D&D 5E WotC Developer Google Hangout on Youtube

I didn't see this listed yet, but the WotC hangout is up on Youtube already.
I'm still listening so, I may update with my thoughts.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQrUZJICAlE&feature=plcp[/ame]

Rolling random thoughts:

• I kind of like the idea of using "expertise dice" for non-combat stuff, though I wonder if this will lead to "spamming" certain abilities. If a fighter is never deprived of his ability to intimidate, will he just keep growling at everyone? It's just something to keep an eye on.
• I don't need the rogue to be "as good" as the fighter, and I don't want, when playing a rogue, to have to pay a lot of attention to a lot of moving bits in combat. Give me a rogue that works like the original playtest fighter (ie: backstab, and not much else) and I'm happy. I need the ability, as they're talking with the fighter, to turn off those options. It sounds like it won't be a real problem, which is cool.
• Dead levels are derp. Of COURSE those things are incomplete. On the other hoof, high-level complexity is a real problem, and "power swaps" are an awkward way to handle that. I'd rather have a low-level ability scale than have to switch what I have known for X levels into something else random.
• I'm a fan of limited spells (for Wizards). I do also adore the idea of changing a big chunk of spells to free rituals, or giving them ritual options. It's basically a "cast it from a spellbook" option. I'm in, at least for wizards. I'm not so sure that non-wizards should have that option, but I like it as an option for wizards. Still want an option to drop at-will spells, but now that I'm wearing my thinkin' cap, it shouldn't be too hard.
• I lurv the idea of expertise-dice gishes, and I'm chuffed to see that at least one internal version of the cleric has recognized that the cleric is the original d&D gish.
• I can hypothetically accept the assassin as a sub-division of rogue, as long as it comes with what I expect, and not with extra baggage. I think it could happen, because the rogue is a lot bigger than the AD&D thief was, and that's fine.
• I can accept that non-magical healing is an option they want to support, and I like that they're thinking that "CLW, but not magical" isn't what they want for non-magical healing. Warlords absolutely fall into a weird place where they exist more as rules constructs than as fictional archetypes, since their archetype overlaps with fighters. I think it's interesting to see that they noted the bard/warlord overlap, and I think there's some rich ground to explore there.
• Prefer the bard as a combo trickster/healer/warrior/multiball/gishthing. They don't need to be pigeonholed into "trickster" archetype anymore than rogues need to be pigeonholed into "thief" archetype.
• Jimminy christmas, Mearls sounds like he doesn't like attrition. "Oh, everyone gets half HP." Ew (IMO). I think they're healing conversation focused a bit too much on mortality and not enough on pacing, which I think is the heart of the problem.
• I keep thinking that if skills in NEXT become feats...or "proficiencies" (a la 2e's NWPs) this cognitive dissonance will dissipate. Areas of focused expertise where you get a narrow bonus have been the province of feats in 3e and 4e! Add them to specialties and classes and call it good!

Kamikaze Midget said:

[*] I can accept that non-magical healing is an option they want to support, and I like that they're thinking that "CLW, but not magical" isn't what they want for non-magical healing.

Click to expand...

You really need immediate damage prevention instead of post-facto healing. Protect for the Fighter works on that. The Warlord should be able to do it at range by yelling at you to duck, adjust your stance, or look out.

Warlords absolutely fall into a weird place where they exist more as rules constructs than as fictional archetypes, since their archetype overlaps with fighters.

Click to expand...

They actually are a core fictional archetype very early in literature. Most of the characters that shine in the Iliad are Warlords. They aren't handling logistics. They are giving speeches, leading battle lines from the front, and basically functioning as squad leaders and living army banners. Patroklos, Agememnon, Menelaus, Hector, and Odysseus come to mind. Yes, they were excellent in personal combat, but their huge impact was on the troops around them as leaders - as opposed to Diomedes, the frenzied killer or Ajax, the giant tank of the Greeks, or even Achilles, the ultimate warrior.

