# Seminar Transcript - Class Design: From Assassins to Wizards



## Morrus

This transcript is paraphrased, with some responses shortened. It is compiled from various tweets (thanks especially to Critical Hits, E. Foley, and Rolling20s for their live tweeting - I suggest you check out their Twitter feeds) plus WotC's live chat feed, and other sources. In attendence: Monte Cook, Bruce Cordell, and Robert J. Schwalb.

*Greg: Today we're going to be talking about Class Design, from Assassins to Wizards. To start things off, let's hear what your favorite class is and why.*

Bruce: I would say the warlock in 4th edition. I really liked all the flavor and options that go into the class. I had a star pact warlock recently that was really fun to play.

Monte: The wizard. Historically it was the one that needed planning and forethought. It rewards good play above the others in my opinion.

Rob: My favorite class is the assassin. Even in first edition I could pretend to be a fighter, and then kill people. In 3rd and 4th I liked the versatility 
and options that I could have with the assassin.

*Greg: How complex or simple do you think classes should be?*

Bruce: I think, we think that different classes should have different levels of complexity. If you want something easier to pick up, there should be a class for that, if you want something that's a bit more challenging or has a bit more going on, you should be able to do that out the gate as well. 

Monte: I would also add that we want different levels of complexity for classes. For example, if a guy wants to pick up a fighter and have an easy time of it, there should be options for that. But also, if another person wants to pick up a fighter and have lots of options and/or complexity, we want to provide that too. The base game is the foundation. If you opt in to character development options, you can get complexity.

Rob: There was discussion of complexity parity in the classes. There's a baseline complexity, but can add as needed.

*Greg: Do you want to talk about some of the ways that this could be accomplished? *

Monte: Sure. So for example, if your fighter goes up a level and would normally get some bonus damage or a bonus to hit, or something simple, then maybe instead you could choose to replace that with an option or options that allow you to do some cool moves that allow you to push people around, or protect your allies a bit more, or control the battlefield a little more.

Rob: Even in the core you varying levels of complexity within each class. Even the wizard has a base starting point that is less complex than what you can get into if you opt into some of the options.

*Greg: This conversation leads into the talk of balance. Is it important that classes are equally balanced? And how does that look - would that focus on damage output and number crunching*?

Monte: (Joking) The assassin, the wizard, and the warlock should all just be better than everything else.

Bruce: If all classes are putting out the same damage, there's no difference. We definitely want the classes to be balanced, though having things exactly mathematically balanced isn't always the goal. Different classes or different play styles will shine at different moments, though of course we want everyone to be able to contribute in the common situations like combat. 

*Greg: When you're talking about non-numerical class stuff, how do you figure out balance?*

Bruce: 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.

Rob: 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 10.5 points of damage.

*Greg: Where do you start with your design when approaching the next edition. Are you looking at all of the classes, or a specific edition version?* 

Monte: To start with we kind of shot at the moon, and said everything that's been in a Player's Handbook 1, we want to potentially have in our new player's book. That includes things like the warlock and the warlord from 4th edition, but also includes the classes from other editions like the ranger, the wizard, the cleric. Going along those lines we separated things along the lines of what's common or uncommon. So for example fighters, clerics, wizards and clerics might be commmon while warlocks, bards, and paladins fall into uncommon and something like the assassin might be rare. This helps DMs determine what options they want to run in their games as well.

Bruce: It also might be the case that some of the classes labeled rare might be a bit more complex or difficult to pick up, so players could also have a gauge with how they want to pick their classes.

*Greg: What's been the most challenging class to build?*

Monte: Actually the fighter has been the most difficult. You have the basic idea of the figher, but you also have the wide range of option to make them more unique and complex. Also something like the D&D wizard and we have a clear view or set of examples for what that wizard could look like. With the fighther, there's not that clear example. So we've got like eight or nine different versions of the figher we've gone through while trying to nail that down. 

Rob: The fighter is definitely one of the more challenging ones. Another would be the psion, who's currently over crying in the corner. I also think the current incarnations of the druid have been real challenging. Including all the different iterations of the druid from previous editions has been difficult while also trying to keep it from being overwhelming.

Bruce: To reiterate, the fighter has been hard. In comparison the monk has been relatively easy because he's focused and his path is relatively clear. For me, the sorcerer has also been fairly difficult - finding the balance between the story and mechanics of the previous editions and it's space when compared to other casters.

*Greg: How long should character creation take and how much should be involved in those more complex options? *

Bruce: If you're picking up one of those common classes and you're building a character, it shouldn't take more than 15 or 20 minutes to create a character if experienced; a new player might take 30 minutes.

Rob: Yeah, it was really quick in one of my playtests. it was pretty sexy and awesome to be able to create the character and jump into the game. My group, 7th level, core characters, 15 minutes to make them. 

Monte: What we're really getting at is that character creation should take as long as you want. If you want to jump into a game quickly, you can put together an easy character and not worry about too many of those options. But if you want to build the more complex character and go through the options and tweak it to be exactly what you want, then you have the time and options for that.

*Greg: I like planning my feat chain over 20 levels. So let's talk about spell casters and the spell casting mechanics. What are your opinions on how that should be? Current playtest has a Vancian system of magic. Thoughts on using that system?*

Monte: It's my firm belief that Vancian magic, for the core classes, _is_ D&D. There are other options for other classes, but for Wizard, Cleric (core), Vancian is the way to go. There's something to be said for picking spells that match what you think is coming. Rewarding. I know it's a bit controversial, but I think Vancian magic is a core element of D&D. Maybe it's not the only option for magic, but it's definitely an iconic and flavorful one that I would like to retain. It's also an interesting way to handle game balance. For example wizards have magical feats that are basically at will abilities. Balancing them with vancian magic which are essentially daily abilities is an interesting way to go, especially when comparing to the fighter and rogue who have more of an at-will style play. It offers a very different playstyle than those other classes, but those different playstyles are something we want to embrace. 

*Greg: Those at-will type of attacks are things that have come to D&D with 4th. How are you guys integrating that in the next iteration.*

Bruce: As Monte mentioned, you have those feats that give you at-will style attacks, and some spell or class options will give you at will kind of attacks. 

Rob: And there's nothing stopping us from looking at all those green attacks from 4th and seeing how those fit into this new iteration. Some for combat, some for not combat. The spell feats fit for that and other class options or feats could offer similar things.

Bruce: I feel we're brining Vancian magic back to the place it began, keeping the story intact and making it important to the story of the world. 
Greg: How about the 15 minute workday problem?

Bruce: Wizards have magical feats (at-will, always available). Hold on to higher spells until needed.

Rob: We could bring back a whole raft of at-wills from 4e, and make those type of things Wizard feats. There are also magical feats that are non-combat oriented. Different frequency rates, as well (encounter). 

Bruce: 4e took Vancian magic and gave it to all classes. We're bringing it back to the part of D&D where it belongs. Fighters have their version of abilities and options as well, but it will have a different feel than the vancian magic for arcane stuff. 

*Greg: How is the idea of rituals progressing in the next iteration of D&D?*

Rob: Monte started running with the ball and wanted to make rituals there for the really big spells that are super awesome, but might take a bit longer to cast. I ran with that and really wanted to make them all very interesting and complex, and really invest the player/character in what they're doing. We could bring back a lot of the big, neat spells from previous editions, and rituals can be the spells that do that.

Monte: 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. 

*Greg: 4e had advancement that was in lock-step for all classes. Essentials introduced variance. How do you think class progression should work going forward?*

Bruce: I think there's room for idiosyncrating skill choices and progression for one class, but not have those same options, feel or look for another class. As Monte mentioned we want each class to look, feel and play differently. But there's also room for some options that spread across all classes. 

Rob: For example we might say that all classes get a feat at third level. But then if you dip into the full customization options, you could trade that out for brute strike or something. So there will be some bits of progression that are shared from class to class, but each one will still feel like it's own class and have the ability to trade out it's own options. 

*Greg: Are there any classes that you're now interested in because of the design work you've been doing?*

Rob: They're all awesome, but I think I would have to pick the Ranger. There's so much stuff going on that I'm excited for each version. You could make up a beast ranger, or an Aragorn stye ranger or a Drizzt style ranger and they all feel awesome and iconic.

Bruce: I don't think I could pick one really. I'm really excited about these iterations of the classes and every time I'm working on one I want to be playing that class. I haven't had a chance to play everything yet, but I hope I will.

Monte: I've seen a lot of cool classes. I've wanted to play every one I've seen. Every class has something in it that should make your (the players) excited about the class. 

Greg: Once we get into the playtest feedback and start talking about things, what do you want to see feedback on?

Rob: I really want to see feedback on the wild talents. There's a lot of different and interesting things going on there and I think there's a lot of room for feedback there on if they work, how they work. 

Monte: I'm really interested to see feedback on the spellcasting and how they support the three different pillars of the game. With the rituals, spell feats, classes, spells and other options, I'm really looking forward to see how this works in people's minds/games. Plus feedback on 8' tall halflings.

*OPENED UP TO Q&A*

*Q: What about the barbarian and cleric?*

Monte: Well the barbarian fits with what some of us are familiar with, he rages and can take lots and lots of damage and deal out lots of damage. 

Bruce: As some of you have seen the cleric has an interesting mix of healing and other options. We're working on some things that focus on different kinds of clerics like healing, or marshal, or ranged focus. Cleric is interesting, because the Cleric has a few different potential expressions. Domains, healing, how will they express their powers? Work is continuing. I like what we've got so far.

Rob: The last time we were in Seattle we were thinking about the cleric, and my big thing with the cleric was getting back to the cleric of 1E that fights with a mace and shield and gets his party back up. But 2nd edition introduced the other option that is very closely related to your god and had more spell casting. So we're looking at keeping the cleric as this guy who fights and is that classic cleric, but the priest is that guy that is closer to his god, 
maybe doesn't wear that armor is laying down more divine effects and spells. 

*Q: How do you think magic items fit in this next iteration?*

Bruce: Magic items have always been a part of the game, but with 4th it became part of a player's natural progression so that you would have to pick up items from stores or other places to keep up. One of the negative things that brought up was that it eliminted some of the exploration that was so integral in earlier editions. You no longer had to go questing or searching for that magic item. We want to decouple magic items from character progression so they're not needed, and return that exploration and excitement of finding magic items. 

*Greg: Monte you had a poll like this in your Legends & Lore column. Do you remember what the results were?*

Monte: Yeah, it was surprising. A majority wanted magic items to be special and not to be able to buy them in shops and such. Of course that could be campaign specific. We're running with the idea that magic items are special and not bound to character progression, though things could change through playtesting. But we want it to be something that the DM plans, or something that a player/character wants to go on a quest to get that magic item they've heard of or need to accomplish there goals. We're going forward with the idea that magic items are possible, but difficult to create by PCs. We're not balancing the classes based on the expectation of magical items. It's about the player going to find the loot.

*Q: What are you planning for multiclassing?*

Rob: We're shooting for the 3E style 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. 

*Q: You mentioned that fighters are necessarily focused or super iconic. Why don't you split all the different fighter ideas out into different classes, like a dervish or fencer? *

Bruce: If something comes along that's really evocative and has it's own flavor and story, it's definitely not off the table that it could be it's own class. There will be multiple classes that can heal, for example.

*Q: With the Vancian magic system you could get to the point where wizards had a great number of spells per day. How are you balancing that and gauging encounter design with that in mind? *

Monte: 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. 

*Q: Are you looking at power sources?*

Rob: Not explicitly. We're not going to be using the power sources as keywords or anything any more (probably). You'll still have psionic characters and primal characters for example, but we won't be using those words or jargon to separate things. 

Bruce: We want to get away from jargon and catchphrases, and use natural language instead. "Arcane power source" breaks you out of the game. "I cast arcane spells" doesn't. We really want to get away from jargon that is just there for the sake of the game. For example you might use the word arcane, but a class wouldn't be labeled as an arcane class.

*Q: How are you thinking about archtypes and iconic classes from previous editions and how that affects the classes in the next iteration of D&D? *

Bruce: We want to have each class be the most iconic and archtypal it can be, based on what a D&D version of that archtype is or should be. The story of the character or class is really important when looking at this. 

*Q: How do you see advancement and experience acquisition and leveling? *

Monte: I don't want any class to have to take longer than any other class to come into it's own. Story wise, I want all the classes to progress at the same rate. So that a third level assassin feels the same as a third level bard in as much as how assassiny or how bardy they feel. The story comes first, and character advancement should come as fast as the group wants it to. I think character advancement should go as fast as the group wants it to go. So I want information available so that you can control that entirely based on your gaming group. Yes, there will be a base progression, but I want there to be information on speeding that up or slowing that down as necessary. There will be a set pace in the player's book, but meaty rules in the DMs book to adjust that.

*Q: What's the philosophy on status effect design? *

Rob: So talking about things like stun, daze, and immobilzed right? Currently we're in the area that the effect should be relevant to the spell or power. For example there might be a power word stun spell that explains what stun is and goes from there. But we're probably not going to have too many abilities or spells that would do something like that. We've pared down and increased the list of status effects, back and forth.

*Q: What's your focus on high magic or high fantasy and low magic or low fantasy? *

Bruce: Right out the gate, since magic item acquisition isn't part of the level progression a DM can say that you're going to have to work really hard for your magic. Also, the thing that Monte was talking about with your xp progression being modifiable, you could really stretch out those levels to have a low fantasy or lower power kind of game.

*Q: How are you handling campaigns that may not have any traps or any social settings? Are you going to have the strong bard for example? *

Rob: The bard as example, you may be in a campaign that's going to do more dungon crawling and not have a lot of social. There will be options that you can opt into where you can pick those combat relevant options in place of those social ones. 

*Q: Will classes like the bladesinger and swordmage still exist and be distinct from each other?* 

Bruce: There is some place for story separation with those two classes and we're looking into it.

*Q: I know you're trying to have a game where people can play what they want, and party balance works out and you don't need any particular class to play. How are you guys making this game so that something like three rogues could show up at a table and play?*

Monte: A 3 rogue game sounds awesome. I don't want any class to be mandatory, but I do want options and events that make you really happy that X class is with you. For example, when fighting undead, you don't need a cleric, but you'll be happy if you have one. If you're out in the wilderness, you'll be happy that the druid is in your party. 

*Q: Will some of the non-traditional classes like the Ninja appear early in the next edition?*

Bruce: The goal at the moment is to include all the classes that we're in the first PH style book for each edition. No word on other classes yet. 

*Q: What about a simple, tactical game? *

Rob: With D&D Next, you should be able to play the same kind of 4e-type game that you're playing now.

*Q: How are you addressing the linear fighter and quadratic wizard damage progression issue?*

Bruce: The wizard has to choose when they deal the big damage, and that's the balancing portion. When a wizard gets fireball, he can do a lot of damage in the round, but he only has so many fireballs. The fighter doesn't have that limitation. We have a lot of math and play evidence that tells us how long average parties or play is going to last, so we feel like we've got a good grasp of how to make the fighter and wizard relevant throughout the day.

Rob: 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. 

Monte: Fireball is a static 5d6. If you want more damage, you use a higher-level spell slot. Much more balancing. Monte: the play session that I envision with the fighter and wizard fighting together is that the figher is always better than the wizard. The fighter hits someone for 12 damage and then the wizard hits someone for 4, and the wizard wishes he was a fighter. Then that happens again on the second round, and the wizard feels the same way again. But then on the third round the wizard whips out his fireball and does 16 or 20 damage total and the fighter goes ahh, I wish I was a wizard. I want each class to shine and to have reasons to want to play that class. 

Trevor: And that about wraps it up for the seminar and chat today folks. Thanks much for coming out and joining us. Tomorrow at 12:30 Eastern will be doing this again, focusing on the product release schedule and what you can expect to see this year.


----------



## weem

It was a very interesting seminar for sure - thanks for the transcript


----------



## Wormwood

I am really seeing a lot of respect for EVERY edition here. It looks like there is something to appeal to just about everyone here.

The class section itself is going to be a thing of beauty.


----------



## blalien

The best news is that all the core classes will be getting early treatment.  It was frustrating when 4e first released but we couldn't move over our campaign because the party had a druid and sorcerer.  I'm also glad they're fixing the insane option bloat problem in Vancian magic.


----------



## Chris_Nightwing

This all sounds very encouraging! It'll be quite a feat (hoho) however to get every PH1 class uniquely into the same system.

