| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Brimstone |
Posted - 27 Sep 2021 : 05:54:41
"The Future of D&D" (New Core Books in 2024!)
5.5? |
| 24 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 30 Sep 2021 : 00:18:57
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Did these extras come out with new books outside of the PH or something, because looking at the PH, there's 4 choices?
Oh yeah, they're the total amount of spells at that level for the Wizard released in the PHB, Arcane Power, and a few other places including bringing in Conjuratiins and Summoning spells.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Think again. I freely admit some of their concepts were well done (rituals, their ideas for fleshing out some of the planes, etc...), but having everything so cookie cutter sucked, and we're starting to see that a lot with more with 5e that "you can't break from X mold".
I get, to a degree, the "cookie cutter" concept in regards to 4th Edition. Each class having nearly the same amount of resources (AEDU) certainly gave that appearance, and because many originally in the PHB were variations of attacks with varying effects, the impression - at least on the surface - was that each one is too same-y and thus, too little differences. Yet in actual practice and application, each class was significantly different in what they accomplished and how you got there. Even with the same class, the variation were pretty drastic. An Elven Fighter would prioritize Dex, specific weapons, specific feats, and exploits and would have a more mobile, multi-attacking concept than say...a Dwarf Fighter who prioritized a hearty defensive front, never budging and utilizing Con for other elements.
As for 5E, with multiclass taking cues from 3rd Edition (level-by-level), and how each class has their own resource mechanisms and styles I don't get how much "cookie cutter" it can be? I think the Fighter alone is up to almost dozen Archtypes: 3 from the PHB, 1 from SCAG, 3 from Xanathars, a few from Tasha's, I think a few from the other setting books too. Then take into account how Feats are generally worth the ASI bump and often applicable to most characters. I'm not sure I'm seeing it there.
The 5e stuff that I'm starting to see is hard to quantify, but let's say wizard arcane traditions as an example.... at some level there will always be X type ability. If you see someone breaking that mold and giving 2 abilities of maybe lesser worth or giving a lesser ability 2 levels earlier and then later some better ability at the "correct" level, someone would scold them for not following "the pattern".
I mean, patterns are a D&D staple. Look at 3.5, would it be ok to break the mold and give Wizards the Cleric Base Attack Bonus, even at a slight casting cost? What about getting Whirlwind Attack at 1st or 2nd level? Ultimately, one has to accept these formulas as a way to have some sense of balance.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Basically, I find that the game improves when people break these patterns for how things are supposed to work. Usually not right away mind you, and usually the first iteration is overpowered. A lot of times, its not until the next edition that it gets fixed even (for instance, I find the current warlock a lot more balanced than the 3.5 version, but I give them props for breaking the tradition).
The current Warlock mostly draws from the 4th Edition lore and concepts of Pacts (4e had the Dark, Fey, Infernal, Star pacts) with Eldritch Blast being their main go-to. Though the 3.5 version is really bad, so I guess anything would've been an improvement 
Just going to respond as one, as it get mixed up
the idea of patterns and comparing the wizard and cleric BAB's etc.... you forget that in 3.5e there were a ton of variations. Prestige classes didn't always follow a set pattern for "its a spellcaster so it should have wizard BAB". They did it a LOT mind you, but there were those that broke these patterns. I actually wouldn't have minded if they HAD broken that up for things like saves where it was always 2 good and 1 bad OR 2 bad and 1 good. Why not 3 mediocre because you were just as good at all of them and not exceptional with any.
The BIG change I see to warlock mechanics in 5e is the idea of how they store their spells. It's almost like abilities as encounter abilities, except its based on short rests.... so if you don't rest, they don't renew. Yet, they get the ability to cast whatever they know renewed for a couple shots after a short rest... but only a couple shots. So, as a DM, if I wanted to make life hard for a warlock, don't let him rest. If I wanted the warlock to be especially useful, maybe they can't rest. I know some people would hate this, but I find it interesting at least. It can also prove interesting from a multi-class perspective. Is it perfect? No, but its testing ideas. |
| CorellonsDevout |
Posted - 29 Sep 2021 : 23:55:19
Considering things seem to change with every new product, I'm wondering if 5.5 will at least...streamline some of it, but I'm not holding my breath. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 29 Sep 2021 : 23:54:37
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Did these extras come out with new books outside of the PH or something, because looking at the PH, there's 4 choices?
