D&D 5E WotC Developer Google Hangout on Youtube

[GreyICE]

I have no idea how you could interpret "getting a castle with an army" as not placing the fighter into a leadership role unless you were only familiar with the 3e version of the fighter, in which case you don't really have a place in talking about how fighters functioned in D&D up until 4e.

I mentioned that specifically in one of my earlier posts.

As for 2E, there were subsystems for everything. Lets not get into the volume of paper that TSR published during their run with 2E, it is almost impossible to name a subsystem that they don't have rules for (on the WotC boards someone pulled out a 2E published supplement that had complex and intricate rules for creating your own mining operation, complete with metal rates per pound of various ores and rules for running the refining operation).

 

[Blackwarder]

My random thoughts.

1. For the love of god stop trying to balance everything around combat! Where are the other pillars you guys promised us?

2. I have no problem with having more rituals, but if a wizard can cast all his spells as rituals than his number of known spells per level should be caped.

3. Stop focusing on combat!

4. An internal version of cleric using both spells and expertise dice... Isn't that Paladin?

5. "Thinking on classes we focuse on the world first..." Cool, it's the economy stupid (sorry couldn't resist)

6. Second L&L column next week, could we be getting playtest packet 3.5?

7. I LOVE USE ROPE, but I like the idea about skills, it's probably the biggest teaser of the show.

Thanks for posting this!

Warder

 

[B.T.]

Personally, I think that there should be mechanics to support a 4e's warlord-type powers. I think that character should be the bard, myself, but I can see why other people would not.

 

[HardcoreDandDGirl]

Let me start by reminding everyone, I am a TSR girl, 2e has always been my D&D of choice. However, after seeing the 4e warlord, I will admit, it is a type of class that 2e just can not do well. (or atleast did not, I will wait and see if someone homebrews something)

• TOB's crusader class. This does everything that the warlord does. In fact, chances are that the entire White Raven school was a retrofitted warlord.

• Marshall. I hate this class, but it has party-wide buffs and is a decent melee fighter. Power level is weak, but it does what the warlord wants to do.

Yes, technically, there was no "warlord" class. But there were classes that can fulfill a similar role to the warlord in 4e. They don't mirror the mechanics perfectly, but they provide opportunities for characters to take a leadership role.

Yes, 3e started the path with the White Ravon scchool of Bo9S and Marshall from Mini handbook. But I would add in Factotem from the dungeneer book as well. It still did not feel as good as the 4e one though. For all WotC got wrong in 4e, Warlord is what they got right.

Now if they can fold Warlord into fighter and keep it just as cool...great. BUT please don't just go back to just fighter for no reason.

 

[Rhenny]

I don't really like having lots of spells that are both prepareable and ritual. I'd rather have most spells be prepareable, and only have spells with really terrific (frightening) or powerful effects become rituals. They should take a toll on the caster too. Spells like speak with undead, Teleport, Stoneshape, Transformation spells, Polymorph or shapechange spells, augury, divination (all the spells that many people say could break an encounter or game session should really be rituals...and they should do something nasty to the spellcaster, or they should cost a lot to cast).

The problem with making lots of spells prepareable and ritual spells is that it does not set up limits for the spell caster, and from a design standpoint it becomes difficult to decide which spells should be able to be rituals. Why should "Rope Trick" be a ritual? Should "Teleport" be a ritual? Should "Stoneshape" be a ritual? Should "Wall of Ice" be a ritual? What criteria will be used to determine what can be a ritual? It becomes kind of messy. Also, if spells like "Teleport" or "Stoneshape" become rituals (and there is not cost or toll on the caster) this decision can change the game world. Need to travel across the desert? Teleport! Need to build castles...cast Stoneshape. Without limits or an appropriate toll, this will alter the economy and game play.

 

[Blackwarder]

I don't really like having lots of spells that are both prepareable and ritual. I'd rather have most spells be prepareable, and only have spells with really terrific (frightening) or powerful effects become rituals. They should take a toll on the caster too. Spells like speak with undead, Teleport, Stoneshape, Transformation spells, Polymorph or shapechange spells, augury, divination (all the spells that many people say could break an encounter or game session should really be rituals...and they should do something nasty to the spellcaster, or they should cost a lot to cast).

