John Proudfoot : Worried about this idea of increased class complexity, though. I want all classes to be as simple as the simplest fighter.
Mike Mearls : That's a trickier thing to do, because casters by definition lean more on exceptions-based rules, even in simplest form.
This makes me sad because they've already made a simple caster - the 3e Warlock - and replicating the feel of that class in 5e should be easy. The 3e warlock was my hands-down favorite class from that edition because it gave me the reality-warping option of playing a caster without having to fiddle with Vancian mechanics. It was just so much fun to play.
This makes me sad because they've already made a simple caster - the 3e Warlock - and replicating the feel of that class in 5e should be easy. The 3e warlock was my hands-down favorite class from that edition because it gave me the reality-warping o
We need a system that will attract new players to the hobby. If their first game session is spent making characters and very little playtime occurs the hobby will continue suffer.
And if the first game session is spent making a character quickly because there is barely anything to them, ending combat quickly because there are barely any options, and dying quickly only to quickly make another character pretty much identical to the old one, the hobby will continue to suffer.
New players need a game that is engaging. Speed is an ok goal alongside providing meaningful choices in character creation AND gameplay. Trying to just expediate characters from craddle to grave is not going to be engaging.
And if the first game session is spent making a character quickly because there is barely anything to them, ending combat quickly because there are barely any options, and dying quickly only to quickly make another character pretty much identical to
We need a system that will attract new players to the hobby. If their first game session is spent making characters and very little playtime occurs the hobby will continue suffer.
What's wrong with this method? My first session playing D&D involved nothing more than a short practice battle, and I didn't have a problem with that. The reason is that if a person wants to play D&D, then they are almost certainly the type of person who is willing to give it a fair shake before giving up. If a person gives up after a single session, then they probably wouldn't enjoy D&D no matter how they were introduced.
What's wrong with this method? My first session playing D&D involved nothing more than a short practice battle, and I didn't have a problem with that. The reason is that if a person wants to play D&D, then they are almost certainly the type of person
New players need a game that is engaging. Speed is an ok goal alongside providing meaningful choices in character creation AND gameplay. Trying to just expediate characters from craddle to grave is not going to be engaging.
Exactly. As someone who is relatively new to D&D and RPGs, what really hooked me from the beginning was the fact that my character (a 4E Rogue) had really cool abilities that I was itching to try out. Waiting an extra week before the campaign really began was hardly a barrier.
Exactly. As someone who is relatively new to D&D and RPGs, what really hooked me from the beginning was the fact that my character (a 4E Rogue) had really cool abilities that I was itching to try out. Waiting an extra week before the campaign really
We need a system that will attract new players to the hobby. If their first game session is spent making characters and very little playtime occurs the hobby will continue suffer.
And if the first game session is spent making a character quickly because there is barely anything to them, ending combat quickly because there are barely any options, and dying quickly only to quickly make another character pretty much identical to the old one, the hobby will continue to suffer.
New players need a game that is engaging. Speed is an ok goal alongside providing meaningful choices in character creation AND gameplay. Trying to just expediate characters from craddle to grave is not going to be engaging.
IMO, D&D is not a character building game. We don't need many mechanics for the role playing aspect of the system. Combat is also just a means to an end in D&D and it usually isn't the main focus of a typical session. What's important is that a new player gets to roleplay their character alongside easy to understand and intuitive rules that support character actions. IMO, build options and combat options are not really all that important for a player who is new to role playing.
In our games, when a new player wants to attack with his sword or climb the wall the DM simply tells him what to roll. A new player doesn't need to be confused with power cards and all that fancy stuff. All the new player need do is put himself in the shoes of his character and interact with the fantasy world in partner with everyone at the table. After all, the D&D game is a product of your imagination and not a product of mechanical options.
And if the first game session is spent making a character quickly because there is barely anything to them, ending combat quickly because there are barely any options, and dying quickly only to quickly make another character pretty much identical to
We need a system that will attract new players to the hobby. If their first game session is spent making characters and very little playtime occurs the hobby will continue suffer.
And if the first game session is spent making a character quickly because there is barely anything to them, ending combat quickly because there are barely any options, and dying quickly only to quickly make another character pretty much identical to the old one, the hobby will continue to suffer.
New players need a game that is engaging. Speed is an ok goal alongside providing meaningful choices in character creation AND gameplay. Trying to just expediate characters from craddle to grave is not going to be engaging.
IMO, D&D is not a character building game. We don't need many mechanics for the role playing aspect of the system. Combat is also just a means to an end in D&D and it usually isn't the main focus of a typical session. What's important is that a new player gets to roleplay their character alongside easy to understand and intuitive rules that support character actions. IMO, build options and combat options are not really all that important for a player who is new to role playing.
In our games, when a new player wants to attack with his sword or climb the wall the DM simply tells him what to roll. A new player doesn't need to be confused with power cards and all that fancy stuff. All the new player need do is put himself in the shoes of his character and interact with the fantasy world in partner with everyone at the table. After all, the D&D game is a product of your imagination and not a product of mechanical options.
Yay! Someone else sees that D&D isn't just about rote predefined actions your character can take.
And if the first game session is spent making a character quickly because there is barely anything to them, ending combat quickly because there are barely any options, and dying quickly only to quickly make another character pretty much identical to
IMO, D&D is not a character building game. We don't need many mechanics for the role playing aspect of the system. Combat is also just a means to an end in D&D and it usually isn't the main focus of a typical session. What's important is that a new player gets to roleplay their character alongside easy to understand and intuitive rules that support character actions. IMO, build options and combat options are not really all that important for a player who is new to role playing.
In our games, when a new player wants to attack with his sword or climb the wall the DM simply tells him what to roll. A new player doesn't need to be confused with power cards and all that fancy stuff. All the new player need do is put himself in the shoes of his character and interact with the fantasy world in partner with everyone at the table. After all, the D&D game is a product of your imagination and not a product of mechanical options.
Having steamlined rules for roleplaying and interesting combat abilities aren't mutually exclusive. And having interesting abilities can be a great hook for new players.
Having steamlined rules for roleplaying and interesting combat abilities aren't mutually exclusive. And having interesting abilities can be a great hook for new players.
We need a system that will attract new players to the hobby. If their first game session is spent making characters and very little playtime occurs the hobby will continue suffer.
And if the first game session is spent making a character quickly because there is barely anything to them, ending combat quickly because there are barely any options, and dying quickly only to quickly make another character pretty much identical to the old one, the hobby will continue to suffer.
New players need a game that is engaging. Speed is an ok goal alongside providing meaningful choices in character creation AND gameplay. Trying to just expediate characters from craddle to grave is not going to be engaging.
IMO, D&D is not a character building game. We don't need many mechanics for the role playing aspect of the system. Combat is also just a means to an end in D&D and it usually isn't the main focus of a typical session. What's important is that a new player gets to roleplay their character alongside easy to understand and intuitive rules that support character actions. IMO, build options and combat options are not really all that important for a player who is new to role playing.
In our games, when a new player wants to attack with his sword or climb the wall the DM simply tells him what to roll. A new player doesn't need to be confused with power cards and all that fancy stuff. All the new player need do is put himself in the shoes of his character and interact with the fantasy world in partner with everyone at the table. After all, the D&D game is a product of your imagination and not a product of mechanical options.
Yay! Someone else sees that D&D isn't just about rote predefined actions your character can take.
The less you need to explain the game to a new player the better.
New Player (has zero knowledge of the rules): "Hey can I play?"
DM: "Um no... first you must read the PHB and spend an entire session building your character. You could play a premade character, but I'll still have to explain the rules and what all your powers do. That will take time that we don't have right now"
vs
DM: "Sure, you can play a premade fighter or we can spend 15 mins creating one. Don't worry about the rules. When we play just imagine you are that character and let me know what your character is trying to do. I'll let you know what the rules are as we play. I'll tell you what to roll and what all those numbers mean on your character sheet as we go along." ...