Oh yeah, they're the total amount of spells at that level for the Wizard released in the PHB, Arcane Power, and a few other places including bringing in Conjuratiins and Summoning spells.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Think again. I freely admit some of their concepts were well done (rituals, their ideas for fleshing out some of the planes, etc...), but having everything so cookie cutter sucked, and we're starting to see that a lot with more with 5e that "you can't break from X mold".
I get, to a degree, the "cookie cutter" concept in regards to 4th Edition. Each class having nearly the same amount of resources (AEDU) certainly gave that appearance, and because many originally in the PHB were variations of attacks with varying effects, the impression - at least on the surface - was that each one is too same-y and thus, too little differences. Yet in actual practice and application, each class was significantly different in what they accomplished and how you got there. Even with the same class, the variation were pretty drastic. An Elven Fighter would prioritize Dex, specific weapons, specific feats, and exploits and would have a more mobile, multi-attacking concept than say...a Dwarf Fighter who prioritized a hearty defensive front, never budging and utilizing Con for other elements.
As for 5E, with multiclass taking cues from 3rd Edition (level-by-level), and how each class has their own resource mechanisms and styles I don't get how much "cookie cutter" it can be? I think the Fighter alone is up to almost dozen Archtypes: 3 from the PHB, 1 from SCAG, 3 from Xanathars, a few from Tasha's, I think a few from the other setting books too. Then take into account how Feats are generally worth the ASI bump and often applicable to most characters. I'm not sure I'm seeing it there.
The 5e stuff that I'm starting to see is hard to quantify, but let's say wizard arcane traditions as an example.... at some level there will always be X type ability. If you see someone breaking that mold and giving 2 abilities of maybe lesser worth or giving a lesser ability 2 levels earlier and then later some better ability at the "correct" level, someone would scold them for not following "the pattern".
I mean, patterns are a D&D staple. Look at 3.5, would it be ok to break the mold and give Wizards the Cleric Base Attack Bonus, even at a slight casting cost? What about getting Whirlwind Attack at 1st or 2nd level? Ultimately, one has to accept these formulas as a way to have some sense of balance.
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Basically, I find that the game improves when people break these patterns for how things are supposed to work. Usually not right away mind you, and usually the first iteration is overpowered. A lot of times, its not until the next edition that it gets fixed even (for instance, I find the current warlock a lot more balanced than the 3.5 version, but I give them props for breaking the tradition).
The current Warlock mostly draws from the 4th Edition lore and concepts of Pacts (4e had the Dark, Fey, Infernal, Star pacts) with Eldritch Blast being their main go-to. Though the 3.5 version is really bad, so I guess anything would've been an improvement |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 29 Sep 2021 : 23:41:57
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Think again. I freely admit some of their concepts were well done (rituals, their ideas for fleshing out some of the planes, etc...), but having everything so cookie cutter sucked, and we're starting to see that a lot with more with 5e that "you can't break from X mold".
I get, to a degree, the "cookie cutter" concept in regards to 4th Edition. Each class having nearly the same amount of resources (AEDU) certainly gave that appearance, and because many originally in the PHB were variations of attacks with varying effects, the impression - at least on the surface - was that each one is too same-y and thus, too little differences. Yet in actual practice and application, each class was significantly different in what they accomplished and how you got there. Even with the same class, the variation were pretty drastic. An Elven Fighter would prioritize Dex, specific weapons, specific feats, and exploits and would have a more mobile, multi-attacking concept than say...a Dwarf Fighter who prioritized a hearty defensive front, never budging and utilizing Con for other elements.
