D&D5e is coming.

[LeStryfe79]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/news/317373-seminar-transcript-class-design-assassins-wizards.html

Lots of new info here. Looks like vancian magic and 3.X style multiclassing is back. Right now I'm counting 15 classes in the 5ed Phb.

 

[1eyedking]

3.5 with house rules (I revamped the whole skills & feats system, fucked multiclassing in the ass, balanced the rogue class, revamped XP challenge system, and some other funky shit). It's a highly modular experience, which means it can be easily tweaked. The art direction department is the group's task, not the book's. The 3.5 PHB, DMG and MM actually encourage role-playing and world verisimilitude. It's the idiot munchkin creep crew that can fuck a good game: just dump the motherfuckers and get a good party and the fun's guaranteed. BTW, the art in the books is mostly total crap save for Kevin Walker's stuff in the DM's guide, and some shit the guy from the IWD protraits drew for the Forgotten Realms setting.

Oh and fuck 2nd Edition save for the Planescape setting. Only good thing that came out of that clusterfuck. Fucking boring edition, D&D seems seems to be good only at odd versions (1st, 3rd).

 

[deuxhero]

^ Spelljammer? Dark Sun?

^^
15?
Wizard
Warlock
Assassin (Traditionally a prestige class or variant rogue, not a base class, but who knows)
Barbarian
Cleric
Fighter
Druid
Ranger
Bard
Rogue
Warlord
Paladin
Psion
Sorcerer
Monk

We both count the same ones?

One other solid mechanic answer is that magic items are special.

Honestly, I'm fine with lots of magic items on a character, as long as they do unique things and not "+x to y" as the "standard" items are (Arm/Armor, main stats boosting item, cloak of resitance eat far too much wealth). MIC had a good number of mechanically unique items and weapon properties.

 

[Harpsichord]

balanced the rogue class,

Against what? o_O

 

[Grunker]

Q: What are you planning for multiclassing?

Rob: We're shooting for the3Estyle of multiclassing that makes it easy to multiclass into any other class. It's been on the forefront of our minds when we're doing all this class work.

Fuck yeah.

 

[Grunker]

fucked multiclassing in the ass

 

[CappenVarra]

So far, this seems to be shaping up pretty nicely... Definitely keeping my eye on the developments, would read again. Also:

It's my firm belief that Vancian magic, for the core classes, is D&D.

 

[Quetzacoatl]

What of the lore man? Oh and fuck off 1eyedfaggot, go crawl back to your hole.

 

[deuxhero]

Against what? o_O

Itself. Rogue in 3.X has a few terrible problems.

1: Sneak Attack stops working as soon as you start fighting undead, constructs, ooze and plants (plus incorporeal creatures, but most of them are undead anyways) without some major book diving, and the most common way only fixes one of the types and don't come cheap. The first 2, especially undead, are really common and losing almost all of your offense as soon as you hit one, with nothing to fall back on, is a very terrible experience.
2: "Lockpicker" or "Trapfinder", even with the full depth of 3.5, has very few alternate options. While there are countless "melee" "divine caster" and "arcane caster" alternates, most "skilled" base classes don't get open lock, disable device AND trapfinding (See: Bard), limiting you to, off the top of my head, Beguiler, Factotum, Scout and Ninja, the last two are effectively variant rogues, though the first two actually are pretty good. Unlike the other 3 roles, a Rogue isn't just expected, but actually required in most prewritten adventures (or even just a "classic" dungeon with traps and locked stuff), and when he isn't, he's pretty much dead weight.
(A wizard can fake it with Knock and summoning canon fodder/doing the opening with a cantrip to "blow" the traps, but what can't the wizard do?)
3: Like most non-casters, his power gain is linear, and unlike the fighter, he can't pull off things like trip that make being a beat stick worthwhile.
4: No capstone in core (a WotC web article gives them one, but it's only semi official): Nearly ANYTHING after 19 levels of rogue is better than rogue 20. Minor, but still bad design.

