As a 3e fan, what I like about 5e

Hey, what the hell. I like the following:



  • Simplified feat selection through specialty

  • Simplified skill selection through background

  • Class options for all in easy to manage packets: tradition/scheme/style/domain

  • Mechanics coming in a slightly more predictable way

  • Advantage

  • A reduction (elimination?) of interacting feat prerequisites.

  • Simpler monster math


Basically I like that it offers the same level of character customisation, but in ways that are easier to deal with and with clear strategies on getting the right options based on character concept.

Edit: Nevermind.  Nothing to see here.  ;)

All around helpful simian

 Not a bad list. If they offer some of the customisation of 3rd ed with 4theds balance and 2nd ed style support I think we will be onto a winner.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

As another 3e fan, I most like:


  • Bounded accuracy

  • Advantage/Disadvantage

  • Magic doesn't automatically bypass defenses

  • 5-foot step requires a feat buy-in, but movement within a threatened zone is safe

  • No feat buy-in for two-weapon fighting

  • Unlimited cantrips

  • Spells prepared not tied to specific spell slots

  • Smaller numbers all around (except damage...)

  • Separate weapon and magic attack bonuses

  • Ability scores more important

  • Six types of saving throws, no level-based bonus

  • Every race except humans

  • Magic item properties and attunement rules

As a 3e fan I love

Bounded Accuracy
ABILITY SCORE CAPS!!!
No christmas tree of magic items
Hopefully a more functional multiclassing system
Not having to build monsters like PCs  
My two copper.

Hey, what the hell. I like the following:

Simplified feat selection through specialty
Simplified skill selection through background
Class options for all in easy to manage packets: tradition/scheme/style/domain
Mechanics coming in a slightly more predictable way
Advantage
A reduction (elimination?) of interacting feat prerequisites.
Simpler monster math
Basically I like that it offers the same level of character customisation, but in ways that are easier to deal with and with clear strategies on getting the right options based on character concept.

Specialties don't simplify the process because I still have to read through all the feats and decide if that is what I really want.
Backgrounds don't simplify the process because I can still pick skills a la carte and pick ones that are more optimized for my character's ability scores.
Backgrounds and specialties are interesting ideas but they ultimately fail to simplify the process of picking feats and skills unless the DM bans a la carte selection.

As a 3E fan, I love not having to buy each skill with points. Currently I love not having to plan my character 20 levels in advance so I know what class, what skills, and what feats to start with (Since 1st level choices can matter 10 levels or 20 levels down the line).

I love that the character does not need to fill every available body slot with magic items.

I love that fighters and rogues and other lower tier classes are now comparable to clerics and wizards in power.
As a 3e fan I love

Bounded Accuracy
ABILITY SCORE CAPS!!!
No christmas tree of magic items
Hopefully a more functional multiclassing system
Not having to build monsters like PCs  


Agreed.  Let's hope these stay.
As another 3e fan, I most like:


  • Bounded accuracy

  • Advantage/Disadvantage

  • Magic doesn't automatically bypass defenses

  • 5-foot step requires a feat buy-in, but movement within a threatened zone is safe

  • No feat buy-in for two-weapon fighting

  • Unlimited cantrips

  • Spells prepared not tied to specific spell slots

  • Smaller numbers all around (except damage...)

  • Separate weapon and magic attack bonuses

  • Ability scores more important

  • Six types of saving throws, no level-based bonus

  • Every race except humans

  • Magic item properties and attunement rules



Agreed, except for the cantrips.  I hate clerics casting Lance of Faith every round and Wizards casting Ray of Frost every time if they are conserving the higher level spells.  I would actually prefer them use mundane weapons if they are conserving magic.  It cheapens magic to use it every round in my opinion but many people wouldn't agree with that.  I want magic to be used less frequently than every round.
As another 3e fan, I most like:


  • Bounded accuracy

  • Advantage/Disadvantage

  • Magic doesn't automatically bypass defenses

  • 5-foot step requires a feat buy-in, but movement within a threatened zone is safe

  • No feat buy-in for two-weapon fighting

  • Unlimited cantrips

  • Spells prepared not tied to specific spell slots

  • Smaller numbers all around (except damage...)

