I presume you get two styles, but you can't have the same one twice (though as written, Archery and Defense are easily stacked). I presume the same with Bard/Rogue Expertise, that you can't apply both to the same skill and gain +10.
D&D 5E New D&D Next Playtest package is up (19/9/2013) [merged threads]
- Thread starter xechnao
- Start date
I presume you get two styles, but you can't have the same one twice (though as written, Archery and Defense are easily stacked). I presume the same with Bard/Rogue Expertise, that you can't apply both to the same skill and gain +10.
Well I suppose you could pick the same style twice, but what would be the point. I would be inclined to rule that the same proficiency cannot be taken twice in general since they explicitly outline an exception in the case of skills.
Zaruthustran
The tingling means it’s working!
Terrific!
? Passive aggressive? You're projecting. There's no need to be aggressive, passive or otherwise. This is a thread about the latest playtest packet. I put forth the opinion that I didn't like that fighters aren't the best at fighting. You responded to me, and said that if you take everything else they can do into account, they're the best. I clarified I was talking about attack bonus. You again mentioned other features, "overall fighting". This whole "overall fighting" thing is not what our conversation is about--remember, YOU responded to ME. So I again tried to point out the irrefutable fact that 1d20+2 is the same as 1d20+2, and therefore fighters are no better at fighting (as defined by me, the originator of the discussion) than anyone else. Which is true. It's silly to continue to claim otherwise.
If you want to start another thread to talk about overall fighting, feel free. Or if you want to acknowledge my actual point and then start a new conversation about overall fighting here, then okay. But please, no more purposeful obtuseness or dodges.
No need for this.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
Many people in this thread have responded to the claim with "they're best overall at fighting". YOU engaged in that debate as well, saying, "They do [have all those other features], but if you factor in those features then you have to so for the other classes as well, and Fighters don't stack up well against paladins or casters."
If you want to tell people to not talk about something that lots of people in this thread are talking about, maybe you should apply to be a moderator here. Otherwise, don't tell people they'd have to start another thread. If you don't like my responses to you, put me on ignore.
Their overall fighting IS the response to your claim they're not the best at hitting. Because their overall fighting ability is the counter to them being the same at hitting as everyone else. It's the thing that balances that out. You can not like it, but quite claiming it's non-responsive.
I agree, so cut it out already!
Covered.
I agree with both these points. Especially about the multi-classing. It doesn't appeal to me at all.
I don't understand. The poster to whom you initially replied asked (rhetorically):
So what is your (Mistwell's) reason for stopping them? Because it's good for one's character to not be able to play the RPG character one wan'ts to play? That doesn't make any sense to me, even if I ignore the fact that many people (roughly, those whose tastes coincide with the designers' archetype conceptions) will get to play what they want to play.
Off the top of my head, HeroWars/Quest, Marvel Heroic RP and Burning Wheel are all RPGs that let people play the characters that they want to play. I haven't noticed outbreaks of juvenile deliquency caused by them! Nor by the people who really want to play single-classed wizards and are getting just what they want from Next.
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad
I'm trying to recall a thread where you didn't raise the topic of Burning Wheel, somehow, at some point. And I am failing to recall one where you did not.
As for your strawman bait...no thanks.
This thread is about RPG design. Comparison to other RPGs seemed apposite. Given the particular issue was whether or not players should be able to play what they want to play, comparison to other RPGs that permit that also seemed apposite.
Iosue
Legend
Noooo, look at the tags very carefully:
Jestakilla asks, "Still no fix for human stats, any plans to revise them so it's not +1 to everything?"
Mearls replies, "Yes, they'll be revised once we have feedback on the proficiency system."
Thor Odinson then asks, "Any chance there'll be an option for Humans to gain a bonus feat?"
And Jestakilla, not Mearls, responds, "Aha, seems like a good way to balance them vs. other races. Thanks!"
So, in other words, Mearls has said Humans will probably be revised, but has not said in what way, other than possibly involving proficiences.
The Mormegil
First Post
So I didn't bother with the last few packages and can't be bothered with reading the last one either, but I'm a bit curious. I know this community isn't as biased as many other communities out there, so I'm going to ask here.
What advantages has D&D Next got over 4th Edition D&D? What advantages has D&D Next got over 3.P? I just want a summary for all the stuff I lost between the start of the playtest and now, if someone can do it for me it'd be amazing
What advantages has D&D Next got over 4th Edition D&D? What advantages has D&D Next got over 3.P? I just want a summary for all the stuff I lost between the start of the playtest and now, if someone can do it for me it'd be amazing
Similar Threads