As for 5E, with multiclass taking cues from 3rd Edition (level-by-level), and how each class has their own resource mechanisms and styles I don't get how much "cookie cutter" it can be? I think the Fighter alone is up to almost dozen Archtypes: 3 from the PHB, 1 from SCAG, 3 from Xanathars, a few from Tasha's, I think a few from the other setting books too. Then take into account how Feats are generally worth the ASI bump and often applicable to most characters. I'm not sure I'm seeing it there.
The 5e stuff that I'm starting to see is hard to quantify, but let's say wizard arcane traditions as an example.... at some level there will always be X type ability. If you see someone breaking that mold and giving 2 abilities of maybe lesser worth or giving a lesser ability 2 levels earlier and then later some better ability at the "correct" level, someone would scold them for not following "the pattern".
Basically, I find that the game improves when people break these patterns for how things are supposed to work. Usually not right away mind you, and usually the first iteration is overpowered. A lot of times, its not until the next edition that it gets fixed even (for instance, I find the current warlock a lot more balanced than the 3.5 version, but I give them props for breaking the tradition). |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 29 Sep 2021 : 23:34:51
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
The rules to fireball weren't necessarily what sucked, it was the "pick which spell you're going to have and you only have like 4 to choose from".
I can only surmise that you mean the spell availability was limited in terms of usage, and not in the selection thereof. For example, yes you get only one usage of a 1st level Wizard Daily Spell but you can choose from 21 different spells at that level AND Wizards specifically can add those options to their book for a more diverse selection.
This limited use was done to help combat the Martial/Caster Disparity, which looking at other editions can be seen as extreme. Yet another reason why I'm thoroughly enjoying 13th Age, the Wizard gets 5 spell slots at 1st level and he can choose his choice of daily, once-per battle, and at-will spells.
Kind of, I would be given a choice of 4 spells at level 5 (bigby's icy grasp, fireball, stinking cloud, or web)... no other option... has to be an attack spell and from amongst those.
There's 20 different spells at 5th level to choose from. Yeah, they're attack spells but there's not a lack of them. And I allow my players the option of memorizing lower level spells in higher level slots, so if you want 2 Fireballs, that's easily arranged.
Did these extras come out with new books outside of the PH or something, because looking at the PH, there's 4 choices? |
| Diffan |
Posted - 29 Sep 2021 : 19:14:43
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
Think again. I freely admit some of their concepts were well done (rituals, their ideas for fleshing out some of the planes, etc...), but having everything so cookie cutter sucked, and we're starting to see that a lot with more with 5e that "you can't break from X mold".
I get, to a degree, the "cookie cutter" concept in regards to 4th Edition. Each class having nearly the same amount of resources (AEDU) certainly gave that appearance, and because many originally in the PHB were variations of attacks with varying effects, the impression - at least on the surface - was that each one is too same-y and thus, too little differences. Yet in actual practice and application, each class was significantly different in what they accomplished and how you got there. Even with the same class, the variation were pretty drastic. An Elven Fighter would prioritize Dex, specific weapons, specific feats, and exploits and would have a more mobile, multi-attacking concept than say...a Dwarf Fighter who prioritized a hearty defensive front, never budging and utilizing Con for other elements.
As for 5E, with multiclass taking cues from 3rd Edition (level-by-level), and how each class has their own resource mechanisms and styles I don't get how much "cookie cutter" it can be? I think the Fighter alone is up to almost dozen Archtypes: 3 from the PHB, 1 from SCAG, 3 from Xanathars, a few from Tasha's, I think a few from the other setting books too. Then take into account how Feats are generally worth the ASI bump and often applicable to most characters. I'm not sure I'm seeing it there. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 29 Sep 2021 : 17:54:40
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
The rules to fireball weren't necessarily what sucked, it was the "pick which spell you're going to have and you only have like 4 to choose from".
I can only surmise that you mean the spell availability was limited in terms of usage, and not in the selection thereof. For example, yes you get only one usage of a 1st level Wizard Daily Spell but you can choose from 21 different spells at that level AND Wizards specifically can add those options to their book for a more diverse selection.