I also wonder if we'll see something like spell points.. from what they were saying about Wizards.


----------



## Remathilis

If you go by there statement of Every PHB1 class: 


Assassin
Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Illusionist
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer
Warlock
Warlord
Wizard

Damn, that's a lot of classes!


----------



## Knightfall

Man, it sounds like I'm going to really like this game. So far, I am really, really happy with the direction D&D next is going.

I especially like the idea of the game including all of the classes from every core PHB of every edition of the game.

And, wild talents.


----------



## Wormwood

Chris_Nightwing said:


> I also wonder if we'll see something like spell points.. from what they were saying about Wizards.




Looks like we're completely in 'spell slot' territory with respect to Wizards. Which suits them, I suppose.

Hands off my FeyLocks, however!


----------



## Knightfall

Remathilis said:


> If you go by there statement of Every PHB1 class:
> 
> _snip_
> 
> Damn, that's a lot of classes!



Plus, the designers seem to have a plan to create a cleric like 1e and a priest like 2e. That's very interesting. Will they be separate classes or will it depend on modular choices?

I wonder if they also include the D&D Rules Cyclopedia as one of the PHB-style books.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos

Assassin, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Warlord and Wizard. Am I missing something here? Sounds like a good setup to me.

Edit: Beaten by Remathilis. Also, I'd love to see an illusionist class.

Cheers,


----------



## Blackwarder

Seems like the vanician system is making a come back... I'm not sure if I'm pro or con.

One thing they hadn't touched in the seminar is how they intend to make each character viable in the three pillars of the game, would it be character dependant or will it be dependant on somthing else (like themes?)

Warder


----------



## Remathilis

Giltonio_Santos said:


> Assassin, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Warlord and Wizard. Am I missing something here? Sounds like a good setup to me.




Illusionist/Specialty Mage. If they're back (and not just a side-part of wizard) I'll go full-blown geekgasm.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg

I really want to get the playtesting started already.  This all sounds great as goals and planning, but I really want to see it for myself, unfiltered.

Vancian magic - Yay!!!!

My excitement is building.  I really hope it can live up to most of the expectations.


----------



## Kurtomatic

I just wanted to say, I totally called this yesterday... 
Monte: To start with we kind of shot at the moon, and said everything that's been in a Player's Handbook 1, we want to potentially have in our new player's book. That includes things like the warlock and the warlord from 4th edition, but also includes the classes from other editions like the ranger, the wizard, the cleric. Going along those lines we separated things along the lines of what's common or uncommon. So for example fighters, clerics, wizards and clerics might be commmon while warlocks, bards, and paladins fall into uncommon and something like the assassin might be rare. This helps DMs determine what options they want to run in their games as well.​Bruce: The goal at the moment is to include all the classes that we're in the first PH style book for each edition. No word on other classes yet.​


Kurtomatic said:


> ..Now you're looking at a model which, in addition to simple fighters, wizards, etc, also has simple warlords and sorcerers and barbarians and warlocks and hell, maybe even simple swordmages and avengers. Whatever fits in the available page spread. But they're all simple executions that fit on a one-page character sheet with few mechanical inflection points..


----------



## Knightfall

Remathilis said:


> Illusionist/Specialty Mage. If they're back (and not just a side-part of wizard) I'll go full-blown geekgasm.



I hope so. Maybe being a specialty wizard is a feat choice.

What I'm really wonder is this, however: If they are including all the classes from all the PHB 1's, are they also including all the races from all the PHB 1's?


----------



## Wormwood

Knightfall said:


> What I'm really wonder is this, however: If they are including all the classes from all the PHB 1's, are they also including all the races from all the PHB 1's?



I would _dearly _hope so.

Don't like 'em? Don't use 'em.


----------



## Dragonblade

Awesome! I'm very encouraged by everything I'm hearing.


----------



## Giltonio_Santos

Knightfall said:


> What I'm really wonder is this, however: If they are including all the classes from all the PHB 1's, are they also including all the races from all the PHB 1's?




I really hope they're not doing that! It's much harder to create a low fantasy experience when players are looking forward to play a dragon-like creature.

Cheers,


----------



## Windjammer

> *Q: What about a simple, tactical game? *
> 
> Rob:  With D&D Next, you should be able to play the same kind of <acronym title="D&D 4th Edition">4e</acronym>-type game that you're playing now.



I'm wondering what should encourage me to play 5E instead of 4E. 

A lot of the stuff that's mentioned in the transcript are things our group never found problematic - even if we used  the term "arcane power [source]" at the table (which we don't), that'd hardly be a deal breaker - and other stuff has me scratching my head as to whether, even Monte apart, the others really have played much of 4th edition. The separation and balance of combat and out-of-combat magic is executed so well (even an illiterate barbarian PC of mine could cast rituals, haha!), the 4E bard already illustrates a lot what they're talking about, so I'm mildly curious how these promises are filled in the eventual design.

And oh, Bruce Cordell saying his favourite class evarr is the starpact warlock _without mentionining that he bloody wrote it himself_? That as good as makes him the David Brent* of the D&D World. 

 *[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6ePYe3HodM[/ame]


----------



## Knightfall

Wormwood said:


> I would _dearly _hope so.
> 
> Don't like 'em? Don't use 'em.



I completely agree. Just because one of the new races is in the PHB, it doesn't mean every gaming group has to use them.

Here's the race list, if it's true: Dragonborn, Dwarf, Eladrin, Elf, Gnome, Half-Elf, Half-Orc, Halfling, Human, and Tiefling.

I could learn to live with that.


----------



## MatthewJHanson

I'm really glad that we are starting to see some concrete details of what to expect. I like most of what I see.


----------



## Fanaelialae

Not entirely what I was expecting, but definitely no deal breakers! I like what I'm hearing.


----------



## BobROE

Windjammer said:


> I'm wondering what should encourage me to play 5E instead of 4E.




That's true of any edition change.  If you're happy with the game you're playing now, why switch to something new?  Unless you have to have the newest version of something to be happy.

As a happy pathfinder player I don't see a reason to switch.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

> *Q: What are you planning for multiclassing?*
> 
> Rob: We're shooting for the 3E style of multiclassing.




The first bit of news that makes me a sad panda.


----------



## gourdcaptain

Morrus said:


> *Q: How are you addressing the linear fighter and quadratic wizard damage progression issue?*
> 
> Bruce: The wizard has to choose when they deal the big damage, and that's the balancing portion. When a wizard gets fireball, he can do a lot of damage in the round, but he only has so many fireballs. The fighter doesn't have that limitation. We have a lot of math and play evidence that tells us how long average parties or play is going to last, so we feel like we've got a good grasp of how to make the fighter and wizard relevant throughout the day.




...Uh, Linear Warrior Quadratic Wizards ISN'T ABOUT DAMAGE. Evocation doesn't even do that much overall damage in 3.Xe. The problem is more when the Wizard has stuff like Dominate Person available, which one hit of which on the Fighter and he has a new minion to add to his DPR. (And we know that kind of stuff is around with the mention of Charm Person earlier.)

Also, the mention of the Fighter being 100% DPR makes me kinda sad as someone who likes Fighters who emphasize combat manuvers. Also, does this make the Barbarian 120% damage or so?


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Looks like you missed Illusionist, but from the sound of it, we might see Psion instead or as well.

I really thought they'd go for less classes and more subclasses/builds, but it's no bid deal to me either way.

Still sounds good to me.  Can't wait to try it. 

I really like the lower "old school" damage expressions and softer to-hit curve.


----------



## berenmir

*Classes*



Giltonio_Santos said:


> Assassin, Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Warlock, Warlord and Wizard. Am I missing something here? Sounds like a good setup to me.
> 
> Edit: Beaten by Remathilis. Also, I'd love to see an illusionist class.
> 
> Cheers,




They mentioned the Psion too!


----------



## kitsune9

Interesting transcript. I'm really curious how they'll get in all the classes in the first PH and then go with all the modular add-ons for each class.


----------



## TerraDave

Remathilis said:


> If you go by there statement of Every PHB1 class:
> 
> 
> Assassin
> Barbarian
> Bard
> Cleric
> Druid
> Fighter
> Illusionist
> Monk
> Paladin
> Ranger
> Rogue
> Sorcerer
> Warlock
> Warlord
> Wizard
> 
> Damn, that's a lot of classes!




Yes, psion was also mentioned, as was wild talents.

And of course we all remember that psionics was in the original PHB.

Also, gourdcaptain

_So for example, if your fighter goes up a level and would normally get some bonus damage or a bonus to hit, or something simple, then maybe instead you could choose to replace that with an option or options that allow you to do some cool moves that allow you to push people around, or protect your allies a bit more, or control the battlefield a little more._


----------



## FitzTheRuke

gourdcaptain said:


> ...Uh, Linear Warrior Quadratic Wizards ISN'T ABOUT DAMAGE. Evocation doesn't even do that much overall damage in 3.Xe. The problem is more when the Wizard has stuff like Dominate Person available, which one hit of which on the Fighter and he has a new minion to add to his DPR. (And we know that kind of stuff is around with the mention of Charm Person earlier.)
> 
> Also, the mention of the Fighter being 100% DPR makes me kinda sad as someone who likes Fighters who emphasize combat manuvers. Also, does this make the Barbarian 120% damage or so?




I think you missed a big chunk of what they were saying.  They are using damage output as part of their balancing math, so something like Dominate Person would come at the expense of an equivalent explosive invocation.

Ditto for the fighter DPR.  They said you could chose combat maneuvers in lieu of damage buffs to create a controller-type fighter over a DPR fighter.

Barbarians probably trade off some defensive or party-helping abilities for extra damage.
Most of your problems seem to be covered.


----------



## gourdcaptain

FitzTheRuke said:


> I think you missed a big chunk of what they were saying.  They are using damage output as part of their balancing math, so something like Dominate Person would come at the expense of an equivalent explosive invocation.
> 
> Ditto for the fighter DPR.  They said you could chose combat maneuvers in lieu of damage buffs to create a controller-type fighter over a DPR fighter.
> 
> Most of your problems seem to be covered.





I understand the switch out, admittedly, it's just I worry when people mention the fighter as straight damage. I'm also arguing that Dominate Person is in itself a gigantic source of DPR when it works and a much more powerful ability than fireball just on a conceptual level. Also, any Vancian system where the Wizard can't learn both spells and prep certain ones based on the day is kinda weird conceptually.

Sorry, I'm just used to playing PF where the standard means of playing a lowball optimization Wizard is to play an Evoker. And if they're just talking about nerfing damage from Fireball, that makes me worry they've just nearned to nerf Evocation.


----------



## Grazzt

Giltonio_Santos said:


> I really hope they're not doing that! It's much harder to create a low fantasy experience when players are looking forward to play a dragon-like creature.
> 
> Cheers,




Not if you're the DM and say "Yeah. Those don't exist in this world. Sorry." Same thing I did with halflings and gnomes in mine (I don't care for either race...)


----------



## Argyle King

One thing stuck out to me that I felt somewhat negative toward.  The idea that you'd need to trade out a bonus to hit to be able to do cool stuff; likewise, it sounds like you'd need to trade out social ability for combat ability.

I think it's good to support different styles of play.  I also like the idea that not every class is combat focused.

However, I hope 5th Edition is not designed in such a way that we have to make a choice between something like an Expertise Feat to stay relevant at a level and a more flavorful choice.  I understand that different game styles will place different amounts of importance on different styles of play, and I understand that the group's playstyle will determine what options you should have.  I just don't want to play a game where there are a lot of choices which turn out to be not real choices if I want a character who is on par with what the system expects.


----------



## Windjammer

BobROE said:


> That's true of any edition change.  If you're happy with the game you're playing now, why switch to something new?



You're right if this was purely about a subjective choice, based on my happiness. But I'm looking at things at a bit more general, and less subjective angle. To repeat myself, in all the things we heard so far they offered very little _general rationales_ for 4E players to dump their game in favour of 5E. What was said in this transcript continues that trend, where it doesn't enter bizarre territory like their claim about the 'power' word (even if true, how is that not utterly trivial?). Or take that other interview (on MTV I think) were Mearls said the 4E DMG was very bad, and that people who read it had no idea how to run a game. Out of the hundred things you could say about 4E, and its DMG in particular, he picked _that one_? I guess he read a different book.


----------



## Tortoise

A thought on Psionics: Maybe the reason the Psion is crying in the corner is that they are trying to make it a class.

I think it should go back to being a mechanic. It should be a string of options so you can have your class trade out something for psionic feats and abilities.

That would also put those options squarely in the hands of the DMs when deciding if such things should be in the game and just how psionics works in their world.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

gourdcaptain said:


> I understand the switch out, admittedly, it's just I worry when people mention the fighter as straight damage. I'm also arguing that Dominate Person is in itself a gigantic source of DPR when it works and a much more powerful ability than fireball just on a conceptual level. Also, any Vancian system where the Wizard can't learn both spells and prep certain ones based on the day is kinda weird conceptually.
> 
> Sorry, I'm just used to playing PF where the standard means of playing a lowball optimization Wizard is to play an Evoker. And if they're just talking about nerfing damage from Fireball, that makes me worry they've just nearned to nerf Evocation.




So perhaps Dominate Person (if it does the same stuff, or even exists, really) would be higher level than Fireball?  And I'm sure you could learn both spells if you chose to.  I'm saying something like Dominate Person would (in theory) occupy a design space equivalent to the DPR you suggest it has.

Also, the "damage nerfing" is across the board, so it wouldn't nerf Evocation by itself.


----------



## marune

Johnny3D3D said:


> However, I hope 5th Edition is not designed in such a way that we have to make a choice between something like an Expertise Feat to stay relevant at a level and a more flavorful choice.  I understand that different game styles will place different amounts of importance on different styles of play, and I understand that the group's playstyle will determine what options you should have.  I just don't want to play a game where there are a lot of choices which turn out to be not real choices if I want a character who is on par with what the system expects.




+1, that's the first Big No-No! for me from what we know from D&D next .


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Johnny3D3D said:


> One thing stuck out to me that I felt somewhat negative toward.  The idea that you'd need to trade out a bonus to hit to be able to do cool stuff; likewise, it sounds like you'd need to trade out social ability for combat ability.
> 
> I think it's good to support different styles of play.  I also like the idea that not every class is combat focused.
> 
> However, I hope 5th Edition is not designed in such a way that we have to make a choice between something like an Expertise Feat to stay relevant at a level and a more flavorful choice.  I understand that different game styles will place different amounts of importance on different styles of play, and I understand that the group's playstyle will determine what options you should have.  I just don't want to play a game where there are a lot of choices which turn out to be not real choices if I want a character who is on par with what the system expects.




This was such a problem in 4e and 3.x that I really doubt it hasn't occurred to them.  With the shallower to-hit curve, in theory, you won't need an expertise feat to stay relevant and will be able to afford to lose a +1 in trade for cool maneuvers. It should work.


----------



## Kurtomatic

Giltonio_Santos said:


> I really hope they're not doing that! It's much harder to create a low fantasy experience when players are looking forward to play a dragon-like creature.



There was a remark about DMs filtering on class frequency:

Going along those lines we separated things along the lines of what's common or uncommon. So for example fighters, clerics, wizards and clerics might be commmon while warlocks, bards, and paladins fall into uncommon and something like the assassin might be rare. This helps DMs determine what options they want to run in their games as well.​
I can easily imagine the races are similarly classified, so its a breeze to tell your players, "all common races races and giff only, because I dig talking hippopotami."


----------



## Nivenus

Huh. So if I'm reading this correctly the speculation that different spellcasters will different kinds of rules for spellcasting was correct. Interesting (and promising).

The question then becomes which classes will (by default) use Vancian, which are at-will based, and which have a 4e-style blend (if any)? Will warlocks be more like 3e warlocks or 4e warlocks, for example? If I had to guess, 4e warlocks since that was a base class and Cordell seems pretty fond of it.

Of course, there'll probably be options as they say to mix with the rules a bit for all of the classes.

All and all, it's sounding quite promising. I can't wait until the playtest begins this spring.


----------



## Henry

gourdcaptain said:


> I understand the switch out, admittedly, it's just I worry when people mention the fighter as straight damage.




Counterbalanced by the people who get worried when the fighter is mentioned as anything OTHER than straight damage.  It's a given by what we know now that a relatively simple fighter is the baseline, but varied maneuver options will be there in the core. 



