D&D 5E 11/1/13 google hangout with

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
About multiclassing: I'm a little surprised they didn't talk about how specialties were shaping up to help people who fit the "Fighter 19/Wizard 1" category. If I'm a 19th level fighter, why shouldn't I be able to take a feat to get Magic Missile? Feats like Arcane Dabbler and Find Familiar already can help that feel.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
Just got to the 16 minute mark. The removal of skills is a worrysome issue for me. They are the make/break of an edition for me. The loss of skills is a big step backwards IMO, they really are big immersion enablers when they are presented as task resolution (in 2e, RC and 3.x) as oppossed to effects (4e) or "plot bennies" as they seem to have turned into DND next. Just one of the many scary possibilities for the future.
 


Klaus

First Post
About multiclassing: I'm a little surprised they didn't talk about how specialties were shaping up to help people who fit the "Fighter 19/Wizard 1" category. If I'm a 19th level fighter, why shouldn't I be able to take a feat to get Magic Missile? Feats like Arcane Dabbler and Find Familiar already can help that feel.

The feats in the Hedge Magician specialty should give more than they're doing right now. Mystic Healer gives you two cantrips, a daily casting of cure light wounds or lesser restoration, several uses of dispel magic and the ability to resurrect the recently dead. That's enough to make anyone who takes it feel a "quasi-cleric". There should be one of these for a "quasi-wizard".
 


KidSnide

Adventurer
Just got to the 16 minute mark. The removal of skills is a worrysome issue for me. They are the make/break of an edition for me. The loss of skills is a big step backwards IMO, they really are big immersion enablers when they are presented as task resolution (in 2e, RC and 3.x) as oppossed to effects (4e) or "plot bennies" as they seem to have turned into DND next. Just one of the many scary possibilities for the future.

I don't really understand where you're coming from. Skills are task resolution mechanisms in 3.x and 4e. (In fact, with a few minor changes, they are the same task resolution mechanisms.) The major change from 3.x/4e to D&DN is that the task resolution aspect of skills is moved from the skill rules to the attribute rules. Instead of swimming being a skill that defaults to strength, swimming becomes a strength check where the swimming skill provides a bonus.

This has some significant advantages in DM flexibility (e.g. a Con-based swimming check where appropriate) and modularity (e.g. the basic version of the game can give a class a bonus to stat checks instead of skills), but I don't see how that qualifies as a change to a "plot bennie" system.

-KS
 

MatthewJHanson

Registered Ninja
Publisher
I'm a little surprised that they're planning to introduce a new class based on how many classes have already been created through the many editions of D&D. I wonder what story niche it can fill that has not already been done.
 

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
I don't really understand where you're coming from. Skills are task resolution mechanisms in 3.x and 4e. (In fact, with a few minor changes, they are the same task resolution mechanisms.) The major change from 3.x/4e to D&DN is that the task resolution aspect of skills is moved from the skill rules to the attribute rules. Instead of swimming being a skill that defaults to strength, swimming becomes a strength check where the swimming skill provides a bonus.

This has some significant advantages in DM flexibility (e.g. a Con-based swimming check where appropriate) and modularity (e.g. the basic version of the game can give a class a bonus to stat checks instead of skills), but I don't see how that qualifies as a change to a "plot bennie" system.

-KS

Struming a lute through the ages (I'm omiting editions I'm not familiar with)

2e: It's an action allowed by the musical instrument (Lute)NWP, sometimes a proficiency check is called, it is keyed of Dex. You get betterby investing extra slots
RC: It's an action allowed by the music (strings) skill, sometimes a skill check is called, it's keyed off Cha. You get better by investing extra slots
3.0: Somewhat foggy, it is fluff most of the time. The rest it is a Perform (Lute) check, you get better investing more skill points and by using Skill focus feat, a masterwork instrument helps
3.5: It is a normal action, althought a Perform (strings) skill check is defined as a way to gain money, you can get away with using perform for many things more than just earning a penny, the skill still is the mechanical reflection of struming the lute, it's keyed of Cha, you get better investing more skill points and by using Skill focus feat, a masterwork insatrument helps.
4e: It is just fluff, the actual mechanical used will vary depending on purpose and effect (Want to soothe? use heal, Want to please? use Diplomacy, want to distract? use bluff) and it is entirely equal to you just outright using the skill for the effect.(In fact as far as I know this is highly theoretical, I've never been able to see it roleplayed this way) You get "better" just by existing, you cannot really be a good lute performer, except by proxy, the only explicit description of a lute being strumed is with certain bard rituals which relly on Arcana, so in a way Wizards are the best lute players on the world
DndN: As of this packet, it is a Dex check -most of the time- the actual skill is just the right to randomly be better "between 1 and x", however the existense of the skill gives an insight on how it is supossed to work. You get better just by existing, and the amount is basically random, so there is no sense of improvement with it, skill focus just makes it a little more reliable. So the skill is a thematic plot bennie.
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
I do hope they change the name 'Skills' to something else as they mentioned... because I think we do need to get people's heads around the fact that its now all about ability checks that have special character focuses to give bonuses to those checks, than it is a list of skills that you choose from to do what you want.
 

GX.Sigma

Adventurer
I don't understand what they're talking about with giving the basic Rogue the skill die on all Dex checks, or the Fighter on all Str checks. They'll already have the highest Dex or Str modifier, so why make them better at something they're already the best at? (And that's ignoring the issue of the Dex fighter, which they've been neglecting lately...)

But it's nice to know how they're thinking of how the skill system will scale down in complexity to the Basic rules. Maybe Specialties will be done a similar way: a specialty could just be a bundle of simple abilities. Only in the advanced game is it split into individual feats.

As someone who plays in groups of people with varying amounts of tolerance for system mastery, I'm very pleased to finally be getting some details on how different players will be able to opt into different levels of complexity. You could make your complicated Rogue with the assassinate talent, a bunch of skill tricks, and some bonus feats, and I could make my simple one from the 20-page booklet in the Basic box, and they'd be playable at the same table.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top