat... But test 3.5 tier 1 classes should be brought down to tier 2 at least.Tier 3, not tier 2. Tier 2 is the power of Tier 1, but the boredom of Tier 5. At least if the 3.5 Sorcerer was anything to go by.


So effectively it's 3x rerolls per day of any d20. Which leads me to say again, why wouldn't anyone pick this feat?Because the other feats are just as good, and 3x rerolls per day isn't that big a deal if you can find ways to get Advantage or negate Disadvantage with regularity, because that can be like 20 rerolls per day or more!

Other feats are useful as well.

TrexPushups
2014-07-22, 11:21 AM
I am probably just going to turn all of the combat options feats into stuff that fighters can just do without taking the feat.

I don't see a good reason to give spellcastors cool options feat free while requiring a non-casting class to burn feats to do stuff they should already be able to do.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-22, 11:23 AM
I can hear the fighter's Indomitable class feature crying now. Why the heck wasn't that a 1-3/short rest, instead of long rest?

Tier 3, not tier 2. Tier 2 is the power of Tier 1, but the boredom of Tier 5. At least if the 3.5 Sorcerer was anything to go by.

Because the other feats are just as good, and 3x rerolls per day isn't that big a deal if you can find ways to get Advantage or negate Disadvantage with regularity, because that can be like 20 rerolls per day or more!

Other feats are useful as well.

No, tier 2.

If you take them all the way down to tier 3 then you take away a play style. High powered badass should be reachable to players if they and the DM wants. Besides tier 2 can be planed for and countered whereas tier 1 is harder to to such a thing with and can effectively counter anything the DM throws at them.

Tier w isn't my favorite to play, but it can be fun as hell. There just shouldn't be a way for the players to always counter the DM and not really be challenged by anything less than +10 over their level.

Psyren
2014-07-22, 12:06 PM
Because the other feats are just as good,

I'm still not seeing the text of any other feats in that article. How can you be sure of this?


and 3x rerolls per day isn't that big a deal if you can find ways to get Advantage or negate Disadvantage with regularity, because that can be like 20 rerolls per day or more!

But that's my point - these stack with anything else you might do to gain Advantage. So you have 3 advantages per day of your choice regardless of build, and then you can get more to stretch those out even further. Getting rerolls in 3e was comparatively much harder - a feat that gave you 3/day would be worthwhile even in 3e where there are so many to choose from.

Sartharina
2014-07-22, 12:17 PM
I'm still not seeing the text of any other feats in that article. How can you be sure of this?I can't yet, but the answer to the question of "Who won't grab this" is "People who find other feats more useful to their build than a generic set of rerolls" - Such as, if it's back, Mobility giving a +10 movement and ability to not provoke OAs, which is a LOT more useful to a skirmishing fighter-type than 3 rerolls are.



But that's my point - these stack with anything else you might do to gain Advantage. So you have 3 advantages per day of your choice regardless of build, and then you can get more to stretch those out even further. Getting rerolls in 3e was comparatively much harder - a feat that gave you 3/day would be worthwhile even in 3e where there are so many to choose from.In 3e, the rerolls were valuable because they were so scarce. If you wanted a reroll, you HAD to grab a reroll feat. Here, if you want rerolls, you can grab advantage. Its effect is significantly diluted.

"Lucky" doesn't allow you to do anything new - just do things you could already do a bit more reliably.

Psyren
2014-07-22, 01:06 PM
I can't yet, but the answer to the question of "Who won't grab this" is "People who find other feats more useful to their build than a generic set of rerolls" - Such as, if it's back, Mobility giving a +10 movement and ability to not provoke OAs, which is a LOT more useful to a skirmishing fighter-type than 3 rerolls are.

That depends. Does it stack with other things that increase movement? Are there non-feat ways to increase movement instead? Does acrobatics no longer allow you to avoid OAs? (And if it doesn't, what's the point of acrobatics now?)

It seems to me that Mobility as you've described it is a lot less useful than free rerolls; I'm already seeing disparity between the feats.


"Lucky" doesn't allow you to do anything new - just do things you could already do a bit more reliably.

Reliability is power in a game where failure is possible.

Sartharina
2014-07-22, 01:24 PM
That depends. Does it stack with other things that increase movement? Are there non-feat ways to increase movement instead? Does acrobatics no longer allow you to avoid OAs? (And if it doesn't, what's the point of acrobatics now?)Can you really not see the point of skills outside of combat?