"Ok everyone you see a human warrior standing on the road with a greatsword on his back. He is wearing the tabbard of your employer. Describe yourselves....."
My point is that the new player should only need to understand his character from a role playing perspective (not a mechanical one) for the fun to begin.
The experience of playing with other people in a fantasy game is what will keep the new player interested. If it takes complex mechanics and build options to keep the player, then I would argue that the player isn't really interested in role playing. It's more likely he just wants to play a minature combat game. In that case, something along the lines of Warhammer might be a better option.
And if the first game session is spent making a character quickly because there is barely anything to them, ending combat quickly because there are barely any options, and dying quickly only to quickly make another character pretty much identical to
Mike Mearls : Made an 8th level fighter in 15 minutes. I am pleased.
Also loving this.
Personaly i don't see what makes character creation speed a good thing, unless you play one shot games. I usualy spend multiple days creating a character mailing back and forth with the Dm to create the characters history and place in the world. and rather spend that time making somthing intresting then being able to make somthing bland very quickly.
We need a system that will attract new players to the hobby. If their first game session is spent making characters and very little playtime occurs the hobby will continue suffer.
I think they mean that since simple characters with few options usually take very little time to make, then they don't want the game to be about making simple characters with few options.
If you were able to make a complex character with many options in just a few minutes, then I don't think they would have a problem with fast character creation. At least that's how I feel about it...
Also loving this.[/quote]Personaly i don't see what makes character creation speed a good thing, unless you play one shot games.I usualy spend multiple days creating a character mailing back and forth with the Dm to create the characters history and
DM: "Sure, you can play a premade fighter or we can spend 15 mins creating one. Don't worry about the rules. When we play just imagine you are that character and let me know what your character is trying to do. I'll let you know what the rules are as we play. I'll tell you what to roll and what all those numbers mean on your character sheet as we go along." ...
"Ok everyone you see a human warrior standing on the road with a greatsword on his back. He is wearing the tabbard of your employer. Describe yourselves....."
My point is that the new player should only need to understand his character from a role playing perspective (not a mechanical one) for the fun to begin.
The experience of playing with other people in a fantasy game is what will keep the new player interested. If it takes complex mechanics and build options to keep the player, then I would argue that the player isn't really interested in role playing. It's more likely he just wants to play a minature combat game. In that case, something along the lines of Warhammer might be a better option.
You can actually do this in any edition of D&D. I do it in 4E all the time. It literally only takes 15 minutes to create any 4E character and that's if you are manually writing the stuff on the sheet...
You can actually do this in any edition of D&D. I do it in 4E all the time. It literally only takes 15 minutes to create any 4E character and that's if you are manually writing the stuff on the sheet...
DM: "Sure, you can play a premade fighter or we can spend 15 mins creating one. Don't worry about the rules. When we play just imagine you are that character and let me know what your character is trying to do. I'll let you know what the rules are as we play. I'll tell you what to roll and what all those numbers mean on your character sheet as we go along."
Which would be made much easier if "the rules" looked like "2{W} melee, causes prone" or "5d6, 10m' sphere, 20m range, fire" or "any weapon, any armor, cool horse at level 2, 'divine' spells at level 6, here's a table full of various numbers" instead of having to read a paragraph or several on what each and every given power/class/spell/race is supposed to be doing, and then arguing semantics during a game session.
Which would be made much easier if "the rules" looked like "2{W} melee, causes prone" or "5d6, 10m' sphere, 20m range, fire" or "any weapon, any armor, cool horse at level 2, 'divine' spells at level 6, here's a table full of various numbers" instead
The less you need to explain the game to a new player the better.
New Player (has zero knowledge of the rules): "Hey can I play?"
DM: "Um no... first you must read the PHB and spend an entire session building your character. You could play a premade character, but I'll still have to explain the rules and what all your powers do. That will take time that we don't have right now"
This is a strawman. There is no reason that making a character and learning the game has to be presented in such a negative light. The DM could easily start the discussion with the player describing what type of character he or she would like to play and going from there. That's exactly how I was introduced to the game, and the fact that I had a bunch of options available to me was a good thing because it meant that I could truly make it MY character. I was absolutely hooked before our first real session even began!
This is a strawman. There is no reason that making a character and learning the game has to be presented in such a negative light. The DM could easily start the discussion with the player describing what type of character he or she would like to play
The less you need to explain the game to a new player the better. New Player (has zero knowledge of the rules): "Hey can I play?"
DM: "Sure, you can play a premade fightercharacter or we can spend 15 mins creating one for whatever you are interested in playing. Don't worry about the rules. When we play just imagine you are that character and let me know what your character is trying to do. I'll let you know what the rules are as we play. I'll tell you what to roll and what all those numbers mean on your character sheet as we go along." ...
"Ok everyone you see a human warrior "whatever they wanted to play" standing on the road with a greatswordsome gear on his back. He is wearing the tabbard of your employer. Describe yourselves....."
My point is that the new player should only need to understand his character from a role playing perspective (not a mechanical one) for the fun to begin.
And that character shouldn't have to be a fighter.
And that character shouldn't have to be a fighter.
The less you need to explain the game to a new player the better. New Player (has zero knowledge of the rules): "Hey can I play?"
DM: "Sure, you can play a premade fightercharacter or we can spend 15 mins creating one for whatever you are interested in playing. Don't worry about the rules. When we play just imagine you are that character and let me know what your character is trying to do. I'll let you know what the rules are as we play. I'll tell you what to roll and what all those numbers mean on your character sheet as we go along." ...
"Ok everyone you see a human warrior "whatever they wanted to play" standing on the road with a greatswordsome gear on his back. He is wearing the tabbard of your employer. Describe yourselves....."
My point is that the new player should only need to understand his character from a role playing perspective (not a mechanical one) for the fun to begin.
And that character shouldn't have to be a fighter.
Holy crap, I totally missed the fighter part. I can't understand how suggesting that every new player should play a specific class is the best way to facilitate roleplaying.
And that character shouldn't have to be a fighter.[/quote]Holy crap, I totally missed the fighter part. I can't understand how suggesting that every new player should play a specific class is the best way to facilitate roleplaying.
The less you need to explain the game to a new player the better. New Player (has zero knowledge of the rules): "Hey can I play?"
DM: "Sure, you can play a premade fightercharacter or we can spend 15 mins creating one for whatever you are interested in playing. Don't worry about the rules. When we play just imagine you are that character and let me know what your character is trying to do. I'll let you know what the rules are as we play. I'll tell you what to roll and what all those numbers mean on your character sheet as we go along." ...
"Ok everyone you see a human warrior "whatever they wanted to play" standing on the road with a greatswordsome gear on his back. He is wearing the tabbard of your employer. Describe yourselves....."
My point is that the new player should only need to understand his character from a role playing perspective (not a mechanical one) for the fun to begin.
And that character shouldn't have to be a fighter.
The fighter will always be a simple character for new players. There is nothing wrong with that.
And that character shouldn't have to be a fighter.[/quote]The fighter will always be a simple character for new players. There is nothing wrong with that.
1) Fighters should not always be simple 2) New players should not be assumed incapable of handling non-simple characters 3) Other classes can be simple
There are quite a few things wrong with that.1) Fighters should not always be simple2) New players should not be assumed incapable of handling non-simple characters3) Other classes can be simple
The less you need to explain the game to a new player the better. New Player (has zero knowledge of the rules): "Hey can I play?"
DM: "Sure, you can play a premade fightercharacter or we can spend 15 mins creating one for whatever you are interested in playing. Don't worry about the rules. When we play just imagine you are that character and let me know what your character is trying to do. I'll let you know what the rules are as we play. I'll tell you what to roll and what all those numbers mean on your character sheet as we go along." ...
"Ok everyone you see a human warrior "whatever they wanted to play" standing on the road with a greatswordsome gear on his back. He is wearing the tabbard of your employer. Describe yourselves....."
