Early PHB Release Summary from Reddit

[Merc_Kilsek]

As the title suggests:

http://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/2crldi/early_phb_release_a_quick_summary/

[Human Paragon 3]

Flurry of Blows:
Costs 1 Ki and allows the monk two unarmed strikes as a bonus action.

Awesome! Now that's a flurry of blows.

[HorridElemental]

I'm thinking battle master fighter/any pact warlock will be my first multiclass character.

Two weapon Dex-Charisma-Constitution build shall do quite nicely. Grab the freighten maneuver and fey pact. Hell really any pact + old one patron would be good.

Extra Attack, Second Wind, and tons of HP + Warlock seems like it could be awesome.

[pwykersotz]

I suppose the question is whether this is going to be a feat tax, or a viable option:


Resilient:

+1 in attribute, +1 proficiency in any saving throw.

[hawklost]

I suppose the question is whether this is going to be a feat tax, or a viable option:

I think that depends on your style of play. It personally seems better than a +2 in a stat, especially once you have maxed your stat. So it would be defined as a 'feat tax' in that sense. Mostly though, it depends on if you more spells use different saves (if it is more evenly split across the 6 saves, this isn't as good).

[zorb25]

I suppose the question is whether this is going to be a feat tax, or a viable option:
Feat tax, you do need that additional proficiency, thanks to how saves work.

[Human Paragon 3]

I suppose the question is whether this is going to be a feat tax, or a viable option:

Viable option. For the number of off-proficiency saves an average character makes, you'll be able to take this feat or leave it. Not saying it's not strong. Just that you won't be left in the dust by characters that take it. An extra +1 to hit might be preferable.

[HorridElemental]

I suppose the question is whether this is going to be a feat tax, or a viable option:

Free bonus feat at first level ?

[da_chicken]

I suppose the question is whether this is going to be a feat tax, or a viable option:

At high level I think it's simply too good to pass up. You're already getting +1 to a stat. Do you want that paired with +5 or +6 to one save, or +1 to probably your 3rd best stat?

Also: Anybody else notice that these half feats make the alternate Human stupid good? Either +1 to three stats or +2 to one stat and +1 to another, plus whatever else the feat does (save proficiency, etc.).

[hawklost]

At high level I think it's simply too good to pass up. You're already getting +1 to a stat. Do you want that paired with +5 or +6 to one save, or +1 to probably your 3rd best stat?

And what if its like the alpha and the +1 to the stat must be the same stat that you get proficiency on? Would you consider it more or less of a Tax then?

[Human Paragon 3]

At high level I think it's simply too good to pass up. You're already getting +1 to a stat. Do you want that paired with +5 or +6 to one save, or +1 to probably your 3rd best stat?

That's actually a really good point. Unless there are other feats that give you proficiencies in stuff, this might be a lock past level, say, 12. I bet there will be feats that give you skill proficiencies too, though. The question is, are they more valuable than the saving throw or not?

[da_chicken]

And what if its like the alpha and the +1 to the stat must be the same stat that you get proficiency on? Would you consider it more or less of a Tax then?

Then you're simply comparing +2 to a stat you want with +6 to a save. That still may not be a bad deal.

[obryn]

I suppose the question is whether this is going to be a feat tax, or a viable option:
I've been calling it as a feat tax for quite a while already. Given the disparity that arises in saving throws, I think it's simply too good to pass up. Getting a stat boost on top of it is gravy. Casters will want Constitution for their Concentration checks. People without Wisdom saves will want it for Wisdom, since "sit out for a few rounds" effects tend to cluster around that stat.

It's a shame because it's downright boring and fails the "feats should be dramatic" test given how passive it is.

[hawklost]

That's actually a really good point. Unless there are other feats that give you proficiencies in stuff, this might be a lock past level, say, 12. I bet there will be feats that give you skill proficiencies too, though. The question is, are they more valuable than the saving throw or not?

If you take a feat for say a better Wisdom saving throw, but never ever go up against a Caster who uses a Wis save against you, you pretty much wasted your Feat. If on the other hand, you gain bonus/proficiency to a skill/save you use often, it becomes important to want that Feat.

It all depends on your campaign and DM and what is thrown at you.

[CyberThread]

so according ot the new release, is a player multiclasses into a caster class, They have to chose the same level of spells as a level 1 caster, but they get extra spell slots as if they were a level 10 caster?


Fighter level 9, into level 1 wizard.


You get access too catnips and 1st level spells as a level 1 wizard, but due to having 10 levels, you get to know 5 catnips and 4 level 1 spell slots?

[hawklost]

At high level I think it's simply too good to pass up. You're already getting +1 to a stat. Do you want that paired with +5 or +6 to one save, or +1 to probably your 3rd best stat?

Also: Anybody else notice that these half feats make the alternate Human stupid good? Either +1 to three stats or +2 to one stat and +1 to another, plus whatever else the feat does (save proficiency, etc.).

You could also say that WarCaster is a feat tax on Casters because it gives advantage on Concentration Saves. So now Casters have a minimum of 2 feats that are a 'tax' to them so far and we haven't even seen all the Feats in the book.

OR

a Caster could say, I don't plan on using Concentration spells much and don't plan on getting into melee so these feats are both completely worthless to me.

[hawklost]

so according ot the new release, is a player multiclasses into a caster class, They have to chose the same level of spells as a level 1 caster, but they get extra spell slots as if they were a level 10 caster?


Fighter level 9, into level 1 wizard.


You get access too catnips and 1st level spells as a level 1 wizard, but due to having 10 levels, you get to know 5 catnips and 4 level 1 spell slots?

"Your spell slots are based on total character level (spellcasting classes only),"

If that is what you read, it indicates that a Fighter 9, Wizard 1 is only a lvl 1 spell caster

a Wizard 1, Sorc 1, Cleric 1 would be considered a lvl 3 spell caster

EDIT:
I can see it being read both ways though, so until I have a PHB to read, the persons comments are a little ambiguous

[Human Paragon 3]

so according ot the new release, is a player multiclasses into a caster class, They have to chose the same level of spells as a level 1 caster, but they get extra spell slots as if they were a level 10 caster?


Fighter level 9, into level 1 wizard.


You get access too catnips and 1st level spells as a level 1 wizard, but due to having 10 levels, you get to know 5 catnips and 4 level 1 spell slots?

I think it's only if you multiclassing two caster classes together, like Cleric/Bard or something. You add your caster levels up, not class levels.

[CyberThread]

Hmm fighter : Eldritch knight or arcane trickster ..... with a dip of a caster class near the end.... Wooot, I found a dip combo already!

lol

[Human Paragon 3]

Yeah - not sure how it will work with half casters or whatever eldritch knight ends up being. Could be a fun character, though.

[HorridElemental]

Shape change seems nasty, change into CR = Level monster. Wildshape at max is CR = 1/3 level...

How about adding something onto shape change to make it a bit more balanced.

Each time you cast shape change you have a chance of thinking you are that type of monster (lose your mind) for the duration of the spell. The DC is 8 + number of times previously casted during the week.

Each week this DC resets.

That could be fun. >:D

[da_chicken]

You could also say that WarCaster is a feat tax on Casters because it gives advantage on Concentration Saves. So now Casters have a minimum of 2 feats that are a 'tax' to them so far and we haven't even seen all the Feats in the book.

OR

a Caster could say, I don't plan on using Concentration spells much and don't plan on getting into melee so these feats are both completely worthless to me.

To clarify: I'm not calling Resilient it a feat tax. It's very powerful, but that doesn't make it a tax. It's a tax if it fixes math design errors. Currently, save DCs at high level are, to me, a concern, but not a problem. I'm not upset that a high level mage can rip through the will of a character that hasn't put any effort into his mental defenses. It's like complaining that walking around naked with Dex 8 at level 20 should give you a viable AC. Yes, some spells can circumvent hit points and AC doesn't, but for the most part those spells require Concentration. IMX, that's a pretty strong requirement.

[pwykersotz]

Shape change seems nasty, change into CR = Level monster. Wildshape at max is CR = 1/3 level...

How about adding something onto shape change to make it a bit more balanced.

Each time you cast shape change you have a chance of thinking you are that type of monster (lose your mind) for the duration of the spell. The DC is 8 + number of times previously casted during the week.

Each week this DC resets.

That could be fun. >:D

Where do you see guidelines for Shapechange? My ctrl+f failed to find it.

[obryn]

To clarify: I'm not calling Resilient it a feat tax. It's very powerful, but that doesn't make it a tax. It's a tax if it fixes math design errors. Currently, save DCs at high level are, to me, a concern, but not a problem. I'm not upset that a high level mage can rip through the will of a character that hasn't put any effort into his mental defenses.
You see, this is exactly why I call it a "feat tax." Because it's the only way to put any effort into your save defenses, and I consider the ever-growing save gap a math design error. :smallsmile:

[HorridElemental]

Where do you see guidelines for Shapechange? My ctrl+f failed to find it.

I power read through the last 15 ish pages... Somewhere through there... Sorry, I didn't mark it or anything. (30-46)

Edit.

On the ENworld thread that the reddit or linked to.

[pwykersotz]

I power read through the last 15 ish pages... Somewhere through there... Sorry, I didn't mark it or anything. (30-46)

Edit.

On the ENworld thread that the reddit or linked to.

Thanks for the guideline. Page 32 of the thread.


Shapechange is CR creature of your level or lower.

[hawklost]

You see, this is exactly why I call it a "feat tax." Because it's the only way to put any effort into your save defenses, and I consider the ever-growing save gap a math design error. :smallsmile:

Put Effort in = increase Stat or get Training (which yes, is this feat but increasing Stat also helps you).

If a DC 19 is the highest save the Caster can give you, then a +5 isn't terrible

Now, if we are talking 3e and the Caster buffs his DC to 27, Now you need a Feat to make those save. << This = Feat Tax.

[Inevitability]

Urgh? Shapechange? Has WOTC learned nothing?

If they have to give PC's polymorph powers, then please make it so that they are limited to 1-5 creatures per spell. Now it is just a matter of time before some book contains a horribly over CR-ed monster and we are back at 3.5's; 'Casters rule, mundanes suck. You got a big sword? Too bad, I am a dragon.'

[hawklost]

Urgh? Shapechange? Has WOTC learned nothing?

If they have to give PC's polymorph powers, then please make it so that they are limited to 1-5 creatures per spell. Now it is just a matter of time before some book contains a horribly over CR-ed monster and we are back at 3.5's; 'Casters rule, mundanes suck. You got a big sword? Too bad, I am a dragon.'

Are you talking about the Druid Shapechange? because if the reports are right, even the Moon Druid (specialized in shapechange) can only get to a CR of 1/3rd his level, so at lvl 20, thats a CR6.

If some random splat book not condoned by Wizards appears, it is not the fault of the rules that Wizards released that the people using said splat have an unbalanced game.

I changed the wording of some of your statement to show how it isn't a good argument.
"Now it is just a matter of time before some book contains a horribly over" powered 1st level spell
"Now it is just a matter of time before some book contains a horribly over" powered super Martial weapon with way too much damage
"Now it is just a matter of time before some book contains a horribly over" challenging skill check only Rogues can ever hope to beat
"Now it is just a matter of time before some book contains a horribly over" powered class that has no relation to any balance of the Core books and the game is ruined
"Now it is just a matter of time before some book contains a horribly over" powered Feat
"Now it is just a matter of time before some book contains a horribly over" powered subclass for (enter class here)

[HorridElemental]

Urgh? Shapechange? Has WOTC learned nothing?

If they have to give PC's polymorph powers, then please make it so that they are limited to 1-5 creatures per spell. Now it is just a matter of time before some book contains a horribly over CR-ed monster and we are back at 3.5's; 'Casters rule, mundanes suck. You got a big sword? Too bad, I am a dragon.'

Well, I guess that shape change will be balanced with the 4th level spells the fighter gets from EK archetype.

Also on a more serious note...

The warlock looks like it may be able to be its own PHB section on its own.

Mix and matching patrons, pacts, and spells... Give them some healing and screw the other casters.

The battle master had better be insane (probably won't be) or else we have the problem of casters >>>>> non-casters.

Sigh :/ but at least the non-casters will be able to keep up with the game, right?


@hawklost

Nah, shape change is a wizard spell. Also polymorph is back!

Yeaaaah!

[Person_Man]

On the plus side, it seems like there's a ton of interesting crunch that I'm dying to try out.

On the down side:



When you multiclass, your spell slots are based on total character level (spellcasting classes only). Depending on how this is written, this could make mid-level builds with Spellcaster/Half-Caster very common and optimal at certain ECL, with Cha based casters multi-classing with Paladin, and Wis based casters multiclassing with Ranger.
Great Weapon Master gives you an extra attack as a bonus action when you drop a creature or Crit, AND gives you +10 damage in exchange for -5 to attack. Seems like a must have for any melee build, and crazy overpowered for a 1st level Human.
Resilient Feat provides +1 in an Attribute + proficiency in any Saving Throw. Seems like a Feat Tax for many high level builds, since Dex and Wis Saves will be very common, and if you fail a Dex or Wis save against high level magic/effects you'll often die.
Warcaster is crazy powerful. Advantage on Con checks for Concentration, don't need a free hand for somatic spells, and lets you cast a single target one Action spell in place of an Opportunity Attack. Easy combo: Stand should to should with your allies. When an enemy comes within your reach, cast Command to have him move away from you. Enemy provokes OA from all three of you, and you can use yours to cast another spell.
It definitely looks like the 5E Tier list is going to need separate categories for every subclass, as the resources given to the class vary wildly between subclasses options.
Sorcerer spell list is very similar to Wizard.
the most game breaking magical options, Quicken spell, Polymorph, Summons, Animate Dead, Scry and Die, all exist, and probably have not been fixed from a balance perspective.

[da_chicken]

You see, this is exactly why I call it a "feat tax." Because it's the only way to put any effort into your save defenses, and I consider the ever-growing save gap a math design error. :smallsmile:

It's not the only way. You could get a ring of protection. You could increase your ability score. That's even more effective in 5e. I mean, in 3.x if you want to get better at a skill, you have to spend skill points on it, right? And all you get is a bigger bonus. Having to spend something to get a return is not a design error in itself.

In 4e, even if you're the best possible with the best equipment you fell behind. You could be a Fighter and picking up cloaks of resistance at every tick and you'd fall behind in Fort saves by design. That is a feat tax. That doesn't happen in 5e. Characters that are good get ahead and stay ahead, able to keep up with the best the opposition can offer and outclassing lower challenge opponents in a system where lower challenge opponents only get outclassed when your character puts in effort. In 3e, poor saves improve so slowly relative to save DCs that they effectively don't improve at all. That +6 at level 20 is a 100% illusory improvement that is completely subsumed by a Headband of Intellect +6 and natural ability score increases, nevermind inherent bonuses or +DC feats.

I just find the 5e system that drops the pretenses much more palatable.

[HorridElemental]

The chances of hitting with GWM is pretty low at level 1, you would be relying basically on just the d20 roll.

Once you get 20 strength/Dex then it will be d20+prof (2-6) + other.

Low chance to activate (who knows who will get the last hit in and crits are rare ish) for a high payoff.


The feat should be dubbed Mook Killer... .

[CyberThread]

To be fair this edition mooks are scary, sure you may all be lower level, but with the cap on things, they can still hit you.

[Human Paragon 3]

The chances of hitting with GWM is pretty low at level 1, you would be relying basically on just the d20 roll.

Once you get 20 strength/Dex then it will be d20+prof (2-6) + other.

Low chance to activate (who knows who will get the last hit in and crits are rare ish) for a high payoff.


The feat should be dubbed Mook Killer... .

It combines (a better) cleave and (a swingier) power attack into one neat package. I like it. I think it will lead to epic moments. If I were a great-sword wielder, I would take this feat for sure.

I wonder if the other styles will get mastery feats?

[Lokiare]

"Your spell slots are based on total character level (spellcasting classes only),"

If that is what you read, it indicates that a Fighter 9, Wizard 1 is only a lvl 1 spell caster

a Wizard 1, Sorc 1, Cleric 1 would be considered a lvl 3 spell caster

EDIT:
I can see it being read both ways though, so until I have a PHB to read, the persons comments are a little ambiguous

Actually if you've been reading Mearl's L&L blog then you would know that spell slots go with total character level (not just total caster levels) because he flat out told us that it does. In other words yes, grabbing 2-3 levels of Wizard at level 17-18 and finding a scroll or spell book with wish is a perfectly viable option.


It's not the only way. You could get a ring of protection. You could increase your ability score. That's even more effective in 5e. I mean, in 3.x if you want to get better at a skill, you have to spend skill points on it, right? And all you get is a bigger bonus. Having to spend something to get a return is not a design error in itself.

In 4e, even if you're the best possible with the best equipment you fell behind. You could be a Fighter and picking up cloaks of resistance at every tick and you'd fall behind in Fort saves by design. That is a feat tax. That doesn't happen in 5e. Characters that are good get ahead and stay ahead, able to keep up with the best the opposition can offer and outclassing lower challenge opponents in a system where lower challenge opponents only get outclassed when your character puts in effort. In 3e, poor saves improve so slowly relative to save DCs that they effectively don't improve at all. That +6 at level 20 is a 100% illusory improvement that is completely subsumed by a Headband of Intellect +6 and natural ability score increases, nevermind inherent bonuses or +DC feats.

I just find the 5e system that drops the pretenses much more palatable.

Sorry, but with 4-6 ability increases across 20 levels and it takes 2 increases in order to gain a +1, yes it actually is a feat tax to keep up with the math. You are either going to spread your numbers out to get +2 in each save or you are going to max out your primary abilities for your class and end up with 4-5 saves that are +1 or lower. It would be entirely different if you got an ability increase every 2-3 levels or you got +2 to two abilities or something. As it is now. To keep up with spell/effect save DCs you will have to spend several feats.

[Human Paragon 3]

It doesn't take 2 ability score increases to get a +1. You get +2 at each increase, which you can split up, or stick in the same ability.

[Lokiare]

My reactions:

With the dwarven armor trick, War Caster, and Heavy Armor Master you now have a viable melee Wizard. Congrats WotC you just invalidated the fighter.

Twinned Spell? OMG ARE YOU FREAKIN KIDDING ME? (fireball, lightning bolt, Flaming Sphere, 20 Magic Missiles every round of every combat)

I'm not bothering to read much further. I'll wait for other people to quote things.

[Lokiare]

It doesn't take 2 ability score increases to get a +1. You get +2 at each increase, which you can split up, or stick in the same ability.

Ok, so you still only get a maximum of +1 for each increase with a total of four to six +1's across 20 levels. Its still justifies it as a math fix. So it qualifies as a feat tax.

[HorridElemental]

My reactions:

With the dwarven armor trick, War Caster, and Heavy Armor Master you now have a viable melee Wizard. Congrats WotC you just invalidated the fighter.

Twinned Spell? OMG ARE YOU FREAKIN KIDDING ME? (fireball, lightning bolt, Flaming Sphere, 20 Magic Missiles every round of every combat)

I'm not bothering to read much further. I'll wait for other people to quote things.

Calm down, feats are optional.

If a DM will allow a dwarven mage with those feats the more power to them. Still not as bad as 3.5 Planar Shepard.

Twinned Spell may have stipulations.

[obryn]

Twinned Spell may have stipulations.
I believe it may require sorcery points and only work on cantrips? Or did I read the ENWorld spoiler thread wrong?

[HorridElemental]

I believe it may require sorcery points and only work on cantrips? Or did I read the ENWorld spoiler thread wrong?

Yeah, I think it works on Cantrips only.

