Support the GITP forums on Patreon
Help support GITP's forums (and ongoing server maintenance) via Patreon
Page 11 of 50 FirstFirst ... 2345678910111213141516171819202136 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 330 of 1483
  1. - Top - End - #301
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2012

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Fawkes View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Fralex View Post
    A little condescending
    That pretty much sums up the Scowling Dragon experience.

  2. - Top - End - #302
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    MindFlayer

    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Sunken Valley View Post
    Have we got a draft rule set yet? I've not been following.
    The first open play test document is coming out May 24th.

  3. - Top - End - #303
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Scots Dragon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Trapped in England
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Scowling Dragon View Post
    And of course, they're fixing said ten ton gorilla dinosaur wyrm by reducing it to the same level as the goblins surrounding it.

    Again.

    *sigh*

  4. - Top - End - #304
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Narsil View Post
    And of course, they're fixing said ten ton gorilla dinosaur wyrm by reducing it to the same level as the goblins surrounding it.

    Again.

    *sigh*
    Well, they are supposedly making them have stronger at-will abilities which could actually make them stronger.
    Spells not automatically scaling is fine. Honestly I've always thought it was odd or even dumb that there were (for instance) 5 types of cure wounds spells that scale that way, but that also scale themselves. It seems like it'd be easier to just make a scaling heal spell, or scaling spell selection, both just felt odd to me (maybe I'm the only one there).
    The spellcasting is dangerous bit actually doesn't read like it's titled. More like Spellcasting is hard to concentrate on if you were just stabbed (not as flashy a title I know) and the rules presented seem pretty lenient, though numbers need to be given for final verdict of course.
    The keep spells under control bit is just reasonable advice, but again we need to see how it turns out.
    And the creativity thing is awesome as a notion, but will be a bit harder to actually carry out.

  5. - Top - End - #305
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Scots Dragon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Trapped in England
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    The latter two seem to be vaguely at odds with each-other.

    But I'll note that for the wizard column they talked about toning the class down and balancing it rather than simply attempting to make all of the classes exceptional. Which is what I hated about 4th edition. They bumped the exceptional classes down to mediocrity rather than boosting everything else up to become part of the exceptional group.
    Last edited by Scots Dragon; 2012-05-14 at 05:48 PM.

  6. - Top - End - #306
    Orc in the Playground
     
    Rallicus's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Scowling Dragon View Post
    "The current proposal is that a wizard who takes damage has a chance to miscast his or her next spell"

    So uh... is this an attempt to make it so wizards don't just blast off spells recklessly? Because as it stands, it seems like wizards being attacked will resort to not casting spells and essentially become cantrip-blasting weaklings, out of fear of hurting their own teammates.

    Unless by miscast they mean it'll just... fizzle or something.

  7. - Top - End - #307
    Orc in the Playground
     
    EvilClericGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2012

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Responses to older comments which I missed:

    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by DefKab View Post
    adventure supplements had to be stand alone, which made them feel exactly what they were: several pieces that if thrown together showed obvious stitchings and a lack of cohesion between writing styles. Like... Sticky notes, if someone wrote a different one each time, that tried to explain a setting, except no one was allowed to look at the other sticky notes that were already posted...
    Sticky notes! I like this visual imagine. Yes, I oppose sticky note fluff. Fluff should create context, not limitations. Sticky note fluff is all about limitations -- it tells you just enough to pin you down but not enough to tell you anything of value.

    This is especially true when such "sticky note fluff" doesn't jive with official campaign settings. Forgotten Realms, for example, does not use the Wheel cosmology. That's a lot of fluff which is rendered obsolete (or flat-out wrong) just by choosing a premade setting. Old gods don't exist. New gods may or may not take their place, or be something totally different. Monsters function differently, or have different habits, or live in different habitats. Spells may no longer exist, or new ones may be an option. All of these things change how a world functions.

