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

[Kobold Avenger]

I suspect that having an encounter ability probably affects your spell slots. For example a 5th level wizard with 5 1st level spells, 3 2nd level and 1 3rd level spell, might be have to use something like 4 1st level spells to get a 1st level spell as an encounter recharge spell.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

That's not what I'm advocating. I don't want a monolithic design scheme any more than you do.

What I'm advocating for is for a recharge rate that is not determined by your class, but rather by some other player consideration. A different place to make that choice, so that it does not come bundled with your archetype. Much like how 5e bundles skills and feats as separate from class abilities already. I'm advocating for a delineation that reflects how people actually approach the game.

There's little inherent to the idea of a fighter or a rogue or a druid or a wizard that mandates they have a certain recharge rate. Recharge rate is not a function of archetype. It is HEAVILY a function of playstyle preference, which means someone who wants to play a FIGHTER might want daily and encounter effects, or might find these effects repellent, and nothing about their desire to be a fighter decides that. Therefore, bundling one of these effects with the fighter class would be a mistake: folks would be saddled with what the designers thought a fighter should be, recharge-wise, rather than what THEY wanted the fighter to be, recharge-wise.

So recharge is not an element of class design in the way the game is actually played. Linking the two would be as big a mistake as linking feats to class design. It would tether them unnecessarily together. Not every fighter needs to be a Soldier and a Defender, and not every fighter needs to be at-will based, either.

So rather than bundle the class and the recharge rate, you should disentangle them, and let the recharge rate be selected at a different point, independently from your class, just as skills and feats can be selected independently from your class. It looks like their current thought involves it being selected at the level of picking individual spells, my idea just tweaked that to a round-by-round consideration, so you didn't have to have three different Magic Missile spells.

This doesn't mean there isn't synergy. It doesn't mean that it won't come prepackaged "by default." It doesn't mean that if your class MUST have a certain recharge rate for some reason that you can't put one in there (though I'm struggling to see why archetype should dictate that).

It DOES mean that these choices aren't dictated for you by the designers. It means that if you want to be an Illusionist, this isn't defined by recharge magic (unless you want it to be).

I'm not seeing how opening that up mandates a certain design schema anymore than making skills swappable mandates a certain design schema.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

What I'm advocating for is for a recharge rate that is not determined by your class, but rather by some other player consideration. A different place to make that choice, so that it does not come bundled with your archetype. Much like how 5e bundles skills and feats as separate from class abilities already. I'm advocating for a delineation that reflects how people actually approach the game.

...

So recharge is not an element of class design in the way the game is actually played.

I agree.. and disagree.. in that I think it would be a fine design to allow for changes in the recharge rate of abilities, independent of class. However, in my mind this is not a player decision, but a DM/group decision. As you say - it's an element that determines how the game is played, and I don't want different people playing different games at the same table.

Edit: this doesn't discount having different classes behaving differently, but within the same class I think consistency is important, especially with the strong class archetypes we have seen so far.

 

[Danzauker]

I think the only way the can handle specialty wizards that can make both 4E and pre-4E fans happy is to have specialists a list of exclusive spells that can be cast in 2 ways with different effects, just like they did with rituals.

One way would be regular daily way, and the other the "gets-back-after-10-minutes-encounterish" way.

So you can just memorize the version you prefer and ignore the other.

 

[Mattachine]

I also would like to see spells that are exclusive to specialists--this would be good for some cleric domains, too. Third edition did a touch of that.

I liked how illusionists were so different back in AD&D, and how sphere access in 2e really made different clerics seem, well, different.

 

[Raith5]

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

I dont think this is automatically true but at any rate the idea of DDN seems to be more about making each player make their own choice about both the number of choices and (at least partially) the significance of them.

 

[The Shadow]

I suspect that having an encounter ability probably affects your spell slots. For example a 5th level wizard with 5 1st level spells, 3 2nd level and 1 3rd level spell, might be have to use something like 4 1st level spells to get a 1st level spell as an encounter recharge spell.

I think something like this is probably true. I suspect a generalist can get encounter spells by sacrificing slots. I'm not clear on whether this will be on a day-by-day basis, like metamagic, or whether it's a permanent thing - taking a 'signature spell' for your character.

Whereas a specialist will get a few of these for free. Or perhaps, while they won't have barred schools, some types of spells will get more expensive to cast?

 

[I'm A Banana]

I agree.. and disagree.. in that I think it would be a fine design to allow for changes in the recharge rate of abilities, independent of class. However, in my mind this is not a player decision, but a DM/group decision. As you say - it's an element that determines how the game is played, and I don't want different people playing different games at the same table.

