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

[Vyvyan Basterd]

I think they could solve the proficiencies issue by stripping them completely from class. Leave them entirely in the Backgrounds. If you choose Scholar and then Fighter, you deal with the lack of armor and good weapon proficiencies. Hopefully, if the Background is balanced against others and you'll have other benefits you wanted out of that background. If you want a more traditional Fighter, pick a more traditional Background.

 

[MoonSong]

Well this is the part I'm not sure about anymore. From a narrative point of view, it's better to have a martial type know all the weapons from day one. From a practical point of view, in the standard game those first 2 levels only last IIRC 1-2 sessions each, during which in most cases you're fine with 1 melee weapon + 1 ranged weapon of your choice. The real difference is when you start getting magic items and you want to switch between them.

Armor is trickier. As I said, if the Fighter didn't get Heavy Armor since day 1, it would be both a narrative and practical problem, because it would prevent you to play a character with tactics based on using heavy armor. So I'd suggest instead the Fighter could pick 1 Light + 1 Medium + 1 Heavy armor of choice at 1st level, then again at 2nd, before full prof at 3rd. But I am not really sure it would help much, since the flip of the coin is that the multiclass-dipping player can still manage to dip and get that one single armor prof that may be enough forever.

I meant something like this:

started as fighter: full proficiencies at first level
became a fighter later: you get the full proficiencies at third Fighter level, on armor you scale from light armor to medium, to heavy, on weapons you pick one ranged and one melee at first and second fighter level and in third level you gain them all. It is at third level when you gain the saving throw proficiencies

Oh and [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] I agree implements should be a tool proficiency.

 

[the Jester]

I think they could solve the proficiencies issue by stripping them completely from class. Leave them entirely in the Backgrounds. If you choose Scholar and then Fighter, you deal with the lack of armor and good weapon proficiencies. Hopefully, if the Background is balanced against others and you'll have other benefits you wanted out of that background. If you want a more traditional Fighter, pick a more traditional Background.

Dislike. If I want to play a scholar fighter, I should be able to without having to go through hoops just to be able to be a decent fighter.

 

[Mistwell]

Dislike. If I want to play a scholar fighter, I should be able to without having to go through hoops just to be able to be a decent fighter.

Plus, it just shifts the problem to backgrounds. So now I can get armored casting and weapon proficiencies from a background, instead of taking the existing background "meant" for my class that has a bunch of redundant stuff on it anyway? No...that's a bad solution.

 

[Li Shenron]

On a slightly unrelated note: Shouldn't Implements be a Tool Proficiency? Spellcasting DCs are already set up like this; why not call it a proficiency in Implements and Holy Symbols, give it to appropriate classes, and be done with it?

I think they could easily be, after all they are already "tools" which use the proficiency bonus.

I meant something like this:

started as fighter: full proficiencies at first level
became a fighter later: you get the full proficiencies at third Fighter level, on armor you scale from light armor to medium, to heavy, on weapons you pick one ranged and one melee at first and second fighter level and in third level you gain them all. It is at third level when you gain the saving throw proficiencies

This sounds another good solution to me for weapons and armors.

For saving throws, I am actually thinking the best might be be to never get those of the classes after the first.

 

[Kobold Stew]

It seems to me fix is to slightly deferinciate the types of "proficiencies" there are:

1.) If you get a duplicate weapon or armor proficiency, you don't get a bonus choice.

2.) If you get a duplicate tool, you can select a different tool of your choice.

3.) If you get a duplicate skill, you can get a different skill of your choice from your class list. (Note: this is hard since most classes give a choice anyway).

4.) If you get a duplicate save proficiency, you do not get another choice.

This would be a good start.

1.) Weapons and Armor. I agree, regardless of the source: multiple proficiencies should not be not transferrable.