My point is that the new player should only need to understand his character from a role playing perspective (not a mechanical one) for the fun to begin.
And that character shouldn't have to be a fighter.
Holy crap, I totally missed the fighter part. I can't understand how suggesting that every new player should play a specific class is the best way to facilitate roleplaying.
Because role playing doesn't require mechanical options. The game isn't a product of the mechanics. As I said before, it's a product of your imagination.
And that character shouldn't have to be a fighter.[/quote]Holy crap, I totally missed the fighter part. I can't understand how suggesting that every new player should play a specific class is the best way to facilitate roleplaying.[/quote]Because rol
The less you need to explain the game to a new player the better. New Player (has zero knowledge of the rules): "Hey can I play?"
DM: "Sure, you can play a premade fightercharacter or we can spend 15 mins creating one for whatever you are interested in playing. Don't worry about the rules. When we play just imagine you are that character and let me know what your character is trying to do. I'll let you know what the rules are as we play. I'll tell you what to roll and what all those numbers mean on your character sheet as we go along." ...
"Ok everyone you see a human warrior "whatever they wanted to play" standing on the road with a greatswordsome gear on his back. He is wearing the tabbard of your employer. Describe yourselves....."
My point is that the new player should only need to understand his character from a role playing perspective (not a mechanical one) for the fun to begin.
And that character shouldn't have to be a fighter.
The fighter will always be a simple character for new players. There is nothing wrong with that.
And there is nothing wrong with allowing new players to choose their class. It can be the best way to get them into the roleplaying mindset.
And that character shouldn't have to be a fighter.[/quote]The fighter will always be a simple character for new players. There is nothing wrong with that. [/quote]And there is nothing wrong with allowing new players to choose their class.
The less you need to explain the game to a new player the better. New Player (has zero knowledge of the rules): "Hey can I play?"
DM: "Sure, you can play a premade fightercharacter or we can spend 15 mins creating one for whatever you are interested in playing. Don't worry about the rules. When we play just imagine you are that character and let me know what your character is trying to do. I'll let you know what the rules are as we play. I'll tell you what to roll and what all those numbers mean on your character sheet as we go along." ...
"Ok everyone you see a human warrior "whatever they wanted to play" standing on the road with a greatswordsome gear on his back. He is wearing the tabbard of your employer. Describe yourselves....."
My point is that the new player should only need to understand his character from a role playing perspective (not a mechanical one) for the fun to begin.
And that character shouldn't have to be a fighter.
The fighter will always be a simple character for new players. There is nothing wrong with that.
Yes, yes there is. What are you going to tell the new harry potter fan that just rolled up to your table wanting to play a Harry Potter style Wizard.
"Oh here you go, you get one spell and that's it, at later levels you can cast each spell once and then its gone. You have this huge list of spells to pick from and you only get X number of slots per level."
Sorry, that's not going to fly.
We really need a simple character of each class and a complex character of each class. They can be separate classes, builds within the class, or something else entirely but they need to be in the game.
If Mearls and Co.'s main goal is bringing back the 1E/2E players, then they need to keep going down the road they are going. If its to bring in new players they need to start over...
And that character shouldn't have to be a fighter.[/quote]The fighter will always be a simple character for new players. There is nothing wrong with that. [/quote]Yes, yes there is. What are you going to tell the new harry potter fan that
Because role playing doesn't require mechanical options. The game isn't a product of the mechanics. As I said before, it's a product of your imagination.
Yes, you can roleplay with a doorknob instead of a PHB, but that doesn't mean there isn't value in mechanical options. If you really believe what you just said, you should never waste your money on rulebooks - ever. No matter what edition, no matter what game.
The game very much is a product of the mechanics, and a product of only the mechanics. The roleplaying exists independently, but the game is defined by the mechanics.
Yes, you can roleplay with a doorknob instead of a PHB, but that doesn't mean there isn't value in mechanical options. If you really believe what you just said, you should never waste your money on rulebooks - ever. No matter what edition, no matte
The less you need to explain the game to a new player the better. New Player (has zero knowledge of the rules): "Hey can I play?"
DM: "Sure, you can play a premade fightercharacter or we can spend 15 mins creating one for whatever you are interested in playing. Don't worry about the rules. When we play just imagine you are that character and let me know what your character is trying to do. I'll let you know what the rules are as we play. I'll tell you what to roll and what all those numbers mean on your character sheet as we go along." ...
"Ok everyone you see a human warrior "whatever they wanted to play" standing on the road with a greatswordsome gear on his back. He is wearing the tabbard of your employer. Describe yourselves....."
My point is that the new player should only need to understand his character from a role playing perspective (not a mechanical one) for the fun to begin.
And that character shouldn't have to be a fighter.
Holy crap, I totally missed the fighter part. I can't understand how suggesting that every new player should play a specific class is the best way to facilitate roleplaying.
Because role playing doesn't require mechanical options. The game isn't a product of the mechanics. As I said before, it's a product of your imagination.
And as I explained, you can have both: interesting mechanical options and a vivid concept of your character in your mind.
And that character shouldn't have to be a fighter.[/quote]Holy crap, I totally missed the fighter part. I can't understand how suggesting that every new player should play a specific class is the best way to facilitate roleplaying.[/quote]Because rol
1) Fighters should not always be simple 2) New players should not be assumed incapable of handling non-simple characters 3) Other classes can be simple
There is no reason to assume any of that from my statement.
It's just a fact that the fighter will be the most simple class in the game. In no way does that mean the fighter can't have more complex options.
IMO, new players should be able to play without reading the rules. They are not assumed to be incapable of handling more complex characters, they are just assumed to have no system knowledge.
There is no reason to assume any of that from my statement. It's just a fact that the fighter will be the most simple class in the game. In no way does that mean the fighter can't have more complex options.IMO, new players should be able to play w
Hey guys can we move out to other threads this ones for updating non twitter people with updates from the dev team. A nod of agreement every once in a while is fine but We have some pretty debatable stuff croping up here and we should move it to their own threads so we can keep this one open for the twitter updates for our non twitter using friends...just sayin.
Hey guys can we move out to other threads this ones for updating non twitter people with updates from the dev team. A nod of agreement every once in a while is fine but We have some pretty debatable stuff croping up here and we should move it to the
1) Fighters should not always be simple 2) New players should not be assumed incapable of handling non-simple characters 3) Other classes can be simple
There is no reason to assume any of that from my statement.
The less you need to explain the game to a new player the better. New Player (has zero knowledge of the rules): "Hey can I play?"
DM: "Sure, you can play a premade fightercharacter or we can spend 15 mins creating one for whatever you are interested in playing. Don't worry about the rules. When we play just imagine you are that character and let me know what your character is trying to do. I'll let you know what the rules are as we play. I'll tell you what to roll and what all those numbers mean on your character sheet as we go along." ...
"Ok everyone you see a human warrior "whatever they wanted to play" standing on the road with a greatswordsome gear on his back. He is wearing the tabbard of your employer. Describe yourselves....."
My point is that the new player should only need to understand his character from a role playing perspective (not a mechanical one) for the fun to begin.
And that character shouldn't have to be a fighter.
Holy crap, I totally missed the fighter part. I can't understand how suggesting that every new player should play a specific class is the best way to facilitate roleplaying.
And THIS is why I'm fighting for simple caster classes.
Seriously, EVERY new young player I've introduced to the game in the last year has wanted to base their first character on a Harry Potter character.
Not having a simple Arcane class is damaging the ability of the game to recruit new players from a generation of pre-made geeks.
And that character shouldn't have to be a fighter.[/quote]Holy crap, I totally missed the fighter part. I can't understand how suggesting that every new player should play a specific class is the best way to facilitate roleplaying.[/quote]And THIS is
The less you need to explain the game to a new player the better. New Player (has zero knowledge of the rules): "Hey can I play?"
