PDA

View Full Version : Sorcerer preview on Escapist



Stray
2014-07-25, 09:22 AM
Here it is. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/136372-Exclusive-The-Table-of-Contents-and-Sorcerer-From-the-D-D-Players-Handbook)

Basically no new surprises since the last time sorcerer showed up in Lrgends & Lore articles. Same number of spells per day as wizard, one more cantrip known, sorcery points and so on.

Lokiare
2014-07-25, 09:28 AM
They don't exactly show anything but the fluff and level up table. We get the names of their class features, but nothing more. Not enough to really judge them except that if their spells and spell slots are the same as a Wizard then they are nothing but another caster class that will dominate the game.

obryn
2014-07-25, 09:31 AM
I think the art's pretty thrilling.

I'm loving the art, in general. It's going to be a gorgeous book.

Human Paragon 3
2014-07-25, 09:36 AM
I don't get why we need wizards AND sorcerer AND warlock in the PHB. How differently can Wiz and Sorc possibly play? Why not just make Sorcerer a wizard archetype?

BRC
2014-07-25, 09:39 AM
I don't get why we need wizards AND sorcerer AND warlock in the PHB. How differently can Wiz and Sorc possibly play? Why not just make Sorcerer a wizard archetype?

How different can a Fighter and a Barbarian be, after all, they both hit people with weapons.

Human Paragon 3
2014-07-25, 09:42 AM
How different can a Fighter and a Barbarian be, after all, they both hit people with weapons.

Are you implying that that's not a valid question?

CyberThread
2014-07-25, 09:45 AM
Because, they are paragon names, and it is dnd, that is the dnd thing.


So some examples for flks

3.5 had 11 classes
4e had 7 classes
5e has 12 classses starting out


3.5 had 7 races starting out
4e had 7 races
5e has 9 races including with multiple subraces also as core options


Just as far as content goes, it seems core maybe worth the money

Human Paragon 3
2014-07-25, 09:48 AM
One of the things I appreciated about 4e was their willingness to make hard choices about classes and races.

This class does THIS. That class does THAT. Each class had a role and they didn't step on each other's toes too much.

Really it's a stupid complaint. We are getting more content for the same price, and obviously most players wanted it this way. It just irks my game designer sensibilities. It's not elegant.

1337 b4k4
2014-07-25, 09:50 AM
I think the art's pretty thrilling.

I'm loving the art, in general. It's going to be a gorgeous book.

Agreed. I have been really liking the art this time around. Still not my favorite, but definitely more than I liked 3.5 and 4e's art.


I don't get why we need wizards AND sorcerer AND warlock in the PHB. How differently can Wiz and Sorc possibly play? Why not just make Sorcerer a wizard archetype?

Like most things having to do with classes I suspect this is largely historical (and also a result of their statement that they would include all the previous PHB classes). Frankly I agree with you that a lot of the casters need to be rolled back into a "Magic User" class and become subclasses thereof. Likewise, I think a lot of the martial classes need to be rolled back into a "Fighter" class and become subclasses thereof. Unfortunately, years of D&D history and a whole lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth would prevent this from happening. No way you could convince the D&D fanbase that Ranger and Barbarian are fighter subclasses any more than you could convince them the Sorcerer and Warlock are Wizard subclasses. In general, it really seems like throughout D&D's history, one constant has been everyone wanting their own class for their own particular imaging of a class.

Edit
----------



This class does THIS. That class does THAT. Each class had a role and they didn't step on each other's toes too much.


Eh... yes and no. While each "class" didn't necessarily step on the other's toes, the real "classes" of 4e were the roles, and you definitely stepped on toes when you had two (or more) of the same role in a party. Two strikers or two controllers were nearly interchangeable, with only some weak flavor text to distinguish.

Inevitability
2014-07-25, 09:53 AM
Because, they are paragon names, and it is dnd, that is the dnd thing.


So some examples for flks

3.5 had 11 classes
4e had 7 classes
5e has 12 classses starting out


3.5 had 7 races starting out
4e had 7 races
5e has 9 races including with multiple subraces also as core options


Just as far as content goes, it seems core maybe worth the money

4e had 8 classes and races, not 7.

Classes: Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Warlock, Warlord, Wizard
Races: Dragonborn, Dwarf, Eladrin, Elf, Half-Elf, Halfing, Human, Tiefling

Human Paragon 3
2014-07-25, 09:54 AM
Agreed. I have been really liking the art this time around. Still not my favorite, but definitely more than I liked 3.5 and 4e's art.



Like most things having to do with classes I suspect this is largely historical (and also a result of their statement that they would include all the previous PHB classes). Frankly I agree with you that a lot of the casters need to be rolled back into a "Magic User" class and become subclasses thereof. Likewise, I think a lot of the martial classes need to be rolled back into a "Fighter" class and become subclasses thereof. Unfortunately, years of D&D history and a whole lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth would prevent this from happening. No way you could convince the D&D fanbase that Ranger and Barbarian are fighter subclasses any more than you could convince them the Sorcerer and Warlock are Wizard subclasses. In general, it really seems like throughout D&D's history, one constant has been everyone wanting their own class for their own particular imaging of a class.


I kind of liked how AD&D did it, where ranger and paladin were technically fighter subclasses, but with special requirements. They still got their own page, but it was clear that these were rarer, that you had to qualify for them, and that you gave up something to do it (namely weapon specialization).

In the same way, druid was a cleric sublcass and bard was a thief subclass.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-25, 09:55 AM
How different can a Fighter and a Barbarian be, after all, they both hit people with weapons.

As much as I want to agree with you, the biggest problem I can see with the Wiz-War-Sor trio is that if they all have the same profs/HD/spells, or close to the same, then will there be a big enough difference between them?

The wizard I think is different enough, however the warlock and sorcerer is what concerns me. The two really could be one class, with the origins and pacts beings one class feature (determining where your power comes from), lots of at-will abilities, and then big boom stick spells that you get to modify.

Hmm the fighter is getting 6 pages, which might be a good sign. The simple fighter will take up... A page or 1.5 pages and the intro will be a page or 1.5 pages... So maybe we will get 2-3 pages of a fun fighter?

Person_Man
2014-07-25, 09:56 AM
One of the things I appreciated about 4e was their willingness to make hard choices about classes and races.

This class does THIS. That class does THAT. Each class had a role and they didn't step on each other's toes too much.

Really it's a stupid complaint. We are getting more content for the same price, and obviously most players wanted it this way. It just irks my game designer sensibilities. It's not elegant.

I agree.

They could have made Wizard, Warlock, and Sorcerer subclasses to a Magic User class.

Or they could make the Wizard, Warlock, and Sorcerer all have unique class ability mechanics.

There is no logical reason to have three such duplicative classes, especially since the Cleric and Druid also basically share the same exact 9th level casting mechanics.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-25, 10:00 AM
I agree.

They could have made Wizard, Warlock, and Sorcerer subclasses to a Magic User class.

Or they could make the Wizard, Warlock, and Sorcerer all have unique class ability mechanics.

There is no logical reason to have three such duplicative classes, especially since the Cleric and Druid also basically share the same exact 9th level casting mechanics.

I was really hoping to see the Druid get knocked down to 7th level casting or something like that... Bard and Druid could both have limiting casting since they could have such wonderful class features.

I'm expecting Druids to be a top notch class.

BRC
2014-07-25, 10:03 AM
Are you implying that that's not a valid question?
It's just as valid as having both wizards and sorcerors.

And we havn't seen the special abilities. 5E's Wizards have some of the versatility of 3.5 Sorcerors. Hopefully those Sorcerous Origins will be enough to tip the scale.