This limited use was done to help combat the Martial/Caster Disparity, which looking at other editions can be seen as extreme. Yet another reason why I'm thoroughly enjoying 13th Age, the Wizard gets 5 spell slots at 1st level and he can choose his choice of daily, once-per battle, and at-will spells.
Kind of, I would be given a choice of 4 spells at level 5 (bigby's icy grasp, fireball, stinking cloud, or web)... no other option... has to be an attack spell and from amongst those.
There's 20 different spells at 5th level to choose from. Yeah, they're attack spells but there's not a lack of them. And I allow my players the option of memorizing lower level spells in higher level slots, so if you want 2 Fireballs, that's easily arranged. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 29 Sep 2021 : 16:38:22
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
The rules to fireball weren't necessarily what sucked, it was the "pick which spell you're going to have and you only have like 4 to choose from".
I can only surmise that you mean the spell availability was limited in terms of usage, and not in the selection thereof. For example, yes you get only one usage of a 1st level Wizard Daily Spell but you can choose from 21 different spells at that level AND Wizards specifically can add those options to their book for a more diverse selection.
This limited use was done to help combat the Martial/Caster Disparity, which looking at other editions can be seen as extreme. Yet another reason why I'm thoroughly enjoying 13th Age, the Wizard gets 5 spell slots at 1st level and he can choose his choice of daily, once-per battle, and at-will spells.
Kind of, I would be given a choice of 4 spells at level 5 (bigby's icy grasp, fireball, stinking cloud, or web)... no other option... has to be an attack spell and from amongst those. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 29 Sep 2021 : 14:11:54
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
The rules to fireball weren't necessarily what sucked, it was the "pick which spell you're going to have and you only have like 4 to choose from".
I can only surmise that you mean the spell availability was limited in terms of usage, and not in the selection thereof. For example, yes you get only one usage of a 1st level Wizard Daily Spell but you can choose from 21 different spells at that level AND Wizards specifically can add those options to their book for a more diverse selection.
This limited use was done to help combat the Martial/Caster Disparity, which looking at other editions can be seen as extreme. Yet another reason why I'm thoroughly enjoying 13th Age, the Wizard gets 5 spell slots at 1st level and he can choose his choice of daily, once-per battle, and at-will spells. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 29 Sep 2021 : 12:40:36
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
Yeah, but they had to sneak them in, and it lead to unideal implementations at times and cool stuff getting left out. They no longer have to worry about that, 4e hate has died down to a memory.
I wouldn't say "sneak", just simply used longer winded words and removed "Boxes" that gave them a very gamist appearance.
For example, 4E COULD have ditched the nice "Spell Box" template for a more simplistic form and made it look like this
Fighter Exploit
Cleave [Martial, Weapon]. With a great swing, you smash your weapon into your opponent and the momentum carries into his ally. When you hit a creature with an attack, deal 1(W) + your Strength modifier damage, and an adjacent enemy takes damage equal to your Strength modifier. At 21st level, this increases to 2(W).
This does what the 4E At-Will does, to a "T", but looks like a legitimate 5E Maneuver simply because it uses this style. Spells (that is, powers use Implements and not weapons or at least some weapons) would look like this
Fireball
Arcane, Fire, Implement
5th-level Daily Wizard Evocation
Action: Standard
Range: 100-ft.
A globe of orange flame coalesces in your hand. You hurl it at your enemies, and it explodes on impact. Make an Intelligence vs. Reflex attack against each creature in a 20-ft burst. The fireball deals 3d6 + Intelligence modifier fire damage, and half on a miss.
Again, uses the same 5E format for the most part, uses 4E Mechanics.
The rules to fireball weren't necessarily what sucked, it was the "pick which spell you're going to have and you only have like 4 to choose from". |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 29 Sep 2021 : 12:36:34
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Very true. We have real-world "maneuvers" and strikes and combat forms that can easily be used to draw inspiration from. I don't know whey they never did, aside from some of the in the Tome of Battle for 3.5 and some Exploits in 4E. I think maybe they were afraid of what that would look like in terms of visuals in the book and they didn't want anything to "look" like 4E-isms.
