D&D 5E (2014) D&D Next Q&A - 11/29/12

[I'm A Banana]

I very much doubt that including a few monk fighting styles with a list of maneuvers included within them, just as they do for fighters, would take up an excessive amount of space in the book.

Excessive? Probably not.

Unnecessary? I think yeah.

 

[howandwhy99]

I can understand the desire to balance magical effects in terms of combat. Everything, literally everything, should be rated for such too. Then, combat challenges can be determined for all classes. However, not all challenges should be within the combat system. These should largely differ depending upon character class.

Everything should also be rated in terms of magic use and clericism/NPC interaction. Those game systems deserve every bit as much attention as combat.

A huge advantage to making magic spells magical and unique is perceiving them as magical spells first and foremost. Not combat powers.

When you do, then the players do. And then we get Grease and Magic Jar and Wall of Stone and Create Food & Water and all sorts of spells that aren't rated the same on a combat utility scale as they are in the magic system. However, they are extraordinarily creative and kinds of areas for magical exploration.

IOW, while I agree with the answer to question #2, I still don't think they are viewing magic spells as magic spells.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I very much doubt that including a few monk fighting styles with a list of maneuvers included within them, just as they do for fighters, would take up an excessive amount of space in the book.

Maybe. You could be right. But at the end of the day, it'll come down to how the book gets edited and how much space they have.

For all we know... WotC might find that if they do create "extra builds" of the non-Core Four classes, the Monk might need their own too. After all... they've talked about how there might be different "alignment builds" for the Paladin, or different 'Ranger Organizations', or different Pacts for the Warlocks. They mind find after designing those, that a singular Monk build, or Druid build, or Barbarian build might not be enough. At which time they'll try and squeeze the space in to let them present a couple more.

But we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Why is the rogue the one who is supposed to shine whenever the party comes up against a lock? Just as the wizard can do alot more than cast knock, a rogue can do alot more than pick locks. Both characters have invested something into the ability to open locked things. One character does not deserve the spotlight any more than the other.

It depends on which edition of D&D you are coming from. In the early days of D&D(1e/2e), the thief sucked at fighting, their backstab ability was nearly impossible to pull off, there were no social skills. The reason you chose thief was because they had Find and Remove Traps and Move Silently. There was no way to makes scrolls or wands of Knock, and Wizards has so few spell slots, they weren't going to "waste" them on knock.

Since that time, the Thief/Rogue has traditionally been "the guy who hides, sneaks, climbs, finds traps and removes them" as his role in the game. Even in early 3.0 before a lot of splat books came out, Rogues felt similar to the way they were in 2e. Other classes COULD take the skills, but none of them would be good at it, so it was best to let the Rogue handle them.

And why is this one locked coffer the only chance the rogue has to shine? Surely in an intrigue-heavy adventure a rogue has plenty of opportunities to use his skills to great effect, whether it's using social skills, picking pockets, noticing clues, spying, etc.

The real problem with the 3e/4e skill system is that it creates specialists. Having a skill isn't useful unless you are the BEST in your group at that skill.

If there is a social situation, does it make sense to allow the Rogue with a 12 Cha and maxed ranks in Diplomacy to do it? Or the Bard with the 20 Cha and max ranks in Diplomacy to do it? You'll ask the Bard to talk and the Rogue will keep his mouth shut to avoid failing the check. It's worse yet if the Rogue decided not to max social skills.

There is a "skill hierarchy" in those editions for each skill where each class is rated higher or lower. Basically, if your class uses the skills associated stat for combat in any way, you are higher on the skill hierarchy for that skill. Rogues are mid-high tier on most skills in the game. However, they are only at the highest tier for Dex based skills. Generally, that means that the only time they will be called upon to make their skill rolls are when they are Dex based(mostly picking locks and sneaking). Open Locks is one of the few skills that very few other classes also get as a class skill, so it's almost the only thing that you can count as a "Rogue exclusive".

