• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

D&D 5E Legends & Lore Archive : 12/9/2013


log in or register to remove this ad

What stood out to me...characters are being given a smorgasbord of options like 3e and 4e, while the core game seems to harken back to less-defined rules of 1e, BD&D, and OD&D.

That's an interesting dichotomy.

I'm always curious about how 5e is drawing on past editions. It *sounds* like monsters are drawing more from 1e/2e with an organization of the stat block more akin to 3e/4e.
 
Last edited:

I don't know how to react to this compromising approach since I really dislike the way 4e classes were presented. In any way I hope in the end there will be the amount of freedom in order one will be able to create the character that he or she envision.

The most promising aspect of the article is:

For Dungeon Masters, we’re placing the idea of creating your own subclass into an optional part of the game. We want DMs to embrace subclass creation as a part of setting creation. We also want to make sure that builders or players who love to optimize take a moment to sit down and talk to their DMs before a campaign starts. If a player wants something specific from the campaign, it’s important that the group talks about it, understands it, and gives the DM space to plan adventures and sessions around it.

I am wondering however what you will be able to do with these guides. For example one would be able to change the spellcasting system creating thus a full vancian system or a spell point one for the magic user? And how easy this will be?
 


For Dungeon Masters, we’re placing the idea of creating your own subclass into an optional part of the game. We want DMs to embrace subclass creation as a part of setting creation. We also want to make sure that builders or players who love to optimize take a moment to sit down and talk to their DMs before a campaign starts. If a player wants something specific from the campaign, it’s important that the group talks about it, understands it, and gives the DM space to plan adventures and sessions around it.

I remember similar words being said about paragon paths. And about prestige classes. And about kits. In my experience it's never really worked out all that well.

Worse, now that DDI has created precedent for an online character builder (because can they really offer a D&D with less online support than the one that came before it?), it becomes quite challenging to make a tool that can incorporate all the strange and unusual subclasses that people dream up. Which, in turn, can become a barrier to homebrew material because it's easier and convenient to just stick to the official stuff.
 

I like the idea of subclasses being customizable depending on the campaign, and that serves the needs for a specific. And "Class" is likely going to be a useful grouping of abilities.

The thing to see will be if the line between "what is a class" and "what is a subclass" is sufficiently well-drawn, or if it's more up to interpretation. Can you have an over-arching rogue class that accommodates magic-using bards and assassins with poisons and skill-using thieves? Does that version invalidate having individual "bard" and "thief" and "assassin" classes? With their own subclasses?

Where you want to draw the focus is potentially going to be very different across tables and depending on campaigns. It'll be interesting to see where WotC draws that line, and how fluid they draw it.

For me, custom subclasses are the bestest. I'll be able to get crazy specific, which is going to help define my world in better terms than generic classes ever could.

Which puts me on the "4e" side in Mearls's breakdown.Though I think 5e improves in this regard, too: having my own subclasses for my own game is going to make a much stronger bond than 4e's "Focus on ranged attacks. Focus on melee attacks. Sub-Defender. Sub-Striker." determination could.
 

I remember similar words being said about paragon paths. And about prestige classes. And about kits. In my experience it's never really worked out all that well.

Interesting.

My 3e campaign had 44 homebrewed prestige classes (not counting a few that were monster-specific), and my 4e homebrew material includes 60 paragon paths and 18 epic destinies.

I wonder where the average lies? I imagine it's higher in 3e games (given how reliant many groups are on the Character Builder in 4e)- one of my players hacked the downloaded version and programs my custom stuff in, so it's easy to use for us.
 

Interesting.

My 3e campaign had 44 homebrewed prestige classes (not counting a few that were monster-specific), and my 4e homebrew material includes 60 paragon paths and 18 epic destinies.

I wonder where the average lies? I imagine it's higher in 3e games (given how reliant many groups are on the Character Builder in 4e)- one of my players hacked the downloaded version and programs my custom stuff in, so it's easy to use for us.

You had 44 homebrewed prestige classes in 3e? Wow. That seems HUGE to me. The groups I played with during my 3e days were mostly a bunch of guys at university and both individually and altogether we had extensive knowledge of the rules - and we barely had any homebrew prestige classes. It could have been a factor of our extensive knowledge, that we knew a class or combo existed to give us what we wanted and so we never had to make things up? I don't know. If that is what you are asking ("wonder where the average lies") then I would say MUCH lower than 44 would be my guess. Most other groups I know are fairly close to my group's experience (again rather large group, several games - at one point I personally was in 8 games a week, and there were others - and each game had about 6 people, though some repeats). And yeah, not a whole lot of homebrew. Mostly things were made up when there was not an acceptable equivalent to do a specific thing already, and most homebrews were dropped due to lack of use, overpowered, underpowered, or otherwise just fell out of practice.

Now, on the 4e side. In the few games of that I ever saw (or joined/asked to join) there were many little changes. Mostly when people were swapping powers from one class to another - even then nothing particularly new was created. But, I do admit it was more common. Though in that case I think it had to do with the relative rigidity of structure of the classes. In 3e there was another class that did the job you wanted to do, so you took it. With 4e it was only ever a single class you could ever take, but swapping powers for what you want to do was not as problematic or broken. (Take a ranger if you want bows, fighter if you want armor, swap powers to get the full set you want.)

Never saw 4e's epic destinies in play, but from what I remember I suspect the numbers for that one might be higher if only by design - you are EXPECTED to make things up for your character, something unique; though again every time I heard of 4e epics they sounded fairly similar (if not exactly the same) as what was in the book - something I thought was a little disappointing.
 

Mike Mearls said:
With D&D Next, we took an approach almost straight down the middle between these previous editions.

Oh Lord, as if compromising could ever lead to creative solutions... D&DN sounds more and more like an Appeasement Edition, trying to calm 3e and 4e folks, but not venturing forth. I really don't know how it would attract fans of either edition - or the old editions' fans.
 

Oh Lord, as if compromising could ever lead to creative solutions... D&DN sounds more and more like an Appeasement Edition, trying to calm 3e and 4e folks, but not venturing forth. I really don't know how it would attract fans of either edition - or the old editions' fans.
Well... I like it.

Honestly, I found 3rd edition's million moving parts to be frustrating, while I found 4th edition's class paths to be stifling. 5th Edition's focus on driving down the middle is exactly what I'm looking for.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top