I am of the opinion that whenever a book introduces a new class, then the entire class should be included. That means the core books, too.
Only if the class has an end. No reason that a L11-20 book couldn't be followed by a L21-30 book or even a L31-40 book.
All classes have an end. There's always a level past which the level progression charts don't go. If Wizards wants to do some Epic-style thing like they did in 3E, then that's fine. I won't bother with it. But, if the game goes up to 20, levels 1-20 should be in the PHB. If the game goes to 30, then levels 1-30 should be in the PHB.
I don't know many people who would put down hard-earned money (and let's face it, disposable income is becoming scarcer) on half, a third or a quarter of a class. I know I won't; that's why I never bothered with Dragon Age. I want the entire class in one book. I don't care if they split up the charts by tier like they do in the 4e Essentials books, but if I buy the PHB, then the PHB needs to be the only book I need to play any of the classes that are included in it, up to the maximum supported level of the game.
There was a topic like this earlier and he makes a case for it too, but my answer remains No.
Finished copy for the Core. If anything I'd like it to be more like Pathfinder where the Players Handbook is really the only book you need to play the game and the DM guide and Beastiary are what you need if you really want to get into it on the DM side.
I'd like to add my voice to the choir and say no way.
As for gritty vs epic campaign settings, yeah there's something in that and a DM will do that anyway. That choice of play style is often recognized in the writing. But putting specific math to it is probably a mistake if for no other reason it'll create an expectation that the DM will always use the same parameters, and they won't. At least it'll do that, at worst it'll create 3 concurrent versions of the game that all have to be updated independantly of each other.
But yeah please no half baked ideas in publication. We have enough of those that do cover the basics to house rule around without them publishing half finished stuff.
I'll be honest. I truly want the idea of arbitrary tiers to die in a fire. It's far too metagamey for me, and it leads to the awkwardly implied notion that characters of certain levels aren't allowed to go certain places or do certain things based on that arbitrary designation.
Yes, we'd love to help the village fight off the undead baron from the keep of clan McCliche, but we won't be that tier for another level, so sorry.
I'll be honest. I truly want the idea of arbitrary tiers to die in a fire. It's far too metagamey for me, and it leads to the awkwardly implied notion that characters of certain levels aren't allowed to go certain places or do certain things based on that arbitrary designation.
Yes, we'd love to help the village fight off the undead baron from the keep of clan McCliche, but we won't be that tier for another level, so sorry.
Tiers. Ugg.
Maybe at the edges of the teirs it's silly but in the extremes it's one of those things we can just use to talk about what kind of game we're doing. Like I wouldn't pitt a goup of lvl 5 characters against a fortress full of storm giants and carving them into two different tiers is a reasonable way of keeping that distinction more or less intact.
But in principle yes, a lvl 3 character isn't different enough from a lvl 4 character to stop them from going into that tier's content.
I prefer levels 1-20, with the character progression starting to slow around 10th level in regards to raw power, but at the same time through prestige classes, paragon paths, or similar mechanisms the scope of the characters start to move over into group based effects and world building. They can release a Epic edition later.
Here's a question, what if levels 11-20 were fundamentally different? Such as not having regular classes at all, which end at L10, and only having Prestige Classes or Paragon Paths at that point?
And given the majority of players and games focus on low levels (1-10), if the first book focuses on that the most content can be generated for the levels people are most likely to see and have a chance to use (instead of having a third of every book focusing on levels and spells and monsters players will never use). Instead the higher levels are there for people who want to play them but you also don't need to cart around books of monsters and spells for low levels that will also never be used.
Let's face it, the playtest has been public for half a year and we've only seen a quarter of the levels. Even if the playtest goes the full two years we're unlikely to really get the same amount of time to test high level play before they need to get the books to print. We might get two books of 15 levels each.
Before posting, ask yourself WWWS: What Would Wrecan Say? Spoiler:Show
My Webcomic
Updated Tuesday and Thursday
Read my blog on the WotC Community Site (updated irregularly to avoid spamming the "Featured Blogger" list).
