D&D 5E Legends and Lore October 22nd

[gweinel]

J

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.

I hope not. What will happen if i want to have in my low heroic-gritty game a player with familiar and or companion? I will be forced to play a different style of game?

 

[pauljathome]

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.
.

To quibble with your quibble. some attempt was very definitely made to somewhat balance the rogue and the druid. Pathfinder was constrained by its base (3.5) but attempts were definitely made to improve balance. The rogue was buffed, the druid nerfed. The end result is certainly more balanced than 3.5 was (especially when comparing the rogue and druid ).

That said, Pathfinder is a long way from perfectly balanced. Its less balanced than 4th edition was, for example.

 

[Ultimatecalibur]

I hope not. What will happen if i want to have in my low heroic-gritty game a player with familiar and or companion? I will be forced to play a different style of game?

I don't think so. All that it is implied that you will need to do is modify your encounters to account for an additional PC (or near PC) per companion. For example, instead of facing 8 orcs they face 10.

 

[Vael]

I hope not. What will happen if i want to have in my low heroic-gritty game a player with familiar and or companion? I will be forced to play a different style of game?

Ideally, no. What you'd do is use the "gritty healing module" and the "NPC companion module", and recognize that your PCs have more combat power so you can use tougher encounters.

Here's my concern/idea for the "NPC companion module", what happens if a player doesn't want a companion? I like the idea of a module that allows all Players to have a companion, the Druid gets his Animal Companion, the Paladin gets a mount, the Rogue gets an Apprentice, and so on and so forth, but what do players get going companion-free so they don't feel overshadowed?

I suppose if you integrated 4e style action points in the companion module, you'd balance this out a little. So those with companions get their companions, and those without get action points to get a few more actions in combat.

 

[MoonSong]

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

However that bard is the only one I'm interested in playing, as they are extremely uber goddamn fun to play. And IMO free hands ar overrated, by late 3.5 my favorite bard was a dude with a lute that was able to thumble his way around the battlefield while charming, stunning, causing fear, healing comrades, flanking, slashing people around and making demeaning insults to monsters and enemies WHILE PLAYING SAID LUTE NON-STOP. All it takes to do this is having a good amount of hidden blades and a masterwork lute, but Somatic weaponry + Eschew materials (and some skill tricks) pretty much round it down.

But yes, a Good bard needs a variety of performace skills to choose from in order to be complete: playing, singing, prestidigitation, dance, acrobacy, drama, cartomacy and so on. Saying "my sword/bow -whatever- is my musical instrument" is valid, but shouldn't be the only choice, not even the most optimal of the bunch. (Really, making musical instruments an implement speciffic to bards would have made a huge difference on the 4e Bard)

Oh and I really really wish they retract on the "if music abilities are overshadowed by magic, let's forget them and bump the magic yet more" it is the music, not the magic what makes bards awesome. If magic overshadows music, let's reduce magic and increase music power, not fold the later into the former (please no more wizard is a better performer than the bard again, please).

 

[I'm A Banana]

Here's my concern/idea for the "NPC companion module", what happens if a player doesn't want a companion? I like the idea of a module that allows all Players to have a companion, the Druid gets his Animal Companion, the Paladin gets a mount, the Rogue gets an Apprentice, and so on and so forth, but what do players get going companion-free so they don't feel overshadowed?

Did somebody say GESTALT?!

More seriously, since a companion is mostly "moar actions," you could just give them a double suite of actions. It's also a few other things (extra HP's and damage and such), but you can weave that into a character pretty readily.

Such a character will be powerful. But to adventure alongside a full-fledged druid and their full-fledged bear, you have to have a character who is as powerful as both combined, or a druid and a bear who are each only half as strong as each other.

Actually, now that I type that, that's likely a valid approach, too. Rather than doubling everyone else, the one dude who wants to play with his bear friend can opt to halve his stuff, spending actions to make the bear do stuff (a la 4e).

What's exciting to me is that it's independent of class, so if I want my failed stage magician to be followed around by a surprisingly loyal circus bear, or to have my cleric have a bound and chained demon that he wields like an attack dog....that's friggin' awesome.

 

[gyor]

I think we need more info on how the companions will work and what kind of companions you can expect, like maybe an intellect devourer for a Psion?

I did find it interesting that the Rangers favoured enemy and the type of music the bard specializes in appears to be thier build.

For Bards I want either rock and roll (normal midevil bard type music sucks big time), or at least one based on dirty lymrics. There once was a man from Nantucket...

 

[Steely_Dan]

I like both the 1st and 2nd Ed Bard, the 1st Ed was a sort of fighter/rogue/druid, and the 2nd Ed was sort of like a rogue/wizard, both had that jack-of-all-trades vibe, but you didn't necessarily have to perform music, my 2nd Ed Al-Qadim Bard (Rawun kit) used Oratory as his deal, he would tell compelling stories about majestic buttocks and such.

Bladesinger, Wizards of High Sorcery and Defilers all fitting into one class has me intrigued, yet apprehensive.

Finally, get rid of the TWF shenanigans that 2nd Ed cursed the ranger with, fine as an option for any class.

The chum/companion/buddy/pet, etc rules sound like a good solution to me, totally optional, and to the point when implemented.

I'm hoping this Halloween playtest packet has classes up to 10th level, as we were told before.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Here's my concern/idea for the "NPC companion module", what happens if a player doesn't want a companion? I like the idea of a module that allows all Players to have a companion, the Druid gets his Animal Companion, the Paladin gets a mount, the Rogue gets an Apprentice, and so on and so forth, but what do players get going companion-free so they don't feel overshadowed?

I suppose if you integrated 4e style action points in the companion module, you'd balance this out a little. So those with companions get their companions, and those without get action points to get a few more actions in combat.

I think the idea is that playing a character with a companion is like playing two PCs at once. You, as a player, are twice as "powerful" but your actual characters remain balanced.

Personally, I wouldn't feel overshadowed in a group where another player was running two characters, especially if one was a bear or something that didn't eat up any roleplaying time.

This might be a very nice option for smaller groups, actually, since the companions would presumably be very simplified in combat. So if nobody wants to play a tank, I can have a druid with a bear companion that can stand in front and fight melee but doesn't have to worry about CS dice and feats and such.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

Here's my concern/idea for the "NPC companion module", what happens if a player doesn't want a companion? I like the idea of a module that allows all Players to have a companion, the Druid gets his Animal Companion, the Paladin gets a mount, the Rogue gets an Apprentice, and so on and so forth, but what do players get going companion-free so they don't feel overshadowed?

This is me - even when Playing Mage types I don't do familiars, and skip the psy-crystal when playing 3.x style Psions.