D&D 5E D&D Next Blog: Beyond Class & Race

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=6670763]Yora[/MENTION]

I don't even think they know any details themselves yet. I could only imagine the skills and feat systems being the hardest one to even start designing.

 

[Yora]

It just isn't very helpful to talk about a system that modifies classes, skills, and feats, if we have no clue what classes, skills, and feats are.

 

[hemera]

Well some of the people in my 4e group if they were dropped into 5e, would likely gravitate towards the pregenerated themes and backgrounds. They are the same that use the essentials classes in 4th since they don't really care about making a lot of choices, they just want to jump in and get going. Others (like me) would prefer customizing their character, not for optimizations's sake, but simply because we would prefer to find our own mix of skills/feats that speaks to whatever we have in mind for our character. Same as we do now, and have done since 2e with kits and nwps.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Well some of the people in my 4e group if they were dropped into 5e, would likely gravitate towards the pregenerated themes and backgrounds. They are the same that use the essentials classes in 4th since they don't really care about making a lot of choices, they just want to jump in and get going. Others (like me) would prefer customizing their character, not for optimizations's sake, but simply because we would prefer to find our own mix of skills/feats that speaks to whatever we have in mind for our character. Same as we do now, and have done since 2e with kits and nwps.

Well as long as there is an Option for both (I love to tinker with a character, not that I ever get to be a player, yes, boo-hoo), we're golden.

 

[Ratskinner]

Yeah, me too. I'd like to have as few classes as possible, makes the core game more elegant. 4E had a few classes too many.

Give us more themes (subclasses) instead. I could even live with the 4 base classes alone and the more classic extended classes (barbarian, bard, druid, ranger, etc...) as themes (subclasses) of the 4 base classes.

-YRUSirius

Not trying to come down on you, YRUSirius. Personally, I don't care about elegant. I care about play at the tabletop, not how aesthetically and philosophically pleasing the architecture of the rules is. I totally understand the feeling, though. I used to be that way myself. Nowadays, I just want the rules to play fast, play well, prep fast, prep easy, prep well, and do all that for both players and DMs. I've got too many "beautiful" or "elegant" games collecting dust on my shelf or taking up space on my hard drive to need another. I want to play 5e, and play the yotz out of it.

Of course, if it plays great and is elegant...well that's a bonus. I like elegance, but if the designers have to choose between elegance and play...choose play every time, IMO.

Now, the particular question of demoting old classes to themes....I'm highly in favor of it when its appropriate and effective. I could see scenarios where it would work out for almost all the "second tier" classes people have suggested on this thread and others. However, I couldn't say which ones without knowing more about where all the different mechanical effects and weights.

I find the idea of things like a Wizard(assassin) particularly intriguing, and I think it might reduce the impulse to multiclass as madly as players did in 3.5. I especially like the idea that you could keep some your theme-based abilities rolling right along, even if you multiclass to gain other mechanical advantages. So you start as a Fighter(Slayer), but multiclass into Wizard. Your Slayer stuff could still progress, even as you get more magical mojo.

Keeping only 4 base classes....again, hard to say without knowing how the mechanics will play out. However, I don't think that sounds like the direction they're heading with this. I haven't come away from things with the feeling that they intend themes to do that much heavy lifting. It could definitely be set up that way, but I wouldn't want to them to do it for any other reason than it plays better that way.

 

[Ratskinner]

Do I got things right in asuming that background will be mostly passive bonuses to activities that are a major part of the characters education, and themes are packages of special abilities that constitute certain combat styles?

Kinda, and maybe for the Basic Game, yes. Although, there's room in what's been said so far for themes to be broader than just combat...say a "Negotiator" or "Diplomat" theme.

Your background gives you a set of skills, specific tasks, areas of knowledge, or assets a character of that background ought to have. The thief background gives you Pick Pockets, Stealth, Streetwise, and Thieves’ Cant. The soldier background gives you Endurance, Intimidate, Survival, and an extra language.

....your theme describes how you do the things you do. All fighters, for example, kick ass in combat because they are fighters. A sharpshooter fighter is awesome with ranged weapons while a slayer fighter dominates in hand-to-hand combat. Your theme helps you realize a certain style, technique, or flavor through the feats it offers. Each theme gives you several feats, starting with the first one right out of the gate. As you gain levels, your theme gives you additional feats that reflect the theme’s overall character.

 

[DEFCON 1]

It just isn't very helpful to talk about a system that modifies classes, skills, and feats, if we have no clue what classes, skills, and feats are.

If you aren't able to piece together what classes, skills, and feats are based upon the past games and all of what they've talked about up to this point... you aren't required to vote in any of their polls asking for your opinion.

If you think you have a handle on what they're asking, vote. If not, don't vote.

 

[Yora]

I can piece together something. But that doesn't have to be in anything like what they are thinking about. Even if a feat is just a feat as in 3rd Edition, it would be relevant to know how many feats a character gets, at what times, and what the most common feats are. Are all feats like Toughness, Iron Will, and Acrobatic, or are they all like Robilars Gambit, Whirlwind Attack, and Shadow Weave magic? And how many skill are there? How many do you start with? How do they advance?

By knowing that there are something called feats and skills, we really don't know anything.

 

[Steely_Dan]

If you aren't able to piece together what classes, skills, and feats are based upon the past games and all of what they've talked about up to this point... you aren't required to vote in any of their polls asking for your opinion.

If you think you have a handle on what they're asking, vote. If not, don't vote.

That's insulting, which is so popular, amongst these boards, as many; it sounds to me like Feats in 5th Ed will not be what we have come to know them as in 3rd/4th Ed.

 

[drothgery]

I looked through the 4e D&D Compendium. There are:

797 Backgrounds
77 Themes
77 Classes
574 Paragon Paths
114 Epic Destinies

I didn't realize how much ground 4e has covered. (I dropped out at 3.5e.)

How on earth are the 5e designers going to distill all this--along with the 3e, 2e, 1e, and BECMI classes, kits, subclasses, and name-level classes--into an essential D&D Next PHB?

Well, 29 of the 'classes' are the Hybrid versions of other classes. And while I agree with counting essentials-style 'builds' (where they pick up different class features at different times than the original versions) as classes, that's somewhat debateable.