D&D is not a supers game.

[jadrax]

1. Pet peeve: the word "awesome" is decades out of date. I don't know why it gets used so much in the gaming community.

yeah, you kinda answered your own question there.

 

[Ratinyourwalls]

Don't tell me what D&D is or is not please. This is the edition that's supposed to be modular and capable of supporting many different styles and preferences. Don't ruin it for everyone by trying to enforce YOUR version of the magical elf game as the standard.

 

[CleverNickName]

I disagree. D&D - especially high level D&D - has pretty much been a superhero game since 2nd Edition.

I will agree with a proposition that D&D shouldn't be a superhero game. But I can't agree with a statement that it isn't one, because it has been - to my displeasure - for a long time. Most of its lifetime, for sure.

I agree. Why, oh why, can't I give you XP?

 

[BobTheNob]

Don't tell me what D&D is or is not please. This is the edition that's supposed to be modular and capable of supporting many different styles and preferences. Don't ruin it for everyone by trying to enforce YOUR version of the magical elf game as the standard.

In all fairness to the OP he did state it as his preference. He put arguments forward for why that was his preference, sure, but thats entirely different to him trying to force a mandate. Everyone is allowed to put preference and argument supporting it forward.

Im sorry you interpreted that as him trying to "enforce HIS version of the magical elf game".

Just what was it in his post that made you think he was pushing in that way?

 

[ren1999]

I agree and disagree.

D&D shouldn't be a superhero game unless there is magic involved.
Cap natural humanoid bonuses at STR20(+5)
and with magic they could become a superhero if the DM allows that magic to exist
Cap natural + magic for humanoids at STR30(+10)

 

[thewok]

Why do Wizards need an inexhaustible supply of unerring Magic Missiles to launch?

I don't care if it's magic missile. I'm totally okay with a spell that requires an attack roll. But then, I actually liked rolling for magic missile damage in 4E.

I just believe that a wizard should be casting spells rather than firing a crossbow. If a wizard ever has to resort to using a mundane weapon, then the class concept fails to capture the essence of wizard.

Why do classes all need a schtick-like effects to be enjoyable to play in the 1st level?

I'm not sure what you mean here. All classes need their own schticks. Otherwise, there's no reason to play them. In 3E, if a sorcerer and wizard were exactly the same, why bother even having the sorcerer? And if the Favored One didn't have a different spell list from the sorcerer, why bother with it? Every class has to have something different about it, whether it be sneak attack, lay hands, spontaneous casting, favored enemies, or whatever. Without something to differentiate a class from other classes, the class concept fails, and the class in question is unnecessary.

3) Make Wizards 'minor spells' actually minor in effect. Anything that directly causes damage, without needing to roll, is not a minor effect. Cantrips should be effects that gain useful little benefits, like opening doors or moving small objects around, but are not flashy evocations of power.

I wholeheartedly and without any hesitation disagree with this. As I stated above, I believe that if the wizard ever has need of using mundane weaponry, then the wizard class fails to do its job. Wizards should be using magic every round. That said, I'm fine with wizards needing to make attack rolls. In fact, I encourage it. Magic Missile is a boring spell. It always has been.

4) Make the skills the main focus of the Rogue Class - not just the 'striker' role (although, admittedly, this is much better in D&D Next than it was in 4th Ed). I'm not asking for big long lists (definitely not!), but what about being able to pickpocket again?

Rogues in 4E could pick pockets just fine. It was involved in the Thievery skill. I disagree with this point, because I believe that everyone should have equal access to skills. There is no reason why a fighter, a wizard or even a cleric should not be able to pick locks. There's no reason why a fighter can't learn the activation word for a magic wand. Restricted skills are an immersion-breaking part of 3E that I hope never returns to see the light of day. Everyone should be able to learn anything he or she wants. So, with that in mind, I detest the idea of a "skill class."

5) Be wary of escalating bonuses. Already, at 1st level the Fighter seems to have massive bonuses on damage and attacks - indeed, almost all the characters have bonuses of some type, and it's hard to track where some of them are coming from. Also, incidentally, are they going to go back to adding 1/2 Level to Skill checks and Attacks? It is not clear in the play test, although I actually wouldn't mind as it's an easy method of calculating.

Those bonuses on the character sheets are coming from places we don't know about because we don't have the entire ruleset. It's not from random escalation of bonuses, which doesn't seem to be in this edition.