Acrobatics is the way to swing across gaps using chandeliers or ropes, quickly avoid inclement terrain by hopping/wall running... It's an exploration, not combat, tool.

Acrobatics and athletics allow all sorts of cool stuff.

That said, there are combat purposes of acrobatics: Saving movement by vaulting through/over/under someone, acquiring high ground by attacking off of walls, standing up from prone quickly by rolling/flipping back to your feet. The Prince of Persia uses Acrobatics, Athletics AND Mobility.

The feat should stack with other things that increase movement, since it increases base speed. If there are other ways, they'd stack as well.

Psyren
2014-07-22, 02:04 PM
Can you really not see the point of skills outside of combat?

Acrobatics is the way to swing across gaps using chandeliers or ropes, quickly avoid inclement terrain by hopping/wall running... It's an exploration, not combat, tool.

Why would you want to do "dives, rolls, somersaults and flips" purely outside of combat? Especially that second one? Just to impress random NPCs? It seems pretty pointless to me.

But conversely, if your DM does allow you to use it to tumble around the battlefield, Mobility becomes a waste of a feat. It's a no-win situation.



The feat should stack with other things that increase movement, since it increases base speed. If there are other ways, they'd stack as well.

If there are in fact other ways to increase movement - and I'm willing to bet there are - then spending one of your very valuable feats for 10ft. of movement is still going to be foolish compared to 3 rerolls per day.

Sartharina
2014-07-22, 02:27 PM
Why would you want to do "dives, rolls, somersaults and flips" purely outside of combat? Especially that second one? Just to impress random NPCs? It seems pretty pointless to me.

But conversely, if your DM does allow you to use it to tumble around the battlefield, Mobility becomes a waste of a feat. It's a no-win situation.You can still use acrobatics to get around areas you otherwise couldn't, and can gain in-combat advantages. Just not an immunity to opportunity attacks. You can move through enemies, though. And, Mobility is MUCH more reliable even if you can use acrobatics to dodge/prevent OAs.


If there are in fact other ways to increase movement - and I'm willing to bet there are - then spending one of your very valuable feats for 10ft. of movement is still going to be foolish compared to 3 rerolls per day.On the contrary, those 3 rerolls a day are a waste if you can get them through other means. Or not have to roll at all.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-22, 02:35 PM
Why would you want to do "dives, rolls, somersaults and flips" purely outside of combat? Especially that second one? Just to impress random NPCs? It seems pretty pointless to me.

But conversely, if your DM does allow you to use it to tumble around the battlefield, Mobility becomes a waste of a feat. It's a no-win situation.



If there are in fact other ways to increase movement - and I'm willing to bet there are - then spending one of your very valuable feats for 10ft. of movement is still going to be foolish compared to 3 rerolls per day.

Outside of battle I've seen acrobatics used in a couple of ways.

While tailing a target, used acrobatics to stay steady perched on a beam.

Jumping down from a ledge, the acrobatic check allowed for safe landing.

While using the the Strength Score = "Jump Speed" rules, I was jumping from one building to the next, again tailing a target, and I used acrobatics to keep from slipping due to the water from a rain fall earlier in the day.

Replaced a stealth check in a crowded market (everyone else was Halflings) by juggling, the enemies thought I was just a performer. The team wanted to make hide checks and I knew I would fail, so I made an acrobatics check to hide that I wasn't supposed to be there.

Not saying you are wrong, just that there are many out of combat situations where skills can be applied.

Psyren
2014-07-22, 02:42 PM
You can still use acrobatics to get around areas you otherwise couldn't, and can gain in-combat advantages. Just not an immunity to opportunity attacks. You can move through enemies, though. And, Mobility is MUCH more reliable even if you can use acrobatics to dodge/prevent OAs.

I don't see any of that in the description on page 60, so I'm assuming that if you can get those uses by your DM then getting back a familiar use (Tumble) should be possible too. And since they still want rogues to be dex-focused and in flanking position (you can sneak attack without advantage if you are "flanking") then Mobility will be a feat tax for all rogues who want to move around in melee without getting smooshed to paste. (Rogues don't have the self-heal or the bigger hit die of the fighter.)


On the contrary, those 3 rerolls a day are a waste if you can get them through other means. Or not have to roll at all.

This is like saying Uncanny Dodge is useless if you're never sneak attacked or surprised. Only true if you don't view it as what it is - an insurance policy. If you never need it, you're probably already winning anyway.

Also, I'm not aware of any reliable way to have advantage on all saving throws so I'm sure this will see use.


