Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
This Week in D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ZombieRoboNinja" data-source="post: 6033084" data-attributes="member: 54843"><p>I've got that ol' familiar feeling I get from these articles: disappointment, which is usually tempered by pleasant surprise when I see what they actually do in the playtest. For example, I hated the "fighter design goals" with a passion, but those goals somehow led to the CS fighter, which I am very excited about.</p><p></p><p>So that in mind, here are some responses:</p><p></p><p>"Casting mechanics at the system level, not at the class level" - I still think this idea gives up a lot of flavor and specificity in the name of "modularity." But let's see how they pull it off! I'm very glad to see warlocks got separated out of the "magic user" stew, so that they can preserve some unique mechanics. I wonder whether psions will be so lucky, as another class whose main feature pre-4e was that it provided an alternate spellcasting system.</p><p></p><p>Note that the "magic-user" metaclass they're talking about DOESN'T include the cleric. So again, do clerics get alternate spellcasting systems?</p><p></p><p>Now wizard traditions include apparently one extra cantrip and one "signature" spell that you get to cast twice. Really, what is the point of this signature spell? It sounds basically like one extra spell slot, but more limited. If they're going to introduce encounter spells, I'd think they should go whole hog with it,, especially if you get only ONE signature spell.</p><p></p><p>All the cleric changes sound like a step up from the second playtest. Yay, simplified mechanics! No more "channel divinity" that was only for healing except when it wasn't! I don't get at all why anyone insists on Turn Undead as a class feature, but sure, why not. Expanded domain powers/benefits sound great too.</p><p></p><p>One big note, though: we all get that they're officially giving up on siloing off healing, right? "Channel divinity" was an attempt to assuage the concerns of players who didn't like the pre-4e tendency for clerics to have to save all their spells for heals, but now it's gone. Does the 5e cleric even get the 3e cleric's spontaneous healing? Or does he literally have to make 30+% of his prepared spells Cure X Wounds?</p><p></p><p>Simple fighter option: sure! Options are nice! I'm not sure why this would take more than 5 minutes though. Get rid of CS, give fighters a static bonus to damage and hp (to make up for lost parry and deadly strike). There you go! Roughly on par with the normal fighter in terms of raw effectiveness, no muss and fuss.</p><p></p><p>For rogues, they're screwing with skill mastery a bit, which, sure. But how about those alternatives to sneak attack that keep getting floated? Is hide-attack-hide really the be-all end-all of rogue tactics?</p><p></p><p>Skill changes sound great, specialty changes sound... meh (I hope "stealth specialist" isn't a real title, or it's way more confusing than the previous system). Since this playtest goes up to 10, do we get "advanced" specialties for levels 6 and 9, or do you just pick a second specialty? (Either would work, I guess, but advanced specialties might be a lot more interesting.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ZombieRoboNinja, post: 6033084, member: 54843"] I've got that ol' familiar feeling I get from these articles: disappointment, which is usually tempered by pleasant surprise when I see what they actually do in the playtest. For example, I hated the "fighter design goals" with a passion, but those goals somehow led to the CS fighter, which I am very excited about. So that in mind, here are some responses: "Casting mechanics at the system level, not at the class level" - I still think this idea gives up a lot of flavor and specificity in the name of "modularity." But let's see how they pull it off! I'm very glad to see warlocks got separated out of the "magic user" stew, so that they can preserve some unique mechanics. I wonder whether psions will be so lucky, as another class whose main feature pre-4e was that it provided an alternate spellcasting system. Note that the "magic-user" metaclass they're talking about DOESN'T include the cleric. So again, do clerics get alternate spellcasting systems? Now wizard traditions include apparently one extra cantrip and one "signature" spell that you get to cast twice. Really, what is the point of this signature spell? It sounds basically like one extra spell slot, but more limited. If they're going to introduce encounter spells, I'd think they should go whole hog with it,, especially if you get only ONE signature spell. All the cleric changes sound like a step up from the second playtest. Yay, simplified mechanics! No more "channel divinity" that was only for healing except when it wasn't! I don't get at all why anyone insists on Turn Undead as a class feature, but sure, why not. Expanded domain powers/benefits sound great too. One big note, though: we all get that they're officially giving up on siloing off healing, right? "Channel divinity" was an attempt to assuage the concerns of players who didn't like the pre-4e tendency for clerics to have to save all their spells for heals, but now it's gone. Does the 5e cleric even get the 3e cleric's spontaneous healing? Or does he literally have to make 30+% of his prepared spells Cure X Wounds? Simple fighter option: sure! Options are nice! I'm not sure why this would take more than 5 minutes though. Get rid of CS, give fighters a static bonus to damage and hp (to make up for lost parry and deadly strike). There you go! Roughly on par with the normal fighter in terms of raw effectiveness, no muss and fuss. For rogues, they're screwing with skill mastery a bit, which, sure. But how about those alternatives to sneak attack that keep getting floated? Is hide-attack-hide really the be-all end-all of rogue tactics? Skill changes sound great, specialty changes sound... meh (I hope "stealth specialist" isn't a real title, or it's way more confusing than the previous system). Since this playtest goes up to 10, do we get "advanced" specialties for levels 6 and 9, or do you just pick a second specialty? (Either would work, I guess, but advanced specialties might be a lot more interesting.) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
This Week in D&D
Top