Mike Mearls: A Paladin, Ranger, and Wizard With Arcane Tradition Walk Into A Tavern

EN World correspondent Gaming Tonic sat down after Gen Con with Mike Mearls for an indepth interview.

Discuss this EN World feature here. 

All around helpful simian

Well... It would be nice if PrCs and multiclassing aren't as grossly mishandled as they were in 3e and SWSE.
Prestige classes ....

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....

The rest sounds ok.   
This news about the Wizard is going to throw my calculations about class balance all off. I hope they improve the Rogue and Fighter to balance this out.  But it does explain why the Sorcerer seemed so much more powerful than the wizard.
oh crap....this means the return of class levels...yeah, that's a HUGE dealbreaker for me...
Prestige classes,

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay

IF they don't suck.  Jumping around meeting prereqs?  no, bad, do not want.




Full multiclassing? 

Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
dammit.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
So wizards have stacks of daily spells, balanced to be used once a day, and then get to use some of those daily spells as encounter powers. (They also have a few at-will spells balanced to be used at will.)

Meantime fighters get at-will maneuvers balanced to be used at will and some people think that's too much. 

In other words, 5E ends up with (more or less) the 4e wizard except the encounter and daily spells are more powerful - but not as overpowered as 3E. It also gets the 3E Fighter - or maybe, if the naysayers have their way, the 1E Fighter.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
So wizards have stacks of daily spells, balanced to be used once a day, and then get to use some of those daily spells as encounter powers. (They also have a few at-will spells balanced to be used at will.)

Meantime fighters get at-will maneuvers balanced to be used at will and some people think that's too much. 

In other words, 5E ends up with (more or less) the 4e wizard except the encounter and daily spells are more powerful - but not as overpowered as 3E. It also gets the 3E Fighter - or maybe, if the naysayers have their way, the 1E Fighter.

No, the get specialized spells that can be cast per encounter. Presumably balanced for the encounter.


 plus it gives you a list of invocation school spells that are your tradition’s signature spells.

 

Emphasis mine. 
Prestige classes ....

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....

The rest sounds ok.   

They should be named Prestige Backgrounds.

What's so bad about it? 
Prestige classes ....

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....

The rest sounds ok.   

They should be named Prestige Backgrounds.

What's so bad about it? 


Well, what was so bad about it was that they were the most destabilizing element in all of 3e.  Seriously.  Prestige classes caused more damage to that system than any other element.  Nearly all of the most egregious problems can be laid at PrC's feet.


That said.

I fundamentally believe that it's possible to do Prestige Classes right, and I fully support an attempt to try.  Scrap it later if it sucks, absolutely.  But to shoot them down before trying, just because someone else who didn't have our design priorities didn't get it right?  Ridiculous.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I don't mind Prestige Classes, though I would very, very, VERY much prefer they actually stay "prestigious" - and not devolve into the "Look, new packs o' mechanics!" state they reached in 3e's later half (alright, so they might have reached that point immediately after the first DMG).  I liked the idea as it was introduced, but the implementation was... just terrible.  So bad.  I think Mand12 hit one of the major reasons (jumping through requirement hoops).

I actually really look forward to 3e multi-classing - if it works.  Hopefully, with enough effort on WotC's part, and a few rounds of playtesting feedback, they can do that.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
Simplest thing for PrC prereqs:

Get rid of them.  All of them.  Except you must be at least level 10 to start taking them, so they're truly Paragon-level entities.

Maybe require a base class for certain ones (or more than one, for a multiclass-inspired one), but that's about as far as they should go.

So you could be Fighter 1-20, or you could be Fighter 1-10, SuperFighter 11-20.

And they can't just be strictly superior to the base class.  They need to do something different, not just better.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Ok, let me rephrase the question.  Prestige classes of old look nothing to me like the Prestige class described in this interview.  I'm asking whats so bad about the current Prestige Class described in this interview other than the fact that it sounds more lke a Prestige Background than a class.  Or am I missreading something?
For "prestige" classes, I'm going to hope (beyond all reasonable hope) for them to be:
Different, not Better.
Flavor-driven, not Mechanics-driven.
Largely Open, not Highly Restrictive.
Feedback Disclaimer
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us. No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC). (And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft) A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)
So the guy who is completly invisible is easier to see than that half-orc hidding behind his finger? Lame.

When I play video games and bad guys are invisible, I find them easier to detect then the badguys who are in the dark areas of the screen.  That shimmering distortion always gives them away.
plus it gives you a list of invocation school spells that are your tradition’s signature spells.