I think anything that is usually in the players' hands can also be mandated by the DM. Much like the DM can say "Specialties are wonked, just use what your class comes with," they can also say "You don't get to choose your recharge rate. Wizards always use Daily, Fighters always use at-will" or "everyone always use encounters," or whatever. DMs always set the rules for their games.

That said, I don't think it's a problem really to have different playstyles at the same table. Personally. But that's part of what not hinging these on class gets you. You don't have to ban illusionists if you don't want recharge magic, you just have to ban one particular use of certain abilities, keeping the archetype in play.

Edit: this doesn't discount having different classes behaving differently, but within the same class I think consistency is important, especially with the strong class archetypes we have seen so far.

Yes and no. I don't think there's anything necessarily inherent to an archetype that dictates a certain recharge rate. Just because one is a Wizard doesn't mean that one must use Daily abilities per se (certainly those 4e fans used to blasting Magic Missiles at will think that wizards are just fine with spells they know so well they never forget them!). So I think a given archetype is able to encompass all sorts of recharge rates. The game, I think, should be built with that assumption.

However, I think individual games could certainly tie things more tightly together. Having a DM say "Wizards must take the Daily version of their abilities," thus associating Wizards with Daily powers all the time, is well within a DM's purview. Don't like it? Don't play a Wizard in this DM's game, this DM has specific rules for how their wizards work.

But I don't think that needs to be dictated for all players everywhere. Recharge rates are a dial you should be able to set, independent of what archetype you play as, since there's no game design reason Fighters shouldn't be able to use Dailies (though there might be a DM-specific reason, like "That don't make any freakin' sense, Fighters IMC don't use dailies.")

 

[kerleth]

I think the debate about kamikaze midget's idea is really a theoretical vs. practical debate. On the surface I love the idea. However, I've tried to teach several people how to play dnd, and having more options in the core DOES make that more difficult. They are flabbergasted by the sheer amount of material. Of course, the default class could be written one way, with an "advanced options" section following.

That said, the comparison to how the designers are seperating backgrounds and specialties from class doesn't fit as well with your idea. A background functions completely independently of your class. You need never reference anything in the class to make use of your "I'm sleeping with the king's sister" background trait. Specialties also work this way. Exception being any specialties they make specifically to pick up some abilities from another class. By definition, the dial you're talking about creating must reference class abilities.

That requires one of two things.

1) A fairly compact and universal ruleset that could be in it's own section and could then be applied to anything. This is where the comparison to 4th edition class design comes in. That is the "tight, and rigid box" a previous poster was talking about I think. You have to make sure everything is designed so that it meshes with this "dial" ruleset and that majorly restricts design. Whether it's worth it or not depends on how it's applied and personal preference.

2) Each class to have it's version of the dial. This creates a large wall of text which can be intimidating to even many experienced gamers. Your specific example would triple the space required for every single fighter maneuver for example. Also, some abilities might not lend themselves well to this. Certain things require stretching and squinting to see how they can be made to work. Your cure is one example. It would have to come with a sidebar explaining how filling up to full hp after every fight affects playstyle, requiring even more page space, even if in a single spot that listed all such abilities so those who didn't like it could "ban" them en masse.

Personally I want options, more options, and then detailed advice on creating my own options when I can't find anything that seems just right. However, I also realize that their is a limit on how much can be put in the core books. If they try to put everything everyone could possibly want into one book we end up with a 10 pound $100 monstrosity that will flop because it isn't new player and casual player friendly. There is a fine line to be drawn. Don't like any of the fighter styles? Put together your own chain of maneuvers. Same with specialties and backgrounds.

Personally, I think requiring an illusionist tradition to play an illusionist is a bad place to be. Design the wizard where you have a limited number of spells known. If half your spells known are illusion and you regularly prepare and use them in adventuring, you are an illusionist. Having a dedicated tradition for it creates the illusion (pun intended) of having to use it to play one. My idea is more like kamikaze midgets actually. Instead have traditions that modify HOW you cast spells. Giving you more access to at wills, encounter, or daily to go with your preference. And leave the school specialization to spell choice.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

*Snip*

I can't think of an RPG that has succeeded in supporting radically different playstyles.

You mention Fighter dailies, for instance. I can understand these only in the context of a meta-narrative - as in, imagine you are recounting the tale of the game after it had all happened, and you sometimes go to perform this cool maneuver because the opportunity came up.

I know some people don't worry about these things, and it just works for them, because game balance is important and the tight mechanics might require that Fighters can only do some things once a day, because it makes the game work. The roleplaying is icing on top of a very complex game of chess cake.

Then others, like myself, find that certain mechanics lend themselves to our view of how things work in the in-game reality. We see the game as a giant sandbox, with events unfolding as they happen, and thus limited only by what is reasonable, what makes sense, without a meta-view of the world.

