D&D 5E D&D Next info from PAX Prime + answering questions

[Crazy Jerome]

If you're saying that domains *will* start restricting access to spells, along the lines of 2e spheres (though no doubt with the Next "prepared-spontaneous" mechanic) you will make me a very happy man.

If you're also saying that you suspect that wizard traditions will also restrict access to spells, you will make me even happier!

Though for wizards, perhaps a shade less so. I don't see any reason why most wizards couldn't cast simple illusions; I just think that the more fancy illusion spells should be the province of specialists.

Hm, if all wizards are going to have a tradition, and traditions restrict spells, that means the end of the generalist wizard. And I, for one, shall not shed a tear at his passing.

No reason why there can't be a "generalist layer" of common spells for all wizards, and then the traditions build on top of that. Same thing would also be true with clerics and domains, though with different spells. Then you don't get into that jumping through a bunch of hoops to explain how each caster crosses specialties to pick up required spells, because some traditions/domains don't cover all the bases.

That also means, unlike 2E schools, that wizards might possibly pick up additional traditions as they level. Start with common+tradition. Every five or six levels, pick up another tradition or improve the current one. A similar thing could work with domains, where the cleric gradually picks up more of the domains relevant to their deity. This doesn't work without a common base, because then each tradition/domain is too broad to allow such expansion.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

That's a key point made at the panels; if the editions don't have common roots for a given element (monster or archetype / class), they will instead use the mythological roots of that creature as a base, and then give alternate options to match what other editions did. Minotaurs were the example for this.

I like both parts of this bolded section a lot. Sorcerers are another good example of the second half: make a badass class that grows organically out of a specific narrative (the draconic sorcerer), but then also include a throwback version of the same class (arcane sorcerer) for those who want "old-school" flavor.

I can't wait to see the 3e-throwback "sucks at everything" variation of the awesome new monk class!

 

[Ichneumon]

Any tidbits on post-10th (aka 'high level') play?

Also, I'm interested to know what they might be doing with henchmen, companions, sidekicks - those people/animals/strange construct thingumies that can accompany PCs. It's always been tricky to make them useful without being necessary, so I wonder what 5e's planning in regard to them.

Finally, for something more likely to be in the first than second year of playtesting - did they seem happy with humans overall, or was there a desire to change their racial benefit to something else? (D&D humans, of course! )

 

[Cybit]

No reason why there can't be a "generalist layer" of common spells for all wizards, and then the traditions build on top of that. Same thing would also be true with clerics and domains, though with different spells. Then you don't get into that jumping through a bunch of hoops to explain how each caster crosses specialties to pick up required spells, because some traditions/domains don't cover all the bases.

That also means, unlike 2E schools, that wizards might possibly pick up additional traditions as they level. Start with common+tradition. Every five or six levels, pick up another tradition or improve the current one. A similar thing could work with domains, where the cleric gradually picks up more of the domains relevant to their deity. This doesn't work without a common base, because then each tradition/domain is too broad to allow such expansion.

That's the implication. I *think* the idea is that clerics will have access to a certain amount of general spells, and then the domain restricts them to specific spells beyond those. They were talking about a "laser" cleric from 4E vs a warpriest, and how they would be differentiated via domain and what spells they had from their domains; the implication is heavily that the domains will restrict spells based on what domain you have. Your domain is a defining part of your character as a cleric. For instance, clerics with the Sun domain might not get any armor beyond cloth, but have access to flame strike, etc, while clerics of the war domain get plate armor and have access to buffing spells. They can wrap up a lot of the different cleric-ish classes and Prestige classes into the cleric that way.

They might go that route for traditions. That's one of the ways they intend to deal with the caster power issues inherent in Vancian magic systems while keeping Vancian magic. I think another idea they threw out there might be for wizards, that they can cast all spells, but certain spells cost significantly more or less to cast depending on their tradition (like it might cost 3 spell slots instead of one). They also talked about traditions making it much easier to cast certain spells based on what tradition you have (you might be able to recover a tradition spell by simply re-reading it again without having to rest, as an example).

They are very, VERY, cognizant of linear fighter / quadratic spellcaster syndrome from 3E, and they're buffing the fighter and reducing some of the abusive issues from spellcasters as a way to handle it. As someone who went to 4E solely for that reason, I'm very pleased with what they've said about handling that issue even with Vancian magic around. But that's a whole other set of questions, and I'd rather answer those questions in a different response.

 

[Cybit]

I'm curious about anything you've heard on monster design. Anything at all really, but especially thoughts on whether roles will see any reprise (brute, soldier etc.), whether and how solo creatures might stick around, and thoughts about the accuracy/durability of monsters we've seen so far in the playtest.

I'm also curious as to whether they think that NPCs fully statted up using PC creation rules will be viable opponents in this game. In 4E they pretty explicitly weren't so. In 3.x there wasn't really any other option given in the rules, but they still tended not to work very well as foes due to various quirks of the math and magic item stuff. Any word on how that issue might be dealt with in DDN?

Also, thanks for sharing the wealth!

