No requirements for Specialties!

46 posts / 0 new
Last post
There are no requirements for picking a race.
There are no requirements for picking a class.
There are no requirements for picking a background.

There should be no requirements for picking a speciealty. 
There should be no requirements for feats other than a prior node on its feat tree.

No attribute requirements, ever.
No Class Ability requirements, ever.
No Weapon/Magic bonus requirements, ever.

If a specialty is dependent on casting spells, using shields, or some other damn thing, the level-1 feat must include that other damn thing.  Would Defender really be that overpowered if it included "You have proficiency with shields, if you didn't already."?
The idea of specialties is to offer a package to a new player, where in theory the advance player can pick and choose feats. Unfortunately, we do not have feats to make a comparison. So it is too early to judge at the moment. At least that is my understanding on how they will work.

If specialities are supposed to be distinct and seperate, then they still need to list some basic feats for the play test, so we have the ability to compare.  
I vote for Specialties to have no Requirements as well. I have a wizard in my group who wants to be a guardian for example. She will not be able to because she doesn't have access to a shield. However, she does have access to the shield spell, but that doesn't seem like the same thing.

I was worried about one of my players playing a necromancer because he would not have access to necromancy spells.

Its a slippery slope.

Thumbs up for no requirements, unless said requirements are given to you in the specialty. 
Ant Farm
The idea of specialties is to offer a package to a new player, where in theory the advance player can pick and choose feats. Unfortunately, we do not have feats to make a comparison. So it is too early to judge at the moment. At least that is my understanding on how they will work.

If specialities are supposed to be distinct and seperate, then they still need to list some basic feats for the play test, so we have the ability to compare.  

the requirements are actually on the feat and not the specialty itself.
Requirements can be ok, if the feat actually requires something.  Otherwise i agree.

Archery requiring proficency in a ranged weapon for example.
[insert hypotetical shield feat] requiring profiency with a shield.

But those should be pretty rare.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

Requirements can be ok, if the feat actually requires something.  Otherwise i agree.

Archery requiring proficency in a ranged weapon for example.
[insert hypotetical shield feat] requiring profiency with a shield.

But those should be pretty rare.

Two options.
1. The feat gives you the proficiency.
2. the feat allows you to gain the ability while suffering the consequences of using an item you aren't proficient in.

I think both options allow for no requirements and work just fine. 
Requirements can be ok, if the feat actually requires something.  Otherwise i agree.

Archery requiring proficency in a ranged weapon for example.
[insert hypotetical shield feat] requiring profiency with a shield.

But those should be pretty rare.

Two options.
1. The feat gives you the proficiency.
2. the feat allows you to gain the ability while suffering the consequences of using an item you aren't proficient in.

I think both options allow for no requirements and work just fine. 



All classes are proficient in at least one missile weapon.  I doubt that will change.


However, even if it did change - I have no problem with logical restrictions (you must be proficient in ranged weapons to benefit from a speciality designed to make you better with ranged weapons; you must be proficient in shields to benefit from a specialty designed to make you better at using shields).


I do object to restrictions which are not directly tied to the specialty ( why must you know how to cast a spell - any old spell, it doesn't matter what it is - to benefit from a specialty that lets you suck up and expend the souls of dead people or to animate their corpses to serve you?).   

Find Familiar is a bit more problematic - as a part of the Magic User specialty, the restriction is a minor technicality that is always going to be true; I assume the requirement is for later customization purposes - but I'm not sure it is necessary.   Sure - it is logical - after all, you need to be able to cast a ritual to summon the familiar.  But why can't a fighter pay an NPC to cast the ritual for him, allowing him to summon a familiar if he wants one.  It doesn't seem as if that is going to somehow destroy the game - and a fighter or rogue with a scout seems like an interesting character to me.


I think that arbitrary restrictions ought to go, but that restrictions that follow logically from the nature of the ability are good and should remain.  (I'm on the fence regarding herbalism and Int/Wis).    

