The problems with ability prequisites is that they either don't make sense or are redundant. For example, Str 15 is a given if I want to fight with STR. If I want to fight with DEX (either light weapons or archery), why care about STR at all? Either way, ability prerequisites for anything are nothing but bothersome.
D&D 5E New D&D Next Playtest package is up (19/9/2013) [merged threads]
- Thread starter xechnao
- Start date
I have no problem with multiclass prerequisites (I think there needs to be some), but I don't like the ability pre-requisites. If they were 12 or 13 which are above average, I would be fine with them. However, I still want other prerequisites: some training in Arcane for Mage (Wizards), Nature for Druids, religion for clerics (or some other skill relevant to a deity/domain), etc.
In addition, I have the following issues:
a. a one level dip in cleric, druid, mage grants first level spells without having to spend a level with only cantrips/orisons first. Either, I would want characters jumping to a spell casting class to have to learn a feat that grants 0 level spells as a pre-requisite (unless they can already cast 0-level spells of the appropriate type) or the first level in those classes to grant only cantrips/orisons and not first level spells (1st level is an "apprentice" level according to the designers so let us treat it as such).
(Note: I also want the classes that start granting spellcasting after first level to also have one level earlier where the characters can only cast 0 level spells).
b) I don't like that a 1 level dip will grant all of the new classes armor and weapon proficiencies plus other 1st level features (e.g. fighter's fighting style). Spread them out over the first few levels (give characters a choice of order) or require multiclass characters to have to learn via feats or in exchange for an ability increase.
edit:
C) no requirement for a trainer and time
I consider all three things were issues I have with 3e multiclassing and am sorry to see return in 3e (and, with caveats, 3e is my favorite edition of D&D)
In addition, I have the following issues:
a. a one level dip in cleric, druid, mage grants first level spells without having to spend a level with only cantrips/orisons first. Either, I would want characters jumping to a spell casting class to have to learn a feat that grants 0 level spells as a pre-requisite (unless they can already cast 0-level spells of the appropriate type) or the first level in those classes to grant only cantrips/orisons and not first level spells (1st level is an "apprentice" level according to the designers so let us treat it as such).
(Note: I also want the classes that start granting spellcasting after first level to also have one level earlier where the characters can only cast 0 level spells).
b) I don't like that a 1 level dip will grant all of the new classes armor and weapon proficiencies plus other 1st level features (e.g. fighter's fighting style). Spread them out over the first few levels (give characters a choice of order) or require multiclass characters to have to learn via feats or in exchange for an ability increase.
edit:
C) no requirement for a trainer and time
I consider all three things were issues I have with 3e multiclassing and am sorry to see return in 3e (and, with caveats, 3e is my favorite edition of D&D)
Last edited:
@CriticalFumble
First Post
I like the multi-class ability score requirements.
I like proficiency bonus. It's basically the D&D Next version of the half-level bonus in D&D 4e, but toned down.
To 1of3, go dex/wis for archery via Ranger multi-class.
I like proficiency bonus. It's basically the D&D Next version of the half-level bonus in D&D 4e, but toned down.
To 1of3, go dex/wis for archery via Ranger multi-class.
R
RevTurkey
Guest
FAO Mistwell:
Hi and thanks for making some interesting comments on my last post.
Okay, so I guess you are right in that yes Skills do sort of work that way but I suppose what I am getting at is that the new way things are presented doesn't seem very intuitive to me. Maybe it is the word 'Proficiency' that I don't like? I am not so keen on skills being lumped in with tools being er skills...does that make sense? I think it would be easier to follow if you just had Skills and then skill bonus. Leaving tools as just the means with which to work the skills. Skill bonus derived from level....fair enough I guess that Could work. I don't like that (I hope I got this right) the character attacks are also based on this very same progression curve. That seems a bit wacko. Surely Fighters should progress at a better rate? Also ... Expertise seems a bit clunky as well. It just all feels a bit messy and not elegant. That was my impression anyway. Maybe I am stuck in the past and need to look again.
if you just had Skills tied to a Stat mod (or several depending on use) and then Skills giving a flat bonus (say +2)... With bonus points to spend on selected skills (to cover Rogue abilities or Wizard Knowledges etc) at various levels...say get three +1's to distribute among existing skills at every odd level up...or learn a new skill maybe instead....only very very loose thinking off the top of my head but you get the idea. Don't see how that would be bad or confusing. I would put attack bonus separate as that is then more easily managed and feels a bit more like old D&D.
Get rid of Proficiency and Expertise...have a more straight forward way to describe things...that is what I want I think. I can see how they are trying to tie it all together but at the moment it seems messy to me. Maybe everyone else loves the way it is presented, fair enough...you have a good time playing it that way...doubt I will. No sour grapes you understand but I want to play Official D&D really because of the history of it all and my own background as a player. I don't massively care for clones and OGL copies...not fair when WoTc spent a lot of money to buy the game...for good or bad.
As to Advantage mechanisms...I guess I just don't like it. I don't like that it is tied to certain class features (Barbarian Reckless Attack for example) To be honest, it feels like a gimmick. I would use Advantage for back attacks, maybe disadvantage when not skilled in a weapon (as it works now) and maybe disadvantage from prone or when DM needs a quick mechanism etc...but keep it away from Class, Race and Feats. Obviously, just my views here. Not the official views of Top Gear magazine.
Anyway, think I am waffling a bit, probably wrong about certain things etc.
i just didn't find what they are presenting as very friendly or exiting to me.
Hi and thanks for making some interesting comments on my last post.
