# Mike Mearls: A Paladin, Ranger, and Wizard With Arcane Tradition Walk Into A Tavern



## gweinel (Sep 13, 2012)

ALthough i have to say that i am supporter of the upcoming d&d edition the introduction of encounter wizard powers that Mike talks about really is a kind of a let down - for me at least. If we have the warlock to use encounter powers why the wizards should join em? Also what happens if we want a low magic feeling in our campaign? The at will (that already exist and i am not a great fun) and the encounter powers really does not help to this way.


----------



## Blackwarder (Sep 13, 2012)

gweinel said:


> ALthough i have to say that i am supporter of the upcoming d&d edition the introduction of encounter wizard powers that Mike talks about really is a kind of a let down - for me at least. If we have the warlock to use encounter powers why the wizards should join em? Also what happens if we want a low magic feeling in our campaign? The at will (that already exist and i am not a great fun) and the encounter powers really does not help to this way.




Totally agree, I'm not a big fan of the idea of a wizard being able to cast encounter powers.

Warder


----------



## Alphastream (Sep 13, 2012)

I really worry about the rogue if their sneak attack is a damage boost, but they don't get it all the time. That creates the classic problem of the rogue's player trying all the time to get sneak attack every round and either being frustrated or breaking the game if they succeed. 

What if Sneak Attack wasn't damage at all, but was instead a trick of some kind. It might slow the target, might allow the rogue to hide from the target, or some other kind of 'trick'. The abilities that the Essentials Hunter class can tack on to a basic attack could be a model for this kind of approach. Ideally, a new player could choose a very simple option but an experienced player could use this to have a more tactical game. 

With the wizard, I think having more recharging spells is fine, so long as the damage and control/utility strength is in line with non-spellcasters... and the caster classes are still approachable for a new/casual player. 

A big part of this is the influence of the adventuring day. While theoretically a daily/Vancian spell can be stronger because it is cast once per day, that also can create big problems if the party rests very often - especially if they rest because they must to regain HPs. The early playtests can sometimes fall victim to this. A few lucky rolls by the monsters and the party must rest again, which makes spellcasters disproportionately strong. On the other hand, they can seem really weak if the adventuring day is really long and for several hours of game time they use low-damage at-wills while being completely overshadowed by the martial classes. Is there a way to prevent the adventuring day from having such a strong effect on enjoyment/balance? There should be.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 13, 2012)

gweinel said:


> ALthough i have to say that i am supporter of the upcoming d&d edition the introduction of encounter wizard powers that Mike talks about really is a kind of a let down - for me at least. If we have the warlock to use encounter powers why the wizards should join em? Also what happens if we want a low magic feeling in our campaign? The at will (that already exist and i am not a great fun) and the encounter powers really does not help to this way.



Then stick to the generalist wizard. AFAIK, the "encounter" spell slots are for school specialists only, as a way of mimicking the old "additional spell slot for specialty school".


----------



## The Choice (Sep 13, 2012)

gweinel said:


> If we have the warlock to use encounter powers why the wizards should join em?




Why not?



gweinel said:


> Also what happens if we want a low magic feeling in our campaign? The at will (that already exist and i am not a great fun) and the encounter powers really does not help to this way.




D&D was never really about "low" or "high" magic.  It's really its own thing that defies that scale.  It has, from its core 4 classes, 2 that are full-time spellcasters.  If you go beyond the "fighter-rogue-cleric-wizard" spectrum, 2nd edition had only two classes (fighter and thief) that did not cast spells, 3rd had three (fighter, rogue and monk).  So yeah, with standard D&D classes, it's already hard to play in a magic-poor game; you could do it by restricting the availability of magic items, but too many of the classes from the PHB(s) alone use some form of sorcery to make for a "low-magic" campaign without major retooling.


----------



## KesselZero (Sep 13, 2012)

My problem with encounter spells is that I've found them to be the single biggest destroyer of old-school playstyles. If PCs have powers that recharge between fights, especially if ALL the PCs have them, then random encounters and wandering monsters can quickly change from a resource-draining challenge to be avoided into an easy way to grind XP, since encounter powers (at least in 4e) are powerful enough to make any minor combat pretty easy. I'm definitely concerned about them being brought back.


----------



## Ainamacar (Sep 13, 2012)

Mearls said:
			
		

> Another idea I’d like to explore, especially as we develop material for settings, is to find ways to tie prestige classes and backgrounds together. For instance, maybe the Knight of the Rose prestige class requires the squire background or a special boon granted by the Grandmaster of the knights, along with the completion of certain tasks and such. I like the idea of fusing in-game actions into prestige classes to make them something you earn via your actions, rather than just something with mechanical prerequisites.




As long as they stick to mechanical considerations alone for balancing, I am OK with this.  However, thinking along the lines of "This RP play or class entrance condition/restriction is really difficult, we better give the class something above and beyond!" is on the path to insanity.  Any class with RP considerations baked-in must be designed assuming those considerations are totally malleable and ignorable, because that is exactly what they are.  Just say no to the 3.5 Frenzied Berserker, 2e Amazon fighter kit, and the Elven-freaking-Bladesinger.

If they must be mixed I don't mind so much if a specific instance of RP complication gets a bundled pair of carefully designed mechanical disadvantages and advantages that only apply when the complication actually occurs.  For example, maybe an Alienist or other character touched by Cthulu-themed stuff has delusions.  Well, if the character suffers a material drawback from a delusion (say attacking a creature that isn't there while in combat with monsters that *are*) granting them a bonus as a consequence of dealing with their delusion might be OK.  That would be a bit like how FATE handles complications, by making them essentially optional but with a coupled upside and downside when they occur.  That technique scales cleanly with player and DM buy-in, and usually avoids the excesses associated with the RP restrictions on my "just say no" list.  Some players will embrace the mechanical complications, others will prefer to leave it for pure RP or fluff, and the game can truck along without trying to balance game balance on yet another knife's edge.


----------



## gweinel (Sep 13, 2012)

The Choice said:


> D&D was never really about "low" or "high" magic.  It's really its own thing that defies that scale.  It has, from its core 4 classes, 2 that are full-time spellcasters.  If you go beyond the "fighter-rogue-cleric-wizard" spectrum, 2nd edition had only two classes (fighter and thief) that did not cast spells, 3rd had three (fighter, rogue and monk).  So yeah, with standard D&D classes, it's already hard to play in a magic-poor game; you could do it by restricting the availability of magic items, but too many of the classes from the PHB(s) alone use some form of sorcery to make for a "low-magic" campaign without major retooling.




Kesselzero stress it very good. Although you are right about the the magic classes in previous editions the thing that changes (like in 4th) is the approach of the encounter and generally the atmosphere of the game. It is different to have one caster to spam spells here and there every 5 minutes and different to have a limited resourse of spells each day. The strategy to play each class is different. A 2nd - 3rd edition caster when cast a spell felt really important not because of the power of the spell but because he used one of the few spells he could cast. He would thought two or three times more before he could cast the spell. A wizard with at will-encounter spells he will just uses fireball over and over again in each encounter. 

I don't have problem to exist such gamestyle, actually i like the warlock, but what will happen to the gamestyle i prefer? To have the  option to play only a generalist wizard (if will be an option in 5e) and not an enchanter or a summoner that i really love the way i really love it would be a let down for me.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Sep 13, 2012)

Keep in mind that some rp req are fine... Must belong to X organization is a real limiter


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 13, 2012)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Then stick to the generalist wizard. AFAIK, the "encounter" spell slots are for school specialists only, as a way of mimicking the old "additional spell slot for specialty school".




Is there something wrong about wanting to be an Illusionist without "encounter" powers? Is there something integral to the concept of "Evoker" that means that you're fartin' out fireballs every five minutes? Is there a gameplay or psychological itch that must be scratched by a Transmuter who can cast _Enlarge_ without worrying about never NOT being able to cast it? 

There's a place for encounter magic and a place for at-will magic and also a place for magic that can run out. So far, 5e has at-will magic and the promise of encounter magic (not to mention the Warlock and the Sorcerer who, IMO, should both be a lot less Vancian than they are now!), but they aren't giving much so far to those that want magic that can't be done all day long. It's a valid choice, it deserves to be supported, and so far WotC isn't giving that support. 

