D&D 5E D&D Next Q&A: Martial Healing, Fighter Utility, and Ranger Challenges

[Blackwarder]

This week Q&A is up!

Check it out here: http://community.wizards.com/dndnex...aling,_fighter_utility,_and_ranger_challenges

Warder

 

[Blackwarder]

I think this one got some interesting things.
I'm not that concerned about the martial healing issue, although i know that many are, but the tidbits about the fighter and the tease about exploration rules drive me crazy!

I sure hope we will see some brand new stuff and modules in the next packet instead of small incremental changes.
Btw, ant guess about when the next packet will be out?

Warder

 

[Bluenose]

I'm rather doubtful about the idea that inspirational healing should only work on conscious people. What, haven't they ever seen any war movies where the grizzled old sergeant shakes someone back to consciousness and gets them back in the action? It's not just superhero movies where that happens. As for having abstractions that make sense, I'm rather doubtful that hit points as physical injuries makes more sense. The three possible states they give (Fully functional, unconscious, dead) don't really make me think, "Yes, that's just how things work." Far from it.

They seem thoroughly enamoured with the fact that the Fighter is entirely lacking in class-based utility out of combat. I guess my old BECM and 2e Fighters aren't characters they want me to be able to recreate. Is there anyone who thinks it's a sensible idea?

At least there's some indication of Exploration rules existing in this. That's the best news in the Q&A.

 

[Blackwarder]

They seem thoroughly enamoured with the fact that the Fighter is entirely lacking in class-based utility out of combat. I guess my old BECM and 2e Fighters aren't characters they want me to be able to recreate. Is there anyone who thinks it's a sensible idea?

I'm not sure where you got that from, the way I read it they plan to do somthing about the fighter out of combat abilities.

Warder

 

[Gadget]

That seemed to be rather half-hearted attempt to mollify the hit-points-as-meat crowd with convoluted logic. I can see a warlord's inspiration bringing someone back from 0 or below being kind of hard on the 'apply to game world narrative' aspect and could see a restriction there; but I don't think it is any worse than the 'hey, I just went up a couple of levels, now I can take twice as many axe blows to the gut' syndrome is to the hit-points-as- meat perspective. Also, here comes favoured enemies again, I hope it tastes better this time around.

 

[D'karr]

Btw, ant guess about when the next packet will be out?

Warder

Middle to end of April if I was a betting man.

 

[Kinak]

I'm okay with their warlord compromise, although I'm not really the one they have to please with it. I am curious to see how it ends up working.

Adding out of combat utility to the fighter is... sort of weird. They've backed themselves into a corner with the paired ideas that out-of-combat is the rogue's chance to shine and fighters are the best at fighting. If they want to make them both equally useful outside of combat, it stands to reason they should also be equally useful in combat. We'll see if they actually do that.

The disappointing answer to me was actually the ranger one. I understand wanting rangers to have broad fighting styles rather than swingy favored enemies, but giving them broad fighting styles called "favored enemies" feels like a cop-out.

Maybe they'll wow me and the favored enemies will be really evocative. I just think that using names from earlier editions on completely different things makes the game harder to adopt, not easier.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Ebon Shar]

I'm not sure why there is such a push for the Warlord to even be a class in 5E. Admittedly, my 4E play was limited to about 10 sessions, and nobody played a Warlord, but wasn't the Warlord class more of an extrapolation of possible tactics using the 4E rules rather than a full-fledged, historical or fictionally backed class? I guess I always assumed that the Warlord became a class just so that the movement/tactics in 4E could be used more efficiently. In 1E, wouldn't a Warlord just be a fighter with a high charisma?

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Most of it I can take or leave. Not impressed with the idea that reverse engineering favored enemy into the ranger is a desirable goal in its own right. If you end up there, and it works, fine. But given a moderate to good ranger design with favored enemy or a better design without, I'd take the latter every time, and not even think twice. Favored enemy was and has always been a kludge. You don't hang onto kludges just for the fun of it.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Their answer to the first question is highly unsurprising, but pretty disappointing for me, personally. Getting used to that with Next.

The second has a silver lining in that the wording, if you read between the lines, hints that they will be doing a full Warlord at some point. Though it might just be sloppy phrasing on their part.

Favoured Enemies was not something I liked about the ranger, so I was pretty happy to see it gone in 4e. I think it should be a feat or optional class feature; if you want it, take it, but don't clutter up the basic class with that junk. In previous editions, if you picked wrong or mis-guessed what your DM would throw at you it could range from barely useful once in a blue moon to downright useless.