Seminar Transcript - Class Design: From Assassins to Wizards

gourdcaptain · Jan 27, 2012

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 · Jan 27, 2012

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 · Jan 27, 2012

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 · Jan 27, 2012

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 · Jan 27, 2012

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 · Jan 27, 2012

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 · Jan 27, 2012

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 :rant:

.

FitzTheRuke · Jan 27, 2012

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 · Jan 27, 2012

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 · Jan 27, 2012

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.

Seminar Transcript - Class Design: From Assassins to Wizards

gourdcaptain

First Post

Grazzt

Demon Lord

Argyle King

Legend

Windjammer

Adventurer

Tortoise

First Post

FitzTheRuke

Legend

marune

First Post

FitzTheRuke

Legend

Kurtomatic

First Post

Nivenus

First Post

Similar Threads