Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Class Design Concepts
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 6055073" data-attributes="member: 1465"><p>Sounds good enough to me too...</p><p></p><p>I am still not so sure that giving ED/martial damage bonus to all martial classes is a good idea, because then the "damage bloat" is pretty much an unavoidable feature of the whole game. Was it only for the Fighter, it would mean that Fighters would be e.g. twice as fast at dropping monsters in combat, less than having an extra PC in the party (and only in combat), but this wouldn't mean a generalized damage bloat.</p><p></p><p>Another sentence that left me with doubts is the one about "standardizing spellcasting". If this means they're studying a way to make multiclassing work for spellcasters, then good. Otherwise I really really hope it doesn't mean that they're considering something as stupidly rigid as siloing spells into "combat", "utilities" and such.</p><p></p><p>Everything else sounds fine. Also good that Mearls keeps reminding us that some stuff in the playtest is purposefully thrown at us as an experiment, since playtest is the best (only?) opportunity to really try these innovative ideas in large numbers. When we see stuff change heavily between playtest packets, let's try to keep in mind that it might be even that the previous one worked so well that they can "shelf" it for a while and try something totally different in the meantime (while if it worked only partially, they cannot ditch it or approve it without first tweaking and retesting it).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 6055073, member: 1465"] Sounds good enough to me too... I am still not so sure that giving ED/martial damage bonus to all martial classes is a good idea, because then the "damage bloat" is pretty much an unavoidable feature of the whole game. Was it only for the Fighter, it would mean that Fighters would be e.g. twice as fast at dropping monsters in combat, less than having an extra PC in the party (and only in combat), but this wouldn't mean a generalized damage bloat. Another sentence that left me with doubts is the one about "standardizing spellcasting". If this means they're studying a way to make multiclassing work for spellcasters, then good. Otherwise I really really hope it doesn't mean that they're considering something as stupidly rigid as siloing spells into "combat", "utilities" and such. Everything else sounds fine. Also good that Mearls keeps reminding us that some stuff in the playtest is purposefully thrown at us as an experiment, since playtest is the best (only?) opportunity to really try these innovative ideas in large numbers. When we see stuff change heavily between playtest packets, let's try to keep in mind that it might be even that the previous one worked so well that they can "shelf" it for a while and try something totally different in the meantime (while if it worked only partially, they cannot ditch it or approve it without first tweaking and retesting it). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Class Design Concepts
Top