So, the only times Rogues get to truly shine is when they gets to use that skill, most of the time. It kind of sucks. So much so that almost no one wanted to be a Rogue in any of our games. We replaced the Rogue with a Wizard with one level of Rogue so that he could max ranks in Rogue skills and find magical traps. Since Search and Disable Device were both Int based, the Wizard was better at those skills anyways and a couple of scrolls of Knock negated the need for Open Locks.

I also dispute your assertion that the wizard just waltzes in and there are no consequences whatsoever. Using one of your previous few daily spells is a consequence! Any wizard that wastes a daily spell when there's a rogue in the party that could have picked the lock for free is a fool, IMO.

Virtually no consequences. By 9th level, most Wizards have 6 level 2 spell slots and more than enough money to acquire scrolls of knock for negligible cost in 3.5e. I kept at least one knock spell prepared every day as a Wizard, whether we had a Rogue or not. Why? You never know when you'd come across a lock that had too high a DC for the Rogue, or the Rogue would die part way through an adventure and you'd need to open a door. Or, the Rogue wouldn't show up for a session(and our DMs normally made them unable to help if they weren't there for a session).

By the time you are 9th level, 2nd level spells slots are nearly useless for combat. My Wizards that got this high normally had 90-100% of their level 2 slots available at the end of every day. "Wasting" a slot to open a door didn't seem like a waste at all. At least I felt like it was worthwhile to even HAVE level 2 spells.

There's nothing stopping the rogue from trying again if he fails, except time. On the other hand, there is plenty to keep a wizard from repeatedly casting Knock. There's the limitation on spell slots, or, if he uses the ritual version, there's the very long casting time and monetary cost to consider.

Spell slots have the same problem in many areas of the game: If you don't run into situations that require you cast more spells than you currently have prepared, then spell slots aren't a limitation.

If I have 3 out of my 6 2nd level spell slots prepared as Knock spells and I only encounter 2 locked doors, then it cost me absolutely nothing to unlock those doors.

But a Wand of Knock has 50 charges, scrolls are cheap. If you prepare 2 Knocks a day and own 1 Wand of Knock, you are likely able to replace a Rogue for an entire campaign.

The ritual version is a totally different story, it's generally useless.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I think there needs to be different Monk Builds, if they're already planning on having different Sorcerer and Warlock Builds. They don't have to have all possible builds for the Monk, just 2 builds, otherwise I feel that the class might get off on the wrong foot for being perceived as so limited, even if later splat books fix this.

 

[MoonSong]

I think there needs to be different Monk Builds, if they're already planning on having different Sorcerer and Warlock Builds. They don't have to have all possible builds for the Monk, just 2 builds, otherwise I feel that the class might get off on the wrong foot for being perceived as so limited, even if later splat books fix this.

Actually I would be happier if there weren't builds to begin with, with no pre-fabricated builds your imagination is the only limit, the moment builds enter the picture, they lock down flavor and monopolize support. I'd rather have very flexible classes with some "example archetypes" and general support that allows to build many different characters than a handfull of rigid builds. I prefer the 3.5 sorcerer since it has the potentiual to build almost anything you want than the 5-flavors-and-nothing-else from 4e, I don't like the PF approach either, but at least it get's a free pass from the overwhelming amount of options that makes up for the rigid "your bloodline is half your character".

I'd rather have the monk receive lots of manuevers and alternate ki powers so you are free to pick how you want your monk, than "just three monks", the flexible approach lends itself to more character concepts.

 

[Falling Icicle]

It depends on which edition of D&D you are coming from. In the early days of D&D(1e/2e), the thief sucked at fighting, their backstab ability was nearly impossible to pull off, there were no social skills. The reason you chose thief was because they had Find and Remove Traps and Move Silently.

Thankfully, the 5e rogue isn't that rogue.

Since that time, the Thief/Rogue has traditionally been "the guy who hides, sneaks, climbs, finds traps and removes them" as his role in the game. Even in early 3.0 before a lot of splat books came out, Rogues felt similar to the way they were in 2e. Other classes COULD take the skills, but none of them would be good at it, so it was best to let the Rogue handle them.

