Kinda makes all the people rage quiting over the month seem extra silly when WotC just comes up and pretty much says "yeah, we released this package to test how unhappy people got over some changes." It's not unexpected. But still amusing.
Except... this has always seemed like a really bass-ackwards way of trying to do design. Releasing something you know is bad and will annoy people, which is then bad and annoys people, teaches you nothing about what is good and doesn't annoy people. It just annoys people.
And that shouldn't be the goal of a designer.
It teaches you where the boundaries of the design space are, and that is good. And a useful thing, if you're a designer.
Except... this has always seemed like a really bass-ackwards way of trying to do design. Releasing something you know is bad and will annoy people, which is then bad and annoys people, teaches you nothing about what is good and doesn't annoy people.
How? If you already KNOW it will be bad and annoying, then you already know where that boundary is, so why test it and annoy your testers? Releasing something you're not sure about, something which may or may not be annoying, fine. But my impression of the latest articles has been 'hey, come on now, we knew it was awful when we posted it, so it's not news that people hated it'.
What has that taught anyone, except that the design team are annoying?
How? If you already KNOW it will be bad and annoying, then you already know where that boundary is, so why test it and annoy your testers? Releasing something you're not sure about, something which may or may not be annoying, fine. But my impressi
Kinda makes all the people rage quiting over the month seem extra silly when WotC just comes up and pretty much says "yeah, we released this package to test how unhappy people got over some changes." It's not unexpected. But still amusing.
Except... this has always seemed like a really bass-ackwards way of trying to do design. Releasing something you know is bad and will annoy people, which is then bad and annoys people, teaches you nothing about what is good and doesn't annoy people. It just annoys people.
And that shouldn't be the goal of a designer.
It teaches you where the boundaries of the design space are, and that is good. And a useful thing, if you're a designer.
Actually, this is by and FAR one of the best pieces of data to have in the earlier stages of developement. It helps you deciminate which pieces of design to use, and helps you nail things down later in the process.
Except... this has always seemed like a really bass-ackwards way of trying to do design. Releasing something you know is bad and will annoy people, which is then bad and annoys people, teaches you nothing about what is good and doesn't annoy people.
How? If you already KNOW it will be bad and annoying
They can't know. They can't know how bad, how much of the playerbase thinks it's bad, and how much value they place on it not being bad. Or, even, that they're not just completely wrong, and that people actually will love it.
Not until they actually get feedback. Surely you're not suggesting that they simply know things about the population, and just proceed blindly based on assuming that they're right in that knowledge? Here's the man himself:
The biggest piece of feedback we received was that the rogue came across as a lame fighter. This was a key test to see how much tolerance people have for varied combat strength across classes. There's some give, but it looks like people want to avoid dramatic differences.
Frankly, that's not surprising, but now is the best time for us to challenge our assumptions before we lock things down.
This is directly saying that while they had a pretty good idea, they'd rather be sure than proceed based on a guess. Can you really blame them, and call it bad design? Really?
They can't know. They can't know how bad, how much of the playerbase thinks it's bad, and how much value they place on it not being bad. Or, even, that they're not just completely wrong, and that people actually will love it.Not until they actually
It's not mind control, it's just getting into the other guy's head. Forcing someone to charge you? Sound like you picked someone you wanted to have rush you and then said a rash of hirrible things about his mother. Makes absolute sense. And the contested action part works well. Are you charismatic enough at taunting him to overwhelm his good judgement (Cha vs Wisdom)?
What if a player wants to role-play a Wizard that doesn't care about insults or any nonsense spewed by what he considers lesser beings? Would you deny this personality trait by making the player's character get hot headed and charge at the monster cuz of a yo mama joke? Or, would you make an exception and say that player is immune to the effect based on story? The latter seems like crap, because it would just encourage all the players to make snobby uptight characters to avoid the effect of this maneuver. The former is even worse, because it denies the player to play out the character he wants.
It may be fine in your game, but character development is a major factor for me in RPGs (both PC and NPC) and I don't want mechanics to muddy that up. It also just insults everyone's in game intelligence, I don't know anyone IRL who would recklessly charge an orc in a dire situation do to insults. I disagree that it makes any sense at all. At least not in any game world I want to play in.
Don't paint this as a character development issue. I love characterization and character development as much as the next guy. If I didn't, I'd just play a videogame instead. The mother insults are just one example of a potential taunt.
What if a player wants to role-play a Wizard that doesn't care about insults or any nonsense spewed by what he considers lesser beings? Would you deny this personality trait by making the player's character get hot headed and charge at the monster cu
Tentatively happy. So... how is-signature spells +more spells prepared, but cast on the fly less vancian? I just... wow guys. At least give it a real try before shouting it down. Dang. And yeah... I'm sure the rogues could become mind control psionic masters. But realistically? That rogue is gonna have to roll a few times to get a caster who is wise to break. I've seen some reserved guys break after just the right insult. But even then, give one or both advantage / disadvantage on the rolls. Or put a limited range on the ability. Or maybe casters who get angry have to cast their most powerful prepared spell at that annoying halfling instead of holding it back. There are lots of workable solutions. Try different ones at your table and give feedback.
Tentatively happy.So... how is-signature spells +more spells prepared, but cast on the fly less vancian? I just... wow guys. At least give it a real try before shouting it down. Dang.And yeah... I'm sure the rogues could become mind control psionic m
Tentatively happy. So... how is-signature spells +more spells prepared, but cast on the fly less vancian? I just... wow guys. At least give it a real try before shouting it down. Dang.
I believe they are operating under the premise that anything other than fire and forget slots isn't truly vancian.
I believe they are operating under the premise that anything other than fire and forget slots isn't truly vancian.
I'm a total fan of giving wizards more cantrips and the scaling seems necessary to keep them functional at higher levels. I hated that the wizards in this playtest were so limited to only a few options. I like the idea of rituals being used for utility spells. I just hope that they make more of the spells ritual types rather than just the few that they've desingated in this playtest package.
Also, I'm not sad to see encounter spells (signature spells) go. I think they add an unnecessary complication. I'd just give different traditions unique "at will" or a limited time per day spells to choose from.
As for the rogue skill dice, I like how that gives them something unique, but it isn't so different from how my group's rogue plays now. I've let the rogue set up traps and taunt foes or draw them to him using skill contests since package 1. Hard coding it into the class is interesting especially if there are more interesting options (like the one mentioned about how the rogue could get a foe to swing wildly and hit an ally). One thing I'm worried about is that a lot of these maneuvers or weaponized skill checks, seem like improvised actions that any player could use. I really just want to see a better fleshed out list of typical improvised contests/checks.
Oh yes, turn undead was way to complicated in this playtest package. I'm still not sure how it works. I'm looking forward to an easier way, and I like how it can be exchanged for healing too.
Fighters and a better parry...ok. There is probably a better class specific boon that can be given to the fighter, but that's ok.
Overall, I'm optimistic, and always eager to see the new playtest material.
I'm liking what I hear. I'm a total fan of giving wizards more cantrips and the scaling seems necessary to keep them functional at higher levels. I hated that the wizards in this playtest were so limited to only a few options. I like the idea of
"The plan right now is to give rogues expertise dice equivalent to the fighter's progression."
"These abilities are much like maneuvers, but they use the rogue's skill dice rather than what we're currently calling expertise dice. "
Wait...Now the Rogue gets Expertise Dice AND Skill Dice? So now they get the same stuff as the Fighter, plus their own thing? What do the Fighters get. I mean I'm ok if we spread around the ED and give each class specific maneuvers that other classes don't get access to. I mean that's just like the Cleric and Wizard both getting spells but getting different spells and using them differently.
"With sneak attack, the plan right now is to treat it as a bonus to damage that you can gain in certain situations. As a default, when you have advantage, you can choose to forgo it in return for extra damage. Gaining both a significant bonus to accuracy and damage was proving a little too good. Dialing down the damage also allows us to be more liberal in giving you the chance to activate it."
Ok, wait so the Rogue now has at least 3 subsystems that they have to manage over the Fighters one? Good call on realizing how broken advantage can be every other round. Maybe you took our advice and hired someone that can do math, or even just bothered to read the math posts on the forums...
"I'd also like to continue making sneak attack an option, rather than having it be the default mode for all rogues. For example, a rogue might have the option to take better starting weapons, trading the spike of sneak attack for steadier damage, or the option to gain a special dodge ability to focus on reducing damage taken rather than boosting damage dealt."
This is good news. They need to allow people to create the Rogue they want rather than forcing the Rogue that the developers want. However their examples fall short. A sneak Rogue should have a maneuver or trick that allows them to hide or sneak while being observed "Look over there.", a Charismatic Rogue that is known for their bluffing and manipulation in social situations should get something that show cases that skill for instance a sly flourish that allows them to ignore the targets dex bonus to AC or to simplify it they gain a +2 to the attack, or maybe give them some kind of distracting banter that grants a small bonus to other characters or the target a penalty to their attacks against anyone but the Rogue.
Really they need to find out what people think the Rogue is first using the surveys, then after that they need to group people into groups (like the TED talks spaghetti sauce innovation) and then create a scheme for each group. Then and only then can they really define what should replace sneak attack for each scheme...
"We're making a few changes to spell casting. First and foremost, casters will receive more slots than the number we were giving in the last packet. In addition, at-will spells will scale in damage and effect to remain relevant at all levels."
Yes...yes, they finally get it!!!
"It's likely that these changes push the signature spell out of the picture, since we don't really need it to pick up the slack anymore."
No...no, they lost it!!! They need to give us the option of using spells as encounter resources, I don't care if they put a recharge mechanic on it and tie it to adrenaline, or whether you have to have conditions met to be able to use it (half hit points for a kind of blood magic spell or you have to have brought a target down to half-hit points or whatever), or whether you pick the spell at preparation time and can cast it once per 10 minutes for half power or whatever...
"It looks like we'll rearrange the spells to create either a separate category of at-will spells or an at-will version of existing spells. In either case, your at-will spells won't interact with your spell slots or spell preparation. You'll simply be able to pick a number of at-wills you can use each day based on your level."
I like this idea, but lets see how they mess it up...
"Rituals are going to become free to use if you have the spell in your spellbook or on your list of prepared spells. This will require a fair amount of work to balance their effects, but charging gold pieces for them was a poor balancing mechanic."
Yep, I'm glad they realize this, now maybe we can move forward from story limitations on things like daily slots to something more workable like milestones or whatever...
"Finally, we will add rules for casting spells while in armor. The rule will simply be that if you are proficient with a type of armor, you can cast spells while wearing it. Otherwise, the armor interferes with your ability to cast."
Nice. I like that. Then you can get feats to grant armor usage...
"Turn undead will be significantly simplified and will be tied to a pool of healing that a cleric can tap into. A cleric gains 5 points of positive energy per level that he or she can channel each day. Clerics can channel healing on a 1-for-1 basis, create bigger healing effects for more points (remove disease, neutralize poison), and turn undead for a small number of points (undead creatures are, not surprisingly, repelled by positive energy). The numbers will change, but the basic mechanic is in place."
I like this idea, but how much healing is enough? Will it be tied in some way to hit dice? If not its ok as long as magic item healing IS tied to hit dice there shouldn't be too many problems. The idea is that it needs limits. If a Fighter can have the equivalent of unlimited hit points through magic items and Cleric spells, then the game will become unbalanced...
