D&D 5E New Q&A: Starting Gold, Paragon and Prestige Paths, and bounded accuracy vs. Feats

[gyor]

http://community.wizards.com/dndnex...ragon_pathsprestige_classes__bounded_accuracy

Since the adventurer Tier is only level 3, starting gold not staying the same as level one isn't a big deal.

Their answer to number 2 makes sense, class specific or heavily leaning paragon paths and prestige classes make more sense as class "choice points" (the new term for builds I guess), and paragon paths and prestige classes that make more sense being applible to multiple classes will end up as feat chains (specialties).

Example Red Wizard would makes sense as a wizard tradition, Malconvoker would make sense as a specialty. Red Dragon Disciple would make more sense as a specialty (mixed with ability score increases), where as Heart Warden of Sune would make more sense as a diety choice for Cleric, and Ruby Knight would make more sense as Paladin Oath. And so on.

The answer to the 3rd makes sense.

The most interesting question was 2 to my mind.

 

[VinylTap]

I think 3 is less of an issue than most people think. It makes a TON of sense for basic, and even if it does prove more powerful in standard than taking feats, it'll be pretty boring. A lot of games are full of boring paths to min/max, and usually get stigmatized, but it'll depend on group in the long run.

At the very least, limiting the amount of stat upgrades you're able to take and when is a really really easy thing to control for a DM. Maybe a little less so if you have a character bouncing between different games, but only on a really competitive level, stat based PCs would have to be real beasts in combat for it to be a huge issue, and at the cost of a lot of utility.

#2 sounds interesting, although nothing super new. I think integrating is really the way to go for these things, and matches up better with how they're handling multi-classing.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Starting Wealth is a non-answer, or at least an incomplete one. Yes, supposedly gold/items doesn't matter. However, I don't believe for a second there aren't guidelines, and that those guidelines don't include starting wealth. Why not just say items are still being worked on?

Prestige/Paragon is basically a recapitulation of L&L with more examples.

My only concern regarding +1 feats and bounded accuracy is that they will make those magical means of crossing the boundary must-haves.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

The answer to #1 should be: "None, we're finally dumping the gold standard and going to the silver standard so that D&D economics will make at least some kind of sense!"

 

[gyor]

Why a Silver standard?

 

[Grydan]

From now on, D&D will use the barter system. A long-sword is about three chickens. Two for a goat.

 

[Blue]

They are still clueless in terms of #3. Their response is only true end-game, not mid-game.

2 characters built using the basic array, putting a 15 in their prime ability and raising it from both race and class. 17, for a +3 bonus. A few feats later (perhaps in a feat-quick class), one has raised it by 3 to 20, the other took 3 feats. There's now a +2 difference in prime ability modifiers. An average foe that they hit 50% of the time, the other character only hits 40% of the time. Plus if it's melee or ranged so you add you prime ability to damage, it makes that much more effective.

Sample: Assume d8 (4.5)+Str damage, and 50% chance for the stronger to hit:
20 Str character: 4.5+5=9.5 average damage per hit, 50% hit rate means average damage of 4.75 per round.
17 Str character: 4.5+3=7.5 average damage per hit, 40% hit rate means average damage of 3 per round.

Difference is that the one taking the Str advancements is doing close to 60% more damage per round (4.75/3=1.58333).

That is NOT in the same bullpark, and it sounds like they are not being honest about that with themselves.

Yes, some or all of those feats could be combat feats. But they are still getting applied less often because of less hits.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Starting Wealth is a non-answer, or at least an incomplete one. Yes, supposedly gold/items doesn't matter. However, I don't believe for a second there aren't guidelines, and that those guidelines don't include starting wealth. Why not just say items are still being worked on?

My RPG is a level-based fantasy system, and it has no "if you're higher level, you get this much more magic and wealth." My game doesn't have the need for magic items (or wealth), so I didn't see the need for that. I do have a system that lets higher level characters get more chances to gather wealth or magic, but that's only because it's a pseudo background system, seeing what you've done up to this point.

At any rate, I don't at all see why this can't apply to 5e. And, truthfully, I hope it's the case. As always, play what you like

Sample: Assume d8 (4.5)+Str damage, and 50% chance for the stronger to hit:
20 Str character: 4.5+5=9.5 average damage per hit, 50% hit rate means average damage of 4.75 per round.
17 Str character: 4.5+3=7.5 average damage per hit, 40% hit rate means average damage of 3 per round.

Difference is that the one taking the Str advancements is doing close to 60% more damage per round (4.75/3=1.58333).

That is NOT in the same bullpark, and it sounds like they are not being honest about that with themselves.

To me, this sounds like a "depth vs. breadth" decision. You can game combat depth (+1 Str), or you can gain combat breadth (something like a Cleave ability). You can gain spellcaster depth (+1 Wisdom for a Cleric), or you can gain spellcaster breadth (Necromancer feat for skeletal companion, for example).

I don't mind that kind of decision at all. Sure, the other guy does more damage, but I get toys he doesn't, and can do things he can't do. To me, this is fair. You can choose to specialize (depth), or broaden your character (breadth). Both are valid options, but it does mean that those who specialize are better in their field than those who don't; but, those who don't can do more things than those who specialize. Seems fair to me, personally. And, if they're okay with this dynamic, then they aren't "not being honest", they're just making a design decision you don't like. As always, play what you like

 

[RangerWickett]

I'm fine with a character who's 60% more effective in combat than someone else (who at least gets to do cool stuff aside from combat). The problem is when they're 300% more effective, and can do everything the other person can.

It would be nice if a small section in the Player's Handbook said, "If your group wants a combat-heavy game, be aware that having a low score in your main combat stat will have a major detriment to your effectiveness. That said, you don't have to be dealing damage or killing enemies to be effective in combat, and most games will provide many options to shine outside of battle, so don't feel like you simply must have a 20 in all your stats in order to help your party."

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'm fine with a character who's 60% more effective in combat than someone else (who at least gets to do cool stuff aside from combat). The problem is when they're 300% more effective, and can do everything the other person can.

It would be nice if a small section in the Player's Handbook said, "If your group wants a combat-heavy game, be aware that having a low score in your main combat stat will have a major detriment to your effectiveness. That said, you don't have to be dealing damage or killing enemies to be effective in combat, and most games will provide many options to shine outside of battle, so don't feel like you simply must have a 20 in all your stats in order to help your party."

Nobody else can see this, but I XP'd it with a "Yep." Just putting it here since XP isn't visible.