It's still a little early in the process, but I keep hearing about spellcasters who can't waggle their fingers in a crowded room without doing something _magical_. I don't hear much about those who must ration their power carefully. Those spellcasters who aren't surrounded with little popping lights and rainbow colors and floating mugs and little sparkles all the time, who instead quietly bide their time, knowing their power is finite and limited, but immensely powerful. I'm getting a lot of "Magic is as easy as turning on a faucet!" and not a lot of "Knowing a spell is like sitting on a bomb. One bomb. when it goes off, if there's anyone left...you ain't got a bomb anymore. But everyone knows you're the dude who tried to blow everyone up."

I absolutely think there must be plenty of options for those who want constant magical power at their disposal. I *also* think that there should be a few options for those who don't. 

Between people who can't stand at-will/encounter spellcasting and people who think it's the best thing since neckbeards and wouldn't play without it, it's sounding more and more to me that this is less an issue of specific classes, and more and more an issue of an underlying idea of what magic is in your game.

For some folks, knowing magic makes you sparkle all the always, and they wouldn't want to play any other way. 

For other folks, knowing magic means you are a paper tiger, and they wouldn't want to play any other way, either.

Wizards, Warlocks, Sorcerers, Bards, Clerics, Druids, Whatever...it seems like this underpins something more fundamental than class choice. Academic wizards need to be able to have replenishing magic as much as pact-sworn dark wizards need to be able to be Big Daily Booms.


----------



## mearls (Sep 13, 2012)

FWIW, the tradition approach makes it very easy for us to mix different spell casting mechanics into one class. So, you can imagine one tradition gives only dailies, and another gives signature spells unique to it that you can regain, and so on. Those differences can also extend to at-will magic.

In building your campaign, you can then decide which traditions exist in your setting. I was originally tempted to use war mage instead of invoker in the interview, and to me figuring out where to us such names is a big question.


----------



## Cybit (Sep 13, 2012)

mearls said:


> FWIW, the tradition approach makes it very easy for us to mix different spell casting mechanics into one class. So, you can imagine one tradition gives only dailies, and another gives signature spells unique to it that you can regain, and so on. Those differences can also extend to at-will magic.
> 
> In building your campaign, you can then decide which traditions exist in your setting. I was originally tempted to use war mage instead of invoker in the interview, and to me figuring out where to us such names is a big question.




I think one of the things that I took away from the multiple PAX panels was that the optionality / modularity is inside of everything, but I don't think that has been really communicated in examples to most folks yet.  

I think the hardest sell might be for people to understand the paradigm shift of "this is the design philosophy Wizards is putting on an edition of D&D, be it more simulation based or more game based" to "We don't want to be the arbiters of that choice, we want the gaming group to make whatever choice is best for them, and give them options to do either".


----------



## I'm A Banana (Sep 13, 2012)

mearls said:
			
		

> FWIW, the tradition approach makes it very easy for us to mix different spell casting mechanics into one class. So, you can imagine one tradition gives only dailies, and another gives signature spells unique to it that you can regain, and so on. Those differences can also extend to at-will magic.
> 
> In building your campaign, you can then decide which traditions exist in your setting. I was originally tempted to use war mage instead of invoker in the interview, and to me figuring out where to us such names is a big question.




Sounds cool (and thanks for popping in!).

My only concern with this is that there's a chance that it fosters some "One True Way" thinking. If you dudes make an Illusionist who uses daily magic, then there's a bit of a risk of someone who wants to play an Illusionist because they like the concept being saddled with a magic system that they aren't a fan of. Same with an Pyromancer who recharges, or a Blood Mage who uses at-wills.

It's like the idea that all archers must be Rangers, or that all nature-worshipers must be Druids. That there's One Right Answer for someone who wants a particular archetype, and that if they don't like that mechanics the game provides for that archetype, aww, tough luck, Sally. If there's one way to be a War Wizard, and I don't like the way you did it, does that then mean that to play that archetype in my own way, I'm re-designing a whole THING? Or do I have other options for getting to that archetype that don't depend on the same mechanical tricks?

This is part of why I think you guys are on the right track emphasizing the story information up front. "Illusionist" is a little undefined. If you get a handle on what different kinds of illusionists there could be (from a specialist academic wizard to a bard's bag of tricks to a gnome who might otherwise be a fighter to a rogue who dabbles in legerdemain to a ninja or assassin who uses deception and misdirection as a spy and murderer to....), you can get mechanics that support THAT SPECIFIC KIND of trickster, without having it be The One For Everyone. Forex, your stealthy ninja probably wouldn't cast a traditional D&D spell (what with the verbal and somatic components and him hanging upside down on a wall and tryin' to be sneaky and all), and your gnome might not (taking hits in melee shouldn't prevent his trickery!), but your academic Illusionist probably would (he's a slight twist on the academic archetype of a Wizard).

Personally, this dates back to 4e for me. I think one of the awesome things about stuff like 4e's Vampire Rainbow was that it allowed you to do the same thing in multiple different ways. Dabble in feats, take a race, go for the class, whatever! 

But ultimately I guess this just means you guys have a real challenge ahead of you with how you _name things_.  Good luck (and let me know if you want any help. ).


----------



## Cybit (Sep 13, 2012)

The "One True Way" is going to be the biggest hurdle for 5E, IMO.  So many RPG players not only want their "way" supported, but also don't want "any other way" supported, either.  Based on what I've heard and seen, it seems they want a very basic archetype, and then multiple ways to branch off, both mechanically and story wise, from that archetype.    

The more I think about 5E, the more I wonder whether we're (RPG fans) going to be the biggest problem.  :-/


----------



## Lord Rasputin (Sep 13, 2012)

Gaming Tonic said:


> Both the ranger and paladin will quite likely end up with spells.



Noooooooooo! Please, by Crom, no ranger or paladin spells! These were never anything other than a distraction.


----------



## BobTheNob (Sep 13, 2012)

Personally Im not a fan of encounter spells, for many reason  (some already stated here).

I dont mind what the have proposed for the evoker (and other traditions Im assuming) but would simply prefer that you didnt get these spells back on a 1:1 basis. Maybe that you have a random chance of recovering a spell, or you can get back X levels worth of spells for every Y levels you spent. Something a bit more middle of the road like that.


----------



## The Choice (Sep 13, 2012)

KesselZero said:


> My problem with encounter spells is that I've found them to be the single biggest destroyer of old-school playstyles. If PCs have powers that recharge between fights, especially if ALL the PCs have them, then random encounters and wandering monsters can quickly change from a resource-draining challenge to be avoided into an easy way to grind XP, since encounter powers (at least in 4e) are powerful enough to make any minor combat pretty easy. I'm definitely concerned about them being brought back.




I don't feel that wizards (or any spellcaster/character in general) possessing one or two abilities that can be called upon again within a shorter timeframe will alter playstyle dramatically as long as the power of such abilities falls within a certain spectrum.  It couldn't be as "encounter defining" as say _Sleep_ or _Hold Person_, but what about _Burning Hands_?  It's a spell that just puts a bit of damage down; it won't be the turning point of a combat, so PCs can't just rely on that one spell to win the encounter, and it can become sort of a signature spell for the wizard who chooses it.  

It can also be a positive incentive for PCs to go on and "explore just _one_ more room" when normally they'd be packing up their gear and leaving the dungeon because they're "out of juice".

As for the "random encounter" thing, it could be a net positive in that it gives players a clearer grasp of what they can still accomplish. "That's two ogres right around the corner." "We had trouble taking one down at full strength, I don't think we can pull this off with just my cantrips and _burning hands_.  Let's find a way around them."  By adding a point of granularity in resource management, it helps PCs and DMs gauge what kind of encounters will be challenging or out and out deadly.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Sep 13, 2012)

Just give Wizards more spells to begin with!
As they progress, take away low-level spell slots!


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Sep 13, 2012)

... and another thing! Don't mix strongly different mechanics within the same class! That's confusing, wasteful of design space other classes could be using and the class loses its distinctive identity.


----------



## Mark CMG (Sep 13, 2012)

mearls said:


> (snip)





5E OGL?  Previous edition PDFs returning this year or even next?


----------



## Gaming Tonic (Sep 13, 2012)

Lord Rasputin said:


> Noooooooooo! Please, by Crom, no ranger or paladin spells! These were never anything other than a distraction.