I could see the Sorceror being a way to play more of a "Themed" Spellcaster. Like, if you want to specifically be a Pyromancer, as opposed to just being a wizard who happens to prepare fire spells every day.

Elegance in game design is important, but I personally think more classes are more elegant. If you want the same range of character options with fewer classes, you need to make classes more versitile, and therefore you need to make building characters more complex.

Right now we have Fighters and Barbarians. If we wanted to combine those into one "Warrior" class that can fit everything from a Three-Musketeers style Duelist to an Arthurian Knight to A Conan style barbarian hero, you ALSO need to fit everything in between.

In a class-based system like DnD, that can lead to a lot of mental baggage. I've helped enough new players make characters to know they can already be overwhelmed with options. A Class is a good, solid starting point. You are a Barbarian, there's a bunch of your decisions already made.

You COULD have Fighters, with Barbarians and Paladins as subclasses, and Spellcasters with Wizards, Sorcerors, and Warlocks as subclasses, but at that point you're basically doing exactly what they are doing now, you're just changing the names around and splitting up the tables. "I'm a Fighter, subclass Barbarian". So now the player needs to keep flipping between the overclass "Fighter" table, and the specific "Barbarian" rules, replacing the Fighter rules where relevant, ect ect.

It may lead to a cleaner class list, but unless you want to sacrifice options, it leads to messier rules.

Human Paragon 3
2014-07-25, 10:04 AM
I was really hoping to see the Druid get knocked down to 7th level casting or something like that... Bard and Druid could both have limiting casting since they could have such wonderful class features.


That would have been really interesting. They could make Wild Shape really awesome to make up for the lack of 8th and 9th level casting, making it explode at level 15 into ridiculous shapes.

LordFluffy
2014-07-25, 10:04 AM
One of the things I appreciated about 4e was their willingness to make hard choices about classes and races.

This class does THIS. That class does THAT. Each class had a role and they didn't step on each other's toes too much.This, actually, is one reason I was never interested in checking out 4e.

I don't want one person to be able to do it all just as well as the specialists, but I like being able to blend roles, if I choose.

obryn
2014-07-25, 10:19 AM
This, actually, is one reason I was never interested in checking out 4e.

I don't want one person to be able to do it all just as well as the specialists, but I like being able to blend roles, if I choose.
Most classes do blend roles. It's just not usually called out as such, non-obvious if you're unfamiliar with the system, and usually related to power source. Arcane classes tend to be secondary Controller, Martial classes are often secondary Striker, Divine are often secondary Leader, and Primal often share some characteristics with Defenders.

You have some exceptions, like Rogues who are potent secondary Controllers and Blackguards who are secondary Defenders, but this is mostly where the lines fall. Oh, and some utter oddballs like Bladesingers who are Strikers even though they're called Controllers and Sentinels who are a mix of everything.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-25, 10:26 AM
That would have been really interesting. They could make Wild Shape really awesome to make up for the lack of 8th and 9th level casting, making it explode at level 15 into ridiculous shapes.

Right?

I would rather see a fantastic Wildshape class feature than a somewhat copy of the cleric.

If I play a druid it is usually because I want to Wildshape, not because I want to be a nature caster... I can do that with the cleric.

Planar Shepard (less broken obviously) should be the first archetype I brew for the druid. :smallbiggrin:

T.G. Oskar
2014-07-25, 10:35 AM
I don't get why we need wizards AND sorcerer AND warlock in the PHB. How differently can Wiz and Sorc possibly play? Why not just make Sorcerer a wizard archetype?

Apparently Sorcerers get the Metamagic effects. That's one. But mostly, think of it like this.

The Wizard is the learned caster, dispossessed of magical heritage and unwilling to make a pact with forces beyond the Material Plane. With dedication and time, the Wizard learns to master the most powerful spells, and takes one of the schools as its specialization. Mechanically, this leaves the Wizard as the academic, the spellcaster that focuses on a school of magic amongst others, reflecting its "scientific" (the correct term for it would be logical, but the term "scientific" hits the spot) approach to magic.

The Sorcerer is born with magic. Where others reach physical puberty and mental maturity, Sorcerers achieve arcane awakening. They are the ones with a hint of magic in their veins: perhaps draconic, perhaps fey, perhaps fiendish...or maybe a whim of Magic itself. Mechanically, they're similar to Wizards, except they lack the spellbook and instead memorize their spells (let's face it; we haven't seen deep enough, but it definitely makes sense if they're returning to 3.x for the fluff), but where Wizards apply logic, Sorcerers apply "brute force". Their bloodline (let's face it: they stole this from Pathfinder, who stole the idea from the Heritage feats, so it's recursive theft) and their ability to manipulate the core of magic (Metamagic) means their spells will probably be more powerful than those of a Wizard, but they'll lack the flexibility (as they did in 3.5) Their Sorcery Points, though, are a direct theft of the PF Arcanist's Arcane Pool, and potentially will fuel their metamagic.

The Warlock isn't born with magic, but isn't willing to spend time to learn it. They're cheats: they make pacts with otherworldly entities in exchange for power, and then use their power as they see fit. Whether they follow their otherworldly patron's orders or defy them (becoming true "Oath-Breakers", the definition of "warlock"), they still manipulate magic. Mechanically, they are less powerful than Wizards and Sorcerers, but use their magic power in the same way a Rogue would use its weaponry in comparison to the Fighter. For lack of a better term: the Warlock is an Arcane Striker, and they retained the 4e feel of the Warlock for it. The lack of 6th level or higher spells is the telltale sign: they (potentially) lack access to the higher spells, but they can empower their lower-level spells (perhaps the effect of incantations) and use them more than a Wizard or Sorcerer would. So expect them to use the Fireball spells as if they spent their 9th level spells on them, though potentially they'll end up with single-target spells and self-centered bursts, along a bunch of debuffs.

Mechanically, aesthetically* and fluff-wise* they're different. Making a Sorcerer a variant of the Wizard (and so would the Warlock) was probably suggested earlier on, but this is distinct enough for each class to exist. Otherwise, that leads the idea of "why have Paladins and Rangers when multiclass does this so well?", which leads the path of "4 classes, no less, no more" and eventually into "why have classes anyways?" So, sacred cow and all that.

*I set fluff and aesthetic differently in this case. The fluff is how the class' powers are explained, and what they represent. The aesthetic refers to how the fluff relates to the crunch, mostly.

Human Paragon 3
2014-07-25, 10:51 AM
Warlocks have a class feature called Mystic Power or something like that, that is listed Mystic Power (7) Mystic Power (8) and Mystic Power (9) which will 99.9% likely give them limited access to 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells, or give them phantom spell slots to cast lower-level spells in.

I think that's actually pretty interesting. I'm also super interested in learning what the invocations will be (given their own column on the Warlock chart).

I see that Sorcerers are different than wizards in terms of their class features and fluff, I just wonder how differently the classes will actually play. Warlock seems very distinct to me. Sorcerers still seem muddied, despite your thoughtful breakdown of the three classes.

Morty
2014-07-25, 11:21 AM
There are two approaches to classes I could see - few big, branching classes with many sub-classes and archetypes, or a larger number of smaller, more specialized classes. The Sorcerer as seen in the preview, fits neither. It wouldn't even be necessary if not for the extremely specific preparation system that is hard to describe as something other than it is by default. Having a different origin of the same kind of power doesn't a separate class make. If they actually did something else than wizards, maybe... but it doesn't look like they do anymore than in 3e.

hawklost
2014-07-25, 11:29 AM
There are two approaches to classes I could see - few big, branching classes with many sub-classes and archetypes, or a larger number of smaller, more specialized classes. The Sorcerer as seen in the preview, fits neither. It wouldn't even be necessary if not for the extremely specific preparation system that is hard to describe as something other than it is by default. Having a different origin of the same kind of power doesn't a separate class make. If they actually did something else than wizards, maybe... but it doesn't look like they do anymore than in 3e.