DM: "Sure, you can play a premade fightercharacter or we can spend 15 mins creating one for whatever you are interested in playing. Don't worry about the rules. When we play just imagine you are that character and let me know what your character is trying to do. I'll let you know what the rules are as we play. I'll tell you what to roll and what all those numbers mean on your character sheet as we go along." ...
"Ok everyone you see a human warrior "whatever they wanted to play" standing on the road with a greatswordsome gear on his back. He is wearing the tabbard of your employer. Describe yourselves....."
My point is that the new player should only need to understand his character from a role playing perspective (not a mechanical one) for the fun to begin.
And that character shouldn't have to be a fighter.
Holy crap, I totally missed the fighter part. I can't understand how suggesting that every new player should play a specific class is the best way to facilitate roleplaying.
And THIS is why I'm fighting for simple caster classes.
Seriously, EVERY new young player I've introduced to the game in the last year has wanted to base their first character on a Harry Potter character.
Not having a simple Arcane class is damaging the ability of the game to recruit new players from a generation of pre-made geeks.
But D&D isn't a simple game, and Harry Potter isn't a simple character concept (verbal, somatic, and focal components are all included/required). Making D&D classes simpler isn't going to attract young or new players. Embracing the complexity of D&D and using it to make the character concepts people want to play is what will attract new/young players. My 4 year old could navigate three separate tablet OSes when he was 3. You can't tell me he's going to be thrown off by a complex game. If anything, the simple game is what will cause him and others like him to seek different gaming options.
And that character shouldn't have to be a fighter.[/quote]Holy crap, I totally missed the fighter part. I can't understand how suggesting that every new player should play a specific class is the best way to facilitate roleplaying.[/quote]And THIS is
Hey guys can we move out to other threads this ones for updating non twitter people with updates from the dev team. A nod of agreement every once in a while is fine but We have some pretty debatable stuff croping up here and we should move it to their own threads so we can keep this one open for the twitter updates for our non twitter using friends...just sayin.
Claudio Pozas : ongoing untyped damage (save ends) to simulate bleeding: what do you think?
Mike Mearls : I'd rather just give you bigger damage on the first hit. Ongoing damage is paperwork and tracking for dubious benefit.
Claudio Pozas : There's the sense of small damage snowballing enough to take out a seemingly impervious target. Might be worth testing?
Mike Mearls : doesn't really fit with next's model for hp
Claudio Pozas : There's the sense of small damage snowballing enough to take out a seemingly impervious target. Might be worth testing?Mike Mearls : doesn't really fit with next's model for hp
Michael Creed : will there be clear rules for climbing and killing huge monsters in
Mike Mearls : That's the kind of thing that we'd cover with DM advice and the advantage mechanic, rather than a specific rule
Mike Mearls : Example: A stunt system that uses checks as part of movement to gain advantage and/or grant it to opponents
Michael Creed : will there be clear rules for climbing and killing huge monsters inMike Mearls : That's the kind of thing that we'd cover with DM advice and the advantage mechanic, rather than a specific ruleMike Mearls : Example: A stunt
Because role playing doesn't require mechanical options. The game isn't a product of the mechanics. As I said before, it's a product of your imagination.
Yes, you can roleplay with a doorknob instead of a PHB,
Please save the daft doorknob analogy (using it too much, and is not comparable at all).
And, dmgorgon, sorry about them ganging up on you (always the usual suspects...), so unfair (like hyenas attacking in their numbers), one seriously lame aspect of these boards, just know it's because they're defensive, as they should be.
Yes, you can roleplay with a doorknob instead of a PHB,[/quote]Please save the daft doorknob analogy (using it too much, and is not comparable at all).And, dmgorgon, sorry about them ganging up on you (always the usual suspects...), so unfair (like h
[/quote]That irritates me, Wizards are not as hardy as Rogues.[/quote]Rogues can get d8.Wizard, Druid - d6Cleric, Rogue, Ranger - d8Fighter - d10Barbarian - d12
That irritates me, Wizards are not as hardy as Rogues.
Rogues can get d8.
Only in Pathfinder, another crap, band-aid solution.
I hold PF in contempt (some sad house-ruling rubbish for 3rd Ed, the problems with that edition go much deeper),
[/quote]That irritates me, Wizards are not as hardy as Rogues.[/quote]Rogues can get d8.[/quote]Only in Pathfinder, another crap, band-aid solution.I hold PF in contempt (some sad house-ruling rubbish for 3rd Ed, the problems with that edition go muc
I can see no reason, why a ranger should have d8... d10 is more appropriate. I would be ok with d8 for rogues and bards, and then d6 for wizards. But I´d rather have a modified version of the first packet back:
con mod+x as a floor for rolled hitdice. It would make characters with 8 constitution and rolling for hp viable again.
I can see no reason, why a ranger should have d8... d10 is more appropriate. I would be ok with d8 for rogues and bards, and then d6 for wizards. But I´d rather have a modified version of the first packet back:con mod+x as a floor for rolled hi
I can see no reason, why a ranger should have d8... d10 is more appropriate. I would be ok with d8 for rogues and bards, and then d6 for wizards. But I´d rather have a modified version of the first packet back:
con mod+x as a floor for rolled hitdice. It would make characters with 8 constitution and rolling for hp viable again.
I would prefer the Wizard go back to d4, and the Rogue to d6, screw that Pathfdner rubbish.
I would prefer the Wizard go back to d4, and the Rogue to d6, screw that Pathfdner rubbish.
I can see no reason, why a ranger should have d8... d10 is more appropriate. I would be ok with d8 for rogues and bards, and then d6 for wizards. But I´d rather have a modified version of the first packet back:
con mod+x as a floor for rolled hitdice. It would make characters with 8 constitution and rolling for hp viable again.
I would prefer the Wizard go back to d4, and the Rogue to d6, screw that Pathfdner rubbish.
Yes because massively high AC from dexterity and light armor is not enough to distinguish the Wizard and the Rogue from each other, especially since AC doesn't scale anymore and a high AC is awesome until the end of the game...
I would prefer the Wizard go back to d4, and the Rogue to d6, screw that Pathfdner rubbish.[/quote]Yes because massively high AC from dexterity and light armor is not enough to distinguish the Wizard and the Rogue from each other, especially since AC
I can see no reason, why a ranger should have d8... d10 is more appropriate. I would be ok with d8 for rogues and bards, and then d6 for wizards. But I´d rather have a modified version of the first packet back:
con mod+x as a floor for rolled hitdice. It would make characters with 8 constitution and rolling for hp viable again.
I would prefer the Wizard go back to d4, and the Rogue to d6, screw that Pathfdner rubbish.
Yes because massively high AC from dexterity and light armor is not enough to distinguish the Wizard and the Rogue from each other, especially since AC doesn't scale anymore and a high AC is awesome until the end of the game...
Wizards should not be as durable as Rogues, we all know you want a round-cornered/everybody's a winner D&D, but some want more.
I would prefer the Wizard go back to d4, and the Rogue to d6, screw that Pathfdner rubbish.[/quote]Yes because massively high AC from dexterity and light armor is not enough to distinguish the Wizard and the Rogue from each other, especially since AC
I like my academic arcane magic requiring amounts of study and devotion which pull the character away from regular physical exercise and cause d4s.
I like the amount of luck and arcane shielding and divine protections and similar elements that heros have to be less inconsistant.
Yep, more of the safety zone.
I like the amount of luck and arcane shielding and divine protections and similar elements that heros have to be less inconsistant.[/quote]Yep, more of the safety zone.
I can see no reason, why a ranger should have d8... d10 is more appropriate. I would be ok with d8 for rogues and bards, and then d6 for wizards. But I´d rather have a modified version of the first packet back:
con mod+x as a floor for rolled hitdice. It would make characters with 8 constitution and rolling for hp viable again.
I would prefer the Wizard go back to d4, and the Rogue to d6, screw that Pathfdner rubbish.