The real problem with the 3e/4e skill system is that it creates specialists. Having a skill isn't useful unless you are the BEST in your group at that skill.

If there is a social situation, does it make sense to allow the Rogue with a 12 Cha and maxed ranks in Diplomacy to do it? Or the Bard with the 20 Cha and max ranks in Diplomacy to do it? You'll ask the Bard to talk and the Rogue will keep his mouth shut to avoid failing the check. It's worse yet if the Rogue decided not to max social skills.

There is a "skill hierarchy" in those editions for each skill where each class is rated higher or lower. Basically, if your class uses the skills associated stat for combat in any way, you are higher on the skill hierarchy for that skill. Rogues are mid-high tier on most skills in the game. However, they are only at the highest tier for Dex based skills. Generally, that means that the only time they will be called upon to make their skill rolls are when they are Dex based(mostly picking locks and sneaking). Open Locks is one of the few skills that very few other classes also get as a class skill, so it's almost the only thing that you can count as a "Rogue exclusive".

So, the only times Rogues get to truly shine is when they gets to use that skill, most of the time. It kind of sucks. So much so that almost no one wanted to be a Rogue in any of our games. We replaced the Rogue with a Wizard with one level of Rogue so that he could max ranks in Rogue skills and find magical traps. Since Search and Disable Device were both Int based, the Wizard was better at those skills anyways and a couple of scrolls of Knock negated the need for Open Locks.

5e is very different in how it handles skills from past editions. Since the ability check is the core mechanic of the game and skills just give a bonus (and are entirely optional, in fact), any character is capable of at least trying to perform all but the most difficult tasks. 5e further departs from past editions by making skills come from your background instead of your class. Rogues do get additional skills, but they no longer have any kind of monopoly on things like sneaking around or picking locks. Even in 3rd and 4th edition, other players could take these skills if they wanted to make the investment. In 5e, any type of charatcer can be good at any skill. That is why I find arguments about wizards stealing the rogue's spotlight with the knock spell especially ridiculous now. The wizard can, after all, just make a dexterity check and pick the lock that way, and if he has a background that gives him the appropriate skill, he might even be just as good at it as the rogue is!

Virtually no consequences. By 9th level, most Wizards have 6 level 2 spell slots and more than enough money to acquire scrolls of knock for negligible cost in 3.5e. I kept at least one knock spell prepared every day as a Wizard, whether we had a Rogue or not. Why? You never know when you'd come across a lock that had too high a DC for the Rogue, or the Rogue would die part way through an adventure and you'd need to open a door. Or, the Rogue wouldn't show up for a session(and our DMs normally made them unable to help if they weren't there for a session).

Such situations are the very reason the Knock spell exists. Working as intended.

By the time you are 9th level, 2nd level spells slots are nearly useless for combat. My Wizards that got this high normally had 90-100% of their level 2 slots available at the end of every day. "Wasting" a slot to open a door didn't seem like a waste at all. At least I felt like it was worthwhile to even HAVE level 2 spells.

Are you taking about 3.x? Because even my high level wizards still used 2nd level spells, particularly invisibility, scorching ray, shatter, fog cloud, etc. There are some awesome spells at that level. I never once, at any level, found myself thinking "gee 2nd level spells suck now, I think I'll just fill all those slots with Knock." In fact, I practically never prepared Knock. There are far too many other awesome things I'd rather do with those slots.

Spell slots have the same problem in many areas of the game: If you don't run into situations that require you cast more spells than you currently have prepared, then spell slots aren't a limitation.

If I have 3 out of my 6 2nd level spell slots prepared as Knock spells and I only encounter 2 locked doors, then it cost me absolutely nothing to unlock those doors.

Yes it did. The "cost" was that you could have used those spell slots on other things. This is especially true in 5e, where wizards only get at most 2 spells of each level per day, and even low level combat spells remain relevant for some time because you'll still be fighting low level creatures for longer periods thanks to bounded accuracy.

But a Wand of Knock has 50 charges, scrolls are cheap. If you prepare 2 Knocks a day and own 1 Wand of Knock, you are likely able to replace a Rogue for an entire campaign.