  Emphasis mine. 

I guess we can't say for certain right now, but I was reading it as "this list is a sub-category of the wizard spell-list, and does not include any new spells."

I am also firmly of the opinion that they are intentionally going to balance so-called daily spells around the assumption that they will be used on an encounter basis, with the longer-term expenditure of your spell slots being the price you pay for versatility. 

They don't balance medium armor around its possible use by a wizard or fighter, after all.  Everything has always been approached from the perspective of those who will get the most use out of it, to make sure it's compatible under those circumstances.  They haven't always succeeded, of course, but that's been the design intent.

The metagame is not the game.
So the guy who is completly invisible is easier to see than that half-orc hidding behind his finger? Lame.


Invisibility won't stop you from casting a shadow, making noise and so on.  A stealthy person, while not invisible, will know how to avoid giving his position away.

I'd like to see Invisibility give a bonus to Stealth checks.  That way people who are invisible can still be invisible (but detectable), but people who are invisible and stealthy are pretty impossible to find.
I don't mind Prestige Classes, though I would very, very, VERY much prefer they actually stay "prestigious" - and not devolve into the "Look, new packs o' mechanics!" state they reached in 3e's later half (alright, so they might have reached that point immediately after the first DMG).  I liked the idea as it was introduced, but the implementation was... just terrible.  So bad.  I think Mand12 hit one of the major reasons (jumping through requirement hoops).

I actually really look forward to 3e multi-classing - if it works.  Hopefully, with enough effort on WotC's part, and a few rounds of playtesting feedback, they can do that.



A class IS just a pack o' mechanics.  I would just rename them to 'advanced classes' like d20 Modern did.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
So the guy who is completly invisible is easier to see than that half-orc hidding behind his finger? Lame.


Invisibility won't stop you from casting a shadow, making noise and so on.  A stealthy person, while not invisible, will know how to avoid giving his position away.

I'd like to see Invisibility give a bonus to Stealth checks.  That way people who are invisible can still be invisible (but detectable), but people who are invisible and stealthy are pretty impossible to find.



Invisibility ought to give advantage on stealth checks.


Carl
So the guy who is completly invisible is easier to see than that half-orc hidding behind his finger? Lame.


Invisibility won't stop you from casting a shadow


You do know how shadows work, right?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Why would an invisible creature cast a shadow?  Shadows are caused when light can't pass through an opaque object.  An invisible creature is essentially transparent.

I know D&D is pretty loose when it comes to physics, but come on.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
So the guy who is completly invisible is easier to see than that half-orc hidding behind his finger? Lame.


Invisibility won't stop you from casting a shadow


You do know how shadows work, right?

Yes, but do you know how invisiblity works?

Does it make you transparent, or does it show whats behind you to the viewer?

I believe there are other ways for invisiblity to work.

Invisibly could be a pyschological force, causing the person who is looking directly at you to be unable to see you. But they can see the effects around you.

It can be casting what is "behind to the front" and visa versa.

It can be slowing down the light in your area so that light doesn't escape your space creating a void.

It can turn all your cells transparent.

How invisiblity works will determine what can or cannot be detected. 
Why would an invisible creature cast a shadow?  Shadows are caused when light can't pass through an opaque object.  An invisible creature is essentially transparent.

I know D&D is pretty loose when it comes to physics, but come on.



Bilbo did......



(The real question is :  Is it a physical effect, or a mental one?  )


Carl
So the guy who is completly invisible is easier to see than that half-orc hidding behind his finger? Lame.


Invisibility won't stop you from casting a shadow


You do know how shadows work, right?

Yes, but do you know how invisiblity works?

Does it make you transparent, or does it show whats behind you to the viewer?

I believe there are other ways for invisiblity to work.

Invisibly could be a pyschological force, causing the person who is looking directly at you to be unable to see you. But they can see the effects around you.

It can be casting what is "behind to the front" and visa versa.

It can be slowing down the light in your area so that light doesn't escape your space creating a void.

It can turn all your cells transparent.

How invisiblity works will determine what can or cannot be detected. 



"invisible" means you can't see it.  If you can't see it, then you must see whatever's behind it.

Anything other than transparency means you can be seen.  Because that's how light works.  Even if you create the 'void' you describe, then it just makes you look like a black silhouette. 

Invisibility = transparency.  Nothing else, ever.