         
Carl   
I have often felt that pre-requisites (especially ability scores) were an under-utilized resource to help balance value of ability scores.  For example, in most editions, there is very little reason to want a fighter to be intelligent -- except for role-playing purposes it is far better to use good scores in dex or con.  But when the feat "combat expertise" (and hence the entire feat tree it allowed) in edition 3.5 required 13 intelligence, crafting a fighter became far more strategic.  Now with all feats clumped into one specialty, I'm not sure how I feel, but I think I still lean toward appropriate ability requirements.
Feats with requirements are fine as long as it makes sense.  The vast majority of feats should not have prerequisites. 

I had a question along these lines. Do the feats that grant cantrips/orisons qualify the character for feats that have the ability to cast wizard/cleric spells as a prerequisite?

For example, the Magic-User specialty. Lvl 1: Arcane Dabbler. Prerequisite at least 11 INT. Reads: "Choose two minor spells (cantrips) from the wizard's spell list. You know and can use those spells." Lvl 3: Find Familiar has a prerequisite that reads: "Able to cast at least one spell from the wizard's spell list.

So can any character with at least 11 INT take this specialty and get the familiar? Might be good for, say, a Rogue. The Acolyte specialty is also structured like this. And if we're mixing and matching, then Arcane Dabbler or Initiate of the Faith could qualify a character for the feats under the Necromancer specialty (Aura of Souls, Animate Servant).

Seems obvious from the way these are written that the Magic-Using Rogue or the Acolyte Fighter would be totally legitimate. Thoughts? Objections? 
Thoughts? Objections? 

I object to that 11 INT being there.

Attribute requirements never balance anything.  They just exclude for no goddamn reason.

Not "no reason" - just no reason related to balance.


The reason is because they are intended as logical nods to immersion - it is logical that a character would need to be smart to be able to cast spells.


Not necessary - perhaps not even desireable - but logical.

Personally - I'd agree with the removal of the attribute restrictions.  In my experience, even people with substandard intelligence can eventually learn most things.  They just take longer and have to work harder to do it.


So an Int 5 fighter can (or rather - should be able to) learn how to cast cantrips - they just take longer and any  part of the spell that is based on Intellignce will not work well for them.

Carl
Not "no reason" - just no reason related to balance.


The reason is because they are intended as logical nods to immersion - it is logical that a character would need to be smart to be able to cast spells.


Not necessary - perhaps not even desireable - but logical.

Personally - I'd agree with the removal of the attribute restrictions.  In my experience, even people with substandard intelligence can eventually learn most things.  They just take longer and have to work harder to do it.


So an Int 5 fighter can (or rather - should be able to) learn how to cast cantrips - they just take longer and any  part of the spell that is based on Intellignce will not work well for them.

Carl

Just to seek clarification: when you select a Specialty at Level 1 and take the first feat, are you obliged to take the 3rd level feat within the same Specialty at level 3? Or can you pick the 1st or 3rd level feat available in another specialty at 3rd level (since you seem to be only bound by the pre-requisite and not the specialty itself)?

So as an example could I take Dual Wielder (two weapon fighting) at first level, but take Toughness (in the Survival specialty) at 3rd level?

If you choose the specialty - you take it as a package; you take the listed feats at the levels shown.


 


They have indicated that there will also be ways of customizing characters through a more open selection of feats, but they haven't given us any real information about how that will work.


Carl

I must say I agree on Carls suggestions here. It struck me immediatly as interesting options with having fighters and rogues have a familiar, when I read the specialties.
 Acolyte seemed to par with for example a paladin warrior. I tried to fit in a cleric with a familiar, but it started to get harder.

Some specialties are very linear that they don't promote differentiation at all. They are more extended arms of a specific class, and not optional at all.

My view of this is that this iteration tries to make choices of versatility but the 4E options based choices (pre-requisites, stat+ etc.) Simply removes the choices and gets you back to playing on your strengthes or you will fail (or rather be just weak all over instead of versatile).
 For example you would like a fighter go with magic missile as an option to ranged (magic-dabbler), might been a fun choice if it wasnt based on Int. Same for lets say a fighter Acolyte. I dont meant you should just use your main stat, but it severly limits you and ergo you will not divert but rather stay with your main choice.