By Crom! That slays me.  Fear not because this is exactly the sort of thing I suspect we will see handled with modules.  If paladins don't have spells then perhaps there are a few things for the player to choose from such as a lower Stunt Die, Lay on Hands, Paladin's Mount, Cure Disease, Improved Armor or Weapons.  Those are all classic paladin abilities where choices could be made.  I think a paladin with spells is not a stretch with the whole gods thing.  Ranger on the other hand, is a bit more challenging to explain spells but there are several options available to us as well to exchange for spells like Beast Companion, Two Weapon Fighting, Archery Prowess, Favored Enemy, Trackless Step.  Although I could definitely groove to some sort of ritual magic for the ranger as an option of some sort, especially if my ranger is very tribal or tied to the fey.


----------



## The Shadow (Sep 13, 2012)

I personally have no problem with regaining a select list of spells... though I think there should be at least one tradition with just dailies.

Also, I sincerely hope that each tradition gets some spells not available to the others!  Part of what made the 1e Illusionist so cool and the 2e/3e specialist Illusionists kind of lame was exactly this - the former had all sorts of things unique to themselves.

Finally, I do hope we don't have to be focussed-in too tightly on the traditional spell-schools, which are often too narrow.  The 1e Illusionist got lots of enchantments, and should get them again, IMO.  Likewise, Conjurors should get the abjuration spells they need to control what they summon.


----------



## MatthewJHanson (Sep 13, 2012)

My worry is about balancing encounter powers with the daily ones. If the mechanic is just that traditions get to recharge spells within their tradition that are daily spells for every other class, I imagine that wizards who take spells mostly from their tradition will be much more powerful than those who don't.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Sep 14, 2012)

mearls said:


> I was originally tempted to use war mage instead of invoker in the interview



You meant evoker, right?


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Sep 14, 2012)

As others have said, much depends on what exactly the encounter spells are, and how many the wizard gets at a time.

Weak combat spells are fine: a 5th level fighter can toss out 20 damage each round at range or in melee, so the wizard won't stir the pot too much by Burning Hands more often.

Utility spells must be very carefully balanced. Even feather fall, an example Mike mentioned in L&L, basically makes the wizard immune to falling if it's an encounter power.

Buffs are even harder o implement without issues.

Another question is, how many of these can you implement without stepping on the warlock's toes? Poor warlock only gets 2 encounter powers and at-wills - are they just that much more powerful?

I've liked the innovations I've seen so far in the playtest, so I'm hoping when we see this in action it'll be clearer ow these new powers fit in.


----------



## gyor (Sep 14, 2012)

Lots of cool info thanks!

 The subrace info was really cool. I prefered the pre 4e idea of tiefling as connected to a plane or evil outsider.

 Now the question is how many subraces will each race have? So far we only have two each, but that does mean it will stay that way. 

 So the obvious subraces are Tieflings are Infernal, Abyssal, but thier could be more. And of course what about FR and other settings that have unique fiendish planes like the Towers of Night, Deep Caverns, and Banehold for example.

 Dragonborn connecting to the Tiamat and Bahamut story arc suggests Chromotic and Metallic origins.

 Chromatic and Metallic could be subraces themselves, but depending on how many subraces they have you could see the subraces being Red, Gold, Silver, with more exotic colours being reserved for supplaments like,Purples, Grays, Oruim, Steel, Mercury, Mithral.

 Eladrin could have Firre, Bralani, Ghaele, Tulani, Shiere, Noviere, and Coure subraces too.

 Of course one wonders if the mm will use subraces as well for some monsters, especially,PC monsters like Minotaurs (Kothian, Yikea), Doppelgangers (Batrachi, Changeling, Ethreal), Drow (I have to think on this), amoung others. If Eladrin go back to a Celestrail origin maybe Drow will be a subrace of elf.

 Another though, setting would add thier own subraces, such as FR adding Sun and Moon elves to Elves, amoung others.

 Also I have a better idea where Prestige Class will fit in the Background, Specialty, Class spectrum. An expansion of certain backgrounds which take on the form of multiclassing and a rp prerequists. Cool.

 As for spellcasting Paladin and Ranger, they'll probably have the option to bounce spells for an extra specialty from a class specific list. Simplist way to deal with that.

 As for where does the Ranger gets spells from, in 3x it was the Gods, and in 4e it was primal spirits (in the post Essentials era).

 Mearls answer on spells for the two classes has my curiousity peaked, It sounds like Rangers and Paladins will have more powerful spells so I'm really want to see where they go with these classes.

 Oh and the example for signature spells for wizard traditions sounds more like Pathfinders echoing spell metamagic feat then an encounter power.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 14, 2012)

If you don't want something in your game, but it appears in the rules... you can take it out.

If you want something in your game, but it doesn't appear in the rules... you're screwed.


----------



## Ainamacar (Sep 14, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Keep in mind that some rp req are fine... Must belong to X organization is a real limiter




It is only a limiter if that table wants it to be.  It assumes the game has X organization or a close analog, it assumes that the roleplaying consequences of belonging to X organization (or its close analog) are respected at the table, and in many cases it assumes the roleplaying restrictions used to justify mechanical benefits are of a similar magnitude from table to table even when roleplaying consequences are respected.  If any of these are violated then the mechanics were justified on a premise that does not hold.  The easier something is to ignore without inherent side-effects the less well it serves as one side of a trade off.

I grant that some campaign-dependent considerations are necessary when trying to achieve mechanical balance, even of the most bird's-eye-view variety.  For example, we'd generally assume that the campaign won't only involve fighting undead or monsters with immunity to fire even though someone might reasonably run such campaigns. (And for other types of balance, like spotlight balance, similar notions hold.)  However, those assumptions should be few in number, have a clearly-defined scope, and, if possible, a predictable impact when violated.  In other words, whatever notion of balance one has aimed for should "fail gracefully" as the campaign moves away from these assumptions.  Plus, modules should (I think) be able to deal with altering assumptions of those kinds much more easily.  Adding non-mechanical assumptions at the class-level to justify baked-in mechanical benefits invites a tangle, and ends up making the game less playable for those who don't follow the new assumption, and no more playable for those who do.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Sep 14, 2012)

DEFCON 1 said:


> If you don't want something in your game, but it appears in the rules... you can take it out.
> 
> If you want something in your game, but it doesn't appear in the rules... you're screwed.




What happened to homebrewing stuff?


----------



## gyor (Sep 14, 2012)

Ultimatecalibur said:


> What happened to homebrewing stuff?




 Not everybody has time for that and its of no use in organized play.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur (Sep 14, 2012)

gyor said:


> Not everybody has time for that and its of no use in organized play.




I was being facetious. DEFCON's comment implied that while you could houserule out things you don't like, there was nothing you could do if something did not exist in the rules.


----------



## Remathilis (Sep 14, 2012)

Cybit said:


> The "One True Way" is going to be the biggest hurdle for 5E, IMO.  So many RPG players not only want their "way" supported, but also don't want "any other way" supported, either.  Based on what I've heard and seen, it seems they want a very basic archetype, and then multiple ways to branch off, both mechanically and story wise, from that archetype.
> 
> The more I think about 5E, the more I wonder whether we're (RPG fans) going to be the biggest problem.  :-/






Lord Rasputin said:


> Noooooooooo! Please, by Crom, no ranger or paladin spells! These were never anything other than a distraction.




These two posts being back to back is full of delicious irony.


----------



## The Choice (Sep 14, 2012)

MatthewJHanson said:


> My worry is about balancing encounter powers with the daily ones. If the mechanic is just that traditions get to recharge spells within their tradition that are daily spells for every other class, I imagine that wizards who take spells mostly from their tradition will be much more powerful than those who don't.




Not necessarily, depending on how those spells are "siloed" and how many there are, you could see more diversity.  Let's say the "dread necromancer" tradition (I am totally making things up here) as the choice between _ray of enfeeblement_ and _haunting_ (a minor fear effect I just totally made up) as tradition spells, he's less likely to pick _terror _or something that weakens his foes with his daily, vancian resources, leading to a more diverse spell list while still reenforcing his theme as a terrifying necromancer dude.