> I'm also arguing that Dominate Person is in itself a gigantic source of DPR when it works and a much more powerful ability than fireball just on a conceptual level. Also, any Vancian system where the Wizard can't learn both spells and prep certain ones based on the day is kinda weird conceptually.
> 
> Sorry, I'm just used to playing PF where the standard means of playing a lowball optimization Wizard is to play an Evoker. And if they're just talking about nerfing damage from Fireball, that makes me worry they've just nearned to nerf Evocation.




I can easily visualize a charm/dominate that is balanced with the fighter in terms of usefulness, and just like the fireball gets meaner by using higher level spell resources.  I wouldn't give up hope yet. Also don't forget there's only so much ground they can cover in a seminar. There's still plenty to suggest they haven't abandoned canny fighters with combat options.


----------



## BryonD

Grazzt said:


> Not if you're the DM and say "Yeah. Those don't exist in this world. Sorry." Same thing I did with halflings and gnomes in mine (I don't care for either race...)



As long as you presume from the word go that you won't be using any setting or module support from WotC....

Which is ok by me, but still an important point.


----------



## Glade Riven

*sigh* ...nabberdaggit...

I'm actually starting to get _excited_ about 5e. I didn't want that, at least so soon.


----------



## BryonD

The mention of encounter powers is the first red flag I've seen.


----------



## grimslade

Didn't Monte say that They figured Charm Person was equivalent to 105 damage? I would assume Dominate Person would be worth a bit more or relegated to a ritual.


----------



## Mercurius

Damn, what's not to like about D&D Next (so far)? I'm feeling very encouraged.


----------



## avin

BryonD said:


> The mention of encounter powers is the first red flag I've seen.




For Fighters and non magic users, yeah, agreed.

For some Pact Warlock, why not? That made as much sense as having to memorize spells and cast them daily. I can back up Mana, Fatigue or (Mage's) Paradigm... Vancian was always alien to me... "Hey dude, when you sleep you forget how to cast fireball" what what? 

By the way, they claimed jargon won't be on the book, so don't expect to see an "encounter power" in it without a good fluff excuse.


----------



## Roland55

Wormwood said:


> I am really seeing a lot of respect for EVERY edition here. It looks like there is something to appeal to just about everyone here.
> 
> The class section itself is going to be a thing of beauty.




And this is what I like about the discussion most of all.

Respect for every edition.


----------



## Herobizkit

Monte.... no!  Vancian magic?!  REALLY?!  You were my HERO!

What happened to the 3e psionic mechanic... THAT should be the core spellcasting mechanic...


----------



## Nivenus

Herobizkit said:


> Monte.... no!  Vancian magic?!  REALLY?!  You were my HERO!
> 
> What happened to the 3e psionic mechanic... THAT should be the core spellcasting mechanic...




The 10% rule they've mentioned earlier means they _had_ to include Vancian in some way. There's just no way they could get away with throwing Vancian out again without fans of it throwing a fit.

However, it sounds like different classes are going to have different spellcasting mechanics and that with feats and other options you can mix and match a bit (making your wizards a bit more like 4e spellcasters, for example).

Actually, I have to say, despite having some problems with Vancian spellcasting, I'm quite happy with this news.


----------



## BryonD

avin said:


> For Fighters and non magic users, yeah, agreed.
> 
> For some Pact Warlock, why not? That made as much sense as having to memorize spells and cast them daily. I can back up Mana, Fatigue or (Mage's) Paradigm... Vancian was always alien to me... "Hey dude, when you sleep you forget how to cast fireball" what what?



First. I've never played that you forget unused spells unless you choose to free up the slot.  But I'm also fine with Vancian, fine without Vancian and can easily see why someone else might reasonably dislike it...

But on encounter based powers, it is an arbitrary and internally inconsistent frequency.  Something may work once a day because that is they way the story of the power works.  And once every 15 minutes could be justified in certain cases.  

It doesn't make sense for a great power to offer a warlock a power usable "once per encounter".

"I, the Great Lord GeGe, as a reward for this pact you have entered bestow upon you the power of Really Cool Winking.  You may use this power once per encounter."
"Um, ok, thanks.  How do I know if an encounter is over and I can use it again?  What if I Really Cool Wink Sarah and while I'm still talking to Sarah, Karen shows up?  Is she a new encounter with Sarah still here, cuz I like REALLY want to Really Cool Wink at her.  Did I waste it?  If I can get Sarah to leave is it NOW a new encounter?"
"Do not anger the Great Lord GeGe with your narrative demands, just make something up to explain it each time!!!"

Vancian is ABSOLUTELY arbitrary.  No argument there.  But it has two things going for it over "encounter".  The first is that the idea is based fully on a story idea and once that narrative description is embraced, it is no longer arbitrary.  So the arbitrary choice is driven by story preference not mechanical expectations.  Second, once it is accepted, it is internally consistent.  

And, I don't think we should go any further on this in this thread.....

I'd be happy to continue in a new thread if you would to discuss further.  Or not.  Your call.

To be clear, this is the first red flag I've seen.  We are a long way from deal breaker.  We are also a long way from "this is an improvement over what I have now, therefore I am switching".  But we are still VERY much in play and keeping my interest.


----------



## avin

Nah, I'm fine... as my sig suggests spells aren't a big deal to me... but I ran back to the transcript and didn't find an "encounter power" mention.

All mentions there seem to be referring to encounter as "fights", not "encounter powers". There's an "(encounter)" on a Rob phrase when he talks what they *could* bring to game and it's not clear if it's about encounter power.

I believe there won't be encounter powers in 5E.


----------



## Agamon

Herobizkit said:


> Monte.... no!  Vancian magic?!  REALLY?!  You were my HERO!
> 
> What happened to the 3e psionic mechanic... THAT should be the core spellcasting mechanic...




That's not very "D&D" though, which is what they are trying to do.

And they said the wizard and cleric would be vancian.  Other classes would use other processes.  I'm sure there will be choices for those that don't like fire-and-forget (maybe the sorcerer and priest).


----------



## Agamon

avin said:


> Nah, I'm fine... as my sig suggests spells aren't a big deal to me... but I ran back to the transcript and didn't find an "encounter power" mention.
> 
> All mentions there seem to be referring to encounter as "fights", not "encounter powers". There's an "(encounter)" on a Rob phrase when he talks what they *could* bring to game and it's not clear if it's about encounter power.
> 
> I believe there won't be encounter powers in 5E.




Rob does make mention of it:



> Rob: We could bring back a whole raft of at-wills from 4e, and make those type of things Wizard feats. There are also magical feats that are non-combat oriented. Different frequency rates, as well (encounter).




I knida hope they stay away from this, too, honestly.


----------



## malcolm_n

Just to see if I'm understanding this, we're seeing something like, 

15th level fighter can deal average 90 damage per round. 15th level wizard can dominate said fighter, losing any damage dealt that round, but gaining 90 damage per round in subsequent rounds while also preventing said 90 damage on one of his allies. Sounds like an interesting tradeoff, and I'd like to see at what point in the math that 180 damage swing balances things out. After all, after losing 90 damage the first round, you regain it and also add 90 in the second. So, will the wizard then lose control of the dominated person because the damage is balanced? Or, sorry for the rambling, will he be able to somehow sustain his 180 damage (90 prevented to his party, 90 dealt to enemies)?

If the latter is true, how do they then look at the party's fighter to be equivalent? Maybe the rogue gets his 180 straight per round, but only when not dominated? and the cleric can choose to deal 90 + prevent 90 or just straight prevent 180?

**EDIT**
Thinking on my own here, but they could, conceivably have a fighter able to deal 180 damage, which is then reduced to 90 while dominated (creatures deal half damage, for example).  that would give the Wizard's use of Dominate only a swing of 270 because they're preventing 180 and gaining 90.  When the fighter does become free again, he goes back to 180 and quickly builds his DPR back up, assuming he's not dead.  Anyway, just a thought there.


----------



## Starglyte

Any news/info on the susposed Racial classes (like the BECMI elf, dwarf, halfing)?


----------



## UngeheuerLich

BryonD said:


> First. I've never played that you forget unused spells unless you choose to free up the slot.  But I'm also fine with Vancian, fine without Vancian and can easily see why someone else might reasonably dislike it...
> 
> But on encounter based powers, it is an arbitrary and internally inconsistent frequency.  Something may work once a day because that is they way the story of the power works.  And once every 15 minutes could be justified in certain cases.
> 
> It doesn't make sense for a great power to offer a warlock a power usable "once per encounter".
> 
> "I, the Great Lord GeGe, as a reward for this pact you have entered bestow upon you the power of Really Cool Winking.  You may use this power once per encounter."
> "Um, ok, thanks.  How do I know if an encounter is over and I can use it again?  What if I Really Cool Wink Sarah and while I'm still talking to Sarah, Karen shows up?  Is she a new encounter with Sarah still here, cuz I like REALLY want to Really Cool Wink at her.  Did I waste it?  If I can get Sarah to leave is it NOW a new encounter?"
> "Do not anger the Great Lord GeGe with your narrative demands, just make something up to explain it each time!!!"
> 
> Vancian is ABSOLUTELY arbitrary.  No argument there.  But it has two things going for it over "encounter".  The first is that the idea is based fully on a story idea and once that narrative description is embraced, it is no longer arbitrary.  So the arbitrary choice is driven by story preference not mechanical expectations.  Second, once it is accepted, it is internally consistent.
> 
> And, I don't think we should go any further on this in this thread.....
> 
> I'd be happy to continue in a new thread if you would to discuss further.  Or not.  Your call.
> 
> To be clear, this is the first red flag I've seen.  We are a long way from deal breaker.  We are also a long way from "this is an improvement over what I have now, therefore I am switching".  But we are still VERY much in play and keeping my interest.



Disagreed:

the once per encounter in 4e means: until you had time for a short rest. IMHO 5 min is too long. 1min short rests would be enough... but that is a diefferent story.

So a mage can have lesser spells which he can prepare in a shorter time, just have a quick glance in your book... does not sound wrong...

Also once per encounter powers are not new to D&D 4e for non casters. The 3.x barbarian. Some of the second edition bard kits. Just look it up. Encounter powers really are no deal breakers...

also I want to note, that the enworld transkript is a lot better than the one on the wizard site... the magical feats to gain at will powers sounds better than feats to spend on at-will powers what I understood in the live chat.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

BryonD said:


> It doesn't make sense for a great power to offer a warlock a power usable "once per encounter".
> 
> "I, the Great Lord GeGe, as a reward for this pact you have entered bestow upon you the power of Really Cool Winking.  You may use this power once per encounter."
> "Um, ok, thanks.  How do I know if an encounter is over and I can use it again?  What if I Really Cool Wink Sarah and while I'm still talking to Sarah, Karen shows up?  Is she a new encounter with Sarah still here, cuz I like REALLY want to Really Cool Wink at her.  Did I waste it?  If I can get Sarah to leave is it NOW a new encounter?"
> "Do not anger the Great Lord GeGe with your narrative demands, just make something up to explain it each time!!!"




Huh?  "Encounter Power" is just rules jargon for "Until you've had time to relax and catch your breath" (also known mechanically as "a short rest")

How hard is that to understand in in-game terms?

Edit to add: Not that your scenario wasn't funny.

Oh, and I was ninja'd


----------



## Warunsun

kitsune9 said:


> Interesting transcript. I'm really curious how  they'll get in all the classes in the first PH and then go with all the  modular add-ons for each class.



 That part is easy, actually. While they seem to be taking the rules from  AD&D it doesn't mean they will not take some ideas from Basic  D&D.

 So...
 Red Box (Levels 1 - 5, Introductory)

 Player's Handbook I - Heroic (level 1 - 10)

 Player's Handbook II - Paragon (level 11-20)

 Player's Handbook III - Epic (level 21-30)

 This organization would keep paragon ideas in it's own book and epic  ideas in it's own book. Could be an excellent organizational tool and  also an incredible way to get folks to buy a minimum of 3 main rule  books without resorting to "Splat Books".

 They might even use quasi-BECMI names for the books/sets.

You could take this idea further and group monsters by tier in their own Monster Manuals.


----------



## Puggins

BryonD said:


> But on encounter based powers, it is an arbitrary and internally inconsistent frequency.  Something may work once a day because that is they way the story of the power works.  And once every 15 minutes could be justified in certain cases.




However 4e defined it, I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that an encounter ability is one that can be recovered with a minor rest.  Like some previous poster said, a one minute break where one is (reasonably) sure that combat isn't imminent sounds reasonable.

Note that 3e had some flirtings with encounter-based powers.  The barbarian's rage was the prime example- he can rage "once per combat," if I remember correctly, and there was all sorts of disagreement over what constituted a combat.

3e also had the "once per one/five/ten minutes" power, ala the Binder.  Whether it made sense, it injected a lot of bookkeeping that we really don't need 99% of the time.

The idea of the encounter power is reasonable, but some grounded-in-reality guidelines as to how they are recovered is necessary.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

UngeheuerLich said:


> also I want to note, that the enworld transkript is a lot better than the one on the wizard site... the magical feats to gain at will powers sounds better than feats to spend on at-will powers what I understood in the live chat.




I noticed that too.  Made me wonder why I spent the time reading the Wizards one when I immediately noticed more accurate transcriptions here and had to read the thing all over again.  Better formatting too.


----------



## darjr

BryonD said:


> To be clear, this is the first red flag I've seen.  We are a long way from deal breaker.  We are also a long way from "this is an improvement over what I have now, therefore I am switching".  But we are still VERY much in play and keeping my interest.





Huh, good point. I hope it's like 'You will need to rest after using this cause you need to recover after it uses that much of your soul/energy/willpower/magic internal thingamajig to cast it' but that rest is about 5 minutes and you can't do it in the middle of combat'.

It's still early, I wonder if they could still change encounter powers to be like that?

edit: ninja'd.


----------



## Wormwood

darjr said:


> It's still early, I wonder if they could still change encounter powers to be like that?




Well, it basically *is* like that now, so I hope they maintain that going forward---although a less 'jargon' explanation would suit me fine.


----------



## Aldarc

BryonD said:


> The mention of encounter powers is the first red flag I've seen.



Rob: We could bring back a whole raft of at-wills from 4e, and make those type of things Wizard feats. There are also magical feats that are non-combat oriented. Different frequency rates, as well (encounter).​It sounds optional and ignorable.


----------



## darjr

Wormwood said:


> Well, it basically *is* like that now, so I hope they maintain that going forward---although a less 'jargon' explanation would suit me fine.




I'm finding it hard not to use the jargon.

I guess I meant that it might be possible, in the middle of a combat, that the other characters could secure a long enogh rest for the player to regain that power. Less jargon and less meta and less strict on the definition of what a 'combat/ecnounter' is.

But yea, I agree.


----------



## Primal

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The first bit of news that makes me a sad panda.




Me too; IMO multiclassing in 3E just didn't work as well as it did in AD&D. It works a little better in 4E and PF, although I'd vastly prefer either PF archetypes or 4E themes being the way to go with multiclassing in D&D Next.

I'm also concerned about losing the 4E power format and keywords; especially the latter aspect really made it easy for everyone to get how class features, feats and powers interacted with each other. I guess this will mean that (once again) we will see lots of arguments over whether the fighter can use Cleave against Mirror Image (and willingly target individual images) and can your druid shapechange into a T-Rex, and so on. 

As for Saves and Defenses, I'm hoping they'll be keeping both, but saving throws could work like they do in 3E (and Defenses could be 10 + your save bonus).


----------



## Dice4Hire

Remathilis said:


> If you go by there statement of Every PHB1 class:
> 
> 
> Assassin
> Barbarian
> Bard
> Cleric
> Druid
> Fighter
> Illusionist
> Monk
> Paladin
> Ranger
> Rogue
> Sorcerer
> Warlock
> Warlord
> Wizard
> 
> Damn, that's a lot of classes!




They did say the ones that were in every edition. A lot of those were not in every edition's PHBI


----------



## Nebulous

Chris_Nightwing said:


> This all sounds very encouraging! It'll be quite a feat (hoho) however to get every PH1 class uniquely into the same system.
> 
> I also wonder if we'll see something like spell points.. from what they were saying about Wizards.




I would guess they will tie this to psionics again as an optional spell system, to appeal to players that like that style.  5e has the potential to do this beautifully. BUT...what if it's not out in the core rules?  That might upset some people, even if it comes down the pike 3 months later?