[hawklost]

My reactions:

With the dwarven armor trick, War Caster, and Heavy Armor Master you now have a viable melee Wizard. Congrats WotC you just invalidated the fighter.

Twinned Spell? OMG ARE YOU FREAKIN KIDDING ME? (fireball, lightning bolt, Flaming Sphere, 20 Magic Missiles every round of every combat)

I'm not bothering to read much further. I'll wait for other people to quote things.

So wait, you are saying that a person who takes 2 feats out of 4 invalidates a fighter? So the Wizard can cast spells in Melee, he still can't use a shield, he still only gets an Action, Move and Bonus Action and Reaction a turn. You have now made yourself into a Front line person while having a nice defense but poor hp (Not, you still smash real nice and quick). I would guess you would take your other 2 skill point increases and make your Int up to 20 and depending on if it was already at 18, your con up higher?

-Heavy Armor Master gives him 3 less damage per hit for non-magical weapons. So decent, but Fighter could take this two so it isn't any better
-WarCaster allows him to roll twice for his Con Save, of course, if he takes more than 21 damage in a single hit, his DC of the save went up.
-WarCasters most powerful ability is the ability to use up one of your spell slots a day to cast as a reaction
-Twinned Spell seems to be Sorceror Exclusive (at least by what we see so far), so your wizard does not have it. Even then, it costs Sorc Points (which we do not know how much you have or its cost for higher than cantrip spells), and again, if it takes up an extra spell slot to do it too, you can nuke for 1-2 encounters at best before being completely out of spells for the day, go wizard demanding rests every 50 feet!

Now lets look at the Fighter with what is there at the moment He could take 3 out of 6 and become extremely defensive, far more so than the Wizard could ever hope to be

- Heavy Armor Master
- Could have Sentinal for a good defender (stops enemies and can Reaction against enemies who attack adjatient allies
- Could have Shield Master (Push with Shield with bonus action, Shield bonus to Dex save against spells targeting you and Dex saves for half do no damage to you)

EDIT: Not sure where to put this one since I don't know the maneuvers yet could be defensive, could be offensive or even either.
- Could have Martial Adept

Or he could more damage route and be superior in that area too
- Could have Duel Wield for damage - Not great with other ones above due to attack vs defense
- Could have Great Weapon Master - Crit and hit another target with more damage (bonus)

[1337 b4k4]

Actually if you've been reading Mearl's L&L blog then you would know that spell slots go with total character level (not just total caster levels) because he flat out told us that it does.

Citation Needed. Especially since according to the copied text (since the article appears offline) quoted here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340059-New-legends-and-lore-multiclassing-sneak-peak) says the exact opposite. To whit:


Multiclassing with spellcasting classes is somewhat similar. Your overall levels in classes that cast spells determines how many spells you can cast. Your levels in those individual classes determine which spells you can prepare. For instance, a 3rd-level mage/3rd-level cleric casts spells per day as a 6th-level character, but can choose to prepare spells available to a 3rd-level wizard or to a 3rd-level cleric. Luckily, our scaling spells ensure that you can still get the most bang for your spells.


Edit
----------

Coincidentally, I also just happen to have the last playtest packet handy. Would you like to know what it says on spellcasting for multiclassing?


Your spellcasting ability depends patly on your combined levels in all your spellcasting classes and partly on your individual levels in those classes

So not only are you rude, but once again, you're dead wrong.

[pwykersotz]

Citation Needed. Especially since according to the copied text (since the article appears offline) quoted here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340059-New-legends-and-lore-multiclassing-sneak-peak) says the exact opposite. To whit:

Bah...what is a forum without wild speculation? :smalltongue:

[HorridElemental]

Hey now watch out, you can't use logic, proof, or big arguments that support your thoughts against Lokaire or you will get ignored as his rants continue.

It is best to stick to short, concise , opinions to validate yourself or we won't have a discussion on our hands.

Just people banging their heads against a wall.

[Uldric]

You see, this is exactly why I call it a "feat tax." Because it's the only way to put any effort into your save defenses, and I consider the ever-growing save gap a math design error. :smallsmile:

I disagree. The fact the being proficient in a save gives you a gross 30% greater chance of succeeding on a save is very powerful but not game-breaking. Put in real world terms having a master of a skill with a gross 30% greater chance of succeed on something over an untrained person is really rather mild.

[Jeraa]

Citation Needed. Especially since according to the copied text (since the article appears offline) quoted here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340059-New-legends-and-lore-multiclassing-sneak-peak) says the exact opposite. To whit:

Edit
----------

Coincidentally, I also just happen to have the last playtest packet handy. Would you like to know what it says on spellcasting for multiclassing?

So not only are you rude, but once again, you're dead wrong.

But those are playtest rules. Many rules have changed between the playtest and the final version. You can not assume the final rule still works the same. Especially since the link is to a conversation a year old, many things could have changed.

[Morty]

I wonder if the Martial Adept feat works if you're already a Battlemaster fighter. If it does, it feels like a pretty obvious choice for them. All in all, I think I agree with obryn - the feats look dangerously as though they're falling into the old traps again.

[1337 b4k4]

But those are playtest rules. Many rules have changed between the playtest and the final version. You can not assume the final rule still works the same.

This is true. On the other hand, Lokiare was (rather rudely and insultingly) implying that only someone that didn't read what's been put out would think that multiclassing would work that way. He then very explicitly stated that Mearls has said it would work differently. My point was not to definitively declare how multiclassing would work, but to:

A) Call Lokiare out once again for posting unsubstantiated FUD in a rude and condescending manner.
B) Point out that the very things Lokiare claimed (without citing) supported his interpretation in fact do the exact opposite.

[Lokiare]

It doesn't take 2 ability score increases to get a +1. You get +2 at each increase, which you can split up, or stick in the same ability.


Citation Needed. Especially since according to the copied text (since the article appears offline) quoted here (http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340059-New-legends-and-lore-multiclassing-sneak-peak) says the exact opposite. To whit:



Edit
----------

Coincidentally, I also just happen to have the last playtest packet handy. Would you like to know what it says on spellcasting for multiclassing?



So not only are you rude, but once again, you're dead wrong.

Disagreeing with people is not being rude. Its called 'discussion' you should look it up sometime.

Yes, now that someone has finally showed me a fact I will then alter my opinion based on that fact. Its only broken when you combine two casters such as the Sorcerer and the Wizard.

Just as an aside if you take the Fire Bolt cantrip as a sorcerer and then use one point to twinned spell it, you are out damaging the fighter with nothing else for all 20 levels. That is where my outburst stems from. If you get 6-8 points at early levels, you can literally make a Sorcerer/Wizard that can out damage the fighter while using a concentration spell like Flaming Sphere, while having Shield and Mage Armor to outdo their AC. Or you can just show them up by having stone skin on and taking the Warcaster + Con Proficiency feat.

[da_chicken]

Disagreeing with people is not being rude. Its called 'discussion' you should look it up sometime.

And.... sigged.

[HorridElemental]

And.... sigged.

I'm going to laugh every time I read one of your posts.

We should all follow your example and Sig the words of wisdom from Lok.

[1337 b4k4]

Disagreeing with people is not being rude. Its called 'discussion' you should look it up sometime.

It's not your disagreement I have an issue with. It's your continued attitude that you are correct and everyone else around you is confused, dumb or didn't read the material. It's especially grating when you berate someone for not reading the material (and therefore must be wrong) and then go on to post what you claim the material says when a cursory google search indicates that you yourself not only didn't read the material, but the person you were berating was correct all along.

You are not some martyr of common sense and rationality, you are a poster on an internet discussion board. That means sometimes you will be right, sometimes you will be wrong and sometimes perfectly rational, logical people who are just as smart and learned as you are (or more so) will have different opinions and preferences and that doesn't make them confused, dumb or uneducated / ignorant. It makes them human beings with agency, something I wish you would show more respect for. I don't like the idea of ignore lists on forums. I find them generally passive aggressive and especially so when people get put on them without being told. I generally feel everyone who's not an honest troll can have something productive to contribute to a discussion and deserve their chance to speak even if they're abrasive or even snarky about it. Congratulations, you have made me reconsider my position and as of this moment you are on my ignore list. I tell you this so that you don't waste your own time time replying to or awaiting an answer from me in the future.

[Fwiffo86]

Just as an aside if you take the Fire Bolt cantrip as a sorcerer and then use one point to twinned spell it, you are out damaging the fighter with nothing else for all 20 levels.

Where is the information that Twinning will be a meta magic in 5e?

[pwykersotz]

Where is the information that Twinning will be a meta magic in 5e?

The Sorcerer section in the link in the first post has this:

SORCERER

Sorcerer MetaMagic:

Sorcerer metamagic uses Sorcery points that you use when casting a spell. For example, when you have spell that normally take an action, you can spend 2 sorcery points to cast it as a bonus action if you took the Quicken metamagic ability. There's 8 options for metamagic.
Twinned Spell (metamagic) costs 1 sorcery point for cantrips. Careful Spell (metamagic) allows you to have a creature automatically succeed a saving throw, that is all.

[HorridElemental]

Do note, if you cast a spell as a Bonus Action you may only cast another spell (as an action) the same round IF that spell is a cantrip and it has a casting time of 1 action.

So no chaining fireballs together with quicken. But fireball + fire bolt works.

This could be powerful depending on the spell combos.

[zorb25]

The Sorcerer section in the link in the first post has this:

SORCERER

Sorcerer MetaMagic:

Sorcerer metamagic uses Sorcery points that you use when casting a spell. For example, when you have spell that normally take an action, you can spend 2 sorcery points to cast it as a bonus action if you took the Quicken metamagic ability. There's 8 options for metamagic.
Twinned Spell (metamagic) costs 1 sorcery point for cantrips. Careful Spell (metamagic) allows you to have a creature automatically succeed a saving throw, that is all.

this imho really does not say it is for cantrips only. It says, that twinning cantrips costs 1 sorcery point, so from where comes for cantrips only part, because frankly that is kinda arbitrary division.

[Fwiffo86]

this imho really does not say it is for cantrips only. It says, that twinning cantrips costs 1 sorcery point, so from where comes for cantrips only part, because frankly that is kinda arbitrary division.

the basic pdf says that if any spell is cast as a bonus action, you cannot cast an additional spell unless that spell is a cantrip. So yes, the double fireball thing is out.

As far as the claims of double firebolt = more damage than the fighter.... I don't see it lasting past a couple levels even if it is true.

[zorb25]

the basic pdf says that if any spell is cast as a bonus action, you cannot cast an additional spell unless that spell is a cantrip. So yes, the double fireball thing is out.

I am officially confused, quicken changes spell into bonus action(thus forbidding casting another big spell outside of cantrip), not twinning. these seems to be two different metamagics.

[Jenckes]

The chances of hitting with GWM is pretty low at level 1, you would be relying basically on just the d20 roll.

Once you get 20 strength/Dex then it will be d20+prof (2-6) + other.

Low chance to activate (who knows who will get the last hit in and crits are rare ish) for a high payoff.


The feat should be dubbed Mook Killer... .

I don't know about it just being a mook killer. It's been pretty common for monsters of similar CR to either have very high AC or very high HP. Your dodgy goblin vs. your high HP zombie ogre. The trick will be identifying when the feat is advantageous to use.

[lianightdemon]

I am officially confused, quicken changes spell into bonus action(thus forbidding casting another big spell outside of cantrip), not twinning. these seems to be two different metamagics.

Thats cause you read that wrong. Quicken spell makes it a bonus action. Twinned spell isn't described except that's it's 1 spell points for cantrips, and then it goes on to explain about careful spell.

[MadBear]

It's not your disagreement I have an issue with. It's your continued attitude that you are correct and everyone else around you is confused, dumb or didn't read the material. It's especially grating when you berate someone for not reading the material (and therefore must be wrong) and then go on to post what you claim the material says when a cursory google search indicates that you yourself not only didn't read the material, but the person you were berating was correct all along.

You are not some martyr of common sense and rationality, you are a poster on an internet discussion board. That means sometimes you will be right, sometimes you will be wrong and sometimes perfectly rational, logical people who are just as smart and learned as you are (or more so) will have different opinions and preferences and that doesn't make them confused, dumb or uneducated / ignorant. It makes them human beings with agency, something I wish you would show more respect for. I don't like the idea of ignore lists on forums. I find them generally passive aggressive and especially so when people get put on them without being told. I generally feel everyone who's not an honest troll can have something productive to contribute to a discussion and deserve their chance to speak even if they're abrasive or even snarky about it. Congratulations, you have made me reconsider my position and as of this moment you are on my ignore list. I tell you this so that you don't waste your own time time replying to or awaiting an answer from me in the future.

I haven't even had any worthwhile interaction with Lokaire, and he too has made it to my ignore list. It's made the discussion board much better, since I don't have to worry about people coming off as offensive all the time, and make no apologies for it.

[Knaight]

I haven't even had any worthwhile interaction with Lokaire, and he too has made it to my ignore list. It's made the discussion board much better, since I don't have to worry about people coming off as offensive all the time, and make no apologies for it.

Plus, Lokaire has ended up on enough ignore lists that you're not even missing the conversation a lot of the time.

[ImperiousLeader]

this imho really does not say it is for cantrips only. It says, that twinning cantrips costs 1 sorcery point, so from where comes for cantrips only part, because frankly that is kinda arbitrary division.

My guess, given what I've read, is that Twinning a spell costs more Sorcery points depending on a level of the spell cast. 1+level, for example. So twinning a third level fireball casts 4 Sorcery Points.

[Prophet_of_Io]

Warlock confirmed to replenish spell slots after a short rest.

Duel wielding takes my 2 favorite feats from 3.5 (two-weapon defense and oversized two-weapon fighting) and smashes them together with their own quick draw.

Flurry of blows is amazing

And I still want to know more about paladins.

[Lokiare]

the basic pdf says that if any spell is cast as a bonus action, you cannot cast an additional spell unless that spell is a cantrip. So yes, the double fireball thing is out.

As far as the claims of double firebolt = more damage than the fighter.... I don't see it lasting past a couple levels even if it is true.

Ignoring all the insulting posts about ignoring me meaning you aren't missing anything. Its kind of like when you ignore that little voice in the back of your head when it says stop drinking or don't drive and then you end up in a big wreck. whatever. You are removing yourself from the conversation and that's that.

To respond to this post (sorry about the off quote topic), firebolt does the same damage as a d10 weapon because the fighter and wizard both have the same attack values and if the fighter is using a d10 weapon they do the same damage (through scaling it matches the number of attacks of the fighter almost level to level). The only difference is the fighter gets to add their str mod. So the fighter is about 10%-20% higher damage than the caster depending on level. Now if you throw in 2 fire bolt spells per round you are talking about doing 2d10 (average 11) when the fighter is doing 1d10(weapon)+4(str) (average 9.5). When the fighter is doing 2 attacks at 2d10(weapon)+8(str) (average 19) the sorcerer is doing 4d10 (average 22). When the fighter is doing 3d10 +12 (28.5) the sorcerer is doing 6d10 (33). etc...etc...

So the sorcerer is going to out damage the 1d10 fighter. They may out damage the 1d12 fighter as well since its only 1 more point on average.

[Giddonihah]

Interesting that Multiclassing apparently doesn't give all Proficiencies. Specifically he said that Multiclassing Barbarian gives no armor proficiency. Though it sounds like it might be different per multiclass, and that seems confusing.

[ImperiousLeader]

So the sorcerer is going to out damage the 1d10 fighter. They may out damage the 1d12 fighter as well since its only 1 more point on average.

I'd point out that you're ignoring the Fighter's Action Surge capability, Critical hits, and that the Fighter's attacks are more versatile as they can target different creatures and that firing a double firebolt costs a Daily resource from the Sorcerer. And you didn't bother pushing the Fighter to 20 Strength in your calculations.

[Lokiare]

I'd point out that you're ignoring the Fighter's Action Surge capability, Critical hits, and that the Fighter's attacks are more versatile as they can target different creatures and that firing a double firebolt costs a Daily resource from the Sorcerer. And you didn't bother pushing the Fighter to 20 Strength in your calculations.

Action surge is once a day. The Sorcerer has a number of 'once per day' abilities they can easily use to out do the fighter if you want to count them in, they are called 'daily spells'.

Critical hits will be the same for both since they both have the same chance of doing critical hits.

Yes, sorcerer points are a daily resource which is why in my first post on the subject I said around 8 points minimum. If they have at least 8 points (which is nearly every round they won't be casting a daily spell) then they will be broken.

If I push the Fighters strength to 20 I'd have to push the Sorcerers primary casting stat to 20 and it would still have the same result.

If they don't have 8 or more points they will probably be fine. If they do, well they are just flat out doing more damage than the fighter.

[HorridElemental]

Interesting that Multiclassing apparently doesn't give all Proficiencies. Specifically he said that Multiclassing Barbarian gives no armor proficiency. Though it sounds like it might be different per multiclass, and that seems confusing.

I like it.

Essentially you aren't a full fighter or barbarian, more of a part time fighter or barbarian.

[ImperiousLeader]

Action surge is once a day. The Sorcerer has a number of 'once per day' abilities they can easily use to out do the fighter if you want to count them in, they are called 'daily spells'.

Action Surge recovers on a short rest.

I'll argue the others later.

[Lokiare]

Action Surge recovers on a short rest.

I'll argue the others later.

Short rests are 1 hour long meaning you aren't going to get more than 1 or 2 per day under optimum circumstances and are likely to get 0 per day under non-optimum circumstances.

[T.G. Oskar]

I dunno: I'm more worried about a Bard's insane potential rather than the Sorcerer's capability of dealing damage or the flexibility of the Wizard.

Think about it: a College of Valor Bard, from what the link says, will get the Extra Attack from all Martial characters, so they'll be capable of attacking twice per round. The Bonus Proficiencies will most likely involve Martial Weapon Proficiency, so that means a humble Longbow. Their Inspiration benefit adds to damage (aka, Inspire Courage), so expect each attack to deal 1[W] + Dex mod + d12 + additional modifiers worth of damage, with a good chance to hit (Proficiency bonus + Dex modifier). Then there's Battle Music, which if it works like in one of the playtests, it has the potential of having a spell being cast as a bonus action. Mix Advanced Studies with that, and if it works as I think (*coughcoughAdvancedLearningcoughcough*), that means you can take certain spells and cast them willy-nilly.

So, to recoup. In one action, I can move around 20 to 30 ft., but I simply move around, attack twice and then follow up with...I dunno, Finger of Death? All of a sudden I have an undead companion for this battle. In one round. And I can also apply 2x my proficiency bonus to certain skills, just like the Rogue. I also have Cantrips, if you want them.

...I shudder to think what will College of Lore bring to the Bard. That and Divine Inspiration...I still wonder why some insist Wizards are broken, when Bards and Clerics can potentially humiliate them (War Domain says hi?)

Too bad Battlemaster Fighter was only skimmed. The temporary HP thing seems like a very minor buff, but if there's a bonus to attacks or damage rolls or advantage on certain saves, that could make the Fighter really flexible. Also: Paladins lost their Constitution saving throw proficiency for Wisdom? I weep.

[HorridElemental]

Short rests are 1 hour long meaning you aren't going to get more than 1 or 2 per day under optimum circumstances and are likely to get 0 per day under non-optimum circumstances.

Then they aren't daily abilites. I'm not sure if you get what a daily ability is but something you can refresh with a short rest isn't "daily".

Under non-optimized* conditions the sorcerer doesn't gain any spells for the day because they didn't take a Long Rest yet. They took some short rests or no short rests but still haven't taken a long rest.

