D&D 5E How Can D&D Next Win You Over?

[Ahnehnois]

There's no need for compromise whatsoever. I'm not adopting 5E out of charity. Either 5E provides a comparable or superior experience to what I already have(4E) or it goes in the trash can. Given the experience of the past few years, I don't expect to have any difficulty in continuing to find 4E players. As others have said, WotC needs me FAR more than I need 5E.

If one substitutes 3e for 4e, I have essentially the same perspective.

I offer my input out of goodwill to try to make the game and the hobby better, but WotC will have to work very hard to get any of my money. The only compromise I'm interested in is compromising between what I already have and perfection.

 

[Scylla]

— Have more an AD&D feeling than more recent editions

— Make multiclassing or hybrids a rare, not-necessarily-advantageous choice to be selected because it fits the character concept, rather than merely to increase character effectiveness/power

These two things seem somewhat at odds.

Not at all. In 1e and 2e, in my experience, multiclassed PCs constituted about 1 in 6 of all characters I DMed (this over many years of DMing). That makes them fairly rare compared with 3rd edition in particular.
In addition, a 2nd/3rd M-U/Fighter was generally weaker in a combat situation (albeit more versatile) than either a 5th-level mage or a 5th-level fighter. My experience with 3e and 4e is that players mutliclass about 95% of the time to address a perceived power/ability deficiency, and not to round out any character concept.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

— Have more an AD&D feeling than more recent editions

— Make multiclassing or hybrids a rare, not-necessarily-advantageous choice to be selected because it fits the character concept, rather than merely to increase character effectiveness/power



Not at all. In 1e and 2e, in my experience, multiclassed PCs constituted about 1 in 6 of all characters I DMed (this over many years of DMing). That makes them fairly rare compared with 3rd edition in particular.
In addition, a 2nd/3rd M-U/Fighter was generally weaker in a combat situation (albeit more versatile) than either a 5th-level mage or a 5th-level fighter. My experience with 3e and 4e is that players mutliclass about 95% of the time to address a perceived power/ability deficiency, and not to round out any character concept.

In AD&D, multiclass characters were generally a single level behind non-multiclass characters until double digit levels(which were rarely played), unless you were using a punitive misinterpretation of the xp rules. They were more common than 1 in 6 in the games I was involved in, more like a little less than 50/50.

 

[Balesir]

FWIW my experience with 1e and 2e was that whether or not folks multiclassed was based on how long they expected the "campaign" to last. If all you expected to get to play was the first 3 levels or so, multi-classing (or playing a cleric or fighter) was a good option. Much longer than that and it became a sentence to end up left behind. Thieves and M-Us, especially, were much more survivable/powerful/fun at very low levels if crossed with fighter or cleric.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

FWIW my experience with 1e and 2e was that whether or not folks multiclassed was based on how long they expected the "campaign" to last. If all you expected to get to play was the first 3 levels or so, multi-classing (or playing a cleric or fighter) was a good option. Much longer than that and it became a sentence to end up left behind. Thieves and M-Us, especially, were much more survivable/powerful/fun at very low levels if crossed with fighter or cleric.

It was more than three levels, more like 9-11(in 2E). Actually using the 1E racial level limits lowered this somewhat, but IME that was one of the most detested rules in that edition. Multiclass characters were one level behind, which while significant still made having two classes a strong choice, as long as the xp needed to advance roughly doubled every level, which it did until "name" level. In particular, for the Thief class which was weak on its own, Fighter/Thief or Mage/Thief resulted in a far more effective character than a pure Thief. Past name level, they fell behind.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If one substitutes 3e for 4e, I have essentially the same perspective.

I offer my input out of goodwill to try to make the game and the hobby better, but WotC will have to work very hard to get any of my money. The only compromise I'm interested in is compromising between what I already have and perfection.

There's something else on which we agree on! D&D Next stands or falls on whether it is a good game.

Not at all. In 1e and 2e, in my experience, multiclassed PCs constituted about 1 in 6 of all characters I DMed (this over many years of DMing). That makes them fairly rare compared with 3rd edition in particular.
In addition, a 2nd/3rd M-U/Fighter was generally weaker in a combat situation (albeit more versatile) than either a 5th-level mage or a 5th-level fighter.

