D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A 9/20

[GX.Sigma]

WotC Golem wasn't going to, so...

Here it is.

Some good stuff in here.

#1 : Goals for combat. They're all awesome, except maybe the one that says "avoiding a fight is sometimes the right tactic." I think avoiding the fight should almost always be the right tactic.

#2 : Details on specialty wizards. The illusionist sounds freaking awesome (minor image at will? plus ghost sound?! hehehehehehe....). Also, here's something new:

Keep in mind that we’re still working out these mechanics, but we’d also like it if a player could choose how many spells of the various frequencies to memorize. Want to play a 4E-style wizard? Prepare some spells that refresh after 10 minutes, some spells that don’t come back until the end of the day, and some spells that you can cast at-will. Want to play a classic pure-1E-style wizard? Only prepare spells that refresh at the end of the day.

I would love to play in a game where that's a reality. The big problem, of course, is avoiding choice traps (it seems like the most powerful option would always be to take all daily spells, unless at-will spells get way better or crossbows get way worse).

#3 : Stuff we already know.

 

[gyor]

I think number 3 was a bit more informative, I didn't know about extra origins, domains, ect...

And also the at will minor image is seperate from normal cantrips, so if you decide to focus all your slots on dailies then you still have normal cantrip, unless you decide drop cantrips.

I hope one of the sorcorer origins is the favored soul and one of the Warlock pacts is the Lich-Queen.

 

[I'm A Banana]

As I pointed out in another thread about this, they need to be careful with how they're doing specialists.

Personally, I'm not enthused about "cast X more frequently." In the first, it immediately imposes a playstyle on anyone who wants to play a specialist: BECAUSE I'm an Illusionist, I MUST have at-will or encounter-based magic? That's not cool.

What I'd like to see instead is perhaps "specialist-exclusive spells." Okay, any wizard can cast Invisibility. But a true Illusionist is the only one who gets Minor Image. This, I think, recaptures some of the feeling of playing an Illusionist in 1e, when you got tricks no one else got. Exclusivity helps reinforce an archetype. Frequency does not do nearly as good a job with that.

The axis of how often one can do that spell should be different. Yes, encounter and at-will spells should be in the game, but I don't think they should be tied to a given archetype very strongly. There should be no reason that I MUST have a certain recharge category in order to embody a certain archetype.

I think this is one of those things that goes pretty deep into the 4e Divide, regardless of class. Different recharge categories are very different ways to play the game, and it's not something that is a rational choice as much as it is a personal preference. Some folks love Fighter Dailies, some folks hate At-Will Spells. I'm starting to think that the option to turn that on or off is going to have to be there, for EVERY class, for EVERY build, because it's not really a class/build kind of thing. It's deeper than that.

So, y'know, if I can't play a Fighter with a Daily Power, and Billy can't play an Illusionist with ONLY daily powers, that's a problem for flexibility. That's a problem for both me and Billy.

The rate of recharge of your special abilities MUST be something that is not dependent on choice of class/specialty/subclass/archetype/etc.

....Hell, maybe that's a dial you want to set on every spell/ability:

Magic Missile

1. Single Missile: Deal 1d4+INT force damage to one living creature. The spell is not expended, and you can cast it again on your next turn.
2. Missile Battery: Launch three missiles as above. The spell is partially expended, and you can prepare it again during a short rest.
3. Missile Massacre: Launch five missiles as above. The spell is fully expended, and you can prepare it again only during a long rest.

Cleave

1. A Hot Knife Through Butter: When you reduce a creature to 0 hp or fewer, spend a single expertise die to make a melee weapon attack against another creature you can reach. The expertise die returns at the start of your next turn.
2. Can't Stop The Spin: When you reduce a creature to 0 hp or fewer, spend a single expertise die to make a melee weapon attack against up to two other creatures you can reach. The expertise die returns after your next short rest.
3. Whirligig: When you reduce a creature to 0 hp or fewer, spend a single expertise die to make a melee weapon attack against all other creatures you can reach. The expertise die returns after your next long rest.