Me too. More front loaded hit points = more fun for low levels anmd higher level wizards should have magical abilities to offset their d4 hit points.
I would prefer the Wizard go back to d4, and the Rogue to d6, screw that Pathfdner rubbish.[/quote]Me too. More front loaded hit points = more fun for low levels anmd higher level wizards should have magical abilities to offset their d4 hit points.
I can see no reason, why a ranger should have d8... d10 is more appropriate. I would be ok with d8 for rogues and bards, and then d6 for wizards. But I´d rather have a modified version of the first packet back:
con mod+x as a floor for rolled hitdice. It would make characters with 8 constitution and rolling for hp viable again.
I would prefer the Wizard go back to d4, and the Rogue to d6, screw that Pathfdner rubbish.
Me too. More front loaded hit points = more fun for low levels anmd higher level wizards should have magical abilities to offset their d4 hit points.
i'm not sure the introduction of sublasses might make the D6 a better choice. It alouws to have variations both up and down in hitdice size.
standard wizard d6 mage d4 bladesinger d8
I would prefer the Wizard go back to d4, and the Rogue to d6, screw that Pathfdner rubbish.[/quote]Me too. More front loaded hit points = more fun for low levels anmd higher level wizards should have magical abilities to offset their d4 hit points.[
I can see no reason, why a ranger should have d8... d10 is more appropriate. I would be ok with d8 for rogues and bards, and then d6 for wizards. But I´d rather have a modified version of the first packet back:
con mod+x as a floor for rolled hitdice. It would make characters with 8 constitution and rolling for hp viable again.
I would prefer the Wizard go back to d4, and the Rogue to d6, screw that Pathfdner rubbish.
Me too. More front loaded hit points = more fun for low levels anmd higher level wizards should have magical abilities to offset their d4 hit points.
Save your idea of fun, if you like Wizards being as tough as Rogues (warped...), that's is your problem, in my eye.
I would prefer the Wizard go back to d4, and the Rogue to d6, screw that Pathfdner rubbish.[/quote]Me too. More front loaded hit points = more fun for low levels anmd higher level wizards should have magical abilities to offset their d4 hit points.[
Mike Mearls : Example: A stunt system that uses checks as part of movement to gain advantage and/or grant it to opponents
This sounds like an interesting module feature!
Indeed, and it's implementation can change the tone of the game. If advantage is granted for check assisted movement, it rewards more cinematic assaults. If disadvantage is to be had, it encourages more cautious, grittier combat tactics.
This sounds like an interesting module feature! [/quote]Indeed, and it's implementation can change the tone of the game. If advantage is granted for check assisted movement, it rewards more cinematic assaults. If disadvantage is to be had, it encoura
@mikemearls: People sometimes ask me how I can put up with our more bilious follower - I'll withstand a 1000 of them for one like Wrecan.
@mikemearls: Gamers like that, that's why you push aside all the bullshit, ignore the half-wits, and keep the communications line humming.
(There is a thread in observation of Wrecan's passing at the top of the forums.)
@mikemearls: The #dnd flag will be at half mast for a long while community.wizards.com/traderjodie/blog/2...@mikemearls: People sometimes ask me how I can put up with our more bilious follower - I'll withstand a 1000 of them for one like Wrecan.@mike
Reading the news about Wrecan via MM's tweets, I thought "aw, that's sad" and then "wow, there's some gratuitous vitriol"
Thanks Mike, for reminding us even during the sad moments, that most of us are terrible.
Sincerely, a half-wit
Reading the news about Wrecan via MM's tweets, I thought "aw, that's sad" and then "wow, there's some gratuitous vitriol" Thanks Mike, for reminding us even during the sad moments, that most of us are terrible.Sincerely,a half-wit
TL;DR: GenCon experience should be smoother this year.
@mikemearls: Who's playing Neverwinter? Which server? I just rolled a tiefling wizard named Dread Delgath on Dragon.
@mikemearls: Our GenCon events are up - can't wait to see how the assault on Candlekeep plays out: www.wizards.com/dnd/Feature.aspx?x=dnd/f... @GX_Sigma: Will it be published? @mikemearls: I don't believe so - you need a bunch of tables running it at once for it to work @GX_Sigma: Intriguing. Between this and Dracolich, is this the future of D&D organized play? @mikemearls: not necessarily, but it is a good way to get big groups of players to do something a little different. @burnumd: I can’t find information anywhere on what the table size is (specifically for Murder in Baldur’s Gate). @mikemearls: It's either 5 or 6 players - I believe that we're using 6 as the standard for Next convention play.
@mikemearls: One other GenCon note - we way simplified the dice this year. Play in an official Next event, get a full set. Last year taught us that trying to move thousands of people through an event means we should err on the side of simplicity. @SlyFlourish: do you know if the venue is bigger? I recall things being space limited last year. @frequentbeef: The venue is indeed bigger, and laid out differently. Can't guarantee no lines, but it should at least flow better. @mikemearls: We've completely reconcepted our con presence - part of that is building walk up events like Candlekeep. We have plans for stuff if a line forms - things to keep people busy, option for people in line to DM. Our space is definitely larger and more interesting this year. @jrhyne1976: I'll be there and definitely trying to get a set of dice. What do u need to do for one? @mikemearls: You get a set if you play in any of our official D&D Next events. @ham2anv: That was a ridiculous cluster last year. Turned my entire group off. @mikemearls: Sorry about that. We dramatically underestimated demand. This year will be much better. @WestMatt: That rules! Collected the full set [of dice] last year and it was like having a second job. New dice this year, I assume? @mikemearls: Yes, new dice. Definitely don't want people's job at GenCon to be anything other than having fun.
@Edwin_Suijkerbu: will there be some way to get our hands on audio or stream of the Q&A with R&D ? @mikemearls: I'm not sure - in the past we've recorded them, but I don't know yet if that's in the cards.
@Kitharis: Any idea when the next playtest packet will be released? @mikemearls: Sorry, no news to report there.
TL;DR: GenCon experience should be smoother this year.@mikemearls: Who's playing Neverwinter? Which server? I just rolled a tiefling wizard named Dread Delgath on Dragon.@mikemearls: Our GenCon events are up - can't wait to see how the assault on Can
To be blunt, he isn't wrong. The D&D Fandom needs more members like Wrecan, because the majority of the rest is awful. Rogues should get d8.[/quote]Absolutely they should.
Because rogues don't get enough incentives to justify a low HP progression? I mean, if Rogues had the same flexibility as Bards AND an insane nova damage as seen in certain editions a d6 instead of d4 is in order due to lack of magic. But as the class currently isn't that powerul enough to merit such an imbalance , d8 is certainly better.
AND by bumping rogues and wizards up a notch, it's less hassle for the group.
Rogues should get d8.[/quote]Why?[/quote]Because rogues don't get enough incentives to justify a low HP progression? I mean, if Rogues had the same flexibility as Bards AND an insane nova damage as seen in certain editions a d6 instead of d4 is in or
I always felt that Rogues put themselves out there in harms way such as Melee combat and traps that it warrents a d8 instead of d6. I also like my wizards a tiny bit more resilient.
I always felt that Rogues put themselves out there in harms way such as Melee combat and traps that it warrents a d8 instead of d6. I also like my wizards a tiny bit more resilient.
I think they should leave Rogues at d6 and reduce Wizards back to d4.
I didn't like the Pathfinder move of bumping both.
But this is easily something to house-rule.
I think they should leave Rogues at d6 and reduce Wizards back to d4.I didn't like the Pathfinder move of bumping both. But this is easily something to house-rule.
I think they should leave Rogues at d6 and reduce Wizards back to d4.
I didn't like the Pathfinder move of bumping both.
But this is easily something to house-rule.
For me it doesn't really mean much. A d6 only amounts to another hit.
I had an 11th level wizard in 3.5e that was caught unaware by a backstab from a 5th level rogue. He went down rather quickly and there wasn't much I could do about it. I don't think the d6 helped all that much.
