D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A (11Oct)

[gweinel]

The new D&D Next is out. Here is the link.


They talk about:

1) Setting Specific Options. Well actually nothing new here. In settings we may find differents approaches of the game system.... sounds good

2) 1st Level Characters. Here is an extensive reply about what means to be (and what not) a 1lvl character.
The appoach seems a bit contradictory. Having set a 1st lvl character able to kill kobolds, goblins, hobgoblins, an orcs, a gnoll and an ogre (with the help of the party) doesn't automatically sets the status of the characters? In some campaigns this status might be ok. In some others like mine this is a bit too much. In other high-epic fantasy games might be too low.
In my opinion i think that the answer to the question what a 1st characters represents and what not has to do with the theme of the setting and not with the ability to kill a certain number of critters.

3)High Level Play: High level games should feel diferent from low level ones but it should be easy to play (and prepare i would add).
Sounds good but i have a concern: Having played the playtest where everything was too easy for the pcs, (actually there was no big challenge for them), i am afraid that the game would become oversimplified that runs quicker but looses some of the immersion and challenge.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Once again they say most of the right things... But when all is said and done will it work?

 

[mlund]

It's a good article. It shows attention to the idea of divorcing Class and Background - that the players, not the game designers, will be fitting these things together. Classes that tried to marry the two in prior editions (non-lawful, superstitious, illiterate Barbarians; always-lawful, monastic Monks) probably aren't going to swing that way this time. Separating the background from the class probably calls for a change in the class name too - a Martial Artist who isn't raised and trained in a monastery isn't a Monk. A berserk battle-rager who isn't from some "uncivilized, violent backwater" isn't a Barbarian.

- Marty Lund

 

[Steely_Dan]

Dig it, especially the Backgrounds deal, there was always that question about "old" 1st level characters.

My buddy back in the day played a Dark Sun Half-Elf Druid/Mage/Psionicist (I know, I know...), but he envisioned the character like Sean Connery in Medicine Man (so, we had a grey-haired 1st level character).

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

It's a good article. It shows attention to the idea of divorcing Class and Background - that the players, not the game designers, will be fitting these things together. Classes that tried to marry the two in prior editions (non-lawful, superstitious, illiterate Barbarians; always-lawful, monastic Monks) probably aren't going to swing that way this time. Separating the background from the class probably calls for a change in the class name too - a Martial Artist who isn't raised and trained in a monastery isn't a Monk. A berserk battle-rager who isn't from some "uncivilized, violent backwater" isn't a Barbarian.

Hmm, methinks you're reading a bit too much in the wrong direction here.

First, monks and barbarians are already confirmed as classes, so at the very least their names aren't likely to change.

Also, they've noted that classes beyond the core 4 are going to be less flexible in conception. Take the warlock, for example: sure, he can grow up as a thief or a noble or whatever, but every warlock is still a guy or gal who made a pact with a specific patron for arcane power, with very specific consequences.

Personally, I think this is fine, as long as they're only building into the class what the archetype requires. For example, I like the idea that paladins have specific codes of conduct they must adhere to and an order of knights they belong to; otherwise, they're just generic divine gishes.

 

[mlund]

First, monks and barbarians are already confirmed as classes, so at the very least their names aren't likely to change.

Eh, that'll be an issue of how serious they are about killing sacred cows and avoiding repeating mistakes just because they are traditional, I suppose.

Also, they've noted that classes beyond the core 4 are going to be less flexible in conception. Take the warlock, for example: sure, he can grow up as a thief or a noble or whatever, but every warlock is still a guy or gal who made a pact with a specific patron for arcane power, with very specific consequences.

Much like a Berserker is someone who has gained the ability to tap into a powerful rage to fight. Meanwhile a Barbarian is someone of any class who comes from a barbaric cultural Background.

Personally, I think this is fine, as long as they're only building into the class what the archetype requires.

Indeed.

For example, I like the idea that paladins have specific codes of conduct they must adhere to and an order of knights they belong to; otherwise, they're just generic divine gishes.

I don't remember the Paladin needing to belong to a knightly order, just to have a Code. Again, the nice part is the Paladin is someone who takes up a cause and code and is blessed for it - while a Knight is a Background. A Paladin could be a peasant farmer, an escaped slave, or a savant touched by the gods just as readily as a member of the nobility or a military family. Gone are the days of the Unearthed Arcana social class tables being required to enter into the Cavalier class or the Paladin sub-class.