Sneak Attack

1. Advantageous Openings: When you have advantage, you can deal 1d6 extra damage.
2. Backstab: When you have surprise, your first attack, if it hits, deals 3d6 extra damage. You loose your use of Sneak Attack until your next short rest, however -- they're onto your tricks.
3. Assassination: When you have surprise, your first attack, if it hits, kills any creature with less than 10 hp who is not immune to poison. You loose your use of Sneak Attack until your next extended rest, however -- you need to brew more poison and apply it to your tools, something you can only do with a few hours.

Cure Wounds

1. Cure Light Wounds:Heal 1d8+WIS hp by touching a target. You regain the use of your Cure Wounds spell at the start of your next turn.
2. Cure Moderate Wounds: Heal 3d8+WIS hp by touching a target. You regain the use of your Cure Wounds spell after a short rest.
3. Cure Serious Wounds: Heal 5d8+WIS hp by touching a target. You regain the use of your Cure Wounds spell after a long rest.

Minor Illusion
You can use this spell while hidden, and the illusions it creates can be within 50 feet of you.

1. Ghost Sounds: You create an illusory noise arising from any point in range. The sounds can be anything you imagine, from quiet whispers to a dragon's roar, but you do not have fine control over the sound -- you cannot make it say specific things, or duplicate a specific creature. This use of Minor Illusion does not expend the ability.
2. Object Illusion: You create an illusory object, such as a wall, a pit, a table, a treasure chest, a suit of armor, etc. The object behaves as if real visually and audibly (it can be lifted, opened, broken, etc., and it makes splintering noises or clinking sounds or whatever is appropriate), but it cannot bear an actual force: things set on the table fall through, people who fall into the pit don't actually stumble, and while the chest may open (and may even contain treasure, if the caster wishes), it won't be a safe place to store your own loot. This use of Minor Illusion expends the ability until you take a short rest.
3. Illusory Creature: You create the illusion of a creature, such as a person, a halfling, a dog, a troll, a dragon, or a small bug. The creature behaves as if real visually and audibly (a dog might bark, or it might start reciting poetry; a dragon might roar, and its wings might ripple as it flies, the halfling's hair will wave in the breeze, and his footsteps will be audible), but it cannot bear an actual force: a weapon swung at the creature passes through air, an attempt to lift the creature lifts no weight, and any attack from the creature deals no damage. While the visual and audible reaction may be sensible (a halfling may dodge all attacks directed at it, while the dog's bite may sound like it rips through clothes), there is no actual force involved. This use of Minor Illusion expends the ability until you take an extended rest.

...this way, you even get to choose ROUND BY ROUND what kind of resources you want to expend. Wanna be an at-will fighter and a Daily Mage? Done. Wanna be a Daily Fighter and an at-will mage? Also done. Wanna mix and match? Stick to at-wills until you want to blow the lid off the joint with Dailies.

And yer normal wizard doesn't get Minor Illusion. It's an Illusionist Special, baby.

 

[slobster]

#2 made me dance a tiny little nerd dance. I want so badly for this to work well. I await the next playtest most eagerly.

The combat goals sound solid, though I would add:
* Keep a tight rein on mechanics that require round to round tracking of conditions and modifiers, to keep the combat rolling along smoothly and intuitively.

 

[slobster]

So, y'know, if I can't play a Fighter with a Daily Power, and Billy can't play an Illusionist with ONLY daily powers, that's a problem for flexibility. That's a problem for both me and Billy.

The rate of recharge of your special abilities MUST be something that is not dependent on choice of class/specialty/subclass/archetype/etc.

This is a pretty big issue for some people, so they should certainly do everything they can to cater to all their players. In the end, though, slavish devotion to pleasing everyone by making every possible instance of these mechanics entirely optional and swappable is likely to end in an inferior game.

I'd argue we saw something like this happen before. In 4E they wanted to bring power levels of the myriad classes into line. That was a laudable goal. They came up with the AEDU power structure. That was an interesting innovation. Then they shoehorned every class to fit that power structure, regardless of whether that served the actual class or not, just to fit the rigid paradigm they had come up with to "fix" problems in the previous edition. Oops.

