D&D 5E L&L for November 18

[Mistwell]

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...

Apparently, since they've been using these guidelines for a year and successfully got to the point where an overwhelming majority of their feedback is now positive, it worked fine.

 

[MoonSong]

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.

Not entirely made up, we've seen early prototypes of them last year, we know they will be in the game, each with it's own casting method (Warlock will probably have somethign AED-Like and sorcerer with something similar to their 3.x incarnation), and we know Warlock subclasses will be based around the hexblade, binder and classical warlock with patron as another decision point, and we know that neither has ever prepared spells, moreover while the bard isn't a full caster, it is the only class that doesn't prepare spells so we know that will exist in some way. So no it isn't an entirely hypothetical matter, and while we don't know the specific implementations they'll have, we know of the trappings and problems non-prepared casters face when compared to prepared casters, moreover some of those issues are potentially greater now.

Also by the time we see the final versions is very likely the rest of the rules will be finished too, so should I take it as a tacit refusal to ever discuss over them?. It is valid not wanting to, after all non-prepared casters are like an elephant in the room in caster-mundane discussions, they are ignored or swept under the rug most of the time, but like I said, that kind of matters are hardly black and white, placing spells priority under all other elements will greatly detract from potential space design for non-prepared casters and some half casters, limit spells too much and you will get prepared caster-mundane parity, but at the cost of everything else inbetween.

 

[Falling Icicle]

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.

I disagree. Two characters with the same race and class are pretty much identical clones in Next. At least they feel that way to me. *shrug* Background adds some choice, but not a tremendous amount of customizability, and nothing approaching the level of choice that feats in 3.x gave. Your class gives you extremely little room for customization. Most classes let you choose a subclass and that's about it - one significant choice in your entire career. That's not exactly what I'd call a great deal of mechanical flexibility. I don't really mind classes/subclasses being relatively cookie-cutter, however, as long as you can make substantial choices with feats. But as of the latest packets, you only ever get a few feats, and they're these huge feats that give you cookie-cutter package deals. Every archer, for example, is just going to take the one archery feat, and that's that. Every archer is going to have that same exact feat and be able to do the exact same things. And in order to even have feats, you have to sacrifice ability increases, which is a trade a lot of people aren't going to want to make.

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.

Really? I've seen a lot of people say it, especially on rpg.net and the WotC boards.

In fact, I don't even think I've seen you make that claim before.

I have. It's pretty much the only major complaint I have about the new edition, which I otherwise really like, for the most part.

 

[howandwhy99]

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.

For me niche protection isn't really necessary in an RPG, while role enabling is. Classes have abilities which enable performance within their chosen role, but anyone can attempt any role at any time. Wizards can put on armor and swing swords. Clerics can sneak around and stab people in the back. The point is, they aren't as capable in performing behaviors associated outside their class.

A high level wizard, high in their class not "character", can hit stuff better than a low level fighter even though hitting things more often is one thing fighters focus on above most anything else. But even with better attacking odds, this high level wizard still take penalties for lacking in all sorts of other combat-focused abilities. They are simply better at using magic to overcome challenges, via ability or otherwise, than engaging in combat. Could the wizard have defined themselves more through play to increase their armor proficiency? Hit Die? Strength score? Of course, but it would be to the detriment of their magical performance. Do this often enough and they are better switching to the fighter class, if they qualify.

All of this is part of the reason why the game isn't designed like it used to be. Instead of all of the game mechanics referring to the game world, most are still referring to "character powers". This isn't a game where PCs are balanced against each other. The current design needs to quit being a combat game with exceptions-based design for monster / character powers. It has improved, but it has a long way to go.

If you are a scout dwarf, your class seems to me to be only how you scout 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 scout and dwarf are more so, they give you your place in the world more so than the class.

If you are a scout dwarf, Scout is your class, Dwarf is your race. You seem to be making up a category that isn't supposed to be class at all, but actually is and then using the class mechanics to mean subclass.

If you don't feel one of the core classes covers your class choice, develop a custom subclass with your DM and be that.