----------



## ppaladin123

I am cautiously optimistic about a revised Vancian system with fewer spells per day, a more limited spell list, and rituals to cover the really impressive stuff.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen

Encounter powers always seems a little mechanically off for me, particularly for the non-casters.

For a wizard, the idea that he has to rest for a few minutes and reprepare a simple spell makes sense. There's an internal logic to that.

But not for marshal characters. The following has no internal logic:

I have three encounter maneuvers. I can use each one time before resting, but I can't use the same one more than once. Apparently, each one makes me tired in a very specific way that doesn't interfere with my ability to do something else.

Now, instead, if I had a three points of stamina, and each encounter power used one, but I could perform the same encounter multiple times, that would make more sense.

So, it's not that encounter based resources are a problem. They can be done sensibly. It's just that they need to follow an internal logic. The limitations should be based on something in the setting and narrative.


----------



## SteveC

Well this is the first thing about the edition that's really starting to make me worried, so I suspect the folks who dislike 4E must be loving it right now. Vancian? Powerful effects balanced by the number of expected encounters? Fighters that seem to be just making attacks by default?

Ugh. Sounds like the Wayback machine...

Still, we haven't seen any of the rules yet, so I'm still hoping we aren't moving back to a pseudo-3x world that's the back to being "Fantasy Vietnam".

It's a long way from the playtest to final PHB...


----------



## Nebulous

Giltonio_Santos said:


> I really hope they're not doing that! It's much harder to create a low fantasy experience when players are looking forward to play a dragon-like creature.
> 
> Cheers,




I tend to agree. As a DM i hated the Dragonborn, it never fit my idea of the kind of world i wanted to play.

However, if a player really WANTS that build...

The question comes down to the core rules, and when the DM puts his foot down and says NO. I don't know which is the best route, kitchen sink or DM judgement or scaled back core. Personally, i would hate to see Dragonborn and Warforged in the core. But...since 5e is being so darn flexible already, i might have to be flexible too.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Morrus said:


> Monte:  Plus feedback on 8' tall halflings.


----------



## Flatus Maximus

It's a crying shame that clerics will still be Vancian casters. Wizards? OK, I get it -- memorization fades and must be renewed daily. But if a cleric calls upon his/her god to intercede RIGHT NOW, it should be spontaneous rather than a daily prayer:

"Dear god, please grant me two...no, make that three _cure light wounds_, one _bless_, two...no, I can get away with one _dispel magic_,...god, are you getting all this?"

IMHO.


----------



## Nebulous

BryonD said:


> The mention of encounter powers is the first red flag I've seen.




Why Bryon?  If they can balance it in somehow, so that not EVERYONE has encounter powers like 4e all the time, maybe feats now give you At Will and Encounter abilities (i hate the word powers, it's too superhero) then it should balance just fine. Feats are going to be very different in 5e. No more Dodge +1 you have to add to remember by round. Solid static changes that remain constant to your character.


----------



## Dire Bare

Giltonio_Santos said:


> I really hope they're not doing that! It's much harder to create a low fantasy experience when players are looking forward to play a dragon-like creature.
> 
> Cheers,




Eh, depends on how you define low fantasy.  I can easily see a pulp style campaign with a gritty low magic style, and barbaric dragon-men warriors!

And as others have pointed out, how hard is it to say that for this particular campaign, dragonborn aren't appropriate?


----------



## Dire Bare

FitzTheRuke said:


> Looks like you missed Illusionist, but from the sound of it, we might see Psion instead or as well.
> 
> I really thought they'd go for less classes and more subclasses/builds, but it's no bid deal to me either way.
> 
> Still sounds good to me.  Can't wait to try it.
> 
> I really like the lower "old school" damage expressions and softer to-hit curve.




I can see the sense of designing and playtesting classes that won't be published in Book I.  It sounds like they are playtesting psionics to be fully a part of the game from day one, even if some of the classes don't appear until Book II or later.  I'm actually very excited for this, as psionics has often felt like a poorly conceived afterthought for several editions.


----------



## ppaladin123

Flatus Maximus said:


> It's a crying shame that clerics will still be Vancian casters. Wizards? OK, I get it -- memorization fades and must be renewed daily. But if a cleric calls upon his/her god to intercede RIGHT NOW, it should be spontaneous rather than a daily prayer:
> 
> "Dear god, please grant me two...no, make that three _cure light wounds_, one _bless_, two...no, I can get away with one _dispel magic_,...god, are you getting all this?"
> 
> IMHO.





Maybe the cleric will be a spontaneous "Vancian" caster like the 3e sorcerer. The numbers then are just about how many favors they can ask for per day and how big those favors are.

I am hoping that the Warlock and the Sorcerer are not Vancian.


----------



## Flatus Maximus

ppaladin123 said:


> Maybe the cleric will be a spontaneous "Vancian" caster like the 3e sorcerer....




I've always equated _Vancian_ casting with prepared casters, so I mean the ol' dudes with intermittent Alzheimer's.


----------



## mudlock

BryonD said:


> But on encounter based powers, it is an arbitrary and internally inconsistent frequency.  Something may work once a day because that is they way the story of the power works.  And once every 15 minutes could be justified in certain cases.
> 
> It doesn't make sense for a great power to offer a warlock a power usable "once per encounter".




So when you see "per encounter", just replace it with "per 5 minutes". Because of fatigue.

There, done; now everyone can stop complaining about encounter powers.


----------



## Lanefan

All the optimism I built up from reading the seminar notes yesterday kind of evaporated today on seeing this one.

As soon as they start talking about what choices have to be made at each level (abilities, feats, powers, whatever name they get) I turn away, because between the lines that tells me that the term "character build" is still in play.  Which means by extension the continuation of the meta-games of system mastery and optimization - neither of which has any place in D&D.

As for the class list, assuming it stands up, I'm glad to see Illusionist back.  Having never seen a Warlock in play, can someone please tell me what differentiates it from a Wizard or Sorcerer or Bard? (or can it relatively easily be melded into one of those three?)

Vancian casting is fine with me for arcane types.  I'd prefer to see the divine casters on a Sorcerer-like system where if they have a slot available of a given level they can cast any spell of that level on their list.

At first glance I'm very dubious about this idea of trading out low-level powers-abilities-feats for higher-level ones, but I'll leave the jury out until I see more hard facts on it.  Still sounds far more complex than required, however.

And for the love of mushrooms the game is about more than just Damage Per Round!!!  If everything in the game is being reduced merely to how much damage it represents (e.g. Charm Person = 105) the designers have lost sight of the forest because they just face-planted into a tree!

And finally, not a fan of timing things by encounter as the definition of what is an encounter is still far too fuzzy.  Per-day or per-hour or whatever is fine as those can be measured and tracked at least to some extent.

Lan-"warm and fuzzy one day, cold and spiky the next"-efan


----------



## Draz

Remathilis said:


> If you go by there statement of Every PHB1 class:
> 
> 
> Assassin
> Barbarian
> Bard
> Cleric
> Druid
> Fighter
> Illusionist
> Monk
> Paladin
> Ranger
> Rogue
> Sorcerer
> Warlock
> Warlord
> Wizard
> 
> Damn, that's a lot of classes!



Don't forget Thief being separate from Rogue, and Mage and Magic-User separate from Wizard. 

They also mentioned the Psion in passing, as well as the possibility of splitting the Cleric from the Priest.

You're right, that's a LOT of PHB1 classes to try to launch a new system with.  I think they should narrow it a bit.  Here are my thoughts on each:

Assassin: I approve of this, as long as it's not pigeonholed into the arcane casting or mystical shadow powers of the 1e/3e/4e Assassins.  Those things should be optional; the focus should just be on being the "stabby Rogue" archetype.  Something pretty similar to the 3e Swordsage, plus a bit more aptitude with burglary or infiltration.

Barbarian: I actually don't think this is a big enough archetype to make into a full 1-20 class.  But it is an archetype, and it is one that you should be able to play at Level 1.  So ... I guess it should stay, unless it could just become a Fighter variant instead.  I just wish they would rename it "Berserker" to keep the backstory more flexible.

Bard: Definitely an archetype worthy of a PHB1 class.  I just hope the 5e version can support "wise" bards, "spoony" bards, and "aggressive swashbuckler" bards alike.  1e emphasized the "wise" aspect; 2e and 3e heavily favored "spoony."  4e tried to make all three viable, and I applaud the attempt, but I think all three may have fallen a little short of what I'd like to see (most 4e Bards really ended up more as a mishmash of all three).

Cleric: A classic; obviously has to be included. 1e Clerics, 3e Clerics, and especially 4e Clerics weren't diverse enough.  They weren't all that different from deity to deity.  (2e had a framework to make them more diverse, but it required a fair amount of homebrew.)  So because of that, I approve of the split between Cleric (healer/holy warrior) and Priest (casting-focused, hopefully very diverse between different deities).  But see comments under Paladin about how the Cleric should be.

Druid: Obviously should be a PHB1 class, but I hope it's not quite as shapeshifting-focused or overpowered as it has been at times ...

Fighter: Eh.  My main concern about this one is figuring out what archetype it really is trying to fill ... and the comments in the Seminar make it clear that WotC has the same confusion.  So, hopefully they'll come up with something that works.

Illusionist: I don't see why Illusionist deserves page space in the book more than, say, Necromancer.  But separate classes for each specialty arcane caster would be crazy.  So ... I guess mostly the same as 3e, with these being Wizard variants?  Possibly feat-based or PrC-based, rather than default features.

Monk: I don't think this should be in the 5e PHB1.  It's too "niche."  When the 4e PHB1 came out, people complained about the Druid and Bard's absences, but not so much the Monk.  Save it for an Eastern-themed or Psionic-themed splat.

Paladin: I've always thought the Paladin title was more befitting a PrC than a base class, and I stand by that now.  Particularly if the Cleric and Priest are getting separated, then the Cleric can cover the Paladin archetype just fine at low levels.  Also, the Paladin PrC (or Paragon Path, or whatever they call it in 5e) should be easily accessible to both Clerics and Fighters; it certainly shouldn't require _a priori_ spellcasting ability.

Psion: I don't know what it's going to look like, or whether it can cover the whole gamut of psionic archetypes by itself (seems like it would at least need to be able to select which ability score it's based on), but I like the idea of psionics getting put in the PHB1 for a change, instead of being shunted into splatbook territory.  They've got the history for it.

Ranger: Definitely PHB1 material.

Rogue: This should be as different from the "stabby" Assassin archetype as a skillful urbane character can be.  This should be the "I can do anything because I'm just _that awesome_" class.  Like the 3e Factotum, except with magic optional.

Sorcerer:  I actually wouldn't give this a PHB1 slot.  It feels too setting-specific ... I mean, not in every world is there strains of dragonblood amongst the population, granting magical powers.  It's just not as universal (or traditional) as some of the other D&D magic sources.

Warlock: 3e should have had this instead of the Sorcerer all along.  (Flavor-wise.  I'm not necessarily judging mechanics or even the name.  Just the flavor.)  4e made the right decision between them.

Warlord: Hmmm.  I love the Warlord concept.  The idea of having a martial support character who removes the need for a Cleric.  But ... flavor-wise, it's not as different from Fighter as I'd like.  I almost wish this could be a Fighter variant rather than a separate class.  But I'm not sure that's mechanically feasible.

Wizard: Obviously it's not D&D without a Wizard class.  I actually feel that this, again, is rather setting-specific.  But I'm not going to begrudge *W*otC the classic appeal of putting a Wizard class in.


----------



## DaveMage

SteveC said:


> Well this is the first thing about the edition that's really starting to make me worried, so I suspect the folks who dislike 4E must be loving it right now. Vancian?




I dislike 4E, but I'm still not seeing anything in 5E that has wowed me.


----------



## Nagol

Lanefan said:


> <snip>
> 
> As for the class list, assuming it stands up, I'm glad to see Illusionist back.  Having never seen a Warlock in play, can someone please tell me what differentiates it from a Wizard or Sorcerer or Bard? (or can it relatively easily be melded into one of those three?)




Mechanics-wise the 3.5 Warlock is very different from the other casters.

Completely, non-Vancian, the Warlock chooses a very small list of effects that he can cast at-will.  He also has an at-will, standard action, magical blast that he can alter with some of the magical choices -- turning it into a area effect, or adding a different damage type rider to the attack, etc.  The magical blast grows in power with level getting to around 10d6 at 20th level.

In addition, he is a master of Use Magic Device.  Gaining the ability to Take-10 with the skill and a few other bonuses as well.


The closest analogue I can think of is Marvel's _Son of Satan_ comic book character.


----------



## Flatus Maximus

Yeah, someone is going to have to explain: "Charm person = 105." If not, this could get out of hand _real quick_ and turn into an edition war-ism.


----------



## Remathilis

Personally, I see

Fighter (basic warrior)
Cleric (option: Priests of specific mythos which trade martial abilities for faith-based powers)
Rogue (sneak)
Wizard (Option: Specialization, with Illusionist being the example)
Ranger (option to go scout or go warrior type)
Paladin (healer and warrior)
Druid (summoner, healer, naturalist)
Bard (buffer, face, healer)
Assassin (shadow-based sneak)
Barbarian (high toughness damage dealer)
Monk (acrobat/skirmisher)
Sorcerer (less spells, recharges quickly)
Warlock (few spells, used at will)
Warlord (warrior with buffing side)

14 Classes. I may be wrong and psion, illusionist, and priest all make as seperate classes, but 17 classes is pretty huge, esp with all those spells/powers/feats to fuel them!


----------



## Lanefan

Nice list.  A few thoughts...







Draz said:


> Assassin: I approve of this, as long as it's not pigeonholed into the arcane casting or mystical shadow powers of the 1e/3e/4e Assassins.  Those things should be optional; the focus should just be on being the "stabby Rogue" archetype.  Something pretty similar to the 3e Swordsage, plus a bit more aptitude with burglary or infiltration.



Maybe not even the "stabby Rogue" but instead the non-caster's version of the "I win" button when dealing with non-fantastic foes.  I'm an Assassin.  I don't fight very well, but if I get a chance to line up my strike for a few minutes while you're unaware of me, and if I can pull it off, you're dead.  Period.



> Barbarian: I actually don't think this is a big enough archetype to make into a full 1-20 class.  But it is an archetype, and it is one that you should be able to play at Level 1.  So ... I guess it should stay, unless it could just become a Fighter variant instead.  I just wish they would rename it "Berserker" to keep the backstory more flexible.



A big HEAR HEAR to the renaming idea!  With that, Barbarian can become what it should have been all along: a sub-race of Human.



> Cleric: A classic; obviously has to be included. 1e Clerics, 3e Clerics, and especially 4e Clerics weren't diverse enough.  They weren't all that different from deity to deity.  (2e had a framework to make them more diverse, but it required a fair amount of homebrew.)  So because of that, I approve of the split between Cleric (healer/holy warrior) and Priest (casting-focused, hopefully very diverse between different deities).



Doing up different spell lists for each deity is a huge amount of work, particularly if the individual spells also have deity-specific variants (DSV).  For example, it only makes sense that a _Light_ spell cast by a Sungod Cleric should be more effective somehow than the same spell cast by a Moongoddess Cleric.  While I like the idea, I certainly can't blame the designers for putting it way down the priority list. 



> Fighter: Eh.  My main concern about this one is figuring out what archetype it really is trying to fill ... and the comments in the Seminar make it clear that WotC has the same confusion.  So, hopefully they'll come up with something that works.



They could easily enough split it down into some sub-classes - Archer, Knight, Swashbuckler, etc. - if required.



> Illusionist: I don't see why Illusionist deserves page space in the book more than, say, Necromancer.



To me, those are the only two Wizard specialties that are worthy of their own classes.  The rest all just kinda blend together into generic Wizard territory.



> Monk: I don't think this should be in the 5e PHB1.  It's too "niche."  When the 4e PHB1 came out, people complained about the Druid and Bard's absences, but not so much the Monk.  Save it for an Eastern-themed or Psionic-themed splat.



Yes, and make psionics completely optional.



> Paladin: I've always thought the Paladin title was more befitting a PrC than a base class, and I stand by that now.  Particularly if the Cleric and Priest are getting separated, then the Cleric can cover the Paladin archetype just fine at low levels.  Also, the Paladin PrC (or Paragon Path, or whatever they call it in 5e) should be easily accessible to both Clerics and Fighters; it certainly shouldn't require _a priori_ spellcasting ability.