I don't know about that. Do Wizards even Get Metamagic in the game anymore? or will Sorcerers be the only ones to cast spells this way?

Also, Wizards get enhancements to their spells based on schools. Sorcerers get their bloodline which might or might not effect their spells. It could also just effect them directly some way.

Considering they also have a much smaller pool of spells to choose from even though they can cast almost the same number a day means they will be less versatile but still as powerful as wizards (opinion).

finally, their Saves are completely different than wizards means that different spells will effect them differently.

BRC
2014-07-25, 11:35 AM
There are two approaches to classes I could see - few big, branching classes with many sub-classes and archetypes, or a larger number of smaller, more specialized classes. The Sorcerer as seen in the preview, fits neither. It wouldn't even be necessary if not for the extremely specific preparation system that is hard to describe as something other than it is by default. Having a different origin of the same kind of power doesn't a separate class make. If they actually did something else than wizards, maybe... but it doesn't look like they do anymore than in 3e.

The fact is this wasn't really a preview of the Sorceror, just a fluff page and the class table. We don't know their spell preparation system, or those bloodline abilities, which could become class-defining.

Morty
2014-07-25, 11:46 AM
The only thing that could render this class not superfluous in my eyes is a different spell list than the wizard's. Which is still not impossible, obviously. Even if I personally doubt it. Otherwise it's just different bells and whistles on two classes that cast the same spells when it comes right down to business.

VeliciaL
2014-07-25, 12:08 PM
The only thing that could render this class not superfluous in my eyes is a different spell list than the wizard's. Which is still not impossible, obviously. Even if I personally doubt it. Otherwise it's just different bells and whistles on two classes that cast the same spells when it comes right down to business.

This is one thing I liked about 4E, honestly. Wizards, Sorcs, and Warlocks all got their own unique power lists, so Warlock and Sorc didn't feel like they were playing with the Wizard's hand-me-downs. The fact the various powers weren't differentiated enough is a fair point though.

I think it's premature to judge the 5E Sorcerer superfluous though, until we get details on what their class features do.

Lycoris
2014-07-25, 12:25 PM
If the Spell Cards shown in another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?363477-D-amp-D-Spell-Cards) are any indication, the Sorcerer, Warlock, and Wizard will be sharing spell lists. It's a little saddening that they didn't receive their own lists, but they may well have ended with a list smaller than the Bard's had they done so, which wouldn't be the most enjoyable thing itself either. :smallwink:

I do believe that the Sorcerer does have some good things going for it though, at least enough for it to remain as a (potentially maligned) counterpart to the Wizard, rather than being unceremoniously made into an ACF:
-More cantrips than any other class so far (starts with as many as Warlock ends with).
-A good selection of Charisma based class skills (put that spellcasting stat to use).
-Font of Magic/Sorcery Points, along with Metamagic, seem to say that they'll be able to make good use out of the few spells they do get.

Too bad they don't get any extra weapon/armor proficiencies though, but you can already alleviate that a fair bit with racial features as is. A few extra spells known wouldn't hurt either :smallwink:.

Kurald Galain
2014-07-25, 12:39 PM
This is one thing I liked about 4E, honestly. Wizards, Sorcs, and Warlocks all got their own unique power lists, so Warlock and Sorc didn't feel like they were playing with the Wizard's hand-me-downs.

4E's sorcerer totally feels like the wizard's hand-me-downs, yes. The warlock feels unique because of its curse feature, and plays very differently; the sorc? Not so much.

BRC
2014-07-25, 12:44 PM
From what I've heard, 5E's warlock is picking up Hexes from the Hexblade.

CyberThread
2014-07-25, 12:53 PM
To be fair the sorcer origins bit will have options the wizard doesn't. Sorc will be where your options for gish and spells that require concentration.

I think most of you will be surprIsed by the monk and bard.

da_chicken
2014-07-25, 12:54 PM
I'm waiting to see what the class features are before I draw any conclusions. Many classes look extremely similar without looking at their class features.

Yuukale
2014-07-25, 12:58 PM
apparently, the main difference from the alpha draft is that sorcerers get more spell points (1/level). I wonder if the metamagic costs are still the same.

Held
2014-07-25, 01:14 PM
The only thing that could render this class not superfluous in my eyes is a different spell list than the wizard's. Which is still not impossible, obviously. Even if I personally doubt it. Otherwise it's just different bells and whistles on two classes that cast the same spells when it comes right down to business.

By that same token you could say Barbarian and Fighter are the same, because it's just different bells and whistles on two classes that swing swords the same way when it comes right down to business.

I've always liked Dungeons and Dragons sorcerers over wizards, chiefly because I just don't like the idea of relying on a spellbook to remember how to cast your big spells. Since 5th Edition provides archetypes at level 3, it wouldn't be possible to introduce a wizard with a sorcerer sub-class because the flavour for these two is so far apart, and when you have to pick a spell source, then a school of magic/bloodline/pact depending on that spell source, and your primary spellcasting stat depends on the spell source, it'd just be a huge headache to parse all the info. Separating them as distinct classes just seems reasonable to me while not sacrificing the customisability of each spell source.

Morty
2014-07-25, 01:29 PM
By that same token you could say Barbarian and Fighter are the same, because it's just different bells and whistles on two classes that swing swords the same way when it comes right down to business.

Of course I could say that. I do say that.


This is one thing I liked about 4E, honestly. Wizards, Sorcs, and Warlocks all got their own unique power lists, so Warlock and Sorc didn't feel like they were playing with the Wizard's hand-me-downs. The fact the various powers weren't differentiated enough is a fair point though.

I think it's premature to judge the 5E Sorcerer superfluous though, until we get details on what their class features do.

It is indeed too early to pass judgement, but I do think it's headed this way.

Urpriest
2014-07-25, 01:39 PM
To those of you thinking the Sorceror should have been a Wizard sub-class, remember that the whole point of D&D is to replicate things from past editions, and having giant piles of ubiquitous content. There is literally nothing else that another game does not do better. Being able to say "we have every class from every past PHB" is important for pursuit of that mission.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-25, 02:03 PM
To those of you thinking the Sorceror should have been a Wizard sub-class, remember that the whole point of D&D is to replicate things from past editions, and having giant piles of ubiquitous content. There is literally nothing else that another game does not do better. Being able to say "we have every class from every past PHB" is important for pursuit of that mission.

Well for me, it isn't that the sorcerer should be a wizard subclass but so far I'm not sure why the warlock and sorcerer aren't one class.

They seem to be way to similar, on a fluff and mechanical level.

The biggest fluff difference is that the warlock power comes from someone figuratively screwing someone and the sorcerer power comes from someone literally screwing someone.

Person_Man
2014-07-25, 02:08 PM
What really puzzles me is that Sorcerers, Wizards, Warlocks, and maybe Bards all have the same end product drawn more or less from the same list: Arcane Spells. Each of them has a mostly the same but somewhat different mechanic for producing those spells. But the mechanics are not really that different from each each other. And none of them appear to have a strait forward mechanism for doing so, like the 3.5 Warlock did with at-will Invocations. Each of them has a somewhat different but convoluted method of renewing their spells, which makes balancing them very difficult.

Sartharina
2014-07-25, 03:03 PM
Of course I could say that. I do say that.And you're wrong, because there is no way in hell I can play a Fighter in D&D in a way that makes it feel like a Barbarian.

Do we have any other Divine classes in the PHB?
We have: Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian
Rogue, Ranger, Bard
Druid, Cleric... ?
Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer.