Coming up with a paradigm for making classes, be it AEDU or "optional everything!", is an interesting exercise. It can give you something to aim for. When you realize that breaking out of that paradigm will benefit your game, though, you should do it and not be constrained by the box you've built yourself.

Arranging it so that every class has the option of being all at-will, or all daily, or all everything in-between, seems like a pretty rigid box.

 

[I'm A Banana]

In the end, though, slavish devotion to pleasing everyone by making every possible instance of these mechanics entirely optional and swappable is likely to end in an inferior game.

Two things.

First, no one is proposing a slavish devotion to pleasing everyone.

Second, the idea that not hinging recharge rates on archetype choice would make an "inferior game" is gonna need some support before I buy it.

Arranging it so that every class has the option of being all at-will, or all daily, or all everything in-between, seems like a pretty rigid box.

Yeah, I suppose freedom to play whatever you want in whatever way you want it is a pretty rigid box.

Wait...what?

The "rigid box" would be if every Illusionist MUST take a 5-minute recharge spell and ever fighter MUST be at-will and every wizard MUST be daily-only. It becomes a problem when someone wants to play a certain class or archetype, but doesn't like the way the powers are handed out/gained back. There's no design reason that I can see to FORCE any class to take any particular recharge rate. You can allow for a diversity without making it any worse. Having class abilities with different versions for different recharge rates is one option for allowing that.

 

[slobster]

Second, the idea that not hinging recharge rates on archetype choice would make an "inferior game" is gonna need some support before I buy it.

That's not what I said, or what I meant.

Yeah, I suppose freedom to play whatever you want in whatever way you want it is a pretty rigid box.

Wait...what?

The "rigid box" would be if every Illusionist MUST take a 5-minute recharge spell and ever fighter MUST be at-will and every wizard MUST be daily-only. It becomes a problem when someone wants to play a certain class or archetype, but doesn't like the way the powers are handed out/gained back. There's no design reason that I can see to FORCE any class to take any particular recharge rate. You can allow for a diversity without making it any worse. Having class abilities with different versions for different recharge rates is one option for allowing that.

I'm saying that designing every class so that it's balanced when played as an at-will only class, but is simultaneously appropriate and playable as a daily-only class, and has a continuum of options that are playable and balanced in between, seriously restricts your design space. You automatically disqualify a lot of possible design decisions you could make.

I'm not saying it's impossible, or badwrongfun, or a bad goal. I am saying that I'm doubtful that it could be achieved, and that you would be sacrificing something important to achieve it in any case.

If someone ever did prove me wrong and created the game you describe, I would be right there celebrating with you and eager to give it a shot! So take my criticism as it was meant, doubt that such a thing will be achieved (and a belief that D&D should play to its strengths rather than reinventing itself in such an extreme way) rather than a denial that your idea has merit.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Yeah, I suppose freedom to play whatever you want in whatever way you want it is a pretty rigid box.

Wait...what?

I'm sorry, I'm with slobster here. If all classes have all of their powers at all recharge rates, that does 3 things:

1. forces all classes to use the same system (less variety between classes)
2. adds a lot more word count for no more content (inelegant/bloated)
3. gives the players way more options than they should have, making character generation more of a hassle (less pick-up-and-playable)

 

[FireLance]

I'm sorry, I'm with slobster here. If all classes have all of their powers at all recharge rates, that does 3 things:

1. forces all classes to use the same system (less variety between classes)
2. adds a lot more word count for no more content (inelegant/bloated)
3. gives the players way more options than they should have, making character generation more of a hassle (less pick-up-and-playable)

But it would make me happy. And isn't 5e all about making me happy?*

* Yeah, I'm kidding. But it seems to be a very common perspective.

 

[Magil]

[URL=http://www.enworld.org/forum/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] : Goals for combat. They're all awesome, except maybe the one that says "avoiding a fight is sometimes the right tactic." I think avoiding the fight should almost always be the right tactic.

I don't know, I don't think that's very much like "heroic fantasy." Which is what DnD has been about for the last decade or so. I'll accept that running away should be preferable some of the time, but I'd rather it not be "most of the time." That seems like the game style that should be in the minority. I can't help but think "hack and slash" campaigns still have a lot of popularity.

gives the players way more options than they should have, making character generation more of a hassle (less pick-up-and-playable)

Wait, who decides how many options a class should have? Isn't DnD Next all about being "modular," and being able to add or subtract various elements?