1) They've said that they need to work on the monsters a ton (the document had various errors that they found, and is currently being worked on again). They've talked about solos / elites / etc, and the key being how much XP a given monster is worth. They want to decouple XP and level, so that they could make a level 5 dragon stronger than a level 5 orc, without forcing all of the level based modifiers to increase.

2) Bounded accuracy actually means that the 3.5 / 4E methods of creature creation actually line up perfectly. You can create them in both ways, and they'll end up near each other. It's a hell of an elegant solution. The math all coalesces nicely once you remove the modifier / magic item glut.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Hm, if all wizards are going to have a tradition, and traditions restrict spells, that means the end of the generalist wizard. And I, for one, shall not shed a tear at his passing.

No reason why there can't be a "generalist layer" of common spells for all wizards, and then the traditions build on top of that. Same thing would also be true with clerics and domains, though with different spells. Then you don't get into that jumping through a bunch of hoops to explain how each caster crosses specialties to pick up required spells, because some traditions/domains don't cover all the bases.

We know that traditions will include things like "war mage" and "wild mage," and it seems like "specialist" could be a tradition too. While specializing could restrict spells (unlikely, given that they said "instead of giving up some other school of magic...you're just better at casting illusions"), it doesn't seem like the other traditions would.

 

[BobTheNob]

I dunno. I think you made it all the way up to yellow there a few times.

Feedback only has value to the receiver.

Thanks for yours, its has taught me a great many things.

 

[Scipio202]

Early on they talked about trying to thoroughly address the "three pillars" of combat, exploration and role playing. Lately they haven't referred as much to the three pillars - is that still an important part of their design philosophy? Anything new they mentioned specifically targeting exploration or role play (other than narrative-embedded classes)?

 

[gyor]

Thanks for the details.

Did they give any examples of something that could be a prestige class as opposed to specialty/background or class? I guess it would be anything that would be too much for specialties/backgrounds and too little for classes. Or maybe it'll be were they put the really weird ideas like Nar Demon Binder or Celebrant of Sharess (which is a divine class that casts arcane magic instead of divine amoung other oddities like raging like a barbarian, a cat familiar, and bard like magic).

Also did they give any other examples of what,you might get from cleric domains then war and sun?

 

[Lanefan]

[MENTION=66111]Cybit[/MENTION] - a question for you:

In a very broad sense did you get any idea about how much of 5e is going to be part of the core framework (i.e. probably difficult to tinker with) and how much is going to be in the optional tack-on modules?

Or to put it another way, will the core framework of 5e be kept simple enough for me to run a rules-light BD&D-style game with it, with all the complexities left as optional?

Lanefan

 

[GX.Sigma]

They want to decouple XP and level, so that they could make a level 5 dragon stronger than a level 5 orc, without forcing all of the level based modifiers to increase.

I don't understand this. If the dragon is stronger than the orc, why are they both level 5? What does level even mean, then?

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I don't understand this. If the dragon is stronger than the orc, why are they both level 5? What does level even mean, then?

I think a level 5 monster is a monster well-matched to a party of level 5 adventurers. A level 5 dragon worth 1000xp should be about as tough to fight as a group of five 200xp level 5 orcs. But a level 15 demon minion could also be worth 1000xp - he'd probably have much higher damage and lower hp than the dragon, since he's meant to be a minor threat to high-level players.

 

[The Shadow]

We know that traditions will include things like "war mage" and "wild mage," and it seems like "specialist" could be a tradition too.

Hm, I hadn't heard the "war mage" part, that's interesting.

While specializing could restrict spells (unlikely, given that they said "instead of giving up some other school of magic...you're just better at casting illusions"), it doesn't seem like the other traditions would.

Given what Cybit said above, it may be that traditions will make some spells harder to cast. ie, an Illusionist casting Fireball may have to expend more slots to do it.

In the same way, a War Mage might have trouble with, say, Charm Person. Hard to say what, if anything, a Wild Mage would have trouble with... maybe it varies from day to day.

 

[triqui]

I think a level 5 monster is a monster well-matched to a party of level 5 adventurers. A level 5 dragon worth 1000xp should be about as tough to fight as a group of five 200xp level 5 orcs. But a level 15 demon minion could also be worth 1000xp - he'd probably have much higher damage and lower hp than the dragon, since he's meant to be a minor threat to high-level players.

Even without extreme examples, maybe a group of 4 lvl 5 orcs have the same threat against a 5x PC group than a group of 3 lvl 5 gnolls and 6 lvl 5 hobgoblins.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I think a level 5 monster is a monster well-matched to a party of level 5 adventurers. A level 5 dragon worth 1000xp should be about as tough to fight as a group of five 200xp level 5 orcs. But a level 15 demon minion could also be worth 1000xp - he'd probably have much higher damage and lower hp than the dragon, since he's meant to be a minor threat to high-level players.

I guess so, but I liked 4e's thing of having a single X-level monster being just as strong as a single X-level PC.

A system like that would also make monster class leveling much easier to comprehend--a 5th-level monster plus two levels of Wizard would be a 7th-level monster, for example.