Three distinct takes of the four power sources (Strength, Guile, Faith, ARCANE POWAH!). There aren't too many.

Also - not having CHA-based casters is an atrocity.

Lord Raziere
2014-07-25, 03:09 PM
Yay, sorcerers AND warlocks in PHB! and it sounds just like what I want. FEAR MY SORCEROUS MIGHT! :smallcool:

I hope sorcerers get Thaumaturgy as a cantrip, it would fit them so much.

pwykersotz
2014-07-25, 03:13 PM
Yay, sorcerers AND warlocks in PHB! and it sounds just like what I want. FEAR MY SORCEROUS MIGHT! :smallcool:

I too have always wanted Warlock as a core class. Our day has come! :smallbiggrin:

Edit: Tiefling Sorcerers do. :smalltongue:

Morty
2014-07-25, 03:33 PM
What really puzzles me is that Sorcerers, Wizards, Warlocks, and maybe Bards all have the same end product drawn more or less from the same list: Arcane Spells. Each of them has a mostly the same but somewhat different mechanic for producing those spells. But the mechanics are not really that different from each each other. And none of them appear to have a strait forward mechanism for doing so, like the 3.5 Warlock did with at-will Invocations. Each of them has a somewhat different but convoluted method of renewing their spells, which makes balancing them very difficult.

Maybe they at least get spell lists with some overlap but also unique spells, like clerics and druids or ToB initiators. Not very likely, but possible.

Chaosvii7
2014-07-25, 03:48 PM
Do we have any other Divine classes in the PHB?
We have: Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian
Rogue, Ranger, Bard
Druid, Cleric... ?
Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer.

You've forgotten the Monk, who takes the spot the Paladin was in when you move Paladin down with the Divine characters.

Barbarian, Fighter, Monk
Rogue, Ranger, Bard
Druid, Cleric, Paladin
Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer

That's mostly a matter of opinion and personal preference. You could have as easily considered Monks to be divine as well, but because Paladins do get spellcasting I prefer to lop them in with the divine characters over the monk.


Also - not having CHA-based casters is an atrocity.

What does this mean, exactly? At least 3 of the 7 spellcasters in the book are Charisma-based, assuming that they took direct inspiration from their 3.X counterparts. I wouldn't be surprised if they decided to make Paladins Charisma casters as well. That was a design cue from Pathfinder that I think really helped shift the scales in the Paladin's favor.

Madfellow
2014-07-25, 04:20 PM
You've forgotten the Monk, who takes the spot the Paladin was in when you move Paladin down with the Divine characters.

Barbarian, Fighter, Monk
Rogue, Ranger, Bard
Druid, Cleric, Paladin
Wizard, Warlock, Sorcerer

That's mostly a matter of opinion and personal preference. You could have as easily considered Monks to be divine as well, but because Paladins do get spellcasting I prefer to lop them in with the divine characters over the monk.

I think the way WotC is intending it is:

Martial: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Rogue
Divine: Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger
Arcane: Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard

It annoys me, but it does make some sense to have an equal number of each. Not the loadout I'd ideally like to see, but I can work with it.

Leon
2014-07-25, 04:41 PM
All you need is 3 Base Options and then they can be flavored into anything.

Fighter Type
Skills Type
Magic Type

WickerNipple
2014-07-25, 04:51 PM
I too have always wanted Warlock as a core class. Our day has come! :smallbiggrin:

I thought that day finally came last edition?

Madfellow
2014-07-25, 04:58 PM
All you need is 3 Base Options and then they can be flavored into anything.

Fighter Type
Skills Type
Magic Type

I agree 100%

Theodoxus
2014-07-25, 05:13 PM
So if I understand the issue correctly, the primary problem is, if you don't know what arcane class someone is playing, there's no distinctive way to determine if they're playing a wizard, sorc or warlock? At least not until they describe using a class specific mechanic "I pull out my spellbook", "I fuel my arcane spell with metamagic" or "I call upon my patron to hex to my foe". But otherwise a magic missile is a magic missile is a magic missile.

I can see that... though to reply to Held, regarding picking powers and such as an archetype at 3rd - I think most people would agree that yes, now that the format is codified, you're correct - it would be a pain. What I think everyone who is espousing the idea of Magic User -> Sorcerer/Warlock/Wizard is WotC would have designed a different modular system to do that with at 1st level.

A few of the concepts from 1st & 2nd edition that weren't incorporated that I wish had been, would have been easy to implement with a 4 class, many subclass approach; having different tables for XP advancement based on class (rogues advance faster than fighters who advance faster than clerics who advance faster than magic users) and the actual multiclass concept (the Fighter/Thief, Fighter/Cleric, etc.) Bring back Dual Classing with the 5th Ed class requirements to take the second class... Limiting "multiclassing" to only two classes reduces creep and power dipping. For someone wanting to be a Barbarian/Rogue/Wizard, they'll have to go the true multiclassing route and have a slower progression than a straight up single class would; but the gestalt power would make up for it.

If I have the time, I'm definitely writing up some house rules for it, even if I'm the only one in my group that's interested in it.

Lord Raziere
2014-07-25, 05:24 PM
All you need is 3 Base Options and then they can be flavored into anything.

Fighter Type
Skills Type
Magic Type

Problem with that. you make mechanics too samey, they don't feel like different characters or classes. that and it doesn't give you anything to latch onto as an identity as a start so you just have a vague of "some magic person" but no specific idea about how they work, and since you don't provide any unique mechanics for them, they don't feel like what they really want to play, or if your saying that they should really customize this to the extreme, it will require a lot of work to get what they're aiming for without it being set up in advance.

your essentially saying that no concepts are important other than the broadest most vague things possible and thus providing no structure to build any ideas around. our brains are meant to think in archetypes that work in certain ways, and these are too broad to appeal to those archetypes, its why we have classes at all, because the archetype of a barbarian is different from the archetype of a fighter no matter how much in the real world they're the same.

Morty
2014-07-25, 05:29 PM
I recall someone putting forward an idea, back during the playtest, to make the sorcerer chassis the basic, generic arcane spellcasting class. It's simple and straightforward - you have spells, you cast them and decide when you want to put some more magic mojo behind them. Then you'd have the "wizard" sub-class, or archetype or variant or whatever, that needs to prepare spells but gets access to a wider selection. It'd make more sense to put the simpler option into the basic set.

CyberThread
2014-07-25, 05:29 PM
Also as far as a consumer goes, which sounds more exciting 11 classes or , 3 classes with options?

Prophet_of_Io
2014-07-25, 05:39 PM
I don't know about that. Do Wizards even Get Metamagic in the game anymore? or will Sorcerers be the only ones to cast spells this way?

Also, Wizards get enhancements to their spells based on schools. Sorcerers get their bloodline which might or might not effect their spells. It could also just effect them directly some way.

Considering they also have a much smaller pool of spells to choose from even though they can cast almost the same number a day means they will be less versatile but still as powerful as wizards (opinion).

finally, their Saves are completely different than wizards means that different spells will effect them differently.

There was a legends and lore on this a while ago.

Metamagic will be a sorcerer class feature. Basically a Wizard may learn magic but a Sorcerer is magic. Wizards learn a broad range of spells, sorcerers learn a few spells but have a better innate understanding of them so they can mold and control their spells in unique ways a warlock or wizard can't. I actually love that. Flavorfully metamagic does fit a sorcerer better.

pwykersotz
2014-07-25, 05:41 PM
I thought that day finally came last edition?