Not that I necessarily agree with the particular point or addition, but if enough people want it, it's probably a good idea to have it as at least an option.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Wait, who decides how many options a class should have? Isn't DnD Next all about being "modular," and being able to add or subtract various elements?

It's generally poor game design to give the player tons and tons of choices that individually mean very little. It makes for a very inelegant, confusing game.

 

[Magil]

It's generally poor game design to give the player tons and tons of choices that individually mean very little. It makes for a very inelegant, confusing game.

I think it goes without saying that any choice should be meaningful. But having more choice doesn't necessarily make an individual choice less meaningful.

In principle I agree with you that things shouldn't get too complicated, but I have my doubts Next will end up that way if the current trend is any indication.

 

[RedShirtNo5.1]

I like the idea the specialists getting a "kicker" on some spells. For example
-charm person does normally not affect a creature in combat, but that is waived for an enchanter
-magic missile requires a to hit roll, but is auto-hit for an evoker
-phantasmal force is level 2 spell, but level 1 for an illusionist

This can be balanced against more limited spell selection.

 

[Ainamacar]

It sounds to me like most spells will need some augmented abilities, and I doubt they can be one-size-fits-all. In no universe is Weird a cantrip, for example. Maybe a level reduction, but that is both fairly flavorless and still has to be done on a case-by-case basis.

Maybe every spell should have at least one specialist ability, and every time a specialist learns an appropriate spell it learns one of these specialties as a matter of course. I'd keep the decision of which augmentation to learn at the character-build level so that spells that eventually accumulate many possible special effects don't impose the extra choice on every action, and so that adding new augmentations to the spell in a splat doesn't automatically make every specialist in that spell even more flexible. If a character learns multiple augmentations (say via a feat) then they'll have more flexibility in at-the-table usage.

For example, I could imagine a spell like minor image having the following special effects:
1) Use minor image as a cantrip
2) Whenever you expend a spell slot to cast an illusion, you also cast minor image.
3) Whenever you expend a spell slot to cast any spell, you can also expend minor image. For the next 5 minutes you may cast minor image whenever you cast a spell, and if desired the minor image may apply the illusion to modify the appearance/sound/etc. of the cast spell.

The first use is great for exploration and basic utility, the second use amps up pretty much every other illusion cast, and the third is great for tricky concealment and misdirection with other spells. For example, one could describe a fireball as a fiery zebra breathing across the battlefield, as an image of an apparently mundane exploding keg, or as a crystal sphere with a zillion lasers that reflect within the sphere many times in just a few moments.

If a PC eventually gained the ability to add another specialization agument to a spell they might choose both 1 and 3. Then they would always have the at-will use, but the option to trade it out at any moment for the alternate use.

It might also provide a route for "generalist" wizards, if those exist, to dabble in specialties very gently. For example, a generalist might take feat(s) to learn every specialization augment for magic missile and dimension door. Those are effectively signature spell for him, but it is still a far cry from the multitude of special augments a dedicated evoker or conjurer might gain.

Of course, I'm speaking as a person who really likes spell augmentations in general, and thinks something like delayed blast fireball should simply be a modification of fireball and not an independent spell. This cuts down on the number of the separate spells in the game (and mitigates the ever-expanding spell list of past editions), draws a strong tie between spells that share a fundamental story, and creates some useful structure for things like spell research. For example, perhaps classes generally choose to learn k new spells per level *or* 2k augmentations among all known spells. For some classes it may even make sense to trade some spells to learn a single specialization augment instead, since the specialization abilities will tend to be pretty good. Plus, I like the idea that developing a spell from scratch is generally a qualitatively different task to modifying a known one. In any case, that would give characters a chance to guide the sort of flexibility they gain.