Outside of battle I've seen acrobatics used in a couple of ways.

While tailing a target, used acrobatics to stay steady perched on a beam.

Jumping down from a ledge, the acrobatic check allowed for safe landing.

While using the the Strength Score = "Jump Speed" rules, I was jumping from one building to the next, again tailing a target, and I used acrobatics to keep from slipping due to the water from a rain fall earlier in the day.

Replaced a stealth check in a crowded market (everyone else was Halflings) by juggling, the enemies thought I was just a performer. The team wanted to make hide checks and I knew I would fail, so I made an acrobatics check to hide that I wasn't supposed to be there.

Not saying you are wrong, just that there are many out of combat situations where skills can be applied.

I'm not saying that you can't use skills out of combat, but because those are going to be so heavily dependent on how delighted your DM is with your ingenuity (and conversely, how much he wants you to fail) it feels less like there is a point in rolling to begin with there. Some DMs might see what you did as Medium, others as Hard or Very Hard. I would thus consider the combat applications to be more important, particularly when it comes to skills that might come into play with positioning. (Also, shouldn't juggling be Performance, or pretending to be a juggler Deception?)

I also find it odd that you're good at acrobatics and bad at stealth - aren't they both Dex? - but anyway.

Sartharina
2014-07-22, 03:18 PM
I don't see any of that in the description on page 60, so I'm assuming that if you can get those uses by your DM then getting back a familiar use (Tumble) should be possible too. And since they still want rogues to be dex-focused and in flanking position (you can sneak attack without advantage if you are "flanking") then Mobility will be a feat tax for all rogues who want to move around in melee without getting smooshed to paste. (Rogues don't have the self-heal or the bigger hit die of the fighter.)Rogues sneak attack anyone with an ally adjacent to them. They don't need to be flanking. They don't even need to be adjacent themselves. Furthermore, Opportunity attacks are not provoked by moving around someone - only by leaving their threatened radius. You can run circles around someone all day without them being able to do anything about it. So no, Mobility ISN'T a rogue Feat Tax. Furthermore, "Disengage" is one of the rogue's free Bonus Actions, so they already have part of the bonus of Mobility right from level 2.

And by "Not rolling at all", I mean taking feats that make success guaranteed, such as Mobility making Acrobatics(Tumble) checks guaranteed. You don't need car insurance (Beyond liability insurance) if you can conjure new cars at will.
I also find it odd that you're good at acrobatics and bad at stealth - aren't they both Dex? - but anyway.

Both dex, but no proficiency in Acrobatics. All my characters are acrobats. Almost none are stealthy.

Psyren
2014-07-22, 03:25 PM
Rogues sneak attack anyone with an ally adjacent to them. They don't need to be flanking.

I know - that's why I put "flanking" in quotes.


They don't even need to be adjacent themselves.

This is indeed nice for ranged rogues, and I expect most of them will go this route as a result, but those would have no use for Mobility anyway so it's still useless. Meanwhile the melee ones do have to worry about OAs.


Furthermore, Opportunity attacks are not provoked by moving around someone - only by leaving their threatened radius. You can run circles around someone all day without them being able to do anything about it.

If you're a melee rogue and you want to switch targets before dropping the first guy - say, you end up with disadvantage against the first one, or somebody else in the party needs help - then yes, it will matter.


So no, Mobility ISN'T a rogue Feat Tax. Furthermore, "Disengage" is one of the rogue's free Bonus Actions, so they already have part of the bonus of Mobility right from level 2.

Perfect, so they can disengage as a swift bonus whenever they need to move away! So Mobility is indeed pointless! Which brings us right back to Lucky so far having no competition.

PinkysBrain
2014-07-22, 03:28 PM
So effectively it's 3x rerolls per day of any d20. Which leads me to say again, why wouldn't anyone pick this feat?

It's good ... also boring, which is not good.

Sartharina
2014-07-22, 03:31 PM
Perfect, so they can disengage as a swift bonus whenever they need to move away! So Mobility is indeed pointless! Which brings us right back to Lucky so far having no competition.

Not for non-rogues, or rogues who'd rather use their bonus action to hide or stab someone else.

A reroll doesn't let you do anything new. It's probably better than an ability boost... unless you use skills tied to that ability boost often enough that one reroll becomes noise (Which I usually do). Also - rerolls fall into "Too awesome to use" frequently.