But again we don't know the advanced option, that might present itself. But I must agree there are some core flaws here.

/Aurel
Thoughts? Objections? 

I object to that 11 INT being there.

Attribute requirements never balance anything.  They just exclude for no goddamn reason.


+1. They should drop all requirements except level. Looking at the Arcane Dabbler feat, why do I need an 11+ INT? I can make a wizard with a 3 INT and HE can learn cantrips, so why does someone else need more?

They should drop all requirements except level.

Did D&D ever actually do that?  Usually, where an overt level minimum would go, the requirement was something like "BAB X" or "cast X level spell" or similar.

Thoughts? Objections? 

I object to that 11 INT being there.

Attribute requirements never balance anything.  They just exclude for no goddamn reason.




Ok, so if there are no requirements on anything, why don't we just have people write up what they want their character to do and be done with it? "I want a Dwarf that has heavy armor and wields ice magic." "Ok!". 
My two copper.
Thoughts? Objections? 

I object to that 11 INT being there.

Attribute requirements never balance anything.  They just exclude for no goddamn reason.




Ok, so if there are no requirements on anything, why don't we just have people write up what they want their character to do and be done with it? "I want a Dwarf that has heavy armor and wields ice magic." "Ok!". 



Straw man much?
So right now it seems their are two camps for how Specialties/Feats should work:


  • Those that feel feats are based on specific gameplay styles. And therefor players who train in a specific style should be rewarded

  • Those that feel feat requirements are fluff and unnecessary in most cases. Further limiting play styles for players.


While I can see the merits of having the requirement, ie. rewarding players who trained in certain ways. I see the benefit of giving players the ability to use such abilities.

In all honesty giving a Fighter the ability to cast spells if his INT score is -1 makes him a poor wizard. So why not? It would be funny to see a player in a game who takes Arcane Dabbler and messes up with magic all the time.
Ant Farm



  • Those that feel feats are based on specific gameplay styles. And therefor players who train in a specific style should be rewarded

  • Those that feel feat requirements are fluff and unnecessary in most cases. Further limiting play styles for players.


Those don't appear to be mutually exclusive.

In the survey I voted specialties as "disappointed" and said it was because of the prereqs. I also said I would of voted it "very disappointed" if it weren't for the fact that ALL prereqs, as they are now, can be ignored without balance issues. I did that because this is the BIGGEST issue in this playtest right now for me.

I know, they do have logical reasoning behind them, a fighter raising the dead without any spell training seems odd up front. But my problem is you're pidgin holing clever ideas with that logic. Like say I wanna play a fighter who's cursed and the dead rise around him and obey his commands despite the fact he's not a necromancer or a caster at all. "Guards, I swear, it's a curse. I can't help it. I'm not even a wizard or anything. Please don't arrest me." I mean, I could just grab the cantrip feat, so it's not a strait up no to that idea. But I could (and did quite a lot) do crap like that in 3.5. My thing is I'm sick and tired of using min/maxing tactics and spending hours on research just to get a character idea going because an option "doesn't make sense" to some people. Why should I fight the system this much for role playing reasons?

So the idea of having ANY prereq, just because it makes sense on some level, is bad IMO. Balance should be the ONLY reason EVER to include a prereq. I do hover have to give WotC a nod that, at this point in time, I know none of this is about balance, so I would have no problem telling my group to just ignore any and all prereqs and be done with it.

If they keep things like that, I won't mind seeing "must cast Wizard spells" in the final version. If I have to dig through feat by feat and figure out on my own if the prereq is for balance or for "just cuz" then I'm going to be PISSED. So I said it in the survey and I'll say it here, heads up WotC, don't bring back the 3.5 things I'm running from.

I wrote a non-magical justification for a Fighter being able to raise the dead.

(fluff subject to change by character)
Before adventuring, (Fighter) was a low rank military general of a small kingdom, who through his abilities and personality managed to accrue insane amount of loyalty from hsi men. When the kingdom fell and all but (F) were destroyed, his men, through their loyalty and sheer force of will, willingly moved their souls into his blade. When needed, (F) can simply stab his blade into a body and imbue it with a soul form his blade who possesses the body, and through it serves his general once more.