Another idea here might be to introduce a third type of Cleric - the War Cleric - which has some fighter-y abilities and some caster-y abilities, can't cure worth a damn but is really good with the battle spells; and that's what you start as if your career goal is Paladin.



> Psion: [...] I like the idea of psionics getting put in the PHB1 for a change, instead of being shunted into splatbook territory.



I don't.  I used to really like psionics but not so much any more, and I'd prefer them to not be in core at all.  Great option-book material, though, and a good place to hide the Monk as well. 



> Rogue: This should be as different from the "stabby" Assassin archetype as a skillful urbane character can be.  This should be the "I can do anything because I'm just _that awesome_" class.  Like the 3e Factotum, except with magic optional.



Go back to calling it a Thief, and I'd suggest it should be the "I can do anything but you'll never know about it because I'm just that quiet" class. 



> Sorcerer:  I actually wouldn't give this a PHB1 slot.  It feels too setting-specific ... I mean, not in every world is there strains of dragonblood amongst the population, granting magical powers.  It's just not as universal (or traditional) as some of the other D&D magic sources.
> 
> Warlock: 3e should have had this instead of the Sorcerer all along.  (Flavor-wise.  I'm not necessarily judging mechanics or even the name.  Just the flavor.)  4e made the right decision between them.



Can these be blended into one class, without the setting-specific flavour?



> Wizard: Obviously it's not D&D without a Wizard class.  I actually feel that this, again, is rather setting-specific.  But I'm not going to begrudge *W*otC the classic appeal of putting a Wizard class in.



I can't see how Wizard (or MU) is any more setting-specific than most of the other classes.

Lanefan


----------



## SteveC

DaveMage said:


> I dislike 4E, but I'm still not seeing anything in 5E that has wowed me.



It's still very early, of course, but what we've seen indicates rolling back critical items from 4E (spell slots again?) so I think you may like what you see more than I do. Of course the question becomes "why switch back when you already have the game you want?" We'll have to see, I suppose.

I have a lot of faith in the designers excepting Monte Cook, who seems to have no idea of what 4E did, and hasn't given any indication that he ever played it. He's a very nice guy, but I'm shaking my head at what he's written. That may have been the point. If I'm stuck with a wizard who needs a crossbow again, I will be a sad, sad panda, and I expect that a lot of folks may say "I have a crossbow wielding mage already, so what's in it for me."

I suppose it's waaaay too early for grousing, so take what I say with a couple grains of salt. Who knows, they may find a way to make both of us happy...


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Dice4Hire said:


> They did say the ones that were in every edition. A lot of those were not in every edition's PHBI




I'm afraid they said "ANY edition's PHB1" not "every".



darjr said:


> Less jargon and less meta and less strict on the definition of what a 'combat/ecnounter' is.




Less meta jargon at the table is always a good goal.  I think the problem with Encounter powers here is in the name. (Kind of like how a loss of HP is called "damage" even if it represents fatigue, luck, morale, or focus).  

Encounter powers are abilities that require the character has a chance to maybe sit down and have a snack, swig their wineskin, and catch their breath before buckling down and doing it all again. That's it.



ppaladin123 said:


> I am cautiously optimistic about a revised Vancian system with fewer spells per day, a more limited spell list, and rituals to cover the really impressive stuff.




Oddly, so am I.  I've never liked Vancian magic, but I can see how it could be possible to do it in such a way that I could like it.



Jeff Carlsen said:


> Encounter powers always seems a little mechanically off for me, particularly for the non-casters.
> 
> For a wizard, the idea that he has to rest for a few minutes and reprepare a simple spell makes sense. There's an internal logic to that.
> 
> But not for marshal characters. The following has no internal logic:




I see it as the NUMBER of encounter powers is a product of character skill, while WHAT the power does is a product of circumstance.  It's not that the character can't do the same thing twice, it's that the opportunity doesn't occur too often.  Call it gamist of me, I suppose

  The character is always TRYING to kill the monster with one blow, but that doesn't happen either, does it? 



Nebulous said:


> I tend to agree. As a DM i hated the Dragonborn, it never fit my idea of the kind of world i wanted to play.
> 
> However, if a player really WANTS that build...
> 
> The question comes down to the core rules, and when the DM puts his foot down and says NO. I don't know which is the best route, kitchen sink or DM judgement or scaled back core. Personally, i would hate to see Dragonborn and Warforged in the core. But...since 5e is being so darn flexible already, i might have to be flexible too.




Perhaps they will make Races like they appear to be making classes:  With rarity.  The rulebook could then outright tell players "Ask your DM if you wish to play a Rare element" making it easier for DMs to say "No" without coming off the jerk.  

This way they can include elements that are much loved by some players and much hated by others without causing problems (though I'm sure someone will hate it anyway).



Flatus Maximus said:


> It's a crying shame that clerics will still be Vancian casters. "Dear god, please grant me two...no, make that three _cure light wounds_, one _bless_, two...no, I can get away with one _dispel magic_,...god, are you getting all this?"




Funny.


----------



## Thorgrim Sekkrhrafn

Tortoise said:


> A thought on Psionics: Maybe the reason the Psion is crying in the corner is that they are trying to make it a class.
> 
> I think it should go back to being a mechanic. It should be a string of options so you can have your class trade out something for psionic feats and abilities.
> 
> That would also put those options squarely in the hands of the DMs when deciding if such things should be in the game and just how psionics works in their world.





No.  If the DM doesn't want psionics, he or she bans 'em, period.  And there was already an option for giving psionic abilities to non-psionic classes.  Wild talents.  Keep that option.

But not creating a psionic class/classes doesn't make sense if you're to use wild talents.  I mean, when the first wizard learned how to manipulate arcane energies, it probably wasn't very complex, right?  It took untold spans of time to give us the complex tapestry of wizardry, with all its specialized methods of shaping arcane energies (spells).

So how is that any different from psionics?  Replace 'wizard' with 'psion' and 'arcane energies' with 'psionics' and it's the same progression.  Little things at first, millennia of experimentation, then specialization into what we call--purely a mechanical, meta-term--a 'class'.

'Psionics' is just another 'energy'.  I just don't get the uncomfortability--and sometimes hatred--associated with it.  If folks don't like it, don't use it.  It's the First Axiom of DMing, written by Gygax himself.  It's YOUR game, DMs.  The books are, ultimately, options.  

I mean, not everyone uses all the races in the PHB, right?  Even the first PHB which, allegedly, is supposed to be the core of core manuals.  I know DMs who refuse to use dwarves or eladrin or dragonkin.  I don't give the same place in my campaign to gnomes and halflings that others do (despise them, frankly).  I think the notion of a Lawful Good Paladin makes sense...but so does a champion of other alignments.  The only reason why we've got a strictly LG Paladin is in part because the early editions of D&D deliberately went out of their way to draw players away from evil alignments.  You weren't supposed to play them.  But the idea that only LG gods have champions with Really Cool Benefits is illogical.

We all have house rules.  I guess it comes down to how much we want in the core rules.  Psionics may have only been wild talents in 1E but every edition since had them as classes with the add-on that a non-psionic class could express a weaker, less developed 'natural' psionic talent or two.  I think we should keep it that way.


----------



## Erdrick Dragin

I don't get it. What if the players at the game are fine with the 3E Vancian Magic System and not this different iteration of the system for 5e? How do the spellcasting classes deal with spell acquisition then, concerning their class abilities?

Again, I don't understand why WotC feels that everyone at the same gaming table has to play different ways. If you're the DM, and you DM 3e, then the players have to suck it up and play 3e or find another DM. 

Why the need to get 4 editions of people at the same table playing it THEIR way, making it tough for the DM, and at the same time the rules of 5e doesn't really allow all those players to play exactly the edition style they enjoyed?

See, they have the right idea revisiting all 4 editions...but they failed again at trying to throw them onto a dish platter for people to pick and enjoy together. It's not going to be that simple.

Their best bet was my original proposition --- support ALL FOUR editions! 

Reprint some books, sell the rest as PDFs, and create adventures/splatbooks/monster/campaign books for all 4 editions. Put them all in one book once a month, or maybe 1 big book every 4 months, with smaller stuff inbetween. Use DDi to make articles with more material for everyone and, boom, you're extremely profitable once again because you're now catering to EVERY D&D gamer since the 70s, and not to just one demographic of one generation anymore.


----------



## Draz

Lanefan said:


> Nice list.  A few thoughts...Maybe not even the "stabby Rogue" but instead the non-caster's version of the "I win" button when dealing with non-fantastic foes.  I'm an Assassin.  I don't fight very well, but if I get a chance to line up my strike for a few minutes while you're unaware of me, and if I can pull it off, you're dead.  Period.



If anything, that "slow win button" should be a feat, not the main theme of a class.  Most people don't like playing such a style.



> Doing up different spell lists for each deity is a huge amount of work, [...]  While I like the idea, I certainly can't blame the designers for putting it way down the priority list.



Eh, the Spontaneous Variant Cleric in 3e did a basically good job.  Not too crazy.



> Another idea here might be to introduce a third type of Cleric - the War Cleric - which has some fighter-y abilities and some caster-y abilities, can't cure worth a damn but is really good with the battle spells; and that's what you start as if your career goal is Paladin.



I don't see why this should be separate from the "classic 1e-style" Cleric class.



> Go back to calling it a Thief, and I'd suggest it should be the "I can do anything but you'll never know about it because I'm just that quiet" class.



No, this should be the assassin.  Rogue shouldn't be tied to sneak attacking anymore.  It should be the mundane swashbuckler, the Indiana Jones dungeoneer, and so on.



> I can't see how Wizard (or MU) is any more setting-specific than most of the other classes.



It's scholarly, formulaic, focused on memorizing stuff out of a book before using magic.  Most fantasy settings don't have magic quite like that.


----------



## Alarian

Flatus Maximus said:


> It's a crying shame that clerics will still be Vancian casters. Wizards? OK, I get it -- memorization fades and must be renewed daily. But if a cleric calls upon his/her god to intercede RIGHT NOW, it should be spontaneous rather than a daily prayer:
> 
> "Dear god, please grant me two...no, make that three _cure light wounds_, one _bless_, two...no, I can get away with one _dispel magic_,...god, are you getting all this?"
> 
> IMHO.




Sounds a lot better to me from the gods standpoint vs. the cleric in the middle of combat "Hey god, I need this spell, 6 seconds later, Hey god, give me this spell now...(10 rounds later) Um...hey god, I know I'm really starting to be a pain in the butt, but umm.  now I need this spell.

If I were a god granting spells to a follower, I would much prefer to having a follower make a single prayer in the morning that I answered, than have him shouting orders to me in the middle of combat repeatedly on what spells he needs.  At that point it would probably be easier for the got to just kill everyone for him instead of having to intervene 5-20 times a day on behalf of the follower.


----------



## tuxgeo

Lots of good stuff here. 

A few separate comments:  



Draz said:


> . . . You're right, that's a LOT of PHB1 classes to try to launch a new system with.  I think they should narrow it a bit.  Here are my thoughts on each:
> 
> Assassin: I approve of this, as long as it's not pigeonholed into the arcane casting or mystical shadow powers of the 1e/3e/4e Assassins.  Those things should be optional; the focus should just be on being the "stabby Rogue" archetype.  Something pretty similar to the 3e Swordsage, plus a bit more aptitude with burglary or infiltration.




Not all assassins use blades -- some assassins prefer to kill by using saps ("coshes"), poison, garottes, drowning, defenestration, silk scarves, summoned owlbears, kidnapping-and-marooning, etc.



> Barbarian: < snip >
> 
> Bard: Definitely an archetype worthy of a PHB1 class.  I just hope the 5e version can support "wise" bards, "spoony" bards, and "aggressive swashbuckler" bards alike.  1e emphasized the "wise" aspect; 2e and 3e heavily favored "spoony."  4e tried to make all three viable, and I applaud the attempt, but I think all three may have fallen a little short of what I'd like to see (most 4e Bards really ended up more as a mishmash of all three).



The arcane class that puts the "grammar" into "grammarye." 



> Cleric: A classic; obviously has to be included. 1e Clerics, 3e Clerics, and especially 4e Clerics weren't diverse enough.  They weren't all that different from deity to deity.  (2e had a framework to make them more diverse, but it required a fair amount of homebrew.)  So because of that, I approve of the split between Cleric (healer/holy warrior) and Priest (casting-focused, hopefully very diverse between different deities). < snip >



Much looking forward to that split. 



> Druid: Obviously should be a PHB1 class, but I hope it's not quite as shapeshifting-focused or overpowered as it has been at times ...



_These woods are my library, by Oak and Ash and Thorn.* 
Each Tree is a letter, and those letters form all possible words. 
Welcome to the groves of learning, but beware--
A little learning is a dangerous thing!
_ 


> Fighter: < snip >
> 
> Illusionist: < snip >
> 
> Monk: I don't think this should be in the 5e PHB1.  It's too "niche."  When the 4e PHB1 came out, people complained about the Druid and Bard's absences, but not so much the Monk.  Save it for an Eastern-themed or Psionic-themed splat.
> 
> Paladin: I've always thought the Paladin title was more befitting a PrC than a base class, and I stand by that now. < snip >
> 
> Psion: I don't know what it's going to look like, or whether it can cover the whole gamut of psionic archetypes by itself (seems like it would at least need to be able to select which ability score it's based on), but I like the idea of psionics getting put in the PHB1 for a change, instead of being shunted into splatbook territory.  They've got the history for it.
> 
> Ranger: Definitely PHB1 material.
> 
> Rogue: This should be as different from the "stabby" Assassin archetype as a skillful urbane character can be.  This should be the "I can do anything because I'm just _that awesome_" class.  Like the 3e Factotum, except with magic optional.



Rogues should get magic from multiclassing into a magic class _only_.



> Sorcerer:  I actually wouldn't give this a PHB1 slot.  It feels too setting-specific ... I mean, not in every world is there strains of dragonblood amongst the population, granting magical powers.  It's just not as universal (or traditional) as some of the other D&D magic sources.



Hmm. In Fourth Edition, there are _three other power sources_ that give Sorcery: Chaos ("Wild"), Cosmic, and Storm; so not all sorcerers have dragonblood.



> Warlock: 3e should have had this instead of the Sorcerer all along.  (Flavor-wise.  I'm not necessarily judging mechanics or even the name.  Just the flavor.)  4e made the right decision between them.
> 
> Warlord: Hmmm.  I love the Warlord concept.< snip >
> 
> Wizard: Obviously it's not D&D without a Wizard class. < snip >




* EDIT: Oak and Ash and Thorn: "O" and "A" and "Th." What's that spell? "OATH."


----------



## Wormwood

Lanefan said:


> Having never seen a Warlock in play, can someone please tell me what differentiates it from a Wizard or Sorcerer or Bard? (or can it relatively easily be melded into one of those three?)




(4e Warlock)

Flavor-wise they are very different---essentially you make a pact with an entity for magical powers and the ability to pronounce curses in their name. When a cursed enemy dies, you absorb part of their soul (which presumably makes its way to your patron).

In play, they are very similar to other spell-casters. You cast your at-will/encounter/daily spells just like a wizard or sorcerer, with an eldritch blast being your signature at-will attack. Eldritch is a cool word. And as above, you can lay curses on people. When you attack a cursed target, you do more damage, and when they die you gain the benefit of a minor boon associated with your patron (fey step for FeyPact, temporary hit points for Infernal Pact, etc). 

Tactically, you get fewer area attacks (fireballs and the like) but more focused, 'screw-you' type spells that annoy DMs.

[behind the screen: Warlocks were an early 4e attempt at making an arcane striker. As the game progressed and the striker role got better implementation, they fell behind the pack. The PHB Warlock is almost quaint by today's standards).


----------



## On Puget Sound

Encounter powers are a perfect mechanic for artificers.  Rewinding the clockwork, puttimg all the spring-loaded jumping caltrops back in the bag, filling the flashbomb ("because only a suicidal fool would walk around with more than one filled.  You have to hold it perfectly level, or...")

You could call them "preparation" powers, that take a few peaceful minutes to prepare for their next use.  Coiling a lasso or loading a musket could be examples of non-magical preparation powers.


----------



## Herobizkit

Assassin: the 'striker' hit-you-for-crazy-damage type
Rogue: the skill bunny

That's my take, anyhow.


----------



## Jeff Carlsen

FitzTheRuke said:


> I see it as the NUMBER of encounter powers is a product of character skill, while WHAT the power does is a product of circumstance.  It's not that the character can't do the same thing twice, it's that the opportunity doesn't occur too often.  Call it gamist of me, I suppose




It is more than a little gamist. Probably just rationalization, but I can understand that.

