D&D 5E New D&D Next Playtest package is up (19/9/2013) [merged threads]

[Mistwell]

And that it doesn't go up if the levels in that class don't go up? So a Mage 7/Fighter 1 will only gain a +1 to STR and CON rolls while losing a casting level and the other stuff.
+1 does not sound like it's worth all the trouble unless it fits in my character story.

I don't think that is correct.

 

[tuxgeo]

Mearls' guess about duplicated proficiencies:

From another of Mearls' tweets: "Final rule should be that if you get a duplicate prof, replace it with one of your choice." (20 Sep 13.)

That opens up another whole can of worms, doesn't it? Certain Backgrounds for Ranger and Rogue invite abuse:

If a Ranger takes the "Guide" background, he or she gets proficiency in "mounts (land)" from both that class and that background -- so every Guide Ranger is going to be choosing at least one replacement prof.

If a Rogue takes the "Guild Thief" background, he or she gets proficiency in "thieves' tools" from both that class and that background -- so every Guild Thief Rogue is going to be choosing at least one replacement prof.

It gets worse: an Elf Bard gets proficiency in Shortbow, Long sword, and Short sword both from race and class, so he or she is going to be choosing at least three replacement proficiencies, even before taking background into account.

I hope they make it robust enough so this potential feature of replacement proficiencies won't break other game features. One way to do that might be to restrict the replacements by type: duplicate tool proficiencies must be replaced by other tool proficiencies, and duplicate weapon proficiencies must be replaced by other weapon proficiencies; but that might be too restrictive for the game to be as fun as it should be.

 

[Remathilis]

From another of Mearls' tweets: "Final rule should be that if you get a duplicate prof, replace it with one of your choice." (20 Sep 13.)

That opens up another whole can of worms, doesn't it? Certain Backgrounds for Ranger and Rogue invite abuse:

If a Ranger takes the "Guide" background, he or she gets proficiency in "mounts (land)" from both that class and that background -- so every Guide Ranger is going to be choosing at least one replacement prof.

If a Rogue takes the "Guild Thief" background, he or she gets proficiency in "thieves' tools" from both that class and that background -- so every Guild Thief Rogue is going to be choosing at least one replacement prof.

It gets worse: an Elf Bard gets proficiency in Shortbow, Long sword, and Short sword both from race and class, so he or she is going to be choosing at least three replacement proficiencies, even before taking background into account.

I hope they make it robust enough so this potential feature of replacement proficiencies won't break other game features. One way to do that might be to restrict the replacements by type: duplicate tool proficiencies must be replaced by other tool proficiencies, and duplicate weapon proficiencies must be replaced by other weapon proficiencies; but that might be too restrictive for the game to be as fun as it should be.

If a paladin multi-classes into fighter, would he get a dozen free proficiencies for the duplicate weapon and armor profs?

It seems to me fix is to slightly deferinciate the types of "proficiencies" there are:

1.) If you get a duplicate weapon or armor proficiency, you don't get a bonus choice.

2.) If you get a duplicate tool, you can select a different tool of your choice.

3.) If you get a duplicate skill, you can get a different skill of your choice from your class list. (Note: this is hard since most classes give a choice anyway).

4.) If you get a duplicate save proficiency, you do not get another choice.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Maybe you're unaware of how often you mention Burning Wheel? You've brought it up in most L&L discussion articles, all playtest package discussion threads, and a bunch of 4e threads, DMs advice threads, alternative rules threads, D&D variation threads, articles from others about D&D threads, the "wrong path" thread....a fairly constant stream of you mentioning Burning Wheel in supposedly D&D threads in the D&D forum.

And it's not like EnWorld doesn't have a forum set aside just for those sorts of discussions, as the "RPGs & Tabletop Gaming Discussion" is for that, and Burning Wheel is discussed there plenty. But the "D&D and Pathfinder" forum isn't it. The occasional mention of another game is OK, particularly for a new version of D&D (though as I noted you do it plenty in 4e threads as well), but I think any rational reading of the sheer quantity of times you mention Burning Wheel in D&D threads indicates it's well past occasional mentions and firmly in the "looking for excuses to mention this other non-D&D game I really like and want you to like as well" realm.

I own the MouseGuard RPG that, as you know, uses a streamlined version of the Burning Wheel mechanics (mostly because I am a fan of the comic and cover some Archaia stuff for another website). It's an OK game I suppose, but my experience with it is the rules are kinda clunky and seems more focused on cutesy mechanics that read better than they play at the actual table.

Nor do their sales reflect popularity of their gaming mechanics, and it doesn't seem to be due to lack of exposure. For an indie game it gets plenty of exposure and has fans, like yourself, who promote the game plenty. But despite that, it's lagging well behind competing games even in their own niche of the gaming industry.

Which tells me we're not talking about a set of rules that has the sort of universal appeal that you imply by the quantity of times you mention it for D&D applications. It doesn't seem like you're mentioning it to get much utility out of adapting it to a D&D rule - mostly you seem to mention it just to mention it, whether it's useful or not to the conversation. For example, on this conversation, you tossed it in there in a sort of content-less way, with a broad declaration it has more character customization with nothing connected to that. Unless someone has played the game, your contribution in mentioning it was fairly pointless...OK, another game customizes characters more, and this means for D&D...?

Anyway, my point is I think perhaps you're a bit obsessed with Burning Wheel, and not noticing how often you bring it up in D&D threads in ways that probably are not informing or persuading people of much of anything.

 

[Li Shenron]

Further Impressions

So I've noticed some major flaws with the multiclass system. The first one is that due to the proficiency system, there is no reason not to multiclass, especially one level into the Fighter. The Fighter gives you proficiency in armor, shields, martial weapons, a skill, and Strength and Constitution saving throws. A continually rising bonus on the weapons, skill and saving throws, plus other benefits the fighter gets at 1st level is well worth that single level.

Another flaw is that the multiclassing system allows a Mage with one level in Fighter with an 8 Strength by taking the Fighter class first. If you take the Mage level first, you wouldn't be able to do that due to the multiclassing requirements.

Another major flaw of the proficiency system is that a high level character newly obtaining a proficiency has a higher bonus than a low level character who has been training in the proficiency for much longer. Between this issue and the issue that crops up with multiclassing, I think proficiency needs to provide a static low bonus to check roles similar to the old skill system from earlier packets which was +3. Multiclassing should also only ever provide a single proficiency obtained for taking a single level in another class.

I hope they fix these by changing the multiclassing rules rather than complicating the proficiency systems, which is neat to me because of the simplicity.

One possibility for weapon & armor proficiencies is to spread them to the first 3 levels of each single class. Some don't like this at all because they want full proficiencies immediately. But my rationale in favor of this, is that (a) you don't need more than 3-4 weapon profs until you start finding magic weapons or getting feats, and (b) you're going to spend only a few game sessions at apprentice levels anyway. Thus IMO it would be quite fine if e.g. the Fighter got 2 martial weapons of choice at 1st level, 2 more at 2nd, all the rest at 3rd. For armors, I would not go with Light at 1st, Medium at 2nd, Heavy at 3rd (which would sound like the easiest choice) but rather pick 1 specific armor from each of the 3 groups at 1st, another at 2nd, get all the rest at 3rd.

Saving throws are much worse... here there can really be some abuse, dipping 1 level into class B to get 2 more ST proficiencies, then 1 level into class C to get the last 2, and be proficient in all ST forever. I don't like the sound of that...

I also don't like the strange problem with stat requirements. But that is easy to fix, these could just become class requirements valid also for single classes.

 

[MoonSong]

I hope they fix these by changing the multiclassing rules rather than complicating the proficiency systems, which is neat to me because of the simplicity.

One possibility for weapon & armor proficiencies is to spread them to the first 3 levels of each single class. Some don't like this at all because they want full proficiencies immediately. But my rationale in favor of this, is that (a) you don't need more than 3-4 weapon profs until you start finding magic weapons or getting feats, and (b) you're going to spend only a few game sessions at apprentice levels anyway. Thus IMO it would be quite fine if e.g. the Fighter got 2 martial weapons of choice at 1st level, 2 more at 2nd, all the rest at 3rd. For armors, I would not go with Light at 1st, Medium at 2nd, Heavy at 3rd (which would sound like the easiest choice) but rather pick 1 specific armor from each of the 3 groups at 1st, another at 2nd, get all the rest at 3rd.

Saving throws are much worse... here there can really be some abuse, dipping 1 level into class B to get 2 more ST proficiencies, then 1 level into class C to get the last 2, and be proficient in all ST forever. I don't like the sound of that...

I also don't like the strange problem with stat requirements. But that is easy to fix, these could just become class requirements valid also for single classes.

I can get behind some of the reasoning, but I would say I'm not against delaying saves and full proficiencies (specially weapon and armor) until you take the third level on a class if it isn't your first one. but full classed individuals need them from day one, that way multiclassing becomes less frontloaded and we need less locks, including ability requirements (which are bad, not only for multiclassing but for single classing, as they make each class less versatile and enforce a degree of sameness on characters)

 

[tuxgeo]

If a paladin multi-classes into fighter, would he get a dozen free proficiencies for the duplicate weapon and armor profs?

It seems to me [the] fix is to slightly deferinciate [differentiate?] the types of "proficiencies" there are:

1.) If you get a duplicate weapon or armor proficiency, you don't get a bonus choice.

2.) If you get a duplicate tool, you can select a different tool of your choice.

3.) If you get a duplicate skill, you can get a different skill of your choice from your class list. (Note: this is hard since most classes give a choice anyway).

4.) If you get a duplicate save proficiency, you do not get another choice.

I like that breakdown, and I think something like that might work well.

 

[Li Shenron]

It seems to me fix is to slightly deferinciate the types of "proficiencies" there are:

1.) If you get a duplicate weapon or armor proficiency, you don't get a bonus choice.

2.) If you get a duplicate tool, you can select a different tool of your choice.

3.) If you get a duplicate skill, you can get a different skill of your choice from your class list. (Note: this is hard since most classes give a choice anyway).

4.) If you get a duplicate save proficiency, you do not get another choice.

This sounds very reasonable to me!

I just noticed that class typically grants proficiencies in:

- a variety of weapons and armors
- 2 saving throws (except Druid and Rogue, only 1)
- 1 skill chosen from a list of 3-4 (except Bard and Ranger getting 3 and Rogue getting 4, from lists about twice the amount)
- 1 tool (except Monk and Wizard getting 0, Bard gets 3 but all of them are instruments so they almost count as 1)

OTOH background grants proficiencies in:

- no weapons and armors
- no saving throws
- 3 skills
- a combination of 3 tools or languages

So weapon/armor and saving throw proficiencies overlapping are entirely a problem of multiclassing.

Skills and tools overlap can happen also between class and background, but in that case it's hardly a problem... I think that if e.g. the Rogue gets 4 class skills then it means that by the standard game a single-class Rogue should have 7 skills, which means that overlaps should be resolved with your rule 3). This is actually not a problem at all, since you choose class and background at the same time if you're single-class, and you can simply pick class skills from the Rogue class skills list that don't overlap with the 3 fixed skills of the background. Only in a minority of cases you might have e.g. a class with a list of 3 skills and you want to take a background that unfortunately grants exactly those 3 skills. In that case, it's ok to get a 4th skill by choice so that your PC ends up with the supposed number of skills. By a similar reasoning, I agree with your rule 2).

But things get much more complicated with multiclassing... Is e.g. a Ranger/Rogue really supposed to have 10 skills, and a Bard/Ranger/Rogue supposed to have 13 skills? That doesn't sound right...

However this to me sounds like the proficiency system itself is sound for single-class characters, eventually it is the multiclassing rules that should handle things differently.

 

[Li Shenron]

I can get behind some of the reasoning, but I would say I'm not against delaying saves and full proficiencies (specially weapon and armor) until you take the third level on a class if it isn't your first one. but full classed individuals need them from day one

Well this is the part I'm not sure about anymore. From a narrative point of view, it's better to have a martial type know all the weapons from day one. From a practical point of view, in the standard game those first 2 levels only last IIRC 1-2 sessions each, during which in most cases you're fine with 1 melee weapon + 1 ranged weapon of your choice. The real difference is when you start getting magic items and you want to switch between them.

Armor is trickier. As I said, if the Fighter didn't get Heavy Armor since day 1, it would be both a narrative and practical problem, because it would prevent you to play a character with tactics based on using heavy armor. So I'd suggest instead the Fighter could pick 1 Light + 1 Medium + 1 Heavy armor of choice at 1st level, then again at 2nd, before full prof at 3rd. But I am not really sure it would help much, since the flip of the coin is that the multiclass-dipping player can still manage to dip and get that one single armor prof that may be enough forever.

 

[Remathilis]

This sounds very reasonable to me!

I just noticed that class typically grants proficiencies in:

- a variety of weapons and armors
- 2 saving throws (except Druid and Rogue, only 1)
- 1 skill chosen from a list of 3-4 (except Bard and Ranger getting 3 and Rogue getting 4, from lists about twice the amount)
- 1 tool (except Monk and Wizard getting 0, Bard gets 3 but all of them are instruments so they almost count as 1)

OTOH background grants proficiencies in:

- no weapons and armors
- no saving throws
- 3 skills
- a combination of 3 tools or languages

So weapon/armor and saving throw proficiencies overlapping are entirely a problem of multiclassing.

Skills and tools overlap can happen also between class and background, but in that case it's hardly a problem... I think that if e.g. the Rogue gets 4 class skills then it means that by the standard game a single-class Rogue should have 7 skills, which means that overlaps should be resolved with your rule 3). This is actually not a problem at all, since you choose class and background at the same time if you're single-class, and you can simply pick class skills from the Rogue class skills list that don't overlap with the 3 fixed skills of the background. Only in a minority of cases you might have e.g. a class with a list of 3 skills and you want to take a background that unfortunately grants exactly those 3 skills. In that case, it's ok to get a 4th skill by choice so that your PC ends up with the supposed number of skills. By a similar reasoning, I agree with your rule 2).

But things get much more complicated with multiclassing... Is e.g. a Ranger/Rogue really supposed to have 10 skills, and a Bard/Ranger/Rogue supposed to have 13 skills? That doesn't sound right...

However this to me sounds like the proficiency system itself is sound for single-class characters, eventually it is the multiclassing rules that should handle things differently.

I'm thinking the "you get everything" from multi-classing is probably not going to survive the playtest. Either multi-classing will define what options you get from the class (fighter grants martial weapon prof and Str saves, Rogue grants 2 skill choices and thief-tools, etc) or the player can pick two.

On a slightly unrelated note: Shouldn't Implements be a Tool Proficiency? Spellcasting DCs are already set up like this; why not call it a proficiency in Implements and Holy Symbols, give it to appropriate classes, and be done with it?