No inherant magic there, just undying loyalty(literally) and sheer force of will.
Thoughts? Objections? 

I object to that 11 INT being there.

Attribute requirements never balance anything.  They just exclude for no goddamn reason.




Ok, so if there are no requirements on anything, why don't we just have people write up what they want their character to do and be done with it? "I want a Dwarf that has heavy armor and wields ice magic." "Ok!". 



Dwarf dragon sorcerer with Ray of Frost.

Ok?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I wrote a non-magical justification for a Fighter being able to raise the dead.

(fluff subject to change by character)
Before adventuring, (Fighter) was a low rank military general of a small kingdom, who through his abilities and personality managed to accrue insane amount of loyalty from hsi men. When the kingdom fell and all but (F) were destroyed, his men, through their loyalty and sheer force of will, willingly moved their souls into his blade. When needed, (F) can simply stab his blade into a body and imbue it with a soul form his blade who possesses the body, and through it serves his general once more.

No inherant magic there, just undying loyalty(literally) and sheer force of will.


Great concept, I like it. I would build a different Specialization around it and would drop the prerequisite of Animate Dead because of the clever narrative. Which should be an option, or Module if you will. Something a kin to have Prerequisites be core but encourage DMs and players to craft clever/compelling narratives as reasons to drop them.
Listen to the Penny Arcade podcasts, it's basically what Mike Mearls is doing for their characters.  
Something a kin to have Prerequisites be core but encourage DMs and players to craft clever/compelling narratives as reasons to drop them.

What?
If dropping rules-as-written prerequisites is going to be encouraged, then just don't put the damn prereqs in the rules.

"Hey, how come Bill gets to be a necromancer fighter and I don't?"
"Bill wrote a fifteen page novella about his character.  You did not."
"Shenanigans!!  FAVORITISM!!!"
Something a kin to have Prerequisites be core but encourage DMs and players to craft clever/compelling narratives as reasons to drop them.

What?
If dropping rules-as-written prerequisites is going to be encouraged, then just don't put the damn prereqs in the rules.

"Hey, how come Bill gets to be a necromancer fighter and I don't?"
"Bill wrote a fifteen page novella about his character.  You did not."
"Shenanigans!!  FAVORITISM!!!"


EFFORT!!
I often give players something far outside of what they should be given by the rules for putting forth effort with their character ideas. A compeling backstory is a perfectly good reason to fudge around the rules, in this case prerequisites. 
I personally would rather give players the benefit of the doubt and remove prerequisites in general as opposed to making them earn it with writing. (again, assuming prereqs aren't there for balance.) From my experience, background writing and in game character personalities aren't as connected as one would think. I've had characters with nice full backgrounds that were boring as heck, while some characters I pretty much made up on the spot turned out to be the most memorable. That's just me though, to each their own.
So right now it seems their are two camps for how Specialties/Feats should work:


  • Those that feel feats are based on specific gameplay styles. And therefor players who train in a specific style should be rewarded

  • Those that feel feat requirements are fluff and unnecessary in most cases. Further limiting play styles for players.


While I can see the merits of having the requirement, ie. rewarding players who trained in certain ways. I see the benefit of giving players the ability to use such abilities.

In all honesty giving a Fighter the ability to cast spells if his INT score is -1 makes him a poor wizard. So why not? It would be funny to see a player in a game who takes Arcane Dabbler and messes up with magic all the time.



I'm in the second camp, for the most part. 

I can see feats having requirements if that feat is a specific branching out of a previous feat but I think it should be VERY specific. . . like Greater Cleave requiring Cleave.

Whirlwind attack is the exact opposite of how I would do things. That's just a stupid feat tax used to keep people away from a feat and the required feats don't even make sense. If the designers deem a feat too good for 'Norms' to use, they should at least come up with a solid way to build to the feat that doesn't require people taking feats they'll never use just to get to the feat they want. 
I wrote a non-magical justification for a Fighter being able to raise the dead.