Okay, so I guess you are right in that yes Skills do sort of work that way but I suppose what I am getting at is that the new way things are presented doesn't seem very intuitive to me. Maybe it is the word 'Proficiency' that I don't like? I am not so keen on skills being lumped in with tools being er skills...does that make sense? I think it would be easier to follow if you just had Skills and then skill bonus. Leaving tools as just the means with which to work the skills. Skill bonus derived from level....fair enough I guess that Could work. I don't like that (I hope I got this right) the character attacks are also based on this very same progression curve. That seems a bit wacko. Surely Fighters should progress at a better rate? Also ... Expertise seems a bit clunky as well. It just all feels a bit messy and not elegant. That was my impression anyway. Maybe I am stuck in the past and need to look again.
if you just had Skills tied to a Stat mod (or several depending on use) and then Skills giving a flat bonus (say +2)... With bonus points to spend on selected skills (to cover Rogue abilities or Wizard Knowledges etc) at various levels...say get three +1's to distribute among existing skills at every odd level up...or learn a new skill maybe instead....only very very loose thinking off the top of my head but you get the idea. Don't see how that would be bad or confusing. I would put attack bonus separate as that is then more easily managed and feels a bit more like old D&D.
Get rid of Proficiency and Expertise...have a more straight forward way to describe things...that is what I want I think. I can see how they are trying to tie it all together but at the moment it seems messy to me. Maybe everyone else loves the way it is presented, fair enough...you have a good time playing it that way...doubt I will. No sour grapes you understand but I want to play Official D&D really because of the history of it all and my own background as a player. I don't massively care for clones and OGL copies...not fair when WoTc spent a lot of money to buy the game...for good or bad.
As to Advantage mechanisms...I guess I just don't like it. I don't like that it is tied to certain class features (Barbarian Reckless Attack for example) To be honest, it feels like a gimmick. I would use Advantage for back attacks, maybe disadvantage when not skilled in a weapon (as it works now) and maybe disadvantage from prone or when DM needs a quick mechanism etc...but keep it away from Class, Race and Feats. Obviously, just my views here. Not the official views of Top Gear magazine.
Anyway, think I am waffling a bit, probably wrong about certain things etc.
i just didn't find what they are presenting as very friendly or exiting to me.
Salamandyr
Adventurer
I do NOT want them to "spread out" first level abilities or delay them for later levels to inhibit "dipping" the way 3.5 did. I never saw the problem with dips. It's not like it hurt anybody's feelings that somebody took 1 level in another class.
Among the top 3 reasons that makes me hate 3rd edition with such a fiery passion is that they made you play a character for weeks or months before he could actually do what you wanted him to do.
No more.
Among the top 3 reasons that makes me hate 3rd edition with such a fiery passion is that they made you play a character for weeks or months before he could actually do what you wanted him to do.
No more.
Why? Because there are no meek half orcs? Or because some people keep confusing ugly with intimidating? Or because other people think just having big muscles scares people?
Because the GAME continues to confuse "ugly" (to humans) with low charisma. No matter how much lip service they pay to the contrary, races that are ugly by modern conventional standards typically have low charismas:
Compare humans commoners (10) with Goblin (8), Gnoll (8), Kobold (8), Lizardfolk (8), and orc (10).
Sure, there are meek half-orcs; they will have low charismas. This rule does two great things:
(1) it allows the physically largest of the default races to be somewhat more intimidating than other PC races, which certainly reflects one way that intimidation works.
(2) it provides a model that separates a race's ability bonuses from the things they are typically good at.
Would that more races were written this way.
Compare humans commoners (10) with Goblin (8), Gnoll (8), Kobold (8), Lizardfolk (8), and orc (10).
Sure, there are meek half-orcs; they will have low charismas. This rule does two great things:
(1) it allows the physically largest of the default races to be somewhat more intimidating than other PC races, which certainly reflects one way that intimidation works.
(2) it provides a model that separates a race's ability bonuses from the things they are typically good at.
Would that more races were written this way.
@CriticalFumble
First Post
1st Level dips were horrible in previous editions and should rightly be discouraged by spreading out low level abilities.
Well, I don't like that a player can just dip and pick up a new class. The problem you mention from my perspective was bad class design and a focus on Prcs rather than class variants.
a. The designers building to many prescribed abilities into a class (a mistake which they are, in my opinion, repeating). When the designers force too many specific class abilities, you alienate many players, because you are forcing a single vision on the player and DM and abilities that may not fit. This is a big issue that I have Next's classes;
b. Didn't have enough common fantasy archetypes covered in the core book including: Arcane Warrior, Barbarian (Wilderness Warrior rather than Rager), Berserker (urban), Bard (Divine), Bard (nature), Cleric (non-martial), Monk (Arcane), (Divine), Psychic, Psychic Warrior, Ranger (urban), Ranger (non-spellcasting), Rogue (martial), Rogue (wilderness), Shaman, Swashbuckler, Witch
c. Until Unearthed Arcana, focused on PrCs rather than class variants at 1st level. Class variants were discussed in the 3.0 PHB and the 3.0 DMG (variant spell lists, variant skills, etc.). However, lack of examples and support led many DMs to ignore them.
The result was multiclass hoop jumping that I hated as a player and DM. As a 3e DM, I used several third party classes and class variants to help my players avoid the multiclass hoop jumping to create common archetypes (provided they fit my campaign) so they could play them at first level and reflect their character's initial training.
Additional class, better class design (which would involve less prescribed abilities and more choices), and decent paths/orders/schools, etc. would, in my opinion, be a better solution to multiclassing for common archetypes that are viable at first level. I would save multiclassing for picking up a new class after first level and that, in my opinion, that should require prerequisites and require picking up individual class features more slowly/organic.
Remathilis
Legend
Then he only gets advantage to Charisma checks the DM believes are being used to intimidate someone.
Similar Threads