I just read in another forum something similar, lol. That we’ll finally get the 5e they wanted to make originally, before playtesters told them to remove or hide everything that smelled vaguely of 4e.
Which is funny considering actually how much 4E mechanics was put into 5th Edition.
Yeah, but they had to sneak them in, and it lead to unideal implementations at times and cool stuff getting left out. They no longer have to worry about that, 4e hate has died down to a memory.
Think again. I freely admit some of their concepts were well done (rituals, their ideas for fleshing out some of the planes, etc...), but having everything so cookie cutter sucked, and we're starting to see that a lot with more with 5e that "you can't break from X mold". |
| Diffan |
Posted - 29 Sep 2021 : 02:54:57
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
Yeah, but they had to sneak them in, and it lead to unideal implementations at times and cool stuff getting left out. They no longer have to worry about that, 4e hate has died down to a memory.
I wouldn't say "sneak", just simply used longer winded words and removed "Boxes" that gave them a very gamist appearance.
For example, 4E COULD have ditched the nice "Spell Box" template for a more simplistic form and made it look like this
Fighter Exploit
Cleave [Martial, Weapon]. With a great swing, you smash your weapon into your opponent and the momentum carries into his ally. When you hit a creature with an attack, deal 1(W) + your Strength modifier damage, and an adjacent enemy takes damage equal to your Strength modifier. At 21st level, this increases to 2(W).
This does what the 4E At-Will does, to a "T", but looks like a legitimate 5E Maneuver simply because it uses this style. Spells (that is, powers use Implements and not weapons or at least some weapons) would look like this
Fireball
Arcane, Fire, Implement
5th-level Daily Wizard Evocation
Action: Standard
Range: 100-ft.
A globe of orange flame coalesces in your hand. You hurl it at your enemies, and it explodes on impact. Make an Intelligence vs. Reflex attack against each creature in a 20-ft burst. The fireball deals 3d6 + Intelligence modifier fire damage, and half on a miss.
Again, uses the same 5E format for the most part, uses 4E Mechanics.
|
| Gyor |
Posted - 29 Sep 2021 : 01:36:44
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Very true. We have real-world "maneuvers" and strikes and combat forms that can easily be used to draw inspiration from. I don't know whey they never did, aside from some of the in the Tome of Battle for 3.5 and some Exploits in 4E. I think maybe they were afraid of what that would look like in terms of visuals in the book and they didn't want anything to "look" like 4E-isms.
I just read in another forum something similar, lol. That we’ll finally get the 5e they wanted to make originally, before playtesters told them to remove or hide everything that smelled vaguely of 4e.
Which is funny considering actually how much 4E mechanics was put into 5th Edition.
Yeah, but they had to sneak them in, and it lead to unideal implementations at times and cool stuff getting left out. They no longer have to worry about that, 4e hate has died down to a memory. |
| Gyor |
Posted - 29 Sep 2021 : 01:34:14
quote:
Originally posted by HighOne
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly RupertCorrect me if I'm wrong... But wouldn't such things add complexity and math to combat? I was under the impression that part of the 5E design mandate was to streamline such things.
5E doesn't have a consistent vision anymore. It was very streamlined and elegant to begin with, but a lot of what was added after 2014 either didn't fit the original design or introduced blatant power-creep. Many of the races and subclasses introduced in various supplements, for example, are just linearly better than the options in the PHB. That's why Wizards is making a 5.5E now: the cracks are starting to show. Unfortunately, the same people who created 5E's problems are now working on the supposed solution, which is why I am not hopeful.
One of the problems of 5e is falls victim to its own simple elegance, which leads to folks getting bored by the lack of complexity and personalization options. I've heard folks complain that members of the same subclass feel very same-y. |
| Gyor |
Posted - 29 Sep 2021 : 01:31:03
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Very true. We have real-world "maneuvers" and strikes and combat forms that can easily be used to draw inspiration from. I don't know whey they never did, aside from some of the in the Tome of Battle for 3.5 and some Exploits in 4E. I think maybe they were afraid of what that would look like in terms of visuals in the book and they didn't want anything to "look" like 4E-isms.