  • Separate weapon and magic attack bonuses

  • Ability scores more important

  • Six types of saving throws, no level-based bonus

  • Every race except humans

  • Magic item properties and attunement rules



Agreed, except for the cantrips.  I hate clerics casting Lance of Faith every round and Wizards casting Ray of Frost every time if they are conserving the higher level spells.  I would actually prefer them use mundane weapons if they are conserving magic.  It cheapens magic to use it every round in my opinion but many people wouldn't agree with that.  I want magic to be used less frequently than every round.



I'm no fan of the laser beam Clerics either, but your basic utility spells like Light and Read Magic and such, I see no reason that they should cost a spell slot. I'd rather weaken the damaging cantrips than make the other cantrips limited again.

Specialties don't simplify the process because I still have to read through all the feats and decide if that is what I really want.

It totally simplifies it because I can go ahead and pick the "archer" specialty and know that I'll end up with an archer character. I don't have to trawl through a feat list to find the archery feats because there's a specialty that hands them to me.
Backgrounds don't simplify the process because I can still pick skills a la carte and pick ones that are more optimized for my character's ability scores.

Again, it means I don't have to go looking through because if I want a knight, I can say I'm a knight and be given a smaller menu of skills that are appropriate for that background. Same goes for a scholar. I can still optimise my background on the basis of my ability scores if I want to, but the process is still simplified because the menu is smaller than if I were to go ahead and pick things without a background.
Backgrounds and specialties are interesting ideas but they ultimately fail to simplify the process of picking feats and skills unless the DM bans a la carte selection.

You're assuming a few things that really are yet to be seen. First, you're assuming that the specialties will be significantly subpar to hand picking. So far, we haven't seen that but there is a reasonable chance that it'll end up that way, but even if specialties have to be loosened and direct you to two or three options at each level break, it would still vastly simplify feat selection. Second, you're assuming that the goal of characters derrived with basic, standard, and advanced rules being functionally the same will fail. I grant that it might fail, but we haven't seen it fail yet so there's no reason to assume it will.

What you're really saying is the system retains its complexity in spite of being offered simple ways into it. For me, that's a huge bonus.

As another 3e fan, I most like:

  • Bounded accuracy

  • Advantage/Disadvantage

  • Magic doesn't automatically bypass defenses

  • 5-foot step requires a feat buy-in, but movement within a threatened zone is safe

  • No feat buy-in for two-weapon fighting

  • Unlimited cantrips

  • Spells prepared not tied to specific spell slots

  • Smaller numbers all around (except damage...)

  • Separate weapon and magic attack bonuses

  • Ability scores more important

  • Six types of saving throws, no level-based bonus

  • Every race except humans

  • Magic item properties and attunement rules




I have pretty much the exact same list. I would also add Backgrounds to that, as I love the roleplaying flavor they add and I like how skills are mostly based on one's background instead of class. I don't agree with you about Two-Weapon Fighting, though. I really dislike the rules they have for TWF right now (having to use a light weapon in your off-hand, using the smaller weapon's damage for BOTH weapons, no ability bonus to either weapon's damage, etc.) I realize they need to make TWF balanced with one weapon, but this is overkill.



  • Simplified feat selection through specialty




I actually don't like this. People are going to look through the feats granted by each specialty before deciding which specialty to pick anyway. So it seems to me that it doesn't really simplify feat selection in any meaningful way. Also, I dislike the assumption that people should have to pick pre-packaged feats by default. I know that a-la-carte is an option, but I fear many DMs will try to make players pick a specialty instead, and that those who want to pick their own feats will be accused of power gaming.

I also think it is harmful to the creative process in creating feats. Why? Because you can't just really create a single feat anymore. You have to create a whole specialty to go along with it. That leads to people making up "filler" feats, and I dare say alot of the feats in the playtest packet are crappy filler feats. Instead of going with this whole specialty thing as a means to try and curb feat bloat (which it doesn't), they could simply just take a "less is more" attitude toward feat creation, and if a feat isn't worth taking, simply get rid of it.