Yeah...I didn't play 4th edition. I have nothing against it, but it has a powerful stigma in my group that I never bothered to try and overcome. :smallredface:

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-25, 06:02 PM
Yeah...I didn't play 4th edition. I have nothing against it, but it has a powerful stigma in my group that I never bothered to try and overcome. :smallredface:

That is really sad, the warlock is one of my favorite 4e classes. They were pretty awesome :).

They work well when ported over to 3.P, you can't tell that they are a 4e class unless you tell people they are a 4e class (in gameplay).

I need to post that warlock sometime.

rlc
2014-07-25, 06:37 PM
How different can a Fighter and a Barbarian be, after all, they both hit people with weapons.

the main difference is that we're pretty sure we already know how fighters and barbarians are going to be different (barbarians get rage, fighters get action surge and second wind, and we pretty much know what they are). we're not really sure how warlocks and sorcerors are going to be different (they have things that have different names, but that doesn't really mean much). can the fighter meta-class have conan, achilles, shaka and even jack the ripper? sure, but if you can break that class up and have things be at least a little bit clear as to what makes jack the ripper's rogue class different from conan's barbarian class and shaka's warlord class, then it makes sense. if you can make merlin's wizard class different from abremalin's warlock class and...somebody's sorceror class, then it makes sense. the same goes for st gregory i's cleric class and cathbad's druid class. and etc, ad nauseam.

CyberThread
2014-07-25, 06:54 PM
the main difference is that we're pretty sure we already know how fighters and barbarians are going to be different (barbarians get rage, fighters get action surge and second wind, and we pretty much know what they are). we're not really sure how warlocks and sorcerors are going to be different (they have things that have different names, but that doesn't really mean much). can the fighter meta-class have conan, achilles, shaka and even jack the ripper? sure, but if you can break that class up and have things be at least a little bit clear as to what makes jack the ripper's rogue class different from conan's barbarian class and shaka's warlord class, then it makes sense. if you can make merlin's wizard class different from abremalin's warlock class and...somebody's sorceror class, then it makes sense. the same goes for st gregory i's cleric class and cathbad's druid class. and etc, ad nauseam.


TD;LR

Babarian hit harder ,Fighter hit longer

Kurald Galain
2014-07-25, 07:16 PM
the main difference is that we're pretty sure we already know how fighters and barbarians are going to be different (barbarians get rage, fighters get action surge and second wind, and we pretty much know what they are). we're not really sure how warlocks and sorcerors are going to be different (they have things that have different names, but that doesn't really mean much).

Yes. Looking at literary archetypes and characters in fantasy novels, there is a clear and obvious distinction between fighters (e.g. Sir Lancelot) and barbarians (e.g. Conan); whereas there is no such distinction between sorcerers and wizards, except in D&D books.

Lord Raziere
2014-07-25, 07:41 PM
Yes. Looking at literary archetypes and characters in fantasy novels, there is a clear and obvious distinction between fighters (e.g. Sir Lancelot) and barbarians (e.g. Conan); whereas there is no such distinction between sorcerers and wizards, except in D&D books.

That should be corrected. I want more than one type of wizard. Too many people want the subtle wise people type for reasons I cannot fathom. I suspect its because people are too afraid of actually writing these powers being used, instead electing to make them have a non-impact upon everything, and I question why have it at all, if your not going to USE the magic, if its going to be so rare? just get rid of it entirely if you don't want it in your story.

I mean what about the mages and such that aren't obsessed with keeping it subtle and using it only when absolutely necessary? not everyone has the same reaction to using that kind of power.

rlc
2014-07-25, 08:07 PM
That should be corrected. I want more than one type of wizard. Too many people want the subtle wise people type for reasons I cannot fathom. I suspect its because people are too afraid of actually writing these powers being used, instead electing to make them have a non-impact upon everything, and I question why have it at all, if your not going to USE the magic, if its going to be so rare? just get rid of it entirely if you don't want it in your story.

I mean what about the mages and such that aren't obsessed with keeping it subtle and using it only when absolutely necessary? not everyone has the same reaction to using that kind of power.

i don't think anyone's "afraid" of writing magic. that doesn't even make any sense.
it's most likely more because magic is something special in our world, so it's something special in these worlds, too. it doesn't have to be like that, but it makes a lot of sense to do it.

Theodoxus
2014-07-25, 08:52 PM
I wouldn't say it's never been written - most FR novels feature some pretty impressive wizards. The original DL novels did too. Then there's the DS novels that feature some pretty uber defiler magic effects. Outside of D&D, the World of Warcraft novels depict some pretty power spellcasting... and there was some series a friend was trying to get me to read that was all about wizard duels and very flashy effects.

If you break out of the LOTR mode (angels, not wizards, anyway - despite the name) and what, Eddings? where magic is subtle mind stuff for the most part - there's plenty of examples of fireballs toasting armies and black tentacles hentai'ing it up ladies skirts.

da_chicken
2014-07-25, 09:27 PM
Yes. Looking at literary archetypes and characters in fantasy novels, there is a clear and obvious distinction between fighters (e.g. Sir Lancelot) and barbarians (e.g. Conan); whereas there is no such distinction between sorcerers and wizards, except in D&D books.

That's because in most fantasy novels one of the following things happens: a) there is one type of magic and one way to use it, so all common names are used interchangeably (wizard, magician, spellcaster, caster, illusionist, sorcerer, prestidigitator) because they all use basically the same magic, or b) they invent arbitrary new names for magic or names of groups of users to avoid their creations from being saddled with all the tropes and cliches associated with the common names. Examples: allomancy, feruchemistry, talent, channel, soulcasting, surgebinding, warding, Aes Sedai, Red Priest, Greenseers, Knights Radiant, etc. Fantasy novels don't have to differentiate characters with classes and abilities. The author just wiggles her fingers and bam, it's different enough to be an interesting character.

About the only novel series I can think of that uses "Wizard" and "Sorcerer" with different meanings is The Belgariad and The Malloreon by Eddings. There, Sorcery is the power of the gods, and Wizardry is raising demons. And Belgarath repeatedly has to explain that they're totally unrelated.

rlc
2014-07-25, 09:33 PM
TD;LR

Babarian hit harder ,Fighter hit longer

and how does one magic different than other magic


edit:

That's because in most fantasy novels one of the following things happens: a) there is one type of magic and one way to use it, so all common names are used interchangeably (wizard, magician, spellcaster, caster, illusionist, sorcerer, prestidigitator) because they all use basically the same magic, or b) they invent arbitrary new names for magic or names of groups of users to avoid their creations from being saddled with all the tropes and cliches associated with the common names.

i don't have a problem with wizards et al having the same basic magic, i just care that they do different things with them. like i said in my martial example from earlier, rogues and barbarians both hit people with things, but nobody would say that they're the same because they do things differently. if the sorcerers and warlocks specialize more, but also in different ways than each other, then that's great. a wizard might be able to cast darkness, but a sorcerer can cast that and shadow swarm and a warlock can cast void hex.

Lord Raziere
2014-07-25, 09:52 PM
and how does one magic different than other magic

well one class should be preparing smart guy like vancian casting, another should be an improvising on the fly and more freeform in their magic. at least thats how I would do it.

rlc
2014-07-25, 10:07 PM
well one class should be preparing smart guy like vancian casting, another should be an improvising on the fly and more freeform in their magic. at least thats how I would do it.

i can see that working. i think the spell preparation is a waste of time anyway.
warlocks can be the guys who just go around putting curses on everybody, so they won't need spell books.
wizards need them and specialize in certain schools.
sorcerers might need them, and they specialize in certain elements.
as long as a sorcerer isn't just a wizard who doesn't need a spell book.

da_chicken
2014-07-25, 10:15 PM
well one class should be preparing smart guy like vancian casting, another should be an improvising on the fly and more freeform in their magic. at least thats how I would do it.

