This Week in D&D

Wizards of the Coast · Oct 15, 2012

As we approach another playtest packet release, Mike takes a closer look at classes, backgrounds, and specialties. See what weâ??ve been working on and how weâ??re implementing your feedback!

Read This Week in D&D on D&D Insider here!

gweinel · Oct 15, 2012

I a bit worried on where the game goes and this L&L didn't reassured me.

There are some things that i liked, some that i didn't and some things that i have to wait and see how they are implemented.

The thing that worries me most is that as the game goes is that my prefered style of game isn't gonna be supported. My prefered style is a low magic gritty game. Having already played the test this kind of game isn't supported. The feeling that i got when I played the game is of a super heroic game. All the things were too easy for them. The foes were easy, the skills were easy and the healing was too much and not "realistic" (for my fantasy standards ofc). The magic traditions also as they are gonna be, but probably they will be useless to me. Mearls has previously said that old styled vancian sytstem is gonna supported with the traditions but after this L&L i am wondering how it will come since having encounter and at will spells will not make the magic feel more unique for my game. [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] in a previous post had presented perfect the feeling of the magic that i like link

The funny thing is one of my best things that i liked in the playtest, the sorceror (along with warlock), is gonna change dramaticaly. I don't know if it will be for good or for bad but if they take from you an element that you like then you get pissed of.

Turning to the positive things of the article, i like the mentioned changes of cleric although i hadn't any problem with the class in the playtest. Also i am glad that they decided to remove the autosuccess of the rogue.

I noted that a constant complain of my gaming group isn't adressed. They wanted to be able to get more skills as they level up. Mearls did not say a word about that.

Although I like many things of the 5e like backgrounds and specialties the game as it stands now doesn't support my style. 3e did better job on that although it is far from a perfect system.
I am waiting...

Magil · Oct 15, 2012

I'm a bit alarmed by the concept of a "simpler" fighter. Is the current fighter not "simple" enough? I for one have been playing one in a playtest for a while now and I find the experience somewhat mind-numbing. I stand in one place and hit stuff with my weapon... wow... really engaging.

I wonder if there's any point in holding out hope for a "more complex" fighter.

GX.Sigma · Oct 15, 2012

Magil said:
Is the current fighter not "simple" enough?

Nope. Glancing Blow almost got there, but since Glancing Blow is broken, we need to find another way. The spellcasting classes could be a little simpler too, but hopefully the modular magic system will solve that.

Making things simple takes a lot more work than making them complicated, and I'm glad they're doing the one before the other.

Raith5 · Oct 15, 2012

Magil said:
I'm a bit alarmed by the concept of a "simpler" fighter. Is the current fighter not "simple" enough? I for one have been playing one in a playtest for a while now and I find the experience somewhat mind-numbing. I stand in one place and hit stuff with my weapon... wow... really engaging.

I wonder if there's any point in holding out hope for a "more complex" fighter.

I thought the same thing, but obviously there is a market for the even more basic fighter. If you take away expertise dice you have a pretty basic fighter, maybe add a rider for extra damage or something. But I am not sure that the expertise dice wholly substitutes for a more complex fighter visa vi a 4th ed fighter.

Magil · Oct 15, 2012

GX.Sigma said:
Nope. Glancing Blow almost got there, but since Glancing Blow is broken, we need to find another way. The spellcasting classes could be a little simpler too, but hopefully the modular magic system will solve that.

Making things simple takes a lot more work than making them complicated, and I'm glad they're doing the one before the other.

I don't really understand this post. What about Glancing Blow, in particular, has to do with the fighter class as being "simple" or "complex?"

Connorsrpg · Oct 15, 2012

Changes to the BG,s Specialties and especially Skills is certainly in the direction I like.

Class stuff, well we will have to wait and see. Myself, I would prefer each class had their own casting system AND THEN you can swap it out for another if you wish, (but I can also get on board the GM (often along with players) aligning casting styles with classes). Just not liking the 'grab bag' idea at this stage.

One thing I really wanted was toning back the 1st level PCs. Attack bonuses should be at max +2/+1/+0 for Fighters/Clerics and Rogues/Wizards. It still really bothers me Wizards are far better melee and ranged fighters than most creatures that fight for a living.

I will be glad to see the removal of all auto powers.

GX.Sigma · Oct 15, 2012

Magil said:
I don't really understand this post. What about Glancing Blow, in particular, has to do with the fighter class as being "simple" or "complex?"

If Glancing Blow just deals damage on a miss, then you can have a fighter that doesn't need to worry about expertise dice at all: you deal [w] + str + XD on a hit, and XD on a miss. No thinking required. But since Glancing Blow is problematic for a lot of reasons, we need a different solution for the simple fighter.

UngeheuerLich · Oct 15, 2012

Connorsrpg said:
One thing I really wanted was toning back the 1st level PCs. Attack bonuses should be at max +2/+1/+0 for Fighters/Clerics and Rogues/Wizards. It still really bothers me Wizards are far better melee and ranged fighters than most creatures that fight for a living.

I will be glad to see the removal of all auto powers.

Yes, you are right, wizards need their weapon bonus reduced to +0 at level 1.

However I am not really sure, if I really want first level PCs be weaker than they are currently.

However, I´d like to see how multiclass works, and I would like to see "adept" leveles (which you may take when you multiclass, but also could be taken before level 1)