"We might revise the deities to include armor proficiency. We'll also look for better at-will options for clerics. The text for the deity entries will also make it clear that titles such as the Warbringer might apply to one aspect of a deity. A single god might have clerics that gain different powers, depending on which aspect they embrace."
Good, that way we can have War clerics who are basically religious armored knights with a few spells and we can have Priests that are unarmored spell heavy healers...
"The wizard is also receiving a few changes. In addition to the general changes to magic, the wizard's spell damage will be increased, traditions will feature more choices, and we'll also look at covering all of the schools of magic by using traditions."
This is cool. Hopefully there will be enough choices to make everyone happy. Maybe they will get rid of hard coded choices and go with encouraging choices. Like if you pick a spell on your Tradition list you get a +1 to the attack roll or save DC when it is used, or you can increase the area by 5' or you can ignore targets in the area, or you can increase the damage die size by one for that spell.
"The biggest change for wizards is that we are going to separate spell preparation and spellcasting. You can prepare a number of spells, let's say three, for each level you can cast. When you cast a spell, you pick any spell you have prepared and spend the corresponding spell slot to cast it. This mechanic mirrors the flexibility we gave to clerics."
I like this. This is the right direction to go. Now they just need to limit the spells a Wizard gets to a maximum amount total and allow spells to scale depending on the slot level they are used in. My chart would go like this:
Then allow memorization of any lower level spell in a higher level slot with scaling effects.
Then alter spells to scale with spell slot level like this example:
Blink 3rd-‐level transmutation This spell was developed by spell casters attempting to replicate the ability of blink dogs to briefly vanish deep into the Ethereal Plane. Unlike those dogs, a spell caster sometimes fails to blink back into this plane of existence when the spell ends. Requirement: You must be on a plane other than the Ethereal Plane to cast this spell. Effect: For the next minute, roll a d20 at the end of each of your turns. On a roll of 11 or higher, you vanish from your current plane of existence and appear deep in the Ethereal Plane. At the start of your next turn, you return in a space of your choice that is within 10 feet of the space where you vanished. Unless you have magic that can reach across planes, you can affect and be affected only be things on the Ethereal Plane while you are absent. Special: If you roll a natural 1 on the d20, roll again. If you roll another 1, you are lost in the Ethereal Plane for 2d6 hours. At the end of that time, you reappear as described above. Used in a higher level slot:For each spell slot above 3rd level that this spell is used in, you gain a +1 to the d20 roll to determine if you appear in the Ethereal Plane. If the spell is memorized in a 5th or 5th level spell slot, you can return in a space of your choice that is within 15 feet of the space where you vanished. At 7th or 8th it is 20 feet. At 9th and above it is 25 feet.
"The plan right now is to give rogues expertise dice equivalent to the fighter's progression.""These abilities are much like maneuvers, but they use the rogue's skill dice rather than what we're currently calling expertise dice. "Wait...Now the Rogue
I gotta say I dislike the wizards change in casting style. the whole thing about letting them prep three 5th level spells and then casting the same one three times is kinda no fun. to me I like the choose intelligently aspect of wizards, but a simple house rule to insert if I really feel the need though i think this may be able to grow on me. Other than that though things sound good. Like that something else is being used for turning,but the channel energy to heal has to be way way better because that is far too little healing coming out of that feature. Though I may be wrong we'll see. The rogue changes sound exactly like what I wanted. Also like to hear the increase in number of spell slots. I think my players were especially adamant about that complaint (and the turn undead complaint).
Really I just wish they would finally use swappable casting systems, so in your game vancian is the only way and in my game AED is the only way, but that would be a good idea, so they can't do that...
Really I just wish they would finally use swappable casting systems, so in your game vancian is the only way and in my game AED is the only way, but that would be a good idea, so they can't do that...
If rogues are less durable than fighters, then they need to do more damage. Period.
Now, durability can take many forms. If these sorts of tricks and maneuvers actually lead the rogue to being more durable than the fighter, then that's worth the damage tradeoff.
Of course, then the fighter's design is in a wonky place. But even putting that aside, you're already trading damage for tricks to make you more durable. Unless those tricks are putting the enemy at a severe disadvantage, the way controller effects like wizard spells do, just letting the rogue survive the front lines with a cruddy HD and light armor while doing less damage than the fighter is just not going to work.
I know you're all big into the "fighters are best at fighting" thing, but that doesn't leave much room for anyone who fights but isn't a fighter.
if fighting is the core of your character play a fighter. if deception/trickery/dishonesty is at the core of your character play a rogue. I actually enjoy the distinction.
So then how do you justify the Monk whose core is also fighting, or the Ranger whose core is also fighting?
The "Fighter is best at Fighting" needs to be burned in a fire and "The Fighter is best at confrontational weapon and armor usage" should replace it. Once that happens you can have Monks who are best at Physical Maneuvers that defy the norm like running on water or along walls and bypassing Resistances and Immunities as well as self healing. You can have the Ranger whose focus is taking out specific types of enemies and using their surroundings to their advantage (ignoring difficult terrain, or forcing enemies into difficult terrain, or whatever).
You can then have several classes that are "Best at Fighting" but in "Different Ways" or "Best at Fighting in this way". Once they do that we can have a real game rather than a flop...
if fighting is the core of your character play a fighter. if deception/trickery/dishonesty is at the core of your character play a rogue. I actually enjoy the distinction.[/quote]So then how do you justify the Monk whose core is also fighting, or th
Sounds good actually. Alot of the changes here have already been done in PAthfinder and 3.5 in terms of snea attack options they introduced in the Complete Scoundral IIRC.
With streamlined mechanics and leving some of the rubbish of 3.5 behind they may be onto a winner here. Skills and Races need some work but that should be easy enough to do.
Sounds good actually. Alot of the changes here have already been done in PAthfinder and 3.5 in terms of snea attack options they introduced in the Complete Scoundral IIRC. With streamlined mechanics and leving some of the rubbish of 3.5 behind they
Non-vancian wizards and no option for vancian. Now that is super lame.
You could also just enforce a houserule of standard vancian slots and test the packet out that way. Skipping a packet seems like a good way of not letting WotC know anything constructive.
Really you should test it out and then tell them how utterly horrible it is. I've been doing that for every packet with vancian in it. Its called part of the play test process...
You could also just enforce a houserule of standard vancian slots and test the packet out that way. Skipping a packet seems like a good way of not letting WotC know anything constructive.[/quote]Really you should test it out and then tell them how ut
Hopefully the Warlock and Sorcerer can pick up the slack or offer an option for those who do not like vancian casting. I would prefer the Cleric and Wizard to be vancian casters, alot more liberal with other classes or options for non vancian casters.
Hopefully the Warlock and Sorcerer can pick up the slack or offer an option for those who do not like vancian casting. I would prefer the Cleric and Wizard to be vancian casters, alot more liberal with other classes or options for non vancian casters
Am I reading the rogue wrong, or is he talking about giving them the ability to force other characters to charge around and stuff? If I'm right, ugh. Say I made a kobold rogue use this against the PC wizard to get him to charge out from behind his bros, would the player not complain that his character would never do that? I like simulating worlds. NPCs have just as much of a right to those kinds of decisions as the PCs, and I'm not going to allow game mechanics to take that away from either of them any time soon. Am I going to have to strip/alter more than just Charm in order to preserve mental free will in D&DN?
As for the Wizard's new slot style, shrug, alright. But can we get something different for the Cleric then? I liked that contrast between how divine prayers and arcane magic worked.
I vote for a system for the Cleric where they make a Faith Check to see if their Deity deems them worth enough of granting their prayer. Basically make a really weak at-will or failure effect like Bless is +1 to their next attack if they fail the check, but if they make the check then its +1 for 10 rounds or whatever.
Then the Faith Check is a Wisdom check with a DC of 10 + spell level. They would get points they store up based on following the tenets of their faith. For instance Deity of healing and charity might have tenets to always heal the those in need for free and to donate 10% of your wealth to the poor each week or month or whatever. The Cleric would start with 10 Faith Points that they can add to any Faith Check. They would gain/lose points each time they are faced with a situation where they have to choose to heal or donate to the poor. If they choose not to, they lose a point. If they choose to do it they gain a point. The points would be expended to grant an increased chance for the prayer to succeed. This way they never run out of prayers and there is always an effect. For instance healing spells would grant temp hp on a failure, but on a success they would grant healing. Here are how the numbers would run down:
Percent Points with Required Spell +5 Wis to get 100% Level Mod 1 75 3 2 70 4 3 65 5 4 60 6 5 55 7 6 50 8 7 45 9 8 40 10 9 35 11 10 30 12
Extra points can be stored across days, but each extended rest and deep prayer/meditation session brings the minimum back up to 10.
Now a lot of people don't like the idea of extra points being tied to DM fiat, but you can design it where its pretty much mechanical in nature like anytime you donate 5% of your wealth to any cause or to your temple you gain 1 point. You could make this purely mechanical by having a ritual that sends the money to your temple through some kind of tiny teleport that only works on inorganic matter or something.
Warrior religions could have it where each time you defeat an enemy in battle you get a point. Healing religions could have it where anytime you use the healing skill to heal someone you gain a point. There are innumerable ways you can make it mechanical, and no bag of rats comments please, we all know how that works and we all know its not a valid tactic...
I vote for a system for the Cleric where they make a Faith Check to see if their Deity deems them worth enough of granting their prayer. Basically make a really weak at-will or failure effect like Bless is +1 to their next attack if they fail the che
Kinda makes all the people rage quiting over the month seem extra silly when WotC just comes up and pretty much says "yeah, we released this package to test how unhappy people got over some changes." It's not unexpected. But still amusing.
Its more amusing how WotC doesn't realize they are driving away future customers using this tactic...
Its more amusing how WotC doesn't realize they are driving away future customers using this tactic...
The biggest piece of feedback we received was that the rogue came across as a lame fighter. This was a key test to see how much tolerance people have for varied combat strength across classes. There's some give, but it looks like people want to avoid dramatic differences.
You will never succeed in balance and this will, end up turning the game to mush. The best versions of the game in my mind (1st and 2nd) edition embraced what made each class unique. There was no attempt to bring everyone up to the same level of power at each level, and as a result each character that you created had more depth and was ultimately more memorable. Who is really going to remember how much damage a rogue did in combat while swinging through the air from a chandler to get behind the enemy?
For the same reason I dislike the Wizard solution. The natural evolution of using the same mechanic between Wizards and Priests is to combine the classes, and that would be a real shame for the classic DnD player.
I also think from a marketing stand point balance sets DnD up for failure, as most of the balance crowd will end up seeking out video games in the end anyway.
Totally off on all points. Balance is not equal to Sameness. Just because one edition used sameness doesn't mean 5E has to have sameness. You can have balance without sameness.
As to your other points, yeah, people might not remember the damage numbers but they will remember the Rogue that snuck up on the dragon and did I flying leap and planted their rapier squarely in the dragons eye peircing its brain and killing it.
This edition can embrace what makes each class unique and at the same time bring their power up to equal comparable levels in a different way. What you give is a false dichotomy. Class uniqueness and balance are on two different tracks or sliders if you will and any combination of the two can be accomplished.