Eh. 5e doesn't really have any form of Vancian casting. Sure, spells are prepared, but you don't forget them when you cast them. That's kind of a crucial aspect to Vance's magic system. 5e Sorcerers are closer to... the remakes of Final Fantasy I that don't use spell points. For clerics it's more like picking what spells are on your hotbar in WoW.

Lokiare
2014-07-26, 02:03 AM
4E's sorcerer totally feels like the wizard's hand-me-downs, yes. The warlock feels unique because of its curse feature, and plays very differently; the sorc? Not so much.

They each play very differently. The Wizard does low damage and adds control effects. The Sorcerer does high damage and rarely does control effects except to push, pull, or slide creatures into their damaging zones.


Yeah...I didn't play 4th edition. I have nothing against it, but it has a powerful stigma in my group that I never bothered to try and overcome. :smallredface:

You really should try to play it or at least watch a few games of it on youtube while following along in one of the books or PDFs. That way when it comes up in conversation you'll be educated about how it works and feels while played. Also you might like it and realize its one of the best editions of D&D to date despite its problems and stigmas.

Tholomyes
2014-07-26, 02:11 AM
You really should try to play it or at least watch a few games of it on youtube while following along in one of the books or PDFs. That way when it comes up in conversation you'll be educated about how it works and feels while played. Also you might like it and realize its one of the best editions of D&D to date despite its problems and stigmas.

While I have my issues with the system, to the point that they really do just overwhelm the positive qualities for me, I think I'd agree, if for no other reason than to find what the edition did do well, and try to see if anything could be borrowed for other games; the marking mechanic and the encounter-based resource mechanic were two that I found to be the high points of the system, and to the extent that they could be imported into my own games, I've tried to allow for it.

Rater202
2014-07-26, 02:52 AM
I think that's actually pretty interesting. I'm also super interested in learning what the invocations will be (given their own column on the Warlock chart).

I remember reading in a legends and lore article that the plan for invocations was "Cantrips on steroids"

So, at will effects that are stronger than cantrips, but presumably not as strong as higher level spells

Kurald Galain
2014-07-26, 03:51 AM
That's because in most fantasy novels one of the following things happens:

Not at all. It's because in fiction, when there are different kinds of magic (and there often are) then they have different effects. Not marginally different methods of achieving the exact same effects. In D&D, if they actually wanted to distinguish the sorc and the wiz, they should give them different spell lists. It's not hard, the bard also has a different one, as do 3E's beguiler and warmage.

That's the issue. The wizard has always had only minor class features because the wizard's power is in the spells. There's nothing wrong with that, but if you build another class with only minor class features and give it the exact same spells, i.e. the sorc in any edition so far, then people are going to wonder why on earth these are different classes.

Sartharina
2014-07-26, 04:24 AM
Not at all. It's because in fiction, when there are different kinds of magic (and there often are) then they have different effects. Not marginally different methods of achieving the exact same effects. In D&D, if they actually wanted to distinguish the sorc and the wiz, they should give them different spell lists. It's not hard, the bard also has a different one, as do 3E's beguiler and warmage.

That's the issue. The wizard has always had only minor class features because the wizard's power is in the spells. There's nothing wrong with that, but if you build another class with only minor class features and give it the exact same spells, i.e. the sorc in any edition so far, then people are going to wonder why on earth these are different classes.

The answer is "I want to manipulate the powers of the world with my charming and outgoing personality, not by being an insufferable nerd"

Tholomyes
2014-07-26, 07:09 AM
The answer is "I want to manipulate the powers of the world with my charming and outgoing personality, not by being an insufferable nerd" While I don't really have much issue with Sorcs and Wizards having overlap (at least in 3e; in 4e they were relatively different, and we just don't know enough about 5e to make a judgement), if all that separates them is casting stat, and maybe a few minor other things, I'd almost consider making that a choice within the class. For example, during the playtest, I house-ruled up an option for a Lore domain for the cleric which gave INT as the casting stat, and Unarmored Defense based on 10+Dex+Int. I could easily see something similar for Wizards and Sorcerers. Though I'd probably much rather see more mechanical options, that could be achieved by keeping them separate, I hardly see Casting stat be purpose enough to keep the two separate.

Madfellow
2014-07-26, 09:10 AM
I think the only reason the sorcerer and wizard exist and are core classes in 5th is that someone at WotC figured "Okay, we have 4 divine classes, 4 martial classes, and... 2 arcane classes. Drat. We should fix that." That's not a mindset that I agree with, and adding a pair of wizard clones is not how I'd like to see it "fixed." I'll suspend the final judgement until I see the PHB, but for now I'm still of the opinion that the sorcerer and warlock are unnecessary bloat, and at this point they're the only thing about 5th that I actively dislike.

And if their goal was to include all the core classes from previous editions, then where in the Nine Hells is my warlord?! :smallmad:

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-26, 09:13 AM
And if their goal was to include all the core classes from previous editions, then where in the Nine Hells is my warlord?! :smallmad:

Well people lose their minds about martial healing so they took the warlord out back and shot him.

Don't worry, my Templar has a really nice archetype that replicates the warlord nicely... Except for healing haha.

Morty
2014-07-26, 09:23 AM
And if their goal was to include all the core classes from previous editions, then where in the Nine Hells is my warlord?! :smallmad:

Reduced to a couple lukewarm maneuvers of the Battlemaster sub-class, by the looks of it.

Madfellow
2014-07-26, 09:38 AM
I came to a sad realization the other day. The reason there is SO MUCH magic in D&D, no matter which edition you're dealing with, is this: D&D has never been designed as a simulation of "generic fantasy." Rather, it's designed to simulate one very specific subset of fantasy, the Dying Earth series of Jack Vance. Now, I have no problem with the series; from what I've heard it actually sounds really interesting. But I do have a problem with the biggest name in tabletop games devoting two thirds of the player experience to simulating, of all things, Vance's magic system (which I would say is actually the LEAST interesting part of the series). I can understand WotC's obligation to include Vancian magic as a core part of 5th, but it doesn't need nearly as much real estate as it's taking up.

SpawnOfMorbo
2014-07-26, 09:45 AM
I came to a sad realization the other day. The reason there is SO MUCH magic in D&D, no matter which edition you're dealing with, is this: D&D has never been designed as a simulation of "generic fantasy." Rather, it's designed to simulate one very specific subset of fantasy, the Dying Earth series of Jack Vance. Now, I have no problem with the series; from what I've heard it actually sounds really interesting. But I do have a problem with the biggest name in tabletop games devoting two thirds of the player experience to simulating, of all things, Vance's magic system (which I would say is actually the LEAST interesting part of the series). I can understand WotC's obligation to include Vancian magic as a core part of 5th, but it doesn't need nearly as much real estate as it's taking up.

I've always hated the example of a wizard did it... Which seems to be the go to excuse for a lot of things.

Wait..

https://i.imgur.com/OAnXHD4.jpg

Ok carry on WotC carry on. A wizard did probably do it.

Sartharina
2014-07-26, 02:20 PM
And if their goal was to include all the core classes from previous editions, then where in the Nine Hells is my warlord?! :smallmad:Fighter subclass, apparently. Yes, I'm a bit miffed about it too.

VeliciaL
2014-07-26, 02:25 PM
Fighter subclass, apparently. Yes, I'm a bit miffed about it too.

If it does everything a warlord ought to, I'll be fine with it. If, though.

Lord Raziere
2014-07-26, 02:45 PM
Fighter subclass, apparently. Yes, I'm a bit miffed about it too.

Mrrrr. and I liked the warlord. I want to homebrew it up now. I'm gonna go check the 4e books I have, any iconic abilities I should add aside from commander's strike and inspiring word?