Even without extreme examples, maybe a group of 4 lvl 5 orcs have the same threat against a 5x PC group than a group of 3 lvl 5 gnolls and 6 lvl 5 hobgoblins.

That still doesn't make sense--if orcs and hobgoblins are the same, but orcs are way stronger, then why are they both level 5?

 

[GreyICE]

Because level is an abstraction that is only useful for the PCs. It doles out the player's progression through the world. On monsters it is a metagame concept that shows that the monster is a suitable challenge for a certain level of PC.

By combining level with XP budget you have a good guideline for building encounters that virtually any new DM can use. Experienced DMs can probably safely ignore the guidelines, but systems don't cater to experienced players (or they fail spectacularly quickly).

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

That still doesn't make sense--if orcs and hobgoblins are the same, but orcs are way stronger, then why are they both level 5?

It doesn't have to be way stronger, just slightly stronger or weaker. +/-1 average damage or +1/-1 hitpoints per hit die are things that make monsters stronger/weaker but do not make them a level stronger or weaker.

If hobgoblins do -1 damage less on average but are in all other ways equivalent to orcs, and a level X orc warrior is worth 100xp then a level X hobgoblin warrior might be worth 95 xp. Gnolls, on the other hand, might deal +1 damage on average and have 2 more hit points per hit die so a level X gnoll warrior might be worth 115 xp.

 

[slobster]

It doesn't have to be way stronger, just slightly stronger or weaker. +/-1 average damage or +1/-1 hitpoints per hit die are things that make monsters stronger/weaker but do not make them a level stronger or weaker.

If hobgoblins do -1 damage less on average but are in all other ways equivalent to orcs, and a level X orc warrior is worth 100xp then a level X hobgoblin warrior might be worth 95 xp. Gnolls, on the other hand, might deal +1 damage on average and have 2 more hit points per hit die so a level X gnoll warrior might be worth 115 xp.

That level of granularity isn't necessary. Having two level X monsters that are identical except for +/-3 hp should be avoided in general (different can of worms). It's even more important that the system not try to award different amounts of experience for overcoming them. All level X enemies should grant Y xp (ignoring for the moment minions, solos and so on).

Otherwise you back yourself into a corner. Orcs are worth more than gnolls because they have 10 extra hp but are otherwise identical? What about two monsters that are identical except one has 3 more hp, but the other deals d8 instead of d6 damage? What about the two monsters that are the same, but one has +1 AC and the other can move 10 feet per round faster?

Giving monsters levels lets you roughly gauge how challenging they are, and assigns an xp standard for that level of challenge. Trying to zoom in and award xp per hp and attack bonus is clunky and overcomplicated, IMO. It will lead to endless headaches in assigning finicky little xp numbers that are insignificant anyway in the long term, and will spawn endless arguments about whether the numbers accurately reflect monster challenge or are just arbitrary variance.

 

[Stormonu]

It doesn't have to be way stronger, just slightly stronger or weaker. +/-1 average damage or +1/-1 hitpoints per hit die are things that make monsters stronger/weaker but do not make them a level stronger or weaker.

If hobgoblins do -1 damage less on average but are in all other ways equivalent to orcs, and a level X orc warrior is worth 100xp then a level X hobgoblin warrior might be worth 95 xp. Gnolls, on the other hand, might deal +1 damage on average and have 2 more hit points per hit die so a level X gnoll warrior might be worth 115 xp.

Sounds kind of like the 1E/BECM way of adjusting monster XP based on special abilities (using HD as a base - in the new way, level instead).

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

That level of granularity should be glossed over. Having two level X monsters that are absolutely identical except for +/-3 hp or 1 attack bonus should be avoided in general, but it's even more important that the system not try to distinguish between the two in terms of experience granted for overcoming them. Rather, all level X enemies should grant Y xp, regardless of how individual monsters of that level vary (regardless of minions, solos and so on).

Otherwise you back yourself into a corner. Orcs are worth more than gnolls because they have 10 extra hp but are otherwise identical? Leaving aside the question of why you bothered making two separate monsters that are so similar, giving them different xp values opens the floodgates. What about two monsters that are identical except one has 3 more hp, but the other deals d8 instead of d6 damage? What about the two monsters that are the same, but one has +1 AC and the other can move 10 feet per round faster?

Giving monsters levels lets you roughly gauge how challenging they are, and assigns an xp standard for that level of challenge. Trying to zoom in and award xp per hp and attack bonus is clunky and overcomplicated, IMO.

First of all, I said otherwise equivalent, not identical. 2d6+2 damage with a 75% chance to hit and 2d12+5 with a 50% chance to hit are equivalent (9 average damage per attack) but not identical.

Second, I pulled those number out of nowhere. They were an attempt to loosely illustrate the concept, but I have a better example that can show you the designers though processes. Look at the Skeleton vs the Zombie in the playtest bestiary. The Skeleton and the Zombie are both viable level 2 monsters, but the Skeleton is a bit more powerful and therefore worth 30 extra xp.