I just read in another forum something similar, lol. That we’ll finally get the 5e they wanted to make originally, before playtesters told them to remove or hide everything that smelled vaguely of 4e.
Alot of backlash against 4e that the heavy handedness and extreme changes it made have lighten greatly, and all the new fans never experienced that, so the barrier to including more of the better, more compatible 4e elements is possible, especially since those most opposed to this likely moved to the OSR already.
And not just 4e elements either, but I could see feats being separated from ASI which I never liked having to choose between, but was the rule to placate the 1e fans, which they no longer care about because those folks moved onto the OSR and where replaced by young fans that don't object to feats.
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 28 Sep 2021 : 05:41:00
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Very true. We have real-world "maneuvers" and strikes and combat forms that can easily be used to draw inspiration from. I don't know whey they never did, aside from some of the in the Tome of Battle for 3.5 and some Exploits in 4E. I think maybe they were afraid of what that would look like in terms of visuals in the book and they didn't want anything to "look" like 4E-isms.
I just read in another forum something similar, lol. That we’ll finally get the 5e they wanted to make originally, before playtesters told them to remove or hide everything that smelled vaguely of 4e.
Which is funny considering actually how much 4E mechanics was put into 5th Edition. |
| HighOne |
Posted - 28 Sep 2021 : 04:21:53
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly RupertCorrect me if I'm wrong... But wouldn't such things add complexity and math to combat? I was under the impression that part of the 5E design mandate was to streamline such things.
5E doesn't have a consistent vision anymore. It was very streamlined and elegant to begin with, but a lot of what was added after 2014 either didn't fit the original design or introduced blatant power-creep. Many of the races and subclasses introduced in various supplements, for example, are just linearly better than the options in the PHB. That's why Wizards is making a 5.5E now: the cracks are starting to show. Unfortunately, the same people who created 5E's problems are now working on the supposed solution, which is why I am not hopeful. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 28 Sep 2021 : 03:27:45
quote:
Originally posted by Zeromaru X
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Very true. We have real-world "maneuvers" and strikes and combat forms that can easily be used to draw inspiration from. I don't know whey they never did, aside from some of the in the Tome of Battle for 3.5 and some Exploits in 4E. I think maybe they were afraid of what that would look like in terms of visuals in the book and they didn't want anything to "look" like 4E-isms.
I just read in another forum something similar, lol. That we’ll finally get the 5e they wanted to make originally, before playtesters told them to remove or hide everything that smelled vaguely of 4e.
Correct me if I'm wrong... But wouldn't such things add complexity and math to combat? I was under the impression that part of the 5E design mandate was to streamline such things. |
| Zeromaru X |
Posted - 28 Sep 2021 : 01:07:17
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
Very true. We have real-world "maneuvers" and strikes and combat forms that can easily be used to draw inspiration from. I don't know whey they never did, aside from some of the in the Tome of Battle for 3.5 and some Exploits in 4E. I think maybe they were afraid of what that would look like in terms of visuals in the book and they didn't want anything to "look" like 4E-isms.
I just read in another forum something similar, lol. That we’ll finally get the 5e they wanted to make originally, before playtesters told them to remove or hide everything that smelled vaguely of 4e. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 28 Sep 2021 : 00:41:39
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
• Have more Maneuvers, Maneuvers that scale, or a way to spend Hit Die to increase the power of existing Maneuvers (spend HD, add roll to maneuver).
I don't use D&D, so I don't really have a horse in this race. However, when I read the 5e rules, one of the things that stuck with me is that sometimes they seem to try really hard to suck the fun out of a class (or enemies, for that matter). Like, even if they wanted to keep the battlemaster (or however that subclass is called) "realistic", they have plenty of real weapon martial arts traditions to draw inspiration from, and come up with maneuvers that are more exciting to use than "you try to trip your opponent". They could even create fighting styles that actually feel like styles, and not just "+2 damage lol". I mean, wasn't the champion created for the people who want a more streamlined fighter? They could have squeezed a bit more creativity in the other subclasses, and give them cool mechanics.