The problem with making lots of spells prepareable and ritual spells is that it does not set up limits for the spell caster, and from a design standpoint it becomes difficult to decide which spells should be able to be rituals. Why should "Rope Trick" be a ritual? Should "Teleport" be a ritual? Should "Stoneshape" be a ritual? Should "Wall of Ice" be a ritual? What criteria will be used to determine what can be a ritual? It becomes kind of messy. Also, if spells like "Teleport" or "Stoneshape" become rituals (and there is not cost or toll on the caster) this decision can change the game world. Need to travel across the desert? Teleport! Need to build castles...cast Stoneshape. Without limits or an appropriate toll, this will alter the economy and game play.

As long as you cap the number of spells known it shouldn't be a problem, but if every caster can cast every spell as a ritual than I totally agree with you.

Warder

 

[I'm A Banana]

You're still not providing any logic that suggests how Wizards, who want to make the Fighter a reasonably easy class to pick up (something they've repeatedly stated) are supposed to add in the Warlord without creating a total abomination of a class that is anything BUT easy to pick up.

Same way one class can embrace swashbucklers and sharpshooters. But see the new thread for a more precise example.

Your continued assertion that the Warlord archtype is "nonexistent" is highly disingenuous. You've been provided with several examples of exactly that archtype in the thread. Pretending that skill at leadership and skill at fighting are the same thing is like pretending that skill at casting Arcane Spells and skill at casting Divine Spells are the same thing, and arguing to unify the Wizard/Cleric as a result.

1) Suggesting that something is a possibility isn't a continued assertion, it's a reminder of the exact problem mentioned in the video.

2) Those examples don't need to be warlords as a class, they can be inspiring fighters.

3) Leadership in fights and skill at fighting are closely related, as the Leonidas-from-300 example in the video points out.

4) Arcane spells and Divine spells are actually quite nearly the same thing in D&D, and unifying it under the idea of magical systems is precisely where the warlock/sorcerer discussion has headed.

 

[gyor]

This did alot to reassure me.

Free Rituals are a good way to make up for few spells slots, but minor spells need to be fixed. The cleric's heal tax needs to be figured out in relation to the.

They appear to understand the problem with the Rogue and Mike had some good ideas on how to deal with it.

Dead levels, if they wish to deal with it later, okay.

Assassin, maybe they could call it something else like Ninja, after all the Ninja was the spiritual successor to the Assassin class in 3.5 and the assassin in 4e had ninja as a subbuild. Alternately they could combine the shadow classes into a single archtype, say shadowcaster

The way I see the warlord, it's less General qnd more a member of special ops teams, think Green Beret, Swat, Seals, what ever. The focus is more then fighting ability, its team work and intergating the abilities of his team.

I keep thinking of the boss guy on flash point.

In combat avioding having her allies damaged, outside combat, a bonus to hit dice healing.

Not sure what to call the Warlord, Champion maybe?

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I think that if they do have the Assassin it should be the shadow-magic using Assassin of 4e, mixed with the 3e Shadow-dancer and the 3e prc, and definitely not the 1e Assassin or the Essentials Executioner Assassin, since the later can definitely be covered by schemes in the rogue class.

I support the Warlord as a class, mainly because none of the fighter manuevers are oriented towards tactics and teamwork. And I liked the Marshall class back in 3e even if many felt it wasn't an effective one.

 

[GreyICE]

1) Suggesting that something is a possibility isn't a continued assertion, it's a reminder of the exact problem mentioned in the video.

2) Those examples don't need to be warlords as a class, they can be inspiring fighters.

3) Leadership in fights and skill at fighting are closely related, as the Leonidas-from-300 example in the video points out.

4) Arcane spells and Divine spells are actually quite nearly the same thing in D&D, and unifying it under the idea of magical systems is precisely where the warlock/sorcerer discussion has headed.

Leadership and Skill at fighting are closely related?

I see. So Napoleon, well known for his martial prowess, was he? Alexander the Great, a lethal combatant with no equal? General Patton, well known for his ability to shoot a man at half a mile with his sidearm?

What is this I don't even