    Slapping a bare-bones, no-noun, disconnected sticky note idea onto mechanics designed for use in multiple official campaign settings and who knows how many custom homebrew worlds is a bafflingly bad idea, because fluff is all about context.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ironvyper View Post
    1a. Monster designed is centered around the IDEA of the monster. Say a large dumb brute who lives in the wilderness. Why does he have spot or listen skills when he may not need them against the players? Because he lives in the friggin wilderness and he needs to be able to hunt and not get eaten by bigger critters. Will he need these skills in every PC encounter? No. Does that mean they shouldnt be in the stat block? NO.
    Monster design can also be centered around the idea of how they work into a narrative. These days, I only stat up the relevant portions of my villains, because it's a waste of my time to add numbers which the party will never see. The monster is no less real to my players because I left the "Underwater Basket Weaving" stat blank, and by focusing on the bits that are actually relevant, I create a better game. Nobody has ever demanded to see my stat-blocks to resolve a Schroedinger's Verisimilitude quandary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ironvyper View Post
    The monsters are designed as a whole creature that can actually live in its place in the world with at least moderate success and have skills and feats to match. And that is the right way to build them. Believe it or not monsters lives are not made up of constantly jumping from one PC battle to the next.
    Narratively speaking, those monsters do not exist in a world. They exist within a story. What they do outside of that story has nothing to do with the numbers on their stat-block. That monster's life is all about a ten-minute scene with the PCs. Otherwise, it wouldn't be in the story. It wouldn't exist.

    It's best if they make sense within that world, of course, but block-bloat does not make them any more real. I don't need block-bloat to realize that my Dire Jellyfish probably does not belong in a desert.

    Now, a disclaimer: neither the "real world" or the "narrative world" style is inherently better than the other. Use what's best for you. Better yet, use both, if you can.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ironvyper View Post
    [The tiers are] nothing but a myth created on internet forums. Not only is it so grossly exaggerated that its laughable but in actual play if any caster tried to be a Codzilla the damn fight would be over before he finished casting all those preparatory spells. Either the rest of the party would have won the fight without the caster and be giving him dirty looks for not helping and wasting all those resources or they would have been defeated and the caster would be dead along with the rest because he didnt have 8 or 9 rounds to jerk around casting spells to be just right.
    Tiers are very much a real thing. Some classes have more options available to them in how to resolve conflicts. This has nothing to do with player skill and everything to do with the raw mechanical possibilities provided by the class.

    How applicable the tiers are in any given game, of course, depends on who is at the table, but that doesn't change the very real potential inherent in the mechanics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese) View Post
    Keeping Vancian magic is an awful idea if "it's iconic" is the only reason to do so. Make the best game design you can: If this means abandoning old, obsolete ideas, so be it.
    Damn right. "Old ideas" should survive because they're good ideas. But we can and should move forward when better ideas come along.

    Knights in shining armor are iconic. Gunpowder is better. Bang.

    Quote Originally Posted by Crow View Post
    Couldn't disagree more.

    Your statement makes perfect sense from the standpoint of designing an entirely new fantasy rpg. But you're not. Look at how they design cars. As models progress through the decades, there are always certain design cues that stick with the model. The majority of the car is completely different, but those design cues remain and tell the end user "I am a Porsche".

    You change the guts. Make vancian magic run better. Improve it. But you don't scrap one of your model's iconic design cues. Not if you're making a D&D game.
    No matter how many improvements you make, keeping Vancian magic means you keep certain flaws inherent in a Vancian system. Those "design cues" someday do become "design flaws" because of how they hold back other improvements or ideas.

    Ideas get built on one another. You try something, see how it worked, and then you make it better.

    If we can create a better game experience by ditching Vancian magic, then let's make a better game.


    Quote Originally Posted by Narsil View Post
    And of course, they're fixing said ten ton gorilla dinosaur wyrm by reducing it to the same level as the goblins surrounding it.

    Again.