Edit: * at the end of the day once all abilities are exhausted... If the DM doesn't allow a long rest or you have to manage time... Then you may never get that long rest.

Unoptimal: No short and no long rests. Fighter wins.

Semi-Unoptimal: Some short rests, no long rests: Fighter

Semi-Optimal: Some short rests, one long rest: Fighter (if more than one short rest is used)

Optimal: Lots of short rests, 1 long rest: Fighter

Because you can have 1 long rest but multiple short rests the fighter will win UNLESS you use the 15 min work day model and cater to the magic user.

[ImperiousLeader]

Short rests are 1 hour long meaning you aren't going to get more than 1 or 2 per day under optimum circumstances and are likely to get 0 per day under non-optimum circumstances.

:smallamused: You're still wrong though. But sure, disregard anything that might work in the Fighter's favor to prove your point. Afterall, the Champion subclass gains an improved critical range ... but sure, crits don't matter.

[HorridElemental]

:smallamused: You're still wrong though. But sure, disregard anything that might work in the Fighter's favor to prove your point. Afterall, the Champion subclass gains an improved critical range ... but sure, crits don't matter.

Not sure how true (no one asked on the thread) but I was told somewhere that the weapon table would be more detailed in the PHB or DMG... Critical threat ranges and stuff.

Might be able to get the fighter's critical range to 16-20...

[Lokiare]

:smallamused: You're still wrong though. But sure, disregard anything that might work in the Fighter's favor to prove your point. Afterall, the Champion subclass gains an improved critical range ... but sure, crits don't matter.

That's right the Champion does have a bigger crit range. That might make it an even go, just barely, but who's to say the Sorcerer won't have something that does the same. In the play test they had something that increased their damage.


Not sure how true (no one asked on the thread) but I was told somewhere that the weapon table would be more detailed in the PHB or DMG... Critical threat ranges and stuff.

Might be able to get the fighter's critical range to 16-20...

I think by level 20 the champion is already around 16-20.

[Jenckes]

Action surge is once a day. The Sorcerer has a number of 'once per day' abilities they can easily use to out do the fighter if you want to count them in, they are called 'daily spells'.

Critical hits will be the same for both since they both have the same chance of doing critical hits.

Yes, sorcerer points are a daily resource which is why in my first post on the subject I said around 8 points minimum. If they have at least 8 points (which is nearly every round they won't be casting a daily spell) then they will be broken.

If I push the Fighters strength to 20 I'd have to push the Sorcerers primary casting stat to 20 and it would still have the same result.

If they don't have 8 or more points they will probably be fine. If they do, well they are just flat out doing more damage than the fighter.

Dude, action surge is refreshed by a short or long rest. Short rest refreshes are 5th eds version of an encounter power. Though I believe you are right about the sorcerer out-damaging the fighter. It's a thing. The Fighter gets more HP and 2 more feats. Considering the fighter has 2 more feats and can therefore max out her two primary stats having three feats left over (as opposed to 1) and the improved value of feats I believe fighters have a bit more versatility than people are giving them credit for. For instance, I could use those feats to give myself proficiency in wisdom saves and dexterity saves to have a decent chance to save against the vast majority of spells, while still having a combat feat left.

I'm not going to say that at high levels a fighter will go toe to toe with a full caster of the same level. But that's iconic right?

*Edit- Champion crits on 18-20. If you account for a 15% crit chance a fighter using a great sword (which is max damage at high level) the fighter deals 9.58 weapon damage. Add in your desired strength.

[1of3]

Sorcerers have 1 Sorcery point per level, daily resource. You can see it in the previewed table. Went up one point from the alpha.

Twinned Spell can be used on spells other than cantrip. The question was about a bug that happened with cantrips in the Alpha: They are at one place named "0 level spells". That made twinning them free of charge.



Think about it: a College of Valor Bard, from what the link says, will get the Extra Attack from all Martial characters, so they'll be capable of attacking twice per round. The Bonus Proficiencies will most likely involve Martial Weapon Proficiency, so that means a humble Longbow. Their Inspiration benefit adds to damage (aka, Inspire Courage), so expect each attack to deal 1[W] + Dex mod + d12 + additional modifiers worth of damage, with a good chance to hit (Proficiency bonus + Dex modifier).

You cannot inspire yourself. And it only works on a number of rolls per day equal to your Cha mod. Using it on damage seems a little dubious, when you can use it on an attack roll or for boosting AC.



Then there's Battle Music, which if it works like in one of the playtests, it has the potential of having a spell being cast as a bonus action.

It's the other way round. Cast a spell, make ONE attack as a bonus action.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I sighed so hard when I read that description of the Battlemaster it woke up my hubby in the next room.

Guess I'd better get started on the pre-emptive homebrew fix now...

[archaeo]

I sighed so hard when I read that description of the Battlemaster it woke up my hubby in the next room.

Guess I'd better get started on the pre-emptive homebrew fix now...

I sort of get the Battlemaster criticism, but I still sort of think it might be worth seeing how it plays at the table instead of just theorycrafting. I think it's entirely possible that what might seem limited in scope actually feels pretty meaty in play.

That said, I don't think the criticism is unwarranted, inasmuch as if you think the Fighter deserves a build with all the mechanical complexity of the Wizard out of a desire for parity, the Battlemaster doesn't measure up. (Sorry if I'm making assumption here, cheese, but that seems like the common criticism.) What kind of mechanics would be necessary for a satisfactory subclass?

[akaddk]

I sighed so hard when I read that description of the Battlemaster it woke up my hubby in the next room.

Guess I'd better get started on the pre-emptive homebrew fix now...

Is there a link to the description of it? I can't find it. My Google Fu is weak and I don't have an account on ENW.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Is there a link to the description of it? I can't find it. My Google Fu is weak and I don't have an account on ENW.

From the Reddit thread linked in the OP:


All Battle Master maneuvers (total 16) have no level requirement.
Maneuvers are generally universal, though some of them are melee specific (as opposed to ranged).
4 superiority dice, up to 6 total.
One maneuver can frighten craeature, another can give friendly creature temporary hitpoints, one can add reach & damage.
No way to recover superiority dice without resting, except for:
Relentless (lv15): Regain 1 superiority die when you roll initiative and have no superiority dice remaining.


I sort of get the Battlemaster criticism, but I still sort of think it might be worth seeing how it plays at the table instead of just theorycrafting. I think it's entirely possible that what might seem limited in scope actually feels pretty meaty in play.

That said, I don't think the criticism is unwarranted, inasmuch as if you think the Fighter deserves a build with all the mechanical complexity of the Wizard out of a desire for parity, the Battlemaster doesn't measure up. (Sorry if I'm making assumption here, cheese, but that seems like the common criticism.) What kind of mechanics would be necessary for a satisfactory subclass?

Well, to summarize:

- I don't necessarily want something as complex as a Wizard with hundreds of spells to consider, I just want something comparable to the Warblade or, even better, a more role-flexible version of the 4E Fighter.

- Maneuvers need to become capable of more things as you level up Period. Now the description from the Reddit thread doesn't preclude *some* scaling, but judging by the pissy way spells scale, I'd be absolutely shocked if we got anything better than damage increasing or larger AoE's. With all maneuvers available at all levels, we're not going to see anything that actually gives the Fighter *real* improved ways to deal with problems, since they all have to be reasonable for a 3rd-level character.

- An hour to get your encounter powers back is bad enough (the very first thing I'll be houseruling away if I ever run the game), but you have to deal with just 4-6 superiority dice to spend on your maneuvers. (I'm going to assume the superiority dice mechanics work like they did when they appeared in the playtest and were then dumped for being "too complicated.") You can go between one and three dice per round. With battles taking several rounds each from the looks of the playtest, you really are just using move+attack more often than not. That 15th-level ability is just an insult. 15th level!? Really!?

[HorridElemental]

From the Reddit thread linked in the OP:

Well, to summarize:

- I don't necessarily want something as complex as a Wizard with hundreds of spells to consider, I just want something comparable to the Warblade or, even better, a more role-flexible version of the 4E Fighter.

- Maneuvers need to become capable of more things as you level up Period. Now the description from the Reddit thread doesn't preclude *some* scaling, but judging by the pissy way spells scale, I'd be absolutely shocked if we got anything better than damage increasing or larger AoE's. With all maneuvers available at all levels, we're not going to see anything that actually gives the Fighter *real* improved ways to deal with problems, since they all have to be reasonable for a 3rd-level character.

- An hour to get your encounter powers back is bad enough (the very first thing I'll be houseruling away if I ever run the game), but you have to deal with just 4-6 superiority dice to spend on your maneuvers. (I'm going to assume the superiority dice mechanics work like they did when they appeared in the playtest and were then dumped for being "too complicated.") You can go between one and three dice per round. With battles taking several rounds each from the looks of the playtest, you really are just using move+attack more often than not. That 15th-level ability is just an insult. 15th level!? Really!?

I really hope there are a few, push the boundaries of physics type of maneuver but it really sounds like there won't be.

At level 3 I would just add in that it takes 20 minutes of nonthreatening activity to gain your superiority dice back if the manuevers are low powered.

[obryn]

First off, I agree with your general points. I wanted to zero in on this, because this is the part that's making the Picard in my head facepalm left and right.


That 15th-level ability is just an insult. 15th level!? Really!?

What's insulting about it is that, in the alpha, you got back two dice every round. They didn't scale it back to 1 die per round; they basically scaled it back as far as they possibly could with 1 die per combat. What, was there no interesting middle ground between the two? I can see 2/round being a bit much, especially compared to the Champion, but wtf is this?

[akaddk]

From the Reddit thread linked in the OP:

Oh, I already saw that. You're sighing over that tiny bit of description? Seriously? I thought you'd seen the entire class or something.

[Joe the Rat]

What's insulting about it is that, in the alpha, you got back two dice every round. They didn't scale it back to 1 die per round; they basically scaled it back as far as they possibly could with 1 die per combat. What, was there no interesting middle ground between the two? I can see 2/round being a bit much, especially compared to the Champion, but wtf is this?Ah... I didn't see an issue here, but I'm also used to rolling a new initiative each round (even in 3.5. The DM was a bit odd). Monk is in a similar boat with their chi refresh, but they also have a deeper pool to work with.

So what would be some reasonable and/or "interesting" options? 1 at the beginning of each turn when you are empty, trading out your action/reaction/move to regain a die, a maneuver that generates/replaces the die it uses if a condition is met (drop a dude, gain a superiority die), having trained maneuvers that don't need superiority dice (and thus always an option), but can be enhanced by them? Burning hit dice to gain superiority dice?

[HorridElemental]

From reddit: Feat
"Sentinel You have mastered techniques to take advantage of every drop in any enemies guard gaining the following benefits: When you hit a creature with an opportunity attack the creatures speed becomes zero for the rest of the turn. Creatures within 5 feet of you provoke opportunity attacks from you even if they take the disengage action before leaving your reach. When a creature within 5 feet of you makes an attack against a target other than you(and that target doesn't have been this feet) you can use your reaction to make a melee weapon attack against the attacking creature."

Why isn't this a Champion class feature? This would be perfect at level 3.

I get that crits are kinda nice but this would have been fantastic.

[Yuki Akuma]

Because the Champion archetype isn't the "tank" archetype. It's the "deal scads of damage" archetype. Hence the criticals.

Fighters get a ton of feats, anyway. Nothing stops a Champion from taking that.

This being a feat also lets Paladins, Barbarians, Rangers and Monks take it, too.

[obryn]

So what would be some reasonable and/or "interesting" options? 1 at the beginning of each turn when you are empty, trading out your action/reaction/move to regain a die, a maneuver that generates/replaces the die it uses if a condition is met (drop a dude, gain a superiority die), having trained maneuvers that don't need superiority dice (and thus always an option), but can be enhanced by them? Burning hit dice to gain superiority dice?
Well, that's just it - without seeing the class in context, I can't make specific recommendations. I just find it hard to believe that 2/round was fine, then not-fine, and it was so very not-fine it went down to 1/combat.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Oh, I already saw that. You're sighing over that tiny bit of description? Seriously? I thought you'd seen the entire class or something.

I'll admit, I'm letting myself get more upset about this than I reasonably should be.

[HorridElemental]

Because the Champion archetype isn't the "tank" archetype. It's the "deal scads of damage" archetype. Hence the criticals.

Fighters get a ton of feats, anyway. Nothing stops a Champion from taking that.

This being a feat also lets Paladins, Barbarians, Rangers and Monks take it, too.

Oh I could see it being a feat too, I love the idea of multiclassing or archetype hopping via feats.

But the champion just doesn't feel like a champ you know, the critical improvements just doesn't come up enough in actual play. When it does it is great and exciting but even then the extra damage is squat and leaves you deflated.

A sentinel monk may be one of the most popular choices for a monk. The monk may have d8 hit die (a-#&%#&-gain) but they are pretty awesome (so far). Get a way to grapple as an AoO... Wait can you already do that?

[Yuki Akuma]

The Champion could have had Sentinel since level 1, though (Human racial feature). So what does he get at 3rd level in that case?

[zorb25]

The Champion could have had Sentinel since level 1, though (Human racial feature). So what does he get at 3rd level in that case?

4th level to the best of my knowledge. Everyone gets first "upgrade point" on level 4, fighter/others just gets more of them as a class feature.

[HorridElemental]

The Champion could have had Sentinel since level 1, though (Human racial feature). So what does he get at 3rd level in that case?

From what I hear, that optional alternate racial feature may be banned quite a bit.

Depending on how you want to do it... Keep damage the same.

Level three: critical range 17-20, pick one effect to apply to a target when you score a crit. This lasts for 1 round. 20% chance of being awesome.

Blind, Freightned, or Grappled.

At higher level gain 15-20 crit... paralyzed, poisoned, or stunned. (The poison comes from your body being hit so hard it goes into some sort of autoimmune disease and attacks itself).

High level, 30%chance of being awesome per roll sounds about right.

Level 20?no clue yet.

This steps on the battle master a bit but that just means we have to make the battle master better now doesn't it.

[Yuki Akuma]

4th level to the best of my knowledge. Everyone gets first "upgrade point" on level 4, fighter/others just gets more of them as a class feature.

Re-read the human again.

[archaeo]

I'll admit, I'm letting myself get more upset about this than I reasonably should be.

Honestly, while I'm totally fine with it / think that there's merit to varying complexity across classes anyway, I think it's pretty reasonable to be annoyed with the "complex Fighter" if it's not terribly complex at all, especially right after a version of D&D where the Fighter had precise mechanical parity with other classes.

I look forward to the inevitable 5e post-mortem, when the designers can talk about this edition without having to try to sell it to one of the pickiest fanbases in all of gaming. I don't think 5e really hides the fact that character creation and round-to-round complexity seem to scale with access to magic, and I don't think it's de facto "bad design," but I'd like to hear them justify it.

Or heck, who knows, maybe we'll all be surprised at the tactical depth of it. A game I play, Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup, has a god, Trog, who forbids spellcasting and gives only three abilities. Despite this, many players feel that worshipping Trog improves the game's tactical combat, as it encourages you to think about positioning and other important considerations. If 5e manages to succeed with its martial classes, it will because it limits your options to a smaller pool of actually interesting choices while creating in-combat situations wherein your choices feel like they matter.

But it's still all theory. I'm interested to see players' reactions to things like the Battlemaster after it gets tossed around in real play.

[akaddk]

This being a feat also lets Paladins, Barbarians, Rangers and Monks take it, too.

I plan on taking it for my dwarven scale mail wearing, warhammer wielding wizard courtesan.

[obryn]

But it's still all theory. I'm interested to see players' reactions to things like the Battlemaster after it gets tossed around in real play.
Yeah, the play's the thing, but I've heard little good about them from folks with tastes similar to my own, who've tried them in play.

[Yuki Akuma]

I plan on taking it for my dwarven scale mail wearing, warhammer wielding wizard courtesan.

This is awesome and you are awesome.

[hawklost]

I plan on taking it for my dwarven scale mail wearing, warhammer wielding wizard courtesan.

Can't help it but I really hope that if you are casting "Shocking Grasp" and roll a 1 on the attack the DM makes you shock yourself! (Don't care if it actually does damage, just want the wizard to fear shocking himself with his own spells!)

[HorridElemental]

Can't help it but I really hope that if you are casting "Shocking Grasp" and roll a 1 on the attack the DM makes you shock yourself! (Don't care if it actually does damage, just want the wizard to fear shocking himself with his own spells!)

Depending on the idea, bonds, and flaws... That may be enjoyable to the wizard. He loves being shocked and wants to share the joy with others?

[zorb25]

Re-read the human again.

i was answering to 3rd level part of your post.

[hawklost]

Depending on the idea, bonds, and flaws... That may be enjoyable to the wizard. He loves being shocked and wants to share the joy with others?

Would be kinda funny to create a worthless Cantrip that just gives people a jolt (call it Static Charge or something). But if the wizard enjoyed the shock, why would he want to share a joy he has with those people trying to hurt him?

[HorridElemental]

Would be kinda funny to create a worthless Cantrip that just gives people a jolt (call it Static Charge or something). But if the wizard enjoyed the shock, why would he want to share a joy he has with those people trying to hurt him?

To make them friendly or to spread the good word... And that word is pleasure.

[Yuki Akuma]

i was answering to 3rd level part of your post.

He said Champion should gain Sentinel as a 3rd level archetype feature.

[hawklost]

To make them friendly or to spread the good word... And that word is pleasure.

ummmm... I am feeling we are getting into the BoEF level discussion here. I really don't see him taking pleasure from being shocked and then wanting to spread that pleasure as anything but that.

[zorb25]

He said Champion should gain Sentinel as a 3rd level archetype feature.

But then he would gain Sentinel as 3rd level feature(level when game actually begins) , so why would he get it as 1st level feat bonus from human, if he already had it promised as feature?

[HorridElemental]

ummmm... I am feeling we are getting into the BoEF level discussion here. I really don't see him taking pleasure from being shocked and then wanting to spread that pleasure as anything but that.

Nah nothing that bad, just a misguided dwarven mage.

A dwarven wizard must be some kind of weirdo, I mean, dwarven wizard should say it all.

:p

[akaddk]

Nah nothing that bad, just a misguided dwarven mage.

A dwarven wizard must be some kind of weirdo, I mean, dwarven wizard should say it all.

:p

What have you got against Bovric Biffhammer?

[Tholomyes]

But then he would gain Sentinel as 3rd level feature(level when game actually begins) , so why would he get it as 1st level feat bonus from human, if he already had it promised as feature?The idea being that (presumably) if it were given as a subclass feature, it wouldn't be there as an option for a feat. Your post seems to imply that it'd be both.

My argument against it being a champion feature is this: Getting it at level 4 (feat) vs level 3 (feature) isn't that large, and the possibility for a human to get it earlier is still there, so the level difference is not so vast as to make it prohibitive for champion fighters, who want to have the sentinel ability. Its nature as a feat broadens the number of classes this can be an option for: Sentinel Monks, Sentinel Paladins, Sentinel Wild-shape Druids, hell, even sentinel non-Champion Fighters. Furthermore, not everyone who wants to play a champion fighter will want to have the sentinel ability, as ranged fighters get next to nothing from it, and many people who want that ability do not want it on the champion chassis. The feat largely springs from the class features of 4e fighters, meaning many people who really wanted such a feat are not going to be satisfied with the simplistic champion. Even as someone who doesn't particularly like 4e, I don't want it on the champion chassis.