Your class doesn't tell you who you were or where you came from. It simply speaks to what you do now and a minimal explanation of why you are empowered so. Even the Fighter could be anything from a veteran soldier at level 1 to a naive prodigy who has never taken a lesson in his life.

- Marty Lund

 

[howandwhy99]

2) 1st Level Characters. Here is an extensive reply about what means to be (and what not) a 1lvl character.
The appoach seems a bit contradictory. Having set a 1st lvl character able to kill kobolds, goblins, hobgoblins, an orcs, a gnoll and an ogre (with the help of the party) doesn't automatically sets the status of the characters? In some campaigns this status might be ok. In some others like mine this is a bit too much. In other high-epic fantasy games might be too low.
In my opinion i think that the answer to the question what a 1st characters represents and what not has to do with the theme of the setting and not with the ability to kill a certain number of critters.

I think the above should be campaign-specific too. Starting Level =/= 1st level for everyone. Nor does a campaign setting need to include creatures of every level either. Or whatever kinds of character challenges we're talking about.

The tough part is, the math and dice probabilities are going to be based on a predetermined level 1 as the lowest possible level to play. There could be workarounds, but I'm sure they don't want to set the bar too low for their fanbase either. That's a tough one as there will be people who want a kind of grittier challenge. It'll be interesting to see what the do with the "flattest" numbers and, as you say, how they define adventure at the lowest levels.

 

[howandwhy99]

1st, high level play has its roots in low level play. I can lead a single henchmen with me in combat and it's no big thing. Leading an army of 1000s makes me kind of a big deal.

2nd, Clerics seemed a little muddy in high level play. Build a center to your deity, sure. Become the personification of him or her? Their avatar on the Prime Material? I don't think that's quite right.

Clerics are wise. They use their insights to benefit (or degrade) the oceans of people in the world. At low levels this might be convincing a single hobgoblin to not seek slaughter and perhaps take up farming (& Chauntea) instead. At high levels they might be leading cultural revolutions which change a kings laws or the culture of a nation. This means having tactics and strategies built more along the lines of cultural practices in the work ups of monsters. This is untilled ground and may simply seem like more work, but being a high priest of the goddess of hearth & home isn't exactly enticing because Create Food & Water can be done on the mass scale at 10th level.

Whether its a high level warrior, arcane master, or high priest, each may be revered by a populace for different reasons and hold different influence in the world. (Famous thieves are probably more respected in fear than revered)

 

[n00bdragon]

Eh, that'll be an issue of how serious they are about killing sacred cows and avoiding repeating mistakes just because they are traditional, I suppose.

So basically "no" then?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Much like a Berserker is someone who has gained the ability to tap into a powerful rage to fight. Meanwhile a Barbarian is someone of any class who comes from a barbaric cultural Background.

OR...

"There are a people in the Frozen North whose warriors fight with unbridled fury, who can withstand crushing blows, and who scatter the opponents before them like leaves in the autumn wind. These warriors -- and others who have embraced this style -- have come to be called 'Barbarians.'"

"There are many types of ascetic in the world, pursuing enlightenment and existential truth in distant, often dismal, places. A certain portion of those who train themselves in these monasteries leave, and become adventurers. They seek self-perfection and ultimate truth not locked away in some cell, but out in the world. While many of the men and women locked away in those communities have varying sets of skills (many of them scholarly and decidedly nonviolent), those adventuring members of these societies are called, generically, 'Monks.'"

Lets not get too tied up in what words have to mean what. Classes are more than just generic ability sets to be slapped onto anyone who happens to come along. Perhaps they'll mandate that each Barbarian choose a tribe, so even if you're a Noble, you've clearly spent time among the savages. Perhaps they'll mandate that each Monk choose a monastery, so even if you're a Thief, you've clearly spent some time on the path to divinity. Tethering the game mechanics more tightly to some in-world practice is a goal for this edition, and while not every DM may require that a prospective barbarian character literally spend time out in the wilds with Conan, having that link by default is a nice way to inject character by default.

At any rate, some positive stuff, though it still doesn't quite clarify for more how, exactly, the "different magical subsystems" is going to work.