Really, it's a matter of presentation. There is a place between simulationist and gamist where mechanics are generally representative. They're pinned to something within the fantasy. I think the biggest problem people have with 4E is that it didn't take that extra step to marry it's mechanics to the fantasy. Honestly, I think the design team intended to, but ran out of time. 

But I doubt we've seen the end of abilities or resources that require a five minute rest before they can be used again. I just think they'll be used more sparingly and with a more representative description.


----------



## PeacemakerSG

It's an unfortunate path they seem to be on.  At this stage I have very low expectations for 5e.  The fundamental problem I see is that they are using the same people as the chief designers.  Bring them in as advisers on the reasoning for and logic of previous features, but keep them off the lead.  I see 5e becoming even more convoluted than the previous systems.  You cannot take the disparate popular elements from each system, cobble them together, and expect a better overall system.


----------



## Warunsun

Out of the lists presumed the Assassin is the most disposable class. It should be the first one chucked out. *Assassination* shouldn't be the focus of a single class. All classes could perform this sort of thing (depending on alignments). This should be a kit or theme or background package.


----------



## Phaezen

Here is a video/audio recording of the seminar

Class Design Seminar - DDXP 2012 on Vimeo


----------



## Plane Sailing

I'm not quite so amazingly excited by this seminar as by the previous one for a few reasons, but I'm still feeling overall positive.

I could wish that they had gone with a smaller number of classes and allow people to take options to take them in different directions - so the fighter class has options that allow someone to go barbarian or swashbuckler. The wizard class would have options that allow someone to go wizard or sorcerer or warlock.

The problem with a proliferation of classes is that each new class means that there are certain things which become walled off from other classes. If there is an assassin class, that means that there are certain things that we now expect a rogue (or fighter) *can't* do, because it stands on the assassins schtick.

Too many classes and the demands of niche protection start to be additionally limiting on the existing classes.

That's my worry.


----------



## Dice4Hire

Plane Sailing said:


> The problem with a proliferation of classes is that each new class means that there are certain things which become walled off from other classes. If there is an assassin class, that means that there are certain things that we now expect a rogue (or fighter) *can't* do, because it stands on the assassins schtick.




I also worry about this. I was hoping for the basic 4 classes in the first game and then branch out form there in later books. I would be perfectly happy with that.


----------



## Roman

Wormwood said:


> I am really seeing a lot of respect for EVERY edition here. It looks like there is something to appeal to just about everyone here.
> 
> The class section itself is going to be a thing of beauty.




I have to agree. So far, the information looks very positive indeed. Of course, they actually have to pull off what they are promising, which may turn out to be tough, but I certainly like what I am hearing thus far.


----------



## Keefe the Thief

OK, let's try this again. The classes which were in EVERY PHB, not the classes from all PHBs. 

And it entertains me to no end that using 3e as an example for "easy multiclassing into other classes" means for a lot of people "3e multiclassing". Talk about overreaction.


----------



## Chimpy

Warunsun said:


> Red Box (Levels 1 - 5, Introductory)
> 
> Player's Handbook I - Heroic (level 1 - 10)
> 
> Player's Handbook II - Paragon (level 11-20)
> 
> Player's Handbook III - Epic (level 21-30)
> 
> This organization would keep paragon ideas in it's own book and epic  ideas in it's own book. Could be an excellent organizational tool and  also an incredible way to get folks to buy a minimum of 3 main rule  books without resorting to "Splat Books".
> 
> They might even use quasi-BECMI names for the books/sets.
> 
> You could take this idea further and group monsters by tier in their own Monster Manuals.



I'd quite like this, but I think most players would be up in arms, because I think most players want to buy the core books and play the entire game from 1-30. I know some people that won't ever buy supplements.


----------



## Njall

Keefe the Thief said:


> OK, let's try this again. The classes which were in EVERY PHB, not the classes from all PHBs.
> 
> And it entertains me to no end that using 3e as an example for "easy multiclassing into other classes" means for a lot of people "3e multiclassing". Talk about overreaction.






			
				Monte Cook said:
			
		

> Monte: To start with we kind of shot at the moon, and  said *everything that's been in a Player's Handbook 1, we want to  potentially have in our new player's book. That includes things like the  warlock and the warlord from 4th edition, but also includes the classes  from other editions like the ranger, the wizard, the cleric.*




No need to try again, methinks


----------



## Anselyn

Lanefan said:


> At first glance I'm very dubious about this idea of trading out low-level powers-abilities-feats for higher-level ones, but I'll leave the jury out until I see more hard facts on it.




Me too. If this is permanent trade then it has the dissociated mechanics problem. If it's about the set of tools you take with you for that day or adventure then that might be OK. Where do you want to invest your mana today ...




> And for the love of mushrooms the game is about more than just Damage Per Round!!!  If everything in the game is being reduced merely to how much damage it represents (e.g. Charm Person = 105) the designers have lost sight of the forest because they just face-planted into a tree!



I agree that the game I want to play doesn't focus on this - but I think this is the work the designers need to do behind the scenes (perhaps preferably out of sight and mind?) so the game runs smoothly when we play it without ever getting thrown out of gaming immersion by lack of clarity or balance in the rules.     

I think it's interesting that they now think they need to hide the game jargon. The /4e power sources (as I understand them) and roles meant that the designers explicitly presented the game in terms of their shared design space.  Perhaps there are some things that some (most?) players just don't need to know.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Keefe the Thief said:


> OK, let's try this again. The classes which were in EVERY PHB, not the classes from all PHBs.




No need to shout - especially when you're wrong! Read those quotes again...


----------



## BryonD

mudlock said:


> So when you see "per encounter", just replace it with "per 5 minutes". Because of fatigue.
> 
> There, done; now everyone can stop complaining about encounter powers.



I'm not complaining.  
I'm stating that I've got a great game now.  The great game now doesn't require me to re-tool fundamental pieces.  

If I'm going to switch, it is going to be because the new game is worth it.
The bar is high.


----------



## BryonD

Aldarc said:


> It sounds optional and ignorable.




Yeah, I think so.  I said it was a red flag.  It is.  I also said I'm still very much paying attention and waiting to see.


----------



## BryonD

FitzTheRuke said:


> Huh?  "Encounter Power" is just rules jargon for "Until you've had time to relax and catch your breath" (also known mechanically as "a short rest")
> 
> How hard is that to understand in in-game terms?




OK, maybe I've got too many debates with 4E fans on my mind.
I've been round and round with 4E fans saying that it makes total sense that once you use a power everyone there has "seen your trick", but you could use it again that time and other rationalizations for it working as I described above.

I'll plead guilty of knee-jerking based on that prior notion.

Red flag lowered.   (for now    )


----------



## broghammerj

Windjammer said:


> You're right if this was purely about a subjective choice, based on my happiness. But I'm looking at things at a bit more general, and less subjective angle. To repeat myself, in all the things we heard so far they offered very little _general rationales_ for 4E players to dump their game in favour of 5E.




They're not giving you a reason to switch because they learned their lesson.  Look how many 3E enthusiasts were put off by the, "your old edition isn't as good as super kewl 4E".  Disparaging remarks against old editions only alienate fans.

This is looking to be the edition to unite the genre.  Why do you want to switch?  For starters, the goal would be to allow you and I to play together.  As a 3E fan I think 4E is a great game but borders on a tactical board game.  With 5E we theoretically can co-exist.  Right now I don't come to your house on Saturday nights and we don't play DnD.....and that is sad.


----------



## Mercurius

[MENTION=13913]pl[/MENTION]ain Sailing, Keefe is only wrong in specifics; his sentiment is right, imo, especially if we look at what Monte actually said: "We want to *potentially *have..." _Potentially _is a mighty important qualifier; I suspect that they won't actually end up putting all 15 or so classes in the first 5E PHB, but maybe 10-12 of them. 

On to other things...



Nivenus said:


> However, it sounds like different classes are going to have different spellcasting mechanics and that with feats and other options you can mix and match a bit (making your wizards a bit more like 4e spellcasters, for example).
> 
> Actually, I have to say, despite having some problems with Vancian spellcasting, I'm quite happy with this news.




Yes, exactly. This is an example of where people are going to continually be irritated with 5E, because their own preferred mechanic or version of a specific rule is not where exactly they want it to be. But the thing is, it will still likely be somewhere, or something _like _it. If a player doesn't like Vancian magic but wants to play a spell-caster, there are other options than wizard - sorcerer, for instance.

The real potential here is for 5E to diversify classes by giving them different sub-systems that are still compatible with core. This would mean that sorcerer would and should exploit the theme of spontaneous casting; maybe they wouldn't know spells at all but would instead have something like power points and modes or forms.



Warunsun said:


> Red Box (Levels 1 - 5, Introductory)
> Player's Handbook I - Heroic (level 1 - 10)
> Player's Handbook II - Paragon (level 11-20)
> Player's Handbook III - Epic (level 21-30)




I like this sort of approach, although with the caveat that I think levels 1-20 should be in PHB 1 and that PHB 2 should be a second wave of classes and with more modular options, then PHB 3 can be epic tier. I just think that it would be better to have the full range of "normal" (non-epic) level development playable from the first book. 

This also gives them an excuse to cut down on trying to fit every classic class into the first PHB and gives them some license to add in some more exotic/non-traditional classes and races in PHB 2. So something like this:

*Player's Handbook 1
*classes (10): fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue, paladin, ranger, druid, bard, warlord, warlock
races: human, dwarf, elf (sylvan and grey), halfling (hobbit-ish and kender-ish), gnome
*Player's Handbook 2
*classes: assassin, avenger, invoker, sorcerer, illusionist, monk, barbarian, psion, swordmage, cavalier 
races: half-elf, half-orc, drow, deva, tiefling, dragonborn, shifter, etc

*Player's Handbook 3
*epic play for all classes and races from 1 and 2.

I'm not crazy about some of the races in PHB 2, but some folks like them and the point of 5E is not to be my own "vanity edition" but an edition to please as many folks as possible, and as deeply as possible.

There are, of course, other ways to slice the cake; one could argue that PHB 1 would be followed by the "Martial Handbook" and the "Arcane Handbook" etc, with further classes along power sources lines. The danger would be getting too far into kit territory and a major problem would be that if one wanted to, say, play an obscure Divine character, they might have to wait a couple years until their preferred handbook came out. 



Lanefan said:


> As soon as they start talking about what choices have to be made at each level (abilities, feats, powers, whatever name they get) I turn away, because between the lines that tells me that the term "character build" is still in play.  Which means by extension the continuation of the meta-games of system mastery and optimization - neither of which has any place in D&D.




But this is where you aren't getting the core 5E design philosophy: they're trying to accommodate optimizers _and _non-optimizers, and even to balance it enough so that two can play at the same table.

This is obviously easier said than done, but is also a very important goal, imo. I've never played at a table where all of the players were on the same page with this; my current group has a range of about three different levels, from a couple highly tactically oriented players who like to build their characters with an eye for optimization to one player who just wants to show up, drink beer, talk about Ron Paul and swing his axe at his enemy, to a few players in-between.

To say that the optimizer has no place in 5E is to entirely miss the point of 5E. IMO, of course.



Lanefan said:


> And for the love of mushrooms the game is about more than just Damage Per Round!!!  If everything in the game is being reduced merely to how much damage it represents (e.g. Charm Person = 105) the designers have lost sight of the forest because they just face-planted into a tree!




Well, the thing is that they want every class to contribute equally and, let's face it, a "Merchant" class just doesn't hold the same weight as the more combat-oriented classes. "Hey ranger, you just did 71 HP on one opponent? Well watch me - I just traded or a nice roll of brocaded silk at half its value!" 

Sure, there are more aspects to the game than combat, but damage per round ends up being a kind of bottom line in many, even most games. Or rather, it is the one thing that is easily quantifiable in every game - roleplaying and problem solving and skill use are all important, but don't necessarily have the same tangible gratification as "I just did 71 HP of damage." "I just picked that wicked hard lock" or "I just intimidated that orc toddler."



Lanefan said:


> And finally, not a fan of timing things by encounter as the definition of what is an encounter is still far too fuzzy.  Per-day or per-hour or whatever is fine as those can be measured and tracked at least to some extent.




This I can agree with, at least in principle. On the other hand, an encounter could also be easily defined as "A period of action without rest." Once a rest occurs, even just five minutes, then the encounter ends. 

Have you done any jogging? If you run for 20 minutes and then walk for a few minutes, the "encounter" of jogging isn't over in that your heart rate probably won't go back to resting, but if you sit or stop for 10-15 minutes, the encounter is over and you start again (although may be more tired, which is why the equivalent of any used "dailies" would be gone).

All that said, it might be best to scrap the whole encounter/daily mechanic and go with some kind of stamina system. This would allow, as someone said above, for more flexibility with combat maneuvers and powers and spells. Sure, Vancian casters might still be limited to fire-and-forget, but that's part of the payoff for their potent magic!



Erdrick Dragin said:


> Again, I don't understand why WotC feels that everyone at the same gaming table has to play different ways. If you're the DM, and you DM 3e, then the players have to suck it up and play 3e or find another DM.




Hmm...I'm not sure where you're reading this. First of all, your last sentence has always been the case: If I DM 3e and you don't want to play 3e then either you can find another group or I can DM something else, or someone else can DM. 5E just makes this more flexible, so that a DM can run the core game with his or her own unique style (and/or _in the style of _a specific edition or editions), and different players can play characters of varying degrees of complexity and customization.



Erdrick Dragin said:


> Why the need to get 4 editions of people at the same table playing it THEIR way, making it tough for the DM, and at the same time the rules of 5e doesn't really allow all those players to play exactly the edition style they enjoyed?




See, I think the operative word here is _style. _That implies a fair amount of flexibility and doesn't necessarily mean emulating the specifics of an edition's rules. "In the style of" 2E, for instance, does not mean descending AC and using THAC0 at the same table as the d20+ mechanic, it means deeply detailed settings and classic character types with some optimization possible. It is a flavor thing, with rules that accommodate a variety of flavors.


----------



## I'm A Banana

Wait...shouldn't every class from ever PHI-style book include racial classes like Dwarf and Elf from BEMCI?


----------



## Grimstaff

Keefe the Thief said:


> OK, let's try this again. The classes which were in EVERY PHB, not the classes from all PHBs.
> 
> And it entertains me to no end that using 3e as an example for "easy multiclassing into other classes" means for a lot of people "3e multiclassing". Talk about overreaction.







I'm intrigued by how they will handle "common" classes, versus "rare" classes etc. WIll they be physically separated in the book / a different section? Interesting.


----------



## Mercurius

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Wait...shouldn't every class from ever PHI-style book include racial classes like Dwarf and Elf from BEMCI?




No, not necessarily, especially when those are basically gestalts of race-class combos (dwarf fighter and elf fighter/wizard, iirc).

That said, this is where the modular possibilities are quite endless. What about a book that provides "archetypes" that can be used instead of race/class combos? They could be campaign world specific, or they could be more general; like so:

Valley of the Mage Guardian
Silvan elf warrior of Mirkwood
Dwarf mountaineer
Kender wanderer

Etc. Imagine a whole book of archetypes or templates, or every campaign sourcebook including such combinations; a player can just choose one, which would provide a basic template of what they can do and facilitate a simpler game experience.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd

Keefe the Thief said:


> And it entertains me to no end that using 3e as an example for "easy multiclassing into other classes" means for a lot of people "3e multiclassing". Talk about overreaction.




"Easy multiclassing into other classes" is what has me worried. Monte mentions rewarding "good play." I think this is a great goal - _in game_. I do not like the idea of rewarding the guy with the most books or the guy who is able to cobble together a nonsensical build by easily multiclassing into multiple classes to cherry pick front-loaded abilities. What this led to in 3E, _for my group's playstyle_, was some players who has the system mastery that allowed them to create multiclass Frankenstein monsters that were more powerful that the sum of their parts, while others tried to make something that seemed cool and flavorful to them but fell into a multiclassing trap that made their characters worse than the sum of their parts. The disparity in power level between the most powerful and least powerful characters in each campaign during the last two years of official 3.5 support made it extremely difficult for me to DM. And when I asked the rest of the group to run a campaign instead (two of whom DM regularly), none wanted to tackle the problem. I was ready to quit D&D entirely about one month _before_ 4th edition was announced. That's why the design team deciding to shoot for "3E style" multiclassing instead of giving options for different styles makes me wonder if D&DN will be right for my group. It is the only major concern I've had so far, I either like the rest of what I've heard or can live with or ignore the rest. But my group neither would want to live with or ignore multiclassing.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Wait...shouldn't every class from ever PHI-style book include racial classes like Dwarf and Elf from BEMCI?