Morty
2014-07-26, 02:51 PM
I came to a sad realization the other day. The reason there is SO MUCH magic in D&D, no matter which edition you're dealing with, is this: D&D has never been designed as a simulation of "generic fantasy." Rather, it's designed to simulate one very specific subset of fantasy, the Dying Earth series of Jack Vance. Now, I have no problem with the series; from what I've heard it actually sounds really interesting. But I do have a problem with the biggest name in tabletop games devoting two thirds of the player experience to simulating, of all things, Vance's magic system (which I would say is actually the LEAST interesting part of the series). I can understand WotC's obligation to include Vancian magic as a core part of 5th, but it doesn't need nearly as much real estate as it's taking up.

Dying Earth is a major inspiration, certainly, forming the basis for D&D's magic system, but to say D&D simulates it is a rather big stretch.


If it does everything a warlord ought to, I'll be fine with it. If, though.

Last we saw there are a couple of powers to shove enemies or give allies bonuses, on a list of about twenty, belonging to the 'complex' Fighter subclass.

da_chicken
2014-07-26, 03:17 PM
And if their goal was to include all the core classes from previous editions, then where in the Nine Hells is my warlord?! :smallmad:

I still think it's the College of Valor Bard, but I'd like to see a true Warlord class. I enjoyed my 4e Warlord, and always liked the concept of the 3.x Marshall (the execution was decidedly lacking there, though).

Tholomyes
2014-07-26, 04:06 PM
I still think it's the College of Valor Bard, but I'd like to see a true Warlord class. I enjoyed my 4e Warlord, and always liked the concept of the 3.x Marshall (the execution was decidedly lacking there, though). The problem with that is that Bards are definitively magical. Expanding them to 9th level spellcasting (a move I don't disapprove of, mind you) makes them even more difficult to refluff to be Warlords, which are definitively non-magical.

Personally I think there will be more than just the 20 Maneuvers in the PHB when we get more supplement books, which will mean you can have a better "warlord" than just what it seems from what we know of the PHB, but it still irks me, as well, that it's not very easy to do, per the PHB (especially not an Int-based one, since, supposedly all the good Warlord feats are either stat-neutral or Cha based, when my favorite concept was the Tactical Warlord, rather than the various Cha-based ones.)

Craft (Cheese)
2014-07-26, 05:02 PM
None of this will help much if the maneuvers don't improve with level somehow, though.

Tholomyes
2014-07-26, 07:42 PM
None of this will help much if the maneuvers don't improve with level somehow, though.I disagree with the notion that maneuvers need to improve with level necessarily. One of the major math issues 3e had was that they felt like certain buffs and abilities needed to improve with level, when a +1 on a d20 roll is equally effective at level 1 as level 20, assuming all other things are constant (though, things weren't necessarily constant otherwise, which was another source of math issues). There are some cases where things need to improve to keep up, such as damage or certain debuffs (i.e. tripping isn't nearly as good when all the enemies fly), but it's very important to keep in mind what should and shouldn't scale.

Sartharina
2014-07-26, 08:13 PM
None of this will help much if the maneuvers don't improve with level somehow, though.

From what I understand, the dice driving the maneuvers scale with level. My complaint about ToB, spellcasting, and 4e's encounter/daily powers is that the abilities scale with level - but you don't always get the opportunity to swap them out when you need to (Which really sucked for people who used Martial Study early, only to find their toy double-dead at high levels), and many unique low-level abilities weren't given a relevant high-level ability of appreciably similar theme.

MeeposFire
2014-07-27, 12:48 AM
I disagree with the notion that maneuvers need to improve with level necessarily. One of the major math issues 3e had was that they felt like certain buffs and abilities needed to improve with level, when a +1 on a d20 roll is equally effective at level 1 as level 20, assuming all other things are constant (though, things weren't necessarily constant otherwise, which was another source of math issues). There are some cases where things need to improve to keep up, such as damage or certain debuffs (i.e. tripping isn't nearly as good when all the enemies fly), but it's very important to keep in mind what should and shouldn't scale.

Except that +1 does not stay the same value in 3e. Due to the different attack bonuses (particularly due to how wide the difference becomes) that +1 is more important at lower levels and less important at higher levels. This is why the bonuses scale in 3e in general as they need to. This is also due to defenses scaling differently as well. Monster AC for instance at any given CR at higher levels could be different by 10 points or more (as could saves) which means that a +1 is worth differently depending on what you are attacking.

Now 4e is different in that regard for the most part. Since everything scales in a similar rate based on their level a +1 is almost as good at higher levels as lower levels. In 4e your chances of hitting an equal level opponent do not change much as a base line. In 3e we know that is not the case especially if you start comparing different classes. A wizard starts out having a decent chance of hitting and ends up having nearly no chance at all.

Morty
2014-07-27, 06:06 AM
I disagree with the notion that maneuvers need to improve with level necessarily. One of the major math issues 3e had was that they felt like certain buffs and abilities needed to improve with level, when a +1 on a d20 roll is equally effective at level 1 as level 20, assuming all other things are constant (though, things weren't necessarily constant otherwise, which was another source of math issues). There are some cases where things need to improve to keep up, such as damage or certain debuffs (i.e. tripping isn't nearly as good when all the enemies fly), but it's very important to keep in mind what should and shouldn't scale.

It's not about math. The issue is that since the list remains the same on all levels, there can never be a battlemaster maneuver more impressive than reducing damage, scaring an enemy or giving an ally advantage on a roll. Even if any appear in future books.

Tholomyes
2014-07-27, 06:44 AM
Except that +1 does not stay the same value in 3e. Due to the different attack bonuses (particularly due to how wide the difference becomes) that +1 is more important at lower levels and less important at higher levels. This is why the bonuses scale in 3e in general as they need to. This is also due to defenses scaling differently as well. Monster AC for instance at any given CR at higher levels could be different by 10 points or more (as could saves) which means that a +1 is worth differently depending on what you are attacking.

Now 4e is different in that regard for the most part. Since everything scales in a similar rate based on their level a +1 is almost as good at higher levels as lower levels. In 4e your chances of hitting an equal level opponent do not change much as a base line. In 3e we know that is not the case especially if you start comparing different classes. A wizard starts out having a decent chance of hitting and ends up having nearly no chance at all.

I did make mention of that: "though, things weren't necessarily constant otherwise, which was another source of math issues." But my point stands, that improving based on level is often times actively detrimental, when the system doesn't account for scaling bonuses. With bounded accuracy, the +1 you get at first level is just as useful at twentieth. If you want abilities to get better over time, the increase in Expertise die size and number should be able to account for that.


It's not about math. The issue is that since the list remains the same on all levels, there can never be a battlemaster maneuver more impressive than reducing damage, scaring an enemy or giving an ally advantage on a roll. Even if any appear in future books.I disagree; there are many ways to create similar effects that are mechanically distinct.

While I do accept the idea that Spells and maneuvers are at odds, design wise, seeing as spells just get better with level, but maneuvers get worse (since you're picking ones that you passed over in previous levels), I think a lot of the manuever issues will be taken care of with supplemental material. When there are only 20 maneuvers, picking your 9th favorite is a bit disheartening, but with new maneuvers from supplements, that 9th favorite could even end up being one that you might consider for your third level maneuvers, from PHB, just by virtue of the expanded numbers of options. And your third level maneuvers still remain relevant, even as far as 20th level, no matter how many maneuvers you pick up afterwards.

rlc
2014-07-27, 08:30 AM
It's not about math. The issue is that since the list remains the same on all levels, there can never be a battlemaster maneuver more impressive than reducing damage, scaring an enemy or giving an ally advantage on a roll. Even if any appear in future books.

so let's say they make a simple tier system. what do we have, 20 right now and you pick your favorite 9? you can pick from these 6 for your first 3, these 6 for your second 3 and these 7 for your third 3. or whatever the numbers are. then, the new ones get the same treatment when they come out.