 

[Grunker]

1: Death Strike bracers.
2: Sneak attack is not supposed to work all the time.
3: True, but this is an inherent design-flaw in many 3E classes.
4: True, that's why you prestige class or multi-class.
5: "Bad" design is broad term - use with care.

Going full class rogue is stupid yes, but this goes for all core classes except Druid and maybe Cleric. A few others CAN be one-classed but it is strictly worse than diving into other options.

Again, pick n' choose is the strength of 3E, why do otherwise?

 

[Father Walker]

Wow, looks like wizbro took a really "indepth" look at "older" editions of D&D. It's scary how far this game has strayed from its roots.

It's the idiot munchkin creep crew that can fuck a good game: just dump the motherfuckers and get a good party and the fun's guaranteed. BTW, the art in the books is mostly total crap save for Kevin Walker's stuff in the DM's guide, and some shit the guy from the IWD protraits drew for the Forgotten Realms setting.

The problem with D&D since Player's Option books for 2nd Edition is that it tries to cater to such folks more and more. Yeah, I bet there are people who are having great sessions with 3.5, Pathfinder or 4E. Sadly, my RL experiences show that 3.5 players are mostly number-crunchers or retards. So why bother, it's better to play games targeted at different crowd. Problem solved immediately.

 

[deuxhero]

^^
Like I said for 1, it requires book diving to be anything but completely worthless. None of the other classes have even remotely common situations where they are COMPLETELY worthless like the rogue does. Even when the fighter can't reach the flying foe with his melee, he can attack from a range or at least provide a not squishy target, if the caster has one method prevented by some method (Freedom of Movement stops hold person, but leaves open a lot of other spells) and anti magic zones are rare. Rogue fighting undead however, is completely worthless.

 

[Grunker]

It's scary how far this game has strayed from its roots.

This is not necessarily a bad thing... often the opposite, actually.

 

[Grunker]

andrzej: I thought we agreed that a multitude of way of playing this game were all okay, but maybe I mistook a retard for a smart guy?

 

[Chuftie]

already signed up for the newsletter/play testing thing they had on their site.

Never played d20 before should be fun giving feed back that goes against established stuff

 

[LeStryfe79]

Depending on the Setting/DM a Cha based rogue is almost unstoppable with UMD in 3.X since he can pretty much buy/steal and use any magic item. This worked well in ToEE too(but not so much in DDO, lol)

 

[Father Walker]

andrzej: I thought we agreed that a multitude of way of playing this game were all okay, but maybe I mistook a retard for a smart guy?

HEY MAN IM AN EDGY OLD-SCHOOLER. WHAT DO YOU EXPECT ME TO SAY?

Still, nothing I've written changes the fact that yes, D&D can be played in a lot of ways. And the fact is, that 3.5 attracts folks who like number crunching. This "optimalization" and "build" thing is pretty big in 3E. Apart from not liking the game as a whole I've met pretty retarded people who liked it and that I was trying to convey. But, of course, your experience may vary (and it probably does).

This is not necessarily a bad thing... often the opposite, actually.

Too bad that DIY attitude has been replaced by corporate bullshit.

 

[deuxhero]

Depending on the Setting/DM a Cha based rogue is almost unstoppable with UMD in 3.X since he can pretty much buy/steal and use any magic item. This worked well in ToEE too(but not so much in DDO, lol)

True, but that speaks more to the usefulness of spells, and by extension UMD than a rogue.

 

[Alex]

A lot of those quotes make me think this game won't be for me.

Addressing the idea that high level play you'll end up with lots of options and more abilities, we are definitely looking at the direction we're taking high level play. The idea we're looking at is cashing in a lot of your low level abilities or spells and kind of trade them in for one interesting higher level ability. And for managing how you those resources work throughout a day and looking at encounters, and keeping that trading-in mechanic in mind, we can look at average encounters a day, how long an average encounter will last, the resources an average character/player will go through and balance that that way.

As Monte mentioned earlier, some spells and options drop out and are replaced with higher ones, so that addresses some of the problem - you don't end up with all of those options. With that in mind, and the math backing it up, we can balance that figher damage to make sure that it stays relevant.