Merc_Kilsek
2014-07-22, 03:42 PM
Maybe this will help (this not from the final printed version so it could be different):

Lucky
-You have 3 luck points. Whenever you make an attack roll, an ability check, or a saving throw, you can spend one luck point to roll an additional d20. You choose which of the d20s is used for the attack roll, ability check, or saving throw.
- You can also spend one luck point when an attack roll is made against you. Roll a d20, and you choose whether the attack uses the attacker’s roll or yours.
- If more than one creature spends a luck point to influence the outcome of a roll, the points cancel each other out; no additional dice are rolled.
- You regain your expended luck points when you complete a long rest.

Mobile
- Your speed increases by 10 feet.
- When you use the Dash action, difficult terrain doesn’t cost you extra movement on that turn.
- When you make a melee attack against a creature, you don’t provoke opportunity attacks from that creature for the rest of the turn, whether you hit or not.

From my experiences both feats are handy. Lucky is more universal but doesn't offer flat guarantees like Mobile and other feats that can be picked.

Edit: My only personal issue is some feat are melee strike, not weapon strike, which is a minor annoyance.

Sartharina
2014-07-22, 03:45 PM
...dang, I forgot mobile required you to make an attack against a creature. Still - it's very useful for Fighters.

Psyren
2014-07-22, 03:48 PM
It's good ... also boring, which is not good.

"I'll take dull efficiency over exciting uncertainty any day of the week." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0836.html)


Not for non-rogues, or rogues who'd rather use their bonus action to hide or stab someone else.

You're almost never going to be able to Hide in combat anyway ("you can't hide from a creature that can see you") and you're also almost never going to need to Dash anywhere once melee combat is joined. So Disengage is about the only worthwhile thing to use it on.

There may be other useful feats, but Mobility so far is not one for the class most likely to want it.

As for non-rogues, even if Fighters cared about taking an AoO they have no real reason to hop around during the fight until their current target is down anyway, and the other two have spells to move around safely without needing Mobility (not that they will be in melee anyway.)



- You can also spend one luck point when an attack roll is made against you. Roll a d20, and you choose whether the attack uses the attacker’s roll or yours.

Wow, so it can negate attacks too! I currently see no reason for anyone to skip this.

Merc_Kilsek
2014-07-22, 03:48 PM
...dang, I forgot mobile required you to make an attack against a creature. Still - it's very useful for Fighters.

Yeah but at least hitting doesn't matter.

Person_Man
2014-07-22, 09:29 PM
Mobile
- Your speed increases by 10 feet.
- When you use the Dash action, difficult terrain doesn’t cost you extra movement on that turn.
- When you make a melee attack against a creature, you don’t provoke opportunity attacks from that creature for the rest of the turn, whether you hit or not.


This seems like it should be worked into a Rogue and/or Monk class feature, rather then being a Feat.

Also, it's a perfect example of a Feat that is ridiculously useful if you're playing the game on a tabletop with miniatures, and almost entirely useless if you're playing the game in the theater of the mind.

It's usefulness with miniatures is self evident. But in the theater of the mind, its basically impossible for a DM to keep track of the exact distance between creatures and terrain without using miniatures, and you provoke OA very rarely. So in the TotM the Mobile Feat is either useless, or the DM basically just gives the player the benefit of the doubt whenever anything related to movement occurs.

da_chicken
2014-07-22, 09:45 PM
This seems like it should be worked into a Rogue and/or Monk class feature, rather then being a Feat.

Also, it's a perfect example of a Feat that is ridiculously useful if you're playing the game on a tabletop with miniatures, and almost entirely useless if you're playing the game in the theater of the mind.

It's usefulness with miniatures is self evident. But in the theater of the mind, its basically impossible for a DM to keep track of the exact distance between creatures and terrain without using miniatures, and you provoke OA very rarely. So in the TotM the Mobile Feat is either useless, or the DM basically just gives the player the benefit of the doubt whenever anything related to movement occurs.

You really seem to be grasping at straws to criticize this thing. :smallconfused:

"If you play in DM fiat mode it's totally subject to DM fiat." Ok?

"This is so good that more than one class could have it as a feature." Alright?

Merc_Kilsek
2014-07-22, 10:52 PM
This seems like it should be worked into a Rogue and/or Monk class feature, rather then being a Feat.

Also, it's a perfect example of a Feat that is ridiculously useful if you're playing the game on a tabletop with miniatures, and almost entirely useless if you're playing the game in the theater of the mind.

It's usefulness with miniatures is self evident. But in the theater of the mind, its basically impossible for a DM to keep track of the exact distance between creatures and terrain without using miniatures, and you provoke OA very rarely. So in the TotM the Mobile Feat is either useless, or the DM basically just gives the player the benefit of the doubt whenever anything related to movement occurs.