Your personal opinion on 1st and 2nd edition are not the opinions of all that play. When I played 2E I thought it was great, but then I played 3.xE and I thought it was the best. Then I played 4E and I now think it is the best. I've played 5E so far and I don't think its the best. That should tell you something. Of course what matters is not your opinion or mine, but the sum total of all the play testers opinions and those can only be tallied in the play test surveys...
Totally off on all points. Balance is not equal to Sameness. Just because one edition used sameness doesn't mean 5E has to have sameness. You can have balance without sameness.As to your other points, yeah, people might not remember the damage number
Fighters are Best at Fighting was the right place to start. I firmly believe that another too-weak-to-be-worthwhile fighter would spell doom. But that doesn't mean we end with Super-fighters. It only means this was a necessary part of the game's evolution. "Rogues should not be Fighter Jr." now needs to be the next thing we do. Last- MM mentioned basic, standard, and advanced rules. What are we testing? All 3? Standard? What will/does advanced entail?
If Fighters are best at fighting, then why can a Monk meet or beat them in DPR? What happens to the Paladin and Ranger? What happens to the other martial classes that are traditionally good at fighting?
See "Fighters are best at fighting" makes about as much sense as "Wizards are best at spell casting". So Clerics, Druids, Sorcerers, and Warlocks are just out of luck then huh?
If Fighters are best at fighting, then why can a Monk meet or beat them in DPR? What happens to the Paladin and Ranger? What happens to the other martial classes that are traditionally good at fighting?See "Fighters are best at fighting" makes about
People seem to be forgetting that communication isn't just verbal. There are plenty of non-verbal communication options if the goal is to manipulate someone into acting as you wish.
-5 for not sharing the language.
But yea, still possible.
Depends. Language aside, if I give a a person the finger, he's gonna get the idea.
Unless of course they are from a far eastern country, they they will look at you funny and go about their business...
-5 for not sharing the language.But yea, still possible. [/quote]Depends. Language aside, if I give a a person the finger, he's gonna get the idea.[/quote]Unless of course they are from a far eastern country, they they will look at you funny and go
Wizard casting in armor is only in armor you're proficient with. Given that they currently don't have any way to expand proficiency, I suspect this is more to deal with future developments than anything specific to the wizard.
Yep, as soon as they release the multiclass rules, all you'll have to do is take one level of fighter or cleric with war domain and now every wizard is casting in plate.
Rogue update - I like the sound of it, will wait to see it in action.
Cleric - glad to see that version of Turn Undead gone, it was way too complicated. Not sure how the "5 points of positive energy" thing will work, sounds a bit light on the healing capability. I'll reserve judgement till I see the rules though.
Wizard - I didn't have a problem with the encounter power/signature spell idea, it was just poorly implemented. Make it something like the specialist wizards of 2e and you're on to something - pick a school of magic to specialize in, and you get one bonus spell/day from that school of any level that you can cast. Add "once every x minutes" to the end of that and problem solved. Maybe they can make that part of the school of magic schtick that he mentioned (and which I'll be happy to see again).
I'm NOT happy to see spontaneous casting for a wizard though. No edition of D&D has ever done that before, and it will definitely not FEEL like D&D if they do. I've got no problem with clerics or sorcerers or [insert rarely-used splatbook prestige class here] doing it, it was part of what made those classes different from the wizard. I totally get what people are saying about it "still requiring forethought" - that's fine, it's just not the vancian wizard archetype we're all used to. Other classes have that as a unique feature; if you plug into the wizard scope, you'll have to make up for it in the other classes that get it as something special. Otherwise now your wizard can do what they can do, PLUS the stuff unique to being a wizard. Kinda makes my cleric feel ripped off...
Hopefully multi classing will work like 4E Hybrid rules except you can pick it at any level, so if you pick the Fighter you have to gain some of their stuff and get less spell slots as a Wizard from then on. That would keep the one and done dippers out of the mix...
Yep, as soon as they release the multiclass rules, all you'll have to do is take one level of fighter or cleric with war domain and now every wizard is casting in plate. :)Rogue update - I like the sound of it, will wait to see it in action.Cleric -
Whats the guts of 4th ed hybrid rules? Stopped paying attention to the 4th ed rules after the PHB2/essentials. Do you get to swap powers like the MC feats but without having to spend feats?
Whats the guts of 4th ed hybrid rules? Stopped paying attention to the 4th ed rules after the PHB2/essentials. Do you get to swap powers like the MC feats but without having to spend feats?
People seem to be forgetting that communication isn't just verbal. There are plenty of non-verbal communication options if the goal is to manipulate someone into acting as you wish.
-5 for not sharing the language.
But yea, still possible.
Depends. Language aside, if I give a a person the finger, he's gonna get the idea.
Unless of course they are from a far eastern country, they they will look at you funny and go about their business...
Not the way I do it. I go all out.
-5 for not sharing the language.But yea, still possible. [/quote]Depends. Language aside, if I give a a person the finger, he's gonna get the idea.[/quote]Unless of course they are from a far eastern country, they they will look at you funny and go
@lokiare - I agree with you that the other classes need parity in combat. I'm just saying that designers fighters to be awesome resulted in a fairly good fighter class. Not that WOTC is finished and can call it a day - just that the "fighters are best at fighting" mentality was a good starting point.
@lokiare - I agree with you that the other classes need parity in combat. I'm just saying that designers fighters to be awesome resulted in a fairly good fighter class. Not that WOTC is finished and can call it a day - just that the "fighters are b
Yep, as soon as they release the multiclass rules, all you'll have to do is take one level of fighter or cleric with war domain and now every wizard is casting in plate.
Awesome, how did you get to see the upcomming multiclass rules? And isn't sharing them with us a violation of the NDA you signed? Snark aside, there are countless ways to handle multiclassing. Assuming it will be handled a certain way is pointless. If the proposed casting in armor rule is popular and ends up sticking, I can't imagine you would be able to gain proficiency in armor very easily (unless they decide that a wizard in armor isn't too powerful).
So it isn't just that you want your own wizard to be totally vancian, but you need the wizard your friend makes to be vancian too? The fact that your cleric gets his own things that are different from the wizard isn't enough? Also, what is wrong with simply putting in the restriction yourself? When you make a wizard, pick each individual spell that you will cast when you prepare your spells. When your friend makes a wizard (assuming they prefer the new method), just don't concern yourself with what they are doing. When they cast a spell, just tell yourself that it was one they picked to memorize.
Unfortunately, that logic leads to classless design. If I "don't concern myself with" the way other people build their characters, it implies there's no baseline to compare them too, which means you can do any fool thing you want and nobody can say jack about it. It's not even worth arguing about, so please don't waste your time trying. There's already too many threads about that, without highjacking this one.
As with anything, there has to be a baseline starting point, and there can be as many options from there as they want. My point is merely that the whole premise of DDN design is that it needs to "feel like" previous editions. Every previous edition except 4e has required wizards to slot their spells ahead of time. My opinion, which I'm entitled to without "snark", is that removing that restriction would not only make the DDN wizard not "feel" like a D&D wizard, but that it would also make other spell casters not "feel" like D&D either. The wizard because it has lost a restriction that it has classically had in order to balance their abilities, and particular other classes because they have lost a perk that is special for them.
Or, to turn your comment around, what's wrong with having the restriction, and you can simply ignore it or lie to yourself? See, goes both ways. Regardless, one way or the other will have to be the baseline. I'd like to see the standard method remain, and make it the option to do something different. Personal opinion; YMMV.
5E is still going to force you to slot your spells, you just get the bonus Feat Channel Spell:
Channel Spell Wizard meta-magic Feat Effect: You can channel any memorized spell and cast it as though it were any other memorized spell of the same level.
See problem solved...
Awesome, how did you get to see the upcomming multiclass rules? And isn't sharing them with us a violation of the NDA you signed? Snark aside, there are countless ways to handle multiclassing. Assuming it will be handled a certain way is pointless
Your guys' reaction is bafflingly hostile... Seriously, none of you guys ever crack jokes about absurd possibilities?! It makes me sad to even have to explain myself...
(edited because my first response wasn't very nice. I'm a good guy, honest.)
When jokes border on edition warring, they stop being jokes...
When jokes border on edition warring, they stop being jokes...
I'm not comfortable with the change in how spell slots work for the Wizard. I'm not saying it's bad game design or anything, but it isn't the D&D wizard. The fact that the wizard a spell slot grants one use of one spell has been in every single version of D&D, including 4E (even if it looked a little different). It's where the term "spell slot" comes from. In fact, it may be the single most consistant mechanic in the history of the game.
I'm not comfortable with the change in how spell slots work for the Wizard. I'm not saying it's bad game design or anything, but it isn't the D&D wizard. The fact that the wizard a spell slot grants one use of one spell has been in every single versi
Your guys' reaction is bafflingly hostile... Seriously, none of you guys ever crack jokes about absurd possibilities?! It makes me sad to even have to explain myself...
(edited because my first response wasn't very nice. I'm a good guy, honest.)
Yeah, sorry, I wasn't trying to be hostile, just snarky. And it is best to clearly mark your comments as being sarcasm, a joke, or whatever. Because I can't see your face and I don't know your personality.
So don't be sad!
Yes, and use the smiley face. The smiley face solves everything.
Yep, I've had 33% less vacations since I started using them...
Yeah, sorry, I wasn't trying to be hostile, just snarky. And it is best to clearly mark your comments as being sarcasm, a joke, or whatever. Because I can't see your face and I don't know your personality.So don't be sad![/quote]Yes, and use the sm
Kinda makes all the people rage quiting over the month seem extra silly when WotC just comes up and pretty much says "yeah, we released this package to test how unhappy people got over some changes." It's not unexpected. But still amusing.
Except... this has always seemed like a really bass-ackwards way of trying to do design. Releasing something you know is bad and will annoy people, which is then bad and annoys people, teaches you nothing about what is good and doesn't annoy people. It just annoys people.
And that shouldn't be the goal of a designer.
Your kidding right Mike Mearls loves that kind of stuff...
Except... this has always seemed like a really bass-ackwards way of trying to do design. Releasing something you know is bad and will annoy people, which is then bad and annoys people, teaches you nothing about what is good and doesn't annoy people.
How? If you already KNOW it will be bad and annoying
They can't know. They can't know how bad, how much of the playerbase thinks it's bad, and how much value they place on it not being bad. Or, even, that they're not just completely wrong, and that people actually will love it.
Not until they actually get feedback. Surely you're not suggesting that they simply know things about the population, and just proceed blindly based on assuming that they're right in that knowledge? Here's the man himself:
The biggest piece of feedback we received was that the rogue came across as a lame fighter. This was a key test to see how much tolerance people have for varied combat strength across classes. There's some give, but it looks like people want to avoid dramatic differences.
Frankly, that's not surprising, but now is the best time for us to challenge our assumptions before we lock things down.
This is directly saying that while they had a pretty good idea, they'd rather be sure than proceed based on a guess. Can you really blame them, and call it bad design? Really?
My problem with it is there are infinite bad designs, and finite good designs. Now why are they testing the bad designs? Wouldn't it be better to test the good designs and narrow down which ones to use rather than testing bad designs and never running out?