Now, if HorridElemental is arguing the champion subclass needs a boost, I agree. In fact, I find all the fighter subclasses underwhelming, at least at present. The champion has very little going for her, as none of the features, save potentially survivor (though, that essentially serves as unlimited out of combat healing for the fighter; it's 18th level, so I don't mind too much, but it's still something to note). The battlemaster could still be good, assuming future support, though, even then, it's a bit underwhelming, too. I'd rather they took away (or minimized) the damage boost from the superiority die, and tried to push the envelope more with what maneuvers could do. In addition, I'd rather maneuvers were closer to at-wills or at least more often than 4-6 times per short rest (the 1 hour short rest is murder, here). The maneuvers seem cool, but considering how often you get to use them, I'd expect more. And lastly, the Eldritch Knight is just too underwhelming. The limitation to Abjuration and Evocation spells, as opposed to just making a new spell-list for them, just seems lazy, and with a maximum of 4th level spells, they'll always be incredibly underwhelming in the casting department, to the point that a War-Bard or a Dwarven Wizard will probably always feel like more of a Gish than the subclass designed to be a gish.

[HorridElemental]

Wizard Spell List: (not mine, found it on the enworld thread)

http://m.imgur.com/4tYeMpQ

[Yuki Akuma]

Oh. Looks like Wizards do get Animate Dead, Antimagic Field and Gate.

I wonder why they don't in the basic rules?

Edit: True Strike? I hope that's not still +20 to one attack roll, if it can be spammed.

[hawklost]

Oh. Looks like Wizards do get Animate Dead, Antimagic Field and Gate.

I wonder why they don't in the basic rules?

Edit: True Strike? I hope that's not still +20 to one attack roll, if it can be spammed.

For True Strike, assuming that it still requires an Action, means that a Caster will be able to Cast it one turn then wait and cast it next turn (or hope to use a Reaction to get to use it that turn)

[Yuki Akuma]

For True Strike, assuming that it still requires an Action, means that a Caster will be able to Cast it one turn then wait and cast it next turn (or hope to use a Reaction to get to use it that turn)

Or, if it's not a Personal-range spell, cast it on Fighter McWarriorstein every round.

Although in that case it's already straying from what it did in 3e.

[HorridElemental]

Or, if it's not a Personal-range spell, cast it on Fighter McWarriorstein every round.

Although in that case it's already straying from what it did in 3e.

I was wrong above.

True Strike is a Cantrip that gives advantage to am attack.

[1337 b4k4]

Wizard Spell List: (not mine, found it on the enworld thread)

http://m.imgur.com/4tYeMpQ

Curious that Gentle Repose is listed under the Wizard spell list.

Also, as much as I've never been one to be overly concerned about the wizard's power, every time I see a modern spell list, I just think to my self "why so much?"

[Dienekes]

Curious that Gentle Repose is listed under the Wizard spell list.

Also, as much as I've never been one to be overly concerned about the wizard's power, every time I see a modern spell list, I just think to my self "why so much?"

The wizard is kind of like the fighter. The wizard is meant to represent the abilities of just about any magic user you want to be if you take the right spells. As the fighter is meant to represent any warrior.* But, since spells are not abstracted the same way weapons use is you end up getting a huge list of potential spells for your wizard to take to make sure whatever you wanted to do with the wizard is there. Plus, of course, a bunch of old options that keep getting brought over from previous editions.

*So long as another class doesn't exist to fulfill the desired type better.

[HorridElemental]

Curious that Gentle Repose is listed under the Wizard spell list.

Also, as much as I've never been one to be overly concerned about the wizard's power, every time I see a modern spell list, I just think to my self "why so much?"

Gentle Repose seems like a good necromancy spell. You want to keep a corpse as a zombie and not a skeleton? GR that bad boy till you can prepare your raise whatever spell.

[HorridElemental]

True Strike is a Cantrip that gives advantage to am attack.

(I accidently hit edit on my other comment and not quote, troublesome...)

[Human Paragon 3]

Wow the Warlock spell list is very thin in comparison to the Wizard list. Look at level 5!

Also, it looks like warlocks do get some access to 7, 8 and 9.

[HorridElemental]

Wow the Warlock spell list is very thin in comparison to the Wizard list. Look at level 5!

Also, it looks like warlocks do get some access to 7, 8 and 9.

Thin bit I think the warlock will do just fine, their at-will abilities such as Mage Armor and Levitate should be fun.

Also more True Strike info
Divination cantrip, 1 action, Concentration, advantage on your first attack roll against target.

[Human Paragon 3]

Thin bit I think the warlock will do just fine, their at-will abilities such as Mage Armor and Levitate should be fun.

Also more True Strike info
Divination cantrip, 1 action, Concentration, advantage on your first attack roll against target.

Hm, so if you had some way of casting a spell that requires an attack roll as a bonus action (sorcerer can do this I believe) you could cast True Strike as your action then cast the spell as a bonus action, and repeat! Sounds fun.

[HorridElemental]

Hm, so if you had some way of casting a spell that requires an attack roll as a bonus action (sorcerer can do this I believe) you could cast True Strike as your action then cast the spell as a bonus action, and repeat! Sounds fun.

Yup!

But advantage is pretty easy to get, hell anyone can help/aid another to give them advantage. This seems to be a good ranged option tho. It will also help with DMs that are stingy with inspiration :p

Overall not super powerful but very nice and useful.

[Human Paragon 3]

Yup!

But advantage is pretty easy to get, hell anyone can help/aid another to give them advantage. This seems to be a good ranged option tho. It will also help with DMs that are stingy with inspiration :p

Overall not super powerful but very nice and useful.

Or... multiclass with rogue!

[Yuki Akuma]

Hm, so if you had some way of casting a spell that requires an attack roll as a bonus action (sorcerer can do this I believe) you could cast True Strike as your action then cast the spell as a bonus action, and repeat! Sounds fun.

It'd have to be a cantrip, because you can only cast two spells in a round as long as the non-bonus action spell is a cantrip.

Edit: Although I just realised you could use your action to cast True Strike, then your bonus action to cast anything else. Welp

[HorridElemental]

It'd have to be a cantrip, because you can only cast two spells in a round as long as the non-bonus action spell is a cantrip.

Yup, it now may be one of the most popular Cantrips ever.

[Inevitability]

I honestly keep getting more concerned about 5e's balance with each update on spells. Just look at the wizard's list. A lot of the spells that were problematic in 3.5 (animate dead, astral projection, shapechange) are still there, and we have about zero reason to assume they are not as bad as they used to be. In fact, we know that at least shapechange will bring some of the problems with it that 3.5 had (such as, I don't know, making the fighter useless).

And this may just be me being paranoid, but I don't like that Alter Self's description was just cut off before we got too see the crunch. It is almost as if someone's shouting: 'Look at 5e, which has all the neat spells from 3.5 in it! Sadly, you won't realize how broken they can be until you have bought the book!'.

[Icewraith]

Well, finger of death went from "save-or-lose" to "deal damage with a nifty effect if you kill the target" so there's hope.

[ImperiousLeader]

Well, the main limiting factor is the sharp reduction in spells/day, and the Concentration mechanic. Those high level spells are only going to get cast once or twice, tops. We'll have to see the spells themselves, I'm told their write-ups are massive.

[charcoalninja]

Well, the main limiting factor is the sharp reduction in spells/day, and the Concentration mechanic. Those high level spells are only going to get cast once or twice, tops. We'll have to see the spells themselves, I'm told their write-ups are massive.

The problem I see with everyone focusing on the limited spell slots as a balancing point is that in the Starter Set, Scrolls are exactly as they were in 3.5. Have scroll, cast spell. This means that unless the PHB has a level limit on spell scrolls, the possibility exists for a Wizard to have Scrolls, Wands and a few Staves to ensure they never run out of spells ever.

Especially since Wands and Staves recharge on their own with a rest.

[da_chicken]

A lot of the spells that were problematic in 3.5 (animate dead, astral projection, shapechange) are still there, and we have about zero reason to assume they are not as bad as they used to be.

You mean other than the fact that -- with the exception of low level blaster spells -- every spell we do know about in 5e is weaker than it used to be in 3.x?

Astral Projection is in D&D Basic, BTW. We've been able to read it for about a month.

[obryn]

More leaks, reposted from another thread.

http://imgur.com/a/dR0Dx

[Human Paragon 3]

Assassin looks awesome! Free crits during the surprise round (and your sneak attack dice are doubled by crits in 5e). Death attack doubles your damage again at level 17, so you could end up dealing 22d6 x2 damage (average of 144 damage in one hit!). Plus the ability to create perfect false identities. Amazing subclass.

[obryn]

Assassin looks awesome! Free crits during the surprise round (and your sneak attack dice are doubled by crits in 5e). Death attack doubles your damage again at level 17, so you could end up dealing 22d6 x2 damage (average of 144 damage in one hit!). Plus the ability to create perfect false identities. Amazing subclass.
Really? I think it looks kinda terrible. :smallbiggrin:

The Level 9 feature is worse than pointless; you can do this without rules, and having rules for it just locks it into a subclass. (Can't someone with, say, a Charlatan background do similar?) L13 is similar - I'd think this'd all fall under a generalized "bluff" umbrella.

You want a capstone ability? Tack a save-or-die onto that L17, or else make it basically like Power Word Kill. :smallamused: As it stands, it's one attack, not two, and the expected damage is 87 or so on a combination of a successful attack and a failed save.

[Human Paragon 3]

You want a capstone ability? Tack a save-or-die onto that L17, or else make it basically like Power Word Kill. :smallamused: As it stands, it's one attack, not two, and the expected damage is 87 or so on a combination of a successful attack and a failed save.


No it's not. Normal damage would be 11d6 plus modifiers (plus poison or whatever weapon special effects you have). The free crit makes that 22d6, which comes to 77 damage. Then the special ability doubles it to 154, and that doesn't count any modifiers. So if it hits, it's better than power word kill.

The subclass sounds like a blast to me.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Well, the main limiting factor is the sharp reduction in spells/day, and the Concentration mechanic. Those high level spells are only going to get cast once or twice, tops.

- Unless the DM is being really heavy-handed (with strict time limits and the like), for the most part the players control the pacing of when they rest. Limiting a game-breaking spell to once per day means the players are going to stop and rest every time they use it. (You *can* fix this by tying recovering spell slots to narrative break points defined by the DM instead of physically stopping for 24 hours, but the crowd that insists on simulation hates this.)

- Even ignoring that problem, being able to shatter the plot and ruin everyone's good time only once per day isn't much of a consolation: When the Wizard casts Shapechange the Fighter still gets reminded that he's only there to pick up the slack when the Wizard needs to recharge his batteries, and whatever set-up the DM planned has still been anti-climactically trivialized.


The problem I see with everyone focusing on the limited spell slots as a balancing point is that in the Starter Set, Scrolls are exactly as they were in 3.5. Have scroll, cast spell. This means that unless the PHB has a level limit on spell scrolls, the possibility exists for a Wizard to have Scrolls, Wands and a few Staves to ensure they never run out of spells ever.

Especially since Wands and Staves recharge on their own with a rest.

But magic items are, like, really really rare and there are no magic-marts by default, so I'm sure this won't be a problem in the slightest!

[Icewraith]

Is two doubles still a triple? So 33d6 instead of 44d6? Or is the wording such that it does actually double the double?

[Yuukale]

It doubles the damage, not the dice. Crits double the dice, not the damage.

suppose you attack with 2 scimitars and have dex 20.

2d6W+5 + 2d6W + 20d6 SA = X
X gets doubled.

[hawklost]

Assassin looks awesome! Free crits during the surprise round (and your sneak attack dice are doubled by crits in 5e). Death attack doubles your damage again at level 17, so you could end up dealing 22d6 x2 damage (average of 144 damage in one hit!). Plus the ability to create perfect false identities. Amazing subclass.

I believe that it would actually equal out to x3 instead of x4 with doubling and doubling again. Course, i don't see the specifics in the rules so it makes it much harder to tell exactly. Either way, its a huge amount of damage.

-------------------------------

The False Identity of Charlatan is a single identity that is from the start of the campaign. The Assassin can create one 'on the fly' in any city for any effect as long as they have enough time and money to make it. It would seem that the Assassin is also not limited and could, if they so felt like it, create hundreds of False identities.

[hawklost]

An extra Question,

What about if you do extra attacks on the surprise round.....
if someone is surprised and you use two weapon fighting on them, do you get the Death Strike for your second weapon as well? I know you don't get sneak.
OR say a Monk (could be up to 3) using Ki to gain 2 unarmed strikes. I know that they won't do terribly much damage, but double damage is always fun after all.

[HorridElemental]

The False Identity of Charlatan is a single identity that is from the start of the campaign. The Assassin can create one 'on the fly' in any city for any effect as long as they have enough time and money to make it. It would seem that the Assassin is also not limited and could, if they so felt like it, create hundreds of False identities.

And it is still meh, something that should be part of the base rules or anything else that isn't a subclass.

[hawklost]

And it is still meh, something that should be part of the base rules or anything else that isn't a subclass.

Why should anyone in the game be good at making false identities? Do you believe that everyone in the world can make one that is good enough to pass a check? I mean, it isn't game breaking I know but it can help the party a great deal depending on where they need to get into.

Know you need to get into a Nobles ball? Got a week, create a Noble identity
Cult of Blarg taken over a Guild house? Create a Guild Identity
Need to do some wet-work in a City? Create an identity to enter that city so you and your party aren't possibly forbidden from entering in the future
Pissed off the Constable in a Town or City that you visited in the past? Have an identity proving you aren't the same person, it must be mistaken identity

[Yuukale]

An extra Question,

What about if you do extra attacks on the surprise round.....
if someone is surprised and you use two weapon fighting on them, do you get the Death Strike for your second weapon as well? I know you don't get sneak.
OR say a Monk (could be up to 3) using Ki to gain 2 unarmed strikes. I know that they won't do terribly much damage, but double damage is always fun after all.

Surprise doesn't come off after one attack. A creature only stops being "surprised" after the surprise round passes, therefore, you may apply death strike on your second attack (creature gets another save, though). If you get some static damage on you, these unarmed strikes may get serious dmg.
If not, try a dip in fighter for 2-weapon-fighting style and ability bonus on the off-hand attack as well.

[vasharanpaladin]

Did anyone find a leak of the warlock's "fixed" class features yet? Only having the table and the pacts to go on isn't working for me, mine brainmeats are EATING themselves... :smallfrown:

[Craft (Cheese)]

And it is still meh, something that should be part of the base rules or anything else that isn't a subclass.

A better way to handle it would be to, you know, actually have rules for what rolls you need to make or resources you need to spend to pass yourself off with a fake identity, then give the Charlatan/Assassin benefits (either by making them auto-succeed, or making success more likely or cost less).

[Lokiare]

A better way to handle it would be to, you know, actually have rules for what rolls you need to make or resources you need to spend to pass yourself off with a fake identity, then give the Charlatan/Assassin benefits (either by making them auto-succeed, or making success more likely or cost less).

Yep, something like Nearly Impossible DC, but spending 100gp can move the DC down to very hard. 1000gp can move it down to hard. etc...etc... and the assassin can halve the cost and move it down to very hard automatically.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Why should anyone in the game be good at making false identities? Do you believe that everyone in the world can make one that is good enough to pass a check? I mean, it isn't game breaking I know but it can help the party a great deal depending on where they need to get into.

The problem is how it's implemented: It's the same issue as 3.5's "You must pay the feat tax to do a cool thing" problem, except even worse since it's such a basic thing that's tucked away in a class.

Fightrina McFighterson: "I put on the fancy dress and try to pass myself off as a noble lady to get into the ball."
DM: "Do you have 9 levels as an Assassin Rogue?"
Fightrina: "Uhh, no?"
DM: "Then you can't."

[Kurald Galain]

The problem is how it's implemented: It's the same issue as 3.5's "You must pay the feat tax to do a cool thing" problem, except even worse since it's such a basic thing that's tucked away in a class.

Indeed. And conversely, if the DM rules that you can disguise yourself with a charisma check (such as, oh, in basically every other RPG ever), then suddenly this high-level rogue ability becomes useless.

Then again, I'm seeing a pattern so far that classes get cool abilities at low level, and weak abilities at high level. Except casters, of course.

[Craft (Cheese)]

The design pattern seems to be "E6, but stretched out over 20 levels (but with most of the content in the first 5 levels), unless you're a caster in which case you still get world-altering spells at mid-levels and your power only increases from there."

[Yuukale]

I get your point Kurald but... isn't this the distinction between "non-specialist" and "specialist" ? I mean, fighters trying to do this will have to resort to Charisma checks quite often and have to justify their cover a lot more than the assassin.

If you don't have an assassin, it's doable, if dangerous (just like any deep-cover-job). The assassin is the spy par excellence.

[Envyus]

The problem is how it's implemented: It's the same issue as 3.5's "You must pay the feat tax to do a cool thing" problem, except even worse since it's such a basic thing that's tucked away in a class.

Fightrina McFighterson: "I put on the fancy dress and try to pass myself off as a noble lady to get into the ball."
DM: "Do you have 9 levels as an Assassin Rogue?"
Fightrina: "Uhh, no?"
DM: "Then you can't."

You can it just won't be nearly as effective as if an Assassin was doing it.

[PinkysBrain]

Well, finger of death went from "save-or-lose" to "deal damage with a nifty effect if you kill the target" so there's hope.

Except now if it kills you have a pet zombie, no mention of controlled HD limits in the spell either.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I get your point Kurald but... isn't this the distinction between "non-specialist" and "specialist" ? I mean, fighters trying to do this will have to resort to Charisma checks quite often and have to justify their cover a lot more than the assassin.

If you don't have an assassin, it's doable, if dangerous (just like any deep-cover-job). The assassin is the spy par excellence.

What's the difference, exactly? The ability doesn't bother to define it. Seems to me it means whatever the DM says it means.

[Cibulan]

The problem is how it's implemented: It's the same issue as 3.5's "You must pay the feat tax to do a cool thing" problem, except even worse since it's such a basic thing that's tucked away in a class.

Fightrina McFighterson: "I put on the fancy dress and try to pass myself off as a noble lady to get into the ball."
DM: "Do you have 9 levels as an Assassin Rogue?"
Fightrina: "Uhh, no?"
DM: "Then you can't."That's not how it works. McFighterson can certainly put on a dress and try to pass off as a noble lady. McFighterson makes a deception check at the ball. When the Assassin sets up a new identity and walks into the ball, everyone turns and whispers "Oh! Here comes that McAssassinson lady we've been hearing so much about.". The assassin doesn't have to cover his story, people just believe it because it's that convincing.

[Yuki Akuma]

The difference between just anybody dressing up as someone else and a level 9 Assassin is the difference between you convincing a bunch of strangers your name is actually Randy and you go to college in the area, versus actually having a file at the local college stating that you are Randy McAssassin and attend Not-A-Fake-Subject 101 with Professor OtherAssassin.

The Assassin class ability gives you extra personas that "exist" as far as society is concerned. Anyone can do this with Deception and a lot of legwork, sure, but Assassins are really good at it 'cause it's part of their job.

[Cibulan]

The difference between just anybody dressing up as someone else and a level 9 Assassin is the difference between you convincing a bunch of strangers your name is actually Randy and you go to college in the area, versus actually having a file at the local college stating that you are Randy McAssassin and attend Not-A-Fake-Subject 101 with Professor OtherAssassin.

The Assassin class ability gives you extra personas that "exist" as far as society is concerned. Anyone can do this with Deception and a lot of legwork, sure, but Assassins are really good at it 'cause it's part of their job.AND the assassin doesn't even have to roll to do it. I think that's a huge benefit that's being overlooked. There's no chance of failure, it's just pay 25 gold and wait a week. Wham. Bam. Welcome to the ball lady McAssassinson.

