D&D 5E Legends & Lore Archive : 12/9/2013

[Bluenose]

It seems really bizarre to use the example of a survivalist archer as something that couldn't be made with the Fighter class in 4e, when you're contrasting 4e's rigid classes with 3e's "make it do what you want" classes. Does anyone think a 3e Fighter has the skills to be a survivalist - the archer bit I concede? Ignoring any question of whether the label on your character sheet matters when the mechanics that fit the concept are acceptable, it really isn't something that makes me think Mike Mearls is really thinking about his examples. And I'm not sure that a failure to think something so simple through inspires me to be confident that the rest of Next will be carefully considered. Still, a throw-away article gets a throw-away example.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think the "feel" of this L&L article is right.

Overall I agree with both Mearls' observations and the WotC design choices, with one exception: feats.

When I got to that part of the article, I immediately had a feeling of dissonance with what he had just written, because if the current mega-feats "strike the middle ground", the previous solution (i.e. regular feats + specialties) was capable of hitting both targets at the same time (or table) instead of somewhere in the middle.

 

[howandwhy99]

I don't think feel is mechanical verisimilitude. I think feel in game play comes from players becoming accustomed to the rules. Chess has a feel. So does poker and its many variants. D&D, with rules hidden behind the screen, asks players to stretch out with their feelings in the game. It rewards players who are highly cognizant and open to feeling the game world they are in. Not for basking in some cinematic scenery spectacles, but actual game play using memory, foresight, setting of objectives, strategic planning, and mastery.

 

[the Jester]

You had 44 homebrewed prestige classes in 3e? Wow. That seems HUGE to me.

Yeah, frequenting ENWorld ends up provoking my creativity in a ton of ways. Some of those were a new category of prc based on racial paragon classes- cultural paragon prestige classes, where you could take a 3-level path that added a number of features emphasizing things tied to the culture you were from (separate from race). Then there were a few that were made to emulate old kits, or to put a new spin on organizations in the campaign, etc.

I'll agree that it's probably more than most had. But I've always been one of those "spend hours on my campaign" types of DM, and in 3e, that led me to make tons of custom feats, prestige classes and feats, both for the pcs (some were even aimed at specific characters) and for my monsters and npcs.

Mostly things were made up when there was not an acceptable equivalent to do a specific thing already, and most homebrews were dropped due to lack of use, overpowered, underpowered, or otherwise just fell out of practice.

While not all that homebrewed material of mine got used by any means, the players loved having all those options in front of them. When I found something was broken- either over or underpowered- I'd revise it. I hated doing it if someone was using a feature, and would always offer the option to back out of changed material if the pc wanted to, but there were almost no options that I ended up completely dropping.

Now, on the 4e side. In the few games of that I ever saw (or joined/asked to join) there were many little changes. Mostly when people were swapping powers from one class to another - even then nothing particularly new was created. But, I do admit it was more common.

Interesting. I would have thought 4e homebrewing to be less common due to the difficulties a lot of people seem to have in making a pc without the CB. (Caveat: I never really understood why this is so hard, other than the amount of writing powers down that you need to do.)

Never saw 4e's epic destinies in play, but from what I remember I suspect the numbers for that one might be higher if only by design - you are EXPECTED to make things up for your character, something unique; though again every time I heard of 4e epics they sounded fairly similar (if not exactly the same) as what was in the book - something I thought was a little disappointing.

Yeah, epic levels are ripe for total customization IMHO. The same held true in 3e; if you had an epic axe-wielding dwarf fighter, by God, you ought to have some custom epic axe options (IMHO and IMC)!

I had a hard time coming up with new 4e EDs until we got pretty close to epic and I began to cotton to what 4e epic play ought to look like. Now I've got a bunch tied tightly to the campaign, and like you said, several of them were made with pcs in mind (even if they don't all end up getting taken).

But yeah, that "tied tightly to the campaign" bit is the key to much of my custom stuff, from 3e prestige classes like the mist pirate or mystic chef, to 4e material like my "alpha mutant" epic destiny- my preference is to make stuff you won't find in the books because the background material isn't there (the Isles of Mist, my halfling food-based culture in the campaign, my radiation rules).

 

[Minigiant]

I get the beginning part of MM's article on feel.

An orc in heavy armor should be harder than one in light armor. The opposite would signify an unique orc. A quickling would be the other way around.

