D&D 5E 07/29/2013 - Legends & Lore It’s Mathemagical!

[Dausuul]

Well, I'm quite glad we're seeing it in practice. But it should be explicitly mentioned, because hit point scaling does not necessarily imply damage scaling. One could, in fact, have hit point scaling without damage scaling -- we had that in 1E/2E. Characters would feel very resilient, because it would take a *lot* of blows to bring them down ... but that would also mean that combats would either devolve into boring slug-fests or casters would overwhelm at high levels (both faults seen with 1E/2E).

In any case, it certainly looks like they're on the right design track with the math as far as I'm concerned.

1E/2E had damage scaling, in the form of multiple attacks at higher levels (for fighters) and increasing backstab multipliers (for thieves). It wasn't as much as I'd have liked, but it did exist.

 

[Quartz]

Is there a real reason that it should be 1 to 6, why not 0 to 5?

Perhaps some classes get a +1 to something at first level? E.g. perhaps Fighters get a +1 to attack where other classes do not.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

In this version, you won't need to take a feat to do it... you'll just be able cast the spell with a higher spell slot automatically.

It doesn't fix the problem when you have less higher level slots then you did before or the math complexity to begin with. And why should spells that that a caster practiced a lot they've become easier to save against than spells that are challenging to cast that you've just learned more recently?

 

[am181d]

a) A more eloquent request to get fired for incompetence I have rarely seen. People in the public playtest have known about these issues for what, over nine months now? And these changes will affect the "feel" of the game, so what, exactly, have they been doing?!

Umm... They've been pretty upfront about what they've been working on. Perhaps you should go back and read through the old articles?

 

[DEFCON 1]

It doesn't fix the problem when you have less higher level slots then you did before or the math complexity to begin with. And why should spells that that a caster practiced a lot they've become easier to save against than spells that are challenging to cast that you've just learned more recently?

You don't have less higher level slots, you're just choosing to cast Sleep with one of them rather than another spell instead. Remember... the spells you prepare for the day have nothing to do with what slots you have. You choose what spells in your list you prepare, and you cast them using any or all slots at your disposal.

So if you have Sleep and Time Stop as two of the myriad of spells you've prepared for the day... you get to decide at the time of casting what spell you want to cast and with which spell slot you use. So if you use a 9th level spell slot... do you cast Time Stop with it? Or do you cast a Sleep that's been bumped up to 9th spell level (and thus you get to affect more HPs of creatures and the save DC is higher to resist.)

This is what allows spells you get at lower level to still be effective even when you are at higher level. When cast using a higher spell slot, the damage goes up on certain spells or the save DC would go up on other ones. And the save DC goes up because the mage is putting more of his power and energy into its casting. Sleep cast with a 1st level spell slot might have a save DC of 14... whereas Sleep cast with a 9th level spell slot might have a save DC of 22 (or whatever method they use to create DCs based on spell slot level.)

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Mearls has expanded a little on this on his Twitter.

It looks like all classes will progress from +1 to +6 at the same rate.

If you aren't proficient in something, you don't get the bonus. If you're somehow specialized, you get double the bonus.

I have mixed feelings about this. It's simple, which is good, and should allow the skill system to be optional on a player by player basis. But it also lacks nuance.

Also, because no class is going to get double the bonus to attacks, all classes get the same attack bonus. I can live with that, but it feels a little strange.

 

[VinylTap]

You don't have less higher level slots, you're just choosing to cast Sleep with one of them rather than another spell instead. Remember... the spells you prepare for the day have nothing to do with what slots you have. You choose what spells in your list you prepare, and you cast them using any or all slots at your disposal.

I didn't realize this is what they were doing. This is pretty awesome actually, its a pretty elegant fix, does it sounds like damage is going to scale like this as well? Complex but nicely presented and powerful/flexible system.

The one thing I'm worried about is teaching this system to newbies, it could be a little confuse... "So i got my level one spell, but its better if it goes in the level 4 slot? Wut?". Not that Vancian spell-casting isn't always a bit of a game-logic hurdle for most new comers...

 

[DEFCON 1]

I didn't realize this is what they were doing. This is pretty awesome actually, its a pretty elegant fix, does it sounds like damage is going to scale like this as well? Complex but nicely presented and powerful/flexible system.

The one thing I'm worried about is teaching this system to newbies, it could be a little confuse... "So i got my level one spell, but its better if it goes in the level 4 slot? Wut?". Not that Vancian spell-casting isn't always a bit of a game-logic hurdle for most new comers...

I might be misunderstanding what Mike wrote... but this is what I got from him.

And damage already does scale up. If you take a look at Fireball for example... you do 6d6 fire damage when cast normally (a 3rd level spell slot.) At higher levels... when cast using a higher spell slot, you do an additional 1d6 per spell slot level over 3rd. So Fireball cast with a 4th level spell slot does 7d6, 5th level slot does 8d6 etc.)

This is how they tried to fix the "quadratic wizard" syndrome. In the past, you did a d6 in damage per caster level, even though you always cast Fireball using a 3rd level slot. So at 10th caster level, wizards had upwards of six 10d6 Fireballs at his disposal (in addition to all the other high level spells he could cast at that point.)

 

[GX.Sigma]

This seems really complicated.

If you have a level bonus to checks, now you have to write down "ability score" and "ability modifier" and "ability modifier + 1/2 level."
Mike's earlier tweeted DC idea would have solved the problem of people needing to remember their save DC. This new idea makes it way worse, since spellcasters will have to write down a spell DC for each spell level they can cast.

It just seems silly.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This new idea makes it way worse, since spellcasters will have to write down a spell DC for each spell level they can cast.

It just seems silly.

If it is what I would imagine it is... your save DC would be 10 + ability mod + slot level. That doesn't seem that complicated to me.

And in my opinion it's a heck of a lot better than not having your save DC go up at all regardless of the spell slot you cast a spell. To have your Sleep spell be a DC 14 save if you cast it with a 1st level spell slot OR a 9th level spell slot does not sit right either. If you're spending a 9th level slot to cast Sleep... it should be harder for enemies to resist in my opinion.