Now, if you really want to get nitpicky, we can discuss the fact that if you truly were invisible you'd also wouldn't be able to see anything yourself (otherwise your eyes would be visible).
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
So the guy who is completly invisible is easier to see than that half-orc hidding behind his finger? Lame.


Invisibility won't stop you from casting a shadow


You do know how shadows work, right?

Yes, but do you know how invisiblity works?

Does it make you transparent, or does it show whats behind you to the viewer?

I believe there are other ways for invisiblity to work.

Invisibly could be a pyschological force, causing the person who is looking directly at you to be unable to see you. But they can see the effects around you.

It can be casting what is "behind to the front" and visa versa.

It can be slowing down the light in your area so that light doesn't escape your space creating a void.

It can turn all your cells transparent.

How invisiblity works will determine what can or cannot be detected. 



"invisible" means you can't see it.  If you can't see it, then you must see whatever's behind it.

Anything other than transparency means you can be seen.  Because that's how light works.  Even if you create the 'void' you describe, then it just makes you look like a black silhouette. 

Invisibility = transparency.  Nothing else, ever.

I and all the sci-fi/fanatasy books I've ever read, respectfully dissagree.

I don't think I've ever seen 5 books deal with invisiblity the same way. 
They're wrong, that's not how light works.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
They're wrong, that's not how light works.

Your wrong, that is how light works.

If I show you exactly what is behind me, you will not see me, but I will cast shadows.  

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIGzpi9lCck 
In D&D, invisibility works exactly the way the DM says it works.  Light either has nothing or everything to do with it. 
He never said that a person with invisibility was easier to see than a hiding rogue. He said a person with invisibility is not more stealthy than a stealthy rogue. Big difference. Stealth requires more than just being unseen.
Invisibility doesn't hide sound, nor does it mask your foot prints, or you bumping into limbs etc....
I liked the way Mearls described gaining prestige classes. I took that to mean by earning them, perhaps having to accomplish a quest or as a reward for service rendered or by oath and honor. Maybe even come with some purpose or responsibility. 

Thieves backstab, er sneak attack sounds like it might go away, replaced by a combat expertise of their own?

The assassin appeared briefly taking the rogues stuff.

Not a fan of the wizard traditions thing. Someone posted something about there being a divide in the way people want to play the same class. I am firmly in the limited but all powerful wizard rather than the one who glows like a neon sign for all the magical energy he commands. Five minute recharges on leveled spells seems a little much. Talk about your signature spell.

Just give me an extra casting or two a day and I'll be happy. 

I like the reigning in the spells statement. We all know that the first thing we're going to see by the way of splat is spells ans magic items. But if it starts out so stingy and restictive to the spell casre then it might take longer for them to become a nuisance.

He did say that the ranger and the paladin are going to be spell casting classes but they are no where near done yet.

He did also say that they were looking at the tiefling and the dragonborn to be more setting specific, and to better reflect their heritage. I kind of want the tiefling out of the gate because I accidentally incorporated them into my setting through a campaign I ran before tieflings existed. 

Tieflings need to be tainted, though. Maybe the race could be described as having any extraplanar heritage so the Tiefling and Aasimar are really two aspects of the same race.
So the guy who is completly invisible is easier to see than that half-orc hidding behind his finger? Lame.



I have to agree,  if that's the way invisiblity works in 5e that's a completely different concept then what we had in previous editions.        

Stealth is really a combination of moving silently and hiding in shadows and that's why 2e had two separate skills for it.    

I wonder how Invisbility works in a brightly lit 15x15 room (with no shadows) and a silence spell in effect?    

In D&D, Invisibility is a spell that makes you "Invisible" which is something a rogue should never be able to duplicate.   Hiding is very different than being magically invisible.


As for prestige classes...  oh no... not again... please.....  I thought we had that crap removed with backgrounds and specialties.    Please lets not go down that road again.     



   




So the guy who is completly invisible is easier to see than that half-orc hidding behind his finger? Lame.



Perceive, not see. Stealth is only purely about sight in video games. And not always even then.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
So the guy who is completly invisible is easier to see than that half-orc hidding behind his finger? Lame.



Perceive, not see. Stealth is only purely about sight in video games. And not always even then.



Personally I prefer the un-noticeability power somebody will walk around you without realising it... however many will forego revealing secrets because they subconciously know you are there .
  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."