Check the DM document. There are guidelines in there for DCs. Those DCs don't shift the way that 4E DCs do. They are set, which tells me that there will be no half-level bonuses to rolls. The progression seems to be somewhat horizontal rather than vertical. Most of the situations that are resolved via bonuses and penalties in previous editions seem to be resolved via the advantage system now, which makes for a lot less on-the-fly math. If you want to improve a skill, you'll need to spend a feat or whatever to do that.

Next seems to me to be a game that likes breadth of abilities, rather than extreme specialization. It looks like specialization still is an option, but at the cost of some utility outside of that specialization. I think that's a good thing.

 

[Campbell]

When you look at 3e and 5e PCs and perform a positive analysis of them against their opponents the primary difference is that the play test PCs are more durable. The overall destructive capacity is pretty much the same. The casters in 3e will have more daily spells that are more easily game-able, but lack at will abilities. The 3e fighter still kills just about anything he hits and has cleave at 1st level. The 5e fighter is slightly more accurate and does 3 more damage on average, but lacks the amazing burst of 3e critical hits. The 3e rogue built for skills has a less powerful melee attack, but when facing anything relevant for 1st level characters other than undead his sneak attack takes the 5e rogue's sneak attack behind the shed thanks to the power of flanking.

3e PCs have incredible destructive power. They also have comically low hp in relation to the monsters they face. Low level combat in 3e feels like playing Russian Roulette. A critical hit from any character or monster when both are at full hp pretty much means a trip to death and dying. I have issues with believing these PCs would leave their houses.

 

[BobTheNob]

Rogues in 4E could pick pockets just fine. It was involved in the Thievery skill. I disagree with this point, because I believe that everyone should have equal access to skills. There is no reason why a fighter, a wizard or even a cleric should not be able to pick locks. There's no reason why a fighter can't learn the activation word for a magic wand. Restricted skills are an immersion-breaking part of 3E that I hope never returns to see the light of day. Everyone should be able to learn anything he or she wants. So, with that in mind, I detest the idea of a "skill class."

I LOVE the idea of a skill class....but I wont get into it. This is a point that has been argued till those involved had to see doctors for the arthritis in their fingers.

Personally I detest the idea that rogues shouldnt get better at rogue style skills than everyone else. Without it, how do you intend to define the rogue? A backstab monkey? Yuck. The 4e "agile combatent" ... <cutting response here...go lookup previous threads on this topic, this is a very divided community>

p.s. the philosophy for 5e is that no-one is restricted from anything...its just that the rogue gets the +3, I think thats more what he meant. So yes, you fighter can pick a pocket...make a dex check, its just that the rogue makes a dex+3 check. In essence its more open that ever in 5e. All the OP said was he wanted pickpocket included in the list of rogue skills that were there

 

[Campbell]

I'd advocate that we don't need a skill for picking pockets. We already have a skill that encompasses doing stuff without other people noticing. Picking someone's pocket should just be a more difficult application of the stealth skill. that way the thief is already good at it which he should be.

 

[BobTheNob]

I'd advocate that we don't need a skill for picking pockets. We already have a skill that encompasses doing stuff without other people noticing. Picking someone's pocket should just be a more difficult application of the stealth skill. that way the thief is already good at it which he should be.

People really arent reading the OP's post here. This was the point from the OP

4) Make the skills the main focus of the Rogue Class - not just the 'striker' role (although, admittedly, this is much better in D&D Next than it was in 4th Ed). I'm not asking for big long lists (definitely not!), but what about being able to pickpocket again?

What he said was he wanted pick pockets on the list of theif skills. Have a look on the character sheet from the playtest, its not there. He is right.

What he DIDNT say (and which people for some reason think he is saying) is that it should be rogue only. No one at any point during this thread said that rogue should be the only class capable. In fact, the makers of 5e have stated that that is exactlywhat they dont want either.

Want your fighter/cleric/mage to pick pockets? Fine. They can. Roll Dex. What the OP is asking for is simply that the theif background includes pickpocket in its bonus. He want the theif to be better at it than the other classes. Frankly I agree.

Rogue = Pickpockets well, everyone else = allowed to give it a shot (and have a fair chance due to the flattening phiulosophy of design in 5e). It all sounds good to me.