They can't know. They can't know how bad, how much of the playerbase thinks it's bad, and how much value they place on it not being bad. Or, even, that they're not just completely wrong, and that people actually will love it.Not until they actually
Hopefully the Warlock and Sorcerer can pick up the slack or offer an option for those who do not like vancian casting. I would prefer the Cleric and Wizard to be vancian casters, alot more liberal with other classes or options for non vancian casters.
Yeah, no. That's been discussed to death. The Warlock and Sorcerer have their own fluff, if you just make them into Wizards with a different casting mechanic you simply anger the Warlock or Sorcerer fans. Really this idea was thrown out long ago and should not return...
Yeah, no. That's been discussed to death. The Warlock and Sorcerer have their own fluff, if you just make them into Wizards with a different casting mechanic you simply anger the Warlock or Sorcerer fans. Really this idea was thrown out long ago and
I vote for a system for the Cleric where they make a Faith Check to see if their Deity deems them worth enough of granting their prayer.
why would anyone advocate a zero-minute workday?
If you consider super weak prayers a zero minute work day then it shouldn't impact your game. If on the other hand you consider the Cleric having to do things outside combat to ensure a good chance of getting their prayers to do nice things, then there is something wrong with you because the heal skill requires what a minute or two to use effectively for anything except stabilizing a character. You do that 5 to 10 times per day and you have a 30 minute work day not including the combat. That's all for 5 to 10 points or 25% to 50% increase on a chance to have a nice effect on one prayer spell. Yeah, not seeing your point exactly...
why would anyone advocate a zero-minute workday?[/quote]If you consider super weak prayers a zero minute work day then it shouldn't impact your game. If on the other hand you consider the Cleric having to do things outside combat to ensure a good cha
Whats the guts of 4th ed hybrid rules? Stopped paying attention to the 4th ed rules after the PHB2/essentials. Do you get to swap powers like the MC feats but without having to spend feats?
At 1st level you pick 2 classes, you then get a weak feature from each class and have to pick one at-will from each class. Then you pick an encounter and daily from either class. As you level you must have at least 1 at-will, encounter, daily, and utility power from each class. You gain all the trained skills of both classes but only train in 3. You gain the least armor from both classes (so if you can use plate on one class but only leather on the other you get leather). You gain the weapon proficiencies of both classes. You can spend feats to gain the full features of either class. Once you hybrid you are that way for the rest of your career...
Its really an elegant system and works well...
At 1st level you pick 2 classes, you then get a weak feature from each class and have to pick one at-will from each class. Then you pick an encounter and daily from either class. As you level you must have at least 1 at-will, encounter, daily, and ut
@lokiare - I agree with you that the other classes need parity in combat. I'm just saying that designers fighters to be awesome resulted in a fairly good fighter class. Not that WOTC is finished and can call it a day - just that the "fighters are best at fighting" mentality was a good starting point.
No, it ended up with Fighters being DPR kings in the first few play test packets. Then they stumbled onto the idea that a Fighter might be able to do something other than just "hit it and hit it again". After that you kind of get the idea that maybe the Fighter isn't best at Fighting, maybe they are best at weapon usage and armor usage with the Parry and Deadly Strike Maneuvers. Then you see the other maneuvers like Glancing Blow that reinforce the whole best at weapons and confrontational usage. If they started with "Fighters are best at confrontational weapon and armor usage" They would have put the ED in the first packet...
No, it ended up with Fighters being DPR kings in the first few play test packets. Then they stumbled onto the idea that a Fighter might be able to do something other than just "hit it and hit it again". After that you kind of get the idea that maybe
I don't get why some people are saying the wizard won't require any forethought using this system. You still prepare spells! If anything, it requires more forethought than any pre-4e wizard did, since you only get to prepare at most 3 spells per day of each level. You have much less room for error. The only element of forethought that this removes is having to guess *how many* fireballs or magic missiles you might need today. IMO, that's a good thing.
Besides, switching wizards back to the old preparation style is probably the easiest house rule ever. If you really want your wizards to have to choose not only which spells they prepare but also how many of each spell, you can still easily do that.
I don't get why some people are saying the wizard won't require any forethought using this system. You still prepare spells! If anything, it requires more forethought than any pre-4e wizard did, since you only get to prepare at most 3 spells per day
How? If you already KNOW it will be bad and annoying
They can't know. They can't know how bad, how much of the playerbase thinks it's bad, and how much value they place on it not being bad. Or, even, that they're not just completely wrong, and that people actually will love it.
Not until they actually get feedback. Surely you're not suggesting that they simply know things about the population, and just proceed blindly based on assuming that they're right in that knowledge?
What???
A few user groups and focus groups followed up by a few small closed playtest groups will give you a very good indication of how good or bad something is. They are effectively working in an Agile environment so user groups should be what they are doing every iteration - especially when your audience is as volatile as D&D players.
By pissing people off during your development cycle, you can effectively lose potential clients regardless of what the end product is like.
They can't know. They can't know how bad, how much of the playerbase thinks it's bad, and how much value they place on it not being bad. Or, even, that they're not just completely wrong, and that people actually will love it.Not until they actually
Whats the guts of 4th ed hybrid rules? Stopped paying attention to the 4th ed rules after the PHB2/essentials. Do you get to swap powers like the MC feats but without having to spend feats?
At 1st level you pick 2 classes, you then get a weak feature from each class and have to pick one at-will from each class. Then you pick an encounter and daily from either class. As you level you must have at least 1 at-will, encounter, daily, and utility power from each class. You gain all the trained skills of both classes but only train in 3. You gain the least armor from both classes (so if you can use plate on one class but only leather on the other you get leather). You gain the weapon proficiencies of both classes. You can spend feats to gain the full features of either class. Once you hybrid you are that way for the rest of your career...
Its really an elegant system and works well...
Rogues and bards get bonus trained skills... and its compatible with the normal multiclassing... ie you can dabble in a third class which is a good idea even if its just for an extra skill (and we house ruled every class getting a minimum of 4 skills anyway including hybrids)... Use themes from Darksun and its even more configurable. We use the more potent Backgrounds from Forgotten Realms and Scales of War... (they are akin to an extra feat).
An example in my sig is called a Bloodwright... I was a tad contrary in the design its two divine classes so heavily mingled and reflavored and thematicallly shifted... its anything but ummm a divine class.
At 1st level you pick 2 classes, you then get a weak feature from each class and have to pick one at-will from each class. Then you pick an encounter and daily from either class. As you level you must have at least 1 at-will, encounter, daily, and ut
Mike has read your feedback from the latest playtest packet, and he’s sharing what the team is doing to incorporate the constructive criticism you all provided. Come take a look.
Talk about this column here.
I feel like the only one who is disappointed about moving Parry out of the Expertise dice?
Your not, I totally agree.
We found thathe fighter was wrecking average combats, but in tough combats, other characters were able to pull forward because of the need for the fighter to parry. I liked that personally, parry as Xd means a gamble mechanic that balances well with other class styles. It's hard to imagine a fighter balancing with other classes if Parry isn't at the expense of his damage. Seems like Fighter might be losing some decision making capability.
I feel like the only one who is disappointed about moving Parry out of the Expertise dice?[/quote]Your not, I totally agree. We found thathe fighter was wrecking average combats, but in tough combats, other characters were able to pull forward becaus
Hopefully the Warlock and Sorcerer can pick up the slack or offer an option for those who do not like vancian casting. I would prefer the Cleric and Wizard to be vancian casters, alot more liberal with other classes or options for non vancian casters.
Yeah, no. That's been discussed to death. The Warlock and Sorcerer have their own fluff, if you just make them into Wizards with a different casting mechanic you simply anger the Warlock or Sorcerer fans. Really this idea was thrown out long ago and should not return...
With your friends maybe. I have a different opinon. I like Vancian casting although I am fine with them tweaking it (adding at wills etc).
4th ed was the only editon to not have it. Didn't work out so well. Tradition (up to a point) is important to me.
So the 4th ed hybrids were kind of like a weak gestalt 3.5 class? Seems a better system anyway than the initial 4th ed MC rules which I hated.
Yeah, no. That's been discussed to death. The Warlock and Sorcerer have their own fluff, if you just make them into Wizards with a different casting mechanic you simply anger the Warlock or Sorcerer fans. Really this idea was thrown out long ago and
Hopefully the Warlock and Sorcerer can pick up the slack or offer an option for those who do not like vancian casting. I would prefer the Cleric and Wizard to be vancian casters, alot more liberal with other classes or options for non vancian casters.
Yeah, no. That's been discussed to death. The Warlock and Sorcerer have their own fluff, if you just make them into Wizards with a different casting mechanic you simply anger the Warlock or Sorcerer fans. Really this idea was thrown out long ago and should not return...
With your friends maybe. I have a different opinon. I like Vancian casting although I am fine with them tweaking it (adding at wills etc).
4th ed was the only editon to not have it. Didn't work out so well. Tradition (up to a point) is important to me.
Its been discussed to death here on the forums and I believe Mearls used to hold that opinion too, but backed off when he saw the backlash. So again, its gone and for good reason...
Now I have no problem with you getting to play a vancian Wizard as long as I too can play a non-Vancian Wizard. Swappable casting systems works perfectly for that...
Yeah, no. That's been discussed to death. The Warlock and Sorcerer have their own fluff, if you just make them into Wizards with a different casting mechanic you simply anger the Warlock or Sorcerer fans. Really this idea was thrown out long ago and
Why do people keep saying that the new version of the wizard is no longer a "forethought caster"?
You still need to pick your spells, the only change is that you don't need to decide how many times you want to cast each of them.
So, say you get 3 1st level spells (I'm guessing it will be 3...4 was too high, 2 was too low...the last bowl was just right). Your spellbook might contain 6 or more 1st level spells. So when you prepare spells, you still need to use forethought; you think about what the day might contain and pick appropriate spells. "Hmm...we are going into a tomb, so I don't think Charm Person will be useful. But Feather Fall might come in handy. And certainly Thunderwave. Oh, wait, didn't that one guy tell us that the tomb was from a lost age? I'd better prepare Comprehend Languages too."
See? Still involves forethought. The only difference is that you don't have to say, "Ok...I think I'll need 2 of these, and 1 of these." It is less forethought, but still forethought. And I think it is a better level of forethought, because it allows you to prepare a more diverse array of spells. It doesn't matter if you prepare one that you might not end up needing, because you can always cast one of the other spells you prepared.
And, as I (and others) have said, if you want to play on "hard mode", there is nothing stopping you. Just assign each spell slot when you prepare your spells.
THIS. Especially the bolded part. Situational spells are a lot more useful when the opportunity cost for them is lower. The change allows wizards to prepare a range of spells, including some real niche ones that might be a core part of their character concept, but they'll still be able to use their spell slots on USEFUL spells if the encounters they face don't end up requiring their more niche choices.
I'm mostly happy with the changes. But personally I like the idea of less class features and more schemes/ fighting style type things. Trading off sneak attack for another kind of bonus is a great direction for rogues in that regard! And having something else you can do with your "Turn Undead" is great for Clerics. But then they've made Parry core with no other options, which is the wrong direction for fighters IMO.
