D&D 5E New D&D Next Playtest package is up (19/9/2013) [merged threads]

[silverblade56]

On monk/sorcerers (assuming both at the same time): Had several in my games. And they were strong because they usually ended up taking Enlightened Fist (3.5) and kicked so much butt. Same goes for other combinations (monk&cleric/wizard, sorcerer&fighter) but that's not the point here.
On sorcerers (just single class, as I think you probably meant): Had several of these too. Many even. People don't always like huge lists of spells prepared. One guy loved it but that's a topic for another time. I guess my point for sorcerers was that sorcerers in 3.5/PF are tier 2. In fact I just rolled one up in PF's kingmaker and it was the strongest party member in 80% of situations.
Monks (again, assuming you meant just the single class): Monks are harder. That doesn't mean they're truly gimped. Even excluding combinations of monks and other classes which make truly unkillable, I've had a lot of really tricky monks. Monks may not be the best killers but they can live through most everything - which means they're very hard to kill. And yes, on the matter of "best killers" I had one (again PF..) in my most recent campaign that was so powerful that he was breaking the game, making it not fun for others. I had to use a lizardfolk with class levels and a total ECL about 5 (maybe more I forget now, it wasn't less than 5) higher than the monk just to challenge him - and ended up killing him after the fight (during RP moments as the party wanted him dead and didn't help or stop the lizardfolk chief from chewing out his throat).
But it has nothing to do with entitlement, even if that is somehow a bad word.

My point I guess being is that monk/sorcerer, sorcerers, or monks are not "mechanically gimped." Tier 2 for the one, and strongest melee combatant I've had thus far in PF for the other. And a really strong contender when you mix them, as often happened in 3.5 days.[/QUOTE]

This is a bit off topic, so I will just respond to the monk/sorcerer thing once. Yeah, you could probably make a decent monk/sorcerer in 3.5 with feats like ascetic mage, and practiced spellcaster as well as the enlightened fist PrC. I'm sure it would take a number of levels, for it too be good, though. In Pathfinder, you no longer have those choices. I still don't see how you think monk is that good (Seriously, how did you have a broken monk? Was he an ogre?). A sorcerer is pretty good. That does not mean that a monk/sorcerer is great. It's not even passable. An adept is better. Monk is one of the weaker martial classes, and a monk/sorcerer is very MAD. You better have less than 14 in only one stat (int) Think about this. A monk 5/ sorcerer 5 has terrible hit points, terrible attack and damage, bad AC, and has only 2nd level spells. That is not tier 2. You might be okay with going dragon disciple, but still not very good. My point isn't that a monk/sorcerer sucks. My point is that multiclassing any two classes should always be close to the power level/usefulness of non-multiclassed or more common multiclassed (fighter/rogue) characters nor should it be difficult or impossible to do certain combinations because of overly restrictive rules. Ability score requirements are just an unnecessary restriction on something that already has a decent opportunity cost. I want it to work as well as the 4E hybrid class system which is probably the best multiclass system D&D has ever had. At least 4E got that right.

 

[Nellisir]

I haven't reread the multiclassing rules recently, but I think I'd limit new proficiencies to over and above the number you currently have, or a minimum of one. In other words, if you have 3 proficiences/skills from your first class, and multiclass into something with 5, you get 2. If you multiclass into something with four or less, you only get 1 new skill. I might do similar with armor & weapons, or at least spread them out over a few levels (1 new armor & weapon prof. per level)

 

[Tovec]

So the human +1 to every stat might get replaced with a bonus skill and a bonus feat...

In other news, Mike Mearls just discovered 1999...

Well, it is more that someone told him about it and he suddenly caught up. No surprise really. Sad, but not surprising.

If you find yourself answering "yes" to a gaming-related question of "are you arguing in favor of something because of your own sense of entitlement", and you're OK with that once you realize it, then I'd say you and I are so incompatible in our world views that further debate is not fruitful.

I would however ask how old you are - not as a slam, just as a curiosity as to possible generational shifts in world views.

I found myself answering "Yes?" because it was my guess for who you were talking to.. which was not me. Thus "yes?" as I was not sure but took a guess.

As far as why I would argue yes (and I guess why I was arguing for entitlement) followed. Did you read it? You aren't responding to anything I wrote so I would assume you didn't and somehow only took exception with the first word (and not the punctuation) of my reply.

How old I am has nothing to do with my playstyle, ability, or maturity. It should have no relevence on the conversation we are having here. What is more, it is rather rude to ask someone that without reason - especially without giving your own age first

And, as far as entitlement goes, "choice" is a better word to use. Again, to back and read my first reply - the whole thing this time - that would help you figure out how incompatible our world views are. Rather, as it is right now, this is not a debate as it is you merely conceding without having stating you dislike "entitlement."

