D&D 5E Live Dungeons & Dragons Q&A Friday, June 6 Question Thread

[Talath]

The "most mighty of demons and devils" are Demogorgon and Asmodeus respectively. Below them are any number of demon lords and archdevils. Balors and pit fiends are just the top of the regular hierarchies; the most powerful fiends that don't rate unique statblocks.

You're the regular hierarchy!

 

[Philousk]

Even though I feel not really concerned with your language debate as a francophone, I consider it nonetheless hilarious. I mean, I can not understand all the subtleties of which you speak. Maybe it makes more phonetic order which explains my lack of understanding about it. Otherwise, to give a new dimension to the debate or just to enrich your personal culture, this is how it is translated into French officially through the different editions:

English........................................................French

Singular / Plural............................................Singular / Plural


Rod / Rods...................................................Sceptre / Sceptres*


Staff / Staves or Staffs..................................Bâton / Bâtons


Wand / Wands..............................................Baguette / Baguettes


* In older editions, I think we also used the word "Bâtonnet / Bâtonnets"

For the session itself Q & A, I was overall pretty fascinated by the answers except for this passage makes me fear the worst:

Any modular happy in Basic?


MM: No, straightforward as possible. Simplest Expression of D & D for newbies. Basic is the core of the game. DMG for Creating Campaigns, Adding firearms, horror, alter mechanics to make it more like 4E (Quicker Rests, encounter powers)


RT: Aimed at the DMG Experienced share of the community. Creating and designing. Strongly themed Campaigns.

If the goal of antipode sensation is not considered (longer rest), my disappointment will be certain if this is really the case.

 

[Mistwell]

If the goal of antipode sensation is not considered (longer rest), my disappointment will be certain if this is really the case.

Opposite. The word you're looking for is opposite.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Maybe it makes more phonetic order which explains my lack of understanding about it.

Nope. The rules of English are pure nonsense.

If the goal of antipode sensation is not considered (longer rest), my disappointment will be certain if this is really the case.

They have often talked about a "gritty" option: slower healing, more realistic injuries, etc.

 

[Li Shenron]

All-in-all, I'm pleased with what I heard about Basic. I do wish they would have included one multi-class option to accommodate the old Elven Fighter/Magic-User (er... Elf) class.

I GET why they didn't; multi-classing is optional even in the PHB and its an awful lot of rules to introduce for one specific character type, but... yeah. I kinda miss the old "elf" class too.

(Luckily, come August we'll be able to use the full rules to do that).

The BECMI Elf class is out because it doesn't fit with the multiclassing concepts and rules of the last 3 editions. That class was a gestalt combination, i.e. practically a "full" Fighter and "full" Wizard at once, and the balancing mechanic was slower XP progression.

By the standard rules since 3e, that is not possible for a few reasons: it is not generally considered acceptable anymore that a 1st level character can be effectively 2 characters at the same time, even with the old limitations this is still considered unfair. Furthermore, the AD&D idea of different XP rates gets in the way of level-based multiclassing rules.

That doesn't mean it can't be done, because I think it would be possible to even fit 2e-style multiclassing rules with 5e, provided they are "calibrated" properly. Also, there can be other ways to recreate the "feel" of that Elf class, it has been mentioned many times that the Fighter has an Eldritch Knight subclass that it is supposed exactly to make you play a somewhat Fighter/Wizard gestalt hybrid (although not before level 3).

But the real Elf class of BECMI won't be done officially in 5e, not in exactly the same way it was in BECMI.

 

[Remathilis]

The BECMI Elf class is out because it doesn't fit with the multiclassing concepts and rules of the last 3 editions. That class was a gestalt combination, i.e. practically a "full" Fighter and "full" Wizard at once, and the balancing mechanic was slower XP progression.

By the standard rules since 3e, that is not possible for a few reasons: it is not generally considered acceptable anymore that a 1st level character can be effectively 2 characters at the same time, even with the old limitations this is still considered unfair. Furthermore, the AD&D idea of different XP rates gets in the way of level-based multiclassing rules.

That doesn't mean it can't be done, because I think it would be possible to even fit 2e-style multiclassing rules with 5e, provided they are "calibrated" properly. Also, there can be other ways to recreate the "feel" of that Elf class, it has been mentioned many times that the Fighter has an Eldritch Knight subclass that it is supposed exactly to make you play a somewhat Fighter/Wizard gestalt hybrid (although not before level 3).

But the real Elf class of BECMI won't be done officially in 5e, not in exactly the same way it was in BECMI.

For my part, I don't need a LITERAL copy of Elf class. A hybrid class, a multi-class combo, or even a subclass like EK could scratch my itch. My lament (as probably was Dahak's) was that Basic gets really close to emulating BECMI option EXCEPT the multi-class Elven F/M combo, which is pretty old school. Sure, the full rules will do 16 ways to Sunday, but the Basic had to leave it out and that was a little sad.

 

[Li Shenron]

For my part, I don't need a LITERAL copy of Elf class. A hybrid class, a multi-class combo, or even a subclass like EK could scratch my itch. My lament (as probably was Dahak's) was that Basic gets really close to emulating BECMI option EXCEPT the multi-class Elven F/M combo, which is pretty old school. Sure, the full rules will do 16 ways to Sunday, but the Basic had to leave it out and that was a little sad.

That's true, but I don't think there is a relationship of that sort between 5e Basic and 80's Basic, it's not what 5e Basic is meant to be/do.

5e Basic is the new "core" for 5e, that nearly indivisible nucleus of the rules to learn in order to play the game, and to add stuff to when wanting a richer gaming experience.

Emulating previous editions (basic, advanced or other) is not the purpose of 5e Basic (although it might approach the case of BD&D) and may require additional material.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Opposite. The word you're looking for is opposite.

I much prefer antipode sensation.

LG and CE are antipodes. Yep.

You're gonna have to cut back on witticisms because I can't give you more XP until I spread more around.

Or, you know, keep saying and scooping without just recompense.

As I often tell me wife. I. Just. Can't. Stop. Myself.

So, sayin' and scoppin' it is.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Cybit]

Or the millionth "X shouldn't be in the PHB" thread.


In other news, I'm happy to see my question was answered. (Admittedly, it was a softball). Red dragon eh? Least we know Basic isn't going to have balors, tarrasques, or Orcus in it.

Haha, don't be so sure.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

For my part, I don't need a LITERAL copy of Elf class. A hybrid class, a multi-class combo, or even a subclass like EK could scratch my itch. My lament (as probably was Dahak's) was that Basic gets really close to emulating BECMI option EXCEPT the multi-class Elven F/M combo, which is pretty old school. Sure, the full rules will do 16 ways to Sunday, but the Basic had to leave it out and that was a little sad.

Let's not forget that the 5E elf gains proficiency with bows and swords, which are the classic weapons of the elven fighter/mage. With proficiency bonus being the same all over the board now, you can create an elf using the wizard class as the base. That character will be able to cast spells and also fight decently, with a good dex or strength score. Poor base attack bonus and d4 HD made that impossible in 3E, but I believe it's worth trying in 5E. He won't be able to tank anything, but I think this is ok, as the basic elf wasn't a tanker either, if I remember it well enough.