I like having the classes defined, but minimally so, and allowing for more specialisation to come from choices. Having sneaky AND non-sneaky rogues is great. So is having parrying and non-parrying fighters. If fighters defensiveness is an important core part of their class (that HP and proficiencies can't solve) give them a choice of parry, something armor focused, something shield focused and something HP focused. That way fighters can choose the style of fighter they prefer and how they want to achieve their defensiveness.
THIS. Especially the bolded part. Situational spells are a lot more useful when the opportunity cost for them is lower. The change allows wizards to prepare a range of spells, including some real niche ones that might be a core part of their characte
Whats the guts of 4th ed hybrid rules? Stopped paying attention to the 4th ed rules after the PHB2/essentials. Do you get to swap powers like the MC feats but without having to spend feats?
Hm... that's interesting... hybrids first came out in PHB3 which was well before Essentials.
Brief probably-oversimplified rundown of hybrids:
Pick two base classes while you're building your level 1 character (not available later).
You get a reduced set of class features (which may be reduced in potency) from EACH class. Some of those features may be restricted to only work with powers from that class. You get all the weapon/implement proficiencies from either class (if it's in A but not B, you get it), but only the armor proficiencies that are present in both classes (if it's in A but not B, you don't get it). On the average, in my opinion, the hybrid version of a class is about 40% of the class's functionality. So with two of them you're getting 80%.
Some class features get moved out into Hybrid Talent options (and may be reduced in potency or restricted to class powers). Hybrid Talent is a feat, and you can use it to pick up a class feature from one of the classes OR to pick up one class's armor proficiency. You get it just once. (There is an option to get a second use of it instead of a Paragon Path, but practically nobody uses that.) On the average, the better Hybrid Talent options are about 20% of a class. So on the average, a hybrid with Hybrid Talent is pretty well balanced against a single-class character.
By RAW, as soon as you have two powers of the same type (AEDU) you must take one of these powers from each base class. This is occasionally a problem for people who choose racial or theme powers, multiclassers, and other people who take power-swap feats; it ought to say that you can't have two powers of the same type from one base class unless you also have one from the other base class, and lots of DMs treat it that way.
There are also some special hybrid rules for Psionic power-point classes, because they don't follow the AEDU model exactly. Most Essentials-martial-style classes simply don't have hybrid versions.
PHB3 actually warns that the hybrid rules can be used to build characters that have "different degrees of efficacy". Which means that you can build a gimped hybrid more easily than a gimped character of most PHBx classes, and there are a few hybrid combos that might be slightly overpowered.
Hm... that's interesting... hybrids first came out in PHB3 which was well before Essentials.Brief probably-oversimplified rundown of hybrids:Pick two base classes while you're building your level 1 character (not available later).You get a reduced se
I know I've boo-hooed alot about 5e, but I think I'm once again over it, for now.
One thing I can't help but see is how the 'Maneuvers' are basically very streamlined, very basic At-Will powers with simple, consistent mechanics. Spells remain Daily abilities as usual. Rogues appear to be likely to get powers more akin to 4e ones (cha vs wis to get teh desired effect). So, 4e is alive and well in 5e.
You essentially have martial classes with a (slowly) ever-widening array of at-will powers (and no dailies), and casters with a widening array of daily powers, and only a couple at-wills to see you thru occasions that don't call for a daily whammy. So far, no class yet has encounter powers, partly because there's no plausibility to an encounter power with this mode of description in most cases, unless you adopt the 4e "rare opportunity" notion. In which case, you are back to 4e, and why upgrade? Seems like what we are ending up with so far is a hybrid between 3.5 and 4e, ideally taking better of both worlds, and using a more literal, less cinematic/metagamey description of the world.
This also tacitly admits that 4e was not a total waste and that it doesn't need to be shunned by everyone who didn't care for it. The old school can benefit from the new, and we can in fact, all get along. The only question is getting the balance right.
Case in point, I am one of the anti-Vancianist types, but I can deal with a Wizard that only semi-preps their spells. It's not my favorite idea, but it gives me enough flexibility to play a Wizard the way I want to. It's close enough to get me to the table. Maybe there will be a module I can use to make it work more to my taste, and/or the refinements yet to come will hopefully make this bizarro halfsie-prep idea make more sense. I could see it with a cleric better, devoting themselves to a specific domian for the day or something. Doesn't conceptually make sense for a wizard as stated in the article (which I freely stipulate has yet to be revealed in draft form of course). I'm also interested to see how they handle Rogue powers.
Hope to see the new packet soon.
I know I've boo-hooed alot about 5e, but I think I'm once again over it, for now. One thing I can't help but see is how the 'Maneuvers' are basically very streamlined, very basic At-Will powers with simple, consistent mechanics. Spells remain Daily
Your guys' reaction is bafflingly hostile... Seriously, none of you guys ever crack jokes about absurd possibilities?! It makes me sad to even have to explain myself...
(edited because my first response wasn't very nice. I'm a good guy, honest.)
Yeah, sorry, I wasn't trying to be hostile, just snarky. And it is best to clearly mark your comments as being sarcasm, a joke, or whatever. Because I can't see your face and I don't know your personality.
So don't be sad!
Yes, and use the smiley face. The smiley face solves everything.
Yep, I've had 33% less vacations since I started using them...
Yeah, and we love it when your not on vacation. That way we can watch you freak out and fill a thread at a 10 pages a day rate.
Yeah, sorry, I wasn't trying to be hostile, just snarky. And it is best to clearly mark your comments as being sarcasm, a joke, or whatever. Because I can't see your face and I don't know your personality.So don't be sad![/quote]Yes, and use the sm
I know I've boo-hooed alot about 5e, but I think I'm once again over it, for now.
One thing I can't help but see is how the 'Maneuvers' are basically very streamlined, very basic At-Will powers with simple, consistent mechanics. Spells remain Daily abilities as usual. Rogues appear to be likely to get powers more akin to 4e ones (cha vs wis to get teh desired effect). So, 4e is alive and well in 5e.
You essentially have martial classes with a (slowly) ever-widening array of at-will powers (and no dailies), and casters with a widening array of daily powers, and only a couple at-wills to see you thru occasions that don't call for a daily whammy. So far, no class yet has encounter powers, partly because there's no plausibility to an encounter power with this mode of description in most cases, unless you adopt the 4e "rare opportunity" notion. In which case, you are back to 4e, and why upgrade? Seems like what we are ending up with so far is a hybrid between 3.5 and 4e, ideally taking better of both worlds, and using a more literal, less cinematic/metagamey description of the world.
This also tacitly admits that 4e was not a total waste and that it doesn't need to be shunned by everyone who didn't care for it. The old school can benefit from the new, and we can in fact, all get along. The only question is getting the balance right.
Case in point, I am one of the anti-Vancianist types, but I can deal with a Wizard that only semi-preps their spells. It's not my favorite idea, but it gives me enough flexibility to play a Wizard the way I want to. It's close enough to get me to the table. Maybe there will be a module I can use to make it work more to my taste, and/or the refinements yet to come will hopefully make this bizarro halfsie-prep idea make more sense. I could see it with a cleric better, devoting themselves to a specific domian for the day or something. Doesn't conceptually make sense for a wizard as stated in the article (which I freely stipulate has yet to be revealed in draft form of course). I'm also interested to see how they handle Rogue powers.
Hope to see the new packet soon.
Yeah, its like they ripped the soul of why people like it out of 4E and are animating the remains with necromancy. For those that hated 4E, they can see that it looks like 4E all over it. For those that loved 4E it looks like a dead corpse walking around...
Yeah, its like they ripped the soul of why people like it out of 4E and are animating the remains with necromancy. For those that hated 4E, they can see that it looks like 4E all over it. For those that loved 4E it looks like a dead corpse walking ar
Your guys' reaction is bafflingly hostile... Seriously, none of you guys ever crack jokes about absurd possibilities?! It makes me sad to even have to explain myself...
(edited because my first response wasn't very nice. I'm a good guy, honest.)
Yeah, sorry, I wasn't trying to be hostile, just snarky. And it is best to clearly mark your comments as being sarcasm, a joke, or whatever. Because I can't see your face and I don't know your personality.
So don't be sad!
Yes, and use the smiley face. The smiley face solves everything.
Yep, I've had 33% less vacations since I started using them...
Yeah, and we love it when your not on vacation. That way we can watch you freak out and fill a thread at a 10 pages a day rate.
Hey, I don't have 12k posts for nothing...
Yeah, sorry, I wasn't trying to be hostile, just snarky. And it is best to clearly mark your comments as being sarcasm, a joke, or whatever. Because I can't see your face and I don't know your personality.So don't be sad![/quote]Yes, and use the sm
Interesting, actually, that you've averaged somewhere in the vicinity of 8 or 9 posts every single day for the four years you've been a member of the board (using this particular screen name, specifically). The average is actually higher once you consider your other accounts.
For Garthanos and others the average is higher still.
When do y'all find time to, you know, actually play the game?
EDIT: This post was not meant as a jab. I've only just now put into perspective the central role D&D serves in the lives of others and gained a bit of insight into why it seems so serious to some. -- Breakthrough moment.
Interesting, actually, that you've averaged somewhere in the vicinity of 8 or 9 posts every single day for the four years you've been a member of the board (using this particular screen name, specifically). The average is actually higher once you con
Interesting, actually, that you've averaged somewhere in the vicinity of 8 or 9 posts every single day for the four years you've been a member of the board (using this particular screen name, specifically). The average is actually higher once you consider your other accounts.
For Garthanos and others the average is higher still.
When do y'all find time to, you know, actually play the game?
heh... me posts are pretty small more like quickies in an extended conversation. I have an obcession with game philosophy and I cheat I grew me some players (who are better at it than I).
Interesting, actually, that you've averaged somewhere in the vicinity of 8 or 9 posts every single day for the four years you've been a member of the board (using this particular screen name, specifically). The average is actually higher once you con
Interesting, actually, that you've averaged somewhere in the vicinity of 8 or 9 posts every single day for the four years you've been a member of the board (using this particular screen name, specifically). The average is actually higher once you consider your other accounts.
For Garthanos and others the average is higher still.
When do y'all find time to, you know, actually play the game?
heh... me posts are pretty small more like quickies in an extended conversation. I have an obcession with game philosophy and I cheat I grew me some players (who are better at it than I).
LOL Quickie responses, sure, but there's a lot of reading and consideration involved, which is the true time sink.
Interesting, actually, that you've averaged somewhere in the vicinity of 8 or 9 posts every single day for the four years you've been a member of the board (using this particular screen name, specifically). The average is actually higher once you con
Interesting, actually, that you've averaged somewhere in the vicinity of 8 or 9 posts every single day for the four years you've been a member of the board (using this particular screen name, specifically). The average is actually higher once you consider your other accounts.
For Garthanos and others the average is higher still.
When do y'all find time to, you know, actually play the game?
heh... me posts are pretty small more like quickies in an extended conversation. I have an obcession with game philosophy and I cheat I grew me some players (who are better at it than I).
LOL Quickie responses, sure, but there's a lot of reading and consideration involved, which is the true time sink.
Stream of conciousness responces sometimes lack, ummm as much consideration as they ought to entail. I probably spent more energy on a recent poetry thread than a month on other threads...