XP for 2nd level MU: 2500
XP for 3rd level fighter: 5000
XP for 3rd level fighter: 4000

Possible XP range for 2nd/3rd MU/Fighter: 8-10,000

XP for 5th level fighter: 16,000
XP for 5th level mage: 20,000

16,000 XP = 3rd/4th MU/Fighter
20,000 XP = 4th/4th MU/Fighter

Tell me, were you using house rules to make multiclassing a weaker option? Because I have problems seeing a dart-specialist or even a second rank polearm specialist 4/4 MU/Fighter as weaker in combat than a 5th level MU. And I'm trying to see even the combat advantage a level 5 fighter holds over a 4/4 fighter/cleric. (OK, +1 to hit. W00t!) The F/MU has armour issues of course.

Then there was human dual classing. Where for the low, low sum of 2001 XP you could get your first two hit dice as d10s, and be a weapon specialist when you had nothing better to do.

 

[pemerton]

In addition, a 2nd/3rd M-U/Fighter was generally weaker in a combat situation (albeit more versatile) than either a 5th-level mage or a 5th-level fighter.

That would be because a 2MU/3F has 8000 XP, compared to the 16,000 XP for a 5th level fighter (I can't remember the XP requirement for a 5th level MU - but it may be criminally low, because that is about the point at which the MU XP table goes bananas).

Also, what [MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION] and [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] said.

EDIT: [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] has posted the XP figures. But as for F/MU armour issues, not an issue in 1st ed AD&D for an elf or half-elf, who can cast in any armour if multi-classs (a gnome multi-class illusionist is limited to leather, however - but the best of these are illusionist/thieves in any event, and so don't mind).

 

[pemerton]

Well, that makes one non-4e player to the dozen or so 4e people who've posted about how D&D Next = Fail because fighters don't have spells

Who has posted calling for fighters to have spells?

 

[Neonchameleon]

Well, that makes one non-4e player to the dozen or so 4e people who've posted about how D&D Next = Fail because fighters don't have spells, monsters lack roles, Vancian magic, etc.

OK. If you're going to obviously make stuff up about 4e, you're probably best ignored.

4e does not and has never had fighter spells. The only fighter powers in the entire game that are remotely magical are Come And Get It/Warrior's Urging (and that isn't magical), and the two Eladrin Knight powers that help you teleport but require you to already be able to teleport. What the complaint is is two things. 1: The fighter was tedious to play. 2: The fighter wasn't even the best melee combatant in the party (that would be the warpriest). So I don't know who you've seen complaining that fighters don't have spells. Book of 9 Swords fans who avoided 4e?

As for Vancian Magic, it's the marmite of D&D. People love it or they hate it. (I'm on the side that says so-called Vancian magic (which has little to do with the works of Jack Vance - Vance's protagonists make much better 4e characters) works only in a Gygaxian dungeon where you can't rest). Even before 4e it was the single most contentious part of D&D, and GenCon cheered when it was announced that Vancian Magic was being ditched.

 

[Jester David]

Who has posted calling for fighters to have spells?

Many of the posters who want fighters to to have spellcaster-esque limited resources and 4e powers.

OK. If you're going to obviously make stuff up about 4e, you're probably best ignored.

4e does not and has never had fighter spells. The only fighter powers in the entire game that are remotely magical are Come And Get It/Warrior's Urging (and that isn't magical), and the two Eladrin Knight powers that help you teleport but require you to already be able to teleport. What the complaint is is two things. 1: The fighter was tedious to play. 2: The fighter wasn't even the best melee combatant in the party (that would be the warpriest). So I don't know who you've seen complaining that fighters don't have spells. Book of 9 Swords fans who avoided 4e?

Other than keywords, exploits are identical to spells. Some of that is the limiting of spells to damage and a kicker. But I do enjoy how you defend the fighter as non magical at all and then bring up the two examples of magical powers. Which I have seen stridently defended with posteres insisting on their inclusion and non-removal.
Some of that was lazy design. There are a number of ways to make a realistic version of Come And Get it with the mechanics emulating the fluff.
But if they can only use it once a fight or per day for no reason other than "because spell can only be used 1/day too" then it's a spell, just not a magical one.