Of course MM does the whole bad example thing. D&D never had a Archer-Survivalist fighter in any edition (at least not anywhere near the beginning of any of them).

But I get his point.

A goal oriented RPG is great for customization. But it require system mastery of game designers, DMs, and players to work. Otherwise the feel can go off (aka "We hit level 10. Go home all weapon users.")

In more strict RPGs, the game create a feel so everyone knows what everything is. Unfortunately it can easily force a feel many dislike (aka ranged weapons are for rangers and rogues, Mr Fighter. Multiclass or stick with bashers.)

Next is somewhere in the middle. It tells you what every class is but gives options and doesn't lock you into a style. It's not directly in the middle though.

 

[Bluenose]

Of course MM does the whole bad example thing. D&D never had a Archer-Survivalist fighter in any edition (at least not anywhere near the beginning of any of them).

I think you could do it in 2e just with the PHB, assuming your GM was amenable to using NWPs. Survival proficiency, Bowyer/Fletcher, and you have someone who can survive in one particular type of terrain and make the bow and arrows they fight with. It would depend exactly what a survivalist needs, but that would be my starting point. A Ranger would still have stealth and tracking over the Fighter, but not much more.

 

[Gilbetron]

Well... I like it.

Honestly, I found 3rd edition's million moving parts to be frustrating, while I found 4th edition's class paths to be stifling. 5th Edition's focus on driving down the middle is exactly what I'm looking for.

Ditto. My group is looking forward to trying it once it comes out, for exactly the same reasons. I think there are other design places Next could have ended up that would also appeal to us, but where they seem to be headed is an interesting place for Next as far as I'm concerned. Big feats, subclasses, pulling bits and pieces from all the editions (yes, even 4E in spite of what 4E fans say), and generally focusing on rulings-not-rules sits very nicely with us.

 

[Minigiant]

I think you could do it in 2e just with the PHB, assuming your GM was amenable to using NWPs. Survival proficiency, Bowyer/Fletcher, and you have someone who can survive in one particular type of terrain and make the bow and arrows they fight with. It would depend exactly what a survivalist needs, but that would be my starting point. A Ranger would still have stealth and tracking over the Fighter, but not much more.

That's why it was a bad example. The ability to be a survivalist is heavily dependent on the player's desire and the DM's flexibility somewhat.

A better example would have been to stick with a heavy archer/crossbowman. Or better yet an illusionist or conjurer.

"Browser style" PC setups are better for games with formalized fluff and settings like Star Wars, Thedas, or Shadowrun. Worlds where the setting say "These are the playble PC types because X, Y, and Z. Choose one."

D&D is in that middle place where it doesn't force a setting but it forces a few hard to bypass tropes.

 

[ccooke]

That's why it was a bad example. The ability to be a survivalist is heavily dependent on the player's desire and the DM's flexibility somewhat.

A better example would have been to stick with a heavy archer/crossbowman. Or better yet an illusionist or conjurer.

"Browser style" PC setups are better for games with formalized fluff and settings like Star Wars, Thedas, or Shadowrun. Worlds where the setting say "These are the playble PC types because X, Y, and Z. Choose one."

D&D is in that middle place where it doesn't force a setting but it forces a few hard to bypass tropes.

Yes, but in 3rd edition you're not limited to a single class. You can construct your ideal character concept using bits from several classes. For instance, a level of rogue in your fighter would allow for some interesting additional abilities. The right prestige class can make a big difference, too.

It's a good example, too, because in 5th you can take the Guide background and the fighter options for archery and already *be* an archer/survivor type at level 1. 5th edition has a lot more scope for flexibility because a lot of the rigidity of 4th and 5th editions had been done away with. That's not saying the *playtest* is as flexible as 3rd and 4th editions. It isn't. But then again, it doesn't have as much material in it as the PHB for either system, and I think you can make a wider set of characters in it already.

 

[1of3]

While I readily concede that there are two approaches to pregame, I'd argue that mearls misrepresents one of them. These two approaches are not only applicable two chargen, but probably any act of game preparation.


The first approach is what Mike calls the browser. The other approach can be described as "I know what I want to play, thank you very much." This approach does not require tools to play. It only requires not being kept from playing.


Mearls' Builder type is already some kind of middle ground between these two.