Class Design Concepts

I guess we're a few days behind the curve here with the forum outages. But hey, why not!

Rogues: I really have no idea what the heck they're talking about with skill dice here. But are they saying rogues basically get that PLUS full expertise dice? So every round the fighter chooses between using his dice for Deadly Strike or for something else, but the rogue gets to do Deadly Strike PLUS some skill thing? Sounds inelegant and a bit too powerful to me. Whatever these "skill dice" are, why doesn't the rogue just get them IN PLACE OF expertise dice, and have the option of using them to boost damage via Sneak Attack or whatever? Also, giving up advantage for Sneak Attack damage sounds like a harsh tradeoff.

Spellcasting: It sounds like you get to change your cantrips every day now, which is potentially cool. I'm kind of bummed that Mike Mearls has suggested on Twitter that they're resigned to letting lower-level slots degrade to "utility" status, so a level 10 wizard will again have slots full of Levitate and Knock and so on. This isn't necessarily "OMG rogues are replaced!" but it does mean they have to work harder to make sure spells like Knock and Spider Climb aren't overpowered.

Clerics: I kind of like the new channel divinity, but (a) it's probably too little healing, and (b) I'll kind of miss rolling for heals. And anyway, it's still not solving any major problems as long as clerics still can use up their spell slots for healing. Get rid of the Cure spells and we'll talk.

Wizards: The change to spell prep means even MORE danger of utility spells being overpowered. Previously, prepping Knock meant you were unable to use that spell slot for combat; now, you just prep Knock alongside Magic Missile or whatever and use that slot for whichever you need. Again, this doesn't mean utility spells are NECESSARILY overpowered, but it DOES mean that each one has to be looked at very carefully. "Fly isn't overpowered because it takes up a level 3 slot" is no longer a viable argument.

Fighters: I hate the idea that the way to make the fighter special is to tack MORE mechanics on top of the elegant maneuver/expertise system. Don't make Parry a separate mechanic; just make it kickass and fighter-restricted.

EDIT: The more I think about the fighter thing, the more it bugs me. It basically sounds like now that ALL weapon-using classes get expertise damage but not maneuvers, the fighter and monk's defining ability is that they can do LESS damage when they want to do other cool things. Whereas the rogue (and presumably paladin, ranger, barbarian, etc) layer their class benefits on top of expertise damage. But of course we haven't seen any of this in play, so I'll shut up.

Good points ZRN. I'm not sure what Mike means when he says people where complaining about the rogue being "fighter light". Does he mean that the rogue is like a fighter, but less effective? That may be a problem, but I don't think the solutions is to make them more effective at combat. I'm kind of disappointed because the rogue is the 'dex fighter' whereas in the previous packet you could play a dex based fighter by, you know, playing a fighter and emphasizing dex and certain maneuvers. Still possible, but the Rogue seems to move in on that territory. I think the skill dice sound like a way to make the Rogue's shtick more unique, but would prefer that the skill dice replace expertise dice.

Just going to throw my own thoughts here.

Rogues feel like lame Fighters because right now, fundamentally, they are lame Fighters. Right now, the Rogue has no combat identity like it did in previous editions. The Rogue concept needs to move away from the idea of a skirmisher, because a Fighter is simply better at it. I would like to see a shift back towards the tactical/sneaky/nova concept; take advantage of openings, set things up a bit and do lots of damage. Engaging directly with enemies is the Fighter's purview. I do like the idea of having the Rogue stuff be skill-based, and ED are fairly similar to how previous versions of Sneak Attack ended up working. I could see a Rogue that gets ED options based on skills.

Clerics basically go back to the 4E version of Channel Divinity with a sprinkling of Lay on Hands, without directly calling it that. I think it's the easiest way to deal with the heal-bot problem, especially if they move more of the 4E Cleric-type stuff to the Paladin.

Wizards are for all intents and purposes 3E Sorcerers now. I like that there's an attempt to bring parity between the default spellcasting types, since that paves the way for changes to the default spellcasting (strict prep, spell points, etc) to integrate more smoothly across the board. Nice to see Wizards are getting a boost in damage too. I wonder what ever happened to the spells grow in power in spell slots idea? Fell by the wayside?

Fighters are pretty much done as-is. There's no need to make Parry a class feature, especially if they dial back the use of ED on the Rogue/Monk/Paladin. There's such a thing as doing too much work.