Again, picking locks is just one of many, many things that rogues do. When I play a rogue, lockpicking is something that rarely even comes up in my experience and is certainly not why I play the class. It's just one of many tools in my arsenal. If someone else really wanted to handle that job, I'd be happy to spend those skill points elsewhere.

And frankly, if a wizard player insists on spending money on scrolls and wands to unlock things when you have a rogue in the party that can do it for free, it doesn't speak to highly of either his intelligence or his ability to work as a team. If your party doesn't have a rogue, then be grateful the Knock spell exists. You shouldn't be required to have any particular character class in your party to succeed. Just as people don't want to be forced to have a cleric in their party, they shouldn't be forced to have a rogue, either.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

If there is a social situation, does it make sense to allow the Rogue with a 12 Cha and maxed ranks in Diplomacy to do it? Or the Bard with the 20 Cha and max ranks in Diplomacy to do it? You'll ask the Bard to talk and the Rogue will keep his mouth shut to avoid failing the check. It's worse yet if the Rogue decided not to max social skills.

This was not at all a problem in previous playtests, but the current playtest does re-introduce it. Except, now it's the rogue with (by 10th level) ridiculous bonuses to 8+ skills thanks to skill mastery. (Also fighters or monks with the maneuver that boosts Strength checks, although that is probably less useful in exploration/social situations.)

By 9th level, most Wizards have 6 level 2 spell slots and more than enough money to acquire scrolls of knock for negligible cost in 3.5e.

...

By the time you are 9th level, 2nd level spells slots are nearly useless for combat. My Wizards that got this high normally had 90-100% of their level 2 slots available at the end of every day. "Wasting" a slot to open a door didn't seem like a waste at all. At least I felt like it was worthwhile to even HAVE level 2 spells.

Spell slots have the same problem in many areas of the game: If you don't run into situations that require you cast more spells than you currently have prepared, then spell slots aren't a limitation.

If I have 3 out of my 6 2nd level spell slots prepared as Knock spells and I only encounter 2 locked doors, then it cost me absolutely nothing to unlock those doors.

But in the current playtest, you max out at TWO 2nd-level spell slots. That's the real mitigating factor in 5e: they're much, much stingier with spell slots. (Probably too much so at the moment.)

Take a tenth-level wizard. He's got 6 spell slots higher than level 2; he could burn through all of those in a single combat pretty easily, and then he'd be wishing that knock he prepared was an acid arrow or scorching ray.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

[Edit] And why is it that so many people freak out over niche protection, rogues, and the knock spell, when fighters can just bash down the door or smash open the locked treasure chest? And that doesn't even cost a daily resource. Heck, if the fighter has an adamantine weapon, it's practically effortless unless you're up against the most legendary of doors. But nobody ever complains about the "overpowered" fighter "stealing the rogue's spotlight" with his smashing powers. But if a wizard spends a daily spell slot or the money to buy a wand of knock to bypass the same obstacle, the sky is falling and rogues are now "useless."

And fighter opening the dor with brute force is also very loud. And it does cost more time than applying a knock spell.

So we have follwing situation:
rogue: fast and silent, at-will
fighter: slow and loud, at will
wizard: fast and very loud, daily (maybe a bit slower as a ritual)

So I would call that perfect balance.

 

[pemerton]

If there is a social situation, does it make sense to allow the Rogue with a 12 Cha and maxed ranks in Diplomacy to do it? Or the Bard with the 20 Cha and max ranks in Diplomacy to do it? You'll ask the Bard to talk and the Rogue will keep his mouth shut to avoid failing the check.

Although it's a bit tangential to the main argument, I want to respond to this.

As a 4e GM I have no trouble at all designing and running situations in which PCs other than the ultra-skilled paladin make social checks. The basic secret to this is to have the NPCs speak to PCs other than the paladin. And when that happens, the player will roll a Diplomacy check (or Bluff check, or whatever), even if untrained and/or with low CHA, rather than have his PC stand there like a fool and say nothing.