To use your example, other characters could try to be Randy too but they'd have to break into the school office, forge the documents, etc. Every step has the potential for getting caught or failing.

[akaddk]

The problem is how it's implemented: It's the same issue as 3.5's "You must pay the feat tax to do a cool thing" problem, except even worse since it's such a basic thing that's tucked away in a class.

Fightrina McFighterson: "I put on the fancy dress and try to pass myself off as a noble lady to get into the ball."
DM: "Do you have 9 levels as an Assassin Rogue?"
Fightrina: "Uhh, no?"
DM: "Then you can't."

Oh rubbish, you're exaggerating.

The party can easily band together and create a disguise (Working Together rules and Group Checks). And then it's up to the individual PC's Deception checks to make it work. And if they have a ****ty Deception skill then what do you expect? Everything to work all the time just because a player wants to do it?

[1337 b4k4]

What's the difference, exactly? The ability doesn't bother to define it. Seems to me it means whatever the DM says it means.

The difference is for the assassin, everyone believes your ruse until they're given a reason not to. This isn't "I go to the ball disguised as a cook"
"Ok, roll your deception check to get past the guard"

this is
"I go to the ball disguised as a cook"
"Ok, the guard takes a brief glance at your credentials and motions you though"

[archaeo]

The difference is for the assassin, everyone believes your ruse until they're given a reason not to. This isn't "I go to the ball disguised as a cook"
"Ok, roll your deception check to get past the guard"

this is
"I go to the ball disguised as a cook"
"Ok, the guard takes a brief glance at your credentials and motions you though"

Well, or "I go to the ball disguised as a one of the evil cultists that will secretly be meeting there." Or "I go to the ball disguised as a wealthy foreign prince so I can kill the king."

This kind of reminds me of the Wild Mage discussion. Some players will just really love this subclass, but I think it's even valuable just to show players (and DMs) what kinds of problems the PHB expects players to see in D&D. It's a broad-minded and charitable reading of it (since I think both Wild Mage and Assassin aren't likely to be extremely popular), but I enjoy a PHB that hints at how big a game D&D can really be instead of just a murderhobo simulator.

[PinkysBrain]

The difference is for the assassin, everyone believes your ruse until they're given a reason not to. This isn't "I go to the ball disguised as a cook"
"Ok, roll your deception check to get past the guard"

this is
"I go to the ball disguised as a cook"
"Ok, the guard takes a brief glance at your credentials and motions you though"

An end run around the ridiculousness of bounded accuracy then ...

[1337 b4k4]

An end run around the ridiculousness of bounded accuracy then ...

Only if you assume the ability check system in 5e is supposed to model every single possible thing that the PCs (or any other person in the D&D world) could do or want to do. Since the ability check system is clearly not supposed to do that however, I view this as an explicit admission and example of the fact that not everything you want to accomplish in D&D requires you to roll dice. There are similar examples in the starter adventure (like where it describes a hidden treasure that can be found either with an ability check, or by the players directly interacting with the hiding spot)

[PinkysBrain]

I know bounded accuracy requires the DM to let you auto-succeed on checks at his whim. The second is a natural result of the former and I see both as ridiculous. The assassin makes an end run both around the checks and needing to rely on the DM whims in this case.

[1337 b4k4]

I know bounded accuracy requires the DM to let you auto-succeed on checks at his whim. The second is a natural result of the former and I see both as ridiculous. The assassin makes an end run both around the checks and needing to rely on the DM whims in this case.

Not quite. Bounded accuracy (and more generally, the entire D&D ability check system) requires the DM not call for checks for things that don't need checks. It's a matter of using your tools properly. With 5e, it's pretty clear they made the conscious decision not to have the ability check system be a universal "all the skills" system. It's part of why the checks are called ability checks and not skill checks, and why many (but sadly not all) of the skills are very broad. Simply put, WotC has declined to give you a system for resolving commoners arm wrestling dragons or for modeling the greatest thief in the land cat burgling the town sheriff. Whether you want your game to have such a system is a matter of opinion, but that doesn't make the tools provided to work within the systems the game does have ridiculous.

[PinkysBrain]

greatest thief in the land cat burgling the town sheriff
If the DM judges you to be the greatest thief in the land and the sheriff being a comparative nobody you get to autosucceed on all the tasks necessary to do that (lets leave the word "rolls" out of it, so we can avoid a semantic argument). If on the other hand the DM thinks you're only a really good thief you have to roll and you get screwed by bounded accuracy.

There is no way to know which way the DM is going to go, it's all whim.

[HorridElemental]

I like how everyone is throwing around Whim like it is such a nasty word.

Like if the same situation presented itself to two different players running the same PC build that one would get to auto succeed and the other will have to roll.

It isn't whim, whim is well whimsical without reasoning. Most DMs, at least half ass decent ones, will have sound reasoning for what they determine should happen.

So stop using WHIM and start using well I don't know... Choice, decision, or idea? Stop making this into such a nasty idea when it really doesn't need to be.

[1337 b4k4]

There is no way to know which way the DM is going to go, it's all whim.

It's all based on the fiction. Are you the greatest thief in the world? A true master par excellence with no equal on this plane? Is the sheriff a complete nobody? A local rube who wouldn't know true crime if it shook his hand? Just because these things aren't written down on your character sheet and modeled with mathematical equations doesn't mean you can't know them or that they can't be known. Does your character dream? Vividly? Sometimes with premonitions? How do you know this if it's not written down and quantified? You know this because it's established (or not) as part of the game's fiction (or alternatively modeled with some other system). So too with things that are outside the purview of thebasic ability check system.

[PinkysBrain]

Like if the same situation presented itself to two different players running the same PC build that one would get to auto succeed and the other will have to roll.

Run a scenario a couple of times with the same DM far enough removed in time and you will have this happen occasionally, when you get close enough to a decision boundary lots of factors can push his decision this way or that. If he's in a foul mood you get to roll for instance.


sound reasoning for what they determine should happen.

Rational, competent and intelligent people disagree about what constitutes sound reasoning all the time ... or even change their minds (rarely ;).

[hawklost]

Run a scenario a couple of times with the same DM far enough removed in time and you will have this happen occasionally, when you get close enough to a decision boundary lots of factors can push his decision this way or that. If he's in a foul mood you get to roll for instance.



Rational, competent and intelligent people disagree about what constitutes sound reasoning all the time ... or even change their minds (rarely ;).

Yes, but consider this. a DM in a foul mood and or annoyed at a certain player could easily have every single enemy in a fight focus fire that exact person, aiming to kill him while ignoring all other players. There is no rules or statistics forbidding a DM from doing this, but players take it as acceptable that a DM could choose to do it.

Yes, a DM might allow a player to do something one time and not allow them to do a seemingly similar task another (or Force Rolls). There might be some hidden reason the player does not know why a task that looks exactly the same has changed (and might never know if they succeed at it) but that does not mean there aren't reasons for it instead of just 'whims'.

-------------------------------

It is always the 'whim' of a DM where a Campaign actually goes, it is the 'whim' of the DM what kind of enemies the players fight, it is the 'whim' of the DM for how hard a challenge or roll is, it is the 'whim' of the DM for how PCs react to the players and yet people get upset when it is 'whim' for a DM to decide how effective a class feature can or can't be?

[Mr.Moron]

- Unless the DM is being really heavy-handed (with strict time limits and the like), for the most part the players control the pacing of when they rest. Limiting a game-breaking spell to once per day means the players are going to stop and rest every time they use it. (You *can* fix this by tying recovering spell slots to narrative break points defined by the DM instead of physically stopping for 24 hours, but the crowd that insists on simulation hates this.)

If whatever you're doing allows you to stop and rest for a full 24 hours after every 30 seconds of conflict, it has either no stakes, no challenge, is of interest to no other party or has no compelling timeline. Likely all of those things. In which case, *yawwn* who cares if spells trivialize it?

9 times of 10 any plot with meat on it's bones will not allow for "Ok guys. Let's stop and rest for a full day" every time you're required to exert yourselves. Not assuming the world stands frozen in time whenever the PCs aren't acting isn't being "Heavy Handed" it's just providing the most basic sense of urgency.

[1337 b4k4]

Run a scenario a couple of times with the same DM far enough removed in time and you will have this happen occasionally, when you get close enough to a decision boundary lots of factors can push his decision this way or that. If he's in a foul mood you get to roll for instance.

I find if consistency is that important, it tends to be written down. If it wasn't written down, then consistency isn't important and it doesn't end up mattering. But further, as pointed out, if the DM is in a foul mood, there are hundreds upon thousands of ways the DM can screw you over. Having a skill check system that models every possible eventuality (or strives for that) simply because "the DM might be in a bad mood" strikes me as a false sense of security and a really lousy reason to create some rules. Don't get me wrong, if you and your DM and your group want a detailed skill resolution system, there's absolutely noting wrong with that. I too enjoy a GURPS game from time to time. But if your purpose for those rules is to keep your DM in check, you're far better off simply not playing with that DM. Life and gaming time are far too short to be playing with people you don't trust and don't like. I've advocated for this before, and I will continue to advocate for it because it leads to much better games: Don't game with people who make gaming un-fun. Fire your DM, tell the disruptive player to go home, and communicate. If that means you need a new DM, then step up and DM. If it means you have a smaller party, make adjustments or find a new player and if it means getting out of your comfort zone and actually talking out disagreements then do that. I guarantee it will make your gaming far better than it ever was before.




Rational, competent and intelligent people disagree about what constitutes sound reasoning all the time ... or even change their minds (rarely ;).

Rational, competent and intelligent people can also have rational, competent and intelligent conversations about their disagreement. Rational, competent and intelligent players voice their objection to something and make a brief reasoned case for their view. Rational, competent and intelligent DMs consider this objection and view, compare to their own and make a fair and impartial adjudication based on the world that has been created. Rational, competent and intelligent players accept this ruling, regardless of how it plays out and move on. If said rational, competent and intelligent player still has an objection, they bring it up to the DM after the game so as not to disrupt the game and the two have a rational, competent and intelligent discussion about it and come to a rational, competent and intelligent agreement. If they can't come to a rational, competent and intelligent agreement on the issue, then each must decide whether this is something that sufficiently ruins their fun. If so, they part ways on this campaign, neither assigning malice or irrationality to the other person, acknowledging that their gaming desires are not meeting. In the end, each person ends up far happier than if they had stayed and continued to but heads, ignore the issue and let it simmer or use the rules as a cudgel for forcing the other to comply with their wishes.

While way may (often) fail to achieve such a lofty goal as outlined above, my experience is that striving to achieve that goal leaves everyone happier and having more fun more often than using rules to enforce a particular view point.

Edit
------

I should add that I find this to be true even if both sides nominally agree to the rules before hand. As rules get more complex or require higher levels of skill mastery, I find even with the rules written and spelled out clearly that there are still misunderstandings. But rather than the scenario where there are no (or limited) rules and a small discussion is had leading to a resolution everyone is happy with, more often I see both people arguing that their reading or understanding of the rules is the correct one and "plainly obvious" and that the other person is "breaking the rules". In my experience, unless everyone has the same level of rules and system mastery, more rules tends to lead to more, not less conflict.

[Icewraith]

I find if consistency is that important, it tends to be written down. If it wasn't written down, then consistency isn't important and it doesn't end up mattering. But further, as pointed out, if the DM is in a foul mood, there are hundreds upon thousands of ways the DM can screw you over. Having a skill check system that models every possible eventuality (or strives for that) simply because "the DM might be in a bad mood" strikes me as a false sense of security and a really lousy reason to create some rules. Don't get me wrong, if you and your DM and your group want a detailed skill resolution system, there's absolutely noting wrong with that. I too enjoy a GURPS game from time to time. But if your purpose for those rules is to keep your DM in check, you're far better off simply not playing with that DM. Life and gaming time are far too short to be playing with people you don't trust and don't like. I've advocated for this before, and I will continue to advocate for it because it leads to much better games: Don't game with people who make gaming un-fun. Fire your DM, tell the disruptive player to go home, and communicate. If that means you need a new DM, then step up and DM. If it means you have a smaller party, make adjustments or find a new player and if it means getting out of your comfort zone and actually talking out disagreements then do that. I guarantee it will make your gaming far better than it ever was before.




Rational, competent and intelligent people can also have rational, competent and intelligent conversations about their disagreement. Rational, competent and intelligent players voice their objection to something and make a brief reasoned case for their view. Rational, competent and intelligent DMs consider this objection and view, compare to their own and make a fair and impartial adjudication based on the world that has been created. Rational, competent and intelligent players accept this ruling, regardless of how it plays out and move on. If said rational, competent and intelligent player still has an objection, they bring it up to the DM after the game so as not to disrupt the game and the two have a rational, competent and intelligent discussion about it and come to a rational, competent and intelligent agreement. If they can't come to a rational, competent and intelligent agreement on the issue, then each must decide whether this is something that sufficiently ruins their fun. If so, they part ways on this campaign, neither assigning malice or irrationality to the other person, acknowledging that their gaming desires are not meeting. In the end, each person ends up far happier than if they had stayed and continued to but heads, ignore the issue and let it simmer or use the rules as a cudgel for forcing the other to comply with their wishes.

While way may (often) fail to achieve such a lofty goal as outlined above, my experience is that striving to achieve that goal leaves everyone happier and having more fun more often than using rules to enforce a particular view point.

Edit
------

I should add that I find this to be true even if both sides nominally agree to the rules before hand. As rules get more complex or require higher levels of skill mastery, I find even with the rules written and spelled out clearly that there are still misunderstandings. But rather than the scenario where there are no (or limited) rules and a small discussion is had leading to a resolution everyone is happy with, more often I see both people arguing that their reading or understanding of the rules is the correct one and "plainly obvious" and that the other person is "breaking the rules". In my experience, unless everyone has the same level of rules and system mastery, more rules tends to lead to more, not less conflict.

You mean there are competent DMs that don't use the "if it takes more than a minute to figure out I'm going to make a decision, we'll roll with it, and if anyone still has an issue we'll figure it out long term after the session" method of resolving rules disputes?

If players understand that a spur of the moment decision isn't locking in table precedent for the foreseeable future, those sort of discussions tend to be a lot less heated.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Having few mechanics to represent a character and keeping most things in the fiction is fine... in a rules-light game. D&D 5E is not a rules-light game: If it was, then class features like "You can walk around with a false identity" (and indeed class features at all) would not only be unnecessary, they would be utterly inconceivable. 5E, like every edition of D&D before it, expects that a character's capabilities are either things that everyone can do, or they're things that you have to purchase with character resources like skill points, feats, or class levels. And even if it was a rules-light system, I'm not sure if radically changing the way the very core of the game is supposed to work between editions, and not bothering to actually tell this to anyone and expecting everybody to just figure out the change in assumptions on their own, is the smartest idea.

[Millennium]

Having few mechanics to represent a character and keeping most things in the fiction is fine... in a rules-light game. D&D 5E is not a rules-light game...
Is it really just a binary light/heavy, though? D&D has never been as rules-light as FUDGE or Apocalypse World, it's true. But at the same time, it's never been as rules-heavy as HERO or (God forbid) that system.

There's a middle ground, but the middle ground is not merely the best of both worlds. It has problems of its own, because you have to figure out where to strike the best balance between system support versus narrative flexibility. Many would say that although 3e and 4e struck very different balances, neither one did entirely well at it. And so 5e is trying to strike its own, at different place from either 3e or 4e.

[Yuki Akuma]

that system

Uh... GURPS?

[Lokiare]

If whatever you're doing allows you to stop and rest for a full 24 hours after every 30 seconds of conflict, it has either no stakes, no challenge, is of interest to no other party or has no compelling timeline. Likely all of those things. In which case, *yawwn* who cares if spells trivialize it?

9 times of 10 any plot with meat on it's bones will not allow for "Ok guys. Let's stop and rest for a full day" every time you're required to exert yourselves. Not assuming the world stands frozen in time whenever the PCs aren't acting isn't being "Heavy Handed" it's just providing the most basic sense of urgency.

This is not always true.

In fact here are a number of things that won't have 'time limits' and allows for resting as long as you want:

1. Ancient tomb guarded by traps, constructs, and mindless undead.
2. Murder mystery where the murderer covers their tracks and returns to their regular routine, or goes into hiding.
3. Finding the McGuffin in an ancient unguarded open air temple (not a dungeon, a single room) in the middle of a forest inhabited with non-intelligent threats. (or any variation thereof)
4. Starting or stopping a war between two factions. They will remain static or continue to war if the party does nothing.

I'm sure there are more. A lot of times its ok to have time limits built in, but if you have time limits on everything, it begins to wear thin and the players start to see through it.

[Mr.Moron]

1. Ancient tomb guarded by traps, constructs, and mindless undead.

Why are you exploring this tomb, what is it in it? If it has information why does it not matter when you get it. If it has treasure, why is nobody else trying to beat you to it? If it home to a villain, why do they not have any plans they are moving forward?



3. Finding the McGuffin in an ancient unguarded open air temple (not a dungeon, a single room) in the middle of a forest inhabited with non-intelligent threats. (or any variation thereof)

Why do you have basically forever to obtain your McGuffin? Is it not needed to stop a madman from blowing up a city? Is there no friend about to become possessed by a demon? Is there not a astrological event that you must have it by? Is there no great monster approaching from south?

Like seriously. What even is the specific level of threat high enough that it requires a powerful McGuffin, but allows you to obtain at the speed "Whatever,any old time will do. Now, In week. All about the same".


Like what kind of role is an adventurer playing in a war story where they have 30 seconds of conflict, spaced with 24 hours of rest (at least). Where those events are both threatening, interesting and relevant enough to the plot to not narrate through as "There's another 2 weeks of heavy fighting. You lose good men and get a few scrapes yourself, it's starting to get grim" with maybe some RP between generic battles?


Look. I'm sure there are some instances where urgency and regular 24 stops can go hand and hand in... like one or two infrequent instances. However for it to be regularly, you really do have to be dealing with things that max out at about "Oh, whatever. We'll get to when we get to it" on threatometer.

[Kurald Galain]

Is it really just a binary light/heavy, though?

Yes, because it is a matter of design choices, not a gradual scale of "ranking RPGs". Whenever I see somebody use the term like "rules medium" they really mean the exact same thing as "rules heavy" except that they've come to the (mistaken!) conclusion that "rules heavy" is a derogatory term.

[1337 b4k4]

Having few mechanics to represent a character and keeping most things in the fiction is fine... in a rules-light game.

It's also fine in a rules heavy game, it just depends on where you want your heavy rules to focus. I never thought I'd use this as a positive example, but look at FATAL compared to D&D. Regardless of the game's actual merits, FATAL is absolutely a rules heavy game. Yet 99% of the physical attributes and "features" that FATAL has rules for are left up to "whatever you and the DM agree on within the fiction" in D&D. Stepping away from that for a moment, consider the fluff as optional / fluff as rules debate. 4e strongly went the fluff as optional route such that even though 4e is indisputably rules heavy, the actual part of "how your mechanical effects manifest themselves in the world and what happens beyond the core mechanical effects" was very much left up to "whatever you and th DM agree on within the fiction". While I agree with Kurald that the distinction is rules heavy vs rules light, I do not agree that there isn't a sliding scale or that you can't have a game that is rules light in one part and rules heavy in another (take Microlite20 for example, it's d20 D&D boiled down to 3 pages of rules, except for the spells, there it imports the 3e ones verbatim, making it rules lite except in regards to spells which are rules heavy).