As it happens, I do actually kind of agree about the proficiency argument you seem to be having (not related to "entitlement"). Isn't level dipping the point of multiclassing sometimes? Being stronger is the point many times, if you are multiclassing you should end up being stronger in the end, not equally strong. Makes sense to me. Just have to make sure you are giving something up in exchange and that it isn't a necessity. Ie. 3.5 first level rogue has 4x(8+int) skills, nice selection of class skills too. Second level (any other class) has maximum 6+int - that's a near necessity. Armor proficiency that you can get with simple racial + feat isn't huge IMHO.

<snip my own post that you didn't quote .. except you did.. anyway snipped>

This is a bit off topic, so I will just respond to the monk/sorcerer thing once. Yeah, you could probably make a decent monk/sorcerer in 3.5 with feats like ascetic mage, and practiced spellcaster as well as the enlightened fist PrC. I'm sure it would take a number of levels, for it too be good, though. In Pathfinder, you no longer have those choices. I still don't see how you think monk is that good (Seriously, how did you have a broken monk? Was he an ogre?). A sorcerer is pretty good. That does not mean that a monk/sorcerer is great. It's not even passable. An adept is better. Monk is one of the weaker martial classes, and a monk/sorcerer is very MAD. You better have less than 14 in only one stat (int) Think about this. A monk 5/ sorcerer 5 has terrible hit points, terrible attack and damage, bad AC, and has only 2nd level spells. That is not tier 2. You might be okay with going dragon disciple, but still not very good. My point isn't that a monk/sorcerer sucks. My point is that multiclassing any two classes should always be close to the power level/usefulness of non-multiclassed or more common multiclassed (fighter/rogue) characters nor should it be difficult or impossible to do certain combinations because of overly restrictive rules. Ability score requirements are just an unnecessary restriction on something that already has a decent opportunity cost. I want it to work as well as the 4E hybrid class system which is probably the best multiclass system D&D has ever had. At least 4E got that right.

A. My objection was with "mechanically gimped" but I think that may have had to do more with your phrasing rather than the endpoint you were trying to make.
B. What can't we use 3.5 material in PF? Why can't we count a simple prestige class designed to bridge the gap between the who classes? Would you call a wizard/cleric gimped without excluding mystic theurge? I mean they are underpowered, because it is best to have a full casting class in either but if you are looking to have as much casting potential as possible then MT is great and it is not "gimped.
C. MAD? CHA is necessary for sorcerer. What others are suddenly crazy necessary? WIS for monk, with DEX or STR that's ... 3? 4 if you want STR and DEX. My fighter needs DEX for ranged, STR for melee, CON for survivibility. That's 3, are they MAD/gimped too? Not to mention needing INT so that they can have more than 2 skills per level. So, that's 4. MAD now?
D. The monk player broke the game due to his build, the monk class, items and general combination that made him broken. He was a straight monk but I don't recall the race - I'm sure it didn't have a LA though. He did have a couple of great stats (couple 18s don't recall the rest). But then again, you want 18s to play a monk well so there is that. I don't understand your point I guess.
E. Yes sorcerers are tier 2. Your argument is that multiclassing sorcerers aren't? Agreed. I don't understand the argument. A wizard/fighter is not a tier 1 wizard either because they are sacrificing their full casting. Heck, even wizard/druid isn't tier 1 in power anymore (and that's with 2 tier 1 classes). And?

Oh, if you want to keep having this conversation in PM or another thread I'm game. I don't really have anything else to say but then again I don't find it all that much off topic.

 

[Zaruthustran]

I totally disagree.

Fair enough. I appreciate the discussion.

Now you've made your argument a moving target. It was "better at fighting", but now you skewed the question to "best a hitting something with a weapon", and that's a fairly narrow question.

I clarified that a previous post. By better at fighting, I meant attack bonus/hitting something with a weapon. Even more specific: the d20 attack roll with a melee weapon.

I want them best at fighting, and they are.

So a first level fighter attacking with a mace at +2 proficiency is better at fighting (specified as likely to succeed on an attack roll) than a cleric or wizard, who have the same +2 proficiency bonus? 1d20 +2 is > 1d20 +2?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand that math.

Best at hitting with a weapon is usually reserved for the light-weapon finesse fighter-type, while best at damage with a weapon is usually reserved for the barbarian, but best overall at fighting is the fighter domain, and I think they accomplish that well.

I'm unfamiliar with the finesse fighter claim--I missed the edition where light weapons gave a higher proficiency bonus than other weapons. Best at Damage is the barbarian's realm until 2nd level, when the paladin's Divine Favor takes over (+1d8 is better than +2). But now we're not talking about the fighter.

I recall a blanket +1 to weapon attacks; that's what I want back for the fighter. Two characters walk up and swing a stick, and one of them is s Fighter? The fighter should be better at swinging that stick. Shooting bullseyes? Fighter should be better. Throwing darts? Fighter. Spearing the ring in a joust? Fighter.

