D&D 5E L&L: New Packet Hits This Wednesday

[Greg K]

The problem with using the fighter is they are proficient in all armor. I am no longer willing to tell players to ignore armor proficiency to meet the concept of a light armored weapon and the rules not giving them something extra in return for effectively giving up standard class features. I am also no longer willing to start making patches for things like this- the designers need to address it in the rules.

 

[Pour]

This is the sort of reducto ad infinitum argument that really accomplishes nothing. D&D has never been a game of the "magic user" and the "fighting man" with a dozen archetypes. So arguing that you don't need anything other than those and some archetypes isn't going to be a productive way to go.

I think he makes a fair point, the problem is we've yet to see definitively which direction Next will take. It can't take both, it really can't. Either we're getting broad classes leaning heavily on Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, and Rogue in which most other character concepts can be built through robust options, or we're getting specific classes with overlap in martial, magical, and divine expressions and classes like Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, Warlord, etc.

This will be one of the designers' biggest decisions, I think, and likely take or leave the most people with it. I'm guessing it leans specificity.

 

[GX.Sigma]

The problem with using the fighter is they are proficient in all armor. I am no longer willing to tell players to ignore armor proficiency to meet the concept of a light armored weapon and the rules not giving them something extra in return for effectively giving up standard class features. I am also no longer willing to start making patches for things like this- the designers need to address it in the rules.

Working as intended. You want more protection? Wear better armor.

Even Conan wore the heaviest armor once he could afford it.

Same with the paladin; if I want to play a non-magic, secular knight in shining armor, I should be able to do that with the fighter class. My campaigns shouldn't need paladins to have knights, rangers to have valiant woodsmen, or barbarians to have savage "men of the north."

I think [you] make a fair point, the problem is we've yet to see definitively which direction Next will take. It can't take both, it really can't.

Really? Can't you do this already in the playtest rules?

Fighter + Guide background = "valiant woodsman"
Fighter + Knight background = "knight in shining armor"
Fighter - money = "savage men of the north"

 

[Bow_Seat]

Haven't played enough 4e to see a Warden. What's a Warden?

Edit: I looked it up in the PHB2. So it's just a fighter/druid? Why do we need a class for that?

we don't. that's the point. Instead of making it a fighter/druid this time they're just using the mechanics for a neutral paladin with the same end result.

 

[keterys]

I'd not be surprised if AC ends up fairly similar as long as you have the Dex to go with lighter armors, so you have less penalties for using lower, but it requires Dex.

 

[Greg K]

Working as intended. You want more protection? Wear better armor.

Even Conan wore the heaviest armor once he could afford it.

I don't care what Conan did. If the character concept is a warrior that has only been trained in light armor, then the game should give the character something in exchange. Later if the character wants to learn medium armor or heavy armor, they should take appropriate feats (and, yes, I want to see the armor and weapon proficiency feats return)

 

[Pour]

@GX.Sigma

I'm referring to having both extremely broad classes like Fighter and extremely specific classes as Ranger and Paladin done well in the same game while maintaining the integrity of their mechanical design space without overlap and optimization. I think in order to guard against bloat, lesser options and varying design quality, and a less-focused and less-cohesive edition as a whole, the designers have to choose one or the other. Having both compromises both. My take, anyway.

 

[calprinicus]

When I saw 'first level wildshape' the only thing I thought of was being cheated since thats normally why I invested in a druid. Now a simple 1 level of multiclass and everyone has easy access to it.

 

[keterys]

The talk of loading things up at 1st level suggests that multiclassing will not be as simple as, say, 3e. Guess we'll see.

 

[Salamandyr]

When I saw 'first level wildshape' the only thing I thought of was being cheated since thats normally why I invested in a druid. Now a simple 1 level of multiclass and everyone has easy access to it.

Think of it this way. Now you'll no longer be stuck playing only one character class if what's really important to you is playing a shapeshifter.

More probably, I'll bet that multiclassing doesn't automatically give you ever first level ability of a new class.