We asked that same question in last night's game.


----------



## Evilusion

Well so far everything that has been posted about 5e has turned me off. It just seems they want to revamp 4e rules (which I dislike) and fit everything else they like from other editions into 5e.

I guess it will be a wait and see until I can see the actual rules before making my final judgement.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

Dwarf and Elf WILL be included.... as Races.


----------



## ppaladin123

Evilusion said:


> Well so far everything that has been posted about 5e has turned me off. It just seems they want to revamp 4e rules (which I dislike) and fit everything else they like from other editions into 5e.
> 
> I guess it will be a wait and see until I can see the actual rules before making my final judgement.





Hmm, I got the exact opposite impression: that they see the "core" d&d experience as best captured by a 1-3e framework but that they want to incorporate the things they learned worked during their experiment with 4e.

I've read the commentary as an admission that 4e was a radical departure from the previous d&d mechanics but that they view it as a fruitful depature...it gave them more insight into what is important and what is not and gave them the chance to experiment with balance and math and mechanics.

So I guess we'll see what happens.


----------



## TheGrandNuge

*warrior abilities*

Since i love the ideals behind so much of it, I have to bring up the thought of using some sort of Iron Heroes type of Token mechanic for limiting and setting frequency for non-spellcaster abilities. It's a great idea, and much more believable than just generic and arbitrary '/encounter' or '/day' crap. You have to set up your move before you do it. This doesn't have to be used for everything, just anything that would use a 'per x' mechanic.

I know a lot of folks will complain "but that requires bookeeping, I have to keep track of something every round..." 
So what! Gamers are a smart sort, I never understood this constant shift on the part of so many, over years now, toward simplicity for simplicities sake. Simplicity is fine when it makes sense and actually improves something. But that is not always the case. Often it drains all the coolnes and flaver from something instead. 
Who can't keep track of several tally marks or coins for a couple rounds? Seriously.


----------



## Warunsun

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Wait...shouldn't every class from ever PHI-style book include racial classes like Dwarf and Elf from BEMCI?



No. While I do respect any fan's enjoyment of BECMI and acknowledge it as  a legitimate version of D&D it wasn't actually AD&D. While a lot  of old schoolers are interested in this thread a great deal of folks  that are newer players don't even know that Basic D&D came out after  Advanced and that is was "separate". Heck, until recently I had folks  in my own game group that had played BECMI in their youth that didn't  realize it was an after-product. BECMI never had a Player's Handbook  either.

 I am not bashing BECMI so don't think that!  I am just acknowledging  they had separate systems beyond even edition changes.  They were competing products. WotC would be  wise to utilize some more of the BECMI rules and they did start in 3rd  edition AD&D/D&D.

 If they were to support all classes from the start (as I suggested  earlier with a Heroic, a Paragon, and a Epic level Player's Handbook  they would have some space they could use in the Paragon book for stuff  like Castle Warfare rules from BECMI [since the most basic player's  rules would be in PH1]).

 I am not sure what number of classes that Monte and the gang does choose  to support as the "core" ones but honestly while I do enjoy 4th edition  for the most part the biggest turn-off period was having to wait an  entire 2 years to get all the races and classes. It was the *biggest  mistake period* of the entire edition.


----------



## Keefe the Thief

Plane Sailing said:


> No need to shout - especially when you're wrong! Read those quotes again...




Ha, i cannot be wrong! That would mean that i have to say sorry that i was wrong! Which will never happen! Ha! Hahaha! Hahahahah...

Sorry, sorry. 

Eugh.


----------



## Grogg of the North

This didn't sell me on 5e.  If anything its made me a bit weary.  

I'll stick with 3.5/PF for now.


----------



## broghammerj

SteveC said:


> It's still very early, of course, but what we've seen indicates rolling back critical items from 4E (spell slots again?)
> 
> I have a lot of faith in the designers excepting Monte Cook, who seems to have no idea of what 4E did, and hasn't given any indication that he ever played it.  If I'm stuck with a wizard who needs a crossbow again, I will be a sad, sad panda, and I expect that a lot of folks may say "I have a crossbow wielding mage already, so what's in it for me."




I hear what your saying, but I think they designers get it.  I think every spellcasting character will have some base spell attack that does damage at will even if they have a Vancian magic mechanic.  That being said, some of those critical items from 4E drove off a lot of people such as myself.  To me, the at will power seemed very homogenized across classes.  You could have just written a rule that said each PC will have 1 ranged and 1 melee at will attack which does a d6 of damage.  It is up to the PC to describe how that attack is delivered ie arcane bolt, hand ax, force of will, etc.

I think you have to take with a grain of salt that Monte knows what 4E did.  This is sort of like the US and Russia trying to figure out how to divide post WWII Berlin.  For you, Monte just happens to be the other guy.


----------



## Ahnehnois

There were a lot of good things in this transcript. Some bad, but a lot good.


----------



## howandwhy99

Some questions I'd like to have asked:

How are you going to stat up those iconic monsters which changed a lot through different iterations of the game?

How about spells? Spell duration specifically used to be much longer the farther you go back.

How about magic items?

Also, how different are abilities, feats, spells, etc. going to be to each other? Are going to get more Move +1 variations or more teleport, fly, stone meld, or water walk type of variations?

What is the likelihood of creating supplements which bring back many of the game mechanics from older versions which aren't in newer ones? For example, pursuit & evasion, fatigue, morale, loyalty, facing, aging, haste, etc. 

How are you differentiating between mundane items and magical items? Are mundane items also "no longer part of the essential progression mathematics"?

With the desire for more 3e style multi-classing are we going to see level as indicative of Character Level? Would it be possible to use multiple classes a la 1e as separate levels with no overall character level?


----------



## SteveC

broghammerj said:


> I hear what your saying, but I think they designers get it.  I think every spellcasting character will have some base spell attack that does damage at will even if they have a Vancian magic mechanic.  That being said, some of those critical items from 4E drove off a lot of people such as myself.  To me, the at will power seemed very homogenized across classes.  You could have just written a rule that said each PC will have 1 ranged and 1 melee at will attack which does a d6 of damage.  It is up to the PC to describe how that attack is delivered ie arcane bolt, hand ax, force of will, etc.
> 
> I think you have to take with a grain of salt that Monte knows what 4E did.  This is sort of like the US and Russia trying to figure out how to divide post WWII Berlin.  For you, Monte just happens to be the other guy.



I hope (and believe!) you're right. We will have to see, I suppose. I like Monte very much, as he did some work for some of my favorite non D&D games (HERO and Rolemaster) but it seems he's pretty much skipped 4E. I think it's interesting that when I hear game designers talking about D&D most of the big names don't seem to know too much about 4E, which is a shame.

In the mean time, however, I'm going to be starting the Anti Vancian League (AVL) to show my hopes that we don't step back to the previous era. Okay, that's mostly a joke, but as things continue I may actually do something like that. 

I have no problem with daily resources, but if you have a class that is pretty much exclusively dailies, you have a real problem in making a hard limit on what an adventuring day can include. It's also a terrible balancing method, since a given encounter can be much easier if daily resources are available, and much harder if they're not. 

And clerics? Has there ever been any sort of fantasy novel that depicts religious magic with spell slots? Ugh. Too horrible to think about. So let's see what comes out next, maybe an actual example of game play...


----------



## Blackwarder

SteveC said:


> I hope (and believe!) you're right. We will have to see, I suppose. I like Monte very much, as he did some work for some of my favorite non D&D games (HERO and Rolemaster) but it seems he's pretty much skipped 4E. I think it's interesting that when I hear game designers talking about D&D most of the big names don't seem to know too much about 4E, which is a shame.
> 
> In the mean time, however, I'm going to be starting the Anti Vancian League (AVL) to show my hopes that we don't step back to the previous era. Okay, that's mostly a joke, but as things continue I may actually do something like that.
> 
> I have no problem with daily resources, but if you have a class that is pretty much exclusively dailies, you have a real problem in making a hard limit on what an adventuring day can include. It's also a terrible balancing method, since a given encounter can be much easier if daily resources are available, and much harder if they're not.
> 
> And clerics? Has there ever been any sort of fantasy novel that depicts religious magic with spell slots? Ugh. Too horrible to think about. So let's see what comes out next, maybe an actual example of game play...




The wizard will have magical feats that among other things will allow you to pick some at will spells, I don't think that D&D will ever go back to the days of crossbow mages...

Honestly, I don't have that big of a problem with vanician magic, I only hated it because in 3ed the system was broken and made the spell casters extremely powerfull in high levels and more importantly huge time grabbers, I really didn't mind them in 2ed because back them you had to protect the wizard so he could cast his spell, it was a team effort and (at least in our games) the monsters were usually smart enough to try and disrupt the casters as often as they could, also the fact that the casters needed more xp to level up also added to the feeling that the rest of the party is not in the wizard shadow all the time.

I love 4e, I really do but looking back it seems that most of my great D&D memories are from earlier editions, mainly 2ed and early 3ed (I ran a campaign with only the core rule books in Cormyr from levels 1-6) and even though I played longer 4e campaigns, when I look back on them there aren't any really great moments, for my group the way 4e was presented gutted to cool factor from the game, no matter how much I hinted and gave small nudges in a certain direction, non if my players though once to try to do somthing that wasn't written on his attack powers and in this I think layes 4e greatest failure.

Warder


----------



## Morrus

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Wait...shouldn't every class from ever PHI-style book include racial classes like Dwarf and Elf from BEMCI?




If anyone had ever said "PH1 style book", yeah. They didn't though. They said PH.


----------



## Primal

SteveC said:


> I hope (and believe!) you're right. We will have to see, I suppose. I like Monte very much, as he did some work for some of my favorite non D&D games (HERO and Rolemaster) but it seems he's pretty much skipped 4E. I think it's interesting that when I hear game designers talking about D&D most of the big names don't seem to know too much about 4E, which is a shame.
> 
> In the mean time, however, I'm going to be starting the Anti Vancian League (AVL) to show my hopes that we don't step back to the previous era. Okay, that's mostly a joke, but as things continue I may actually do something like that.
> 
> I have no problem with daily resources, but if you have a class that is pretty much exclusively dailies, you have a real problem in making a hard limit on what an adventuring day can include. It's also a terrible balancing method, since a given encounter can be much easier if daily resources are available, and much harder if they're not.
> 
> And clerics? Has there ever been any sort of fantasy novel that depicts religious magic with spell slots? Ugh. Too horrible to think about. So let's see what comes out next, maybe an actual example of game play...




Although I'm a 3E/PF guy, I'm actually tempted to join your AVL; I may not like everything about 4E and AEDU style classes, yet I still think 4E powers and explicit power/monster format with keywords is superior to how Vancian spellcasting works. Or, even better, maybe each group (martial, arcane, divine, primal) had "power points" (adrenaline/zeal/spell/whatever pts.) that they would spend the same way 4E monks augment their powers? And maybe you could only spend a limited amount each round to prevent going "nova"? Regardless of this, I think using 3E as the framework for the 5E core mechanics would be a mistake, even if at-will powers were obtainable as 3E-style "reserve feats" (and wouldn't this be a kind of feat tax anyway?). As I said before, I'm kind of tired of arguing about the use of Cleave to "auto-defeat" Mirror Image, or Guardsman Bob auto-succeeding on his Perception check vs. your Stealth because he's looking at your direction and the rules might (or might not) imply that this makes you always visible. 

And, how about multiclassing? Why not use 4E themes or PF archetypes, because IMO both work better than multiclassing in 3E. In 3E you quite often end up with either a weird and highly-optimized "Frankenstein monster", or a guy that's great to roleplay but doesn't have anything useful to do in combat (my STR 14 halfling paladin/cleric/divine templar being a great example of the latter; he had +15 in every save by 7th level, but his DPR was on average something like 7-10 pts. or so -- in a combat-focused campaign!).

I'm also worried about Monte mentioning how good/clever play should be rewarded. I, for one, am tired of guessing at which spells my wizard or cleric should memorize; will there be magical traps or hazards or doors on which I need to use Dispel Magic or Knock? How about a medusa or basilisk? Stone to Flesh or Disintegrate, or something else? Sometimes there is a way around such a problem/hazard, but often there isn't; and it's frustrating to stop to rest for a day because I memorized "wrong" spells. I hope this won't be the case in 5E, and I remain optimistic, but I'd rather they used 4E or PF as the basis, and not 3E.


----------



## Grazzt

SteveC said:


> And clerics? Has there ever been any sort of fantasy novel that depicts religious magic with spell slots? Ugh. Too horrible to think about. So let's see what comes out next, maybe an actual example of game play...




Most clerics/priests in S&S stories, except D&D, can't cast spells or use magic at all.


----------



## mach1.9pants

It boils down to a simple fact: three out of four previous editions had vancian and the cleric was one of the core vancian casters. There is going to be vancian casting and wizard and cleric are going to use vancian. It is irrelevant to an edition for all editions whether vancian cleric emulate any tropes or literature. DnD is it's own trope and is what needs to be emulated, not other media (although other things will have an influence)


----------



## Zustiur

mach1.9pants said:


> It boils down to a simple fact: three out of four previous editions had vancian and the cleric was one of the core vancian casters. There is going to be vancian casting and wizard and cleric are going to use vancian. It is irrelevant to an edition for all editions whether vancian cleric emulate any tropes or literature. DnD is it's own trope and is what needs to be emulated, not other media (although other things will have an influence)




Exactly. This statement is very true in my opinion:


			
				Monte said:
			
		

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



That's not to say that 5E can't include powerpoints and other spell mechanics as well. Possibly tied to different classes. When 3E was coming out, that was my understanding of the situation - Wizards were vancian, and sorcerers used spell points. It turned out I was wrong about the direction 3E was taking, but there's nothing stopping them from using that idea now. But as Monte said; if we're talking about D&D and core classes, Vancian magic is the way to go.

On a separate point, I love the idea of having many classes available in PH1, but having it only handle levels 1-10.
Given how long it can take to get there, and my personal preferences regarding D&D campaigns, it is entirely likely that I'll never play in an epic campaign. Whereas, it is equally likely that I'd like to play some odd-ball class like a warlock. I agree with those who complain about the 1-2 year wait for 'core' classes to be released in 4E.

I really like the points raised in this seminar. Coupled with some of the community suggestions in this thread, I see no problem with having lots of core classes in PH1, going from level 1-10. By moving magic items back to the DMG and cutting out 10-20 levels of spells, it should be very easy to fit that many classes in one book.


----------



## tecnowraith

ok After re-reading the transcripts, I am seriously thinking the Classes options were taken from DDO's Enhancements: Enhancements - DDO wiki, which in a sense their version class options along with feats and spells.


----------



## Evilusion

ppaladin123 said:


> Hmm, I got the exact opposite impression: that they see the "core" d&d experience as best captured by a 1-3e framework but that they want to incorporate the things they learned worked during their experiment with 4e.
> 
> I've read the commentary as an admission that 4e was a radical departure from the previous d&d mechanics but that they view it as a fruitful depature...it gave them more insight into what is important and what is not and gave them the chance to experiment with balance and math and mechanics.
> 
> So I guess we'll see what happens.




Well like I said, I will hold off judgement until I see the rules.


----------



## SteveC

Grazzt said:


> Most clerics/priests in S&S stories, except D&D, can't cast spells or use magic at all.



Oh sure, and if we wanted to be true to S&S the cleric should have virtually no special abilities at all, aside from a lot of bluff based abilities. Still, D&D doesn't attempt to emulate that (obviously) so what is the source material it's going for? Is there anything?


----------



## The Shadow

Draz said:


> Illusionist: I don't see why Illusionist deserves page space in the book more than, say, Necromancer.  But separate classes for each specialty arcane caster would be crazy.  So ... I guess mostly the same as 3e, with these being Wizard variants?  Possibly feat-based or PrC-based, rather than default features.




I agree with just about everything else you've written, but disagree here.  While I am not by any stretch an AD&D grognard, the Illusionist is one thing from 1e that I do genuinely miss.