    *sigh*
    Of course they did. What else can they do?

    If you want anyone to do anything, you don't use a class system. The entire point of a class system is to artificially delineate roles and archetypes as a guide for players. For that to function, classes must fulfill their role without invalidating a class from another role. Having classes which negate the basic function of a class system also negates the reason for having a class system in the first place.

    A class system strikes me as one of those core, iconic D&D concepts which really is a core, iconic D&D concept. So, if we're standing by the class system, we might as well make it function properly.
    Last edited by Fatebreaker; 2012-05-14 at 07:17 PM.
    "Inveniam viam aut faciam -- I will either find a way, or I shall make one."

    Class Balance

  8. - Top - End - #308
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Narsil View Post
    The latter two seem to be vaguely at odds with each-other.

    But I'll note that for the wizard column they talked about toning the class down and balancing it rather than simply attempting to make all of the classes exceptional. Which is what I hated about 4th edition. They bumped the exceptional classes down to mediocrity rather than boosting everything else up to become part of the exceptional group.
    Well notably, both the fighter and the rogue class page thing have talked about how they're making them exceptional. I just think they're being honest here. We've had 2 posts in a row about how they're buffing up 2 of the weaker classes, and when they get to a class with a build literally called "God" they talk about how they're trying to tone it down without ruining the class.

    Seems pretty reasonable to me. Now if you disagree in how they're going about the much needed nerf, that's your business.
    Last edited by Dienekes; 2012-05-14 at 06:41 PM.

  9. - Top - End - #309
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    Kobold

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    I'm fine with lowering a wizards power as long as it's fairly done and not over the top (or non existent). As mentioned, they talked about empowering two weaker classes and lowering a bit the two stronger one (wizards more then clerics but it seem that they were also limiting it's potential). this is what I'm mainly hoping for:

    Tier 1-2
    l
    \/
    Tier 3
    /\
    l
    Tier 4-5

    As well as keeping the difference in system so they have their own unique method of doing thing as opposed as sharing the same type of renamed resources.
    My favorite policy on games is the MST3k mantra

    Supporter of Rule of Cool And their system, Legend. Give It a try, it won't disappoint.

  10. - Top - End - #310
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Scots Dragon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Trapped in England
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Dienekes View Post
    Seems pretty reasonable to me. Now if you disagree in how they're going about the much needed nerf, that's your business.
    Even taking into account the idea of wizards having a 'much needed nerf', they're also targeting the wrong things. They're on about nerfing the progression of an already-useless ability, pretty much removing one of the mage's iconic utilities (scrolls), nerfing the utility of wands, and reducing the utility of spells that... didn't actually do what they're saying they did. The invisibility and knock spells didn't remove the need for a decent rogue, for instance, and the haste spell didn't suddenly make a wizard outshine the fighter in terms of melee attack capacity.

    Such things don't strike me as being particularly reasonable in the vein of fixing what was actually broken.

  11. - Top - End - #311
    Orc in the Playground
     
    EvilClericGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2012

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Narsil View Post
    Such things don't strike me as being particularly reasonable in the vein of fixing what was actually broken.
    So, for fun, what would you do?
    "Inveniam viam aut faciam -- I will either find a way, or I shall make one."

    Class Balance

  12. - Top - End - #312
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    You want to know what I think would be cool? If they made racial classes for everything! You could have up to 5 levels of Human, or 8 of Elf, or whatever. That way they can add all of the iconic/legendary traits without having them be stupidly high on LA. A level 10 Dwarf having amazing crafting abilities, like making magical arms and armor without spells, a level 6 Halfling with greater invisibility at will, etc.

    The wider they apply it, the more people can play cool things without resorting to homebrew!
    Quote Originally Posted by The Glyphstone View Post
    Vibranium: If it was on the periodic table, its chemical symbol would be "Bs".