I really hated how you had to "forget" one ability, or spell, in 4e to get a new one. Seriously, this isn't Pokemon, for God's sake. Maybe it wasn't such a problem in 4e because your set of abilities didn't have that much variety in it, but that in itself is an even bigger problem.

If the fighter is 100% damage for example, then maybe this other class is 80% damage/combat and 20% exploration, or some other mix of game elements. Each class has its time in the spotlight, and not all classes are built expressly for combat.

I think this is a big mistake right here. Making a class about one type of game or another type of game then balancing these as if they made sense. I think it would be much more sensible to make classes around an idea, like wielding forbidden, arcane magic, being a cunning, skillful rogue or a trained, inspiring soldier. Then, allow the class abilities that spring forth from such concepts fall into "combat" or "socializing" or "mystery solving" or whatever else as they may.

You may look at a class and see that it's damage output isn't as high as another class, for example maybe the bard doesn't do as much as raw damage as the fighter. That other class will have other options, like charm person or something that fits into that class's niche and will give that class different options, but still equally useful in combat, exploration, or roleplaying. If the Fighter's damage is the baseline, and Bard is 70%, the Bard has extra stuff (spells, etc) to give variety. We find damage equivalence between offensive and other types of spells. Charm Person roughly 105 points of damage.

This just compounds my worries. The part about charm person being worth 105 points of damage is not only a little lulzy, but it seems to miss the point that a well placed charm person is invaluable. It makes me worried there will be all kinds of safeguards in the rules to avoid creative use of spellcasting.

Magic is taking a broader turn than just spells. In the past we got to the point where everything you encountered in the game had some kind of spell attached to it or that replecated the effect. I really want to go back to the idea that magic is mysterious and wierd and not always entirely definable. I think it's good for the story of the game when the DM can use it to help to define and area or maybe a unique magic item. Things like rituals help us accomplish that - makes things more open ended and more interesting and also takes away some of the focus from the wizard and puts it on other things in the world.

Rituals were one of my least favorite parts of 4e. I found they had the opposite effect of what Monte claims. They made spells cheap by putting them in the hands of everyone. They also gave designers a cheap excuse to take away non combat spells from the wizard and put a few of them a stuff you pay money for. Not only that, but since these rituals weren't associated with a class, this meant that non combat spells that really showed the essence of a class were just gone. By the way, if you think none of this stuff is really that important, I would like to comment that in Moldvay's basic set, there are only two direct damage spells, magic missile and fireball. Most of the remaining spells are utility spells that weren't actually all that useful by themselves, but required the right circumstances to be used right. Frankly, the way I read it, it sounds to me they want to make the spells not mysterious and weird, but more of a plot device to be used by the DM.

 

[LeStryfe79]

I think in 5ed, they need to replace the word "Ritual" with "Satanic Ritual". Then they may have something like this:

 

[1eyedking]

Spelljammer? Dark Sun?

They fucking suck. Spelljammer destroys immersion on so many levels it's not even funny. Spelljammer = "Elves & dwarves in space, fuck yeah!!!", maybe the Wizardry degenerates enjoy it but normal folk who just want to venture in a believable series of scenarios loathe that kind of unabridged distasteful nerdness. Dark Sun is kinda cool, but most of the artwork for it disastrous and its creators never fully exploited the fauna of a post-apocalyptic world. They should've definitely put more effort into creating something genuinely interesting out of it (something like, say, Sigil).

Itself. Rogue in 3.X has a few terrible problems.