On the Rogues:

I'm on "wait and see" mode, it seems partially good on papper, but like someone else said above, It would have been better to have just skill dice and sneak attack allowing you to apply them to damage, not only it would restore SA to it's traditional feel, it would work a great deal to decreasse simmetry.

On Wizards:

[Angry mode]WTF??!!, they just took an awfully bad decision, you shouldn't give tactical flexibility to wizards! that is the sorcerer's schtick!! and results won't be nice, they were already halfway there with reducing the number of slots, all they had to do was to allow for more flexible traditions and to allow more freedom on picking a signature spell and at wills!! What they have done is like demolishing a wall just to fix a broken window!.

They have just given wizards way more power than they have had before, in order to balance them they will have to decrease the spell's overall usefullness which will hurt specialists. This is just the worst thing that could happen, if wizards are that good, the sorcerer will suck great time, unless they bump them and by a wide margin (and I'm talking about a godly improvement). Nothing good will come out of giving wizards both tactical and strategical flexibility, nothing!. [/Angry mode] (If you don't beleive me, play a 3.5 batman wizard with that provision, that you can spontaneously cast from your preppared spells, and tell me how it goes)

The way I see it, rouges feel like lame fighters because once again WotC is trying to balance everything around combat, rouges should never be as good in combat as fighters, the thief's playground should be the exploration phase where smart thinking and planing could help the rouge achieve the party goals without having to fight.

for example, make sneak attack only useable when the target is completely unaware of the thief and at ease and give it a huge bonus to damage.

Warder

KaiiLurker said:

On Wizards:

[Angry mode]WTF??!!, they just took an awfully bad decision, you shouldn't give tactical flexibility to wizards! that is the sorcerer's schtick!! and results won't be nice, they were already halfway there with reducing the number of slots, all they had to do was to allow for more flexible traditions and to allow more freedom on picking a signature spell and at wills!! What they have done is like demolishing a wall just to fix a broken window!.

They have just given wizards way more power than they have had before, in order to balance them they will have to decrease the spell's overall usefullness which will hurt specialists. This is just the worst thing that could happen, if wizards are that good, the sorcerer will suck great time, unless they bump them and by a wide margin (and I'm talking about a godly improvement). Nothing good will come out of giving wizards both tactical and strategical flexibility, nothing!. [/Angry mode] (If you don't beleive me, play a 3.5 batman wizard with that provision, that you can spontaneously cast from your preppared spells, and tell me how it goes)

Click to expand...

I agree that having access to unlimited number of spells and not having to pick and choose between them is a bad idea but I don't think that what Mike is talking about is e end of the world.

the way I see it, as long as you limit the number of spells known and add a spell learning roll for arcane character the system is good, ACKS has been doing it for a long time and folks report that it works fine.

Warder

The purpose of making it like the Cleric's casting is because they plan on allowing players to choose thier casting system so they're starting with this one. But you'll be able to choose this one, AEDU, Pure Vancian spell points, and possibly otherones. As for the Rogue its not completely clear but I think they plan in allowing the Rogue to make a ability/skill check and attack in the same turn so you could use bluff to gain advantage on you attack, next turn you could attack and then hide, next turn use Undead lore skill to figure out that severing a zombies spine does more damage and gain advantage for your attack, next turn you might trip an enemy and attack it while its on the ground. If this is the case I like it. I like the Clerics positive energy pool, I don't think the points per level is set in stone. I do wonder if evil clerics use negative energy and if so how that will work. The reason they're using points instead of dice is so it won't be too simular to Pathfinders channel energy. Fighter doesn't need a nerf, he needs more but smaller dice early on so he can build cool combos. Parry as seperate needs to be seen to be assessed. I think his comment on the monk means the Monk will have Monastic Traditions which I think they got rid of from an inhouse pactet, and had a plan for the next verison, but realized that people wanted the MTs.

Here's an idea. Allow Sneak Attack damage whenever a Rogue player desires as long as they take Disadvantage on an attack roll.

What will be used to balance Rituals if they're free to use? Spells / day is a mental exhaustion mechanic. That's why Rituals were simply unprepared spell slots before.

Prepared spontaneous casting is hugely powerful for wizards. I'd prefer if you made their spells more powerful and spellcasting more difficult.

Next Playtest Packet do not include Fighters and tell players no combats at all this time around. Then we might see some useful feedback, especially on how classes are balanced.

I'm liking the general direction of this so far. I'm also particularly glad that they are being so open with the design process. I'm actually pretty new to DnD so seeing how things are changing or just the general concept Wizards have for how things should be is great.