The class had tons of flavor that was lost by making it simply a specialist wizard...  The illusionist was not merely barred from a school or two;  he had illusions, enchantments, and shadow-magic, and that was pretty much it!  (Well, and a few divinations.)  He pretty much had to be a sneaky bastard just to get by, and I loved it.  Also, do remember that the best Illusionist spells were off-limits to ordinary magic-users!  The Illusionist was supreme in his area, limited as it was.

In my view, three-quarters of the flavor of the gnome race (which I dearly love) was lost in turning Illusionist into a wizard specialization.

Now, you mention Necromancers, and I do have to say, of all the different variant wizards, they do come in second in terms of flavor.  However, I think they still do come in second, simply because necromancers do often dabble in other forms of magic.

The other wizard specialties simply do not have the legendary resonance of those two.  Elementalists, maybe.  But Evokers? Transmuters?  Not really.  I would argue they don't rate classes of their own.  (Though a case could maybe be made for a Conjuror/Summoner class - though the implementation would have to be better than any I've yet seen.  The Pathfinder Summoner leaves me cold.)

Do all these variants deserve space in the PH1?  Probably not.  But I'm pulling for the Illusionist to make it, just because it has so much history with D&D gnomes.


----------



## WotC_Trevor

gourdcaptain said:


> ...Uh, Linear Warrior Quadratic Wizards ISN'T ABOUT DAMAGE. Evocation doesn't even do that much overall damage in 3.Xe. The problem is more when the Wizard has stuff like Dominate Person available, which one hit of which on the Fighter and he has a new minion to add to his DPR. (And we know that kind of stuff is around with the mention of Charm Person earlier.)
> 
> Also, the mention of the Fighter being 100% DPR makes me kinda sad as someone who likes Fighters who emphasize combat manuvers. Also, does this make the Barbarian 120% damage or so?



I'm not sure we said or wanted to say anywhere that that fighter was just dpr all the time. Currently, the plan is for fighters to have options that help them change and manipulate the battlefield if they want to build that way.

As to the quadratic wizard, linear warrior thing - the guys knows it's not just about damage, that's just the easiest bit to talk about. The team is definitely looking at ways to make each class relevant throughout their progression, and not all the options or ideas they're working with were touched on in this seminar.


----------



## WotC_Trevor

Windjammer said:


> Or take that other interview (on MTV I think) were Mearls said the 4E DMG was very bad, and that people who read it had no idea how to run a game. Out of the hundred things you could say about 4E, and its DMG in particular, he picked _that one_? I guess he read a different book.



Can you, or anybody actually, point me to the article where Mike says that? My head is swimming with lots of official and unofficial news and I can't recall this one.


----------



## WotC_Trevor

Flatus Maximus said:


> Yeah, someone is going to have to explain: "Charm person = 105." If not, this could get out of hand _real quick_ and turn into an edition war-ism.



We can't really do that without exposing the text of the spell and all sorts of other information that we can't get into now. For the time being, how about we assume that these guys understand that math isn't the only thing to look at (because they do understand that) and that this was a quick easy touch point when talking about balancing different class features and such for combat. 

And in the end, there's never a good reason for edition war-isms


----------



## WotC_Trevor

SteveC said:


> If I'm stuck with a wizard who needs a crossbow again, I will be a sad, sad panda, and I expect that a lot of folks may say "I have a crossbow wielding mage already, so what's in it for me."
> 
> I suppose it's waaaay too early for grousing, so take what I say with a couple grains of salt. Who knows, they may find a way to make both of us happy...



This came up in the seminar, but the wizard had a spell or (fire lance or flame lance I believe) that I think did 1d6 points of damage on a hit. It was usable every round. I think this was a spell feat that gave him that option, but it was he picked up at level 1. So it doesn't look like you'll have to go back to a wizard who shoots his cross bow unless that's something you want to do.

(insert caveat that anything could change due to play testing and development yada yada)


----------



## Mercurius

Thanks for stopping by, [MENTION=82759]WotC_Trevor[/MENTION]. It seems like it has been ages since we've had an "official" voice around here. If you folks don't send someone in here to slap some sense into us every now and then, we'll start speculating that the 5E _Player's Handbook _will have warbunnies as a core race.


----------



## WotC_Trevor

Erdrick Dragin said:


> Again, I don't understand why WotC feels that everyone at the same gaming table has to play different ways. If you're the DM, and you DM 3e, then the players have to suck it up and play 3e or find another DM.
> 
> Why the need to get 4 editions of people at the same table playing it THEIR way, making it tough for the DM, and at the same time the rules of 5e doesn't really allow all those players to play exactly the edition style they enjoyed?



I think we can get beyond this if we get rid of the expectation or notion that characters who have different abilities or different ways of accessing those abilities make it harder on the DM to run the game. It doesn't seem any harder when there's a fighter, monk, wizard and cleric at a table. They each do different things in combat and progress a little differently. If you're looking at 2 or 3E, the wizard and cleric might have similar spell progressions but often very different spells and class abilities. In my experience, having different classes with different class features and specialties hasn't really made it harder on me as a DM, in social situations, RP, combat, exploration or anything else.

The basic rules don't have to grow in complexity just because a class might have some interesting or maybe even unique advancement options. Each character/player does what they do, you react, continue with the narration or combat, and keep things moving.


----------



## WotC_Trevor

Mercurius said:


> Thanks for stopping by, <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> @WotC_Trevor <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->. It seems like it has been ages since we've had an "official" voice around here. If you folks don't send someone in here to slap some sense into us every now and then, we'll start speculating that the 5E _Player's Handbook _will have warbunnies as a core race.



(note to self - ask team to remove war bunnies)

(note to the mods and everyone else - sorry for the machine gun of posts. I was taking notes and responding to posts as they came up. I though it would be better than just a big wall of text but it pretty much has the same effect. If you'd like for me to combine them all, just let me know)


----------



## WotC_Trevor

One last clarification before i move on to another thread. No plans for an elf or dwarf class. Those are covered with the way races are split out from class now.


----------



## avin

WotC_Trevor said:


> So it doesn't look like you'll have to go back to a wizard who shoots his cross bow unless that's something you want to do.




Don't change a line of that. 



WotC_Trevor said:


> One last clarification before i move on to another thread. No plans for an elf or dwarf class. Those are covered with the way races are split out from class now.




YES! THANK YOU! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## avin

WotC_Trevor said:


> (note to self - ask team to remove war bunnies)




What????? This is a SLAP in your costumer's face!!!!!!!!! Why removing Warbunnies?????? What's next, no Fighters?


----------



## ScottMcG

> Bruce: To reiterate, the fighter has been hard. In  comparison the monk has been relatively easy because he's focused and  his path is relatively clear.




I understand that this is more of a statement about how difficult the task of making a fighter class that covers all the angles they want to include from the various editions, but I respectfully suggest that the monk deserves some of the same investment in diversity.  It's always felt like a one-trick/flavor pony class to me, and I think it could be much more.

I'm enthusiastic about support iconic D&D play-styles/experiences, but I'd rather not have classes lock us into only emulating iconic characters.  I'd hope to have the room to build some new icons of our own.


----------



## gourdcaptain

WotC_Trevor said:


> I'm not sure we said or wanted to say anywhere that that fighter was just dpr all the time. Currently, the plan is for fighters to have options that help them change and manipulate the battlefield if they want to build that way.






> Bruce: 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.





That's what I got the impression off of. It's probably just a hypothetical "if we had a class that is 100% damage" bit.


----------



## WotC_Trevor

gourdcaptain said:


> That's what I got the impression off of. It's probably just a hypothetical "if we had a class that is 100% damage" bit.



Ah yep, I gotcha now. I don't think they want to give you a fighter that can't contribute to exploration or roleplay, or that can't open up  his options and do more during combat. However, when it comes to combat, I think the base fighter they're working from now focuses on hitting things and dealing damage. Again, they're making sure there are options to expand what a fighter can do in combat for those who want to go that direction.


----------



## avin

WotC_Trevor said:


> Again, they're making sure there are options to expand what a fighter can do in combat for those who want to go that direction.




I just hope they're not thinking about expand that to CAGI and other aggro mechanics... that may be complicated and raise anger among some players... let's admit, maybe you like aggro, maybe you dislike aggro, but I don't with one would deny it's a polemic mechanic. I'd play safe here...


----------



## Zustiur

ScottMcG said:


> but I respectfully suggest that the monk deserves some of the same investment in diversity.  It's always felt like a one-trick/flavor pony class to me, and I think it could be much more.



I don't care when it turns up - I was never a fan of monks. But when it does turn up, I totally agree with you. I needs to have the same range of diversity that every other class has. None of this "You can use special monk weapons, but you do more damage if you don't" nonsense.


----------



## ScottMcG

Zustiur said:


> I don't care when it turns up - I was never a fan of monks. But when it does turn up, I totally agree with you. I needs to have the same range of diversity that every other class has. None of this "You can use special monk weapons, but you do more damage if you don't" nonsense.




I don't know if this describes you, but I know many people felt that the monk felt somewhat out of place in the D&D setting.  It felt at home for me, but I could see where it wouldn't for others.  Creating a background of a different flavor could open it up to a wider audience.  Perhaps something along the lines of a feral/primal spirit monk that doesn't imitate animals or the natural world through monastic training, rather it channels those spirits directly (similar to the 4e Warden).

Just some food for thought for the designers. If you're playing to only one iconic source for a class it might not be broad enough.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

I really always thought of the monk of more "Friar Tuck" and less "Yamma Bushi" or "Jet Li" (with the exception of asian-themed settings.)

If this were the case, it would suit D&D's usual implied setting a bit more.

That said, I've never been fond of D&D designers saying "a Samurai is a fighter with a bastard sword... basically the same thing."

No, no it's not.


----------



## ScottMcG

FitzTheRuke said:


> I really always thought of the monk of more "Friar Tuck" and less "Yamma Bushi" or "Jet Li" (with the exception of asian-themed settings.)
> 
> If this were the case, it would suit D&D's usual implied setting a bit more.
> 
> That said, I've never been fond of D&D designers saying "a Samurai is a fighter with a bastard sword... basically the same thing."
> 
> No, no it's not.




I tend to think of D&D setting more in terms of high fantasy than I would be comfortable assigning to a Sherwood Forest character, but that's just my spin on it.  To me Friar Tuck is basically a fighter with a penchant for the quarterstaff and ale, and not necessarily in that order.

I agree with you about the Samurai.  Attempting to do a faithful interpretation of the Samurai without the cultural context misses too much.  On the other hand, could you play a fighter as Samurai?  I don't see why not.


----------



## FitzTheRuke

ScottMcG said:


> I tend to think of D&D setting more in terms of high fantasy than I would be comfortable assigning to a Sherwood Forest character, but that's just my spin on it.  To me Friar Tuck is basically a fighter with a penchant for the quarterstaff and ale, and not necessarily in that order.




Good point.  I guess I kind of meant more an idealized heroic Friar Tuck. But not quite to the point of fantasy ninja.



ScottMcG said:


> I agree with you about the Samurai.  Attempting to do a faithful interpretation of the Samurai without the cultural context misses too much.  On the other hand, could you play a fighter as Samurai?  I don't see why not.




Sure!


----------



## Pezmerga

I haven't read all of this, so forgive me if something similar has been said.

I think it'd be neat if they did a subclass for each school for wizards. Instead of just having extra spell slots, maybe give them all cool abilities that work off of their respective school! Depending on what abilities you come up with you could even restrict them to having only spells of their school! Maybe too radical, but It'd be just an option anyway. I'd still wanna see the basic wizard we all know and love/hate.

 Qmark on the wotc forums also brought up a neat idea.
Early access to spells. This would help make up for the narrow versatility of a single school caster. If that proved too strong, maybe limit it to one spell per spell level to be casted one level lower. Then you'd have class abilities etc as you level too.

Maybe make it like this...

Abjurer - Has Abjuration Spells, and class abilities based on Abjuration. They'd be very defensive, but could work.

Conjurer - Has Conjuration spells, and class abilities that enhance or work with conjuring things. I'd like to see summon monster of course, but maybe something to do with summoning good weapons too?

Diviner - Maybe some sort of Gish? Precognition to avoid incoming attacks etc.

Enchanter - Enchantment spells, etc etc.

Evoker - Obviously the Direct Damager caster! Would have class abilities that deal with enhancing that aspect. You'd also have some other tricks too like Grasping Hand etc.

Illusionist - Yeah

Necromancer - The Undead serve you etc. etc.

Transmuter - Would be FUN. Wizards that turn into dragons and eat their bunny rabbit enemies!

Universalist - your basic wizard. would have less cool stuff, but would have more versatility.

You could even still do the 3.5 specialist too, he'd just not have the cool class abilities of the mored dedicated wizards, but would sitll have some versatility.


----------



## erleni

Warunsun said:


> Out of the lists presumed the Assassin is the most disposable class. It should be the first one chucked out. *Assassination* shouldn't be the focus of a single class. All classes could perform this sort of thing (depending on alignments). This should be a kit or theme or background package.




I do not agree. In previous editions the assassin was really a sort of specialized rogue, but the 4th edition shadow-based Assassin was a different animal. Teleportation from level 1, shadow form for level 1 and the shroud mechanic made it really stand out as a class on its own.


----------



## ScottMcG

erleni said:


> I do not agree. In previous editions the assassin was really a sort of specialized rogue, but the 4th edition shadow-based Assassin was a different animal. Teleportation from level 1, shadow form for level 1 and the shroud mechanic made it really stand out as a class on its own.




It definitely stood out as a class on its own, but I'd argue that calling it "Assassin" was an unnecessary overload of the term.  Admittedly, I have   gripes about this class that probably prevent objectivity, like did we really need a shadow power source? There are no fey power sourced character classes.  I'm a fan of the new cosmology, so why have one and not the other?

I'll be disappointed if the "shadow striker" is still named Assassin when the next rev comes around, but I'm completely fine with it being included.


----------



## Augoeides

I've just plowed through ten pages of replies and found that many people don't know the game they are playing.

Example 1, in Vancian, you don't forget your spells.  You prepare your spells in the morning, you don't relearn them every morning.

Example 2, The existing power point system for psionics is very unbalanced and leads to being able to crank out more high level powers than wizards can.

Now, as for the interview comments, I posted last year a list of about 15 things that I'd like to see changed in Pathfinder and I've since learned that every single one of them is going to be incorporated in 5.  So, I'm very happy with what I'm hearing.  
I don't expect that every pre-existing class will have its own class write up in 5, nor do I want it to.  I can easily see the Assassin being a variant of the Bard, for example - potentially a less social and more combat heavy version of the Bard (with a nod towards Dark Sun).  I can, also, see the Warlock and the Sorcerer being brought together (maybe with the Druid thrown in there as well).  This particularly because of wild talents which suggest that every character of every class has the potential to have a strange bloodline (which steals the Sorcerer's traditional sucktastic flavor) on top of which the Sor is Cha-based and the game designers want to clean the mess of what attributes represent.  I see the Warlock, Sorcerer, and Druid being brought together as Cha-based full casters with slightly different themes (infernal, extraplanar, and fey respectively) - making pacts with supernatural beings for power.  I can see the Warlord and the Fighter being brought together.  So, the number of actual classes will be small, but the ability to build every single class that has pre-existed will be huge and rich.

As for trading damage for other powers, trading your dps for something else doesn't make you a weaker character necessarily.  Adventurers needs many abilities to complete an adventure, not just dps.  Having the right other power makes you more powerful even at the cost of reduced dps.


----------



## Augoeides

> In previous editions the assassin was really a sort of specialized rogue,



In Dark Sun, the Assassin and Bard merged.  This is where the Assassin should be.  He kills through subterfuge (poison, death strike, etc.) which requires social skills and knowledge.


----------



## Thorkull

Wormwood said:


> I am really seeing a lot of respect for EVERY edition here. It looks like there is something to appeal to just about everyone here.
> 
> The class section itself is going to be a thing of beauty.




Or a nightmare...


----------



## stoloc

Evilusion said:


> Well so far everything that has been posted about 5e has turned me off. It just seems they want to revamp 4e rules (which I dislike) and fit everything else they like from other editions into 5e.
> 
> I guess it will be a wait and see until I can see the actual rules before making my final judgement.





Strangely I have just the opposite reaction - it seems that they are bringing in concepts from previous editions that I had hoped had been staked and decapitated.

Much prefer Vancian casting godcasters would be finally laid to rest but maybe they will have found a decent way to balance them against noncasters.


----------