Here's a question, what if levels 11-20 were fundamentally different? Such as not having regular classes at all, which end at L10, and only having Prestige Classes or Paragon Paths at that point?
And given the majority of players and games focus on low levels (1-10), if the first book focuses on that the most content can be generated for the levels people are most likely to see and have a chance to use (instead of having a third of every book focusing on levels and spells and monsters players will never use). Instead the higher levels are there for people who want to play them but you also don't need to cart around books of monsters and spells for low levels that will also never be used.
Let's face it, the playtest has been public for half a year and we've only seen a quarter of the levels. Even if the playtest goes the full two years we're unlikely to really get the same amount of time to test high level play before they need to get the books to print. We might get two books of 15 levels each.
Well if they did design the game that way then it'd make sense but I don't think they will. For a start, it's reinventing the wheel in a place nobody's particularly asking for a change. 1-20 is the traditional range, 4e did the 1-30 thing and that's fine too but really, there's a basic expectation in the player base that we're going to see at least 20, maybe 30 levels worth of game in the book. If they decide to confound that expectation then they better have a good reason to do it. Also we don't want to go down the road of shaking up more than you have to with this edition. They've got enough on their hands with trying to let everyone play whatever they want, systems wise, without having to add different books to encompass different levels and big distinctions between the breaking points as well.
Basically I think the change would be a bad move because it's a change that nobody's really asked for that disrupts our general preconceptions about what D&D is.
There's also the perception that more level range = more game. That's not necessarily true but just look at how video games have expanded crpgs more or less since the beginning: first thing they do is raise the level or xp ceiling. People buy it because they want to feel like they're getting more powerful. We all know that power is relative and largely illusionary because the DM can always put something on the table that'll wreck you but we still buy it.
Instead of 6 or 8 classes from levels 1-20 there can be 12+ classes from 1-10.
No thanks. I'd rather have the 4 classic D&D races and classes from levels 1-20 in a Basic set (as an homage to classic D&D), and an alternative Expert set that features 10 classes from levels 1-20 plus some expanded material (essentially in the same format as the hardbound editions from 1st through 4th).
I'm a huge fan of the classic Mentzer boxed editions (BECMI), but the thing that always bugged me about them was having to wait until each boxed was released before I could advance my characters. Also, having the rules cut up and distributed over several sets was disjointing and created inconsistencies between rules. I'd much rather see a rules-light Basic edition in the spirit of the original BECMI sets, but with more cohesion and clarity.
Also this would make a nice analogy to the game's history, as the Basic set would be in the spirit of the classic D&D game, whereas the Expert set would be more akin to AD&D — each filling the same niche as their predecessors, but being 100% compatible with each other this time around.
I firmly believe that there should be two editions of the game; the core rules released as a "Basic" set and a more complicated expanded rules edition released as an "Expert" set. These two editions would provide separate entry points to the game; one for new players or players that want a more classic D&D game and another entry point for experienced gamers that want more options and all the other things they have come to expect from previous editions.
Also, they must release several rules modules covering the main elements of the game (i.e., classes, races, combat, magic, monsters, etc.) upon launch to further expand the game for those that still need more complexity in a particular element of the game.
This boxed set contains a simple, "bare bones" edition of the game; the core rules. It's for those that want a rules-light edition of the game that is extremely modifiable or for new players that get intimidated easily by too many rules and/or options. The Basic Set contains everything needed to play with all the "classic" D&D races (i.e., Human, Dwarf, Elf, and Halfling) and classes (i.e., Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard) all the way up to maximum level (i.e., 20th Level).
The Basic boxed set contains:
Quick Start Rules A "choose your own way" adventure intended as an intro to RPGs and basic D&D terms. Player's Handbook (Softcover, 125 pages) Features rules for playing the classic D&D races and classes all the way up to 20th level. Dungeon Master's Guide (Softcover, 125 pages) Includes the basic rules for dungeon masters.
Monster Manual (Softcover, 100 pages) Includes all the classic iconic monsters from D&D.
Introductory Adventure (Keep on the Borderlands) An introductory adventure for beginning players and DMs.