5E, like every edition of D&D before it, expects that a character's capabilities are either things that everyone can do, or they're things that you have to purchase with character resources like skill points, feats, or class levels.

No. This is far and away one of the WORST concepts to have come out of the WotC D&D era. D&D has not always expected that things were either "everyone can do them, or only you can with the right investments". Early D&D was everyone can do everything minus specific class features, but certain people could do them differently. 5e appears to be going the same route. 5e assumes that if it's reasonable for your character to be able to do something, then they can do it (or at least attempt it). If it's something with a chance of failure, D&D provides you a tool for resolving that chance with a resolution of roughly 30-70% in 5% increments. It also provides tools for representing a general increase in competence which improves your chances of succeeding. What it reserves for purchasing with character resources and class levels is obtaining expertise and mastery, allowing you to bypass your chances of failure at all.

In other words, in 5e, everyone can disguise themselves. Based on their natural abilities, proficiencies, backgrounds and other circumstances, you can be more or less likely to succeed at fooling someone. But only the assassin in 5e can be so good at disguising and fooling others that they can establish an entire history and back story that everyone will believe. Basically, in 5e, anyone can print up a fake id, shave their head, put on some makeup and go by a different name, but only the assassin can literally create his or her own witness protection program.

Again, whether you like this or not is a matter of taste and opinion, but that doesn't make it broken or wrong, just different than what 3e and (to a lesser extent) 4e D&D did.

[Millennium]

Uh... GURPS?
I was thinking FATAL. I apologize to the HERO fans for having mentioned their system in the same sentence as that one, but if one wants a list of rules-heavy systems, these are two of the heaviest. I'm just relieved to see that I'm not the only person in the thread to have thought of it.

Yes, because it is a matter of design choices, not a gradual scale of "ranking RPGs". Whenever I see somebody use the term like "rules medium" they really mean the exact same thing as "rules heavy" except that they've come to the (mistaken!) conclusion that "rules heavy" is a derogatory term.
I didn't say it was a matter of ranking; it's a spectrum. Lay it flat on its side if it makes you feel better, because you're right: rules-heavy is not a derogatory term. But there are systems that take the term whole leagues beyond anything D&D has ever done, which leads me to believe that there's a need for more than two states here.

[Tholomyes]

This is not always true.

In fact here are a number of things that won't have 'time limits' and allows for resting as long as you want:

1. Ancient tomb guarded by traps, constructs, and mindless undead.
2. Murder mystery where the murderer covers their tracks and returns to their regular routine, or goes into hiding.
3. Finding the McGuffin in an ancient unguarded open air temple (not a dungeon, a single room) in the middle of a forest inhabited with non-intelligent threats. (or any variation thereof)
4. Starting or stopping a war between two factions. They will remain static or continue to war if the party does nothing.

I'm sure there are more. A lot of times its ok to have time limits built in, but if you have time limits on everything, it begins to wear thin and the players start to see through it.For #2, there most certainly is reason not to rest unlimitedly. Cases go cold. Evidence will disappear, either as a result of the killer covering it up, or simply as a result of natural disorder added to the system. Furthermore, the killer could easily escape. Perhaps they have reason to stay in town, but the party doesn't know that. To the party's knoweldge every minute is another chance for the killer to finish whatever they're doing and then slip away undetected.

As for #1 and #3, there usually (though not always, admittedly) is a reason the party is after the McGuffin or is delving in the ancient tomb. Perhaps someone else is after the McGuffin, or perhaps the town has taken ill from a mysterious illness, and the only place to get a key ingredient to cure them is from the ancient tomb. These are pretty common reasons why the party might do those things, but even if those specific reasons aren't the case, there likely is something that is sending them after the McGuffin or into the tomb, and far more often than not, it'll be something time sensitive.

As for #4, I think it's pretty obvious that that is something with time limits. If you're dealing with a situation as tense as starting or stopping a war, then the party won't likely dally. Maybe, as the DM, you know that whatever situation you have planned for when the party tries to start or stop the war will go on whether they do it immediately or if they wait a week, but for the party it's still a ticking clock.

Now, I'll still argue that 1-hour short rests are too long, since, for the most part, any time you can rest for an hour, you probably can rest for a day, but to say that you can rest whenever you want, with any regularity, is ignoring the fact that rarely do you have the luxury of time in actual play situations.

[Leon]

It definitely looks like the 5E Tier list is going to need separate categories for every subclass, as the resources given to the class vary wildly between subclasses options.


Or you know you could do away with the concept. Its over hyped as it is.

[Knaight]

Having few mechanics to represent a character and keeping most things in the fiction is fine... in a rules-light game. D&D 5E is not a rules-light game: If it was, then class features like "You can walk around with a false identity" (and indeed class features at all) would not only be unnecessary, they would be utterly inconceivable. 5E, like every edition of D&D before it, expects that a character's capabilities are either things that everyone can do, or they're things that you have to purchase with character resources like skill points, feats, or class levels. And even if it was a rules-light system, I'm not sure if radically changing the way the very core of the game is supposed to work between editions, and not bothering to actually tell this to anyone and expecting everybody to just figure out the change in assumptions on their own, is the smartest idea.

Dungeon World is pretty light, and it has class features - a lot of which are exactly like "You can walk around with a false identity". D&D 5e still isn't particularly rules-light, but it's a lot lighter than most previous editions. Plus, the ability is basically having the network of contacts, know how of bureaucracies, and a whole bunch of other stuff required to create an identity reliably. These don't warrant the use of actual skills, less the game turn into GURPS (which really, really needs a shorter skill list). In short, the ability seems fine. I'd rather it be a feat, but that's really my only complaint.

I'd agree with your point on changing the assumptions of the game. These abilities do mark a change in basic assumptions for how things work, and having that explicitly spelled out would be nice. Games like Burning Wheel often have sidebars explicitly stating what the mechanics in them are intended to do and why they are there, and having that would be really nice.

[Person_Man]

Or you know you could do away with the concept. Its over hyped as it is.

That's certainly a fair statement.

But whether its the Tier list or my Niche Ranking or some other comparative measure, its pretty clear that different classes and subclasses have different levels of resources, and are capable of effectively accomplishing different things. For example, at this point its abundantly clear that full casters can use spells to do pretty much anything, and that they can renew their semi-limited spell uses fairly easily because the Long Rest rules are pretty lax, and in some cases bypass the need for renewing their spell uses by using Rituals, Cantrips, and spells with long durations. Whereas a Champion Fighter basically just hits stuff and absorbs hits effectively.

In 5E, rules mastery determines both the player's effectiveness and the DM's ability to dial up or down the difficulty of the game. Players who choose weaker Class/Subclass/Feat/Race combinations will make characters capable of doing fewer things well, and DMs who do not understand the implications of the rules will have a harder time determining how to implement them well. So I feel that its a worthy endevour to come together as a community to have conversations about such things, and guides discussing them. And ultimately, I think it can lead to better game design in the future.

Plus, its the internet. Like, 90% of the non-adult themed websites are lists and arguing.

[Sartharina]

Action surge is once a day.Encounter, not Day.

[Icewraith]

Encounter, not Day.

This exact thing is why I wish they'd kept at least some of the encounter terminology. Or cut "short rest" down to ten minutes or so. A one hour short rest is a really awkward in-game length of time, and I'm in the "anywhere you can rest for one hour, you can probably rest for eight" camp.

Ten minutes is more than enough time to have a breather, drink some water or a healing potion, bind up non-serious wounds, get your wind back, maybe meditate for a bit, search the bodies for obvious valuables ("hey this goblin has magic bracers" not "hey this goblin was smuggling diamonds in its abdomen, let's also take any teeth with gold fillings")- especially since not everyone has to do all of these things during a rest. If you're on a "race-to-the-finish" time limit you STILL can't afford to rest for ten minutes.

[Tholomyes]

This exact thing is why I wish they'd kept at least some of the encounter terminology. Or cut "short rest" down to ten minutes or so. A one hour short rest is a really awkward in-game length of time, and I'm in the "anywhere you can rest for one hour, you can probably rest for eight" camp.

Ten minutes is more than enough time to have a breather, drink some water or a healing potion, bind up non-serious wounds, get your wind back, maybe meditate for a bit, search the bodies for obvious valuables ("hey this goblin has magic bracers" not "hey this goblin was smuggling diamonds in its abdomen, let's also take any teeth with gold fillings")- especially since not everyone has to do all of these things during a rest. If you're on a "race-to-the-finish" time limit you STILL can't afford to rest for ten minutes.Seconded, with an asterisk. I think the "search the bodies for obvious valuables" shouldn't be part of the rest, and should just be assumed. It makes it easier for the DM to say "Yeah, you find XYZ item, but you can't necessarily rest here"

Search for hidden (or non-obvious) valuables, however, would probably be more than even a short rest could provide. I know I've lost my keys and my wallet enough times and spent more than just 10-minutes searching for them, and they weren't even hidden, and I was even the one who had them last.

[da_chicken]

This exact thing is why I wish they'd kept at least some of the encounter terminology. Or cut "short rest" down to ten minutes or so. A one hour short rest is a really awkward in-game length of time, and I'm in the "anywhere you can rest for one hour, you can probably rest for eight" camp.

Ten minutes is more than enough time to have a breather, drink some water or a healing potion, bind up non-serious wounds, get your wind back, maybe meditate for a bit, search the bodies for obvious valuables ("hey this goblin has magic bracers" not "hey this goblin was smuggling diamonds in its abdomen, let's also take any teeth with gold fillings")- especially since not everyone has to do all of these things during a rest. If you're on a "race-to-the-finish" time limit you STILL can't afford to rest for ten minutes.

I would encourage you to play a short rest as whatever you and your group feels is appropriate. I think the key elements for a short rest are:


The PCs feel "safe"
Spells and other effects intended to last one combat expire
You're in one place long enough that nearly anybody chasing you would have caught up
Nearby enemies have time to plan or reorganize if they heard your encounter, including setting up a counterattack


Once the DM knows these things are true, then any amount of time is sufficient for a short rest. It could be 10 minutes if they barricade the only door and bust out a waterskin and rations. It could be an hour if they're in the middle of a dark, unfamiliar forest with unfamiliar or unsettling noises (baying of a wolf, etc.) around them. It should just never be longer than an hour before they get the benefits of the short rest. As DM, you just hand wave it as "there's some unsettling feelings making it difficult for you to rest" or "the warm sunshine and fresh spring water quickly make you feel rejuvenated". Use it as a way to reward players for picking good places to rest, or building suspense if they're stuck behind enemy lines or lost or in danger.

[1337 b4k4]

For #2, there most certainly is reason not to rest unlimitedly. Cases go cold. Evidence will disappear, either as a result of the killer covering it up, or simply as a result of natural disorder added to the system. Furthermore, the killer could easily escape. Perhaps they have reason to stay in town, but the party doesn't know that. To the party's knoweldge every minute is another chance for the killer to finish whatever they're doing and then slip away undetected.

As a matter of fact, there's a "reality" tv show called "The First 48" which operates on the premise that the first 48 hours after a murder are the most important for piecing together what happened and solving the crime. Specifically they claim that after the first 48 hours if they don't have a good handle on what's going on, the chances of solving the murder are cut in half.

[Stubbazubba]

I find if consistency is that important, it tends to be written down. If it wasn't written down, then consistency isn't important and it doesn't end up mattering. But further, as pointed out, if the DM is in a foul mood, there are hundreds upon thousands of ways the DM can screw you over. Having a skill check system that models every possible eventuality (or strives for that) simply because "the DM might be in a bad mood" strikes me as a false sense of security and a really lousy reason to create some rules. Don't get me wrong, if you and your DM and your group want a detailed skill resolution system, there's absolutely noting wrong with that. I too enjoy a GURPS game from time to time. But if your purpose for those rules is to keep your DM in check, you're far better off simply not playing with that DM. Life and gaming time are far too short to be playing with people you don't trust and don't like. I've advocated for this before, and I will continue to advocate for it because it leads to much better games: Don't game with people who make gaming un-fun. Fire your DM, tell the disruptive player to go home, and communicate. If that means you need a new DM, then step up and DM. If it means you have a smaller party, make adjustments or find a new player and if it means getting out of your comfort zone and actually talking out disagreements then do that. I guarantee it will make your gaming far better than it ever was before.

Strawman much? A DM in a foul mood is not a bad DM that you shouldn't play with. The world's greatest DM could just as easily be in a foul mood after his gf breaks up with him or other external reasons. "Get rid of the DM" is a blunt weapon, not a scalpel for dealing with the variances that inevitably arise when the resolution of every task first depends on a DM judgment call that disposes the entire issue. If the system wants DM's to say you either auto-fail, roll, or auto-succeed, then it should just have that be the case with Monte Cook's old skill proficiency idea, instead of telling DMs to determine which task for which character falls into which category, and then using the system to determine success if the DM puts it in the right category based on subjective and often arbitrary criteria.


Rational, competent and intelligent people can also have rational, competent and intelligent conversations about their disagreement. Rational, competent and intelligent players voice their objection to something and make a brief reasoned case for their view. Rational, competent and intelligent DMs consider this objection and view, compare to their own and make a fair and impartial adjudication based on the world that has been created. Rational, competent and intelligent players accept this ruling, regardless of how it plays out and move on. If said rational, competent and intelligent player still has an objection, they bring it up to the DM after the game so as not to disrupt the game and the two have a rational, competent and intelligent discussion about it and come to a rational, competent and intelligent agreement. If they can't come to a rational, competent and intelligent agreement on the issue, then each must decide whether this is something that sufficiently ruins their fun. If so, they part ways on this campaign, neither assigning malice or irrationality to the other person, acknowledging that their gaming desires are not meeting. In the end, each person ends up far happier than if they had stayed and continued to but heads, ignore the issue and let it simmer or use the rules as a cudgel for forcing the other to comply with their wishes.

While way may (often) fail to achieve such a lofty goal as outlined above, my experience is that striving to achieve that goal leaves everyone happier and having more fun more often than using rules to enforce a particular view point.

Emphasis mine. If a fair and impartial adjudication is the ideal end result, fair and impartial rules and mechanics are the best, most efficient way to produce them in the vast majority of cases. Asking the DM to simply make a judgment call each and every time is by definition neither fair nor impartial--the fairness and impartiality would have to come from the DM, with little guidance. Edge cases can use your Rules Court, obviously, but it should be remembered that Rules Court is time-consuming and more often than not a blunt object, it should not be a necessary part of every adjudication. The rules should be nominally self-contained without relying on subjective adjudication just to be played.

The fact that people will always argue over rules is no reason to make basic task resolution rely on subjective judgment calls, since those invite argument just as much as more rules. DM discretion should be reserved for edge cases and is likely to trigger Rules Court anyway, why would we want to make it a bigger part of the game?

[Lokiare]

As a matter of fact, there's a "reality" tv show called "The First 48" which operates on the premise that the first 48 hours after a murder are the most important for piecing together what happened and solving the crime. Specifically they claim that after the first 48 hours if they don't have a good handle on what's going on, the chances of solving the murder are cut in half.

Yes, in the real world where you don't have things like speak with dead, and various divination spells and memory spells.

Ghost "I didn't see who killed me, but they were wearing a red scarf over their nose and mouth." Yep, that's a time limited effect after 48 hours the ghost won't know anything about it.

Divination "Has the murderer left the city?" This is also time limited as the divination spell obviously has a 48 hour limitation on questions.

Why is it that everyone insists on comparing a fantasy game of elves and magic with reality?

[1337 b4k4]

Strawman much? A DM in a foul mood is not a bad DM that you shouldn't play with.

A DM that you are worried will screw you over or treat you unfairly because they're in a foul mood on the other hand is. The game is the game and whatever personal bull the DM is dealing with needs to be left outside the game. We come to the table to play a game and have fun. If you can't leave your personal crap outside of it, then you shouldn't be playing the game.



Emphasis mine. If a fair and impartial adjudication is the ideal end result, fair and impartial rules and mechanics are the best, most efficient way to produce them in the vast majority of cases.
...
Edge cases can use your Rules Court, obviously, but it should be remembered that Rules Court is time-consuming and more often than not a blunt object, it should not be a necessary part of every adjudication.
...
The fact that people will always argue over rules is no reason to make basic task resolution rely on subjective judgment calls, since those invite argument just as much as more rules.


Not in my experience. My experience with rules heavy rpgs has been that the more rules, and the more the game insists that it can adjudicate without DM "interference", the more time spent arguing rules, the more time spent looking rules up (because there's only so much you can hold in your head at one time), the more time spend fighting when things don't match the expectation set by the rules ("No way that didn't hit, goblins only have X AC" etc). My experience has been in efficiency is your goal, a rules light system or a rules heavy system that provides for adequate DM discretion and makes that known up front is infinitely superior to any rules heavy system that attempts to model "all the things"

[Stubbazubba]

A DM that you are worried will screw you over or treat you unfairly because they're in a foul mood on the other hand is. The game is the game and whatever personal bull the DM is dealing with needs to be left outside the game. We come to the table to play a game and have fun. If you can't leave your personal crap outside of it, then you shouldn't be playing the game.

Ideally, sure, if a DM feels like he just can't bring his best game to the table, he should cancel the session. But most people aren't so self-aware as to realize before the fact how a foul mood will impact their performance, and it won't be readily apparent to the players, either, at least not until the DM makes a string of contemptuous judgment calls. Of course, if the DM isn't asked to make judgment calls for every Ability check, then the effect of his mood on the PCs' exploits should be minimized.


Not in my experience.

Well there's no accounting for experience, I suppose. Maybe you should just game with different people?

[Lokiare]

A DM that you are worried will screw you over or treat you unfairly because they're in a foul mood on the other hand is. The game is the game and whatever personal bull the DM is dealing with needs to be left outside the game. We come to the table to play a game and have fun. If you can't leave your personal crap outside of it, then you shouldn't be playing the game.

Not in my experience. My experience with rules heavy rpgs has been that the more rules, and the more the game insists that it can adjudicate without DM "interference", the more time spent arguing rules, the more time spent looking rules up (because there's only so much you can hold in your head at one time), the more time spend fighting when things don't match the expectation set by the rules ("No way that didn't hit, goblins only have X AC" etc). My experience has been in efficiency is your goal, a rules light system or a rules heavy system that provides for adequate DM discretion and makes that known up front is infinitely superior to any rules heavy system that attempts to model "all the things"

This is a false dichotomy. You can have a rules light game that is balanced and has comprehensive rules. For instance you could probably make an entire RPG based around page 42 of the 4E DMG. It would be balanced and it would be extremely rules light.

You can also have a rules heavy game that is unbalanced and requires a lot of DM fiat (cough*3E*cough).

[1337 b4k4]

Well there's no accounting for experience, I suppose. Maybe you should just game with different people?

I did. Life's too short to deal with rules lawyers so out they went (and on occasion out I went). And chose systems that reduced the amount of rules around which to have arguments or disagreements. Hence why I said in my experience, your experiences did not bear out. My experience indicates that lighter rules with more emphasis on what's actually going on rather than devotion to abstract and finely detailed rules produces a better experience for me and my groups. Which is why I keep pointing out that rule's heavy vs rules light is a matter of preference not a matter of objective superiority.

That said, in either case with heavy rules or light rules, you will always have an objectively superior game if you don't play with people who ruin your fun. And if you're worried your DMs emotional state will lead them to screwing you over, it's worth considering whether this is someone who is ruining your fun.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I did. Life's too short to deal with rules lawyers so out they went (and on occasion out I went). And chose systems that reduced the amount of rules around which to have arguments or disagreements. Hence why I said in my experience, your experiences did not bear out. My experience indicates that lighter rules with more emphasis on what's actually going on rather than devotion to abstract and finely detailed rules produces a better experience for me and my groups. Which is why I keep pointing out that rule's heavy vs rules light is a matter of preference not a matter of objective superiority.

