D&D 5E December Package is here, it was about time!!

[RevTurkey]

I would like to repeat that I hope this new edition is fantastic.

I am not a game system designer and neither are most of the people thinking they have the 'answers' for this next edition. I would be happy to forget about play-testing and focus groups and all those other things that tend to dilute designer's visions and original intentions in exchange for a game with a really strong sense of identity.

I think that WoTC should have spent longer on writing an Alpha Play-test. Then spent longer letting us play with it and examining our feedback. Then responding with a Beta test. Then, again spending longer investigating opinions and findings. Then....go away and make the final game.

The drip fed test we are getting, written ahead of feedback inspection is, in my cynical grumpy opinion...a little bit muddled and pointless and as I have suggested...perhaps more about keeping us invested in the brand while they beaver away without product after the abandonment of 4th Edition.

I'm done now. I have repeated myself in three different ways and frankly I am boring myself now.

Have fun, fingers crossed they make a great game

 

[Manbearcat]

I wish you were right, but at the moment I just don't see how this could be true for the classes.

I'm not so sure. My guess is that if you never had confirmation on what a basic product looked like and recieved the "advanced" version of a board-game (with the advanced card deck, the fancy rules interactions for landing on this square or that, etc), you might feel the same way you do now. The same applies for something like Legos. If you're a little kid and you go over to your buddies house and he has this SUPER-DUPER FANCY SPACESHIP WITH OMGLASERS AND PHOTOS MISSLES AND A CARGO BAY FOR 10 STRIKE FIGHTERS, you might not know that his mom just bought him a simple plane chasis and he "augmented" it with a bunch of his other Lego sets.

I think over the weekend I might make an effort to try to reverse engineer some Basic/1e characters out of what we currently have. I suspect that if you:

- pared away a lot of things (specialties, backgrounds, etc)
- created an archetype package and made it default
- embedded a few passive bonuses, rather than strategic and tactical resource decisions
- and then did the same with monsters

...I'll bet the game would work just fine as a user-friendly, entry-level product.

 

[timASW]

That would require the fighter to roll close to the maximum on his martial damage dice and weapon damage, though - which is not likely unless he has some ability to maximize his damage (like the monk).

That said, a party of five 20th level PCs (fighter, rogue, monk, cleric, wizard) should have no problem taking down Asmodeus (level 20, AC 17, 250 hp) in just two or maybe three rounds.

Critical hits do max damage now. When you take into account all the ways you can strike with advantage I dont find it too unlikely to see crits come up quite often.

Hell even without a crit if an 11th level fighter takes weapon focus he's guaranteed at least 23 damage an attack before adding STR or items and thats assuming he rolls all 1's. Or 35 damage with a surge an no STR with all 1's.

So your really looking at a fighter getting 35-90 with his surge, which is pretty high for a melee guy to do consistently.

 

[fuzzlewump]

Finally, I think there is a huge misunderstanding on what "flexibility" really is in this game. WotC boards (therefore I guess also the feedback and the polls...) are full of positive comments on the Cleric's Channeling mechanics on the ground that it makes the Cleric more flexible. If you think about it a bit longer, you'll realize that it's the opposite: if the powers associated to channeling were just spells, you'll be MORE flexible (assuming you add the number of daily uses of the 2 mechanics together), because you would be able to choose to spend all your slots on spells, all your slots on channeling powers, or any combination; right now, having 2 silos means LESS flexible and MORE complex, because you have 2 different lists of powers to keep before your eye during the game, so when it's your turn you'll spend MORE time because you have 2 decisions to make (do I cast a spell or do I use channeling? which spell/power do I use?) instead of just 1. Not to mention the redundancy of the concept, since both things represent "channeling the powers of your gods into a magical effect".

I don't really disagree with you, as with the definition of flexibility and complexity you are using you are correct. Nor do I know of what people on WotC boards claim, but here's a possibly what is meant and how I personally see it. Playing the cleric is less complex with channel divinity as it is, because you don't have to weigh losing the resource of the channel divinity effect vs. losing the resource of a spell. If they are in the same silo, you would be unsure as a cleric whether or not dealing 2d10 damage now with your Channel Wrath is worth giving up your healing spell (or what have you) later. As it stands, you don't have to make that complex choice. Which spells to cast and when to cast them remains a complex choice, and will be so regardless if they do it your way or the way as written.

Flexibility I think is also in play style. Knowing you are using a different resource pull than healing, you feel like you have more flexibility in how you play your cleric. Of course, channel positive energy kind of throws a wrench into that, but that's a character creation choice at least rather than one that needs to be made day by day.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

It doesn't bother me that Fighters can do a lot of damage, because after all the aim is not not have to hit bonuses and AC inflate as high as they did before. The issue with fighter damage would be how much damage would fighters do in relation to other classes.

And right now they can do consistently more than Wizards can practically all the time. I'm thinking that perhaps Wizards and other spellcasters should have something like a "Spellcaster Damage Bonus" that's similar to the Martial Damage Bonus, except that it possibly doesn't scale as high as the one that Fighters get. It could be something like +10 at level 20, and only applies to one target a round.

Also occasionally having an implement bonus on some magic items might help too making a lot of wands and staffs and so on a compromise between how they are in 4e and 3e would be something to try too, but having such things shouldn't be something that's assumed.