I find it hard to believe that a single game can support this meta-narrative style, the gamist style and the simulationist style at the same time. I doubt that a single rules system would satisfy all three of these either, even run as separate games. I know that's what they're trying to achieve, and as you suggest, this would work by publishing separate sets of rules - but you'd have to go far beyond just class behaviour to achieve this, the core mechanics cannot support all three.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I find it hard to believe that a single game can support this meta-narrative style, the gamist style and the simulationist style at the same time. I doubt that a single rules system would satisfy all three of these either, even run as separate games. I know that's what they're trying to achieve, and as you suggest, this would work by publishing separate sets of rules - but you'd have to go far beyond just class behaviour to achieve this, the core mechanics cannot support all three.

The goals aren't so lofty as to involve Forge-isms, honestly.

The core mechanics of D&D don't really have to care that much whether you do things at-will or daily. This is entirely a playstyle preference -- each can be balanced.

So the only thing a system must do to support these three different recharge schemes is to let anyone who wants to do it, do it. And those who don't want to do it, they don't need to be forced to do it.

Whether or not that supports any particular "gamist" or "simulationist" style is almost besides the point. People like both options, so both options should be available to players, regardless of which goal they are seeking with that choice.

Of course, DMs, as always, have the ultimate authority over what goes on in their games, and saying, "Wizards can't use anything other than Daily abilities" is a perfectly acceptable way to play, and the designers of D&D shouldn't refuse that style by saying "Actually, if you're a Wizard, you MUST HAVE CANTRIPS," thus tying the recharge rate unnecessarily to the class.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I have to agree with [MENTION=882]Chris_Nightwing[/MENTION] on the broad point here. An AEDU fighter class works in a completely different manner than the 5e at-will fighter class. If you wanted to fit both into the same game, you could, but all they'd really share was the name. They would play very differently.

This isn't to say, though, that there's no room for fudging. Giving the 5e fighter a full suite of daily and encounter abilities would be a huge rewrite. But designing a specialty (or even prestige class) that adds one or two cool dailies or encounter powers could conceivably work quite well. The key point is that the basic mechanical design of the core class should be consistent and intact.

I think the wizard encounter powers are at risk of crossing the line here. Can a level 5 evoker wizard really get 3 encounter powers (1 at each spell level)? That's more than the warlock, who doesn't also have a handful of dailies at his disposal. Are they all weaker than warlock invocations to make up for that? How much weaker can a power get than swearing at someone for 2d8 damage at level 5 (Baleful Utterance) while still being better than a cantrip?

No other class in the current playtest gets to choose whether his powers are daily or encounter. Current wizards, sorcerers and clerics are all daily, left only with weak cantrips and basic attacks if they use up their spells; current fighters, rogues and warlocks are all encounter/at-will, going into every battle with the exact same resources except for HP/HD. Allowing specialized wizards to choose each day whether they want daily or encounter powers would be a big boon, which would both complicate the class and necessitate adjustments (nerfs) in other areas to keep them balanced against other builds

 

[slobster]

The goals aren't so lofty as to involve Forge-isms, honestly.

The core mechanics of D&D don't really have to care that much whether you do things at-will or daily. This is entirely a playstyle preference -- each can be balanced.

This may be heresy, but I think that restrictions can be a good thing. I said it, now I can't unsay it. But they should be very carefully considered so that they work together to accomplish a goal, and not needlessly restrict creativity.

Having fighters based on recharging-by-turn CS dice, and wizards based on preparing spells ahead of time, is a dyed-in-the-wool, interesting difference between the two classes. It reinforces how their power derives from different places, how they have a different outlook on combat and problem-solving in general, and makes it so that playing them is a very different experience from the moment you pick up your character sheet. I find all of that to be useful, and worth the restrictions that it took to get there.

Now if someone wants to play a daily fighter, make it an option. Maybe come out with a "Knight" class later that uses martial dailies. Maybe churn out some modules to modify the normal fighter class. But rooting the defaults in D&D history establishes an identity for the class, and frankly reinforces an identity for the entire brand.

Those are my 2cp, and I can tell you won't agree. No harm in that, we can agree to disagree. Good luck with brainstorming your take on it, and rest assured that I will eagerly read and digest anything you come up with. We're all wannabe game designers here! (except of course for the actual game designers here)

EDIT: Also +1 for not involving Forge-isms. They always give me a headache.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I've mentioned this one before, but I think that the fighter could support an almost AEDU approach without breaking the simulationist hangup that some(including myself) have with the 4E fighter. Create 3 categories of abilities: maneuvers, stunts, and tricks.

Maneuvers are at will, and use expertise dice as the playtest currently permit.