 

"The wizard is actually due for a major update. We’re planning on adding the concept of an arcane tradition to the class. A tradition reflects how you studied magic and what kind of magic you are skilled in wielding. For instance, you might pick evocation magic as your tradition, making you an invoker. This grants you some bonus weapon and armor proficiencies, plus it gives you a list of invocation school spells that are your tradition’s signature spells. When you cast such a spell, you retain a shard of its magic. Five minutes later, you regain the ability to cast that spell. You don’t need to rest or anything to get the spell back. You studies and techniques allow you to prepare the spell in such a way that you regain its power."

Yeah, sorry that doesn't equal a non-vancian Wizard, that equals a non-vancian specialist Wizard. Also being able to cast fireball several times per encounter is just flat out broken. Without a reduction in power the specialists will be just as broken as previous editions. Not to mention they will get new armor and weapon proficiencies so they will be flat out better than the generalist Wizard. Sorry Mearls, but this doesn't work...

"It’s kind of funny, because we thought the wizard was done until we did the sorcerer and warlock. We learned some stuff from those classes and from the surveys that led us to flesh out school specialization into the idea of traditions."

In other words you heard an outcry for a non-vancian Wizard, then decided once again to shaft those of us that like 4E...

"It’s a little bit of a combination of the two. Some spells need to be reigned in, specifically utility spells that are too good for their level, spells that are really powerful when used in combination with other spells, and the ease of stocking up on magic items and spell slots to make those combinations possible."

So you are saying you will fix the Hold Person/Grease/Ghoul's Touch + Stinking Cloud issues in the play test packet? I'll hold you to that... It also means that spell slots must taper off at no more than 12-20 spell slots total...

"On the other end, there are some simple things we can do, like making sure that an invisible character isn’t as stealthy as a rogue without invisibility. The non-magical classes often rely on bonuses to die rolls rather than the sure things that magic can provide. The rogue in the playtest packet, as an example, is guaranteed a minimum result of 10 on die rolls with trained skills. So, we’re also finding ways to add depth and power to the non-caster classes."

So instead of forcing the Wizard to use arcana checks or giving the target a save for invisibility we give the Rogue auto successes at 1st level equal to superhuman and going up as they level. I can see the level 20 rogues saying from here on out I just take a '1' on any of my trained skill checks because I can't lose. I wouldn't exactly call that fixing anything, Mearls just shifted the power from the Wizard to the Rogue.

"Not really. It was much more answering the desire we saw from players for more round-by-round options for the fighter. The nice thing about expertise dice is that the complexity is in the players hands. We can design a range of options, from a straight forward, knock them over the head fighter, to a fighter who uses more cunning, parries, ripostes, and intricate tactics, to overcome an opponent."

I applaud you for this. Its a great start to a good class concept. Now you just need to flesh it out.

"Both the ranger and paladin will quite likely end up with spells. Neither class is far along in design, but it’s possible we might amp up the spells a little to make the classes more distinct from the fighter."

So those of us that want a martial only ranger or paladin (with smite abilities) are just screwed right?

"I think sneak attack is great as an option, but I also want to make archer rogues, rogues who use trickery and tactics to outfox opponents, rogues who are really good at dodging and frustrating enemies, stuff like that, all become possible. The one thing that I dislike about sneak attack is that it turns all rogues into assassins, or at least gets them to act like that during a fight. I think that when you look at rogues from AD&D, and from fiction, they aren’t all skirmishers or backstabbers.

From a design standpoint, it’s actually not hard at all to make that change. We just need to create options that are as strong as sneak attack and let people pick which ones they want."

Finally some common sense, we are hearing the talk but where's the walk?

"One of the things I’d like to explore is adding some options to the skill system to allow players to add more stuff to their character based on their background. Another idea I’d like to explore, especially as we develop material for settings, is to find ways to tie prestige classes and backgrounds together. For instance, maybe the Knight of the Rose prestige class requires the squire background or a special boon granted by the Grandmaster of the knights, along with the completion of certain tasks and such. I like the idea of fusing in-game actions into prestige classes to make them something you earn via your actions, rather than just something with mechanical prerequisites."

Oh, yay, we have to go back to 3.xE's building your entire character from level 1 to 20 before you even start playing again. I thought we got rid of that...

"Yes, we 100% plan to include multiclassing. Some specialties give you a light touch of another class, but the full system allows you to integrate multiple classes. I see this as simply another area where players can choose how deep they want to go into a class or archetype."

This sounds too much like 3.xE's buffet style multi-classing. The only way to properly do it would be a modified version of the 4E hybrids...