  • Simplified feat selection through specialty

 


I actually don't like this. People are going to look through the feats granted by each specialty before deciding which specialty to pick anyway. So it seems to me that it doesn't really simplify feat selection in any meaningful way. Also, I dislike the assumption that people should have to pick pre-packaged feats by default. I know that a-la-carte is an option, but I fear many DMs will try to make players pick a specialty instead, and that those who want to pick their own feats will be accused of power gaming.

People will fight over options. There's precious little the designers can do about that and if we can't all be civil then probably we shouldn't play. I disagree that everyone will read ahead all the time. I know some folks will but that doesn't mean everyone will. I know I won't, at least not at first.

It's also important to note that even if you do read down the specialty, you're still only reading down a small list instead of sifting through all the feats to find what you want. Even if you read ahead, the process is simplified.


I also think it is harmful to the creative process in creating feats. Why? Because you can't just really create a single feat anymore. You have to create a whole specialty to go along with it. That leads to people making up "filler" feats, and I dare say alot of the feats in the playtest packet are crappy filler feats. Instead of going with this whole specialty thing as a means to try and curb feat bloat (which it doesn't), they could simply just take a "less is more" attitude toward feat creation, and if a feat isn't worth taking, simply get rid of it.

Possibly. I would simply create a feat and add them as options to existing specialties, or take existing feats to fill in my own custom built specialty. Most of the feats in the playtest aren't huge show stopping things, but I actually like that. I like that they're just more options because I feel that's how feats should be. There are loads of feats in 3e that I think are really cool but I'd never pick because "I need more out of my feats than that." I'd love to undermine this reaction to coolness and if it takes a general lessening on the impact of feats in the game system to do it, so be it.

I think if you're creative enough to write a feat, then you're probably creative enough to envision where it'd sit within a specialty. I don't see any problem at all with a specialty saying "pick one of these three things" instead of "you get this." I expect that's what will happen.

There are loads of feats in 3e that I think are really cool but I'd never pick because "I need more out of my feats than that." I'd love to undermine this reaction to coolness and if it takes a general lessening on the impact of feats in the game system to do it, so be it.



One thing I wish they would do is have combat feats and non-combat feats, and give players a number of each. That way, people could take some cool roleplaying type feats without having to worry about diminishing their ability to fight.

There are loads of feats in 3e that I think are really cool but I'd never pick because "I need more out of my feats than that." I'd love to undermine this reaction to coolness and if it takes a general lessening on the impact of feats in the game system to do it, so be it.

One thing I wish they would do is have combat feats and non-combat feats, and give players a number of each. That way, people could take some cool roleplaying type feats without having to worry about diminishing their ability to fight.

2e's non weapon proficiencies do that. I don't mind that idea but there's something appealing about limiting the number of steps in character creation (from "pick a specialty" to "pick a combat specialty, now pick a theme [non combat specialty]"). Also that does potentially double the number of feats to write.

One nice thing about thematic feats that aren't part of the combat selection stuff is it would allow you to tack it onto any system, which would enable edition neutral D&D.


I'm no fan of the laser beam Clerics either, but your basic utility spells like Light and Read Magic and such, I see no reason that they should cost a spell slot. I'd rather weaken the damaging cantrips than make the other cantrips limited again.




Yeah they really need to increase and diversify the list of cantrips and make the choice more agonising.
I don't think specialties and backgrounds make it any easier. They clog up the classes and skills chapters with fluff and still require the player to look up feats and skills in their respective chapters.

Specialties and backgrounds are just pre-gens in bare bones form. Most players don't touch pre-gens unless it's a one-shot. Shouldn't specialties and backgrounds be in the character creation chapter, since they are designed for new players, and that's the chapter new players are expected to be reading?
I love backgrounds.
I love that the classes instead of 3.5 where 2 skill point classes got NOTHING 
(Paladins, fighters, etc) as far as skills go, that now they at least get 4 which is something that
previously required being a Human and 12 intelligence.

I am whole-heartedly in favor of the decision to not mean High Intelligence=More Skilled.
Can Bill Gates pick locks, ride horses, play a lute and speak 9 separate languages?
Intelligence just means you are better at things that require intelligence. It doesn't
stand to reason for me that high Intelligence would allow somebody to max a skill out
and just be tremendously better at say, riding a horse or sneaking around in the shadows,
than somebody who didn't. Makes no sense.