Stunts represent strenuous activity and share a resource pool(or maybe do temporary CON damage) that recharges after a short rest. Mostly high damage and damage distribution attacks(or damage mitigation) here. Whirlwind Attack and Shield Brace(which would let you totally negate a successful attack) would be decent examples of this.

Tricks represent feint/attack combos and each can only be performed once per combat. This could include status effects (such as temporarily blinding an opponent), redirecting a successful incoming attack to an adjacent opponent and, at high level, really cool stuff like Vorpal Strike(I don't think I need to explain what that one would do).

This would allow for varying tiers of options available in a fight and the resulting resource management while avoiding the metagame issues involved with martial dailies. More importantly, it opens up the possibility of some really cool and powerful late game abilities that make sense for a highly experienced warrior that just wouldn't be possible if you could pull it off every round.

 

[Magil]

I think the wizard encounter powers are at risk of crossing the line here. Can a level 5 evoker wizard really get 3 encounter powers (1 at each spell level)? That's more than the warlock, who doesn't also have a handful of dailies at his disposal. Are they all weaker than warlock invocations to make up for that? How much weaker can a power get than swearing at someone for 2d8 damage at level 5 (Baleful Utterance) while still being better than a cantrip?

This strikes me as more of a problem with the warlock's power level than anything else. Yeah, the current set of invocations seem pretty lackluster to me.

I'm all for the wizards having "encounter powers," as long as they're careful about it. It might convince me to actually say I like the wizard class (I'm not a very big fan of Vancian casting). I'm rather surprised that there are actually complaints about at-will cantrips, that seemed to me to be a totally natural move.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This may be heresy, but I think that restrictions can be a good thing. I said it, now I can't unsay it. But they should be very carefully considered so that they work together to accomplish a goal, and not needlessly restrict creativity.

I actually completely agree.

The issue is that some folks don't want that difference. Or they want a DIFFERENT difference. Or they don't like the difference tethered to the archetype they want to play.

So while I like it, I'm not sure it's something I'd want to inflict on everyone who plays D&D as a prerequisite for playing the game. Some people LOVED the unified structure of classes, and retaining that should be an option for those DMs, too. Others LOVED fighter dailies or wizard at-wills and want those things in 5e, too. I don't think there's any inflexible design rule to deny them this.

Much like how a wizard might come pre-packaged with a Scholar background and a Magic-User Specialty and certain weapon/armor proficiencies, they could ALSO come pre-packaged with Daily ability use. But that shouldn't be an inflexible part of the class, IMO. It rules out people who love spamming Magic Missile who don't want to play a Warlock to get that vibe. And that's legit.

I like classes that play differently, but nova capacity and reliability and such probably shouldn't be tied to the class in one inflexible way, because then you get people who don't want to play the class IN THAT WAY, and the class needs to be able to be played otherwise, too.

 

[slobster]

The issue is that some folks don't want that difference. Or they want a DIFFERENT difference. Or they don't like the difference tethered to the archetype they want to play.

So while I like it, I'm not sure it's something I'd want to inflict on everyone who plays D&D as a prerequisite for playing the game. Some people LOVED the unified structure of classes, and retaining that should be an option for those DMs, too. Others LOVED fighter dailies or wizard at-wills and want those things in 5e, too. I don't think there's any inflexible design rule to deny them this.

I think I can sum up my feelings thusly: I hope your strategy works and you are right, but I am afraid that my negativity might end up being correct and it's not possible to get the full range of flexibility you are going for without sacrificing something important.

But wait, we have this huge playtest where we can test zany ideas on an unprecedented scale! I would be very happy to see a playtest document that mucks about with what you describe. Maybe it could convert me!

 

[Stalker0]

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 the context of the OP, we aren't talking about character build choices being significant, but their actions within the game.

What WOTC sounds like they are trying to do is what boardgaming has evolved to over the last many years....a push towards "Evolved Complexity".


The basics of Evolved Complexity is that an individual action is very simple, often limited to a few set options. However, over the course of several actions combined with the actions of your components can develop wonderfully complex scenarios that are actually very strategic.

Note this is not to be confused with games like chess. While learning the moves of chess is very simple and straightforward, any given move in chess could be 1000s of possibilities. In the modern EC boardgame, the move options remain limited generally throughout the game.

I think its a good direction to go for 5e, we will see how it pans out.

 

[Shadeydm]

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.

I think you are really onto something here. If these 3 variations can play side by side I believe it would greatly enhance the probability of success for Next.

 

[Magil]

In the context of the OP, we aren't talking about character build choices being significant, but their actions within the game.

However, if you check the quote chain, I was specifically referring to "character creation." I'd like a lot of significant options at character creation. I agree that when it comes to your turn, it's better if you have to choose one significant action from a short list (short of improv, which should be encouraged and the rules should give a framework for, but not really what I'm talking about here).