Interesting, actually, that you've averaged somewhere in the vicinity of 8 or 9 posts every single day for the four years you've been a member of the board (using this particular screen name, specifically). The average is actually higher once you con
Interesting, actually, that you've averaged somewhere in the vicinity of 8 or 9 posts every single day for the four years you've been a member of the board (using this particular screen name, specifically). The average is actually higher once you consider your other accounts.
For Garthanos and others the average is higher still.
When do y'all find time to, you know, actually play the game?
EDIT: This post was not meant as a jab. I've only just now put into perspective the central role D&D serves in the lives of others and gained a bit of insight into why it seems so serious to some. -- Breakthrough moment.
I play once a week on Saturdays, I'm also unemployed. So if you want my average posting to go down, you could give me a job...
Interesting, actually, that you've averaged somewhere in the vicinity of 8 or 9 posts every single day for the four years you've been a member of the board (using this particular screen name, specifically). The average is actually higher once you con
I gotta say I dislike the wizards change in casting style. the whole thing about letting them prep three 5th level spells and then casting the same one three times is kinda no fun. to me I like the choose intelligently aspect of wizards, but a simple house rule to insert if I really feel the need though i think this may be able to grow on me. Other than that though things sound good. Like that something else is being used for turning,but the channel energy to heal has to be way way better because that is far too little healing coming out of that feature. Though I may be wrong we'll see. The rogue changes sound exactly like what I wanted. Also like to hear the increase in number of spell slots. I think my players were especially adamant about that complaint (and the turn undead complaint).
Really I just wish they would finally use swappable casting systems, so in your game vancian is the only way and in my game AED is the only way, but that would be a good idea, so they can't do that...
I, too, am puzzled by this; especially when they keep stating it as an intention (Traditions?), then running in another direction when the intended mechanic is released for playtesting.
If rogues are less durable than fighters, then they need to do more damage. Period.
Now, durability can take many forms. If these sorts of tricks and maneuvers actually lead the rogue to being more durable than the fighter, then that's worth the damage tradeoff.
Of course, then the fighter's design is in a wonky place. But even putting that aside, you're already trading damage for tricks to make you more durable. Unless those tricks are putting the enemy at a severe disadvantage, the way controller effects like wizard spells do, just letting the rogue survive the front lines with a cruddy HD and light armor while doing less damage than the fighter is just not going to work.
I know you're all big into the "fighters are best at fighting" thing, but that doesn't leave much room for anyone who fights but isn't a fighter.
if fighting is the core of your character play a fighter. if deception/trickery/dishonesty is at the core of your character play a rogue. I actually enjoy the distinction.
So then how do you justify the Monk whose core is also fighting, or the Ranger whose core is also fighting?
The "Fighter is best at Fighting" needs to be burned in a fire and "The Fighter is best at confrontational weapon and armor usage" should replace it. Once that happens you can have Monks who are best at Physical Maneuvers that defy the norm like running on water or along walls and bypassing Resistances and Immunities as well as self healing. You can have the Ranger whose focus is taking out specific types of enemies and using their surroundings to their advantage (ignoring difficult terrain, or forcing enemies into difficult terrain, or whatever).
You can then have several classes that are "Best at Fighting" but in "Different Ways" or "Best at Fighting in this way". Once they do that we can have a real game rather than a flop...
The Monk, Paladin and Ranger are all classes that are based on the Fighter as a starting point. They each branch out in different ability paths that make them slightly less pure "confrontational weapon and armor usage" and more "physical maneuvers that defy the norm" or "taking out specific enemies and using their surroundings to their advantage" than the Fighter. They're still better at fighting than classes that aren't based on the Fighter, just not as specifically good at over-all combat efficiency as the straight up Fighter.
Really I just wish they would finally use swappable casting systems, so in your game vancian is the only way and in my game AED is the only way, but that would be a good idea, so they can't do that...[/quote]I, too, am puzzled by this; especially whe
Whats the guts of 4th ed hybrid rules? Stopped paying attention to the 4th ed rules after the PHB2/essentials. Do you get to swap powers like the MC feats but without having to spend feats?
At 1st level you pick 2 classes, you then get a weak feature from each class and have to pick one at-will from each class. Then you pick an encounter and daily from either class. As you level you must have at least 1 at-will, encounter, daily, and utility power from each class. You gain all the trained skills of both classes but only train in 3. You gain the least armor from both classes (so if you can use plate on one class but only leather on the other you get leather). You gain the weapon proficiencies of both classes. You can spend feats to gain the full features of either class. Once you hybrid you are that way for the rest of your career...
Its really an elegant system and works well...
I like it better than the original, multi-class feat system (or, game designers forbid, 3rd Edition level dipping); but I still prefer AD&D's (true?) multi-classing.
At 1st level you pick 2 classes, you then get a weak feature from each class and have to pick one at-will from each class. Then you pick an encounter and daily from either class. As you level you must have at least 1 at-will, encounter, daily, and ut
The Monk, Paladin and Ranger are all classes that are based on the Fighter as a starting point. They each branch out in different ability paths that make them slightly less pure "confrontational weapon and armor usage" and more "physical maneuvers that defy the norm" or "taking out specific enemies and using their surroundings to their advantage" than the Fighter.
As is the berserk/barbarian or whatever. Honestly I want them to keep a strong connection to the fighter class... heck I am a bad boy who thinks these archetypes are all specializations and fighting styles and backgrounds with fighter as the core class.
As is the berserk/barbarian or whatever. Honestly I want them to keep a strong connection to the fighter class... heck I am a bad boy who thinks these archetypes are all specializations and fighting styles and backgrounds with fighter as the core cla
The Monk, Paladin and Ranger are all classes that are based on the Fighter as a starting point. They each branch out in different ability paths that make them slightly less pure "confrontational weapon and armor usage" and more "physical maneuvers that defy the norm" or "taking out specific enemies and using their surroundings to their advantage" than the Fighter.
As is the berserk/barbarian or whatever. Honestly I want them to keep a strong connection to the fighter class... heck I am a bad boy who thinks these archetypes are all specializations and fighting styles and backgrounds with fighter as the core class.
My sentiments exactly.
I always liked the subclasses structure of AD&D; or, the class groupings of AD&D 2nd Edition.
As is the berserk/barbarian or whatever. Honestly I want them to keep a strong connection to the fighter class... heck I am a bad boy who thinks these archetypes are all specializations and fighting styles and backgrounds with fighter as the core cla
Combat Rake: You have prroficiency with martial weapons, medium armor, and shields. Evasion: If you make a successful Stenth, Dexterity or Constitution saving against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, you instead takes no damage. Scoundrel Strike: When you attack with advantage with a melee weapon, add your Strength modifier to your damage roll. Sly Flourish: When you attack with a finesse or basic ranged weapon, add your Charisma modifier to your damage roll. Sneak Attack: When you attack with advantage, you may give up your advanatage to gain a bonus to your damage roll. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter Uncanny Dodge: The first time you are hit each turn, you may reduce the damage. This damage reduction is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter
So the 4th ed hybrids were kind of like a weak gestalt 3.5 class? Seems a better system anyway than the initial 4th ed MC rules which I hated.
I'm not sure I'd call it a "weak gestalt" - more like what you would get if gestalting were balanced with normal characters. Sure, it's weaker than an actual gestalt, but it's no weaker than normal characters. Unless you screw it up, of course.
And yeah, hybrids are way better than 4e MC. 4e MC is basically just feat and paragon path entry, poaching things like aweome fighter-only feats and things like that. Nobody in their right mind took power swaps.
4e hybrids opened up a huge amount of possibilities for characters, some of which were highly intuitive but many of which at first glance seem crazily jarring yet end up being really awesome, such as the Barbarian|Sorcerer.
I'm not sure I'd call it a "weak gestalt" - more like what you would get if gestalting were balanced with normal characters. Sure, it's weaker than an actual gestalt, but it's no weaker than normal characters. Unless you screw it up, of course.And
4e hybrids opened up a huge amount of possibilities for characters, some of which were highly intuitive but many of which at first glance seem crazily jarring yet end up being really awesome, such as the Barbarian|Sorcerer.
Yes, 4e hybrids were multiclassing done right. It could have been even better if they had figured out the system early on, instead of retrofitting it to the classes, whcih required some forceful limitations like class features been usable only with powers of that class (you cannot sneak attack on a fighter attack or mark with a rogue attack).
Still a pretty good and solid piece of design.
Yes, 4e hybrids were multiclassing done right. It could have been even better if they had figured out the system early on, instead of retrofitting it to the classes, whcih required some forceful limitations like class features been usable only with p
4e hybrids opened up a huge amount of possibilities for characters, some of which were highly intuitive but many of which at first glance seem crazily jarring yet end up being really awesome, such as the Barbarian|Sorcerer.
Yes, 4e hybrids were multiclassing done right. It could have been even better if they had figured out the system early on, instead of retrofitting it to the classes, whcih required some forceful limitations like class features been usable only with powers of that class (you cannot sneak attack on a fighter attack or mark with a rogue attack).
Still a pretty good and solid piece of design.
4e hybrids where more of a dual class then multiclass.
4e didn't really have multiclass.
Yes, 4e hybrids were multiclassing done right. It could have been even better if they had figured out the system early on, instead of retrofitting it to the classes, whcih required some forceful limitations like class features been usable only with p
4e hybrids where more of a dual class then multiclass.
4e didn't really have multiclass.
If you mean dual class literally, like multiclassing limted to two classes per character, yes.
If you refer to the 2E dual classing (the human-only option) I don't see many similarities.
Semantics asisde, hybrids are definitely closer to full multiclassing than the original 'multiclassing' option in 4E ever was - but just happened to nick the name.
If you mean dual class literally, like multiclassing limted to two classes per character, yes.If you refer to the 2E dual classing (the human-only option) I don't see many similarities.Semantics asisde, hybrids are definitely closer to full multiclas
I thought 4E multiclassing was actually fine the way it was. It did exactly what it was designed to do, "dabble" in another profession. As for swapping out powers, I did it all the time. My Genasi Taclord excells at helping control the battlefield with the Wizard spells he has..
I thought 4E multiclassing was actually fine the way it was. It did exactly what it was designed to do, "dabble" in another profession. As for swapping out powers, I did it all the time. My Genasi Taclord excells at helping control the battlefield wi
I thought 4E multiclassing was actually fine the way it was. It did exactly what it was designed to do, "dabble" in another profession. As for swapping out powers, I did it all the time. My Genasi Taclord excells at helping control the battlefield with the Wizard spells he has..
I felt 4e multiclassing actually made far more sense than 3e multiclassing. Someone who "dabbles" should not suddenly receive many years worth of training. Gaining all weapon, armor proficiencies, spells, etc that took the 1st level character years to acquire should not be something so easily picked up.
The one change that I would suggest adding to 4e multiclassing is to have Power-Swap be a single feat allowing you to swap an encounter, utility, and a daily all at once instead of requiring three separate feats.
I felt 4e multiclassing actually made far more sense than 3e multiclassing. Someone who "dabbles" should not suddenly receive many years worth of training. Gaining all weapon, armor proficiencies, spells, etc that took the 1st level character years
The one change that I would suggest adding to 4e multiclassing is to have Power-Swap be a single feat allowing you to swap an encounter, utility, and a daily all at once instead of requiring three separate feats.