(fluff subject to change by character)
Before adventuring, (Fighter) was a low rank military general of a small kingdom, who through his abilities and personality managed to accrue insane amount of loyalty from hsi men. When the kingdom fell and all but (F) were destroyed, his men, through their loyalty and sheer force of will, willingly moved their souls into his blade. When needed, (F) can simply stab his blade into a body and imbue it with a soul form his blade who possesses the body, and through it serves his general once more.

No inherant magic there, just undying loyalty(literally) and sheer force of will.


Great concept, I like it. I would build a different Specialization around it and would drop the prerequisite of Animate Dead because of the clever narrative. Which should be an option, or Module if you will. Something a kin to have Prerequisites be core but encourage DMs and players to craft clever/compelling narratives as reasons to drop them.
Listen to the Penny Arcade podcasts, it's basically what Mike Mearls is doing for their characters.  


Why not just let Necromancer work with any character concept and be done with it?

Otherwise we're just making 3-4 different Necromancer specialties with differently colored tassels on it.
I wrote a non-magical justification for a Fighter being able to raise the dead.

(fluff subject to change by character)
Before adventuring, (Fighter) was a low rank military general of a small kingdom, who through his abilities and personality managed to accrue insane amount of loyalty from hsi men. When the kingdom fell and all but (F) were destroyed, his men, through their loyalty and sheer force of will, willingly moved their souls into his blade. When needed, (F) can simply stab his blade into a body and imbue it with a soul form his blade who possesses the body, and through it serves his general once more.

No inherant magic there, just undying loyalty(literally) and sheer force of will.


Great concept, I like it. I would build a different Specialization around it and would drop the prerequisite of Animate Dead because of the clever narrative. Which should be an option, or Module if you will. Something a kin to have Prerequisites be core but encourage DMs and players to craft clever/compelling narratives as reasons to drop them.
Listen to the Penny Arcade podcasts, it's basically what Mike Mearls is doing for their characters.  


Why not just let Necromancer work with any character concept and be done with it?

Otherwise we're just making 3-4 different Necromancer specialties with differently colored tassels on it.


I haven't seen the Penny Arcade podcast, but I'm guessing Orkbard meant that the DM could create their own, slightly different speciality based on an individual's concept.
I haven't seen the Penny Arcade podcast, but I'm guessing Orkbard meant that the DM could create their own, slightly different speciality based on an individual's concept.


Mike creates, mostly Backgrounds but does do one Specialty, for the guys and you can download their character sheets and a file with the Backgrounds they put together.
Now, "Int/Wis 11 prerequisite" can be dropped, I haven't said it shouldn't.
However, logical prerequisites (not just for Feat Tax) that build on previous feats. Cleave => Great Cleave is a logical example from 3rd. 5 different feats to get Whirlwind Attack is not well planned. Whirlwind Attack ought to be something that eats up CS dice of the Fighter, since its likely CS dice will be used for more attacks at higher levels.
EFFORT!!
I often give players something far outside of what they should be given by the rules for putting forth effort with their character ideas. A compeling backstory is a perfectly good reason to fudge around the rules, in this case prerequisites. 

Agreed.

If one of my players comes up to me with a custom background consisting of Find/Remove Traps, Insight, and Planar Lore, they better damn well have a good reason for it.  It can certainly be done, but I want to see some justification before I allow it.

I think what I'd rather see is something similar with Specialties: no prereqs on the feats themselves, but if the player is going to come up with a custom specialty consisting of feats a la carte, I want justification for how they work together.  I have no problem at all with someone choosing one of the prepackaged specialties without meeting any prerequisites.  The only possible exception, as written, is Guardian, and if you remove the need to wield a shield when performing the feat actions (which I don't see as necessary), then that goes away too.

"Edison didn't succeed the first time he invented Benjamin Franklin, either." Albert the Alligator, Walt Kelly's Pogo Sunday Book  
The Core Coliseum: test out your 4e builds and fight to the death.


I vote for Specialties to have no Requirements as well. I have a wizard in my group who wants to be a guardian for example. She will not be able to because she doesn't have access to a shield. However, she does have access to the shield spell, but that doesn't seem like the same thing.