Also includes:
Character Sheets Reference Sheets Set of Dice
ExpertSet
A set of hardbound rules that contains the core rules plus expanded races and classes, more spells and a large selection of optional rules modules — that is, pretty much everything that experienced players have come to expect. Each expert edition manual may be purchased separately, or in a boxed set. The Expert set includes:
Expert PHB (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus 10 playable races, 10 character classes, expanded selection of spells and rules modules for players.) Expert DMG (Hardcover, 250 pages. $35 Includes core rules plus expanded rules modules for DMs.) Expert MM (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes an expanded list of monsters and creatures to challenge characters)
Expansions
These expansion rules modules can be used with both the Basic and Expert sets. Each expansion covers one specific aspect of the game, such as character creation, combat, spells, monsters, etc.)
Hall of Heroes (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes a vast selection of playable character races and classes, new and old all in one book) Combat and Tactics (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes dozens of new and old optional rules for combat all in one book) Creature Compendium (Hardcover, 350 pages.$35 Includes hundreds of monsters, new and old all in one book) The Grimoire (Hardcover, 225 pages. $35 Includes hundreds of new and old spells all in one book)
A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on DamageShow
A Million Hit Points of Light: Shedding Light on Damage and Hit Points
In my personal campaigns, I use the following system for damage and dying. It's a slight modification of the long-standing principles etsablished by the D&D game, only with a new definition of what 0 or less hit points means. I've been using it for years because it works really well. However, I've made some adjustments to take advantage of the D&D Next rules. I've decided to present the first part in a Q&A format for better clarity. So let's begin...
What are hit points? The premise is very simple, but often misunderstood; hit points are an abstraction that represent the character's ability to avoid serious damage, not necessarily their ability to take serious damage. This is a very important distinction. They represent a combination of skillful maneuvering, toughness, stamina and luck. Some targets have more hit points because they are physically tougher and are harder to injure...others have more because they are experienced combatants and have learned how to turn near fatal blows into mere scratches by skillful maneuvering...and then others are just plain lucky. Once a character runs out of hit points they become vulnerable to serious life-threatening injuries.
So what exactly does it mean to "hit" with a successful attack roll, then? It means that through your own skill and ability you may have wounded your target if the target lacks the hit points to avoid the full brunt of the attack. That's an important thing to keep in mind; a successful "hit" does not necessarily mean you physically damaged your target. It just means that your attack was well placed and forced the target to exert themselves in such a way as to leave them vulnerable to further attacks. For example, instead of severing the target's arm, the attack merely grazes them leaving a minor cut.
But the attack did 25 points of damage! Why did it only "graze" the target? Because the target has more than 25 hit points. Your attack forced them to exert a lot of energy to avoid the attack, but because of their combat skill, toughness, stamina and luck, they managed to avoid being seriously injured. However, because of this attack, they may not have the reserves to avoid your next attack. Perhaps you knocked them off balance or the attack left them so fatigued they lack the stamina to evade another attack. It's the DM's call on how they want to narrate the exact reason the blow didn't kill or wound the target.
Yeah, but what about "touch" attacks that rely on physical contact? Making physical contact with a target is a lot different than striking them, so these types of attacks are the exception. If a touch attack succeeds, the attacker manages to make contact with their target.
If hit points and weapon damage don't always represent actual damage to the target, then what does it represent? Think of the damage from an attack as more like a "threat level" rather than actual physical damage that transfers directly to the target's body. That is, the more damage an attack does, the harder it is to avoid serious injury. For example, an attack that causes 14 points of damage is more likely to wound the target than 3 points of damage (depending on how many hit points the target has left). The higher the damage, the greater the chance is that the target will become seriously injured. So, an attack that does 34 points of damage could be thought of as a "threat level of 34." If the target doesn't have the hit points to negate that threat, they become seriously injured.
Ok, but shouldn't armor reduce the amount of damage delivered from an attack? It does reduce damage; by making it harder for an attack to cause serious injury. A successful hit against an armored target suggests that the attack may have circumvented the target's armor by striking in a vulnerable area.
