What I want is for there to be lots of variance in the rules, but for each such variation to result in a character that is effective at the task of adventuring.
I do not want this. I want to be able to make characters that are not effective at some aspects of adventuring. I'm not saying I want this to be the norm but I want it to be possible. Making it impossible is an active restriction on the types of characters that can be made.
I agree. Though it should be slightly difficult and/or obvious to do so. Well rounded in and out of combat should be the default.
And it can already happen. Take a spell caster and only use utility spells, or only combat spells.
And that is something I like. I like that a spell caster could be virtually a non combatant by selecting nothing but utility spells. I just want non casters to have this same kind of option. I want to be able to play the rogue or bard that cannot fight yet is in some other way extremely useful. I want to be able to play the barbarian that can hardly be beat in battle yet is illiterate, and barely able to form sentences while talking. There are so many character concepts and designs that include non competence in certain areas, or possibly even detriment in certain areas. Making it so these things are not achievable within the system is a detriment to character building because it inadvertantly says that certain characters are not valid. Basically not every single character should be competent in a single area. Making it so that every character is minimally competent at combat limits the characters that can be made. You try making a Waldo Butters, or Father Forthill, type character when every single character is minimally competent at combat.
Might be difficult for a rogue to not have backstab. Though i do have hopes for a warlord and bard who can't hit things. Not that the warlord would be useless in combat, just never hit things himself.
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.
Now wait a second, who said that? Who said they wanted little variance in character choices other than which weapon they pick up? Can I have a name of the poster that suggested that?
I know what I want is not that. What I want is for there to be lots of variance in the rules, but for each such variation to result in a character that is effective at the task of adventuring.
Then you are going to have to decide which of those two mutually exclusive statements you actually believe in. Because you have defined "effective adventuring" as "being good at combat" - multiple times in this thread alone. And you have declared you think a good game would be one where there were no "bad" choices, no "traps," which you have defined as those which lead to sub-optimal combat effectiveness. Under those circumstances, there is only one logical build for any particular character. The players need not even show up to the table. The DM can do it all from the safety of home and then FAX the 'players' the results.
It's looking like only the fighter and the monk get maneuvers as a default. Everyone else accesses maneuvers through feats, and even then only a subset of them. Meanwhile, the rogue's sneak attack is likely transforming into a class feature that gives extra damage in certain situations rather than a maneuver.
Yep, typical "Problems, Reaction, Solution" crap.
Problem: We intentionally created an underperforming Rogue using ED and Maneuvers. Reaction: We don't want another weaker Fighter. Solution: Rather than fixing the maneuvers the Rogue got and making an awesome class, we are instead going to go back to the packet 2 Rogue.
Id...s
I'm only participating at this point so they can't say I didn't put forth my opinion. I can house rule stuff better than this.
This does not mean that abilities that resemble maneuvers are no longer part of the rogue. We're exploring a similar dice-based mechanic that can contain the simplest expression of checks and bonuses while also covering special abilities that interact with checks and other abilities that aren't combat-only options. If you look at the monk's maneuvers beyond attacks—Step of the Wind is a good example—you can see how this system might look.
What? So you are going to make multiple ED systems? Why that's just going to eat page space.
On top of this, we have the D&D spellcasting system. We're likely going to standardize casting a bit, both to keep things simpler and to make it much easier to convert from Vancian spell slots, a powers system, and so on, depending on what fits your campaign or setting.
This is the best news I've heard in awhile.
It's worth noting that things like the skill overhaul we're looking at represent something of a target of opportunity. With the playtest working so well, it gives us a chance to experiment a little more than we might otherwise attempt. When we have easy fallback mechanics, it's worth trying something new to see how it works out.
Meaningless dribble, until we see what you are talking about.
So, that leaves us with three basic systems that are shared between the classes. These systems cover basic competence in using weapons, making ability checks, and casting spells. It says something about a class if it lacks access to one of those abilities, such as a wizard's lacking weapon abilities or a rogue's inability to cast spells. Where things get interesting is when you look at the unique mechanics a class receives. Those mechanics might be wholly unique, or they might modify how a class interacts with our basic weapon, skill, and magic systems.
So like every other edition then?
Looking at the monk, that class gains access to unique maneuvers that have overtly magical effects, such as walking across water, running up walls, and plucking arrows out of the air. The monk can also channel ki to produce magical effects, with options for stunning a creature or healing presented as a default (we can expand the class later to give options you can take in place of those two). Finally, the monk is an expert in unarmed combat and defense, drawing on ki to dodge attacks and inflict deadly blows.
So like every other edition then?
In the monk's case, ki is an overlay that gives different options for attacks and checks. Ki can function within a maneuver, but it also grants a special mechanic that exists outside of the monk's martial damage bonus.
So you will be able to use ki on maneuvers. Ok. sure...
With our core system settling into place, we can narrow our focus to creating the features and abilities that make classes stand out. Soon, probably in the next month or so, we'll hit a tipping point where new classes and races come out at a fairly steady pace. With the core system marked out, even if the details aren't clear in all areas, we can start to focus on what makes each class unique. In terms of design time, that's actually the easy part of this process.
