• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Legends and Lore October 22nd

gyor

Legend
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Class Design)

Thier ideas for the Bard as well as Animal/Other Companions sounds interesting. I'm going to assume it'll be a different type then Archon for none lawful clerics.

Its also good to know well get the next packet around Halloween. Although tommorrow would have been really cool.

In a unrelated side note, tommorrow is my,birthday. I'll be 29 for the fifth year in a row! ;p
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Salamandyr

Adventurer
I like having the traditional class companions as part of a rules module. However, I hope they don't get so focused on making sure the ranger gets his animal companion and the wizard gets his summoned demon (and the cleric gets one too now?), that they forget that the fighter can go down to the local tavern and hire a rogue to be a follower too.

Animal companions, demonic minions, and etc seem to me just another kind of henchmen, and should be counted in the same rules and restrictions as those. So, for instance, your charisma score may allow you to gather three henchmen, who might consist of a wizard companion, a wolf you raised from a pup, and a sylph you saved enslavement by an evil overlord. Another player might just choose to have an array of player character types as henchmen. Also, no reason a fighter couldn't have an animal companion, or a rogue trick a demon into serving him. They shouldn't limit it, though I can definitely see it being easier for certain classes to find certain henchmen (for instance, a wizard can summon demons, which makes it easier to find one to contract the services of, and soldiers are much more likely to follow a fighter).

So to make it short, the stuff they're talking about should be a component of the henchmen rules, which should be accessible to everyone.
 


Vyvyan Basterd

Adventurer
So to make it short, the stuff they're talking about should be a component of the henchmen rules, which should be accessible to everyone.

This is exactly what I understood Mearls conveyed in the article. The examples focused on animals/archons/demons because that was the subject, but the comment from Mearls was to incorporate those rules as an option of the "Followers" rules module, which I would assume has rules for "regular" followers.
 

pauljathome

First Post
For some reason, this article crystalized a feeling I've got about DndNext.

Everything is a module with no real attempt to balance anything. Rather than doing the difficult job of trying to vaguely balance a druid with and without an animal companion (which is what Pathfinder does) they're just going to throw out options and let the GM do all the hard work.

I've already got an extremely good and flexible D20 game in Mutants and Masterminds. I really don't need a semi flexible game with all the work of balancing things thrust onto the GM.

And they're all but certain to lose one of the main reasons that I play D&D, which is the ability to buy adventures that are already mostly balanced and written with the capabilities of characters of a particular level in mind.
 

Salamandyr

Adventurer
For some reason, this article crystalized a feeling I've got about DndNext.

Everything is a module with no real attempt to balance anything. Rather than doing the difficult job of trying to vaguely balance a druid with and without an animal companion (which is what Pathfinder does) they're just going to throw out options and let the GM do all the hard work.
.

Just one quibble with this paragraph. Pathfinder may try to balance the druid with itself with and without an animal companion. But no attempt has been made to balance the druid compared to, say, the rogue.

5e seems to be going for something different. A game where the companions rule module is included may be a more high powered game than one where companions are not allowed, however the power between classes will be similar in either game. A modular approach keeps all classes level with each other.
 

Jeff Carlsen

Adventurer
Everything is a module with no real attempt to balance anything. Rather than doing the difficult job of trying to vaguely balance a druid with and without an animal companion (which is what Pathfinder does) they're just going to throw out options and let the GM do all the hard work.

Not exactly. The focus is keeping the PCs roughly balanced with one another so that the game feels fair. There is less, but still some concern for balancing against monsters.

What is needed that has yet to be provided is a standard method for describing the effect a module will have on the power level of the party in regard to PC vs. Monster balance.

Sure, it's not quite as easy as having everything balanced, but it does allow you to play with only the parts of the game you care about, something that's much more difficult in Pathfinder.
 

mlund

First Post
I've always loved playing a bard - largely for the mixed combat/magic functionality, skill-mastery, and social dynamism. However the implementation often felt like there was a severe lack of a attention to detail paid to making the bard fun and flexible to play in combat.

Sticking a mandolin in your hands so you can't use weapons was unnecessarily restrictive. Making the bard continually sing his way through a combat to keep up his primary function was unnecessarily silly and narrow.

4th Edition options for the bard was what I'd always been waiting for - especially when they rolled out the Skald in Heroes of the Feywild. Valorous Bards, bow-bards, and Viking Bards - sign me up. Singing is also unnecessarily narrow. Oratory, dance, and poetry are art-forms you could use in 3.X - and they were generally optimal choices. They were hands-free and didn't make you look like a silly fop if you didn't want to be.

There should be latitude enough for one player to run a character who has a lyre in his hands and is casting charms, hexes, illusions, and dealing psychic damage through a whole combat - without precluding bards whose presence in combat resembles almost none of that. On the other end of the spectrum there should be a burly fellow with a longsword and shield who's blows ring out the melodies of the world that normally go unheard, or who speaks the sonorous primordial psalms from the world's forging that echo fear and flame into his attacks.

I like the idea that the bard's magic system might be built along the lines of warlock invocations. My ideal bard class structure would allow for some basic at-will and encounter-based magic with choices including a ranged musical attacks, some sort of short-range buffs for allies, or a hands-free spoken-word effect that is used in conjunction with a weapon attack.

There there would be ritual magics, designed to be cast outside of combat, that necessitate music or performance on a more appropriate scale. These could actually be called "songs," or "sagas" and not cut into anyone's combat style like other Bard designs historically have done.

Seriously, as long as the 5E bard doesn't need to dance around with a harp chanting, "Shoot shoot shoot, shoot the repulsive ogres," to do his job in combat and doesn't have to lob demeaning insults to deal damage to a Gray Ooze ("cutting words" really?") I'll probably play it.

- Marty Lund
 

Nikosandros

Golden Procrastinator
What is needed that has yet to be provided is a standard method for describing the effect a module will have on the power level of the party in regard to PC vs. Monster balance.
Mike states that the companion is treated as an extra PC, so that's how they are planning to balance encounters.
 

pauljathome

First Post
Not exactly. The focus is keeping the PCs roughly balanced with one another so that the game feels fair. There is less, but still some concern for balancing against monsters.

So far, I'm not actually seeing much concern with intra group (PC) balance. Its certainly far less balanced than 4th edition was (while not being my cup of tea, 4th edition was very, very well balanced. At least at first when I was playing it).

What is needed that has yet to be provided is a standard method for describing the effect a module will have on the power level of the party in regard to PC vs. Monster balance.
I tihnk that this is going to be insanely difficult. Deciding that an animal companion is as powerful as a PC doesn't sound right. For one thing, companion creatures should be at least somewhat less powerful than PCs. For another thing, adding a character to a group of 3 has a different effect than adding it to a group of 7.

Sure, it's not quite as easy as having everything balanced, but it does allow you to play with only the parts of the game you care about, something that's much more difficult in Pathfinder.

As I said, Mutants and Masterminds (or Hero) does a superlative job of providing me with a very flexible framework. Don't need another one.
 

Remove ads

Top