Very true. We have real-world "maneuvers" and strikes and combat forms that can easily be used to draw inspiration from. I don't know whey they never did, aside from some of the in the Tome of Battle for 3.5 and some Exploits in 4E. I think maybe they were afraid of what that would look like in terms of visuals in the book and they didn't want anything to "look" like 4E-isms.
It's mostly why I've been reading and buying more 13th Age now and why I'm probably going to convert campaign ideas (like my Moonsea/Phlan and Cormyr campaigns) to that System. I feel it just does things better. I probably won't be buying the "new" stuff that comes out in 2024. |
| Irennan |
Posted - 28 Sep 2021 : 00:15:52
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
• Have more Maneuvers, Maneuvers that scale, or a way to spend Hit Die to increase the power of existing Maneuvers (spend HD, add roll to maneuver).
I don't use D&D, so I don't really have a horse in this race. However, when I read the 5e rules, one of the things that stuck with me is that sometimes they seem to try really hard to suck the fun out of a class (or enemies, for that matter). Like, even if they wanted to keep the battlemaster (or however that subclass is called) "realistic", they have plenty of real weapon martial arts traditions to draw inspiration from, and come up with maneuvers that are more exciting to use than "you try to trip your opponent". They could even create fighting styles that actually feel like styles, and not just "+2 damage lol". I mean, wasn't the champion created for the people who want a more streamlined fighter? They could have squeezed a bit more creativity in the other subclasses, and give them cool mechanics. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 27 Sep 2021 : 22:32:21
I, personally, am going to refrain from opining or speculating until there's more information.
I've not played the 5E ruleset, so I can't say what I would or wouldn't change (no aversion to it; just haven't been with a group that was playing it. I have the books).
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 27 Sep 2021 : 22:27:37
Hard to say what this is going to incorporate. It might be a re-vamp or consolidation of all their current information that is spread over a half-dozen supplements that was originally done to fulfill that dreadful concept of PHB +1 Rule that Adventure League had to use. But then, a lot of that stuff was Setting Specific and tailored to specific areas for specific reasons. "
For one, I don't think it'll be what we saw with 3.0 to 3.5, because despite what they said that was certainly NOT backwards compatible and not to mention basically an overhaul of some major systemic issues (aside from what we got as an end product with 3.5). SO I doubt it'll be that dismissive of previous Material. It could be rules clarification in the PHB, the "fixed" Ranger class and Beast Master archtypes, maybe added things like what we saw in Strixhaven.
For myself, I can only speculate but I'd love to see some of these things implemented:
• Make the Ranger not suck?
• Have more Maneuvers, Maneuvers that scale, or a way to spend Hit Die to increase the power of existing Maneuvers (spend HD, add roll to maneuver).
• Utilize Advantage/Disadvantage with Weapon damage rolls to showcase different materials or styles (a fine Elven blade deals 2d8, roll both and take the better roll; a rusty blade deals 2d8, roll both and take the lesser roll). Things like this make weapons feel different without adding a TON of additional rules to the game. Also, bring back High Critical weapons (expanding Threat Range or adding another die on Crits like 4E did).
• Better magic item delivery/implementation system than "figure it out yourself."
• Prestige Class / Paragon Path concepts that over take existing Archtypes or expand your class horizontally (more versatility than power). This sort of looks like the Organization Rules from 3rd Edition, that your dedication to your faction or organization's goals rewards that play with certain Boons.
• Epic Level Rules. Currently it Ends at level 20. That's it. Despite the clunkiness of Epic play with revised 3rd Edition and 4th Edition, the concepts were still there and should be in with 5E. How that looks, well I can only guess but maybe stretching the numbers a bit more or expanding on Class Features or adding Epic Spell RUles that aren't convoluted train-wrecks that we got with 3.5. But at least something beyond 20. |
| HighOne |
Posted - 27 Sep 2021 : 22:07:03
The thought of the current team revising 5E fills me with dread. They have only made 5E worse over the course of its run. I have no interest in seeing their "improvements" when all their other improvements have been god-awful. |
|
|