I also am in favor of not having skill ranks, which are a total pain the ass.
Keeping the advances made from SAGA and 4E is a giant improvement to me.

I love that point buy is the default assumption instead of capricious, unbalancing dice rolling.
Mainly because I have CONSISTENTLY rolled terribly in rolling situations and consistently have
had to take default lower point buy and stat arrays which put me behind in power unfairly in
something that I literally had no control over AND it encouraged lying about stats.

"Hey Pete! Sick line! Your attribute dependent class rolled how many 17s, 16s and 15s?"
There were people coming to the table with  "Lottery Ticket Larry" stat lines that were thousands, tens of thousands,
millions to one against. You know it. You might even have even done it. Or else you did a mind numbing
series of rolls until you got a stat line that was both believable and that you could have said you rolled.

I love that races don't have negative attribute modifiers.

I love that the type of cleric you choose your charater to be and the God or Goddess
you choose it to worship has a much greater mechanical impact on your character.

As it stands, the martial classes are just about ready to go. I am very impressed with how they managed to
make the Barbarian, Fighter, Monk and Rogue interesting and fresh classes with tons of tactical decisions to make
and lots of impact on the game from low and high level alike. The Dungeons and Dragons Next implementation of
martial classes but the Fighter and Monk in particular is just brilliant compared to the 3/3.5 offering.

No more having a Rogue that can't sneak attack half of the universe. We're fighting evil plants. Can't be a rogue.
We're doing a dungeon crawl hack n slash packed with undead. Can't be a rogue. Gotta get items to let you sneak attack
constructs because you are assaulting the stronghold of a mad scientiest or evil wizard who LOVES golems and robots.
The decision from 4E and other systems to ditch the anatomy crap and let a Rogue be a Rogue is great.
I don't think specialties and backgrounds make it any easier. They clog up the classes and skills chapters with fluff and still require the player to look up feats and skills in their respective chapters.

Specialties and backgrounds are just pre-gens in bare bones form. Most players don't touch pre-gens unless it's a one-shot. Shouldn't specialties and backgrounds be in the character creation chapter, since they are designed for new players, and that's the chapter new players are expected to be reading?


Agreed.

I love that point buy is the default assumption instead of capricious, unbalancing dice rolling.
Mainly because I have CONSISTENTLY rolled terribly in rolling situations and consistently have
had to take default lower point buy and stat arrays which put me behind in power unfairly in
something that I literally had no control over AND it encouraged lying about stats.


I assume you are being facetious here since die-rolling is the default assumption.  I prefer die rollig but I think it is good that they have a point buy system as an option for people who like that.  This doesn't differ from 3E, since it had both random and point buy.  I think they should present random methods which result in a more fair distribution of ability scores among party members.

Here is from the packet, "Much of what your character can do in the game depend on his or her abilities (Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma). Each ability has a score, which is a number you record on your character sheet. Normally, you generate those numbers randomly by rolling dice. Roll four 6-‐sided dice (the ordinary cube dice found in many games) and total the highest three rolls, writing down that number on a piece of scratch paper. Do this five more times, so that you have six numbers." 


I love that races don't have negative attribute modifiers.


Positive or negative values are just numerical in nature.  Mathematically, it doesn't matter if one race receives +2 or another race gets -2.  What matters is the differential and the resulting modifiers. 


No more having a Rogue that can't sneak attack half of the universe. We're fighting evil plants. Can't be a rogue.
We're doing a dungeon crawl hack n slash packed with undead. Can't be a rogue. Gotta get items to let you sneak attack
constructs because you are assaulting the stronghold of a mad scientiest or evil wizard who LOVES golems and robots.
The decision from 4E and other systems to ditch the anatomy crap and let a Rogue be a Rogue is great.


Sometimes it is good to have advantages and disadvantages.  Clerics like fighting undead.  Rogues don't.  "Snakes.... why does it always have to be snakes." 

I like the balance that Next offers for the martial classes as well.  I tend to see the classes in terms of roleplaying and not the tactical fighting aspects.  I don't see D&D as a tactical fighting game.  I see it as a primarily roleplaying game.  Anything that can improve the roleplaying aspects is appreciated by me.  They have done a great job.