 

[steeldragons]

You have class, race, theme and background...and possibly spells, to an extent...if you think feats (and/or some perceived need for MOAR FEATS) are what "customize" your character then......huh. I'm not even sure how to respond to that.

 

[Sage Genesis]

Not entirely made up, we've seen early prototypes of them last year, we know they will be in the game, each with it's own casting method (Warlock will probably have somethign AED-Like and sorcerer with something similar to their 3.x incarnation), and we know Warlock subclasses will be based around the hexblade, binder and classical warlock with patron as another decision point, and we know that neither has ever prepared spells, moreover while the bard isn't a full caster, it is the only class that doesn't prepare spells so we know that will exist in some way. So no it isn't an entirely hypothetical matter, and while we don't know the specific implementations they'll have, we know of the trappings and problems non-prepared casters face when compared to prepared casters, moreover some of those issues are potentially greater now.

The Warlock and Sorcerer prototypes were pulled very quickly so I'm not convinced those prototypes are indicative of their final versions. While whatever we say isn't entirely made up (I never said otherwise), it's sufficiently made up that we're basically discussing hypotheticals.

This will be the last time I tell you this. I will simply not discuss the Warlock and Sorcerer in this context because I feel we don't have enough clarity about what they'll look like.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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.

And why aren't they offering a "be an elf" feat? Because Feats are lower in priority than Race is. Thus, the priority list is doing it's job.

If Feats were a higher priority, then they could and would design feats that gave the same sorts of power Races do, and they'd treat those Feat choice as more important to character design than the choice of Race. But that's not what they feel is important. They feel that your Race should mean more to your character than the Feats you choose.

 

[Minigiant]

I think many are reading into the artivle wrong.

The purpose of the priority is to make sense of the world's mechanics to the gamers.

For example, rangers are great trackers by default. If you need tracking, your ranger can do it and do it very well. Your cleric could learn tracking from their background. The ranger would be better though sincerangers get tracking from class while clerics get tracking from background. The party wizard could be a tracker too via spells. The wizard would be a better tracker than the cleric because spells > background. The ranger would be better than both as tracking as a specific class feature is better than a single tracking spell or tracking from background skill proficiency. That's why rangers exist. They are the best default tracker.

But if the wizard took the guide background for tracking , the combination of preparing a few tracking spells and backgound could be stronger than the ranger's tracking. Which is okay as the wizard sacrificed 2-3 things to do that. And if the ranger putsmore resources into tracking, they beat wizards at tracking again.

 

[dbm]

I have absolutely no idea why they'd offer a "be an elf" feat

They wouldn't. All the items (class, race, background, spells and feats) are bundles of abilities but their effect will overlap.

So if an elf got a stat bonus and skill bonus which helped them do things associated with being an elf (e.g. being perceptive, stealthy or so on) then this gives you a ranking:

A person who is stealthy due to their class (e.g. a rogue) should be more stealthy than...
A person who is stealthy due to a racial bonus (e.g. an elf or halfling?), who in turn should be more stealthy than...
A person who's is stealthy due to their background (e.g. game keeper???), who in turn should be more stealthy than...
A person who is stealthy due a spell they cast (e.g. Invisibility), who in turn should be more stealthy than...
A person who invested a single feat in it (e.g. Skill Focus - Stealth)

So: a real simple way of implementing this is would be to (for example) say that a rogue rolls Stealth as Dex+6, an elf gets Dex+5, a background gets you Dex+4, spell would give Dex+3 and feat gets Dex+2. This is a really simple example and not meant to be a suggestion of how it will work!

But the race would give you more than just being stealthy, as would the class and so on.

 

[Sadrik]

If you are a scout dwarf, Scout is your class, Dwarf is your race. You seem to be making up a category that isn't supposed to be class at all, but actually is and then using the class mechanics to mean subclass.

If you don't feel one of the core classes covers your class choice, develop a custom subclass with your DM and be that.

Scout background or in the latest packet guide background is what I was talking about. So if your character is a Guide Dwarf. Will edit my remarks.