  13. - Top - End - #313
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    "The current proposal is that a wizard who takes damage has a chance to miscast his or her next spell"
    Yeah. This could..kinda work. It depends on "miscast". Sounds like it just fizzles, or acts like a scroll mishap. I would be ok with that, but maybe you eliminate the miscast chance for spells you've been casting for a long time. Like at level 5, you no longer miscast your 1st level spells(2 levels behind max) and at level 7 no miscasting 2nd level.

    Reading through the article, it at least sounds like they know what the best spells in 3.x were. But, the problem with buff spells is it makes you feel useless. Sure, you make the thief sneaky-er, but people prefer Battlefield control as an alternative. It makes you seems like you have a direct contribution, but you don't take the damage-dealing away from the fighter.
    Quotes:
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Hashmir View Post
    When I die, I donate my body to the cause of whatever ******* finds it first.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bloodgruve View Post
    Really though, how effin scary would the beach be if an octopus could launch itself outta the water at a 200' move speed every 6 seconds. I'd never go to the beach again... I thought flying sharks were scary...
    Blood~

  14. - Top - End - #314
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    I actually think the new scrolls thing is a great idea: Honestly, why hasn't it always worked like that?

    I am concerned with reliance on cantrips as a Wizard's backup option: Does this mean when a 20th-level caster runs out of spells, they have to rely on Ray of Frost's pitiful damage to get out of trouble? The obvious solution is to have cantrips scale, but they also said spell scaling is out. Maybe cantrips are the exception? No idea. Have to wait until the playtest, I guess.

  15. - Top - End - #315
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    I don't like the idea of miscast spells. Nothing sucks for a warrior like rolling a 1 to hit. The spellcaster's equivalent is the bad guy rolled a 20 on his save. It's part of the game, part of the fun, but still sucks. To be prevented from doing anything at all just because you got hit adds insult to injury. A spellcaster is entitled to cast spells and should not be punished for the audacity of wanting to. To be denied actions, even if just a percentage chance, because you took 1 point of damage is uncalled for.

    I'm ok with scroll use using up a spell slot. I'd have to get used to it, but it's part of resource management.

  16. - Top - End - #316
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2008

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese) View Post
    I actually think the new scrolls thing is a great idea: Honestly, why hasn't it always worked like that?

    I am concerned with reliance on cantrips as a Wizard's backup option: Does this mean when a 20th-level caster runs out of spells, they have to rely on Ray of Frost's pitiful damage to get out of trouble? The obvious solution is to have cantrips scale, but they also said spell scaling is out. Maybe cantrips are the exception? No idea. Have to wait until the playtest, I guess.
    If I was going to do it using all the constraints given in the post, I would make it a check based off the level of the spell. So as you gain levels it becomes easier to use the lower level spells even after injury. So at 20th level maybe you can't reliably do 7-9th level spells, but 3-6 are a bit easier to pull off without too much worry. Or whatever level/spell-level pattern they're going to use this game.

  17. - Top - End - #317
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2012

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    There any update on monks besides 'easy to design' ( aka probably gonna screw up again )? Only thing I have seen is the enworld thinger link from second thread. Odd though, that it won't load whole thing for some reason. Any info on if system is looking like 3.5 or more like 4th? I'd look right now, but for some reason the link won't load.
    Last edited by animewatcha; 2012-05-14 at 10:55 PM.

  18. - Top - End - #318
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by animewatcha View Post
    There any update on monks besides 'easy to design' ( aka probably gonna screw up again )? Only thing I have seen is the enworld thinger link from second thread. Odd though, that it won't load whole thing for some reason. Any info on if system is looking like 3.5 or more like 4th? I'd look right now, but for some reason the link won't load.
    Everything concrete that I've seen so far points in the direction of 3.5, though there's very little concrete information thus far. 3.5 multiclassing is back, AEDU structure has bit the dust, etc.