There's a blurry line between "incidentally inspiring due to being a badass," and "amazing leader who happens to also be a badass." They probably both fall under or near the Fighter, though.

I think it's interesting to see that they noted the bard/warlord overlap, and I think there's some rich ground to explore there.

Click to expand...

It's too much to hope that this might liberate the bard from the image of a weakling fop wearing hose, pointy shoes, and a feather-cap prancing around with his mandolin - isn't it?

Seriously, Robin's Minstrels are not player characters.

[*] Prefer the bard as a combo trickster/healer/warrior/multiball/gishthing. They don't need to be pigeonholed into "trickster" archetype anymore than rogues need to be pigeonholed into "thief" archetype.

Click to expand...

I think the core of the Bard (the Adventurer class) is that he is a powerful sage of story and song. The idea of the weak, foolish stage performer that somehow blunders his way through adventurers needs to die in a fire.

- Marty Lund

Interesting that Mearls is talking like Parry still comes as a default for the fighter. Maybe they brought it back as a freebie at first level in internal testing? I hope so.

I actually really dislike the solutions they're talking about for rogue damage - basically giving everyone deadly strike and then giving fighters and rogues more other options to make them unique. Hey, you know what was great? When expertise WAS what made fighters unique! And now they're going to make fighters special by giving them super extra double expertise dice just for parrying? Ugggh.

EDIT: Also, how does the free ritual idea NOT undercut all the "three pillars" stuff they've been talking about? So basically wizards can do pretty much anything (the example he used was mass invisibility) as long as they have five minutes to cast a ritual, but it's balanced because they only have a limited number of combat spell slots?

As I see more and more of these types of podcasts, videocasts, and convention panels with Mike and Jeremy... and every time making points in and around these playtest packets about having them be stronger or weaker or better or worse all on purpose... to help them zero in on what they are looking for for information...

...I can't help but be even more convinced that every person who comes onto ENWorld after each packet complaining that that WotC has lost their way or doesn't know how to design a game or run a playtest... is someone who has absolutely no clue.

These guys are more self-aware of what they are doing and what they are giving us than any of us can even conceive.

Kamikaze Midget said:

Rolling random thoughts:

I kind of like the idea of using "expertise dice" for non-combat stuff, though I wonder if this will lead to "spamming" certain abilities. If a fighter is never deprived of his ability to intimidate, will he just keep growling at everyone? It's just something to keep an eye on.

Click to expand...

Well given that there's an entire segment of the community that has literally flipped out and raged if the fighter has ANY powers restricted on even an ENCOUNTER basis, nevermind a daily one, here we are. Either fighters can do cool things (at which point they can spam them) or they can't do cool things, at which point... hi 3E, wazzup?

[*] I'm a fan of limited spells (for Wizards). I do also adore the idea of changing a big chunk of spells to free rituals, or giving them ritual options. It's basically a "cast it from a spellbook" option. I'm in, at least for wizards. I'm not so sure that non-wizards should have that option, but I like it as an option for wizards. Still want an option to drop at-will spells, but now that I'm wearing my thinkin' cap, it shouldn't be too hard.

Click to expand...

If it's Wizard only then a Wizard in the party becomes practically mandatory.

We've been trying to move away from mandatory party comps, and a step backwards towards "Cleric/Druid + Wizard mandatory" is not a good thing.

[*] I can accept that non-magical healing is an option they want to support, and I like that they're thinking that "CLW, but not magical" isn't what they want for non-magical healing. Warlords absolutely fall into a weird place where they exist more as rules constructs than as fictional archetypes, since their archetype overlaps with fighters. I think it's interesting to see that they noted the bard/warlord overlap, and I think there's some rich ground to explore there.

Click to expand...

I've personally never understood the overlap between a traveling musician and storyteller who spreads history and epics, and a battlefield leader who directs the flow of combat.