This probably means creating fewer spells so that, in the end, most traditions get about the same number of tradition spells and school-related daily spells.  But with the sheer amount of spells created for every edition of D&D ever, I don't see that being much of a problem.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Sep 14, 2012)

Ainamacar said:


> It is only a limiter if that table wants it to be.  It assumes the game has X organization or a close analog, it assumes that the roleplaying consequences of belonging to X organization (or its close analog) are respected at the table, and in many cases it assumes the roleplaying restrictions used to justify mechanical benefits are of a similar magnitude from table to table even when roleplaying consequences are respected.  If any of these are violated then the mechanics were justified on a premise that does not hold.  The easier something is to ignore without inherent side-effects the less well it serves as one side of a trade off.




So would having a feat prereq have the same problem? Becuse you can play without feats? What about a skipll, we have been toldyou can play without them?


Example: prestige class Emerald Knight, Prereq: feat :fearless and other: Must be chosen by the little blue dwarves...

Can a DM say "My world we dont have little blue dwarves" and still have someone take the class, sure but they nowingly did so.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Sep 14, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> Previous edition PDFs returning this year or even next?



Starting early next year.

(And yes, they later specifically said PDF.)


----------



## Mark CMG (Sep 14, 2012)

GX.Sigma said:


> Starting early next year.
> 
> (And yes, they later specifically said PDF.)





I watched that before and didn't get the same impression you got.


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Sep 14, 2012)

A few things.

1. Dragonlance! (Knight of the Rose)
2. Dragonborn and Tiefling are in, it seems
3. Encounter powers
4. LFQW is back
5. Prestige Classes and all their baggage will be back.

1-3 good, 4-5 bad.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Sep 14, 2012)

Mark CMG said:


> I watched that before and didn't get the same impression you got.



What impression did you get?

"In early 2013, we'll release the first wave of D&D backlist products in electronic format once again."

Twitter links: 

"...products from all editions..."
"Yes, all editions."
"New versions."

The last one exemplifies a trend (which was also present in the Q&A's at the recent cons) where someone would ask them about PDFs, and they wouldn't say PDF, but they also wouldn't correct the person. From a poster at rpg.net:


> I am at Gen Con and cornered PR people at the WotC booth.
> 
> They'll be rolling out waves of stuff starting in Jan 2013. Each wave will contain material from many different iterations of D&D, and different product lines. I could not get details about what would be in the first wave.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 14, 2012)

CasvalRemDeikun said:


> A few things.
> 
> 1. Dragonlance! (Knight of the Rose)
> 2. Dragonborn and Tiefling are in, it seems
> ...



1 OK, 2-3 I can ignore or not use, 4 I don't mind, but 5 - 5 is bad bad bad...

...unless:

 - a hard inviolate limit is put on how many classes a single character can ever have (I would reluctantly accept 3 but I'd prefer it be 2), and
 - no more than one of those may be a "prestige class".

Otherwise we're right back to the class-dipping insanity that was 3.xe.

Lanefan


----------



## GX.Sigma (Sep 14, 2012)

Lanefan said:


> 1 OK, 2-3 I can ignore or not use, 4 I don't mind, but 5 - 5 is bad bad bad...
> 
> ...unless:
> 
> ...



What's wrong with class-dipping? I mean sure, if people are exploiting the system to create overpowered characters, that's a bad thing, and hopefully 5e's multiclass tables can balance multiclassing. But if players want to take a bunch of classes to express their character concept, why shouldn't they?

Also, didn't 3.x have pretty strict limits on class dipping? I wasn't around at the time, but -20% XP per extra class sounds crippling.


----------



## Prickly (Sep 14, 2012)

GX.Sigma said:


> Also, didn't 3.x have pretty strict limits on class dipping? I wasn't around at the time, but -20% XP per extra class sounds crippling.




Only if people use that rule and use XP.

I never saw it enforced.


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 14, 2012)

Klaus said:


> Then stick to the generalist wizard. AFAIK, the "encounter" spell slots are for school specialists only, as a way of mimicking the old "additional spell slot for specialty school".




I think the old additional spell slots were quite boring, and in general 3e school specialization was not to my taste, in fact I soon settled to be always a generalist by the rules even when I was in fact designing a specialist!

OTOH the idea of giving encounter spell slots is even less to my taste... The biggest problem for me (besides the general distaste) is that either encounter powers are kept very very few - but once the can is opened in the game, PCs will be able to stack several options of this kind - or they will altogether be usable almost at-will, unless the length of an encounter is forced-stretched to a large number of rounds as in 4e.

I was hoping for something more imaginative for school specialization, not a "standard" rule valid for all traditions but instead ad-hoc rules for each of them (e.g. 3ed Unearthed Arcana). Surely the first approach is easier for the designers, but the second would mean that the experience of playing an Evoker is significantly different compared to that of playing a Necromancer or a Diviner and so on... which IMHO would wonderfully increase the variety of the game!

PS The part about wizard tradition is the only one that I disliked and worry about, all the rest in this interview look fine and interesting


----------



## Minigiant (Sep 14, 2012)

*Yay! *
Rangers with spells.

No need to back to town for a healer.
I can stay in the wild *FOREVER!*

They *better not* get rid of my Tree Shape ninja move!


----------



## Steely_Dan (Sep 14, 2012)

This is the first time I have been disappointed with their future plans, the only part I dig is Tieflings no longer being of Devilish ancestry only, I like the broader Planetouched deal (I have one of Yugoloth descent as a major antagonist in my current campaign).

Oh, the rogue options sound okay.


----------



## Ainamacar (Sep 14, 2012)

GMforPowergamers said:


> So would having a feat prereq have the same problem? Becuse you can play without feats? What about a skipll, we have been toldyou can play without them?
> 
> 
> Example: prestige class Emerald Knight, Prereq: feat :fearless and other: Must be chosen by the little blue dwarves...
> ...




I thought about whether to address this in the other post, but opted not to do so.  In short, I think they probably don't have the same problem, or at least not to the same degree.

The principle effect of ignoring a mechanic is on the mechanics themselves, and that is both necessary and seemly.  If one ignores feats then the rule changes, if any, required to restore mechanical balance will probably be no more dependent on roleplaying considerations than the rules were initially.  Moreover, ignoring broad rules like feats will tend to affect the PCs in roughly equal measure.  Overall, if one minimizes the influence of campaign-dependent elements in the game's mechanics, ignoring one such element generally won't require making the game *even more dependent* on specific elements of the campaign in order to restore mechanical balance.

In contrast, when a roleplaying restriction is used to justify a mechanical element more powerful (or restricted) than would otherwise exist, by necessity the new balance has greater campaign dependence than the same game without that element.  A DM might knowingly ignore the roleplaying assumptions (no "little blue dwarves"), and I have no problem with the DM who does so, just like I have no real problem with DMs who de-emphasize balance in the first place.  What I object to, however, is a design principle that, in aggregate, ends up creating more work for DMs who do want to pay attention to balance.

Basically, I want the rules to minimally impinge on how I run the game while keeping a semblance of mechanical balance.  If I, as DM, ever think to myself "I should introduce a complication for Player A" not because that would be interesting or flow naturally from the situation, but because player A is playing a class with bigger guns only granted because complications are assumed to occur, then the rules are shaping the campaign in a way I find unnatural and a little burdensome.  If a lot of game elements are designed this way eventually it might graduate to very unnatural and substantially burdensome.  If certain very strong setting assumptions are part of some game's core identity (e.g. the role of magi in Ars Magica) then my objection is lessened with respect to related areas in that game.

So, when roleplaying considerations are included in a class, but have no impact on mechanical power, I have no complaint.  When they are included and have a mechanical impact carefully designed to match each instance of roleplaying consideration in kind (something like FATE), I also have no complaint.  What I hate is a tradeoff like "Always helps an elf in need" for a blanket "+1 to weapon attacks" because the first statement can have such highly variable implications.  The impact of helping an elf in need should be the esteem of the elves, reciprocal help when needed, extra trouble in the city of elf-haters, or even a gift from the Elven Queen of a weapon that is conveniently +1 higher than the PCs current one.  The latter even mimics a mechanical benefit I wouldn't like, but it's OK because roleplaying considerations led to an appropriate roleplaying response.

I hope that adequately describes my perspective!


----------



## Mallus (Sep 14, 2012)

KesselZero said:


> My problem with encounter spells is that I've found them to be the single biggest destroyer of old-school playstyles.