"It was 100% by design, and the intention is to open up spellcasting to more creative options. If we do it right, each spell has two parts. The first portion describes what’s happening in the world, and the second half has the pure mechanics. At some point, as we finish things up, we’ll have to give DMs guidance on how much they want to blend those two things. Some DMs might want 100% mechanics, with no creative casting. For other groups and DMs, driving the action with the story material and flavor is what makes the game interesting. Hopefully, the game sets things up so both groups can apply their approach to spells as they see fit."

This may have been the intent, but spend 5 minutes reading the spells and you realize that its all just mixed together and will cause many arguments...

"Those feats come from your specialty. When you choose a specialty, you basically get a pre-selected list of feats. However, you can mix and match feats as you wish. Some feats have prerequisites that you need to meet, but otherwise you can select them freely.

The idea, though, is to get players to think of that more like building their own, character-specific specialty that has a place in the world. You might pick options based solely on utility or power, but if we do our job right you can look at the specialties tied to those feats and fairly easily create a concept for how those feats fit together to say something about your character as a person."

In other words optimizers will break the system and those that just choose specialties will have the inferior choices....

Yeah, overall not impressed, they did a few things right, but still miss the point...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
This news about the Wizard is going to throw my calculations about class balance all off. I hope they improve the Rogue and Fighter to balance this out.  But it does explain why the Sorcerer seemed so much more powerful than the wizard.



As soon as they fix the broken spells, the Sorcerer is going to suck compared to the Wizard before adding traditions, let alone after...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
So the guy who is completly invisible is easier to see than that half-orc hidding behind his finger? Lame.


Invisibility won't stop you from casting a shadow


You do know how shadows work, right?

Yes, but do you know how invisiblity works?

Does it make you transparent, or does it show whats behind you to the viewer?

I believe there are other ways for invisiblity to work.

Invisibly could be a pyschological force, causing the person who is looking directly at you to be unable to see you. But they can see the effects around you.

It can be casting what is "behind to the front" and visa versa.

It can be slowing down the light in your area so that light doesn't escape your space creating a void.

It can turn all your cells transparent.

How invisiblity works will determine what can or cannot be detected. 



"invisible" means you can't see it.  If you can't see it, then you must see whatever's behind it.

Anything other than transparency means you can be seen.  Because that's how light works.  Even if you create the 'void' you describe, then it just makes you look like a black silhouette. 

Invisibility = transparency.  Nothing else, ever.

Now, if you really want to get nitpicky, we can discuss the fact that if you truly were invisible you'd also wouldn't be able to see anything yourself (otherwise your eyes would be visible).



By your own admission Invisibility can't be complete transparency, so it is probably an illusion that shows what is behind in front (The U.S. military is experimenting with this technology, look it up)
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
They're wrong, that's not how light works.

Your wrong, that is how light works.

If I show you exactly what is behind me, you will not see me, but I will cast shadows.  

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIGzpi9lCck 



Nice campaign setting you have there.  In my homebrew, light is the shining radience of the god of light in constant battle with the inky tendrils of the god of darkness.
Prestige classes ....

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo....

The rest sounds ok.   

They should be named Prestige Backgrounds.

What's so bad about it? 



I dislike the "changing" class concept.  Background doesn't make sense because background means back-ground.  I wouldn't mind additional specializations though.  I'm assuming the classes will get more of those.  

I banned them in 3e.  I wouldn't allow them if I played Pathfinder.  If they exist in 5e, I'll probably just ban them.  This is definitely not a deal breaker though for me.  It's easy to just ignore them.  I'd rather them spend time on specialties though.  

I don't like excessive multiclassing either.  I'll probably say - you can multiclass 2 classes equal level but nothing else.  These are minor houserules though.

 
I don't mind Prestige Classes, though I would very, very, VERY much prefer they actually stay "prestigious" - and not devolve into the "Look, new packs o' mechanics!" state they reached in 3e's later half (alright, so they might have reached that point immediately after the first DMG).  I liked the idea as it was introduced, but the implementation was... just terrible.  So bad.  I think Mand12 hit one of the major reasons (jumping through requirement hoops).



Yeah, PrCs were basically the enemy of organically built characters, since it forced you to have very specific builds to get PrCs as early as possible and meet the requirements.

I would prefer the prereqs for prestige classes be straight level requirements. So anyone of a given level could take it, and allow people to take one PrC maximum, to prevent all the dipping crap.