I have pretty much the exact same list. I would also add Backgrounds to that, as I love the roleplaying flavor they add and I like how skills are mostly based on one's background instead of class. I don't agree with you about Two-Weapon Fighting, though. I really dislike the rules they have for TWF right now (having to use a light weapon in your off-hand, using the smaller weapon's damage for BOTH weapons, no ability bonus to either weapon's damage, etc.) I realize they need to make TWF balanced with one weapon, but this is overkill.



Where are you getting these rules? That isn't how TWF works at all. The primary hand attack deals its normal damage die and normal bonuses, the off-hand attack deals only its damage die and no bonuses. And with the dual-wielding feat, you can use two one-handed weapons.
I love backgrounds.
I love that the classes instead of 3.5 where 2 skill point classes got NOTHING 
(Paladins, fighters, etc) as far as skills go, that now they at least get 4 which is something that
previously required being a Human and 12 intelligence.

I am whole-heartedly in favor of the decision to not mean High Intelligence=More Skilled.
Can Bill Gates pick locks, ride horses, play a lute and speak 9 separate languages?
Intelligence just means you are better at things that require intelligence. It doesn't
stand to reason for me that high Intelligence would allow somebody to max a skill out
and just be tremendously better at say, riding a horse or sneaking around in the shadows,
than somebody who didn't. Makes no sense.



I agree with that, I think the game is better served this way, and it's much simpler. Though there IS a rational behind the intelligence adding to the number of skill points:

Intelligent people need less time to understand concepts, and they learn more quickly from their mistakes. Thus, they don't need to practice a specific skill as much, freeing up time to master something else.

I'm not saying it was a good idea to put it in the game, just that it wasn't a completely idiotic concept. 
Try radiance RPG. A complete D20 game that supports fantasy and steampunk. Download the FREE PDF here: http://www.radiancerpg.com
Where are you getting these rules? That isn't how TWF works at all. The primary hand attack deals its normal damage die and normal bonuses, the off-hand attack deals only its damage die and no bonuses.



From the 012813 How to Play packet p. 15:
"Two-Weapon Fighting: When you wield two melee weapons at the same time, you can attack with both of them using a single action, provided at least one of them is a light weapon. You take a −2 penalty to both attack rolls, and you use only the light weapon’s damage dice to determine its damage; you add no bonuses to it. If both weapons are light, only one of them is limited in this way (you choose)."

You're right about the main hand weapon damage; I misread it. The rest of my complaints still apply, however.

And with the dual-wielding feat, you can use two one-handed weapons.



The person I was responding to was talking about how you don't need to spend a feat to use TWF, so I was only talking about the basic TWF rules. 
I'd like to see Intelligence improve skill selection, but if not, then at least Intelligence ought to do something for non-wizards. In 3e, Intelligence helped skills and Wisdom helped saves. Charisma was lacked a definable purpose outside CHA skills. I am hoping they rectify that.
Where are you getting these rules? That isn't how TWF works at all. The primary hand attack deals its normal damage die and normal bonuses, the off-hand attack deals only its damage die and no bonuses.



From the 012813 How to Play packet p. 15:
"Two-Weapon Fighting: When you wield two melee weapons at the same time, you can attack with both of them using a single action, provided at least one of them is a light weapon. You take a −2 penalty to both attack rolls, and you use only the light weapon’s damage dice to determine its damage; you add no bonuses to it. If both weapons are light, only one of them is limited in this way (you choose)."

You're right about the main hand weapon damage; I misread it. The rest of my complaints still apply, however.

And with the dual-wielding feat, you can use two one-handed weapons.



The person I was responding to was talking about how you don't need to spend a feat to use TWF, so I was only talking about the basic TWF rules. 



Well, yeah, but I think that's fine. Otherwise TWF would be too powerful when compared to the other base combat styles (one handed, two handed, sword-and-board, ranged). How would you do it?

Specialties don't simplify the process because I still have to read through all the feats and decide if that is what I really want.

It totally simplifies it because I can go ahead and pick the "archer" specialty and know that I'll end up with an archer character. I don't have to trawl through a feat list to find the archery feats because there's a specialty that hands them to me.
Backgrounds don't simplify the process because I can still pick skills a la carte and pick ones that are more optimized for my character's ability scores.