Two things:

1) Doesn't this depend on what the encounter spells _are_? For example, an encounter-recharging Magic Missile wouldn't exactly "destroy" old-school play.

2) If you use AD&D as the baseline, you'll find that old-school D&D spell casters aren't really resource-poor. It's true they got fewer spells, but they made up for it in magic items. Take a look at the random treasure tables, the items-by-level chart for NPCs, and some of the module treasures/equipment lists for pregens.

Wands, scrolls, and other charged items start becoming common around mid-level (with scrolls being found even at low level). So a caster 'popping off'' some kind of spell effect every round isn't a new thing. 

AD&D combat can be swingy and deadly, but in it's default mode, it's not a low-magic game.


----------



## Mattachine (Sep 14, 2012)

I much prefer when specialist wizards have either specialty spells on their lists, or when the specialist wizards each get an unusual, different benefit, making them play differently.

Abjuruer: some bonus to saves vs. spells, using dispels/counterspells
Evoker: bonus damage, maybe a specialty energy type
Conjurer: increased duration/durability of conjurations
Necromancer: bonuses when using attacks/skills in regards to undead, maybe get to use a couple relevant cleric spells
Transmuter: transmutation spells harder to resist/save against, gets save bonus to avoid transmutation
Diviner: bonuses to skills, some exclusive scrying rituals
Illusionist: illusions more believable (harder saves), some illusions gain a real component
Enchanter: bonuses to skills, enchantments last longer or are harder to throw off


I'm not a fan of spellcasting rangers or paladins, to be honest, nor was I ever (since AD&D). I am guessing non-casting options will exist.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 14, 2012)

Li Shenron said:


> I think the old additional spell slots were quite boring, and in general 3e school specialization was not to my taste, in fact I soon settled to be always a generalist by the rules even when I was in fact designing a specialist!
> 
> OTOH the idea of giving encounter spell slots is even less to my taste... The biggest problem for me (besides the general distaste) is that either encounter powers are kept very very few - but once the can is opened in the game, PCs will be able to stack several options of this kind - or they will altogether be usable almost at-will, unless the length of an encounter is forced-stretched to a large number of rounds as in 4e.
> 
> ...



We still have to see how it is worded out, and mearls said upthread that the option might be presented, but a player doesn't need to take it.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 14, 2012)

Prickly said:


> Only if people use that rule and use XP.
> 
> I never saw it enforced.




Wait... so a DM gets pissed because his players are 'class-dipping'.

But he also doesn't enforce the rules on it nor use the -20%XP?

Then whose fault is that?!?  Seems to me... that DM is reaping what he sowed.

The whole '1 level class-dipping' issue looks exactly like the '15-minute workday issue'.  People from the outside looking at an issue from above and getting all p.o.d, saying in a perfect world it shouldn't exist... and demanding something be done to fix it.  But all the while not actually having it happen to them in the game they were DMing... because *IF* it was... they'd do something themselves about it to actually make sure it didn't happen since they didn't like it.  Because that's what DMs do.  They choose how their campaign is going to run, they choose what rules will and won't be used... and then they enforce those decisions.

But if the DM _doesn't_ enforce his own desires with his players... he has no right to complain that the game itself wasn't set up from the get go to do it for him.  That's not accepting personal responsibility.


----------



## gyor (Sep 14, 2012)

CasvalRemDeikun said:


> A few things.
> 
> 1. Dragonlance! (Knight of the Rose)
> 2. Dragonborn and Tiefling are in, it seems
> ...




 What's LFQW stand for?

  As for Prestige classes, I'll wait to see how thier done before judging. The prosal so far sounds interesting kind of like Spellscarred class (not the theme that came later) in 4e more then normal prestige classes in 3x.


----------



## Lord Rasputin (Sep 14, 2012)

Remathilis said:


> These two posts being back to back is full of delicious irony.



And delicious words being put in someone's mouth. I have no problem with an option for spells, or for taking them away, nor did I imply otherwise.


----------



## hamstertamer (Sep 14, 2012)

It just keeps getting worse!


----------



## CasvalRemDeikun (Sep 14, 2012)

Lanefan said:


> 1 OK, 2-3 I can ignore or not use, 4 I don't mind, but 5 - 5 is bad bad bad...
> 
> ...unless:
> 
> ...



1 probably won't happen, he is just using it as an example.

2-3 are essential for my ability to evoke my favored edition, but the fact YOU can choose to ignore them is the hallmark of a modular edition.  The system would be taking care of both of us, which is kind of the point.  Good on you for not trying to force your game ideals on me, since I am not trying to do the same to you.

4 is definitely a problem for me, since it shows WotC still doesn't quite get why LFQW is a problem for a lot of people.  It may not be a problem for you, but it is for a lot of people.  Would you mind if LFQW was not in the game?

5 worries me a lot.  I guess we will have to see exactly what they entail.  It worries me, but since we have no idea what they are like, can't complain yet.


----------



## tlantl (Sep 14, 2012)

Lanefan said:


> 1 OK, 2-3 I can ignore or not use, 4 I don't mind, but 5 - 5 is bad bad bad...
> 
> ...unless:
> 
> ...





Mearls mentioned that they want to try to tie prestige classes to your background. I would take this to mean they only expect you to be able to take one and it would be an extension of your characters concept. Making backgrounds prerequisites for prestige classes would go a long way toward limiting what prestige classes are chosen, unless there are a dozen different prestige classes associated with each background. 

I'd hope for two or three prestige classes for each background though, I would feel too constrained to only have one choice. Especially if that one choice isn't exactly what I think would be a good fit with my concept.

I'd prefer that except for prestige classes, all multiclass decisions were made at character creation, but the use of 3e style multiclassing precludes this. Maybe they will give us that option since they are going to be giving us multiclass charts for combining class abilities. Sort of like core class combinations as were found in AD&D.


----------



## CM (Sep 14, 2012)

Class-dipping in 3e was a problem because of two issues:

Front-loaded classes
Scaling of attack and save bonuses

3e multiclassing was a kludge. You could take ten levels of classes and prestige classes and end up with some of your saves at a +12 or higher base and others at a +4 or lower base.

We have already heard lots of quotes stating that they are taking multiclassing seriously and baking multiclass considerations into the system, so I am not too concerned about dipping into multiple classes.

...

edit: LFQW is Linear Fighter/Quadratic Wizard.


----------



## Cybit (Sep 14, 2012)

CM said:


> Class-dipping in 3e was a problem because of two issues:
> 
> Front-loaded classes
> Scaling of attack and save bonuses
> ...




Based on everything I've heard and seen about fighters, it's going to be QFQW, probably.  Also, they've explicitly talked about negating or reducing the ability of wizards to stack spells on top of each other to shut down bad guys easily.  Expect a sustain mechanic for stinking cloud, evard's black tentacles, and spells of the like.


----------



## Minigiant (Sep 14, 2012)

PRCs and 3e style multiclassing was a problem in 3e because like most of the game,  thoughts of how the actually game would be played with the rules given were an afterthought.

The prc and multiclassing rules works almost decent when you play straight classes, ½this½that characters, and blasters. The problem was that according the rules and the options allowed, those characters sucked. They expected use to actually play mystic theurges and not dip shadowdancer.

All Mearls has to do is think of how the players would use the class and not how he would. To not make the story way of advancement not the stupid way.


----------



## Animal (Sep 14, 2012)

People seriously worried about PrC availability? You don't even need to use them. Just ignore them if you don't like them.
I'm more worried about such things as OP at-will spells for mages or sorcerer transformations that doesn't make sense to me, which will be much harder to houserule.


----------



## gyor (Sep 14, 2012)

CM said:


> Class-dipping in 3e was a problem because of two issues:
> 
> Front-loaded classes
> Scaling of attack and save bonuses
> ...




 Oh, thank you.

 And I agree with you on Prestige Classes.

 In fact multiclassing sounds like each base class will have a prestige class verison. So each character I guess with have a Base Class you take at first level and if you want to multiclass you take levels in Prestige Classes, some a verison of base classes, and some that have no base class, but are instead tied to backgrounds or maybe in some cases race.