  19. - Top - End - #319
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2008

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by animewatcha View Post
    There any update on monks besides 'easy to design' ( aka probably gonna screw up again )? Only thing I have seen is the enworld thinger link from second thread. Odd though, that it won't load whole thing for some reason. Any info on if system is looking like 3.5 or more like 4th? I'd look right now, but for some reason the link won't load.
    Try 1e.

  20. - Top - End - #320
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PairO'Dice Lost's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Malsheem, Nessus
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Craft (Cheese) View Post
    I actually think the new scrolls thing is a great idea: Honestly, why hasn't it always worked like that?
    Because if scrolls require a spell slot to activate instead of having their own power, then you can't allow thieves to activate them as well once they reach a certain level. Scrolls and potions were originally a way to let some noncasters access limited casting, so while making scrolls, staffs, and wands no longer hold their own spells cuts down on a caster's versatility quite a bit, it leaves noncasters out in the cold (unless the ritual system sticks around in 5e, which is unlikely given the return of Vancian casting).
    Better to DM in Baator than play in Celestia
    You can just call me Dice; that's how I roll.


    Spoiler: Sig of Holding
    Show

    Quote Originally Posted by abadguy View Post
    Darn you PoDL for making me care about a bunch of NPC Commoners!
    Quote Originally Posted by Chambers View Post
    I'm pretty sure turning Waterdeep into a sheet of glass wasn't the best win condition for that fight. We lived though!
    Quote Originally Posted by MaxiDuRaritry View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'DiceLost View Post
    <Snip>
    Where are my Like, Love, and Want to Have Your Manchildren (Totally Homo) buttons for this post?
    Won a cookie for this, won everything for this

  21. - Top - End - #321
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by PairO'Dice Lost View Post
    Because if scrolls require a spell slot to activate instead of having their own power, then you can't allow thieves to activate them as well once they reach a certain level. Scrolls and potions were originally a way to let some noncasters access limited casting, so while making scrolls, staffs, and wands no longer hold their own spells cuts down on a caster's versatility quite a bit, it leaves noncasters out in the cold (unless the ritual system sticks around in 5e, which is unlikely given the return of Vancian casting).
    An obvious solution: Virtual Spell Slots. You can't use them to prepare an actual spell, but you can use them when you need to do something else (like using a scroll) that requires you to spend a spell slot.

  22. - Top - End - #322
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Scots Dragon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Trapped in England
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Fatebreaker View Post
    So, for fun, what would you do?
    I'd get rid of many of the worst spells, either get rid of metamagic feats or fix some of the more abusive misuses thereof, reintroduce casting times in the form of each spell causing the spellcaster to have an initiative penalty, and get rid of or tighten up concentration checks. In addition, I'd vaguely reintroduce many of the penalties for certain spells that 1st and 2nd edition had - some spells cause the mage to suffer fatigue and exhaustion, or even temporary ability score loss.

    The wizard still feels powerful with all of this being set to 'true', and notably - you don't need to actually change the chassis of the core class with this approach, just add a slight proviso to many of the spells.

  23. - Top - End - #323
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Planetar

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    London, England.

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Scowling Dragon View Post
    Okay, so going by the article, the 5e wizard is going to have:

    Weak but freely useable at-will abilities.
    Weaker spells in general.
    Relatively few spell slots.
    No particular skill with item creation.

    Isn't this exactly how wizards work in 4e? What's a 5e wizard going to do that a 4e wizard doesn't do already?
    I'm the author of the Alex Verus series of urban fantasy novels. Fated is the first, and Book #10 in the series, Fallen, is out as of September 2019. For updates, check my blog!

  24. - Top - End - #324
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Saph View Post
    Okay, so going by the article, the 5e wizard is going to have:

    Weak but freely useable at-will abilities.
    Weaker spells in general.
    Relatively few spell slots.
    No particular skill with item creation.

    Isn't this exactly how wizards work in 4e? What's a 5e wizard going to do that a 4e wizard doesn't do already?
    No encounter powers.