Again, it means I don't have to go looking through because if I want a knight, I can say I'm a knight and be given a smaller menu of skills that are appropriate for that background. Same goes for a scholar. I can still optimise my background on the basis of my ability scores if I want to, but the process is still simplified because the menu is smaller than if I were to go ahead and pick things without a background.
Backgrounds and specialties are interesting ideas but they ultimately fail to simplify the process of picking feats and skills unless the DM bans a la carte selection.

You're assuming a few things that really are yet to be seen. First, you're assuming that the specialties will be significantly subpar to hand picking. So far, we haven't seen that but there is a reasonable chance that it'll end up that way, but even if specialties have to be loosened and direct you to two or three options at each level break, it would still vastly simplify feat selection. Second, you're assuming that the goal of characters derrived with basic, standard, and advanced rules being functionally the same will fail. I grant that it might fail, but we haven't seen it fail yet so there's no reason to assume it will.

What you're really saying is the system retains its complexity in spite of being offered simple ways into it. For me, that's a huge bonus.





Why isn't anyone concerned with what lost?

Sure, less options = more simple.  But that shouldn't be the goal.... better should be the goal.  Now, if you can do the same thing with a simpler system, GREAT....but that isn't what we have for character cusstomization.  It is a simpler, more options-bare system.  Not necessarily better...just easier.  I can only hope that things get expanded upon by about tenfold in terms of class options/feats.  Keep the packages for newer players, of course, but add add add. 

This idea that smaller menu = easier = better cannot be used as a universal.  I don't like it... I know others who don't like it, there is enough proof right there.  I am hoping to see more variability within classes and more feats and customization options come out as the playtest unfolds.

Why isn't anyone concerned with what lost?

Sure, less options = more simple.  But that shouldn't be the goal.... better should be the goal.  Now, if you can do the same thing with a simpler system, GREAT....but that isn't what we have for character cusstomization.  It is a simpler, more options-bare system.  Not necessarily better...just easier.  I can only hope that things get expanded upon by about tenfold in terms of class options/feats.  Keep the packages for newer players, of course, but add add add. 

This idea that smaller menu = easier = better cannot be used as a universal.  I don't like it... I know others who don't like it, there is enough proof right there.  I am hoping to see more variability within classes and more feats and customization options come out as the playtest unfolds.


I want to agree with you but bloat scares me.  More options often means that some options just aren't any good and some are way too good.  I want the most customizable characters possible.  I want multiclasses, hybrid classes, subclasses, races, subraces, multiraces, feats, subfeats, etc. but I don't want it trickling out over dozens of splat books and I don't want the first set that is released to become obsolete by the time a dozen new sets have rolled out.

The core classes, core feats, and core races should still feel attractive.  If anything, they should be the upper bound.  Anything new should not surpass these.

If no one wants to play a 15th level fighter, wizard, cleric, or rogue, something is wrong.  The basic character should stand toe-to-toe with any fully customized character from more advanced rulesets without feeling dreadfully inferior.
There are loads of feats in 3e that I think are really cool but I'd never pick because "I need more out of my feats than that." I'd love to undermine this reaction to coolness and if it takes a general lessening on the impact of feats in the game system to do it, so be it.



One thing I wish they would do is have combat feats and non-combat feats, and give players a number of each. That way, people could take some cool roleplaying type feats without having to worry about diminishing their ability to fight.



I really like this idea.   Many people complain that each PC should be able to contribute in all three pillars some time during the adventure/campaign.  If each PC gets to choose 1 from column A, 1 from column B and 1 from column C the system would account for this complaint.    The big question would be when do the PCs get these feat choices (and would it cause feat/option overload), and maybe more importantly, what would happen if a player wanted to make and play a PC that was just good in one or two of the three pillars?  I'm sure there are players out there that would just want a combat centric PC, or a explorer/skill monkey extraordinaire, or a social butterfly that could talk his way out of nearly every situation.

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

There are loads of feats in 3e that I think are really cool but I'd never pick because "I need more out of my feats than that." I'd love to undermine this reaction to coolness and if it takes a general lessening on the impact of feats in the game system to do it, so be it.



One thing I wish they would do is have combat feats and non-combat feats, and give players a number of each. That way, people could take some cool roleplaying type feats without having to worry about diminishing their ability to fight.