 So for example at level one I start out as a Sorceror, dragon origin, and knight background. I get all the normal front loaded stuff for a sorceror. Then say 2 levels later I decide multiclass fighter. I don't get everything a fighter does at 1st level, I get something basic, but on my next fighter level I get something more, and I as I level I resemble a fighter more and more. Maybe at level 8 I decide to take a prestige class, but that isn't front loaded either, so if I want the really good stuff I have to stick around for awhile.

 So in summary Base Class is front loaded, multiclasses aren't and neither are Prestige Classes.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing (Sep 14, 2012)

Yes, I think they ought to consider a return to the old-fashioned style of multiclassing. You have both classes, right from the start. Otherwise dipping is inevitable and superior.


----------



## Klaus (Sep 14, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> Yes, I think they ought to consider a return to the old-fashioned style of multiclassing. You have both classes, right from the start. Otherwise dipping is inevitable and superior.



Which is, basically, 4e's Hybrid classes. You have both classes, right off the bat.


----------



## CM (Sep 14, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> Yes, I think they ought to consider a return to the old-fashioned style of multiclassing. You have both classes, right from the start. Otherwise dipping is inevitable and superior.






Klaus said:


> Which is, basically, 4e's Hybrid classes. You have both classes, right off the bat.




While I like hybrids, the downside is this does a poor job of modeling the guy "turns over a new leaf" or otherwise undergoes some kind of transformation, whether literal or figurative.

Also, I thought I read that 5e multiclasses won't be front-loaded. It will take a few levels in the new class before you have all the abilities that a normal single-classed character of that class would have at level 1. I'd look for it but I'm on lunch at work.


----------



## Mark CMG (Sep 14, 2012)

GX.Sigma said:


> What impression did you get?
> 
> "In early 2013, we'll release the first wave of D&D backlist products in electronic format once again."
> 
> ...





Well, it's the usual cageyness, I suppose.  The question is if the previous catalog of PDFs will be returning, and by all that you show they are not.  It looks like they might release some PDFs in 2013, likely the PDFs of the books they just re-released since those would be practically ready to go, and I'd imagine a few "classics" from various editions over the course of 2013 (the typical properties they used to revamp for "Return to" adventures, the popular ones from each edition).  You know, it would have been very easy at any point for someone to be straightforward an simply say they had/have no plans to reopen the old PDF catalog again rather than string folks along.  They still don't get the PR damage they do when they are purposefully obtuse.

I wonder if they'll answer the 5E OGL question anytime soon or if that will continue to be shrouding in PR damaging mystery?


----------



## Klaus (Sep 14, 2012)

CM said:


> While I like hybrids, the downside is this does a poor job of modeling the guy "turns over a new leaf" or otherwise undergoes some kind of transformation, whether literal or figurative.
> 
> Also, I thought I read that 5e multiclasses won't be front-loaded. It will take a few levels in the new class before you have all the abilities that a normal single-classed character of that class would have at level 1. I'd look for it but I'm on lunch at work.



Yes, that was said at some point over the past week or so. And if 3e-style multiclassing is the way to go, I certainly approve of this. 1st character level encompasses an extensive period of training for your first class level, so it should come with perks that a character shouldn't get by single-dipping into a class later in his career.


----------



## Crazy Jerome (Sep 15, 2012)

Mattachine said:


> I'm not a fan of spellcasting rangers or paladins, to be honest, nor was I ever (since AD&D). I am guessing non-casting options will exist.




Me neither, especially the rangers.  However, my objection is mainly that the original spells were only there because "some nifty vaguely class-related ability that can vary" in AD&D was often implemented in the game as "gets a spell"--even when this really didn't fit.  (And people complain about the mechanics in 4E not being related to the ability!)

That is, I don't necessarily think that spellcasting paladins and rangers are inherently a bad idea, but I dislike them because I think they lead to crappy implementation of those classes.  Maybe I'm too cynical there. 

So I'm perfectly happy with paladins and rangers getting spells in *some* of their equivalents of fighter combat styles, rogue schemes, wizard traditions, or cleric domains, whatever those equivalents happen to be.  I still think those particular options are going to get banned in any game I run on the grounds that they stink, but I don't mind them being there. Maybe with my low expectations, I'll be pleasantly surprised.


----------



## Libramarian (Sep 15, 2012)

DEFCON 1 said:


> If you don't want something in your game, but it appears in the rules... you can take it out.
> 
> If you want something in your game, but it doesn't appear in the rules... you're screwed.



This certainly isn't necessarily true, and I'm not sure it's even usually true.

It can be more difficult to take something out than put it in, if the game is complex and tightly designed.

It all depends on what you're trying to put in and what you're trying to take out.


Li Shenron said:


> OTOH the idea of giving encounter spell slots is even less to my taste... The biggest problem for me (besides the general distaste) is that either encounter powers are kept very very few - but once the can is opened in the game, PCs will be able to stack several options of this kind - or they will altogether be usable almost at-will, unless the length of an encounter is forced-stretched to a large number of rounds as in 4e.



Yeah, encounter spells can really do a lot of violence to the classic D&D rhythm between fighters and casters. The casters are supposed to get the limited big-bang grenade spells, but they have to conserve them until they're really necessary, so the fighters get most of the "spotlight time" during the lower stakes, hack-and-slash mook battles (which are most of the battles; the fighters are supposed to do most of the fighting). If you give the casters encounter powers, then they'll steal the spotlight here.

Which in turn means that you'll have to give the fighting types daily options so that they can share the spotlight with the casters in high stakes "nova" situations (or else dramatically reduce the power of the casters' daily abilities). And we're back to class sameyness.


----------



## Lanefan (Sep 15, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> Yes, I think they ought to consider a return to the old-fashioned style of multiclassing. You have both classes, right from the start. Otherwise dipping is inevitable and superior.



I agree.

To work properly, however, would also require a return to independently advancing classes and levels rather than additive like 3e.

What I'd really like to see the designers take a long hard look at is that when you get XP you assign them to each class in a ratio set by you-as-player before that adventure.  Then, when each class bumps it bumps, independently of any other(s).  However, the classes are not additive - a F-4/MU-4 is NOT considered an 8th-level character; it's more about equivalent to a 5th.  For things like saves, BAB, etc. rather than add 'em together *you take the better of the two* - in 3e terms a F-4 would have a BAB of +4, a MU-4 would be what, +2?  So this 4-4 character has a BAB of +4.

This works best when the XP tables are on something of a J-curve like 1e; the amount of XP needed to be level x in a given single class should be about on a par with what it takes to be level x-1/x-1 as a double-class.

What this also does is allow players to focus more on one class than another and have that organically reflect in how they advance in level.  If, for example, I want to have a Fighter who does a bit of Thieving on the side, I can assign its XP to reflect that as, say, 80% Fighter, 20% Thief.  Obviously my levels would quickly diverge - I might end up as a F-6/T-3, for example, which is what I'm after in the first place.

Then, a straight limit on how many classes a character can have and you're all set.

Lan-"if you don't use XP this doesn't work, of course; but that's not the game's problem"-efan


----------



## Zustiur (Sep 15, 2012)

GX.Sigma said:


> You meant evoker, right?





			
				tuxego said:
			
		

> I devoutly hope that Mearls *DID* mean "evoker" instead of "invoker." (Dey ain't de same, yawl. . . ...



Not necessarily. He may have just been thinking without his 4E hat on.

See this:


			
				2E Complete Wizard's Handbook said:
			
		

> Invocation/Evocation
> Description: This school includes two types of spells [snip]
> Specialist Name: *Invoker*



The distinction was "Evocation spells use the natural magical forces of the planes" and "Invocation spells call on intervention of powerful extradimensional beings."

Which to me reads as though Invoker=Warlock. That's a twist I didn't expect.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Sep 15, 2012)

DEFCON 1 said:


> But if the DM _doesn't_ enforce his own desires with his players... he has no right to complain that the game itself wasn't set up from the get go to do it for him.  That's not accepting personal responsibility.





Yeah, when I first started up my 3rd Ed Planescape campaign 7 years ago, I gave the players absolute freedom, which was cool, but later on someone joined and made a Divine Bard 4/Fighter 1/Battlesmith 1/Deepwarden 2/Dwarf Paragon 1/Hammer of Moradin 4, and it got a bit silly, and then came high level magic/psionics, broken spells (_murderous mist_, etc).

All a DM has to do is establish a case-by-case approval type system right up front, if you don't like a feat, race, class or spell etc a player wants to take (or just existing in the game), veto; in the 1st Ed PHB it states the DM may remove, alter, and/or add spells to the game.