For me it doesn't really mean much. A d6 only amounts to another hit. I had an 11th level wizard in 3.5e that was caught unaware by a backstab from a 5th level rogue. He went down rather quickly and there wasn't much I could do about it. I do
I think they should leave Rogues at d6 and reduce Wizards back to d4.
Okay. Now it's your turn to explain why.
Not that I need to (I can "think" whatever I like), but Wizards should not be as hardy as Rogues, IMO, and Rogues should not be as hardy as Clerics/Druids, IMO.
Why do you "think" Rogues should be bumped to d8, and Wizards to d6?
Okay.Now it's your turn to explain why.[/quote]Not that I need to (I can "think" whatever I like), but Wizards should not be as hardy as Rogues, IMO, and Rogues should not be as hardy as Clerics/Druids, IMO.Why do you "think" Rogues should be bumped
I think they should leave Rogues at d6 and reduce Wizards back to d4.
Okay. Now it's your turn to explain why.
Not that I need to (I can "think" whatever I like), but Wizards should not be as hardy as Rogues, IMO, and Rogues should not be as hardy as Clerics/Druids, IMO.
Why do you "think" Rogues should be bumped to d8, and Wizards to d6?
A reduced disparity in HP between the strongest and weakest members of the party would assist greatly in balancing monster math, as when there's enormous variances in HP you can't begin to calculate how many hits it should take to drop a character. By keeping HP within a smaller average range, the mathematical backbone of the game is strengthened.
Okay.Now it's your turn to explain why.[/quote]Not that I need to (I can "think" whatever I like), but Wizards should not be as hardy as Rogues, IMO, and Rogues should not be as hardy as Clerics/Druids, IMO.Why do you "think" Rogues should be bumped
I think they should leave Rogues at d6 and reduce Wizards back to d4.
Okay. Now it's your turn to explain why.
Not that I need to (I can "think" whatever I like), but Wizards should not be as hardy as Rogues, IMO, and Rogues should not be as hardy as Clerics/Druids, IMO.
Why do you "think" Rogues should be bumped to d8, and Wizards to d6?
Personaly i think each class should have it's standard ditdice and subclasses might have 1 dice type higer or lower. This is why the wizard should have a d6 as standard so you can have wizard subclasses that go down to d4, or upto d8.
for example the bladsinger wizard might have a d8 HP. while the mage may have a d4 ( mage gains one extra spell slot per spell level but must prepere spells in specific slots like traditional vancian)
Okay.Now it's your turn to explain why.[/quote]Not that I need to (I can "think" whatever I like), but Wizards should not be as hardy as Rogues, IMO, and Rogues should not be as hardy as Clerics/Druids, IMO.Why do you "think" Rogues should be bumped
I think they should leave Rogues at d6 and reduce Wizards back to d4.
Okay. Now it's your turn to explain why.
Not that I need to (I can "think" whatever I like), but Wizards should not be as hardy as Rogues, IMO, and Rogues should not be as hardy as Clerics/Druids, IMO.
Why do you "think" Rogues should be bumped to d8, and Wizards to d6?
A reduced disparity in HP between the strongest and weakest members of the party would assist greatly in balancing monster math, as when there's enormous variances in HP you can't begin to calculate how many hits it should take to drop a character. By keeping HP within a smaller average range, the mathematical backbone of the game is strengthened.
I think the "mathematical backbone" of the game is weakened when everybody is pretty much near equal hardiness.
"...different strokes to go to the world..."
Okay.Now it's your turn to explain why.[/quote]Not that I need to (I can "think" whatever I like), but Wizards should not be as hardy as Rogues, IMO, and Rogues should not be as hardy as Clerics/Druids, IMO.Why do you "think" Rogues should be bumped
Hit die is one of those things that I feel rather strongly shoudl be maintained as the same within a class.
If two concepts are so different in play that they require adjustments in hit die, either up or down, that should be an indicator that they're not part of the same class.
Hit die is one of those things that I feel rather strongly shoudl be maintained as the same within a class.If two concepts are so different in play that they require adjustments in hit die, either up or down, that should be an indicator that they're
I think they should leave Rogues at d6 and reduce Wizards back to d4.
Okay. Now it's your turn to explain why.
Not that I need to (I can "think" whatever I like), but Wizards should not be as hardy as Rogues, IMO, and Rogues should not be as hardy as Clerics/Druids, IMO.
Why do you "think" Rogues should be bumped to d8, and Wizards to d6?
A reduced disparity in HP between the strongest and weakest members of the party would assist greatly in balancing monster math, as when there's enormous variances in HP you can't begin to calculate how many hits it should take to drop a character. By keeping HP within a smaller average range, the mathematical backbone of the game is strengthened.
I think the "mathematical backbone" of the game is weakened when everybody is pretty much near equal hardiness.
"...different strokes to go to the world..."
You think this, would you care to elaborate on it? I would think comparable hardiness allows you to tell how much of a threat a monster whose attacks deal 1d8+5 damage will be to a character, while incomparable hardiness doesn't give you such a frame of reference and thus makes judging the threat level and encounter length more difficult. It's a very different position and deserves some explanation.
Okay.Now it's your turn to explain why.[/quote]Not that I need to (I can "think" whatever I like), but Wizards should not be as hardy as Rogues, IMO, and Rogues should not be as hardy as Clerics/Druids, IMO.Why do you "think" Rogues should be bumped
If two concepts are so different in play that they require adjustments in hit die, either up or down, that should be an indicator that they're not part of the same class.
But, we have that already. It's called 'Constitution Score'.
But, we have that already. It's called 'Constitution Score'.
I think they should leave Rogues at d6 and reduce Wizards back to d4.
Okay. Now it's your turn to explain why.
Not that I need to (I can "think" whatever I like), but Wizards should not be as hardy as Rogues, IMO, and Rogues should not be as hardy as Clerics/Druids, IMO.
Why do you "think" Rogues should be bumped to d8, and Wizards to d6?
A reduced disparity in HP between the strongest and weakest members of the party would assist greatly in balancing monster math, as when there's enormous variances in HP you can't begin to calculate how many hits it should take to drop a character. By keeping HP within a smaller average range, the mathematical backbone of the game is strengthened.
I think the "mathematical backbone" of the game is weakened when everybody is pretty much near equal hardiness.
"...different strokes to go to the world..."
You think this, would you care to elaborate on it?
I think diversity is fun amongst character types, not homogenisation.
"...you're the last winner..."
Okay.Now it's your turn to explain why.[/quote]Not that I need to (I can "think" whatever I like), but Wizards should not be as hardy as Rogues, IMO, and Rogues should not be as hardy as Clerics/Druids, IMO.Why do you "think" Rogues should be bumped
Hit die is one of those things that I feel rather strongly shoudl be maintained as the same within a class.
If two concepts are so different in play that they require adjustments in hit die, either up or down, that should be an indicator that they're not part of the same class.
So if everything about them is the same except for hit die and number of spells per day they should be different classes? Everything else about them being mechanically similar even number of feats they get and everything. To me that is exactly the type of thig a subclass is suppose to cover. Oh the only thing diferentiating this from the default wizard is hit die size and number of spells...sounds like a wizard subclass to me.
So if everything about them is the same except for hit die and number of spells per day they should be different classes? Everything else about them being mechanically similar even number of feats they get and everything. To me that is exactly the
If two concepts are so different in play that they require adjustments in hit die, either up or down, that should be an indicator that they're not part of the same class.
But, we have that already. It's called 'Constitution Score'.
....Uh
Constitution Score has absolutely nothing to do with class. You can have members of the same class with the same build having radically different Con scores, and they're still the same class.
But, we have that already. It's called 'Constitution Score'.[/quote]....UhConstitution Score has absolutely nothing to do with class. You can have members of the same class with the same build having radically different Con scores, and they're stil
Hit die is one of those things that I feel rather strongly shoudl be maintained as the same within a class.