It might also promote a bit more similarity between games where the wizard is drowning in found scrolls and one where a new scroll is a rare and awesome thing. In the latter game the wizard can sometimes feel a bit stunted by comparison. This kind of change to learning spells may allow wizards to function more consistently regardless of the scroll-finding environment, while still letting them have this iconic, but traditionally very campaign-dependent, ability for learning spells.

 

[GX.Sigma]

But having more choice doesn't necessarily make an individual choice less meaningful.

I think it does. The more choices you have to make, the less significant each of them is.

 

[bogmad]

I don't know, I don't think that's very much like "heroic fantasy." Which is what DnD has been about for the last decade or so. I'll accept that running away should be preferable some of the time, but I'd rather it not be "most of the time." That seems like the game style that should be in the minority. I can't help but think "hack and slash" campaigns still have a lot of popularity.

Not "running away", but figuring out how to avoid fighting an active ecology of 30 hobgoblins in a cave... I'd say that's been there longer than ten years. "Sometimes" or "all the time" jumping into combat is the DMs call ultimately, but I don't see anything in the article making a case for either, only that all combats should always be meaningful, resource-wise.

Wait, who decides how many options a class should have? Isn't DnD Next all about being "modular," and being able to add or subtract various elements?/

It's a tough call design wise. They've also said they want to keep the base system simple. So they have walk a tightrope of making enough options to support different playstyles, without making the buy in to the game way too complicated and confusing.

Modular options, for the most part, shouldn't be in how a class works; it should be in extra classes. That's the easiest solution for most problems. Of course it's a little more complicated for say, the wizard, which is why we have the specialty considerations.
I wouldn't hold out too much hope for an AEDU system for the fighter, as there isn't quite the demand for it, outside a subset of 4e players.

Ultimately as I see it, they can't design unlimited options for the base mechanics of a class, that just creates bloat and too much complexity. Options for added complexity shouldn't be in how a class functions, just in the complexity of choices made in the leveling process.

 

[gyor]

I'm really looking forward to October's Packet.

 

[Magil]

I think it does. The more choices you have to make, the less significant each of them is.

Depends on what you mean by "significant." I don't think being able to choose a feat for my DnD Next fighter makes the choice of fighting style less significant, nor its choice of background.

In theory, yes, if you have a class that is defined purely by a single choice, then yes, that would be a more significant choice than a class that is defined by three choices, from a certain point of view. But I'd also never want to see a class that is wholly defined by a single choice. In fact I'd say the choice is less interesting, because while it defines the class, it at the same time sacrifices a lot of potential for variability. It's one of the reasons that, at some point, I hope the Next fighter is allowed to pick maneuvers on an individual basis rather than being confined to "fighting styles," though I don't have a problem with the styles existing.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

So how is a specialist wizard not stealing the warlock's mechanical thunder?

I thought that if you wanted to play a 4e style caster, the idea was to make the warlock fill that role.

 

[gweinel]

I don't like where wizards tradition are going for a couple of reasons.

I don't like the idea and the fluff behind it. "If you are illusionist you can cast more often invisibility (or any other illusion spell)". A specialist is compared to the general wizard only by the number and the frequency of the spells? That is that makes you special? For me is not enough.

I would love to see each tradition to have more unique things to do. Exclusive spells and maybe powers. A summoner is the person who has contacts to other planes, he knows names of monsters and unique beings and the secrets behind these names. He knows its strength and weakness and can bind a creature until that creature complete his quest. For a summoner to call a creature is not only to dispatch enemies in combat as the limited knowledge of a generalist wizard might be. For a summoner the summoned creature could help in all three pillars of the game from the 1st lvl.

I know my example is not perfect, but i think this kind approach would make a tradition more unique and not just a simple (bad imho) mechanic to rise or low the frequency and number of spells.

Another issue that bothers me in this kind of approach is that if you want to have both the 4e and 1-3e players happy you will have augmented versions of each spell. I don't know if this is exactly a good design approach. Too many infos for different mechanics in the same text will cause a good amount of confusion.

Having said that i would like to say that i don't mind at will and encounter based spells, but i don't want em in my game. This playstyle is not for me and probably for any low magic campaign. The long awaited wizards tradition go to this kind of play style. I hope at least to present some different options for ppl who don't like high magic and high fantasy games.