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

[Sunseeker]

Oh Lord, as if compromising could ever lead to creative solutions... D&DN sounds more and more like an Appeasement Edition, trying to calm 3e and 4e folks, but not venturing forth. I really don't know how it would attract fans of either edition - or the old editions' fans.

Compromising gets you a lot further than sticking to your guns and bull-headedly plowing through to get your way.

 

[Klaus]

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).

A 3e Fighter could spend his bonus feats on archery stuff, and his regular feats on things like Skill Training (Survival and Stealth).

A 4e PHB Fighter was locked down with Melee-only, Str-based powers (the Essentials Fighter was much more flexible in this regard), so he had to resort to basic attacks when wielding a bow or a thrown spear. OTOH, in 4e an "archer-survivalist" would be a "reskinned" Ranger, since you had a plethora of non-magical powers to choose from so your character felt less "wilderness druid-ninja" and more "rugged archer".

 

[Minigiant]

A 3e Fighter could spend his bonus feats on archery stuff, and his regular feats on things like Skill Training (Survival and Stealth).

A 4e PHB Fighter was locked down with Melee-only, Str-based powers (the Essentials Fighter was much more flexible in this regard), so he had to resort to basic attacks when wielding a bow or a thrown spear. OTOH, in 4e an "archer-survivalist" would be a "reskinned" Ranger, since you had a plethora of non-magical powers to choose from so your character felt less "wilderness druid-ninja" and more "rugged archer".

Unfortunately for the fighter, they got neither the skill list nor skill points in 3e to be good at survival once they get 3 regular feats. This went against goal style creation as you had to multiclass into another class to get a Fighter that did anything outside of combat otherthan be an athlete, scary dude, or horseman.

Next hits the middle by removing the tie of skill to classes but enforces that some classes are naturally good at some things and better at it than others.

 

[am181d]

Unfortunately for the fighter, they got neither the skill list nor skill points in 3e to be good at survival once they get 3 regular feats. This went against goal style creation as you had to multiclass into another class to get a Fighter that did anything outside of combat otherthan be an athlete, scary dude, or horseman.

Next hits the middle by removing the tie of skill to classes but enforces that some classes are naturally good at some things and better at it than others.

I can understand wanting to play a Fighter who is good at archery. I don't really understand wanting to play a Fighter who is good at archery and also into wilderness skills. That really does sound to me like (in 3e) a Ranger with some of the class skills (e.g. spellcasting) swapped out using the alternate class abilities options.

 

[Klaus]

Unfortunately for the fighter, they got neither the skill list nor skill points in 3e to be good at survival once they get 3 regular feats. This went against goal style creation as you had to multiclass into another class to get a Fighter that did anything outside of combat otherthan be an athlete, scary dude, or horseman.

Next hits the middle by removing the tie of skill to classes but enforces that some classes are naturally good at some things and better at it than others.

I agree that DDN facilitates these builds (and I love it!), I was just commenting on the notion that no previous edition allowed for an "archer-survivalist" (Human Fighter starts with three feats: Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Skill Focus [Survival] and you're good to go).

 

[Minigiant]

I can understand wanting to play a Fighter who is good at archery. I don't really understand wanting to play a Fighter who is good at archery and also into wilderness skills. That really does sound to me like (in 3e) a Ranger with some of the class skills (e.g. spellcasting) swapped out using the alternate class abilities options.

Well that was the problem. Like Mearls said, there was no way to make an archery based (and I am assuming also nonmagical) survivalist in any edition using the fighter class. In the editions before 4th, the PHB survivalist was the ranger. In 4th, they didn't make a traditional ranger, split the fighter in half, and gave one half both archery and survival, and named that half ranger.

Part of D&D's feel is how hung up on names it is.

I agree that DDN facilitates these builds (and I love it!), I was just commenting on the notion that no previous edition allowed for an "archer-survivalist" (Human Fighter starts with three feats: Point-Blank Shot, Rapid Shot, Skill Focus [Survival] and you're good to go).

The only problem was that the value of feats in 3e were so low and the math was so weird that grabbing skill focus feat without ability score or skill list help threw off your feel as your acher-survivalist fighter fails all his survival checks.

 

[Mistwell]

In D&D Next, our approach to light, medium, and heavy armor captures the basic feel that armor should evoke in a fantasy roleplaying game. Agile characters wear lighter armor, even as clumsy or average characters would rather wear heavy armor to cover for their lack of agility. Even though this approach might not be the most realistic, it meets the much more important criteria of evoking the feel of D&D.

Right. So, who wants to wear medium armor? And, if the answer is "just those who cannot afford heavy armor, or who are prevented or limited from wearing heavy armor due to their class", maybe that was a sign to change something to make all three armor types attractive, or eliminate medium armor?

 

[lutecius]

I think the whole "goal-oriented shoppers" vs "browsers" thing is a false dilemma.
Even if character creation is very open-ended, with customisable classes and flexible multiclassing, they can always offer a couple of suggestions and pre-built concepts for new players and for those who find options "troublesome".
On the other hand, if classes are too focused, shoppers are going to be frustrated as they will have to wait and go through dozens of splatbooks hoping to find a subclass that matches the concept they have in mind.
So unless WotC considers that a feature, they should aim for flexibility first and the real barrier should be balance, not "browsers".

Of course, that requires more careful design and more playtesting than narrow classes with limited options. This is why I'm a bit skeptical about the idea of DMs creating their own subclasses. Sure, this is something they have always done... as house rules, but it shouldn't be a way for designers to focus on narrow concepts while putting the burden of balance (and not just flavour) on groups who want a little more flexibility.


As for AC, maybe this is not "the feel" of D&D but I was hoping there would be more mechanical differences between fast and heavy armored characters (there are actually less now that touch AC is gone). A good, less abstract system (like armor as damage reduction) would have been a big selling point to me. Well, maybe in some option book...

 

[Sunseeker]

I can understand wanting to play a Fighter who is good at archery. I don't really understand wanting to play a Fighter who is good at archery and also into wilderness skills. That really does sound to me like (in 3e) a Ranger with some of the class skills (e.g. spellcasting) swapped out using the alternate class abilities options.

Since I actually run this type of character, it's because the Ranger never gave me the option to drop the pet and the spells, which I hated using from day 1. I was never very big on favored terrain or favored enemies either, since the games I played in tended to include quite a bit of wandering and a large variety of monsters.

 

[pemerton]

Right. So, who wants to wear medium armor?

Rangers? Or do you think they're likely to pump their DEX enough that light armour would be better for them?