I'll agree that rules-heavy vs. rules-light is a matter of preference, but I disagree that rules-heavy systems lead to rules lawyering: A player who wants to interrupt the game to argue with the DM until they get their way will find excuses to do so in any system.

- "But I totally should have hit that Goblin, they're listed as having only 9 AC and he's not wearing any armor!"

- "But I totally should have hit that Goblin, my character survived in goblin-infested tunnels fighting them every day for 20 years! It's totally against his characterization for him to miss!"

[MadBear]

I'll agree that rules-heavy vs. rules-light is a matter of preference, but I disagree that rules-heavy systems lead to rules lawyering: A player who wants to interrupt the game to argue with the DM until they get their way will find excuses to do so in any system.

- "But I totally should have hit that Goblin, they're listed as having only 9 AC and he's not wearing any armor!"

- "But I totally should have hit that Goblin, my character survived in goblin-infested tunnels fighting them every day for 20 years! It's totally against his characterization for him to miss!"

Very true, you do get jerks and rules lawyers in both systems.

The difference is that the first argument at least makes sense from a rules perspective. If a goblin without armor is fighting and Mr. rules lawyers rolls a 17 he has rules support that he should hit.

The second one, while that person might exist, doesn't have any rules support to back him.

The reason that rules lawyers are more annoying then people making dumb arguments, is that they've twisted a rules system to actually produce the outcome they wanted. Now, as the DM, you have full authority to say "sorry no you miss" to either person. It's just that person 1, can point to text to back his position, while person 2, has no backing other then his imagination.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Thing is that's exactly what the defenders of 5E's skill system argue you should do: "I should auto-succeed at this roll because my character concept is that I'm a Master Thief, even though the mechanics say I'm only 15% better at thieving than an untrained amateur." The *entire point* of having a character sheet at all is to establish what your character is in the fiction with rules, however loosely: If it doesn't fill that function then you're better off dumping character sheets altogether. (Some RPGs actually do this, and so long as you're willing to deal with the change in expectations it actually works better than you might think.)

My god the system is actually out and we're still having the same arguments we were having about the system way back at the beginning of the playtest whyyyyyyyyyyyyy

[akaddk]

Thing is that's exactly what the defenders of 5E's skill system argue you should do: "I should auto-succeed at this roll because my character concept is that I'm a Master Thief, even though the mechanics say I'm only 15% better at thieving than an untrained amateur."
No, that's what detractors say that defenders say because they like to exaggerate things to the point of absurdity in order to prove a point that doesn't actually exist.

This seems to be a trend for you.

[Falka]

You see, this is exactly why I call it a "feat tax." Because it's the only way to put any effort into your save defenses, and I consider the ever-growing save gap a math design error. :smallsmile:

Untrue. Several classes gain natural defenses against some spells. A different issue is if they are super reliable.

You can't say that Resilient is a real feat tax when Fighters have Indomitable. Agreed that it isn't as effective without the Wisdom save proficiency, but the average Fighter isn't EXPECTED to be specifically trained to resist mental attacks.

It's not a design error. You are just asking for your class to be good at everything with no cost whatsoever.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Untrue. Several classes gain natural defenses against some spells. A different issue is if they are super reliable.

You can't say that Resilient is a real feat tax when Fighters have Indomitable. Agreed that it isn't as effective without the Wisdom save proficiency, but the average Fighter isn't EXPECTED to be specifically trained to resist mental attacks.

It's not a design error. You are just asking for your class to be good at everything with no cost whatsoever.

The problem is that saving throw DCs get higher, but your non-proficient saves don't. It's not that the fighter isn't improving at resisting mental attacks, it's that she actively gets worse.

Here's how I'd houserule it: Everyone gets their proficiency bonus to all saves (essentially replacing the 1/2 level bonus from 4E), but proficient saves get a +2 bonus.

[Human Paragon 3]

The problem is that saving throw DCs get higher, but your non-proficient saves don't. It's not that the fighter isn't improving at resisting mental attacks, it's that she actively gets worse.

Here's how I'd houserule it: Everyone gets their proficiency bonus to all saves (essentially replacing the 1/2 level bonus from 4E), but proficient saves get a +2 bonus.

Or you could say the fighter stays the same, but the Wizard gets better. If everyone's saves scaled with level, the wizard would get no better at magical attacks over 20 levels, which is the exact same problem in reverse.

The fact is, failing saves is not that big a deal. Characters should fail the majority of their saves, or else why does the wizard have spells?

It's not the same huge problem it was in 3.5, because there aren't simple save-or-die effects. The vast majority now deal HP damage (which can be healed by your cleric) or lock down one or more creatures but require concentration. So target the wizard with attacks, and you've solved the problem.

Also note that this makes powerful spells something you need to anticipate and work around with your tactics, not something you just need to fear, pray for luck, or solve with your character build. This philosophy leads to more dynamic and active encounters. A house rule is not necessary - it would only make it worse to play as a spellcaster, and by extension less fun for all. Wasting rounds casting mediocre spells and then having them not even work is not fun, nor is it fun to react to for everyone else.

[1337 b4k4]

I'll agree that rules-heavy vs. rules-light is a matter of preference, but I disagree that rules-heavy systems lead to rules lawyering: A player who wants to interrupt the game to argue with the DM until they get their way will find excuses to do so in any system.

Absolutely true that there are some people who just aren't happy if they aren't getting their way, no matter the system. But just as your experience has apparently told you that rules heavy will reign in crappy tendencies in DMs, my experience has told me that rules light will reign in crappy tendencies in players.

But even beyond that, it's more than just arguments about getting your way, I've seen plenty of times at tables where the game comes to a halt because DM and players alike are hunting through rule books looking for the rule they know is there to resolve a situation in front of them that they know is covered in the rules somewhere. Now, yes you absolutely could encourage DMs/players (with house rules like "no books at the table" ) to just make a ruling and look it up later, but again, experience informs that more often then not, if there are rules, the rules will be found and used even at the expense of play.


Thing is that's exactly what the defenders of 5E's skill system argue you should do: "I should auto-succeed at this roll because my character concept is that I'm a Master Thief, even though the mechanics say I'm only 15% better at thieving than an untrained amateur."

Except the mechanics don't say that because the mechanics don't say anything about untrained amateurs. This is a hold over from the days of 3e where the system was designed to model everything. The rank amateur isn't 15% worse than you, they don't even have a chance at the things you have a chance at. The mechanics say that at an ability check that would be hard for you, you have an X chance to succeed. They say nothing about the amateur since that same check may well be completely impossible for the amateur.


The problem is that saving throw DCs get higher, but your non-proficient saves don't. It's not that the fighter isn't improving at resisting mental attacks, it's that she actively gets worse.


I really wish this meme would die because it is objectively untrue. If your stat stays the same, and against the same checks, you succeed as often as you did, then you did not get worse. People getting better than you doesn't mean you get worse at your saves any more than going up against a monster with a +8 to hit means your armor got worse than when you were going up against monsters with +2s to hit.

[TheOldCrow]

I really wish this meme would die because it is objectively untrue. If your stat stays the same, and against the same checks, you succeed as often as you did, then you did not get worse. People getting better than you doesn't mean you get worse at your saves any more than going up against a monster with a +8 to hit means your armor got worse than when you were going up against monsters with +2s to hit.

I don't look at saving throws like armor class. I think of saves more like hit points. Just like hit points stand between the character and unconscious (or dead), saves stand between the character and spell effect. In D&D, hit points have always improved as a character went up in levels. I see a save never improving in the same vein as if hit points would never improve.

[Kurald Galain]

The fact is, failing saves is not that big a deal. Characters should fail the majority of their saves, or else why does the wizard have spells?

That's an interesting philosophy, but it breaks down the instant the party faces a beholder, a dragon, or basically any other enemy that casts spells.

[1337 b4k4]

I don't look at saving throws like armor class. I think of saves more like hit points. Just like hit points stand between the character and unconscious (or dead), saves stand between the character and spell effect. In D&D, hit points have always improved as a character went up in levels. I see a save never improving in the same vein as if hit points would never improve.

Sure, and to be honest, I think save should improve, I also think they should be disconnected from stats, bring back the old 5 (or even some other form, but disconnected from stats and connected back to class. But that they don't improve over time without you investing in them doesn't mean they're getting worse either.

[akaddk]

It's not that the fighter isn't improving at resisting mental attacks, it's that she actively gets worse.

Do you go through life thinking the worst about every possible scenario?

The fighter is decidedly not getting worse. The DC's only change in response to more powerful spells or more powerful monsters. Therefore what gets harder is resisting harder challenges. The same spell cast by the same level one challenge will have the same DC as it did when the fighter was 1st-level. The fighter at 1st-level was not facing 20 CR challenges. Or if he was, then he should've run away as fast as possible. The way in which the fighter deals with harder to resist challenges is different than just saving against them. They have Indomitable, or they have buddies with spells, or they have potions, or they have a magical item, or they have some other ability to counter or resist the effects.

[Human Paragon 3]

That's an interesting philosophy, but it breaks down the instant the party faces a beholder, a dragon, or basically any other enemy that casts spells.


It absolutely stays the same vs. a spellcasting monster. The beholder locked down your fighter? Attack the beholder and break its concentration.

Black dragon cast Finger of Death on your wizard and reduce him to 11 HP? Heal your wizard.

You have to respond to the enemy with tactics now, not by making its abilities irrelevant before combat even begins by boosting your saves. I view this as a positive thing, regardless of who you're fighting. Dynamic combat with stakes and problem solving.

[Lokiare]

Or you could say the fighter stays the same, but the Wizard gets better. If everyone's saves scaled with level, the wizard would get no better at magical attacks over 20 levels, which is the exact same problem in reverse.

The fact is, failing saves is not that big a deal. Characters should fail the majority of their saves, or else why does the wizard have spells?

It's not the same huge problem it was in 3.5, because there aren't simple save-or-die effects. The vast majority now deal HP damage (which can be healed by your cleric) or lock down one or more creatures but require concentration. So target the wizard with attacks, and you've solved the problem.

Also note that this makes powerful spells something you need to anticipate and work around with your tactics, not something you just need to fear, pray for luck, or solve with your character build. This philosophy leads to more dynamic and active encounters. A house rule is not necessary - it would only make it worse to play as a spellcaster, and by extension less fun for all. Wasting rounds casting mediocre spells and then having them not even work is not fun, nor is it fun to react to for everyone else.

Sadly with 2 feats a caster can succeed on concentration checks 97.75% of the time at high levels and at low levels its not much worse, and that's without an ability bonus to Constitution. Monsters also have proficiency bonuses and ability bonuses and abilities to get advantage on saves, so interrupting monsters could be just as bad. For instance trying to interrupt an ogre mage's concentration might be downright futile.


Do you go through life thinking the worst about every possible scenario?

You know what they say "Prepare for the worst, but except the best."

[Human Paragon 3]

Sadly with 2 feats a caster can succeed on concentration checks 97.75% of the time at high levels and at low levels its not much worse, and that's without an ability bonus to Constitution.

Citation needed? If you can deal 30 damage to the enemy in a hit, that's a DC 30 constitution save. At "high levels" that shouldn't be too hard.

[Lokiare]

It absolutely stays the same vs. a spellcasting monster. The beholder locked down your fighter? Attack the beholder and break its concentration.

Black dragon cast Finger of Death on your wizard and reduce him to 11 HP? Heal your wizard.

You have to respond to the enemy with tactics now, not by making its abilities irrelevant before combat even begins by boosting your saves. I view this as a positive thing, regardless of who you're fighting. Dynamic combat with stakes and problem solving.

We can't see the beholders Con save bonus, but we can see the Dragons con save bonus and its +11 which means you have 0 chance of disrupting its concentration unless you can do 20+ damage. If it takes 30 damage (much higher than a fighter can put out in a single hit) it has an 85% chance of success.

[Lokiare]

Citation needed? If you can deal 30 damage to the enemy in a hit, that's a DC 30 constitution save. At "high levels" that shouldn't be too hard.

Only casters can deal 30 damage and the DC is 10 or half the damage whichever is higher. Remember the fighter deals massive damage by multiple attacks so the Dragon would have to make 8 DC 10 saves (17 damage is about the max the fighter can put out per hit). Only another caster would even stand a chance.

[Morty]

Sure, and to be honest, I think save should improve, I also think they should be disconnected from stats, bring back the old 5 (or even some other form, but disconnected from stats and connected back to class. But that they don't improve over time without you investing in them doesn't mean they're getting worse either.

Decoupling core competencies such as attacking, defending and resisting effects from attributes does sound like it might solve a few problems, especially in a class system.

[Lokiare]

Decoupling core competencies such as attacking, defending and resisting effects from attributes does sound like it might solve a few problems, especially in a class system.

Or you could throw the useless low numbers (not bounded accuracy) out and give characters a proficiency bonus equal to their level and then allow them to apply half their proficiency bonus to non-proficient saves and full bonus to proficient saves. Balance save DCs around those numbers and then 4-5 points on top of that from ability mod doesn't matter that much.

[MadBear]

Citation needed? If you can deal 30 damage to the enemy in a hit, that's a DC 30 constitution save. At "high levels" that shouldn't be too hard.

not to mention he's basing this off of the wizard feats. He's using up 40% of his resources to be good at 1 thing. Sure, it's a good thing to be good at, and you'd expect 40% of your resources being spent on a single thing should make you good at it. I'm sure he'd be whining if he spent 40% of his resources to be only mediocre at it.

Those are resources that aren't being spent to up his other ability scores, add other interesting abilities, shore up other weaknesses, etc..

then again, to quote Lincoln "“You can please some of the people some of the time, all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can never please Lokiare, unless you make a carbon copy 4th edition game.”

[Falka]

Only casters can deal 30 damage and the DC is 10 or half the damage whichever is higher. Remember the fighter deals massive damage by multiple attacks so the Dragon would have to make 8 DC 10 saves (17 damage is about the max the fighter can put out per hit). Only another caster would even stand a chance.

Fighters can also crit. Meaning that once in a while, one of those hits can deal 34 damage. Champions can double their crit ratio, making it more consistent.

[Kurald Galain]

It absolutely stays the same vs. a spellcasting monster. The beholder locked down your fighter? Attack the beholder and break its concentration.

Fair point. Ok, it works well with the concentration mechanic that characters usually fail their saving throws.

...I'm not convinced that "difficult saving throws" work so well with instantaneous spells, though, especially area effect ones.



Decoupling core competencies such as attacking, defending and resisting effects from attributes does sound like it might solve a few problems, especially in a class system.
I agree with that, too.

[Arzanyos]

Also, Rogues. I hear sneak attacks tend to do a lot of damage.

[Yuki Akuma]

Also, Rogues. I hear sneak attacks tend to do a lot of damage.

A Rogue with Mounted Combatant and a suitably large mount can Sneak Attack every round.

I find this hilarious.

[Arzanyos]

First Time: "Ow, there was a halfling on that horse! I didn't see that coming!"
Second Time: "Ow, there's still a halfling on that horse! Who'da thunk it?"

[Kurald Galain]

A Rogue with Mounted Combatant and a suitably large mount can Sneak Attack every round.

I find this hilarious.

What do you mean, is he hiding behind his own horse?

[Yuki Akuma]

Mounted Combatant grants advantage on any melee attack roll against a non-mounted creature smaller than your mount.

[Lokiare]

Fighters can also crit. Meaning that once in a while, one of those hits can deal 34 damage. Champions can double their crit ratio, making it more consistent.

Yes so the rare 1 in 18 hit will have a miniscule chance of breaking concentration if they manage to roll near max on all their damage dice. Good job!


not to mention he's basing this off of the wizard feats. He's using up 40% of his resources to be good at 1 thing. Sure, it's a good thing to be good at, and you'd expect 40% of your resources being spent on a single thing should make you good at it. I'm sure he'd be whining if he spent 40% of his resources to be only mediocre at it.

Those are resources that aren't being spent to up his other ability scores, add other interesting abilities, shore up other weaknesses, etc..

Yes, what other things would that wizard use their feats on? An extra spell slot? the ability not use a shield? Seriously, there's not much else there except to raise their already absurd spell DC a point or 2.


then again, to quote Lincoln "“You can please some of the people some of the time, all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can never please Lokiare, unless you make a carbon copy 4th edition game.”

Yes, if you can't beat me with logic, reason, and math maybe insults will solidify your position.


Also, Rogues. I hear sneak attacks tend to do a lot of damage.

Ha, not really. At max level with the highest damage weapon they can use they deal 1d8 +10d6 on a sneak attack for an average of 30.5. So maybe just maybe they can do that at max level on a consistent enough basis to matter.

The minimum level they need to be in order to deal 30 damage with a sneak attack is 8th-9th level if they roll absolutely max on their dice

[da_chicken]

What do you mean, is he hiding behind his own horse?

No, an ally (the horse) is adjacent to the same enemy and aware of the enemy's presence. If you have a warhorse, a rogue should be able to sneak attack every round.

[Yuki Akuma]

No, an ally (the horse) is adjacent to the same enemy and aware of the enemy's presence. If you have a warhorse, a rogue should be able to sneak attack every round.

This isn't what I'm talking about. Mounted Combatant is a feat that has awesome synergy with the Rogue. Which is really weird because 'Rogue' isn't exactly the class you think of when talking about mounted combat.

[pwykersotz]

We can't see the beholders Con save bonus, but we can see the Dragons con save bonus and its +11 which means you have 0 chance of disrupting its concentration unless you can do 20+ damage. If it takes 30 damage (much higher than a fighter can put out in a single hit) it has an 85% chance of success.

It is hard to disrupt dragons, it's true. However, this may not be a good baseline comparison. Dragons are legendary and they are designed to be brutal. A more average spellcasting monster would probably yield better results for what we can expect in general. Perhaps an Acolyte, Mage, Priest, or Yuan-Ti.

Actually, I don't see where dragons have casting at all...at least not the ones in the Hoard of the Dragon Queen supplement.

[1337 b4k4]

Decoupling core competencies such as attacking, defending and resisting effects from attributes does sound like it might solve a few problems, especially in a class system.

It would. Sadly, the "don't tie everything in your system to a few sets of numbers is a lesson of old D&D that was lost over time in the quest for "single mechanic" RPG design. I get the goal of simplifying for new players, this hobby doesn't need to be opaque to get into. But at the same time, I think we should give players more credit than we do and expect they can handle decoupled mechanics.

[Lokiare]

It is hard to disrupt dragons, it's true. However, this may not be a good baseline comparison. Dragons are legendary and they are designed to be brutal. A more average spellcasting monster would probably yield better results for what we can expect in general. Perhaps an Acolyte, Mage, Priest, or Yuan-Ti.

Actually, I don't see where dragons have casting at all...at least not the ones in the Hoard of the Dragon Queen supplement.

Yeah. So what are some of the casters in the supplement?

All of the humanoid casters that appear to get their spells from class levels have +0 or +1 con save with no proficiency. Others don't have save proficiency at all. There doesn't appear to by a non-humanoid creature that casts spells unless you count the Yan-ti and they don't have a proficiency either. So only 'legendary' creatures have save proficiency? That's odd.

Edit: It appears almost random. Legendary creatures have 3+ save proficiencies, but very few other creatures do and mostly only humanoids.

[da_chicken]

This isn't what I'm talking about. Mounted Combatant is a feat that has awesome synergy with the Rogue. Which is really weird because 'Rogue' isn't exactly the class you think of when talking about mounted combat.

