Seminar Transcript - Class Design: From Assassins to Wizards

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Kamikaze Midget said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Plane Sailing said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

I'll stick with 3.5/PF for now.

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."

Click to expand...

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.

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

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?

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.

Click to expand...

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...

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...

Click to expand...

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