What about poison and other types of non-combat damage? Hit point loss from non-physical forms of damage represents the character spitting the poison out just in time before it takes full strength or perhaps the poison just wasn't strong enough to affect them drastically, but still weakens them. Again, it's the DMs call on how to narrate the reasons why the character avoids serious harm from the damage.
If hit points don't don't represent actual damage then how does that make sense with spells like Cure Serious Wounds and other forms of healing like healer kits with bandages? Hit points do represent some physical damage, just not serious physical damage. Healing magic and other forms of healing still affect these minor wounds just as well as more serious wounds. For example, bandaging up minor cuts and abrasions helps the character rejuvenate and relieve the pain and/or fatigue of hit point loss. The key thing to remember is that it's an abstraction that allows the DM freedom to interpret and narrate it as they see fit.
What if my attack reduces the target to 0 or less hit points? If a player is reduced to 0 or less hit points they are wounded. If a monster or NPC is reduce to 0 or less hit points they are killed.
Why are monsters killed immediately and not players? Because unless the monsters are crucial to the story, it makes combat resolution much faster. It is assumed that players immediately execute a coup de grace on wounded monsters as a finishing move.
What if a character is wounded by poison or other types of non-physical damage? If a character becomes wounded from non-combat damage they still receive the effects of being wounded, regardless if they show any physical signs of injury (i.e., internal injuries are still considered injuries).
Ok. I get it...but what happens once a character is wounded? See below.
Damage and Dying
Once a character is reduced to 0 or less hit points, they start taking real damage. In other words, their reserves have run out and they can no longer avoid taking serious damage.
Characters are fully operational as long as they have 1 hit point or more. They may have minor cuts, bruises, and superficial wounds, but they are are not impaired significantly.
Once they reach 0 or less hit points, they become Wounded (see below).That is, they have sustained a wound that impairs their ability to perform actions.
If they reach a negative amount of hit points equal or greater than their Constitution score, they are Incapacitated. This means they are in critical condition and could possibly die.
Characters will die if their hit points reach a negative amount greater than their Constitution score, plus their current level.
Unharmed: 1 hp or more Wounded: 0 hp or less Incapacitated: -(Constitution) to -(Constitution+Level) Dead: Less than -(Constitution +Level)
Wounded When the character reaches 0 or less hit points they become wounded. Wounded characters receive disadvantage on all attacks and saving throws until they heal back up to 1 hit point or more. This allows for a transitory stage between healthy and dying, without having to mess around with impairment rules while the character still has hit points left.
Incapacitated Characters begin dying when they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution score. At which point, they must make a DC 10 Constitution saving throw on each of their following turns (the disadvantage from being wounded does not apply for these saving throws).
If successful, the character remains dying, but their condition does not worsen.
If the saving throw fails, another DC 10 Constitution saving throw must be made. If that one fails, the character succumbs to their wounds and dies. If successful, the character stabilizes and is no longer dying.
Finally, if a dying character receives first aid or healing at any point, they immediately stabilize.
Dead Characters will die if they reach a negative amount of hit points equal to their Constitution, plus their current level. Thus, if an 8th level character with a Constitution score of 12 is down to 4 hit points then takes 24 points of damage (reducing their hit points to -20) the attack kills them outright.
personaly i would like to see a sligtly difrent way of epic/high level play then we seen before.
baicly removing the level cap. in AD&D 2nd edition hit dice stoped advancing at about level 10 and for me anything beond that level was considerd high level play.
What if in 5th the hit dice and atack bonusus max out at level 20 but you just keep advancing in levels, still gaining benifits from class and speacialty but advancement in HD and to hit basicly stops. also classes run out at level 20 so you might have to advance side ways when you are maxed out in a class.
in my opinion this has the folowing benifits: you can still advance your character in intresting ways. level 20 monsters remain relevant becouse you might have more options to your disposel by advancing side ways but your still limited by what you can to in a round. so you woulden't have to come up with stronger and stronger oponents just many that can still be intresting at lvl 20