[*] Prefer the bard as a combo trickster/healer/warrior/multiball/gishthing. They don't need to be pigeonholed into "trickster" archetype anymore than rogues need to be pigeonholed into "thief" archetype.

Click to expand...

In fact since most Bards historically put a high value on honor (traveling alone and trusting people to help you out at your destination kind of means that being a jerk isn't gonna get you far) I'd hate if they ever encouraged that archtype.

mlund said:

They actually are a core fictional archetype very early in literature. Most of the characters that shine in the Iliad are Warlords. They aren't handling logistics. They are giving speeches, leading battle lines from the front, and basically functioning as squad leaders and living army banners. Patroklos, Agememnon, Menelaus, Hector, and Odysseus come to mind. Yes, they were excellent in personal combat, but their huge impact was on the troops around them as leaders - as opposed to Diomedes, the frenzied killer or Ajax, the giant tank of the Greeks, or even Achilles, the ultimate warrior.

There's a blurry line between "incidentally inspiring due to being a badass," and "amazing leader who happens to also be a badass." They probably both fall under or near the Fighter, though.

Click to expand...

It's sort of a question of how big each Big Four class is.

Like I noted with the rogue, the rogue today encompasses a bigger catchment than the AD&D thief. There are spies and fast-talking swindlers, merchants and stabby death ninjae, acrobats and "light fighters," scouts and trapsmisths, dungeoneers and guttersnipes, even swashbucklers and nobles. That's fine, those are all things that people today expect out of the rogue, and so when we trot out the idea of making the Assassin a bundle of rogue options...well, it makes some sense, rogues aren't just thieves, they're a big swath of things.

The fighter has undergone a different shift, from being "the everything that fights" guy to being more specifically the "heavy armor melee combat" guy; they've narrowed over time. But to be the fighter that everyone expects them to be, they need to be broad, too, as broad as the rogue. They need (IMO) to encompass sword-and-board, two-weapon, two-handed, mobile dervish, light armor, bow-and-arrow, spears or axes, agile or plodding, leader or follower, champion or knight, tactician or brute. That has some overlap with the rogue territory, but ALSO overlaps almost entirely with a warlord.

All those characters you mentioned in the Illiad? I don't see any reason why they shouldn't all be covered with the "fighter" class focusing on different options. Clever fighters, inspiring fighters, brutal fighters, all of them, each one, a different sort of fighter. A whole CAMPAIGN made of a single, very flexible, class.

If you're going to separate out the Fighter and the Warlord as distinct classes, then I don't think you can legit combine the Assassin and the Rogue. On the other hoof, if you combine the Assassin and the Rogue, you should be able to do the same thing with the Fighter and the Warlord. If your Core Four are big tents under which a lot of archetypes can play (which IMO they should probably be, since they've been that in various D&D e's), then it makes more sense to combine them. If your Core Four are narrow archetypes with more specific niches, then you might need to bust out extra classes.

GreyICE said:

If it's Wizard only then a Wizard in the party becomes practically mandatory.

Click to expand...

Not unless certain spells become mandatory. Which, I think we'd all agree, they really shouldn't be.

1. I don't think of spells as "I win" buttons, but as game changers. Invisibility doesn't mean you get to sneak past the guards, it simply means you cannot be seen without further interference (like dumping a bag of flour from above). There is a new, probably easier path to success, but still a path. Spells always have a saving throw when cast on creatures too, so killing one with, say, Finger of Death isn't a sure thing just because it was prepared. Spells shouldn't really be focused on Hit Point damage either, or at least not as their primary in game purpose. They are the tools Magic Users have to explore the world. Combat is for Fighters. Are there exceptions to this design? I can think of some like Knock, but for the most part spells should radically alter a situation not end it.