 

[BobTheNob]

Finally, I think there is a huge misunderstanding on what "flexibility" really is in this game. WotC boards (therefore I guess also the feedback and the polls...) are full of positive comments on the Cleric's Channeling mechanics on the ground that it makes the Cleric more flexible. If you think about it a bit longer, you'll realize that it's the opposite: if the powers associated to channeling were just spells, you'll be MORE flexible (assuming you add the number of daily uses of the 2 mechanics together), because you would be able to choose to spend all your slots on spells, all your slots on channeling powers, or any combination; right now, having 2 silos means LESS flexible and MORE complex, because you have 2 different lists of powers to keep before your eye during the game, so when it's your turn you'll spend MORE time because you have 2 decisions to make (do I cast a spell or do I use channeling? which spell/power do I use?) instead of just 1. Not to mention the redundancy of the concept, since both things represent "channeling the powers of your gods into a magical effect".

I know exactly what you are saying with this. Your right...ultimately its just a god-given, limited use resource, how does 2 different systems that achieve the same end imply flexibility. If anything, its unnecessary complication.

That said, I would love it if channeling and spells represented very distinct things. I have always been of the opinion that clerical magical should be subtle, that the gods choose to intervene in ways that imply they did nothing at all. When you cast bless, there is no flash of light, when you cast create water it manifests as water springing from a nearby spring. But channeling? Well, thats the point where I see the gods taking the kit gloves off, willing to use those abilities that alter reality and leave no doubt as to their intention and presence. When moses called down the column of flame and split the red sea...not spells, channels. I see spells as the things cleric uses to back mundane activities, and channels as their joker card.

Now, you might not agree with my definition of what spells and channels should be (previous threads have clearly indicated some do and some dont), but my point is that I think there is room for channels and spells as differing mechanics on the proviso that there is a clear delineation of intention as the what the two things actually mean and how they are used. As it stands, Im not sure thats the case.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

It doesn't bother me that Fighters can do a lot of damage, because after all the aim is not not have to hit bonuses and AC inflate as high as they did before. The issue with fighter damage would be how much damage would fighters do in relation to other classes.

And right now they can do consistently more than Wizards can practically all the time. I'm thinking that perhaps Wizards and other spellcasters should have something like a "Spellcaster Damage Bonus" that's similar to the Martial Damage Bonus, except that it possibly doesn't scale as high as the one that Fighters get. It could be something like +10 at level 20, and only applies to one target a round.

Also occasionally having an implement bonus on some magic items might help too making a lot of wands and staffs and so on a compromise between how they are in 4e and 3e would be something to try too, but having such things shouldn't be something that's assumed.

Wrong.

Why do so many people forget to factor in chance to hit, save for half damage and multiple targets when comparing Fighter and Wizard damage capability? You should not compare an AoE spell's single target damage unfactored for save for half to a Fighter's damage on a hit.

If a Meteor Storm can hit 6 targets, it will deal the equivalent of the damage a Fighter would deal over 5 rounds.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

[MAP][/MAP]

I know exactly what you are saying with this. Your right...ultimately its just a god-given, limited use resource, how does 2 different systems that achieve the same end imply flexibility. If anything, its unnecessary complication.

That said, I would love it if channeling and spells represented very distinct things. I have always been of the opinion that clerical magical should be subtle, that the gods choose to intervene in ways that imply they did nothing at all. When you cast bless, there is no flash of light, when you cast create water it manifests as water springing from a nearby spring. But channeling? Well, thats the point where I see the gods taking the kit gloves off, willing to use those abilities that alter reality and leave no doubt as to their intention and presence. When moses called down the column of flame and split the red sea...not spells, channels. I see spells as the things cleric uses to back mundane activities, and channels as their joker card.

Now, you might not agree with my definition of what spells and channels should be (previous threads have clearly indicated some do and some dont), but my point is that I think there is room for channels and spells as differing mechanics on the proviso that there is a clear delineation of intention as the what the two things actually mean and how they are used. As it stands, Im not sure thats the case.

I agree, and think there's some evidence of this in the playtest - notably the arcanist channeling that gives you advantage on a spell. But time will tell whether this system is indeed superior to just giving each divinity exclusive spells.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Wrong.

Why do so many people forget to factor in chance to hit, save for half damage and multiple targets when comparing Fighter and Wizard damage capability? You should not compare an AoE spell's single target damage unfactored for save for half to a Fighter's damage on a hit.

If a Meteor Storm can hit 6 targets, it will deal the equivalent of the damage a Fighter would deal over 5 rounds.

I don't consider AoE damage in damage totals for the reason that it's situational, and that always there's going to be one target that's the concern. If AoE needs to be considered in damage output calculations, then it should be only considered to be something like a multiplier of 1.5 for the point of fairness in damage calculations. Also Meteor Storm is something that a Wizard can only do once a day, while the average damage on a hit of 50 for a fighter is something something they can do every round, compared to the average of 22 a wizard can do every round on a hit with a typical cantrip.

 

[Obryn]

I don't consider AoE damage in damage totals for the reason that it's situational, and that always there's going to be one target that's the concern

...Why?

That's not at all right in my experience.

-O