Your core system needs a lot of work. I'd give it a "C-" because its functional, just not better than what we have in other editions. Really you should have all the elements out including classes and species (lets move into the 1980's and use the right words) so that you don't end up rushing one class or species near the end and you can make sure they are all balanced.
Let's take the paladin as an example. The paladin's base weapon abilities might be equal to the fighter's, but the fighter has a class-specific ability (or abilities) that make it stronger with weapons. The paladin also has spells, though at a reduced power level in comparison to a cleric. The paladin's unique abilities, and the true source of the class's power, come from the power a paladin gains by swearing allegiance to a specific alignment. A lawful good paladin protects the weak and drives back the forces of darkness. A paladin of this alignment can lay on hands, project an aura of protection, smite evil foes, and detect the presence of unholy creatures. A chaotic evil anti-paladin might have the ability to sense weakness, ravage enemies with unholy power, and exert an aura that steals vitality from other creatures. A lawful evil anti-paladin might have the power to dominate other creatures, forcing them into slavery as it subverts law into tyranny. The paladin you create might mix and match some of these abilities, depending on your character's alignment and ethos.
So what you are saying is the Paladin will be weaker than both the Fighter and the Cleric and thus unplayable since they can only use one of the Fighter type abilities or the Cleric type abilities in a single round. Yep, we saw how this worked with the Sorcerer. Take away the overpowered spells from the Sorcerer and you suddenly have a super weak class because their attacks suck and their spells suck, but they can only do one per round so the whole class sucks2. Other than that I like the idea of being able to pick your alignment for the paladin. Hopefully they won't restrict the alignment too much into the DMs fiat.
I'd rather that the Paladin gets Expertise Dice like the Fighter, but instead of recovering them at the end of each round, they recover them by doing acts that their religion demand. For instance a Lawful Good Paladin might be commanded to help the poor. So they could donate money to the poor and gain a number of ED based on how much they donate (like 10% of their total wealth would be 10dX), or saving commoners, or capturing criminals, etc..etc...
This is what is so frustrating. They have infinite opportunities with ED and they are throwing it away. Hopefully they will have some kind of GSL that is closer to the OGL that will allow us 3rd party developers to fix the game and make it fun.
In this case, the paladin's abilities don't really rest in any of our three basic silos. They might look like spells, but they aren't prepared and cast in a way that functions like them. Like the monk's daily ki abilities, they are unique talents that only paladins can gain access to.
The key is that the three basic systems described above are merely the mechanical framework for a class. The interesting parts are the unique elements of a class that spring from its story and its place in the world. The stuff above about the paladin might sound great, or it might be the worst idea ever.
As an aside, I'm really interested to see what the feedback on the monk has to say about the alignment requirement.
Again, thanks for your feedback so far, and we look forward to reading more of what you have to say on these topics!
So you are creating three basic categories and then immediately making something that doesn't fit.
See every time I read Mike Mearls articles I lose more hope that 5E will be playable for people like me (4E fan)...
Fallacy #1
"Typical, Problems, Solution, Reaction"
Reaction: We don't want another weak fighter. This statement makes assumptions that the problems with the rogue is based purely off of the perception of it being a weaker form of the fighter. Can it be the driving reason? Yes. Is it likely to be the only reason? No. Other reason could also involve a dislike for too many classes possess the ED mechanic (without the whole strong/weaker component being considered).
I readily agree that this is pure speculation on my part, but its typical of this company and of Mearls himself. So there is at least a precedent.
The paladin will be weaker than the Cleric or Fighter and be unplayable. You're filling in alot of blanks to come to your conclusion. It gets some cleric effect but they have to be weaker than a cleric. The outline of powers is just to give an idea of what might or might not be included. The details determine the relative power of the feature. You are also ignoring possible synergy between clerical power and fighter powers that might enhance to overall power of the class. I don't know what the power level of the paladin will be in the end. But then, neither do you. Until you can say this power underperforms in comparison to these powers... You can't actually draw a conclusion based on facts.
You are right, but they created the Sorcerer with the same idea in mind. Unless they can come up with some kind of synergies, then giving them weaker spells and weaker attacks WILL result in a weaker character overall. This is what happened in 3.xE. The paladin could smite X times per day and cast lower level cleric spells. They ended up being nice X times per day and slightly underpowered until they ran out of the few spells they had, then they were one of the most worthless classes in the game after that point. If they design it this way, then it will result in a weaker class overall...
Noncombatant PCs could be easily accommodated by including some specialities that don't improve the PC's combat ability, such as Loremaster or Fence. These could be in their own section and clearly defined as options for PCs in a noncombat-focused game, or for those who want the challenge of playing a noncombatant PC.
Some classes, in particular rogue and wizard, have potential noncombatant options. I don't see anything wrong with including these, provided it's made clear that they will lessen the PC's combat efficacy.
