DnD Podcast April 13

[thecasualoblivion]

The thing that stuck out to me was where they mentioned that they were going to make a streamlined core by boiling down D&D to its essential elements, that optional modules would be added to that core, and the core of the game would be constant, not varying from table to table no matter what optional rules were used. The third part of that statement being the revelation. I don't have anything against that concept in isolation, but if things I absolutely completely have come to detest, like Vancian Magic or 3E mutliclassing are going to be core like they said, the fact that the core of 5E is going to be constant troubles me.

 

[RangerWickett]

Eh, I'd rather have 4 spell levels, and make the spells tiers a bit broader. Instead of "a lightning bolt does a bit more damage than a flame arrow which is a tad better than magic missile," I'd like "low tier spells mirror things you could do without magic (just faster), mid tier spells do impressive stuff that would require several people to pull off, high tier spells do the impossible, and epic tier spells leave a lasting impact on the world."

 

[UngeheuerLich]

just the opposite here...

The core should be slim enough, that it fits to mst playstyles. This should be exactly what they must aim for. 5e must be recognized as 5e. D&D should be recognized by all means.
The game must not be denounced as a ... game. 3.5 was "powergamer´s dream" 4e "just a miniature tabletop" (that is hat you hear from people who have never played on or the other)

what I want from the core:

strong emphasis on classbased design
themes
backgrounds
races
ability modifiers
d20
all other dice somewhere in the rules (yes d100, i look at you)

What should be optional:
the exact available choice of classes, themes, background and races

If you don´t like vancian magic, you should be able to do without it. -> design your own classes/find some in the PHB or other sourcebooks.

6 spells per level as core seems ok, those are the spells universally known by the standard wizard. This is what is tought to you when you are in an academy. All other spells are in a seperate section/sourcebook and need to be found/researched.

If you don´t like the wizad, not too much space is lost.

The only thing to be considered is that if one person started in a non vancian group, the other one in a vancian group, both should be able to play along each other. And this is why all games need to have the same core.

 

[mudbunny]

I got the impression from the podcast that, to take spellcasting for an example, that the core would be Vancan spellcasting but that there would be a module (AEDU powers) that would overwrite that part of the base system for those that desired it.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I got the impression from the podcast that, to take spellcasting for an example, that the core would be Vancan spellcasting but that there would be a module (AEDU powers) that would overwrite that part of the base system for those that desired it.

I'm just responding to their comment that the core would be constant regardless of modules. They've stated elsewhere that there would be an alternative to Vancian magic. Personally I'm more troubled by 3E multiclassing.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Personally I'm more troubled by 3E multiclassing.

I've felt it was the best D&D multi-classing system D&D has had, and it still has glaring problems.

What I like - you don't have to have class define the character - you can take 3 levels of this, 2 levels of that, a smattering of this third one, a prestige class - really brought to the fore with D20 modern. A class was no longer a definition of character, so much as class levels were a discreet package of abilities you picked up - and you could pick whichever packages fit your character concept.

But... it could be min-maxed to death, and if you were a caster - well sucks to be you.

The gestalt rules in UA were fun, but a bit overpowered.

But with them flattening out the math, and some of the other concepts they have mentioned that allows more use of putting classes together I really think they may just have something here. The whole "fighter extra attacks are a free action so a fighter/wizard could cast a spell then get the extra attacks" thing that came up I really liked. And fixing the Quadratic Wizard/Linear Fighter issue would clear up the caster imbalance in Multiclassing.

 

[GX.Sigma]

The thing that stuck out to me was where they mentioned that they were going to make a streamlined core by boiling down D&D to its essential elements, that optional modules would be added to that core, and the core of the game would be constant, not varying from table to table no matter what optional rules were used. The third part of that statement being the revelation. I don't have anything against that concept in isolation, but if things I absolutely completely have come to detest, like Vancian Magic or 3E mutliclassing are going to be core like they said, the fact that the core of 5E is going to be constant troubles me.

I don't think they literally mean the kernel will be used in every single game, and modules will be purely additive. It's just that, generally, the optional parts will be more complex than the core. We already know many of the modules will replace core rules (e.g., "comic book hit points" or "tactical grid combat" modules), some will remove core rules (e.g., "no alignment mechanics" module).

They are not saying there won't be options for things like non-vancian spellcasting or alternative multiclassing. Such divisive topics will probably exist in both forms to try to make everyone happy.

 

[satori01]

I own no Apple products and iTunes is a terrible thing to install on a Windows machine. They really need to stick to more universal stuff instead of something that's OS-biased.

You can access it through Google Reader. Just look up Google Reader and from Google Reader search for D&D Podcast.

 

[Yora]

The gestalt rules in UA were fun, but a bit overpowered.

Well, that's the whole point. Making a small group a lot more versatile.

 

[Somebloke]

A thought.

One of the leaks suggested that spells at do different things if you use a higher level spell slot- for example, shield changes from a minute/level spell to a hour/level spell.

Which makes me wonder- maybe a lot of the spell quantity loss is caused by this system removing a lot of the 'greater' and 'mass' spells from the last- for example, there's one Cure spell, that becomes stronger or affects your allies depending on what level you cast it at? Or invisibility becomes improved or mass invisibility depending on what spell level you cast it at? For that matter, what if charm spell grants you the ability to suggest or dominate when cast as a 3rd/4th level spell or whatever?

It's one way to focus on a strong core of traditional abilities while still reducing total spell counts.