----------



## GX.Sigma (Sep 15, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> a Divine Bard 4/Fighter 1/Battlesmith 1/Deepwarden 2/Dwarf Paragon 1/Hammer of Moradin 4, and it got a bit silly



Innocent question (I didn't play 3e): What was silly about it?


----------



## Steely_Dan (Sep 15, 2012)

GX.Sigma said:


> Innocent question (I didn't play 3e): What was silly about it?





Cherry-picking, no RPG explanations for taking the classes (some taken just as a prerequisite for another class), all contrived, meta/power-gaming rubbish.

Oh, and a _Gold_ Dwarf Hammer of Moradin, yeah...


----------



## GX.Sigma (Sep 15, 2012)

Steely_Dan said:


> Cherry-picking, no RPG explanations for taking the classes (some taken just as a prerequisite for another class), all contrived, meta/power-gaming rubbish.
> 
> Oh, and a _Gold_ Dwarf Hammer of Moradin, yeah...



Ah, got it. Lame. :\


----------



## avin (Sep 15, 2012)

Encounter spells with RP explanations are fine, just keep away from Fighters.

Tieflings back? Now you're talking, Mearls.


----------



## Steely_Dan (Sep 15, 2012)

avin said:


> Tieflings back? Now you're talking, Mearls.




Yep, I have a Chasme Demon descended Tiefling in my current Planescape campaign with multi-faceted eyes and vestigial wings, and a Yugoloth one with 3-eyes, bring back Planetouched.


----------



## gyor (Sep 15, 2012)

I think that 4e essentials subclasses handled both Paladin and Ranger Magic best. 

 Paladin magic was divine (and shadow in the case of the blackguard) and come from the medium of virtues and vices, which were gesaults of the virtues and vices of all beings,,but divine (hence why it could grant divine magic) and mortal.

 The Hunter and Scout subclasses had magical tricks/spells picked up from both observing and helping primal spirits and the like.


----------



## B.T. (Sep 15, 2012)

Chris_Nightwing said:


> Just give Wizards more spells to begin with!
> As they progress, take away low-level spell slots!



This is something I have considered.

Wizards might start out with the ability to cast 2nd-level spells right off the start to give them a small set of options: 3 (1st level), 2 (2nd level).  They could eventually improve to 4 (1st level), 3 (2nd level), 2 (3rd level).  As the wizard advances, that increases to 4 (2nd level), 3 (3rd level), and 2 (4th level); this would continue until 4 (7th level), 3 (8th level), and 2 (9th level).

But what do I know.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 18, 2012)

Cybit said:


> Expect a sustain mechanic for stinking cloud, evard's black tentacles, and spells of the like.



Not in the playtest at present, but of course it could come.

How would it work? In 4e, "minor actions" play a useful function in this respect. But there is no comparable action economy in D&Dnext.



Lanefan said:


> 5 is bad bad bad...
> 
> ...unless:
> 
> - a hard inviolate limit is put on how many classes a single character can ever have (I would reluctantly accept 3 but I'd prefer it be 2



Three is the minimum, isn't it - otherwise how can we have Cleric/Fighter/Magic-Users, Fighter/Magic-User/Thieves, and Fighter/Thief/Druids (Bards)?



CM said:


> While I like hybrids, the downside is this does a poor job of modeling the guy "turns over a new leaf" or otherwise undergoes some kind of transformation, whether literal or figurative.



In 4e, the only real way to do this is to rebuild the PC completely.



DEFCON 1 said:


> The whole '1 level class-dipping' issue looks exactly like the '15-minute workday issue'.  People from the outside looking at an issue from above and getting all p.o.d, saying in a perfect world it shouldn't exist... and demanding something be done to fix it.  But all the while not actually having it happen to them in the game they were DMing... because *IF* it was... they'd do something themselves about it to actually make sure it didn't happen since they didn't like it.  Because that's what DMs do.  They choose how their campaign is going to run, they choose what rules will and won't be used... and then they enforce those decisions.



I'm not sure how seriously you mean all of this. But if you really do mean it seriously, I disagree pretty strongly.

I have experienced the 15 minute workday. And I prefer mechanics that get rid of it and its consequences, by (i) reducing the significance of daily refreshing for resource recovery, and (ii) reduce the class imbalance that arises from different degrees of dependence on a daily referesh cycle. (4e has both these features.)

I prefer not to deal with the issues by adopting the "strong GM force" approach you advocate. You can't enforce (i) and (ii) in a system with diverse resource mechanics, only some of which are on a daily refresh rate, without exercisng a degree of control over player decision-making that, for me, is at odds with the whole point of playing an RPG.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 18, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I prefer not to deal with the issues by adopting the "strong GM force" approach you advocate. You can't enforce (i) and (ii) in a system with diverse resource mechanics, only some of which are on a daily refresh rate, without exercisng a degree of control over player decision-making that, for me, is at odds with the whole point of playing an RPG.




In other words... you care more about the way your players have control over their characters than the issues of the 15 minute workday.  Which is great!  More power to you and your players!  You've chosen how you want to DM your game and have done so.  That's exactly what you should be doing.

But this also means that the 15 minute workday is not so much of an issue for you that you bother trying to fix it.  Because the fact of the matter is... ANY issue within the game that bothers a DM can be fixed by said DM (either easily or with great difficulty) *if* the DM cared enough about the issue to try.  It might be a real pain in the butt to do... but it IS possible if it matters that much.

The fact that you don't tells us that while it *is* an issue you wish didn't actually exist... and would hope that in D&DN the game was written so that it didn't exist... you don't care enough about it as it stands to bother inflicting rules changes to reduce or eliminate it, because you believe that it would impinge on the freedom you give your players.

You've made your choice as a DM to run the game as you have chosen (which I salute).


----------



## pemerton (Sep 19, 2012)

DEFCON 1 said:


> In other words... you care more about the way your players have control over their characters than the issues of the 15 minute workday.  Which is great!  More power to you and your players!  You've chosen how you want to DM your game and have done so.  That's exactly what you should be doing.
> 
> But this also means that the 15 minute workday is not so much of an issue for you that you bother trying to fix it.



Well, actually, I did fix it, by changing systems. Twice. The first time, I changed the parameters of my Rolemaster game (RM is _very much_ a toolkit system) so that nova-ing casters were about as strong as fighters, but not more so. Which meant that casters got to rule the pacing, but not at the expense of fighters' spotlight.

Then I went to 4e, which (at least as my group plays it) doesn't have the issue.

I guess from one point of view that vindicates your claim that GMs can fix issues. But when the fix involves changing the system, I think that also supports the view that system matters to the 15 min day.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 19, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I guess from one point of view that vindicates your claim that GMs can fix issues. But when the fix involves changing the system, I think that also supports the view that system matters to the 15 min day.




Well, personally I think switching systems was the right choice in your case.  And I say that, mainly because I'm not one of these people who thinks a person SHOULD play D&D (or a particular edition of D&D) above all else.  If the game you want to play can be best served with some other RPG besides D&D... then you should play it.  Or if the game you want to play can be best served by a particular edition of D&D, then you should play that too.  And if that ISN'T the current edition on the shelves... then who cares?

If D&DN ends up including rules that compound your table's issues with the 15 minute workday... then I don't see any problem with you just staying with 4E.  However... I also don't see any reason to get angry with WotC for deciding to do that (which we see happening here on the boards all the time by people.)

There's no reason to get offended that WotC produces a game that you (generic 'you', not pemerton 'you') don't want to play.  There are hundreds of games out there.  Play whatever one will work best for the style/choice of game you want.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 20, 2012)

DEFCON 1 said:


> If D&DN ends up including rules that compound your table's issues with the 15 minute workday... then I don't see any problem with you just staying with 4E.  However... I also don't see any reason to get angry with WotC for deciding to do that (which we see happening here on the boards all the time by people.)
> 
> There's no reason to get offended that WotC produces a game that you (generic 'you', not pemerton 'you') don't want to play.



I think what you say here goes without saying! The notion of getting offended or angry over game design makes no sense to me.

I do get the feeling that WotC doesn't entirely understand what it is about 4e that many 4e players (at least judging from these boards) seem to enjoy. They seem to identify 4e more with particular techniques - like tactical combat - than with 4e's intimate entwining of fiction and mechanics, so that the mechanics relentless drive the action forward.

