|
7 months ago ::
Nov 08, 2012 - 10:24AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
I don't understand why these particular tidbits of information couldn't have been provided earlier, maybe even as part of the playtest package.
Sounds like they had some decent reasons for many of these changes they made, like removing the Two-Weapon speciality because it wasn't ready, but they didn't tell us this, so anyone looking at the playtest and thinking about wanting to playtest the two-weapon fighting rules were unsure about what to do.
I can understand their reasons behind minor spells and why they don't want them all to be automatically at-will and it makes sense, but, again, why not share that information in the playtest package?
It would be useful on our end, but the issue is more that they have limited time. I can't fault them for it, particularly because there are those of us who read through this packet and recognized all of these points and didn't go Chicken Little  on everything.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 08, 2012 - 10:25AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2007
|
The proficiency bonus isn't mathematically necessary. It exists only to provide general thematic differences among classes. A Fighter knows how to use a greatsword, but a Wizard doesn't (not without some character-specific training, at least).
The removal of the proficiency bonus from the items and their categorized groupings in the class proficiency list and the addition of that bonus into the general class removes this function, doesn't do anything positive for the system math, and actively discourages against-type character creation.
If I pick a Fighter, get a high Int score, choose maneuvers that have nothing to do with weapons, pick up the Arcane Dabbler feat and get Shocking Grasp, I end up with a sucky character for no reason other than the Fighter's lack of a class accuracy bonus to magic attacks. Literally nothing else in the class in any way is affected by my choice of using Shocking Grasp over a weapon. Why? Why deny this concept? Particularly when the whole point of the Arcane Dabbler feat is to allow for people who aren't wizards to use arcane magic.
I'm terrible with math, so I can't evaluate the math behind it all. Do you have a suggestion on how to fix the accuracy bonus? I'd love to give it a try.
In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.5e should strongly stay away from "I don't like it, so you can't have it either."
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 08, 2012 - 10:29AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2007
|
... why not share that information in the playtest package?
It would be useful on our end, but the issue is more that they have limited time. I can't fault them for it, particularly because there are those of us who read through this packet and recognized all of these points and didn't go Chicken Little on everything.
Not everyone can recognise what the designers are looking for just by reading through the packet. When I set up a playtest for games I'm on the dev team for, I always include what we're testing for so the playtesters don't go off on tangents and miss the points I'm looking for. The only times I don't is when the specific dev is running the playtest, and can direct the play to hit the points he needs.
In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.5e should strongly stay away from "I don't like it, so you can't have it either."
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 08, 2012 - 10:29AM
#34
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Er, well, remove it entirely.
The problem with doing that is that the monster packet is rather broken at the moment, so nothing really will work all that well, even if you change nothing. I think it was last week's Q&A where they mentioned that, maybe two weeks ago. The gist of it though is that the "baseline" for the class bonus appears to be +2. That's what the sortof-hybrid melee-magic classes like the Cleric and Sorcerer got. Whereas the Fighter and Wizard got +3. If you really want to test it with the least disruption to the system, set that accuracy bonus for +2 to all attacks for all classes. But to emphasize just how arbitrary that is, you could also remove the bonus entirely and just drop all monster ACs by 2.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 08, 2012 - 10:35AM
#35
|
|
|
Er, well, remove it entirely.
The problem with doing that is that the monster packet is rather broken at the moment, so nothing really will work all that well, even if you change nothing. I think it was last week's Q&A where they mentioned that, maybe two weeks ago. The gist of it though is that the "baseline" for the class bonus appears to be +2. That's what the sortof-hybrid melee-magic classes like the Cleric and Sorcerer got. Whereas the Fighter and Wizard got +3. If you really want to test it with the least disruption to the system, set that accuracy bonus for +2 to all attacks for all classes. But to emphasize just how arbitrary that is, you could also remove the bonus entirely and just drop all monster ACs by 2.
Not quite.
I mean, if a wizard want's to hit something with a mace, he should have a worse time then the fighter and the cleric. Ergo, you need to add a bonus to the fighter and cleric.
+0 for untrained, +2 for proficent, and +3 for mastery seem right to me.
guides
Show
my builds
Show
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.
Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.
Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.
King Fisher Does an excellent job at keeping an enemy disabled in a few ways. Strong.
Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.
Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.
Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.
Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.
Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.
Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.
Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.
Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.
Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.
Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.
Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.
Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.
Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.
Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.
The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.
Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power
Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken
Unnamed Avenger|Runepriest/Hammer of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.
Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.
Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.
Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight, only far more broken.
Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.
Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 08, 2012 - 10:37AM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
He should have a worse time. Unless, of course, he spent a feat allowing him to be better at it.
Which is what Arcane Dabbler should do.
That it doesn't is my exact concern, but I place the blame more on the class bonus structure than on the feat itself.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 08, 2012 - 10:38AM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
I don't understand why these particular tidbits of information couldn't have been provided earlier, maybe even as part of the playtest package.
Sounds like they had some decent reasons for many of these changes they made, like removing the Two-Weapon speciality because it wasn't ready, but they didn't tell us this, so anyone looking at the playtest and thinking about wanting to playtest the two-weapon fighting rules were unsure about what to do.
I can understand their reasons behind minor spells and why they don't want them all to be automatically at-will and it makes sense, but, again, why not share that information in the playtest package?
Why couldn't you easily figure it out on your own? I certainly did. Maybe its because I work in QA and understand how testing stuff actually works. I didn't figure out the exact reasons for everything but I at least figured out okay this isn't completely covered yet, this is obviously an alpha test to see if these things work at all not to see if they are correctly executed in their entirety. I just knew by looking at it that the maneuver lists would change and expand at a later date. I knew some kind of dual wielding builds would be available either in classes or in specialties. It would be a waste of the devs time to sit there and tell people where the system isn't yet finished, and what the future of that area looks like, because, holy crap, this is an unfinished alpha test. They would have to do that for every single packet they release which would cost a ton of money and slow down the process as a whole.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 08, 2012 - 10:39AM
#38
|
|
|
It would be useful on our end, but the issue is more that they have limited time. I can't fault them for it, particularly because there are those of us who read through this packet and recognized all of these points and didn't go Chicken Little on everything.
But it matters immensely for some things and the descriptions don't even need to be especially long. The removal of the Two-Weapon fighting speciality is an excellent case in point. How hard is it to write "removed because it was not ready for this playtest package"? The designers certainly found time to write an answer here and if they spent even a minute reading the threads that are dedicated to that issue or a minute reading comments people will probably make on the surveys over this issue, then they are ultimately wasting their own time by not indicating things like that.
I'm not looking for a two page description of why they abandonned the Rogue from playtest package 2 (although if they want to provide that, then sure, I'll read it), but a single sentence shouldn't be that hard.
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 08, 2012 - 10:40AM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
Did you really have to edit out my ? 
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
7 months ago ::
Nov 08, 2012 - 10:48AM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
Another reason why class-based accuracy bonuses suck, however.
So the player might choose a weapon [A weapon/SOME weapons/a weapons GROUP] for his "proficiencies" in the class rather than getting them all in a lump at 1st level? That would certainly make PCs more distinct and help cut down on the frontloading issue. Also, Specialities or Backgrounds could include proficiencies for players wanting a quick PC or for players wanting to make custom BGs or SPs for their games.
The proficiency bonus isn't mathematically necessary. It exists only to provide general thematic differences among classes. A Fighter knows how to use a greatsword, but a Wizard doesn't (not without some character-specific training, at least).
The removal of the proficiency bonus from the items and their categorized groupings in the class proficiency list and the addition of that bonus into the general class removes this function, doesn't do anything positive for the system math, and actively discourages against-type character creation.
If I pick a Fighter, get a high Int score, choose maneuvers that have nothing to do with weapons, pick up the Arcane Dabbler feat and get Shocking Grasp, I end up with a sucky character for no reason other than the Fighter's lack of a class accuracy bonus to magic attacks. Literally nothing else in the class in any way is affected by my choice of using Shocking Grasp over a weapon. Why? Why deny this concept? Particularly when the whole point of the Arcane Dabbler feat is to allow for people who aren't wizards to use arcane magic.
what is the concept you are going for with that build? like what character are you trying to build?
While the arcane initiate feat, when used by a non wizard, is there to allow non-wizards to use magic it is not there for non-wizards to rely on magic. Essentially the arcane dabbler is there to give you a utility not an attack.
|
|
|
