D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A 11/22/13

[Mistwell]

Edit: And lack of options at launch WAS san issue for 4e. A party of 3.5 core only Gnome Bard, Half-elf Druid, Half orc Barbarian, Sorcerer and Monk that otherwise would have given it a chance at launch and convert their campaign had to wait one year for their classes and races to be available (except poor monk), and if the sorcerer didn't fit in the draconic/wild divide, then PF started to look more juicy in comparison

Reply to your edit. Wow, so did you change the word subclasses to options intentionally, or was it just a mistake?

I said, "I really don't think lack of 6 subclasses for each core class in the initial 4e PHB was the issue with 4e." None of your reply has anything to do with that statement. I never said 4e couldn't have used more options in the PHB in terms of classes and races, I said I don't think it was lack of SIX SUBCLASSES for EACH CLASS that was the issue.

Between you calling me son, and then strawmanning me like, I can see this debate is going downhill fast.

 

[MoonSong]

seriously? because as far as I can tell 2e had lots of spheres, and 3.x dozens of domains in the phb. [/quote

For some classes, never for ALL classes.



Again, none of the prior initial PHBs had six subclasses for ALL the classes. You're pretending that a few classes having many subclasses equates with all of them having that.

And don't call me son.



Right. So, none of that is "key", and none of that means they need more than three subclasses in the PHB. I am glad, despite the baloney of you posturing above, you agree with me that no prior PHB had 6 subclasses for every class. And they don't need that with this edition either. Three subclasses is fine for each class. You can do more where appropriate, but you don't need it for all the classes, and you don't need it for sorcerer.

First of all sorry, wanted to write SO, not SON, it was a typo.

In fact I say sorcerers need at least six, just like domains and patrons, bloodlines are very strongly loaded in flavor, and that flavor is so overpowering that restricts the kind of characters you can really create with it, just two or three would considerabily limit the kind of characters that can be created or ported over. I'd rather have them have a more limited scope so there can be more of them.

 

[MoonSong]

Reply to your edit. Wow, so did you change the word subclasses to options intentionally, or was it just a mistake?

I said, "I really don't think lack of 6 subclasses for each core class in the initial 4e PHB was the issue with 4e." None of your reply has anything to do with that statement. I never said 4e couldn't have used more options in the PHB in terms of classes and races, I said I don't think it was lack of SIX SUBCLASSES for EACH CLASS that was the issue.

Between you calling me son, and then strawmanning me like, I can see this debate is going downhill fast.

Again sorry, it was a typo. I would never tell anybody "son" on an online discussion, I've never liked being addressed on a patronizing way and would never do that to someone else. (And that would be so out of character for me isn't even funny, besides "so you see" is a verbal tic of mine so common it could become a catchphrase)

Again it is all about options, not bloodlines per se, I'd rather have sorcerers subclqasses being centered around anoher axis -schooled(almost a wizard), savant(savage like, blasty unsubtle), social (the default) , gishy, subtle (I can't believe you are a caster)...- and have bloodlines being pure flavor -or a feat track open to all classes- and yess under that scheme three subclasses are enough, but as bloodliness, they are hit or miss

 

[Sunseeker]

As long as we get about the key five-six at launch (Wild, celestial, draconic, fey, infernal/abssal) I don't care to wait for the more exotic ones, but if core only has two, well that is a no sell really. I would argue that with a good layout ou don't need more than two or three pages to cover about a dozen bloodlines (and the same goes for all subclasses).

Possibly. And I know it's easy to get creative with sorcerer bloodlines. But I would like to see an equitable amount of variety available to all classes, which has traditionally not been the case.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Which 99% of the time isn't going to matter. The times when you need to open the door in less than 10 minutes are very rare.

That % does not match my experiences, but to each his own.

Then it's a moot point. We're discussing a comparison between the two, right?

No, it isn't a moot point. People seem to assume that wizards magically just somehow know every conceivable spell. Any given wizard is far less likely to know the knock spell than a given rogue is likely to know how to pick locks (IME 99% of rogues do).

Not as a ritual they don't. We're going in circles here.

I was responding to a different part of your post that was referring to spell slots and preparation. If I'm going in circles it's because I'm following you.

It's between the two already, because you're forgetting the other major drawback to breaking down a door - the door no longer works once you break it down.

Most of the time breaking a door in a dungeon doesn't matter, because it is irrelevant once the PCs pass through it.

