D&D 5E 5E Will Epic Fail If

[hafrogman]

I hope that your definition of "available" is not "equally available", or else what's the point of playing a Rogue or Thief? And completely invalidating one of the core 4 classes would be an epic fail.

If skills are to exist a la 3e I don't at all mind some only being available to certain classes for niche protection; that said, if 3e-like skills return I also hope they are severely dialled back.

Lanefan

I guess this is where it comes down to a simple difference of opinion. Because I have two problems with this idea.

1) I do not want all rogues to be thieves.
2) I do not want all thieves to be rogues.

This represents one of the things that drives me nuts about both 3e and 4e. In 3.X, rogues (and a very small number of similar classes) have trapfinding. Trapfinding is niche protection. Any character can have search, but only characters with this completely inscrutable ability can find traps past a certain point.

If you took levels in rogue because you wanted to be 'the skill guy', better hope your skills are thieving skills, because you are automatically your party's trap guy, because nobody else can do it.

Similarly in 4e, rogues are defined more by their approach to combat. Want to be a dex-based melee combatant? A swashbuckler? A skirmisher? Play a rogue. But by the way, you are automatically trained in thievery as a skill, because you can't learn to fence until you know how to pick locks and find traps.

This drives me nuts personally. If a rogue is going to be defined as a lightly armored character who uses their dexterity to survive, then thievery should not be hard-coded into the class. If a rogue is going to be the skill-guy with more or better skills, then thievery should not be hard-coded into the class.

So what skills exactly should be rogue only?

 

[Grandpa]

5E will epic fail if everything it brings us is something we have seen before.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I guess this is where it comes down to a simple difference of opinion. Because I have two problems with this idea.

1) I do not want all rogues to be thieves.
2) I do not want all thieves to be rogues.

This represents one of the things that drives me nuts about both 3e and 4e. In 3.X, rogues (and a very small number of similar classes) have trapfinding. Trapfinding is niche protection. Any character can have search, but only characters with this completely inscrutable ability can find traps past a certain point.

If you took levels in rogue because you wanted to be 'the skill guy', better hope your skills are thieving skills, because you are automatically your party's trap guy, because nobody else can do it.

Similarly in 4e, rogues are defined more by their approach to combat. Want to be a dex-based melee combatant? A swashbuckler? A skirmisher? Play a rogue. But by the way, you are automatically trained in thievery as a skill, because you can't learn to fence until you know how to pick locks and find traps.

This drives me nuts personally. If a rogue is going to be defined as a lightly armored character who uses their dexterity to survive, then thievery should not be hard-coded into the class. If a rogue is going to be the skill-guy with more or better skills, then thievery should not be hard-coded into the class.

So what skills exactly should be rogue only?

If its all about fighting style then the fighter class should handle it. The concept of a 'rogue' class that fights better than the fighter is what drives me nuts.

So if we let the thief class be a thief, and allow for 'fighter' to encompass a lot of different types that excel in the martial arts, one of which can be a swashbuckler or rogue type then we can have something for everyone.

Someone can play a fighter, take some rogue skills, and be the sneaky guy who is awesome in combat.

Someone can also play a thief, and be superior in their skills, without having to be a stealth combat specialist.

 

[hafrogman]

So if we let the thief class be a thief, and allow for 'fighter' to encompass a lot of different types that excel in the martial arts, one of which can be a swashbuckler or rogue type then we can have something for everyone.

...

Someone can also play a thief, and be superior in their skills, without having to be a stealth combat specialist.

So what's the skill guy who ISN'T a thief (or a musician)?

 

[Shadeydm]

I doubt it can be an "epic" fail carrying the D&D name this time around. If it fails miserably in the attempt to be the one edition to rule them all or ends up being an airbrushed version of a previous edition then I think it sets up the potential for 6E to fail in an "epic" manner. Right now with the stated design goal epic fail sounds extreme and seems unlikely imho.

 

[Fanaelialae]

In my opinion, 5th Edition will fail if..

Skills, Feats and Powers are not weeded out removing all the duplicates (skills, feats or powers that do the same thing as other skills feats or powers).

Also, 5th Edition needs to start organizing spells and feats by what they do so that they are easier to find by players who want to build their character.

Example, organize all the feats together that improve armor class. Organize all the spells and prayers together by (abjuration) improving armor class..

Divide skills into skills available to anyone and skills that should only be available to one class such as the rogue.

This will be a vast improvement over any previous edition.

I don't think that this would cause 5e to fail. 3e certainly didn't meet those criteria, and yet it was anything but an epic fail.

That said, what I'd like to see is feats/skills/etc. organized alphabetically. Then create a blurb list that describes each feat (or whatever) briefly, and is organized by function.

That way, if I'm looking for the Cleave feat, I can just crack open the feat section and look for the C feats. Quick and easy.

On the other hand, if I'm looking for a nonspecific feat, I can refer to the list and browse descriptions by function. That's pretty handy if you aren't sure what feat you want to take and just want to peruse the list.

What I'd rather not see is the feats/etc. grouped by function in the actual text (as they are in FantasyCraft). It's annoying to have to search through both the Basic Combat Feats and the Melee Combat Feats when searching for Two Weapon Fighting. Don't make me guess what subsection the feat I'm looking for is in. Just let me look in Feats under T.

 

[seregil]

In my opinion, 5th Edition will fail if..

it does not differentiate itself enough from 4E, because that has been proven not to work

AND

it does not differentiate itself enough from 3.X, because then, we'll just keep playing Pathfinder.

Good luck WOTC, you'll need it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

So what's the skill guy who ISN'T a thief (or a musician)?

With the whole skill system as an optional plug-in there isn't a class that is a skill guy, OR anyone can be a skill guy specializing in what they like because skills wouldn't be tied to class.

 

[pauljathome]

Nothing. 5e will sell enough on the strength of the D&D brand to not be an epic fail. RPGs that truly fail don't get new editions, they just end. 5e may not be everything that everybody wants, but the odds of it failing enough to qualify as "epic" are practically non-existant.

That is unfortunately not really the case. It isn't at all impossible that the feedback to dndNext would be sufficiently bad that WOTC and/or Hasbro would decide to pull the plug and not release it. Or some shift in corporate policy would cause the same thing.

I'm NOT saying that this is likely. I'm certainly NOT hoping that it occurs. I'm just pedantically pointing out that the possibility of that has to be higher than "practically non-existant"

 

[keterys]

I'd hope it's...
1) More fun than 4E for those who like 4E
2) More fun than 3E / Pathfinder for those who like 3E / PF
3) Different enough from both that folks can move past their hangups and play at the same table

But I suspect it just needs to be "Close enough" on both 1 and 2, if it satisfies 3.