On the topic of paladins, I'm all for basing their class abilities around virtue/vice rather than alignment. They provide a much stronger and more easily graspable target to focus behavior upon. While, say, a Paladin of Honor might find it easiest to behave honorably while lawful good, many players would welcome the challenge of having their good or lawful neutral paladin do the same thing.
I'd rather that the Paladin gets Expertise Dice like the Fighter, but instead of recovering them at the end of each round, they recover them by doing acts that their religion demand. For instance a Lawful Good Paladin might be commanded to help the poor. So they could donate money to the poor and gain a number of ED based on how much they donate (like 10% of their total wealth would be 10dX), or saving commoners, or capturing criminals, etc..etc...
This is what is so frustrating. They have infinite opportunities with ED and they are throwing it away. Hopefully they will have some kind of GSL that is closer to the OGL that will allow us 3rd party developers to fix the game and make it fun.
Eww... nonono. Advancing plot for mechanical tokens? None of that sounds like good fun or good design.
Really why not?
Where are your perspectives coming from. Are you a play actor, powergamer, or some combination of the two? Do you ignore the story and enjoy the numbers or do you enjoy the story and ignore the numbers?
This is about correctly calibrating the floor. Anyone can throw a punch or pick up an improvised weapon and have a chance to hit and do damage. The question is, how far is this from the expected output of a typically combat-competent character; how far is it from a combat focused character?
Wouldn't that be calibrating the ceiling? The floor is easy to figure out, it's what an untrained NPC can do. They're not trained in combat, so if I'm not trained in combat then we should be about the same when it comes to throwing punches. The output of a combat competent character is the ceiling, and that I don't care about. I have no problem with a fighter twisting heads off like nothing while I'm trying to figure out the best way not to die. I want a normal-ish character, and if I got it then I got it.
Homebrew Psionics blog posts archive: Spoiler:Show
UPDATED Dec/18/2012: BAMN! Random update with a modest amount of hard rules for Animal Affinity, Telepathy, and Telekinesis. ADDED: Discipline Burn and more "soft" ideas. Dec/13/2012: Small Psionics Homebrew Update, now that I'm done with Finals.
Really old. Nov/02/2012: I'm working on a homebrew Wilder, and so a homebrew Psionics system. Here's a 3 part post with info on where I am in the design process. Part 1, Hard rules/example soulknife discipline: Link. Part 2, Basic ideas/goals on basic numbers and classes: Link. Part 3, Direction/ideas I want to take with specific disciplines: Link.
What I want is for there to be lots of variance in the rules, but for each such variation to result in a character that is effective at the task of adventuring.
I do not want this. I want to be able to make characters that are not effective at some aspects of adventuring. I'm not saying I want this to be the norm but I want it to be possible. Making it impossible is an active restriction on the types of characters that can be made.
I agree. Though it should be slightly difficult and/or obvious to do so. Well rounded in and out of combat should be the default.
And it can already happen. Take a spell caster and only use utility spells, or only combat spells.
And that is something I like. I like that a spell caster could be virtually a non combatant by selecting nothing but utility spells. I just want non casters to have this same kind of option. I want to be able to play the rogue or bard that cannot fight yet is in some other way extremely useful. I want to be able to play the barbarian that can hardly be beat in battle yet is illiterate, and barely able to form sentences while talking. There are so many character concepts and designs that include non competence in certain areas, or possibly even detriment in certain areas. Making it so these things are not achievable within the system is a detriment to character building because it inadvertantly says that certain characters are not valid. Basically not every single character should be competent in a single area. Making it so that every character is minimally competent at combat limits the characters that can be made. You try making a Waldo Butters, or Father Forthill, type character when every single character is minimally competent at combat.
Might be difficult for a rogue to not have backstab. Though i do have hopes for a warlord and bard who can't hit things. Not that the warlord would be useless in combat, just never hit things himself.
Also, wasn't aristocrat an original class.
See I was actually sad to learn that sneak attack was going to be a completely ingrained mechanic for the rogue. I was liking the idea that sneak attack was not a default part of the rogue. Now I'm just hoping alternative class features reapears as a thing so that I can make a rogue that isn't as much a combat capable person and is instead more capable in another area in exchange for that combat prowess.
Problem: We intentionally created an underperforming Rogue using ED and Maneuvers. Reaction: We don't want another weaker Fighter. Solution: Rather than fixing the maneuvers the Rogue got and making an awesome class, we are instead going to go back to the packet 2 Rogue.
Id...s
I'm only participating at this point so they can't say I didn't put forth my opinion. I can house rule stuff better than this.
If you have insight into what they are doing in-house at WotC (which is how you come across with many if not most of your "conclusions"), I understand that you can't share specifics due to NDA. That said, it would then be in poor form of you to tease in such a fashion.
Or, it could be that you're jumping to conclusions and over-inflating your own worth. In that case, I think the fifth panel of this comic is for you: http://xkcd.com/169/
In regards to the house rule comment - if you and your gaming group like your rules, then awesome. However, given what I've seen of your work - both here, and your own playtest document available on DriveThru - then I disagree.
Strange I get many complements on my work and very few dislikes. Anything in particular you have a problem with?
