D&D 5E New playtest packet available.

[Raunalyn]

The Barbarian seems extremely OP to me...why play a fighter now?

 

[Rune]

I think that's the intent, to give barbarians some form of damage reduction even when not raging. But then we have the resistance to slash/pierce/bludgeon while raging at a higher level.

Iron Hide doesn't provide any form of damage reduction (not even in the form of extra AC). All it does is allow a barbarian who chooses not to wear any armor at all to have a reasonably effective AC.

 

[Obryn]

Iron Hide doesn't provide any form of damage reduction (not even in the form of extra AC). All it does is allow a barbarian who chooses not to wear any armor at all to have a reasonably effective AC.

(at low levels and up to the point where magic armor starts showing up)

This is where the "magic items are optional! really!" promises stop making sense.

-O

 

[Rune]

(at low levels and up to the point where magic armor starts showing up)

This is where the "magic items are optional! really!" promises stop making sense.

-O

The "magic items are optional" "promise" is not, and never was, a promise that magic items wouldn't make a character more effective.

It was (and still is, as far as I can tell) an intent to craft the game in such a way that if a DM chooses not to include any magic items at all it won't break the game (and, conversely, that a DM loading the party down with magic items will also not break the game).

This is something that was impossible in both 3.X and 4e without incorporating some sort of compensating measures.

 

[the Jester]

(at low levels and up to the point where magic armor starts showing up)

This is where the "magic items are optional! really!" promises stop making sense.

-O

If the barbarian gets +4 to AC because of his high con and the rogue gets +4 to AC because of his +1 armor, that's fine.

If the barbarian is easier to hit than a heavily-armored fighter, that's not just fine, it's good. --Regardless of whether that armor is magical or not.

 

[Obryn]

The "magic items are optional" "promise" is not, and never was, a promise that magic items wouldn't make a character more effective.

It was (and still is, as far as I can tell) an intent to craft the game in such a way that if a DM chooses not to include any magic items at all it won't break the game (and, conversely, that a DM loading the party down with magic items will also not break the game).

This is something that was impossible in both 3.X and 4e without incorporating some sort of compensating measures.

The difference here - and it's not a small one - is that it's not a dial. It's a switch, swinging between the two extremes. If you build it into the math with something like inherent bonuses, you can preserve the "interesting stuff" feature of magic items without paying much attention to the math on the player and DM sides.

If you have bounded accuracy and you're not paying attention to even the minutest changes in d20 rolls, it's simply not good design. OTOH, if magic items are mostly good for some extra damage and effects, or small amounts of DR, it's more sensible. We've established that damage isn't bounded to the same degree as d20 rolls.

If the barbarian gets +4 to AC because of his high con and the rogue gets +4 to AC because of his +1 armor, that's fine.

If the barbarian is easier to hit than a heavily-armored fighter, that's not just fine, it's good. --Regardless of whether that armor is magical or not.

But that's not what will happen. Barbarians aren't prevented from wearing armor, and given that light armor has no downsides, it's sensible to wear it as soon as it's better than iron skin. It's a helpful perk at low levels, for sure, but at worst, a barbarian is keeping pace.

-O

 

[Klaus]

Barbarians aren't prevented from wearing armor, and given that light armor has no downsides, it's sensible to wear it as soon as it's better than iron skin.

And that will probably take quite some time. Con 16 offers the same AC as a mithral shirt, which is the best light armor.

 

[Rune]

The difference here - and it's not a small one - is that it's not a dial. It's a switch, swinging between the two extremes.

I disagree. The switch implies a dial and, frankly, I think most play will be somewhere in the middle.

If you build it into the math with something like inherent bonuses, you can preserve the "interesting stuff" feature of magic items without paying much attention to the math on the player and DM sides.

I wouldn't have a problem with magic items not providing bonuses at all, but I'd very much prefer not to be required to include inherent bonuses just to make the math "right."

If you have bounded accuracy and you're not paying attention to even the minutest changes in d20 rolls, it's simply not good design.

Again, I disagree. As long as the DM is advised to keep in mind that magic items make characters more effective, things should work out just fine. Bounded accuracy allows a DM to pay less attention to the math because the difference between "more effective" and "less effective" is never so great that it breaks the game. I get the feeling you think that allowing the DM to pay less attention to the math is a bug. I view it as a feature.

OTOH, if magic items are mostly good for some extra damage and effects, or small amounts of DR, it's more sensible. We've established that damage isn't bounded to the same degree as d20 rolls.

I would not have a problem with this at all.

But that's not what will happen. Barbarians aren't prevented from wearing armor, and given that light armor has no downsides, it's sensible to wear it as soon as it's better than iron skin. It's a helpful perk at low levels, for sure, but at worst, a barbarian is keeping pace.

It's probably worth noting that the barbarian is proficient in only light and medium armors (and the shield, of course).

Thus, the highest AC a barbarian can have with +1 armor (without using a shield)--assuming a Dex bonus of less than +5, which is probably a safe assumption for most barbarians, but is also irrelevant to the comparison between no armor and light armor-wearing barbarians--is AC 18--and that's while wearing expensive dragon scale or very expensive mithril armor.

Furthermore, the dragon scale armor makes stealth (and, consequently, ambushing) very difficult, which is something that an unarmored barbarian with high Dex should be able to do pretty well.

All in all, the trade-offs seem pretty balanced to me.

 

[Obryn]

And that will probably take quite some time. Con 16 offers the same AC as a mithral shirt, which is the best light armor.

Righto. Which is why I mentioned magic armor in particular. It's a serious boost at lower levels, but it's not like the barbarian is actually falling behind at any point - they'll just wear whatever's best, like D&D characters have done for ages.

-O

 

[Obryn]

I wouldn't have a problem with magic items not providing bonuses at all, but I'd very much prefer not to be required to include inherent bonuses just to make the math "right."

Then the alternative is to eliminate bonuses to the d20 rolls (or target numbers for d20 rolls) from magic gear. Which I think we established we're both fine with.

Again, I disagree. As long as the DM is advised to keep in mind that magic items make characters more effective, things should work out just fine. Bounded accuracy allows a DM to pay less attention to the math because the difference between "more effective" and "less effective" is never so great that it breaks the game. I get the feeling you think that allowing the DM to pay less attention to the math is a bug. I view it as a feature.

I don't think this pans out. If your math is bounded, you have a very limited range of acceptable bonuses you can apply to a d20 roll. We can see that with class-based attack bonuses - they crawl upwards very slowly, and with good reason. If your target numbers vary around an 11 or so on the roll, each + or - means you hit (or miss) 10% more often than before. That's a pretty major shift. Each +1 becomes really precious, and if you're not hoarding those +1's at every opportunity, you're missing out.

In other words, "more effective" is a bit of an understatement.

Bounded accuracy doesn't let a DM ignore the math - it makes the d20 probabilities intensely touchy and sensitive to small deviations, and easier to break if you're not careful. I speak from experience here - it might not seem like it, but 4e uses bounded accuracy, already. The difference in 4e is that the level scale gives you a wider margin of possible outcomes over the span of a character's career, as opposed to Next where the scale hardly moves at all with level.

-O