2. Very few Spell Slots / Day does mean more powerful spells and that's appreciated, at least by me. But are you balancing for all out of encounter play? I notice mentions to at least cursory time tracking. Is this for balancing long term resources like food, how long a torch lasts, not to mention distance traveled in a day? Daily (and longer) resource refreshes don't operate on a 5 or 10 minute scale because not all exploration occurs on such a scale, usually only stuff like dungeon movement, searching and item use. I expect all non-combat game system play to be something of a point of contention though, given how healing has such a split of expectations in the community.

3. Clerics are neither gish nor melee experts. They overlap w/ swords & sorcery, but their combat abilities are really enablers for them to engage in their class's area of expertise - their core game. They aren't able to deal damage like a Fighter as they aren't aiming to do so. They able to cast spells that radically alter the world like Magic Users for the same reason. They are playing at a third focus, a growth oriented one (or decay oriented) for living (or undead) creatures. They are not Heal-Bots on a battlefield, but just like the Wizard - a class not designed for battle at all. They have greater combat defensive abilities as they need to be able to go anywhere in combat to perform their class. They are better at both combat & magic than either of the other two classes because the Cleric's scope was the smallest of the three. They seek to gain Followers and improve (or use up) the world. Their most useful powers in regards to combat have been designed towards avoiding and ending it. But I guess I could see the the option of offensive combat too when the inherent Alignment conflict is looked at. But I would think of these as secondary or tertiary objectives.

4. Warlord is like naming a Class "Strategist" and then letting die roll results determine that "good strategy happens". Imagine if we named another core class "Actor" and let results mean "good role play happens". Please be careful not to remove the key aspects some people are coming to the game for. Players, when they actually work as a team just like in sports, can inspire each other. This doesn't mean a numerical bonus, but improved strategizing, acting, or any of the other activities actually done around the table by the players and not emulated as character abilities.

5. Ability modifiers are too high for the class-based Combat Ability modifier and its flat improvement rate. This goes for the Magic Ability modifier too. To paraphrase the video, "early D&D didn't get a STR mod to damage" and it was possible monsters could operate that way now? However, early MM modifiers were built into monsters when determining what a creature's Hit Dice should be. HD were then used to reference the To Hit Table - all any DM needed to memorize (or look at) to speed up monster combat. (It would be nice to have a limited number of useful tables like this to improve play again) But my point is, STR scores for monsters were in all of the early D&D versions. They simply weren't always included in the text. The work wasn't written long hand in the stat blocks. That doesn't mean there were no factors taken into account in their derivation.

Kamikaze Midget said:

It's sort of a question of how big each Big Four class is.

Click to expand...

Yes, warlords could theoretically be folded into a sufficiently broad fighter class. But the same could be said about rangers (archer wilderness rogues), bards (singing wizard/rogues), monks (unarmed fighters), paladins (war clerics), sorcerers, warlocks, psions (variant wizards), druids (nature clerics), and barbarians (slayer fighters), leaving us with... four classes total! Which is fine in some ways, but I don't think it's what they're going for.

Everyone in the Iliad is a "fighter" in the sense that they use melee or ranged weapons... but so can every class in D&D. Even the wizard starts with a +2 to hit, better than 90% of the people and creatures out there. Kicking ass is the default for heroes; if we're going to distinguish them with a class system, we need to delve a bit deeper into what distinguishes them from each other.

The issue with Thieves and Rogues are they aren't a class. At best they are a subclass for every class based upon a particular strategy or methodology, that of being outside the law and therefore usually covert.

If thieves are simply criminals, then they they are every class when it is performed outside the law. Can you cast spells and break the law? Engage in combat outside the law? Start a church outside the law? Yes to all, but that doesn't make one a D&D thief.

If it's simply doing things while hidden from others the same critique applies. Any class could do so, but that doesn't make one a rogue, at best only roguish - dishonest, unprincipled, and so on.

I think D&D rogues are basically an NPC class that overlaps well with the dungeon delving aspect of D&D. They are people willing to break the law and trained in some of the basic abilities to do so.