I really like this idea.   Many people complain that each PC should be able to contribute in all three pillars some time during the adventure/campaign.  If each PC gets to choose 1 from column A, 1 from column B and 1 from column C the system would account for this complaint.    The big question would be when do the PCs get these feat choices (and would it cause feat/option overload), and maybe more importantly, what would happen if a player wanted to make and play a PC that was just good in one or two of the three pillars?  I'm sure there are players out there that would just want a combat centric PC, or a explorer/skill monkey extraordinaire, or a social butterfly that could talk his way out of nearly every situation.

The complaint is the result of some classes being designed to be superior out of combat by default. Splitting up feat selection this way doesn't solve this and could make it worse if some classes get more out of combat feat slots. I'd much rather have the classes designed to be balanced in and out of combat, and then let the player decide if they want to put more capability into a particular area. So how many feats go to fighting capability and how many go towards other uses should be left up to the player.

The developers should be focused on providing lots of quality options rather than trying to figure what the "right" mix of abilities is for each class.
Well, yeah, but I think that's fine. Otherwise TWF would be too powerful when compared to the other base combat styles (one handed, two handed, sword-and-board, ranged). How would you do it?



I would probably do it more like 3rd edition, where the attack penalty is more severe than -2, and instead of saying that you don't get an off-hand attack at all unless the off-hand weapon is light, I would just give a steeper penalty for non-light weapons.
Why isn't anyone concerned with what lost?

Sure, less options = more simple.  But that shouldn't be the goal.... better should be the goal.  Now, if you can do the same thing with a simpler system, GREAT....but that isn't what we have for character cusstomization.  It is a simpler, more options-bare system.  Not necessarily better...just easier.  I can only hope that things get expanded upon by about tenfold in terms of class options/feats.  Keep the packages for newer players, of course, but add add add. 

This idea that smaller menu = easier = better cannot be used as a universal.  I don't like it... I know others who don't like it, there is enough proof right there.  I am hoping to see more variability within classes and more feats and customization options come out as the playtest unfolds.

Why do you think they've lost that. The thing that makes this approach so successful is that it happens without losing any of the complexity because you're free to delve on your own. What you're not free to do is delve on your own and get something automatically superior, which is fine by me.

As for more options, there's no need to hope. It's pretty much a given that options will expand. The thing they're trying to do is have them expand horizontally more than vertically (and as someone said, it's more diagonal but that's still a change for the better), and since new options will be integrated into specialties in some way that means you're never going to really end up in a situation where specialty is strictly the inferior method in terms of character power levels.


I grok that it's an inferior method to some people who really want to pick everything. That's cool and the game doesn't take that away from you.

Well, I thought we have point buy in these packets but the new one doesn't and still uses
the gimped stat line. Boo, Wizards. That is a step backwards from 4E for me.

I like that this edition kept Skill Tricks for the Rogue and hopefully the Bard will get one too
when it is released. That was one of the things I really liked about later 3.5

Props to the company for talking about Demons and Devils instead of the silliness of before.
I like that the company stuck with that choice. Did anybody ever really talk about tanar'i and baatezu? 

I think the monsters will be more easier converted from 3/3.5 Dungeons and Dragons and Pathfinder
but I also like how there are strong abilities with charging and recharging from 4E. Now if only the creatures
lasted more than 2 rounds...

Props to the company for talking about Demons and Devils instead of the silliness of before.
I like that the company stuck with that choice. Did anybody ever really talk about tanar'i and baatezu? 

I did, still do, and won't stop! But I don't need the company to make a choice like that for me. They could remove demons and devils entirely from the game and it wouldn't stop me from using Baator.

I think some of the decision-makers wanted to escape using the terms demons and devils to avoid upsetting the parents who claimed that D&D was leading their children into devil-worshipping.  If that was the intent, they didn't try very hard however. Tanari and Baatezu never stuck.  Probably because the words demon and devil are so much easier to remember and to say.  I am not sure such a simple change could influence those who would find fault anyway.  Strange that C.S. Lewis and Tolkien are beloved by many Christians while other fantasy books are reviled as promoting devil-worship and witchcraft.
Sign In to post comments