But even if that's true, it's not grounds for offence. It may be grounds for a certain sort of disappointment, perhaps.


----------



## Iosue (Sep 20, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I do get the feeling that WotC doesn't entirely understand what it is about 4e that many 4e players (at least judging from these boards) seem to enjoy. They seem to identify 4e more with particular techniques - like tactical combat - than with 4e's intimate entwining of fiction and mechanics, so that the mechanics relentless drive the action forward.
> 
> But even if that's true, it's not grounds for offence. It may be grounds for a certain sort of disappointment, perhaps.



Frankly, I don't think any edition's designers really understood what its players enjoyed about that edition.  Often, that enjoyment seems to be an emergent phenomenon, not entirely intended by the designers.  OD&D, for example: Gygax/Arenson design a fantasy skirmish wargame, and people start acting out Lord of the Rings.  People say to Gygax, "We want rules for X, and Y, and Z!"  So he creates AD&D, chock-a-block with rules, and people start ruthlessly cutting through them, keeping the ones they like, and ignoring the rest; an ad hoc modularity.  With 3e the designers set out to design a game with greater freedom of character creation, and next thing they know people are mass producing Cure Light Wounds wands and druids are creating bear armies.

I suspect that a lot of the fiction-first and scene-framing aspects of 4e you and Manbearcat have mentioned were not really on the minds of the designers when they built 4e.  I think their intention was to create some rules that created balance in combat, and ease of DM prep, and Skill Challenges thrown in as a way to create non-combat XP situations.   I think the constant re-iterations of Skill Challenges indicate that not even the designers had a clear idea of how to use them.  But the players took what they were given and created the best kind of game they could make from them.


----------



## pemerton (Sep 20, 2012)

Iosue said:


> I suspect that a lot of the fiction-first and scene-framing aspects of 4e you and Manbearcat have mentioned were not really on the minds of the designers when they built 4e.  I think their intention was to create some rules that created balance in combat, and ease of DM prep, and Skill Challenges thrown in as a way to create non-combat XP situations.   I think the constant re-iterations of Skill Challenges indicate that not even the designers had a clear idea of how to use them.



I agree that a lot of play with an RPG - especially a widely played RPG like D&D - is emergent.

It's also obvious that the skill challenge mechanics were something of a work in progress.

But I don't agree with you that the designers didn't intend them to be run in the sort of way I and others talk about (though I think they did want to hedge their bets, and try to make them workable for other playstyles also). The influence on 4e in general, and on skill challenges in particular, of indie design sensibilities, including complex conflict resolution mechanics like those found in HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, Burning Wheel etc is so obvious that it's (in my view) not coincidental. I mean, back in 2005 Mearls was saying that The Forge is about the only place worth looking at for RPG design theory; and Heinsoo explicity talked about 4e's resemblance to indie design.


----------



## Iosue (Sep 20, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I agree that a lot of play with an RPG - especially a widely played RPG like D&D - is emergent.
> 
> It's also obvious that the skill challenge mechanics were something of a work in progress.
> 
> But I don't agree with you that the designers didn't intend them to be run in the sort of way I and others talk about (though I think they did want to hedge their bets, and try to make them workable for other playstyles also). The influence on 4e in general, and on skill challenges in particular, of indie design sensibilities, including complex conflict resolution mechanics like those found in HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, Burning Wheel etc is so obvious that it's (in my view) not coincidental. I mean, back in 2005 Mearls was saying that The Forge is about the only place worth looking at for RPG design theory; and Heinsoo explicity talked about 4e's resemblance to indie design.



I by no means want it to sound like I'm saying the designers just threw a mechanic in there and then players such as yourself worked it into something useful that fits your playstyle.  I have no doubt they were influenced by indie games -- I think one of 4e's strengths is that it drew on a lot of influences.  Certainly if you want a mechanic for non-combat interaction, indie games are the place to look.

What I'm saying is more like this: one statement I've seen over and over again since the 5e announcement is "WotC doesn't even understand their own game."  I could understand this if there'd been complete turnover since 4e came out, or if we were talking about Monte Cook, but Mearls was part of the development team from the beginning, Wyatt's still there, Jeremy Crawford was part of the 4e design process, Schwalb and Thompson have 4e bona fides.  I think they understand 4e fine, and I think in many ways it does what they wanted it to do (although there seem to have been issues in presenting that).  But part of the process is that the players get a hold of the game, and they take it to places, or perhaps extremes, that the designers didn't expect.

So, in the case of scene-framing and fiction-first mechanics, I absolutely believe that they designed it to be friendly to those kinds of playstyles.  I don't believe, however, that they intended that to be the kind of play 4e was _best_ at.  But it's as Heinsoo said in your link; D&D is broadbased, while indie games have laser focus.  I think in particular with Skill Challenges they intended a much broader application across playstyles.  I think this is apparent from the examples they included in the books, the examples they've included in published adventures, and the kind of Skill Challenges Chris Perkins has used in his celebrity games.  Folks such as yourself have taken the broad-based raw material, and with some tweaking and focused application have turned it into a focused, awesome tool for your play.  I think that falls within the broad purview of the designer's intent to give DMs a variety of tools in adventure design and play.  But I don't think it means that the designers don't understand the game.  If one group of players finds Skill Challenges totally awesome for how they play, but other groups find them problematic, I think it's fair for the designers to say Skill Challenges weren't working as intended.  (Hence, the multiple tries at it.)


----------



## pemerton (Sep 20, 2012)

[MENTION=6680772]Iosue[/MENTION], good post, can't XP you at this time.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Sep 20, 2012)

One of the other problems that a game can have is that when it includes a mechanic (even one that is technically optional and doesn't have to be used)... the mechanic and the game get linked together.  And if it turns out that the mechanic doesn't accomplish effectively what a particular player thinks it's supposed to... there is a tendency to disregard the game _as well_ as the mechanic, since the two get linked in the mind of the player.  And the player will forsake the game entirely, under the belief that another game can give the better experience that they player is looking for (even if the game as a whole might be really good)

So for instance, in the case of skill challenges... the fact that 4E included a mechanic (or several iterations of mechanic) to set up and run skill-based encounters, it became linked as a defining part of the 4E game (even if it never really needed to be used).  And thus... some players who _could_ or _preferred_ to run much more open skill-based encounters (and who found the skill challenge mechanic restraining and not useful)... disregarded 4E on the whole because of the link of skill challenges to the game itself.  The thought being that if 4E included skill challenges as part of its design, and the skill challenge mechanic was BAD design, then ipso facto, 4E on the whole had a bad design.  Because obviously if 4E was designed well, it wouldn't include such a bad mechanic in it.

Now whether or not thinking that way is fair... or indeed whether it's even going so far as cutting off the nose to spite the face... in the end doesn't really matter.  Because the fact is... that player has more than enough alternatives that even if he disregards the 4E game just on the failure of skill challenges, he can find some other game that fulfills his needs.

The big issue for the rest of us though is when that player comes here on ENWorld and decries the entire 4E game because it includes an unwanted mechanic, and then goes so far as to insinuate that the designers are morons, WotC as a company has given a middle finger to their fans, and that other players who like the game are idiots and shills.  And we've seen that kind of attitude _all the time_ over the duration of the game.  Folks decrying 4E because it included the Healing Surge mechanic.  Decrying 4E because it created the Weapon Expertise feat.  Decrying 4E because Fighters had Daily abilities.  So on and so forth.  Every unwanted mechanic told them all they needed to know about the 4E game, and how WotC felt about them as a customer because they _dared_ to include said mechanic in "D&D" and that "their D&D game" was irreparably ruined.

(And anyone who doesn't think some folks here on ENWorld have been THAT hyperbolic in their posts over the last four years have not really been paying attention enough.   )

That's why I'm really curious about how 5E will be received... because the entire game will be built on "optional rules" that intentionally will be there NOT to be used.  How will players react to them?  Will they be able to sift through the 5E rules options and create a game they want to play out of the rules they want... or will the mere _existence_ of optional rules they don't like actually appearing in the book be enough to make them wipe their hands of it altogether without bothering to give it a chance?  Because we players tend to get pissed off quite easily about that sort of thing.


----------