If two concepts are so different in play that they require adjustments in hit die, either up or down, that should be an indicator that they're not part of the same class.
So if everything about them is the same except for hit die and number of spells per day they should be different classes?
I didn't say that, no. Please don't try to invent words that you think I said in order to disagree with what I actually said.
So if everything about them is the same except for hit die and number of spells per day they should be different classes?[/quote]I didn't say that, no. Please don't try to invent words that you think I said in order to disagree with what I actually
I think they should leave Rogues at d6 and reduce Wizards back to d4.
Okay. Now it's your turn to explain why.
Not that I need to (I can "think" whatever I like), but Wizards should not be as hardy as Rogues, IMO, and Rogues should not be as hardy as Clerics/Druids, IMO.
Why do you "think" Rogues should be bumped to d8, and Wizards to d6?
A reduced disparity in HP between the strongest and weakest members of the party would assist greatly in balancing monster math, as when there's enormous variances in HP you can't begin to calculate how many hits it should take to drop a character. By keeping HP within a smaller average range, the mathematical backbone of the game is strengthened.
I think the "mathematical backbone" of the game is weakened when everybody is pretty much near equal hardiness.
"...different strokes to go to the world..."
You think this, would you care to elaborate on it?
I think diversity is fun amongst character types, not homogenisation.
"...you're the last winner..."
But that has nothing to do with the game's mathematical backbone being strengthened or weakened. You would have a much more coherent argument if you said that the game's mathematical backbone was weakened, but you preferred a weak backbone. That is an acceptable argument, even if it's at odds with what I consider preferable game design.
Okay.Now it's your turn to explain why.[/quote]Not that I need to (I can "think" whatever I like), but Wizards should not be as hardy as Rogues, IMO, and Rogues should not be as hardy as Clerics/Druids, IMO.Why do you "think" Rogues should be bumped
Hit die is one of those things that I feel rather strongly shoudl be maintained as the same within a class.
If two concepts are so different in play that they require adjustments in hit die, either up or down, that should be an indicator that they're not part of the same class.
So if everything about them is the same except for hit die and number of spells per day they should be different classes? Everything else about them being mechanically similar even number of feats they get and everything. To me that is exactly the type of thig a subclass is suppose to cover. Oh the only thing diferentiating this from the default wizard is hit die size and number of spells...sounds like a wizard subclass to me.
I didn't say that, no. Please don't try to invent words that you think I said in order to disagree with what I actually said.
You pretty much said that unequivicably if they have different hit die they must be of a different class. That "If two concepts are so different in play that they require adjustments in hit die, either up or down, that should be an indicator that they're not part of the same class". I say no that isn't true I say no one facet of what a class provides can be marked down like that.
So if everything about them is the same except for hit die and number of spells per day they should be different classes? Everything else about them being mechanically similar even number of feats they get and everything. To me that is exactly the t
I think they should leave Rogues at d6 and reduce Wizards back to d4.
Okay. Now it's your turn to explain why.
Not that I need to (I can "think" whatever I like), but Wizards should not be as hardy as Rogues, IMO, and Rogues should not be as hardy as Clerics/Druids, IMO.
Why do you "think" Rogues should be bumped to d8, and Wizards to d6?
A reduced disparity in HP between the strongest and weakest members of the party would assist greatly in balancing monster math, as when there's enormous variances in HP you can't begin to calculate how many hits it should take to drop a character. By keeping HP within a smaller average range, the mathematical backbone of the game is strengthened.
I think the "mathematical backbone" of the game is weakened when everybody is pretty much near equal hardiness.
"...different strokes to go to the world..."
You think this, would you care to elaborate on it?
I think diversity is fun amongst character types, not homogenisation.
"...you're the last winner..."
But that has nothing to do with the game's mathematical backbone being strengthened or weakened. You would have a much more coherent argument if you said that the game's mathematical backbone was weakened, but you preferred a weak backbone. That is an acceptable argument, even if it's at odds with what I consider preferable game design.
Okay, so we disagree with what strengthens the mathematical backbone of D&D.
Okay.Now it's your turn to explain why.[/quote]Not that I need to (I can "think" whatever I like), but Wizards should not be as hardy as Rogues, IMO, and Rogues should not be as hardy as Clerics/Druids, IMO.Why do you "think" Rogues should be bumped
Hit die is one of those things that I feel rather strongly shoudl be maintained as the same within a class.
If two concepts are so different in play that they require adjustments in hit die, either up or down, that should be an indicator that they're not part of the same class.
So if everything about them is the same except for hit die and number of spells per day they should be different classes? Everything else about them being mechanically similar even number of feats they get and everything. To me that is exactly the type of thig a subclass is suppose to cover. Oh the only thing diferentiating this from the default wizard is hit die size and number of spells...sounds like a wizard subclass to me.
I didn't say that, no. Please don't try to invent words that you think I said in order to disagree with what I actually said.
You pretty much said that unequivicably if they have different hit die they must be of a different class. That "If two concepts are so different in play that they require adjustments in hit die, either up or down, that should be an indicator that they're not part of the same class". I say no that isn't true I say no one facet of what a class provides can be marked down like that.
....No, I really didn't say that. I never said "must." I never took the extreme position. You're strawmanning what I said, and doubling down after I called you out on it. Stop it.
So if everything about them is the same except for hit die and number of spells per day they should be different classes? Everything else about them being mechanically similar even number of feats they get and everything. To me that is exactly the t
If two concepts are so different in play that they require adjustments in hit die, either up or down, that should be an indicator that they're not part of the same class.
But, we have that already. It's called 'Constitution Score'.
....Uh
Constitution Score has absolutely nothing to do with class. You can have members of the same class with the same build having radically different Con scores, and they're still the same class.
Classes are only one component of realizing a concept.
But, we have that already. It's called 'Constitution Score'.[/quote]....UhConstitution Score has absolutely nothing to do with class. You can have members of the same class with the same build having radically different Con scores, and they're stil
They're the component I was discussing as far as the relationship to Hit Die. What's your point?
The point is, there's already a dial for tweaking HP. There is no real need to mess with it within class families, but it would give us another dial to mess with.
The point is, there's already a dial for tweaking HP. There is no real need to mess with it within class families, but it would give us another dial to mess with.
Hit die is one of those things that I feel rather strongly shoudl be maintained as the same within a class.
If two concepts are so different in play that they require adjustments in hit die, either up or down, that should be an indicator that they're not part of the same class.
So if everything about them is the same except for hit die and number of spells per day they should be different classes? Everything else about them being mechanically similar even number of feats they get and everything. To me that is exactly the type of thig a subclass is suppose to cover. Oh the only thing diferentiating this from the default wizard is hit die size and number of spells...sounds like a wizard subclass to me.
I didn't say that, no. Please don't try to invent words that you think I said in order to disagree with what I actually said.
You pretty much said that unequivicably if they have different hit die they must be of a different class. That "If two concepts are so different in play that they require adjustments in hit die, either up or down, that should be an indicator that they're not part of the same class". I say no that isn't true I say no one facet of what a class provides can be marked down like that.
....No, I really didn't say that. I never said "must." I never took the extreme position. You're strawmanning what I said, and doubling down after I called you out on it. Stop it.
dude I directly quoted you saying that hit die was an indicator that something was of a different class.
"If two concepts are so different in play that they require adjustments in hit die, either up or down, that should be an indicator that they're not part of the same class"
I say no one class feature can be used like that.
That sword wielding mage type of guy can still be a subclass of wizard he's just a subclass that has a d8 hit die, less spells (possibly not even topping out with 9th maybe even only topping out at 5th or 6th level spells), rogue attack progression, and maybe the one distinct feature of delivering touch spells with his weapon (possibly at a level higher than first). Throw in a weapon proficiency for a one handed sword of some kind (not a full martial weapon or even simple weapon proficiency) and possibly some medium armor usage. Other than that he has the arcane recovery, and spell book, and wizardly knowledge, like every other wizard and access to the wizard's spell list like any other wizard as well as the.