I was worried about one of my players playing a necromancer because he would not have access to necromancy spells.

Its a slippery slope.

Thumbs up for no requirements, unless said requirements are given to you in the specialty. 

I would like to have absolutely minimum requirements. I particularly like the modification/house rule that enabled the Necromancer to work well for non-spell casters.

Mulan has a familiar and no ritual capability of her own... []
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I am in favor of requirements. I feel it really just becomes cherry picking the best feat tree possible.


Ive seen people saying that they want a guardian themed wizard...all i read is the wizard dies quickly in combat and i want a way to disadvantage my opponent so i might not get hit as much without having a shield.


Or low int fighters casting spells lol. Where is the logic with that?   IQ is a testable attribute. People with average IQs 90-110 are not going to grasp the finer concepts of the sciences and mathematics. Ithas nothing to bo with willpower or length of time...Its jut not going to happen. 


I feel that as a core mechanic, requirements should be there and it you want the above type of things in a home campaign..great! Do it.  
I feel that as a core mechanic, requirements should be there and it you want the above type of things in a home campaign..great! Do it.  

If you want to shut down "illogical cherry-picking" in a home campaign, great! do it.

Core needs to be as inclusive and open as possible.

I am in favor of requirements. I feel it really just becomes cherry picking the best feat tree possible.


   
Except that most of the feat (I dare say ALL) are pretty balanced when it comes to their function. There's nothing about a feat or a tree of feats that says "Hey, this one IS THE BEST over the others" because they all have some give and take. Aura of Souls, for example, requires an Action to draw forth their soul and I think that most Fighters would rather just attack again or attack with a shield for the benefit of issuing disadvantage or attack twice with TWF because those feats are primarly more effective in fighting than Aura of Souls is. However, there are a lot of players that don't care about that. There is something intrinsically cool about summoning forth a dead person's soul to aid you later on in the battle. It's not broken, it's not ridiculously powerful,  nor breaks immersion or the game. And this specific feat doesn't even use Spells, per-se. It just allows you advantage on Necromantic spells/disadvantage against your necromancy spells. What it could do, however, is be more open to it's function, possibly granting Advantage on your attack (be it spell or weapon) OR disadvantage against an opponent's attack vs. you. You could even make it a Reaction and it would still be a bit cool. Cherry picking in this edition so far seems to be cool on flavor, bland on Min/Maxing and that's a good thing.


Ive seen people saying that they want a guardian themed wizard...all i read is the wizard dies quickly in combat and i want a way to disadvantage my opponent so i might not get hit as much without having a shield.



Or someone could enjoy playing Abjurer wizards focused on protecting his allies. Sometimes it's not "What's best for my character?" but "What's best for the group that my character can perform?". But I think that the Protector speciality is fine without the requirment of Shield Proficiency and should be able to be used with say, the Shield spell. There's nothing wrong with that IMO balance wise. And as I bring this up, wasn't that the WHOLE reason for Prerequisites? To make sure things remain relatively balanced in the game as far as mechanics go? That doesn't seem to be the case with D&D:Next and a Lot of people believe that to be a problem.

Or low int fighters casting spells lol. Where is the logic with that?   IQ is a testable attribute. People with average IQs 90-110 are not going to grasp the finer concepts of the sciences and mathematics. Ithas nothing to bo with willpower or length of time...Its jut not going to happen. 



I'm sorry but to me this just screams "Fighters can't have nice things". As I stated earlier the feat Aura of Souls doesn't even use, provide, imply Magic in the senes of what the feat does. So to me, that implies that it's possible the powers posessed by a Necromancer are learned/studied and that could apply to the most rudimentary Fighters to the most astute Wizards. Besides, this is just pigeon-holing in it's truest form because I don't see any "Combat" specialities with heavy-set Prerequisites that prohibit a Wizard from taking them (besides Guardian, which they should change).    


I feel that as a core mechanic, requirements should be there and it you want the above type of things in a home campaign..great! Do it.  