2.) Skills. I've noted earlier in this thread that there are currently two classes of tool proficiency: individual items (e.g. instruments), and classes of items (e.g. mounts). Multiple proficiency in the class that are individual items is not a problem. What is a problem is trying to gain proficiency in a whole other class of items. Indeed, I think this can go back to an issue in the playtest materials ten months ago, when tools were first introduced. As I described then, tools were serving no purpose that was separate from skills. That's now come back here, and the problem is amplified because there are so many more tool proficiencies. Instead of proficiencies (mounts), re-introduce the riding skill; instead of thieves' tools, re-introduce disable device. Just because a skill requires the use of certain equipment (a horse, a lockpick, climbing gear), does not mean that there should be a bonus from that equipment.
In brief: Replace most tool proficiencies with a skill, and use the skill system.

3.) Skills. This is fine, with the following two caveats:

--> if the skill is granted by a feat (except Athlete and Loremaster), then you do not receive another skill. So, for example, Choosing the Alert feat if you are already trained in Perception does not allow you to choose another skill freely.

--> I would like all classes only to grant 1 skill. If there are to be more, then it should come as a class feature (as used to happen with, e.g., Religion and clerics). The advantage of this approach is that it opens up more design flexibility, while creating uniformity: (a) Bards can still receive expertise without necessarily receiving the attendant extra skills; (b) Bards and Rangers can be granted an extra skill at level 3, reducing the impact of level-dipping; (c) the extra skills of a Rogue can be granted, as in the very first playtest materials, as an extra (second) background -- either at first or third level. That gives skill (and possibly tool) proficiencies (and a trait), but allows rogues to be skill-monkeys while still only granting 1 skill by class.
In brief: all classes should give 1 skill only, and rogues should have a second background.

4.) Abilities. Save proficiencies are a problem, because they are going to be so useful, especially at higher levels. Perhaps should be limited to one-extra save proficiency if you multiclass, not (usually) two.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

Dislike. If I want to play a scholar fighter, I should be able to without having to go through hoops just to be able to be a decent fighter.

To each their own. I would imagine there would be Fighter subtypes that could take advantage of the Scholar build anyway (especially if they were to go with the idea). Plus the idea of giving up something to get something else you desire more for your concept.

Plus, it just shifts the problem to backgrounds. So now I can get armored casting and weapon proficiencies from a background, instead of taking the existing background "meant" for my class that has a bunch of redundant stuff on it anyway? No...that's a bad solution.

How? It wouldn't be redundant because the proficiencies, in what I suggested, wouldn't be in the class. How can you have Background redundancy with features that I propose to remove entirely from class?

 

[MoonSong]

To each their own. I would imagine there would be Fighter subtypes that could take advantage of the Scholar build anyway (especially if they were to go with the idea). Plus the idea of giving up something to get something else you desire more for your concept.



How? It wouldn't be redundant because the proficiencies, in what I suggested, wouldn't be in the class. How can you have Background redundancy with features that I propose to remove entirely from class?

What you want creates an ugly problem, All fighters would have to be soldiers or they would be completely useless as fighters, because a scholarly fighter wouldn't be proficient with even his own fists and wouldn't be able to wear any kind of armor. A mage soldier on the other hand would be broken, casting iin heay armor and using all weapons with proficiency, esentially one shoting the so called fighter who wouldn't be able to evne use armor to protect himself

 

[pemerton]

Buffed fighters and nerfed casters.

The game also feels quite complex for giving so few options.

I can see what [MENTION=6694112]Kinak[/MENTION] is getting at here, and am curious about the fighter options for the gladiator/weapon-master - is it less fiddly in play than it reads on the page?

I think they could solve the proficiencies issue by stripping them completely from class. Leave them entirely in the Backgrounds. If you choose Scholar and then Fighter, you deal with the lack of armor and good weapon proficiencies. Hopefully, if the Background is balanced against others and you'll have other benefits you wanted out of that background. If you want a more traditional Fighter, pick a more traditional Background.

That's interesting. And radical. In a non-granular background/class system it's potentially punitive - but you probably wouldn't have to add much granularity (eg get one bonus tool, weapon, armour, etc proficiency when you choose your class) to make it less punitive and potentially quite attractive.

 

[pemerton]

Save proficiencies are a problem, because they are going to be so useful, especially at higher levels. Perhaps should be limited to one-extra save proficiency if you multiclass, not (usually) two.

Save proficiencies seem such an issue for me - as [MENTION=69074]Cyberen[/MENTION] has noted - that I feel they need to be revisited altogether.