D&D 5E L&L for November 18

[mcintma]

Rogues are, IMO, a tad overpowered at the moment.

Ssshhhhh

Honestly, I can see a tad OP, but not too much. Fighter looks pretty sick to me.

 

[Mistwell]

Ssshhhhh

Honestly, I can see a tad OP, but not too much. Fighter looks pretty sick to me.

Fighters dish it out, and then they get hit back. Rogues dish it out...and they're not there to get hit back again

 

[Mistwell]

I don't like feats being ranked at the bottom. Characters not only get very few of them, they also come at a very high price (not getting precious ability score increases). Since characters get so few feats and since they are at the bottom tier of impact they have on the game, this gives people very little ability to customize their characters (which, BTW, was the primary reason feats were introduced into the game in the first place). This is, IMO, the primary cause of Next characters feeling so mechanically "cookie cutter."

Feats are no longer the primary way to customize your characters, and that's what you're seeing. Feats are not even a basic assumption of the game anymore, as optional elements. The primary ways to customize your character are class, race, background, and subclass options. Those combined subsume most of what feats used to do.

You're the first person I have seen make the claim that Next characters feel cookie cutter. I've been following Next from day one, on four different boards, and this is the very first time I've seen that claim made, in all that time, with all those posts, even from the most negative of posters. In fact, I don't even think I've seen you make that claim before.

 

[Mistwell]

double post

 

[JamesonCourage]

If Feats were higher on the priority list than Backgrounds, then the way it would need to work would be you'd get more skills from a single feat than you get from a Background. Is that really what you want?

If a feat is only granting skills, then absolutely.

Seems to me to be exactly opposite of would be ideal.

Not to me.

In terms of acquiring skills... Backgrounds being the primary methodology to gain them seems (by definition) to be the way for it to be.

If feats don't grant skills, then okay. Backgrounds are now better at giving skills. But when background and feats hit the same territory, I'd prefer feats be better.

And by the same token... if you could be better at elf abilities by the selection of a single feat over the selection of Elf as your race... then that too seems backwards to me. Why would you want to discredit the selection of your character's race that way?

I have absolutely no idea why they'd offer a "be an elf" feat, so I don't think your question is relevant in any meaningful way as worded. Same with your objection to backgrounds.

 

[MoonSong]

Bards are not a full caster the way Mages, Clerics, and Druids are. When people speak of casters vs others it's safe to assume there's an implied "full caster" meaning behind it. Bards are on par with Paladins and Rangers, none of which are full casters. So this, as well as the rest of your post, is not all that relevant to be honest.

I said bard, because it is the one we have actually seen, but replace the reference with sorcerer/warlock, it is not irrelevant, in fact is very important, because the revamped vancian in next has eaten design space and removed options to balance non-prepared casters with prepared ones. Non prepared casters are usually forgotten on all casters-vs-mundanes discussions, it is very easy to conflate them with the more powerful prepared casters and assume that everything will be fine by applying them the same nerfs and limits as prepared casters, but it is not, when you just blindly take away the prepared casters ability to invade any niche at any time you are usually also taking away the non-prepared casters ability to fill any niche that isn't being a blaster, non prepared casters aren't as versatile as prepared ones, while they might peak to the same extremes than prepared ones, the chances of it happening aren't very likely, they are very limited over their career and take longer to come on their own feet, lacking the right tools to do their jobs on top of that will render them unplayable.

Not knowing the right spell/invocation for the occasion is as good as not having any spell, having lots of slots/casting at will is meaningless if you don't have the right one to contribute right now. When preppared casters lacked tactical flexibility it wasn't as bad, but now that they also have it non prepared casters have more pressure to pick a niche and run with it, they simply won't be able to rise their game to the same level as prepared ones, do you believe it's fair to judge by the same standards and enforce the same limits on the caster that can prepare knock one day or exchange it for one at dozens or hundreds of options at the drop of a hat as the one who can cast knock and little else and will barely be able to change it at all?

I mean sorcerer players deserve a class that doesn't inherently suck as much as rogue players do, it isn't fine to sacrifice one at the expense of the other, specially when the problem is the guy who can replace anyone after a good night's rest. It is almost a given that Warlocks and sorcerers are going to be limited to pick a niche and run with it (and in a way isn't as much of a bug as it is an inherent feature) and in order not so suck at it, they will need the spells/invocations to fill it properly.

 

[Sage Genesis]

I said bard, because it is the one we have actually seen, but replace the reference with sorcerer/warlock, it is not irrelevant, in fact is very important, because the revamped vancian in next has eaten design space and removed options to balance non-prepared casters with prepared ones.

The Bard is still not a full caster.

And as for the Warlock and/or Sorcerer, I'm not going to discuss hypotheticals with you. When we see them in their final version I will gladly take them into account in my opinion re: whether spells or feats should be rated at a higher priority. But right now, anything you or I say about those classes is just made up.

 

[Sadrik]

Giving some more thought to this. I think this whole ordering priority is silly. There should not be a blanket priority that you can just look at and say ok class features are better than spells period.

Niche protection is important and that is cited in the article as the reason to do this ranking system. But really who is going to say that meteor swarm should be less powerful than a class feature? I think it is really hard to justify that position.

As pointed out earlier Spells are class features and Feats are class features. So this whole thing is moot.

As for background features and race features. They are important for who your character is and his place in the world. For me I think these are more important than class (comprised of class features/feats/spells). They will set your proficiencies/skills and give you some underlying abilities. The class seems completely additive.

If you are a guide dwarf, your class seems to me to be only how you guide and what you do as a dwarf. Suppose class is ranger, or rogue, or bard... the class choice is important, but in my mind the guide and dwarf are more so, they give you your place in the world more so than the class.

 

[Mistwell]

Giving some more thought to this. I think this whole ordering priority is silly. There should not be a blanket priority that you can just look at and say ok class features are better than spells period.

From the article, "There are exceptions, but as a general guideline, this rule gives you a place to start in design…As with everything relating to game design, much of the process is more of an art than a science. The ranking of options is a useful tool, but not a straitjacket or a checklist."

So it's not a blanket rule, and it's not something that says X is better than Y "period".

As pointed out earlier Spells are class features and Feats are class features. So this whole thing is mute.

No. The word you are looking for is MOOT, not "mute".

 

[Sadrik]

No. The word you are looking for is MOOT, not "mute".

Thanks good catch.

As to your other comments. Yeah... but I think the exceptions are more common than the rule so at what point do you throw out the rule...