|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 8:15AM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2007
|
In this week's D&D Next Q&A, Rodney tackles playing a standard and basic character at the same table, adjustable complexity on the DM side of things and dealing with the "dipping" issue of multiclassing.
Trevor Kidd
Community Manager
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 8:19AM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
I disagree with "frontloading" the first class.
A fighter 5 / wizard 5 should be indistinguishable from a wizard 5 / fighter 5.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 8:26AM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
I know it's just used as an example in the article, but the way Parry is being treated as the defining feature of the Fighter just makes me... ugh. Disappointed, I guess?
Beyond that, I guess my response would be... sure? Why not?
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 8:30AM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
we’re looking at a version of Parry that is based on your fighter level, not your damage dice
Not sure about this is practical. Since all in the game scales with levels getting a LV5 equivalent manouver when in a level 10 campaign may make it irrelevant.
For the rest,  and  look like sensible directions.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 8:53AM
#5
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
Q&A Haiku time! Standard with Basic?Yes! Standard chooses optionsThat Basic bakes in. How's Next 4-E'asy? Elegant mechanics andMonster design guides Multi-class dipping?Instead of front-loading traitsWe're half-assing them
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 8:55AM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
@Mand12
I actually like front loading in the sense that your first class has more training.
For example, my favorite fighter goes from noble1 to fighter1 in 5 years but levels up to fighter 4 in 2 years. As long as there are multiple ways to buy misses features, I'd be okay.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 8:56AM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
Honestly, their multi-classing sounds a lot like "hybrids" from 4e that can be entered like 3e multiclassing.
Or like Star Wars: Saga Edition's multiclassing, which was 3e-style, but gave more features (typically just bonus feats, if I recall correctly) to you in your starting class.
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 9:00AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Nov 19, 2007
|
From the description of multiclassing, it doesn't look like we will be able to create a multiclassed PC at Level 1. I'm disappointed by this. Many of our 1st and 2nd ed-based character concepts just won't work right with the "tack on another class later" method, frontloading or not. That will make it MUCH harder to migrate our current campaigns to 5e.
In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.5e should strongly stay away from "I don't like it, so you can't have it either."
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 9:05AM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2012
|
Frito's description of mcing sounds right. And I like it. Hybrids were pretty sweet. I can dig this.
Shouldn't Fighters' defining thing be the maneuvers and parry? Maybe it's just the example w/out context sounds off.
Standard and Basic side-by-side? Groovy.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning."
-Mike Mearls
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Jan 31, 2013 - 9:07AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2012
|
Could level 1 mcs be a hybrid of the two level 1 partial classes? I hope the R&D team addresses this playstyle in a satisfactory manner, even though it won't affect me.
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning."
-Mike Mearls
|
|
|