 

[Mistwell]

That % does not match my experiences, but to each his own.



No, it isn't a moot point. People seem to assume that wizards magically just somehow know every conceivable spell. Any given wizard is far less likely to know the knock spell than a given rogue is likely to know how to pick locks (IME 99% of rogues do).

Right, but what's the point of raising that issue? If they don't have the knock spell, then it's not an issue. We're talking about balancing the open locks ability against the knock spell. That's only relevant when someone has the spell. If they don't have the spell, then the thing we're talking about isn't in play for that situation. It's not a drawback of the knock spell that you don't have it - any more than it's a drawback to the open locks ability that you don't have it. If you don't have the thing we're talking about, then it's a moot issue.

I was responding to a different part of your post that was referring to spell slots and preparation. If I'm going in circles it's because I'm following you.

Knock is an at-will ability as a ritual, and that's how it will be used most-often in the game.

Most of the time breaking a door in a dungeon doesn't matter, because it is irrelevant once the PCs pass through it.

Sure, but it's still a drawback for those times when you might want to close and lock that lockable door behind you. Particularly now that wandering monsters are back in the game. I know once I hit my players with some wandering monsters in the midst of them taking a 1 hour short rest, they suddenly paid a lot more attention to usable doors they could lock behind them.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Knock is an at-will ability as a ritual, and that's how it will be used most-often in the game.

Even so, I think the 10 minute casting time is more than enough of a drawback to balance it against rogue lock picking.

Sure, but it's still a drawback for those times when you might want to close and lock that lockable door behind you. Particularly now that wandering monsters are back in the game. I know once I hit my players with some wandering monsters in the midst of them taking a 1 hour short rest, they suddenly paid a lot more attention to usable doors they could lock behind them.

It's still easier to just break down the door and then cast mending to fix it. Mending is a cantrip, so it's a lot easier to obtain and learn than knock, a 2nd level spell. And mending doesn't take 10 minutes. Even if the fighter shattered the door into several pieces, it would take less than a minute to cast mending enough times to repair it completely.

As for wandering monsters, that also makes the 10 minute casting time of a knock ritual a lot more relevant. If the PCs are having to spend 10 minutes at every locked door, they're far more likely to encounter wandering monsters.

 

[Mistwell]

Even so, I think the 10 minute casting time is more than enough of a drawback to balance it against rogue lock picking.



It's still easier to just break down the door and then cast mending to fix it. Mending is a cantrip, so it's a lot easier to obtain and learn than knock, a 2nd level spell. And mending doesn't take 10 minutes. Even if the fighter shattered the door into several pieces, it would take less than a minute to cast mending enough times to repair it completely.

As for wandering monsters, that also makes the 10 minute casting time of a knock ritual a lot more relevant. If the PCs are having to spend 10 minutes at every locked door, they're far more likely to encounter wandering monsters.

A cantrip slot is actually much more unique than a 2nd level spell. You only get a fixed number of them I think? And once you choose them, I don't recall any way to swap them out? Or am I wrong on that? Honestly, I don't know. Maybe you know, can you swap out cantrips and learn new ones through means of a scroll or something?

If you can, then I imagine all wizards will know all cantrips pretty early in their career.

 

[Falling Icicle]

A cantrip slot is actually much more unique than a 2nd level spell. You only get a fixed number of them I think? And once you choose them, I don't recall any way to swap them out? Or am I wrong on that? Honestly, I don't know. Maybe you know, can you swap out cantrips and learn new ones through means of a scroll or something?

If you can, then I imagine all wizards will know all cantrips pretty early in their career.

Mages can learn new cantrips just like any other spell. http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dndqa/20131010
I personally don't like this, as I think cantrips should be treated differently and it isn't really fair to let mages know every cantrip while other classes can only ever learn a few. It also makes things like the gnome, elf and drow racial cantrips and the arcane initiate feat far less useful to mages. But, that's the way it is, at least for now. Only time will tell if they decide to change it.

 

[Argyle King]

I'm sad that the concepts from the old playtest sorcerer don't seem to be coming back. It was the only class out of this whole process that really excited me.

Cheers!
Kinak

Same here. Currently, the 5th Edition Sorcerer sounds an awful lot like the 4th Edition Warlock. The main difference is that you have a bloodline instead of a pact. While I'm not opposed to that idea, I felt that the other ideas they had before were a lot more interesting. I really liked playing up the idea of a sorcerer having more natural ability, but less control over their powers.