That's a good suggestion. Would have make this viable problably. However it not really multiclassing, since it just swaps powers. I consider a multiclassing option should allow taking some of the features from different classes.
That's a good suggestion. Would have make this viable problably.However it not really multiclassing, since it just swaps powers. I consider a multiclassing option should allow taking some of the features from different classes.
I thought 4E multiclassing was actually fine the way it was. It did exactly what it was designed to do, "dabble" in another profession. As for swapping out powers, I did it all the time. My Genasi Taclord excells at helping control the battlefield with the Wizard spells he has..
I felt 4e multiclassing actually made far more sense than 3e multiclassing. Someone who "dabbles" should not suddenly receive many years worth of training. Gaining all weapon, armor proficiencies, spells, etc that took the 1st level character years to acquire should not be something so easily picked up.
The one change that I would suggest adding to 4e multiclassing is to have Power-Swap be a single feat allowing you to swap an encounter, utility, and a daily all at once instead of requiring three separate feats.
An extremely talented individual with some focused training can get spirt competance without in someways having the breadth of the skill... which time will build up. Which is what 4e kind of modelled with its multiclassing.. I suppose assuming heros are "talents" when they multiclass is reasonable.
I felt 4e multiclassing actually made far more sense than 3e multiclassing. Someone who "dabbles" should not suddenly receive many years worth of training. Gaining all weapon, armor proficiencies, spells, etc that took the 1st level character years
The one change that I would suggest adding to 4e multiclassing is to have Power-Swap be a single feat allowing you to swap an encounter, utility, and a daily all at once instead of requiring three separate feats.
That's a good suggestion. Would have make this viable problably. However it not really multiclassing, since it just swaps powers. I consider a multiclassing option should allow taking some of the features from different classes.
Considering pre-essentials 4e classes had a very limited number of class features, and many MC Feats granted a partial version of a class feature, I felt the powers themselves were a class feature in themselves. So someone with all three powerswaps has 1/3 of their powers from another class. If you really want to get "that multiclass feel" there is always Paragon Multiclassing which usually grants class feature through available feats. Much more viable if all the power swaps were combined into a single feat too.
That's a good suggestion. Would have make this viable problably.However it not really multiclassing, since it just swaps powers. I consider a multiclassing option should allow taking some of the features from different classes.[/quote]Considering pre
Considering pre-essentials 4e classes had a very limited number of class features, and many MC Feats granted a partial version of a class feature, I felt the powers themselves were a class feature in themselves. So someone with all three powerswaps has 1/3 of their powers from another class. If you really want to get "that multiclass feel" there is always Paragon Multiclassing which usually grants class feature through available feats. Much more viable if all the power swaps were combined into a single feat too.
Powers in 4E are fairly generic (and I don't mean it in a negative way): it is the combination of powers and features which makes each class distinct. I'm not saying there is no value in trading powers and I'm happy to have an option allowing this, but a more in depth multiclassing solution was missing, and in my opinion needed, till we got hybrids,
Powers in 4E are fairly generic (and I don't mean it in a negative way): it is the combination of powers and features which makes each class distinct. I'm not saying there is no value in trading powers and I'm happy to have an option allowing this, b
I actually found myself power swaping from a MC'd for utility powers more than anything, if i happen to be MC into assassin/executioner, chances are...i will take ghost on the rooftops for an Prince of Persia/Assassin's Creed like experience =P
Also...the adventage of powers being more "generic" is that power swaping them didn't breaked the game, it didn't make your character stronger, it just made it slightly diferent, it was a choice for a choice
I actually found myself power swaping from a MC'd for utility powers more than anything, if i happen to be MC into assassin/executioner, chances are...i will take ghost on the rooftops for an Prince of Persia/Assassin's Creed like experience =PAlso..
Not sure 100% on this but even early on in 4h ed (when I actually cared about it circ 2008) I thought the power swap feats were awful. You more or less had to find another power that worked off your primary stat (strength really in the PHB) and the same implement. THe power you were swapping for did not usually offer any advantages over a power you already had. Put sumply you would be better off just spending that feat on something else even if it was just the toughness feat or leather armor for wizards.
FOr the most part it seemed to me MC was really blow a feat and poach a paragon path. Saga had the best d20 multiclassing but it was a bit abusable in regards to skills.
Not sure 100% on this but even early on in 4h ed (when I actually cared about it circ 2008) I thought the power swap feats were awful. You more or less had to find another power that worked off your primary stat (strength really in the PHB) and the s
Not sure 100% on this but even early on in 4h ed (when I actually cared about it circ 2008) I thought the power swap feats were awful. You more or less had to find another power that worked off your primary stat (strength really in the PHB) and the same implement. THe power you were swapping for did not usually offer any advantages over a power you already had. Put sumply you would be better off just spending that feat on something else even if it was just the toughness feat or leather armor for wizards.
FOr the most part it seemed to me MC was really blow a feat and poach a paragon path. Saga had the best d20 multiclassing but it was a bit abusable in regards to skills.
Power swaps where aweful. They compleatly overreacted to 3.5 and went too far.
What they really needed was...
MC Feat: You get part of the class feature (they did this ok, if not great). Power Swap: You can take any powers. (as suggested above). Stat Swap: You can use another stat with the powers (bards eventually got this).
Power swaps where aweful. They compleatly overreacted to 3.5 and went too far.What they really needed was...MC Feat: You get part of the class feature (they did this ok, if not great).Power Swap: You can take any powers. (as suggested above).Stat
Power swapping also got to make a kind of lousy first impression in the PHB because the tapestry of classes wasn't very well filled-in, so the number of reasonable targets for power swapping was really low. You're looking for something that runs off of your primary or secondary stat and that preferably (especially after a few levels) uses the same weapon/weapons/implement you're using. That meant that in most cases you're really just looking at utility powers and maybe powers from one or two other classes. While feats were relatively less precious with just core (simply because there were fewer awesome things to pick), in general spending a feat gets you a boost. Spending a feat on a power swap gets you a trade. The trade has to be really advantageous for that to be worth it, and the PHB wasn't well-set-up with with very many impressive trades.
Power swapping also got to make a kind of lousy first impression in the PHB because the tapestry of classes wasn't very well filled-in, so the number of reasonable targets for power swapping was really low. You're looking for something that runs off
First impression are hard to get over and Powerswapping as far as ONLY the PHB goes is bad if your not basing your attacks off of Strength. Try power-swapping from a Con-lock or a Chaladin and you're pretty much boned. But as the system grew, it became a much better way of taking in elements of certain classes to add to your own. Almost EVERY class has at least a few levels of crappy or mediocre powers. Take my Genasi Taclord, he'll probably be getting a Wizard encounter power swap feat at 8th level bcause most of the Warlord powers at 7th level for Taclords are..........uninspiring to me. But anyways, lets hope they hash out some sort of system that melds the good ideas of Multi-Dual classing but not allow in the bad.
First impression are hard to get over and Powerswapping as far as ONLY the PHB goes is bad if your not basing your attacks off of Strength. Try power-swapping from a Con-lock or a Chaladin and you're pretty much boned. But as the system grew, it beca
Not sure 100% on this but even early on in 4h ed (when I actually cared about it circ 2008) I thought the power swap feats were awful.
They were perhaps over-cautious in design. Powers turned out to be pretty well-balanced, so swapping in a power was hardly worth a feat, most of the time. Theoretically, Controller powers, which comprised too much of their role support, should have been tempting to swap in - get the higher hps and other features of a striker or defender or leader, swap in the controller powers - but I never saw it happen.
Racial, Skill and Theme power-swapps proved not to be a balance issue, as well. Were WotC not taking such a scorched-earth policy against 4e in designing 5e, they could have done well to allow MC power-swapping without feat cost.
They were perhaps over-cautious in design. Powers turned out to be pretty well-balanced, so swapping in a power was hardly worth a feat, most of the time. Theoretically, Controller powers, which comprised too much of their role support, should have
And 5E fails, gets shelved, and you can say bye bye to any new D&D things that aren't action figures or cartoons...have fun...
... valid...[/quote]Agreed.edit: [/quote]And 5E fails, gets shelved, and you can say bye bye to any new D&D things that aren't action figures or cartoons...have fun...
Not sure 100% on this but even early on in 4h ed (when I actually cared about it circ 2008) I thought the power swap feats were awful. You more or less had to find another power that worked off your primary stat (strength really in the PHB) and the same implement. THe power you were swapping for did not usually offer any advantages over a power you already had. Put sumply you would be better off just spending that feat on something else even if it was just the toughness feat or leather armor for wizards.
FOr the most part it seemed to me MC was really blow a feat and poach a paragon path. Saga had the best d20 multiclassing but it was a bit abusable in regards to skills.
Power swaps where aweful. They compleatly overreacted to 3.5 and went too far.
What they really needed was...
MC Feat: You get part of the class feature (they did this ok, if not great). Power Swap: You can take any powers. (as suggested above). Stat Swap: You can use another stat with the powers (bards eventually got this).
Change Power Swap to "Prerequisit: You must have the MC feat. Effect: You can now take powers from your other class as along as you have at least one power from your primary class for each of the categories: At-will, Encounter, Daily, and Utility"
So it would cost one feat to be able to swap powers for the rest of the game. Maybe make it cost one feat per tier or something...
Power swaps where aweful. They compleatly overreacted to 3.5 and went too far.What they really needed was...MC Feat: You get part of the class feature (they did this ok, if not great).Power Swap: You can take any powers. (as suggested above).Stat
And 5E fails, gets shelved, and you can say bye bye to any new D&D things that aren't action figures or cartoons...have fun...
Careful Lokiare or you may score an own goal. If the 4th ed crowd hates D&DN the 3.5/PF crowd might take that as a ringing endorsement.
... valid...[/quote]Agreed.edit:[/quote]And 5E fails, gets shelved, and you can say bye bye to any new D&D things that aren't action figures or cartoons...have fun...[/quote] Careful Lokiare or you may score an own goal. If the 4th ed crowd hates D&D
And 5E fails, gets shelved, and you can say bye bye to any new D&D things that aren't action figures or cartoons...have fun...
Careful Lokiare or you may score an own goal. If the 4th ed crowd hates D&DN the 3.5/PF crowd might take that as a ringing endorsement.
Yeah, that's doubtful. They are with a company that cares about having them and doesn't pander to the corporate mentality. Good luck trying to convince them to leave...
... valid...[/quote]Agreed.edit:[/quote]And 5E fails, gets shelved, and you can say bye bye to any new D&D things that aren't action figures or cartoons...have fun...[/quote] Careful Lokiare or you may score an own goal. If the 4th ed crowd hates D&D
One thing I really dislike, though: the idea that a Rogue's player should choose between Advantage and Sneak Attack before rolling his attack. This is not a tactical choice, it's a pure gamble. Instead, do something else: perhaps tie the Rogue's bonus damage dice to getting a critical hit. This way he's encouraged to seek Advantage, since Advantage gives almost double the expected number of critical hits, but he's not penalized for guessing how his dice will roll, and most of the time he'll only get to deal normal damage even if he has Advantage.
Tying Sneak Attack damage to Critical Hits also emphasizes the Rogue's "skillful" nature, since he's able to exploit openings best, and turn a bit of luck into an overwhelming attack.
Mostly good stuff. Thanks for listening, WotC!One thing I really dislike, though: the idea that a Rogue's player should choose between Advantage and Sneak Attack before rolling his attack. This is not a tactical choice, it's a pure gamble. Instead, d
One thing I really dislike, though: the idea that a Rogue's player should choose between Advantage and Sneak Attack before rolling his attack. This is not a tactical choice, it's a pure gamble. Instead, do something else: perhaps tie the Rogue's bonus damage dice to getting a critical hit. This way he's encouraged to seek Advantage, since Advantage gives almost double the expected number of critical hits, but he's not penalized for guessing how his dice will roll, and most of the time he'll only get to deal normal damage even if he has Advantage.
Tying Sneak Attack damage to Critical Hits also emphasizes the Rogue's "skillful" nature, since he's able to exploit openings best, and turn a bit of luck into an overwhelming attack.
Not a terrible idea, though WotC would have to be careful with future feats and abilities that modify critical chance, as those would be pretty paramount for a rogue built like this.
Not a terrible idea, though WotC would have to be careful with future feats and abilities that modify critical chance, as those would be pretty paramount for a rogue built like this.
One thing I really dislike, though: the idea that a Rogue's player should choose between Advantage and Sneak Attack before rolling his attack. This is not a tactical choice, it's a pure gamble. Instead, do something else: perhaps tie the Rogue's bonus damage dice to getting a critical hit. This way he's encouraged to seek Advantage, since Advantage gives almost double the expected number of critical hits, but he's not penalized for guessing how his dice will roll, and most of the time he'll only get to deal normal damage even if he has Advantage.
Tying Sneak Attack damage to Critical Hits also emphasizes the Rogue's "skillful" nature, since he's able to exploit openings best, and turn a bit of luck into an overwhelming attack.
Not a terrible idea, though WotC would have to be careful with future feats and abilities that modify critical chance, as those would be pretty paramount for a rogue built like this.
What you don't like the 3.xE Rogue that dual weilds improved keen rapiers +5 and basically crits if they hit?
Not a terrible idea, though WotC would have to be careful with future feats and abilities that modify critical chance, as those would be pretty paramount for a rogue built like this.[/quote]What you don't like the 3.xE Rogue that dual weilds improved
Not sure 100% on this but even early on in 4h ed (when I actually cared about it circ 2008) I thought the power swap feats were awful. You more or less had to find another power that worked off your primary stat (strength really in the PHB) and the same implement. THe power you were swapping for did not usually offer any advantages over a power you already had. Put sumply you would be better off just spending that feat on something else even if it was just the toughness feat or leather armor for wizards.
FOr the most part it seemed to me MC was really blow a feat and poach a paragon path. Saga had the best d20 multiclassing but it was a bit abusable in regards to skills.
Power swaps where aweful. They compleatly overreacted to 3.5 and went too far.
What they really needed was...
MC Feat: You get part of the class feature (they did this ok, if not great). Power Swap: You can take any powers. (as suggested above). Stat Swap: You can use another stat with the powers (bards eventually got this).
The power swap feats were awful. I houseruled a fix for them where a character that selected a multiclass feat automatically got the three power swap feats for free with it.
Power swaps where aweful. They compleatly overreacted to 3.5 and went too far.What they really needed was...MC Feat: You get part of the class feature (they did this ok, if not great).Power Swap: You can take any powers. (as suggested above).Stat
One thing I really dislike, though: the idea that a Rogue's player should choose between Advantage and Sneak Attack before rolling his attack. This is not a tactical choice, it's a pure gamble. Instead, do something else: perhaps tie the Rogue's bonus damage dice to getting a critical hit. This way he's encouraged to seek Advantage, since Advantage gives almost double the expected number of critical hits, but he's not penalized for guessing how his dice will roll, and most of the time he'll only get to deal normal damage even if he has Advantage.
Tying Sneak Attack damage to Critical Hits also emphasizes the Rogue's "skillful" nature, since he's able to exploit openings best, and turn a bit of luck into an overwhelming attack.
Not a terrible idea, though WotC would have to be careful with future feats and abilities that modify critical chance, as those would be pretty paramount for a rogue built like this.
What you don't like the 3.xE Rogue that dual weilds improved keen rapiers +5 and basically crits if they hit?
This is actually a problem in Pathfinder. The 18-20 crit weapons and 19-20/X3 crit weapons are just better than the other weapons. The longsword and bastard sword and simialr weapons are enerally regarded as weak options unless you have a class that gets them for free (cleric favoured weapon etc). Doesn't bother me in the slightes that 4th ed and D&DN do not use 3.5's weapon system.
Improved critical and keen do not stack though and they haven't since 3.0.
Not a terrible idea, though WotC would have to be careful with future feats and abilities that modify critical chance, as those would be pretty paramount for a rogue built like this.[/quote]What you don't like the 3.xE Rogue that dual weilds improved
One thing I really dislike, though: the idea that a Rogue's player should choose between Advantage and Sneak Attack before rolling his attack. This is not a tactical choice, it's a pure gamble. Instead, do something else: perhaps tie the Rogue's bonus damage dice to getting a critical hit. This way he's encouraged to seek Advantage, since Advantage gives almost double the expected number of critical hits, but he's not penalized for guessing how his dice will roll, and most of the time he'll only get to deal normal damage even if he has Advantage.
Tying Sneak Attack damage to Critical Hits also emphasizes the Rogue's "skillful" nature, since he's able to exploit openings best, and turn a bit of luck into an overwhelming attack.
Not a terrible idea, though WotC would have to be careful with future feats and abilities that modify critical chance, as those would be pretty paramount for a rogue built like this.
What you don't like the 3.xE Rogue that dual weilds improved keen rapiers +5 and basically crits if they hit?
This is actually a problem in Pathfinder. The 18-20 crit weapons and 19-20/X3 crit weapons are just better than the other weapons. The longsword and bastard sword and simialr weapons are enerally regarded as weak options unless you have a class that gets them for free (cleric favoured weapon etc). Doesn't bother me in the slightes that 4th ed and D&DN do not use 3.5's weapon system.
Improved critical and keen do not stack though and they haven't since 3.0.
Not a terrible idea, though WotC would have to be careful with future feats and abilities that modify critical chance, as those would be pretty paramount for a rogue built like this.[/quote]What you don't like the 3.xE Rogue that dual weilds improved
Scimitars are popular in PF due to that 18-20 crit range and they are the easiest weapon to add dex to damage so one can weapon finesse them. They may as well be the default weapon for the Magus (PF duskblade/swordmage) class.
Not familar with Sharp Note but we did have a smiting charging 3.0 scmiitar using Paladin on a dire lion in 3.0 with a 12-20 threat range.
Scimitars are popular in PF due to that 18-20 crit range and they are the easiest weapon to add dex to damage so one can weapon finesse them. They may as well be the default weapon for the Magus (PF duskblade/swordmage) class. Not familar with Sharp
Scimitars are popular in PF due to that 18-20 crit range and they are the easiest weapon to add dex to damage so one can weapon finesse them. They may as well be the default weapon for the Magus (PF duskblade/swordmage) class.
Not familar with Sharp Note but we did have a smiting charging 3.0 scmiitar using Paladin on a dire lion in 3.0 with a 12-20 threat range.
Sharp Note was a class ability of the Virtuoso prestige class in Song and Silence. It was a bard song that made all allies' bladed weapons have double crit range. At first this was a lone bonus, but later it was errataed to not stack with keen.
Sharp Note was a class ability of the Virtuoso prestige class in Song and Silence. It was a bard song that made all allies' bladed weapons have double crit range. At first this was a lone bonus, but later it was errataed to not stack with keen.
Wouldn't that make the threat range 9-20 instead of 4-20? Either one was silly and its one of the changes I liked from 3.0 to 3.5. I liked 3.0 at the time as 2nd ed was dated but it is probably down there with 1st ed in my least preferred editions of D&D to play.
Wouldn't that make the threat range 9-20 instead of 4-20? Either one was silly and its one of the changes I liked from 3.0 to 3.5. I liked 3.0 at the time as 2nd ed was dated but it is probably down there with 1st ed in my least preferred editions of
And 5E... gets... you... new D&D things... have fun...
Sweet.
Yeah for like 3 books and then it gets shelved because it doesn't have the income Hasbro demands...
... valid...[/quote]Agreed.edit:[/quote]And 5E... gets... you... new D&D things... have fun...[/quote]Sweet. [/quote]Yeah for like 3 books and then it gets shelved because it doesn't have the income Hasbro demands...
One thing I really dislike, though: the idea that a Rogue's player should choose between Advantage and Sneak Attack before rolling his attack. This is not a tactical choice, it's a pure gamble. Instead, do something else: perhaps tie the Rogue's bonus damage dice to getting a critical hit. This way he's encouraged to seek Advantage, since Advantage gives almost double the expected number of critical hits, but he's not penalized for guessing how his dice will roll, and most of the time he'll only get to deal normal damage even if he has Advantage.
Tying Sneak Attack damage to Critical Hits also emphasizes the Rogue's "skillful" nature, since he's able to exploit openings best, and turn a bit of luck into an overwhelming attack.
Not a terrible idea, though WotC would have to be careful with future feats and abilities that modify critical chance, as those would be pretty paramount for a rogue built like this.
What you don't like the 3.xE Rogue that dual weilds improved keen rapiers +5 and basically crits if they hit?
This is actually a problem in Pathfinder. The 18-20 crit weapons and 19-20/X3 crit weapons are just better than the other weapons. The longsword and bastard sword and simialr weapons are enerally regarded as weak options unless you have a class that gets them for free (cleric favoured weapon etc). Doesn't bother me in the slightes that 4th ed and D&DN do not use 3.5's weapon system.
Improved critical and keen do not stack though and they haven't since 3.0.
I never said they did. I was talking about the epic level feat that triples the threat range on the weapon...
Not a terrible idea, though WotC would have to be careful with future feats and abilities that modify critical chance, as those would be pretty paramount for a rogue built like this.[/quote]What you don't like the 3.xE Rogue that dual weilds improved
The power swap feats were awful. I houseruled a fix for them where a character that selected a multiclass feat automatically got the three power swap feats for free with it.
A reasonable start. Among several.
Paragon Multiclassing should then have as a prerequisite that you have at least two powers of different usages (AEDU) from the class you are Paragon Multiclassing into. But it also needs further fixing, because even with collapsing the power-swap feats it's a bit weak compared to other Paragon Paths.
It also needs to be reclassified AS a Paragon Path, rather than something you do INSTEAD OF a Paragon Path.
(Which would fix another idiosyncratic bug: it's theoretically possible to Paragon Multiclass *and* Paragon Hybrid. Simultaneously at level 11. Because both are things you can do if you don't take a Paragon Path, and neither obstructs you from doing the other. Of course, conceptually it's cheesy and rules-lawyerish so the DM would probably reject it; and PMC and PH are both such lame options that no overpowered exploit has been found to date.)
A reasonable start. Among several.Paragon Multiclassing should then have as a prerequisite that you have at least two powers of different usages (AEDU) from the class you are Paragon Multiclassing into. But it also needs further fixing, because even
I probably spent more energy on a recent poetry thread than a month on other threads...