  25. - Top - End - #325
    Troll in the Playground
     
    DruidGirl

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Netherlands

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    As long as they give us back something looking that looks like the old spell lists, I'll be happy.

  26. - Top - End - #326
    Banned
     
    Griffon

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Narsil View Post
    I'd get rid of many of the worst spells, either get rid of metamagic feats or fix some of the more abusive misuses thereof, reintroduce casting times in the form of each spell causing the spellcaster to have an initiative penalty, and get rid of or tighten up concentration checks. In addition, I'd vaguely reintroduce many of the penalties for certain spells that 1st and 2nd edition had - some spells cause the mage to suffer fatigue and exhaustion, or even temporary ability score loss.

    The wizard still feels powerful with all of this being set to 'true', and notably - you don't need to actually change the chassis of the core class with this approach, just add a slight proviso to many of the spells.
    If you have to punish the wizard for casting a spell, admit it already you hate the spell being cast at all and just not have it.

  27. - Top - End - #327
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Scots Dragon's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Trapped in England
    Gender
    Male2Female

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by navar100 View Post
    If you have to punish the wizard for casting a spell, admit it already you hate the spell being cast at all and just not have it.
    Funnily enough, I don't have that problem with 1st and 2nd edition, and I'm toning it down from the levels that they were at in 'punishing' the magic-user, for casting such spells. Haste and wish were powerful, but they were also dangerous. Temporary loss of constitution or strength from casting a spell is minor compared to what you had to suffer in earlier editions. Such as the caster accidentally ageing himself to death from overuse, or killing himself on a poor transmutation roll.

    High level magic was dangerous, and self-targeted transmutation spells were even more dangerous. But for the benefit one gets from such powerful spells, sometimes it's worth the risk.

    But here's the thing; I'd do that to maybe balance things. Maybe. But to be honest, figuring out how to make the tier 4-5 classes not suck and putting everyone in the tier 1-3 bracket is perhaps more important. And, given the volume of material to work with, probably actually a smaller job.

  28. - Top - End - #328
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by navar100 View Post
    If you have to punish the wizard for casting a spell, admit it already you hate the spell being cast at all and just not have it.
    Adding a risk-reward curve to something is not the same thing as punishing the player.

  29. - Top - End - #329
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Tyndmyr's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Dienekes View Post
    Well notably, both the fighter and the rogue class page thing have talked about how they're making them exceptional. I just think they're being honest here. We've had 2 posts in a row about how they're buffing up 2 of the weaker classes, and when they get to a class with a build literally called "God" they talk about how they're trying to tone it down without ruining the class.

    Seems pretty reasonable to me. Now if you disagree in how they're going about the much needed nerf, that's your business.
    I disagree that they need a nerf.

    Boosting the other classes up goes quite far toward shrinking the gap. And let's be honest, there will always be a gap. No class based system is 100% balanced. Wizards are a great class in 3.5, but even there, the internet over-emphasizes it, and in most actual games, it's not that big of a deal...classes like druid and cleric are more likely to accidentally dominate in my experience.

    So, I think the boosts might well be entirely sufficient.

    These nerfs...like reducing spell slots is a poor solution. It just changes the balance point between "wizards suck" and "wizards are awesome" to a higher level. Meh. That's not really better balance at all.

  30. - Top - End - #330
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    DwarfBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Odenton, MD
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Rallicus View Post
    "The current proposal is that a wizard who takes damage has a chance to miscast his or her next spell"

    So uh... is this an attempt to make it so wizards don't just blast off spells recklessly? Because as it stands, it seems like wizards being attacked will resort to not casting spells and essentially become cantrip-blasting weaklings, out of fear of hurting their own teammates.

    Unless by miscast they mean it'll just... fizzle or something.

    You mean like 1e and 2e where spells all had casting times and interrupting the spell with damage during said casting time spoiled the spell as well as removed it from the mage's memory?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •