D&D 5E L&L for November 18

[DEFCON 1]

This sounds like a hierarchy of category types, all components of which are character abilities. I mean, the article says, "A priority ranking for D&D is a list of character option categories, such as classes and proficiencies."

Mike isn't talking about the power of each ability you gain being better/stronger the higher you are up on the list. Rather, Mike is talking about the importance of the focuses of your character being stronger, or easier to gain or use higher up on the list.

So like he says... take invisibility/stealth. For them... it was more important that the stealthiest a character could be (in the easiest form) should come from class (as it is the highest priority.) They wanted the Rogue class to be the stealthiest, rather than the Invisibility spell giving you the best overall stealth. In this case, Class has a higher priority than Spell. It's their way of solving the problem that many players had in previous editions, which was spellcasters not only stepping on other character's toes... but also outright stomping on them.

I'm pretty sure something like Opening Locks would fall into this same situation-- when it came time to figure out the power of all the ways of opening a locked door, I'm pretty sure they wanted to design it such that the Class (in this case, again, the Rogue) had the strongest/easiest/most successful time of it, than say the Knock spell. Which makes all the sense in the world. They don't feel that a standard Wizard with a Knock spell should be hands-down better at opening locks than a standard Rogue.

Now, as he said... if a PC wanted to spend several different resources to reach a certainly level of power with some ability, then yeah it was okay for them to surpass the run-of-the-mill class who didn't focus on it. Like Mike said... a non-Ranger who took a certain background, feats and spells might be able to be a better tracker than your standard Ranger... but that was okay because of the amount of resources spent. But by no means would they want a single background Trait, or single Spell, or single Feat make you better at tracking that the one ability the Ranger class gives you to do it.

By the same token (although I don't recall any abilities yet in the game to give these to you)... they probably don't want any background, spell or feat to give you a better chance at what you can do with Stonecunning than that ability you get for being a dwarf. Selecting that race should have some importance... but that doesn't happen when you can be better at what dwarves do just by selecting a single ability elsewhere.

If the PC decides to select several different abilities that make them better overall at "stonecunning" like actions that your prototypical dwarf? That's fine. But at the same time... that self-same dwarf could also probably select one or two of those abilities himself and be the strongest/best character overall.

And that makes total sense to me.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I know. That's the source of my "sadness" at feats being on the bottom.

I don't mind class being on top. I just wish feats were worth more than background and race. Just my preference.

If Feats were higher on the priority list than Backgrounds, then the way it would need to work would be you'd get more skills from a single feat than you get from a Background. Is that really what you want? Seems to me to be exactly opposite of would be ideal. In terms of acquiring skills... Backgrounds being the primary methodology to gain them seems (by definition) to be the way for it to be.

And by the same token... if you could be better at elf abilities by the selection of a single feat over the selection of Elf as your race... then that too seems backwards to me. Why would you want to discredit the selection of your character's race that way?

 

[MoonSong]

Whie I undertand your point, it does sort of assume that the only way they can make a Sorceror is the way it was done in 3rd edition. And even if that's the case, giving other casters massive power and versatility beause otherwise Sorcerors would be weak implies two things. One, that class balance is important enough for the rules to be made to accomodate Sorcerors; two, that Sorcerors, a class that has very little history in D&D, are important enough to require that accomodation to be made in a way that clearly makes non-caster classes weaker in both versatility and power to casters.

Ok, not necessarily the 3.x way, but sorcerers are highly thematic by nature, from the "pick a niche" of 3.x to the "pick your element/theme/origin" of 4e and PF, a sorcerer that switches his/her full repertoire overnight will fail in that regard, one that keeps a spellbook fails equally, also this isn't a problem exclusive to sorcerers, bards are already there, with that kind of casting. so it isn't a matter of making room for sorcerers only, bards already demand that accommodation. And a sorcerer that could be almost as effective as a rogue at being a thief by virtue of using his/her spells to fill that niche isn't more powerful nor more versatile than the rogue, and isn't making it redundant, and neither is the same as a Mage who chose to obviate a fellow rogue for today, because that sorcerer took the opportunity cost of focussing on being a thief instead of something else and that is a long term commitment, one that is as worthy of being effective as picking "rogue" and running with it.

Of course that something must be done to keep Mages and clerics under control and balanced to mundanes, but things aren't as black and white as to deny sorcerer players any kind of concession "because all casters are OP, help one and mundanes automatically suck". Besides as I keep telling, sorcerers while relatively new, they are still significative for the inclusiveness that Next purports to give, don't forget that this "very little history" of yours is "only" thirteen years out of the thirty-nine years D&D has (that is a third of D&D's history and two out of five or six editions, thank you)

 

[steeldragons]

In case anyone didn't know/notice by now, you will not find a more avid and boisterous advocate for "the Sorcerer" class than KL 'round these parts.

 

[MJS]

From the article:

Thus, a rogue who takes stealth options within the class shouldn’t be overshadowed by the invisibility spell. A class trumps a spell.

Meaning what? They're not really comparable to begin with. But it does smell of false "balance".

 

[Mistwell]

Feats are entirely optional for this version of the game, so I a not surprised they ranked the low in priority.

 

[mcintma]

It is false balance IMO. Spells often fizzle even when you're lucky enough to know and have prepared the right one - saves, SR, ER, dispel, disruption, immunities, etc. Spells are limited (so limited in D&DN) and IMO they should trump at-wills.

Casters have been beaten senseless in D&DN. Lower DCs, way fewer slots than D&D 1e-3e, nerfed spells, ... and personally 'spamming' cantrips to stay relevant is not to my liking.

Good thing my other fav class, Rogue, looks pretty playable

 

[Sage Genesis]

Not all casters though. A bard doesn't has quite that ability (and I expect sorcerer won't either), bards also pick a spell and they become set in stone forever (or at least as long as it takes to level up and retrain, just like feats)

Bards are not a full caster the way Mages, Clerics, and Druids are. When people speak of casters vs others it's safe to assume there's an implied "full caster" meaning behind it. Bards are on par with Paladins and Rangers, none of which are full casters. So this, as well as the rest of your post, is not all that relevant to be honest.

 

[Mistwell]

It is false balance IMO. Spells often fizzle even when you're lucky enough to know and have prepared the right one - saves, SR, ER, dispel, disruption, immunities, etc. Spells are limited (so limited in D&DN) and IMO they should trump at-wills.

Casters have been beaten senseless in D&DN. Lower DCs, way fewer slots than D&D 1e-3e, nerfed spells, ... and personally 'spamming' cantrips to stay relevant is not to my liking.

Good thing my other fav class, Rogue, looks pretty playable

Rogues are, IMO, a tad overpowered at the moment.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I don't like feats being ranked at the bottom. Characters not only get very few of them, they also come at a very high price (not getting precious ability score increases). Since characters get so few feats and since they are at the bottom tier of impact they have on the game, this gives people very little ability to customize their characters (which, BTW, was the primary reason feats were introduced into the game in the first place). This is, IMO, the primary cause of Next characters feeling so mechanically "cookie cutter."