That super blaster mage has a d4 hit die, more spells I like the 1 more spell of every level idea though I'd say keep prep the same but make it so they still only have 1 level 9, but loses out on arcane recovery. other than that this guy has all the other features of wizard.
I think these guys can both be subclasses of wizard. Their just different types of wizard. One comes from a tradition that involves learning a blade in place of learning some magics the other forsakes all physical training for greater pursuit of magical power. Both still prepare arcane spells from a book. Heck these two very different mages could have trained in the exact same place as far as I can tell.
I do not believe your statement: "If two concepts are so different in play that they require adjustments in hit die, either up or down, that should be an indicator that they're not part of the same class" is in any way correct.
I say that within reason two different subclasses could in fact have different hit die.
There could even be a fighter that has a d8 hit die, but comes with a bonus to AC to represent the more deulist based fighter. Possibly has the int + dex + shield+1 or 2 from class guy that has less hit points but less ability to be hit type of fighter. Basically a dodge tank. Instead of being a dodge tank on top of being an actual hit point tank as well.
still very much a fighter, but with a slightly different play style than the d10 fighter. I say that with some variance subclasses can entirely change the hit die so long as the subclass still holds to many of the class features.
Even if you didn't take the extreme position you made a statement that subclass shouldn't change hit die. I say there is no problem with sub class changing hit die so long as the core concept of the class is held to.
EDIT: Sorry for diverting the thread if we want to talk on this we should start another thread. Possibly one more approaching what is it okay for subclass to change.
So if everything about them is the same except for hit die and number of spells per day they should be different classes? Everything else about them being mechanically similar even number of feats they get and everything. To me that is exactly the t
As far as the next packet, I'm expecting June, maybe even late June.
There are some significant changes that we have reason to believe are going to be in it: fighter, rogue, monk rebuilds; multiclassing; new races; totally reworked and exanded feats. The new skill system is also a possibility. Then there are all the other sorts of changes in response to feedback we see and hope to see in each packet.
It's going to be a big change, and that justifies the wait.
As far as the next packet, I'm expecting June, maybe even late June.There are some significant changes that we have reason to believe are going to be in it: fighter, rogue, monk rebuilds; multiclassing; new races; totally reworked and exanded feats.
There is a big playtest event on June 15: Vault of the Dracolich. Considering they have to have a few weeks lead time to get the packets printed and mailed all over the world, they either have to release a new packet before that date, or not till several weeks afterward.
I am expecting the new packet out the first week of june, if not sooner.
There is a big playtest event on June 15: Vault of the Dracolich. Considering they have to have a few weeks lead time to get the packets printed and mailed all over the world, they either have to release a new packet before that date, or not till sev
TL;DR: GenCon experience should be smoother this year, no ETA on new packet.
@mikemearls: Who's playing Neverwinter? Which server? I just rolled a tiefling wizard named Dread Delgath on Dragon.
Too bad this game doesn't have forced PvP... I can see Mike getting ganked at every turn.
"And that's for Essentials, and that's for Heroes of Shadow, and that's for..."
Too bad this game doesn't have forced PvP... I can see Mike getting ganked at every turn."And that's for Essentials, and that's for Heroes of Shadow, and that's for..."
Well I poked a nose in Neverwinter Online... so far nothing is grabbing me much, although I quite like the amount of character personalization in terms of appearance. (if they had a more full 4e choice set of abilities that would be a real boost).
Well I poked a nose in Neverwinter Online... so far nothing is grabbing me much, although I quite like the amount of character personalization in terms of appearance. (if they had a more full 4e choice set of abilities that would be a real boost).
It is not no ETA on the next packet. But I assume it is rather: "Sorry, I can´t spill the beans here on twitter." The latest packets arrived some days before I expected them actually. Currently I am eagerly looking forward to the next packet. The last one was a bit of a let down.
It is not no ETA on the next packet. But I assume it is rather: "Sorry, I can´t spill the beans here on twitter." The latest packets arrived some days before I expected them actually.Currently I am eagerly looking forward to the next packet. Th
Mike Mearls : Example: A stunt system that uses checks as part of movement to gain advantage and/or grant it to opponents
This sounds like an interesting module feature!
I prefer it being in the Basic Game. If ability checks and adv/disadv are in the game, I don't know why a couple of paragraphs explaining how to come up with a stunt would not work.
But either way, I likes it.
This sounds like an interesting module feature! [/quote]I prefer it being in the Basic Game. If ability checks and adv/disadv are in the game, I don't know why a couple of paragraphs explaining how to come up with a stunt would not work.But either w
TL;DR: GenCon experience should be smoother this year, no ETA on new packet.
@mikemearls: Who's playing Neverwinter? Which server? I just rolled a tiefling wizard named Dread Delgath on Dragon.
Too bad this game doesn't have forced PvP... I can see Mike getting ganked at every turn.
"And that's for Essentials, and that's for Heroes of Shadow, and that's for..."
Heh if the games defender types mechanics works I would defend him... on the principle of it.
Too bad this game doesn't have forced PvP... I can see Mike getting ganked at every turn."And that's for Essentials, and that's for Heroes of Shadow, and that's for..."[/quote]Heh if the games defender types mechanics works I would defend him... on t
It is not no ETA on the next packet. But I assume it is rather: "Sorry, I can´t spill the beans here on twitter." The latest packets arrived some days before I expected them actually. Currently I am eagerly looking forward to the next packet. The last one was a bit of a let down.
Oops, sorry, I intended for that to read more like "no ETA given for next packet". I guess I was too telegraphic. Thanks for the catch.
Oops, sorry, I intended for that to read more like "no ETA given for next packet". I guess I was too telegraphic. Thanks for the catch.
Well I poked a nose in Neverwinter Online... so far nothing is grabbing me much, although I quite like the amount of character personalization in terms of appearance. (if they had a more full 4e choice set of abilities that would be a real boost).
Yeah, its basically a standard MMO with neverwinter and D&D slapped on it. It doesn't even resemble 4E all that much. The one new thing they have is the Foundry where you can create and play player made adventures. I'm making one now and it seems interesting...
Yeah, its basically a standard MMO with neverwinter and D&D slapped on it. It doesn't even resemble 4E all that much. The one new thing they have is the Foundry where you can create and play player made adventures. I'm making one now and it seems int
some tweets of witch i'm not sure they are already in this tread.
Mike Mearls : Which Book of Nine Swords class did you like best - warblade, sword sage, or crusader?
Thiago Ribeiro : I like all, but crusader-ramdomly-impetus fits me better. Plans for martial adepts in DDNext?
Mike Mearls : *whistles innocently*
some tweets of witch i'm not sure they are already in this tread.Mike Mearls : Which Book of Nine Swords class did you like best - warblade, sword sage, or crusader?Thiago Ribeiro : I like all, but crusader-ramdomly-impetus fits me better
Well I poked a nose in Neverwinter Online... so far nothing is grabbing me much, although I quite like the amount of character personalization in terms of appearance. (if they had a more full 4e choice set of abilities that would be a real boost).
Yeah, its basically a standard MMO with neverwinter and D&D slapped on it. It doesn't even resemble 4E all that much. The one new thing they have is the Foundry where you can create and play player made adventures. I'm making one now and it seems interesting...
That sounds very interesting done well its one of the features that bridges gaps with ttrpgs I would say... (but as MMOs go the appearances customization is higher end than many - It seems almost a competitor for Elder Scrolls Oblivian/Skyrim which is coming out with an MMO soon as well )
Yeah, its basically a standard MMO with neverwinter and D&D slapped on it. It doesn't even resemble 4E all that much. The one new thing they have is the Foundry where you can create and play player made adventures. I'm making one now and it seems int