There are many who feel the opposite, that strict mechanical penalties/requirements fall onto the DM to implement as they see fit, leaving the rules far more open to possibilities. One reason is that a LOT of people believe that the rules are strictly balanced and requirements are set forth in place to uphold some sort of balance. This is simply NOT the case with the prerequisties presented with the Playtest. They're there to force RP elements and a focus of verisimilitude for no good mechanical or balanced reason. They're not there to hold back character from making broken concepts or breaking the game or finding loopholes. So, if you remove them from the CORE rules, then it encourages players with more interesting ideas for their characters, barring DM intervention (which I think SHOULD be used as one sees fit).

I feel that as a core mechanic, requirements should be there and it you want the above type of things in a home campaign..great! Do it.  

If you want to shut down "illogical cherry-picking" in a home campaign, great! do it.

Core needs to be as inclusive and open as possible.




+1
You want illogical?


I can play an 8 Int Wizard (and cast not only cantrips but also full spells) - but I can't take the Arcane Dabbler feat from the Magic User specialty.


Get rid of requirement - I understand that there is some desire to avoid setting traps for players (my hypothetical 8 Int wizard might be a bit odd - and it would take some careful design to make it remotely useful).  Replace it with a caveat (Note:  The cantrips granted by this feat are based on Intelligence, characters with low intelligence may find it difficult to benefit from this feat). 

Heck - base the number of cantrips you get on Intelligence, I don't care.  But don't put in arbitrary requirements.

Carl



Hmmm...
8 Int Wizard....
Magic Missile, Detect Magic, Ghost Sound, Light, Mage Hand
Comprehend Languages, Feather Fall, Shield, Sleep,
Continual Light, Gentle Repose, Mirror Image, Resistance, Rope Trick
- don't need a high Int for any of those....

Could be useful......

Carl

Hmmm...
8 Int Wizard....
Magic Missile, Detect Magic, Ghost Sound, Light, Mage Hand
Comprehend Languages, Feather Fall, Shield, Sleep,
Continual Light, Gentle Repose, Mirror Image, Resistance, Rope Trick
- don't need a high Int for any of those....

Could be useful......

Carl


Frankly I don't like that it can be done. As the rules are now you can make Forrest Gump the Wizard. "Cast Forrest, Cast!" Hell, you could roll a 3 put it in Int and still have a successful Wizard. Bad design, no. I hit you on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.
This is why I liked the 3.x rule where you could make a low Int Wizard, you just couldn't cast any spells, (for those that don't know, you needed an 11 for 1st level, 12 for 2nd, 13 for 3rd, etc). Which I think is why there is that particular requirement on Arcane Dabbler. This didn't set a requirement to play the class but it was a restriction in the concept of the class.
Brain-dead Bob could still cast spells he just couldn't do it successfully as a Wizard. 

Hmmm...
8 Int Wizard....
Magic Missile, Detect Magic, Ghost Sound, Light, Mage Hand
Comprehend Languages, Feather Fall, Shield, Sleep,
Continual Light, Gentle Repose, Mirror Image, Resistance, Rope Trick
- don't need a high Int for any of those....

Could be useful......

Carl


Frankly I don't like that it can be done. As the rules are now you can make Forrest Gump the Wizard. "Cast Forrest, Cast!" Hell, you could roll a 3 put it in Int and still have a successful Wizard. Bad design, no. I hit you on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.
This is why I liked the 3.x rule where you could make a low Int Wizard, you just couldn't cast any spells, (for those that don't know, you needed an 11 for 1st level, 12 for 2nd, 13 for 3rd, etc). Which I think is why there is that particular requirement on Arcane Dabbler. This didn't set a requirement to play the class but it was a restriction in the concept of the class.
Brain-dead Bob could still cast spells he just couldn't do it successfully as a Wizard. 



Any idea if negative modifiers effect spell DCs? If a Int 8 Wizard casts sleep and the normal DC is 11 (+ mod), would that drop it to DC 10 or just keep it as-is? Regardless, what sort of Wizard would that make, having Magic Missile and Sleep as possibly your only two combat spells? I mean, I don't have a problem that it can be done, but we should take note of how bad such a character would be in that situation.

It also shows why prerequisites are stupid.