Worked fine in all the play testing we did. Never used miniatures, at best maybe notes on a bit of paper but that was rare. If it is worthless in TotM it is not the feat/rules; it is the people at the table. Better communication is likely the issue?

Lanaya
2014-07-22, 11:31 PM
When you look at all of that, it's clear that until at least level 3, when you get level 2 spells, you won't be doing a whole lot out of combat.

Not really, and this comes back to the big problem of 5e, because the difference between being good at persuasion and not being good at persuasion is... +2 on a d20 roll. The whims of the dice are going to decide whether you succeed on any skill test far more often than whether you're proficient in that skill, especially during early levels.

obryn
2014-07-22, 11:36 PM
Not really, and this comes back to the big problem of 5e, because the difference between being good at persuasion and not being good at persuasion is... +2 on a d20 roll. The whims of the dice are going to decide whether you succeed on any skill test far more often than whether you're proficient in that skill, especially during early levels.
I don't agree, in practice. Remember that this is a stat check more than a skill check.

The folks who are good at persuasion - not just proficient - will also need a high Charisma to be good at it. The difference is likelier +5 or even +6 at 1st level. That's plenty differentiation.

Lanaya
2014-07-22, 11:48 PM
I don't agree, in practice. Remember that this is a stat check more than a skill check.

The folks who are good at persuasion - not just proficient - will also need a high Charisma to be good at it. The difference is likelier +5 or even +6 at 1st level. That's plenty differentiation.

Sure, a cleric with 18 charisma and proficiency will be a lot better at persuasion than a wizard with 5 charisma, but that doesn't show that the cleric's mighty persuasion abilities make them inherently better in non-combat situations than wizards. It just shows that high ability score > low ability score. The classes themselves barely factor into it.

obryn
2014-07-23, 12:03 AM
Sure, a cleric with 18 charisma and proficiency will be a lot better at persuasion than a wizard with 5 charisma, but that doesn't show that the cleric's mighty persuasion abilities make them inherently better in non-combat situations than wizards. It just shows that high ability score > low ability score. The classes themselves barely factor into it.
No, that's true, at low levels the classes barely enter into it. That's by design, and sensible with 5e's overall philosophy. There's no such thing as a persuasive cleric with 5 charisma.

Why? Because there are no skill checks, just stat checks. A Fighter with 18 charisma is very persuasive. He should be; he has an 18 charisma! However, if he's not proficient, he won't get any better at it and will eventually lose ground to someone with a 14 + proficiency. Nothing wrong with that either. I honestly don't see a problem.

This "only a +2!" thing is overblown for exactly the same reason non-proficient saves are borked. (And those, I DO think are problems.) Stats are doing triple duty as saves, skills, and... Er... Stats.

Sartharina
2014-07-23, 12:41 AM
"I'll take dull efficiency over exciting uncertainty any day of the week." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0836.html)Not everyone is a Roy. Many are Elans. Do not project your playstyle as "The only one people will use".


You're almost never going to be able to Hide in combat anyway ("you can't hide from a creature that can see you") and you're also almost never going to need to Dash anywhere once melee combat is joined. So Disengage is about the only worthwhile thing to use it on.So have the fighter or other party member distract it, and stick to concealment (Which breaks visibility). Also - Off-hand attacks. It's essentially a free reroll to land a Sneak Attack every round, instead of only 3/day!


As for non-rogues, even if Fighters cared about taking an AoO they have no real reason to hop around during the fight until their current target is down anyway, and the other two have spells to move around safely without needing Mobility (not that they will be in melee anyway.)Real Reasons for a fighter to hop around in combat:
1. A S+B fighter needs to move to protect a squishier party member. 2. A second attack on the current target would be overkill, and best handled by another party member. 3. Secondary target can be killed in one blow, primary target cannot. 4. Kiting a slower foe to death with melee attacks. That +10 movement allows him to attack and get get out of there much easier, without allowing the foe to properly close and attack (Or at least reducing the chance of a successful close+attack).


Wow, so it can negate attacks too! I currently see no reason for anyone to skip this.
That's because you're blinded by your own munchkin myopia.

This seems like it should be worked into a Rogue and/or Monk class feature, rather then being a Feat.
No thanks. It's greatest appeal is to two-weapon fighters, barbarians, rangers, or Sword+board fighters that want to be Stelios.

Not everyone single-focuses on targets. Some people go for Rule of Cool and dramatic stuff over dull efficiency.

And as for Good At Something/Not Good At something... that ranges from -1 as Not Good (Nonproficient, -1 stat) At Something, to +4(+2 Prof, +2 Ability) as Good at something at first level, to -1 Bad at vs. +11 Good At (+5 Stat, +6 Proficiency) at level 20.
No, tier 2.

If you take them all the way down to tier 3 then you take away a play style. High powered badass should be reachable to players if they and the DM wants."High-Powered Badass" is Tier 4, not Tier 2. The only people exempt from High Powered Badass are Tier 5 guys.

captpike
2014-07-23, 12:49 AM
The problem that WotC faces is that their fandom is split almost down the middle on this issue. A lot of players want fighters to have cool things, but more players want them to be simple so that noobs can learn the game and wizards can still be the flashy guys. Every time WotC has tried to give fighters nice things (the Tome of Battle in 3e and Everything in 4e), they have received considerable backlash from a large and vocal fanbase.

It's like Tony Stark's line from The Avengers. "You don't understand; there is no throne! There is no scenario in which you come out on top!" WotC is stuck in a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. If they give fighters nice things, wizards fans raise their voices. If they don't, fighter fans raise theirs. What they've tried to do here is to split the difference and give them just a few nice things, and now EVERYBODY is raising their voices.

People need to face facts, and the fact here is this: most people do not want the same thing you want. It doesn't matter who you are, you are an individual with unique tastes and desires. One company is trying to please a large fanbase coming from myriad different backgrounds. Everyone wants something different out of this game. If you are not receiving 100% of what you want out of this one game, guess what: neither is anybody else. Deal with it.

...or they just have a simple option and call it a day. "you pick from these maneuvers [list of awesome maneuvers] but if you really want your fighter to be simple, here are some simple ones that give flat bonus"
done, problem solved

part of the problem is there are people who WANT fighters to not just be simple, but to be weak, they don't want fighters to have the options or power that casters do.


Actually, a nonmagical character is capable of doing anything physically possible. The only reason spells have more rules for them is because magic isn't something we interact with in the normal world, and thus needs rules defining what it is and what it can do, instead of merely providing a framework for resolving actions a player wants to take.

I must have missed the part where fighters get powers and cool things...

also RL should not be a limit unless you make it a limit for every class,




So much this.

Basic = Beginner

PHB = Intermediate

DMG = Advanced

how? it would be stupidity of the highest order for them to put player stuff in the DMG. players do not read it, nor can or should they expect them to.


No, that was not your original question and it was not phrased like that.

Here's a reminder of what you posted:

Why should anyone give you the time of day when you act like this?

And then you ad in personal attacks:

I'm an ******* so I don't expect people to treat me with any kind of respect. But you seem to think you're not and yet expect everyone to treat you as if you're deserving of the best and most important treatment. You want respect? Act respectful.

if the truth insulted you, you should be insulted.


Can you really not see the point of skills outside of combat?

Acrobatics is the way to swing across gaps using chandeliers or ropes, quickly avoid inclement terrain by hopping/wall running... It's an exploration, not combat, tool.

Acrobatics and athletics allow all sorts of cool stuff.

That said, there are combat purposes of acrobatics: Saving movement by vaulting through/over/under someone, acquiring high ground by attacking off of walls, standing up from prone quickly by rolling/flipping back to your feet. The Prince of Persia uses Acrobatics, Athletics AND Mobility.

The feat should stack with other things that increase movement, since it increases base speed. If there are other ways, they'd stack as well.

you keep talking about these things as if they rules say them. yes the DM Can pull things out of his ass for the fighter to do if he wants to but you can do the same thing for the wizard.

because you can do this for every class equally you cant use it as part of a reason to not give any rules for things the fighter can do.

Psyren
2014-07-23, 08:17 AM
That's because you're blinded by your own munchkin myopia.

And you're blinded by your fanboy fanaticism. Look, I can alliterate too!

I really hope the other feats compete with Lucky better than this dreck.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-23, 08:24 AM
And you're blinded by your fanboy fanaticism. Look, I can alliterate too!

I really hope the other feats compete with Lucky better than this dreck.

I really hope that at some point we can drop feats from D&D.

I think we are to the point where everything can be a base rule or be part of a class or race somewhere.

Or maybe just use feats to replace archetypes, make archetypes into feats with class requirements.

I never thought this was possible but 5e could make it where feats are obsolete.