Right now, if Little John the fighter and Skeeve the wizard engage in a quarterstaff dual on a log, each will hit exactly as often as the other. I just don't like that.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Right now, if Little John the fighter and Skeeve the wizard engage in a quarterstaff dual on a log, each will hit exactly as often as the other. I just don't like that.

I have to interject here: So?

First, your supposition requires two opponents with the same Str and Dex and same armor (or lack of) for them to both to have the same chance to hit, and the same hit points. Both of the first two things are unlikely, the last very unlikely. A typically statted and equipped fighter and wizard are actually going to have around a 30% gap to hit, possibly more, in the fighter's favor. A cleric is closer, but the fighter's heavy armor and on average higher Str will still swing the pure "To Hit" percentage again in the fighter's favor.

But getting back to the perfectly numerically matched wizard and fighter, you know who I'm putting my money on to win? The fighter, because even though he might hit with the same frequency, he still hits harder and/or more effectively, translating to more damage, which is the true measure of how much better at fighting the fighter is. The wizard is going down first, which to me means he's not as good at fighting.

To put it another way, a cat attacking me is likely going to hit me many more times than I hit it, but that doesn't mean it's going to beat me.

As Mistwell was getting at, you can't take a single numerical value out of context of the rest of the class. I think we have to think about Proficiency Bonus differently than THACO and BAB of previous editions. Those were more independent and defining stats than Proficiency Bonus (PB?), which is more synergistic.

 

[Mistwell]

I found myself answering "Yes?" because it was my guess for who you were talking to.. which was not me. Thus "yes?" as I was not sure but took a guess.

As far as why I would argue yes (and I guess why I was arguing for entitlement) followed.

So you answered yes, and I responded to that.

Did you read it? You aren't responding to anything I wrote so I would assume you didn't and somehow only took exception with the first word (and not the punctuation) of my reply.

Yeah anything that comes after "yes" to that question, for me, is a sign there isn't going to be productive conversation because our world views are too far apart. Not a bad thing, just a thing.

How old I am has nothing to do with my playstyle, ability, or maturity.

You know how you know I wasn't speaking to your playstyle, ability, or maturity?

Because I told you why I was asking. And it wasn't any of those things.

It should have no relevence on the conversation we are having here.

Which is why I said it was for my own curiosity.

What is more, it is rather rude to ask someone that without reason - especially without giving your own age first

I didn't think it's rude, as for my generation asking a man their age is not something that's rude, it's just asking a woman her age that's considered rude. I'm 44 by the way.

And, as far as entitlement goes, "choice" is a better word to use.

Are you saying no to my question now after you said yes and then had my response, or you just don't like the word entitlement but admit it does apply in this situation?

Again, to back and read my first reply - the whole thing this time - that would help you figure out how incompatible our world views are.

It really doesn't. You said you felt entitled to a type of rule in a D&D game for the new version of the game. Now, I can do the wise thing and bow out when I know a conversation isn't going to go well, or I can engage and let things escalate. I am taking the wise route on this one. Let's let it go.

Rather, as it is right now, this is not a debate as it is you merely conceding without having stating you dislike "entitlement."

Yes, this is not a debate, I already said I am bowing out after your answer as I don't think it would be productive. We're on the same page now...no debate here, you and I can't productively discuss this topic, so let's not try.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I wonder how many people here had bachelor degrees in medicine, art, theology, and played pro-sports all before they were 30...

This fellow

 

[UngainlyTitan]

It strikes me that the proficiency and multiclassing are most likely to change somewhat in the final game depending on the survey reactions to the current playtest packet.
I kinda like the proficiency system and the multiclassing and while i can see some potential problems with multiclassing, I would really like to see how it operates in play. I do suspect that in the final cut multiclassing may not make all proficiencies in the new clas available.

 

[Mistwell]

Fair enough. I appreciate the discussion.

I clarified that a previous post. By better at fighting, I meant attack bonus/hitting something with a weapon. Even more specific: the d20 attack roll with a melee weapon.

So we've established I am talking about overall fighting ability, and you are talking about purely the attack bonus. Gotcha. Now that this is clarified, this should go smoothly except...

So a first level fighter attacking with a mace at +2 proficiency is better at fighting (specified as likely to succeed on an attack roll) than a cleric or wizard, who have the same +2 proficiency bonus? 1d20 +2 is > 1d20 +2?

Then you make this passive aggressive comment, after making it clear you understand I am talking about overall fighting and not attack bonus.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand that math.

And there's the passive aggressive again. At least one of us is appreciating the discussion.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I'm converting an NPC. A fighter 2/ranger 3. Does this combination get to pick two Fighting Styles? It doesn't seem right, but I don't see anything saying you can't. I assume you wouldn't be able to choose the same style twice, at least.