1: Sneak Attack stops working as soon as you start fighting undead, constructs, ooze and plants (plus incorporeal creatures, but most of them are undead anyways) without some major book diving, and the most common way only fixes one of the types and don't come cheap. The first 2, especially undead, are really common and losing almost all of your offense as soon as you hit one, with nothing to fall back on, is a very terrible experience.
2: "Lockpicker" or "Trapfinder", even with the full depth of 3.5, has very few alternate options. While there are countless "melee" "divine caster" and "arcane caster" alternates, most "skilled" base classes don't get open lock, disable device AND trapfinding (See: Bard), limiting you to, off the top of my head, Beguiler, Factotum, Scout and Ninja, the last two are effectively variant rogues, though the first two actually are pretty good. Unlike the other 3 roles, a Rogue isn't just expected, but actually required in most prewritten adventures (or even just a "classic" dungeon with traps and locked stuff), and when he isn't, he's pretty much dead weight.
(A wizard can fake it with Knock and summoning canon fodder/doing the opening with a cantrip to "blow" the traps, but what can't the wizard do?)
3: Like most non-casters, his power gain is linear, and unlike the fighter, he can't pull off things like trip that make being a beat stick worthwhile.
4: No capstone in core (a WotC web article gives them one, but it's only semi official): Nearly ANYTHING after 19 levels of rogue is better than rogue 20. Minor, but still bad design.

Great, another Pathfinder faggot. For fuck's sake, sneak attacks on undead? Constructs? Oozes? Plants? Fuckers don't sleep, can't have their throats slit, and the whole purpose of the things is to be immune to normal shit so that players have to find a workaround. I mean shit, sneak attacks on fucking undead? Way to skullfuck half a century of D&D tradition, morons.

As for the skills, they should've hardcoded them to the Rogue class and fuck every other asshole. "Hey Paladin, why don't you pick the lock and deactivate that trap?", "Why sure, good sir, I'll pick the lock right away. Boy, I was so lucky to practice this skill in my spare time between prayers! The previous generation of paladins was so inflexible and dogmatic!" So yeah, roleplaying goes down the fucking drain if you don't put those limits.

All in all, I have no respect for dumbfucks who can't mod their own game. Pathfinder is a game for such a people, so I fucking hate Pathfinders with a passion.

The problem with D&D since Player's Option books for 2nd Edition is that it tries to cater to such folks more and more. Yeah, I bet there are people who are having great sessions with 3.5, Pathfinder or 4E. Sadly, my RL experiences show that 3.5 players are mostly number-crunchers or retards. So why bother, it's better to play games targeted at different crowd. Problem solved immediately.

Sadly this is mostly true, and it's what matters in the end. It's a pity since the modular workspace 3rd Edition gives is incredibly useful for generating interesting encounters. My most memorable combat scenarios come from 3rd Edition.

 

[Grunker]

All in all, I have no respect for dumbfucks who can't mod their own game. Pathfinder is a game for such a people, so I fucking hate Pathfinders with a passion.

i luv u man ur like the bestest retard ever

keep it coming

 

[LeStryfe79]

Argentina...

 

[catfood]

1eyedking bro that sounds serious, did you call the cops?

 

[Father Walker]

They fucking suck. Spelljammer destroys immersion on so many levels it's not even funny. Spelljammer = "Elves & dwarves in space, fuck yeah!!!", maybe the Wizardry degenerates enjoy it but normal folk who just want to venture in a believable series of scenarios loathe that kind of unabridged distasteful nerdness. Dark Sun is kinda cool, but most of the artwork for it disastrous and its creators never fully exploited the fauna of a post-apocalyptic world. They should've definitely put more effort into creating something genuinely interesting out of it (something like, say, Sigil).

Maaan, Spelljammer is like PULP and even more PULP. I love those awsum Mindflayer spaceships, Neogi and other funky shit. I wouldn't play it out of the box because, frankly, all TSR settings are shit if you play them like that. But it's one of the cooler settings to rip stuff from if you ask me.

It's funny that you dislike Spelljammer and like Planescape at the same time. Planescape is like hodge-podge of all ideas and settings present in D&D with a sprinkle of WoD (factions and story-faggotry). Faction mechanics in Planescape are pretty laughable and anti-immersive (lul) on so many levels it's not even funny. Hey, I've joined the faction and received this new power or bonus. Wohoo! I love the setting, but there is a lot of shitty stuff in it (like in most D&D supplements and sourcebooks).

Also, Dark Sun art being shitty? You mean, BROM is shitty?! Really!?