Morty
2014-07-27, 09:53 AM
I disagree; there are many ways to create similar effects that are mechanically distinct.

While I do accept the idea that Spells and maneuvers are at odds, design wise, seeing as spells just get better with level, but maneuvers get worse (since you're picking ones that you passed over in previous levels), I think a lot of the manuever issues will be taken care of with supplemental material. When there are only 20 maneuvers, picking your 9th favorite is a bit disheartening, but with new maneuvers from supplements, that 9th favorite could even end up being one that you might consider for your third level maneuvers, from PHB, just by virtue of the expanded numbers of options. And your third level maneuvers still remain relevant, even as far as 20th level, no matter how many maneuvers you pick up afterwards.

So at best they're going to churn out more maneuvers on the level of 'roll a die and cause a minor effect'.


so let's say they make a simple tier system. what do we have, 20 right now and you pick your favorite 9? you can pick from these 6 for your first 3, these 6 for your second 3 and these 7 for your third 3. or whatever the numbers are. then, the new ones get the same treatment when they come out.

I'm pretty sure this ship has sailed and they're not going to do that.

Noldo
2014-07-28, 01:18 AM
so let's say they make a simple tier system. what do we have, 20 right now and you pick your favorite 9? you can pick from these 6 for your first 3, these 6 for your second 3 and these 7 for your third 3. or whatever the numbers are. then, the new ones get the same treatment when they come out.

Unfortunately I do not hold too high hopes that WotC would understand to do several tiers of maneuvers.

There are two key reasons thereto:

(i) Going with tiered maneuver list, even if it would include only three tires, would require larger number of maneuvers in order to be functional. A single pick out of 20 seems more valid option than having a single pick out of 9 (assuming that current maneuvers would be distributed among tiers at ratio 9-6-5, with possibility to take also lower tier maneuver with higher pick).

(ii) Whether we like it or not, a tiered list will be strain to versimilitude. Unless maneuvers are organized into chains (which in itself is counterproductive), it will be difficult to make a reasonable non-magical explanation why some maneuvers are not available until the character has reached certain level.

Instead of tiered maneuvers I would have actually hoped they would have done scaling maneuvers. Either keeping the expertise dice (thus allowing the player to choose how many dice they would like to invest to the maneuver not unlike 5e Wizard chooses which level slot to use for a spell) or making the scaling automatic so that after certain level (or BAB), the maneuver does additional effect/different effect, portraying the growth of the character - and with proper design allowing various types of characters to benefit from different maneuvers at different stage of their character. A maneuver that might not be very interesting or effective for a certain build at lower lever could have a very beneficial higher level effect while for some other build the maneuvers would interact differently.

Person_Man
2014-07-28, 08:00 AM
Not at all. It's because in fiction, when there are different kinds of magic (and there often are) then they have different effects. Not marginally different methods of achieving the exact same effects. In D&D, if they actually wanted to distinguish the sorc and the wiz, they should give them different spell lists. It's not hard, the bard also has a different one, as do 3E's beguiler and warmage.

That's the issue. The wizard has always had only minor class features because the wizard's power is in the spells. There's nothing wrong with that, but if you build another class with only minor class features and give it the exact same spells, i.e. the sorc in any edition so far, then people are going to wonder why on earth these are different classes.

I agree entirely with this statement. I would strongly prefer a version of D&D where each class had a unique feel, effects, style of gameplay, fluff, etc. And then if people want to blend roles, have good multiclass rules of some kind.

However, that sadly hasn't been the case for most of D&D. In every edition, there has basically been 4 roles (Meat Shield, Skill Monkey, Arcane Magic, Divine Magic, or in 4E they changed it to a more Gamist Defender, Striker, Controller, Leader) and everything has been some variation on those four roles.



I came to a sad realization the other day. The reason there is SO MUCH magic in D&D, no matter which edition you're dealing with, is this: D&D has never been designed as a simulation of "generic fantasy." Rather, it's designed to simulate one very specific subset of fantasy, the Dying Earth series of Jack Vance. Now, I have no problem with the series; from what I've heard it actually sounds really interesting. But I do have a problem with the biggest name in tabletop games devoting two thirds of the player experience to simulating, of all things, Vance's magic system (which I would say is actually the LEAST interesting part of the series). I can understand WotC's obligation to include Vancian magic as a core part of 5th, but it doesn't need nearly as much real estate as it's taking up.

I disagree. If you read through the Dying Earth stories, it doesn't resemble any version of D&D in any way other then having memorized spells, with discrete/packaged effects and fanciful names. For a more in depth explanation, check out the "True Vancian Wizard" homebrew in my signature.

rlc
2014-07-28, 06:39 PM
(ii) Whether we like it or not, a tiered list will be strain to versimilitude. Unless maneuvers are organized into chains (which in itself is counterproductive), it will be difficult to make a reasonable non-magical explanation why some maneuvers are not available until the character has reached certain level.


not really. just say that certain maneuvers take more skill or something. while they're basically saying that your training leading up to the moment you officially become an adventurer gets you ready for level 1 (or whatever level you start with), you still only have so much skill. i agree that scaling something is better than outright denying it, too, but that doesn't mean that it's not possible to rationalize the denial until a certain point.
video games do this all the time. people would probably whine that it's "too video gamey" or something again, but that doesn't mean you can't take a couple cues here and there.

Knaight
2014-07-28, 10:50 PM
(ii) Whether we like it or not, a tiered list will be strain to versimilitude. Unless maneuvers are organized into chains (which in itself is counterproductive), it will be difficult to make a reasonable non-magical explanation why some maneuvers are not available until the character has reached certain level.

Hardly. Having to be sufficiently good at fighting to fight in certain ways is pretty sensible, particularly if the tiers are set up to scale off of proficiency. There are plenty of actual strains to versimiltitude (e.g. the entirety of the proficiency system), which people will get over just fine, this is nothing.

Seppo87
2014-07-29, 12:07 AM
It's not about math. The issue is that since the list remains the same on all levels, there can never be a battlemaster maneuver more impressive than reducing damage, scaring an enemy or giving an ally advantage on a roll. Even if any appear in future books.
But maybe they could have powerful optional effects that can only be activated by spending a high amount of expertise dice, unavailable at low levels

Tholomyes
2014-07-29, 12:23 AM
But maybe they could have powerful optional effects that can only be activated by spending a high amount of expertise dice, unavailable at low levels

Not to toot my own horn too much, but an option that I tried using for a homebrew system that I might try to import is to have maneuvers work in a way that you only spend your maneuver die if you roll under a target number. Better manuevers have higher target numbers, so while your d6 maneuver die level 1 fighter could technically use a TN 5 or 6 manuever, they'll get more mileage out of a TN 3 or 4 manuever, and d4 maneuver die level 1 battle clerics will stick to just TN 2 or 3 maneuvers. By level 10 or so, they'd have d8 or d10, they have a better shot at making these 5 and 6 maneuvers, and even have an off-chance at using 7 or 8 TN manuevers (without losing the die, of course. You can always use a maneuver you have available, so long as you have the dice to lose, and even if you lose the die, you get to use the maneuver, just with a minor penalty). Also, of note, in my homebrew the Fighter gets a -1 to maneuver target numbers, so even outside Fighter-specific maneuvers, they're just better at them.

The reason I'm not really working toward that homebrew was that it felt fairly complex, to the point that it'd be hard to keep everything straight, but in a simple base, such as 5e, it might be decent.