Ah, ok. I was kind of wondering why you mentioned Mounted Combat. Me and a friend were noticing that the requirements of Sneak Attack meant that a warhorse (it could be argued that an riding horse wouldn't be seen as an "enemy") would that you could always Sneak Attack, so I assumed that's what you meant.

[Morty]

It would. Sadly, the "don't tie everything in your system to a few sets of numbers is a lesson of old D&D that was lost over time in the quest for "single mechanic" RPG design. I get the goal of simplifying for new players, this hobby doesn't need to be opaque to get into. But at the same time, I think we should give players more credit than we do and expect they can handle decoupled mechanics.

I'm definitely in favour of giving players some credit. Unfortunately, it's not high on 5e's agenda. Although funnily enough, ability scores remain as unintuitive and weird as they've always been. And really, I don't think basic numbers like attacks, defences and saves being derived from your class rather than a separate set of fiddly modifiers would even be harder to parse. After all, if we're going to have classes, we might as well make the most of them.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Or you could say the fighter stays the same, but the Wizard gets better. If everyone's saves scaled with level, the wizard would get no better at magical attacks over 20 levels, which is the exact same problem in reverse.

That's absolutely true, against same-level opponents. I don't really have a problem with that.

[Falka]

That's absolutely true, against same-level opponents. I don't really have a problem with that.

The problem is stat inflation, like back in 3.5. If defenses scale freely like attack values do, there is no actual progression. AC doesn't scale with levels: why should saves (which are basically other defense values) scale too?

You at least have the chance to get them high with a feat, something that wasn't even possible back in 3.5.

[Person_Man]

Ah, ok. I was kind of wondering why you mentioned Mounted Combat. Me and a friend were noticing that the requirements of Sneak Attack meant that a warhorse (it could be argued that an riding horse wouldn't be seen as an "enemy") would that you could always Sneak Attack, so I assumed that's what you meant.

You are correct. This occurs because individual squares/hexes don't exist in the "theater of the mind." So the "flanking" trigger for Sneak Attack is very poorly worded. Also, virtually every status effect grants Advantage. So Sneak Attack no longer encourages the Rogue to use any particular tactics, like ambushing or flanking or teamwork or whatnot. It's just a fiddly but easy requirement that the player has to fulfill to get something that is expected to occur.

After trying all the RAW rules in real non-Basic adventure module games for a while, I'll probably end up with a house-ruling Sneak Attack to "Your first successful attack each turn deals Xd6 bonus damage. You may not use this ability against an enemy if you have Disadvantage on your attack, or if you are adjacent to more then one enemy."

[da_chicken]

You are correct. This occurs because individual squares/hexes don't exist in the "theater of the mind." So the "flanking" trigger for Sneak Attack is very poorly worded. Also, virtually every status effect grants Advantage. So Sneak Attack no longer encourages the Rogue to use any particular tactics, like ambushing or flanking or teamwork or whatnot. It's just a fiddly but easy requirement that the player has to fulfill to get something that is expected to occur.

After trying all the RAW rules in real non-Basic adventure module games for a while, I'll probably end up with a house-ruling Sneak Attack to "Your first successful attack each turn deals Xd6 bonus damage. You may not use this ability against an enemy if you have Disadvantage on your attack, or if you are adjacent to more then one enemy."

Eh. I guess I don't see any benefit of the rules change. It's no difference in 90% of circumstances, and this rule means you can't SA while flanking an enemy if he and a friend are beating up on the Fighter. By strict reading of your wording, you wouldn't even be able to Sneak Attack while hidden or invisible even from ranged as long as your enemy has a buddy. So the buddy system protects you from sniper fire. That's pretty significant. I'd rather put up with warhorse weirdness. It's not even that weird. It's not like a warhorse isn't a threat.

[Stubbazubba]

The problem is stat inflation, like back in 3.5. If defenses scale freely like attack values do, there is no actual progression. AC doesn't scale with levels: why should saves (which are basically other defense values) scale too?

Because enemy offense scales with level. So your enemies get more and more able to hurt you as you increase in level. AC should increase with level. There's no reason your defenses should not be at least partially based on your level, since the offensive power of the opposition (that they will actually use against you) just gets stronger with higher CR. I'm not saying all defenses should be equal, no, you want to have strengths and weaknesses that can be taken advantage of (especially on monsters), but the idea that a +0 saving throw is somehow not making you a weaker and weaker foe as the enemies get stronger and stronger is pants-on-head crazy.

Maybe in other games there is just a single difficulty level, a single enemy power level, around which the PCs can either be weak or gradually become strong, but that is not D&D. In D&D, the opposition you face is constructed relative to your level (this is the whole idea behind XP budgets), and the degree of challenge you face doesn't change as your level increases because the new XP budget + CR allows for higher-level opposition. That being the case, if only some of your defenses are increasing to match, you are getting more and more vulnerable as you increase in offensive output. This creates rocket launcher tag, where higher-level play is about winning initiative and landing your encounter-ending SoD on your opponent before they land theirs on you. It's one of the problems that people have with 3.5 (though it has its fans, as well).

[da_chicken]

Because enemy offense scales with level. So your enemies get more and more able to hurt you as you increase in level. AC should increase with level. There's no reason your defenses should not be at least partially based on your level, since the offensive power of the opposition (that they will actually use against you) just gets stronger with higher CR. I'm not saying all defenses should be equal, no, you want to have strengths and weaknesses that can be taken advantage of (especially on monsters), but the idea that a +0 saving throw is somehow not making you a weaker and weaker foe as the enemies get stronger and stronger is pants-on-head crazy.

You mean other than the fact that if you actually do the math in 3.5 that the poor save bonus at high level is roughly equivalent to a +0 bonus in 5e?

Things you're good at scale fast in 3.x. By level 20 a 3.x spellcaster should have a save DC in the low 30s. You have 10 + 4 (base 18) + 1 racial (+2 casting stat) + 3 enhancement + 2.5 ability score increase + 2.5 inherent + spell level = DC 23 + spell level. Unless you're burning magic items or feats on special defenses, the most you're likely to have in 3.x on a bad save with low ability is +12 (+6 base + 5 resistance + 1 luck). 19 - 0 = 19. 19 + 12 = 31. 31 - 23 = 8. Your chance to save against 8th and 9th level spells -- which this Int 36 Wizard 20 has twelve of -- is equal or worse in 3.x. And that is using SRD items only and no feats.

Once again: 3.x gave you the illusion of improvement while giving you zero actual improvement. 4e was worse, as even your good defenses get progressively worse.

[Craft (Cheese)]

You mean other than the fact that if you actually do the math in 3.5 that the poor save bonus at high level is roughly equivalent to a +0 bonus in 5e?

Things you're good at scale fast in 3.x. By level 20 a 3.x spellcaster should have a save DC in the low 30s. You have 10 + 4 (base 18) + 1 racial (+2 casting stat) + 3 enhancement + 2.5 ability score increase + 2.5 inherent + spell level = DC 23 + spell level. Unless you're burning magic items or feats on special defenses, the most you're likely to have in 3.x on a bad save with low ability is +12 (+6 base + 5 resistance + 1 luck). 19 - 0 = 19. 19 + 12 = 31. 31 - 23 = 8. Your chance to save against 8th and 9th level spells -- which this Int 36 Wizard 20 has twelve of -- is equal or worse in 3.x. And that is using SRD items only and no feats.

Once again: 3.x gave you the illusion of improvement while giving you zero actual improvement. 4e was worse, as even your good defenses get progressively worse.

Nobody's saying 3.x and 4E's math weren't borked (4E's less so, at least when it came to combat stats). I'm just saying it's ridiculous to claim that 5E's broken saves math is a feature, not a bug.

[Stubbazubba]

You mean other than the fact that if you actually do the math in 3.5 that the poor save bonus at high level is roughly equivalent to a +0 bonus in 5e?

Things you're good at scale fast in 3.x. By level 20 a 3.x spellcaster should have a save DC in the low 30s. You have 10 + 4 (base 18) + 1 racial (+2 casting stat) + 3 enhancement + 2.5 ability score increase + 2.5 inherent + spell level = DC 23 + spell level. Unless you're burning magic items or feats on special defenses, the most you're likely to have in 3.x on a bad save with low ability is +12 (+6 base + 5 resistance + 1 luck). 19 - 0 = 19. 19 + 12 = 31. 31 - 23 = 8. Your chance to save against 8th and 9th level spells -- which this Int 36 Wizard 20 has twelve of -- is equal or worse in 3.x. And that is using SRD items only and no feats.

Once again: 3.x gave you the illusion of improvement while giving you zero actual improvement. 4e was worse, as even your good defenses get progressively worse.

Read what I said again, slowly. I said 1) AC should increase with level, and 2) Rocket launcher tag is a problem. What part of that sounds like a defense of 3e? 3e has serious math issues, and 5e also has serious math issues. They both happen to have a similar math issue here, and yes, that is precisely what I'm saying.

[Icewraith]

What's the most difficult saving throw you could be reasonably expected to make? Isn't it 8+ability score bonus+proficency bonus now?

For most things, in theory (we'll see what the MM looks like), with +6 proficiency and a 20 stat (+5) that's a DC 19 save. The barbarian can temporarily exceed the 20 limit and go to 24 on a couple stats, so DC 21 maybe on more difficult monsters? Note a 21 AC is possible with the warrior +1 defensive ability, a shield, and full plate.

Alright, so if you put 8 in a stat that's never boosted that's also a nonproficient save, you need a natural 20 to hit DC 19. A DC from something crappy might be in the 10-12 range? However, if you're saving for half damage, the difference between your character at high level and at low level is that whatever damage is being dealt with a dc12 attack is going to be piddly compared to your massive HP pool. With a -1 penalty you've still got a pretty good shot at hitting that crappy DC with your weakest possible save.

If you got half proficiency bonus to saves, you're merely slowing the rate at which the gap between proficient and nonproficient characters widens. Bonuses would also need to double (at a more refined rate by level) so high level maintains a +6 nonproficiency gap. At max level you get maybe a net +3 boost on a weak save against an opponent with half your proficiency bonus, that opponent is at a net +3 or 4 disadvantage agianst your offense. That shifts the numbers, but not at a world shattering level- if your save wasn't good in the first place you still have a good chance of failing it. At lower levels those gaps decrease, so you're only shifting the numbers 1 or 2 places on the die, and your character is now at a slightly increased numbers disadvantage against higher proficiency opponents. You've increased the complexity of math and leveling for a marginal advantage against opponents that mostly don't matter.

So then the question becomes, is save-or-lose still a thing? What about save-or-suck? How often are STR/INT/CHA saves going to be targeted, and by what sort of opponents?

If the spells are mostly like finger of death, which went from save or die to save or take full damage, lower level opponents are mostly a solved problem, and your attacks are going to blow through their crappy defenses since they have the same issues you do.

If all the save or dies are gone, sucking is confined to inflicting disadvantage or status effects, and status effects don't completely eliminate characters from acting on their turns, the consequences of blowing a save are much lower than they were in 3.5. 3.5 spells don't work with 5e math, but then again 3.5 spells didn't work well with 3.5 math either. Also, the designers need to have balanced out spell damage correctly.

The only thing that really worries me is that splats (if there are any) are entirely capable of breaking those if statements, and I don't have a full phb yet (not sure if my group is going to convert, if we do I'll get one) so I don't know how good a job they did with the core spells.

If true save-or-die abilities start sneaking in, all it does is institute the +1 ability score/+1 save proficiency as a 1-4x (depending on how many saves end up with a save-or-die/lose attack that targets them) feat tax. That might already be there.

Case 1: Saves are either zero or proficient.
Consequence: Offense scales faster than or at the same rate as defense. Characters are at minimum no worse off on saving throws against a lower level opponent than they were when the opponent was level appropriate. Character also has significantly more HP and class abilities at higher level. Lower level opponent is worse against character's offense than when it was level appropriate.

Case 2: Saves are either half proficienct or proficient.
Consequence: Offense still scales faster than or at the same rate as defense. Numbers are slightly different and more complicated. Higher level opponents have slightly different numbers advantages at certain levels due to rounding. Low level opponents suck harder against higher level opponents attacks on weak saves, higher level opponents' weak defenses are slightly better against lower level monsters.

Edit: The game is balanced around characters having two good saving throws out of six. With that in mind, close your eyes, breathe deeply and repeat after me:

"Failing saving throws should not mean instant death. Failing saving throws should not immediately incapacitate me for the fight. Failing too many saving throws is still a problem, but only truly terrible ability scores in nonproficient saves have no chance against high level opponents."

[Morty]

So let me get this straight. A rogue can Sneak Attack while mounted, but not while on foot and wielding a longsword.

[hawklost]

So let me get this straight. A rogue can Sneak Attack while mounted, but not while on foot and wielding a longsword.

technically yes, he can SA while mounted assuming he is using a Finesse Weapon or Ranged attack.
He could also do it while
Skydiving
Swimming
Swinging from trees
Singing and Dancing a Polka\

and anything else as long as he is using a Finesse weapon (Or Ranged) and has Advantage/Threatening 'ally' within 5 feet of target.

EDIT: Sorry, just had to use lots of S reasons :smalltongue:

[Icewraith]

So let me get this straight. A rogue can Sneak Attack while mounted, but not while on foot and wielding a longsword.

Only if his mount threatens the opponent (assuming the opponent has some way of inflicting disadvantage). Assuming bog-standard horses don't fit the bill, rogues are actually the class most incentivized to find an exotic mount asap.

[Falka]

Because enemy offense scales with level. So your enemies get more and more able to hurt you as you increase in level. AC should increase with level. There's no reason your defenses should not be at least partially based on your level, since the offensive power of the opposition (that they will actually use against you) just gets stronger with higher CR. I'm not saying all defenses should be equal, no, you want to have strengths and weaknesses that can be taken advantage of (especially on monsters), but the idea that a +0 saving throw is somehow not making you a weaker and weaker foe as the enemies get stronger and stronger is pants-on-head crazy.

Maybe in other games there is just a single difficulty level, a single enemy power level, around which the PCs can either be weak or gradually become strong, but that is not D&D. In D&D, the opposition you face is constructed relative to your level (this is the whole idea behind XP budgets), and the degree of challenge you face doesn't change as your level increases because the new XP budget + CR allows for higher-level opposition. That being the case, if only some of your defenses are increasing to match, you are getting more and more vulnerable as you increase in offensive output. This creates rocket launcher tag, where higher-level play is about winning initiative and landing your encounter-ending SoD on your opponent before they land theirs on you. It's one of the problems that people have with 3.5 (though it has its fans, as well).

Why should it? I fail to see the need for it. Should PCs gain AC per level? Well, some actually do gain AC because of their training or class abilities, don't they? But this happens because it makes sense for them, not because there is a cosmic debt towards them.

For instance: Dragon blooded SCs gain AC equal to 13 + their Dex mod. Why? Because they grow scales. Their skin becomes armor.

Likewise, I do not get why should a Fighter scale naturally in Wisdom saves if he isn't putting any effort into such training. No - he gets Constitution instead. Would it make sense for the Wizard to complain about not being proficient with Armor?

Since there is no infinite scaling for the Wizard's DC, it isn't really necesary to inflate saves due to level. If you want more passive defenses (because a bonus to saving is completely passive, there is no interaction between the one who saves and the caster), it makes sense that you shouldn't reward people for being lazy, while you do reward them for being proactive (attacking, using the skills they have perfected).

Is really the price of a feat so costly? As another poster said, the maximum DC a Wizard can hope to achieve with a spell is 19 (8 + 5 + 6). So you already have a 10% to beat the save. Each point you add to your save modifier adds 5% chance to that save. So if I have 14 in Wisdom, I will have a 20% to save the highest DC the Wizard can have, EVEN WITHOUT PROFICIENCY.

Proficiency just adds a whooping bonus of 10-30% chance to the save, depending on your level. At the cost of a +2 increase to a stat.

Do we blame martial classes for their high "DCs" to recieve a hit when we roll a character with a poor AC score? People seem to just go with it and say: "No, it's my fault because I'm not wearing armor / I'm not using a spell / I haven't picked a good Dex score, class feature or I am not using the Dodge Action". Suddenly when we're talking about saves, people feel entitled to get a passive guarantee that they will pass the save without effort. Why don't we give a free plate armor to every PC then? :p

[Yuki Akuma]

Only if his mount threatens the opponent (assuming the opponent has some way of inflicting disadvantage). Assuming bog-standard horses don't fit the bill, rogues are actually the class most incentivized to find an exotic mount asap.

Or if the Rogue has Mounted Combatant, is wielding a melee finesse weapon, and his opponent is smaller than his mount.

[da_chicken]

technically yes, he can SA while mounted assuming he is using a Finesse Weapon or Ranged attack.
He could also do it while
Skydiving
Swimming
Swinging from trees
Singing and Dancing a Polka\

and anything else as long as he is using a Finesse weapon (Or Ranged) and has Advantage/Threatening 'ally' within 5 feet of target.

EDIT: Sorry, just had to use lots of S reasons :smalltongue:

I got this image of Deadpool playing Roll Out The Barrel on an accordian while Sabretooth and Wolverine wrestle with each other nearby.

Then he shoots them both with a rocket launcher, of course.

[Falka]

All of this "Sneak Attack while mounted" discussion reminds me of the Backstab Ballista Rogue. Just because the rules allow for a situation like that, doesn't mean that a DM doesn't allow it if they don't actually make sense. :p


http://youtu.be/yTccvj0gc58?t=3m25s

[Yuki Akuma]

A 5e Rogue could Sneak Attack with a ballista, too. It's a ranged weapon, after all.

[Icewraith]

All of this "Sneak Attack while mounted" discussion reminds me of the Backstab Ballista Rogue. Just because the rules allow for a situation like that, doesn't mean that a DM doesn't allow it if they don't actually make sense. :p


http://youtu.be/yTccvj0gc58?t=3m25s

"The DM can disallow it" isn't a counter argument against stupid rules. The DM can do whatever he wants, stupid or no. In this case it's not really up for discussion- it's right there that the rogue gets sneak attack if the target is within the reach of an opponent that threatens him. It counts if you bring your own.

In this case, I thought it was totally stupid until I remembered halfling outriders. Those make so much more sense now. Are War Dogs a thing yet or do we have to wait for the DMG or MM?

[Falka]

"The DM can disallow it" isn't a counter argument against stupid rules. The DM can do whatever he wants, stupid or no. In this case it's not really up for discussion- it's right there that the rogue gets sneak attack if the target is within the reach of an opponent that threatens him. It counts if you bring your own.

In this case, I thought it was totally stupid until I remembered halfling outriders. Those make so much more sense now. Are War Dogs a thing yet or do we have to wait for the DMG or MM?

I may sound a bit technical and perhaps "tryharding" when I come up with this, but there's a certain criteria that people should apply when they want to interpret the meaning of rules. It applies in Law, of course, and it can be extrapolated to any rule system.

It summarises in the following statement: you shouldn't ever interpret a rule in a way that contradicts its spirit, or the intended effect that it pretended to cause.

Sneak Attacks are supposed to be... sneaky? They are supposed to be effective only when a character catches someone off-guard. How is someone fighting from a warhorse being sneaky at all? Does it really make sense to interpret the warhorse's presence as an "ally that represents a threat to the enemy"? Unless you try to Hide behind the horse, use your bonus action for a roll while the horse is attacking the foe... then okay, I would actually allow something like that because you're trying to be sneaky (even though it's a really awkward situation).

But Sneak Attacking while you're mounting a horse, upfront? That's really stretching the rules and twisting them to get a favoured result.