Pax Prime seminar 2012 juicy news!

[The Shadow]

Did they make it sound more like a Paladin's code of behavior, or more like the 1E/2E hierarchy for monks and druids? I think an organizational hierarchy could be interesting, as long as they keep it separate from level limits. Challenge the arch-ranger to take his leadership role, not so you can level up to 12.

It wasn't clear from what they said, but now that you mention it, the hierarchy business does sound like it could fit in with what they were saying about high-level play.

 

[Iosue]

Did they make it sound more like a Paladin's code of behavior, or more like the 1E/2E hierarchy for monks and druids? I think an organizational hierarchy could be interesting, as long as they keep it separate from level limits. Challenge the arch-ranger to take his leadership role, not so you can level up to 12.

Neither; they weren't terribly specific. With regards to the ranger, they mentioned how in AD&D they were modeled off of the Tolkienian group, but as the traditions progressed they lost some of that fluff to become generic nature warriors.

 

[The Shadow]

One benefit of the way they're going to do multiclassing just occurred to me:

If a given DM wants the paladin (for example) to be a 'prestige class' in his campaign, it's as simple as using the paladin's 'multiclass table' and forbidding people to take it at 1st.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I'm starting to get the feeling that their plans are a bit.. all over the place?
I really don't think they've even got the core right yet.

 

[JeffB]

I'm starting to get the feeling that their plans are a bit.. all over the place?
I really don't think they've even got the core right yet.

This, though I have thought that for awhile.

Also they are again trying to rewrite alot of fluff with the classes. While I for one appreciated the fresh take of 4es freewheeling fluff frameworks in regards to the world, the planes, and other classic tropes (which was very reminiscent of pre Advanced D&D games I plsyed in or ran BIT 70s), 4es different take was not popular with the masses.

They really have to stop trying to reinvent the wheel, and stop being different for different's sake, otherwise they will continue to alienate a big chunk of fans they want back.

 

[slobster]

Oh, and I forgot to mention multiclassing! Big bit of news here.

It will be largely like 3e, however to avoid dipping, they'll have a special "multiclass" version of each class in which you ramp up to the class' full abilities. They also mentioned that there might be something like prestige classes that would only have multiclass versions.

To be more specific, they said they'd have a "multiclass table" for each class that would specify what you would get for each level of it you take.

Quite the scoop, thanks! I'd xp you if possible.

 

[Sadrik]

More tidbits:

The idea is to make the core 4 classes very customizable, but the other classes to be more heavily story-based. For example, they're thinking of making rangers more like an actual organization (or more than one) with its own code of conduct.

Hm, I will have to see this in action, because tacking on an organization is just a background. If they think having a preselected background is going to make a class... I reserve judgment until I see it. Why can't all classes be very customizable?

 

[The Shadow]

Hm, I will have to see this in action, because tacking on an organization is just a background. If they think having a preselected background is going to make a class... I reserve judgment until I see it. Why can't all classes be very customizable?

It's not just 'tacked on'. They specifically said that they intended to start with story and then move to mechanics. A class needs something unique to pull its own weight.

 

[Yora]

That makes a lot more sense.

Saying you can become a 14th level druid when one of the six 14th level druids in your forest dies or levels up is still just pure fluff that can be ignored with no consequences.
Going away from completely generic like fighter and rogue is sensible, but D&D has always been a setting free game. Making the class concepts too specfic only leads to rules bloat to have a new class for every slight change in fluff.

Does anyone have the exact time at which this is mentioned?

 

[Kraydak]

So that would suggest that they're talking about encounter spells here. The question remains whether you'd have separate slots for those spells, and whether you have to recharge the same spell or if you can switch mid-day. (So if I use Feather Fall to jump off a cliff, when I take a short rest can I prepare a different encounter spell in its slot since I'm already at the bottom, or can I only "recharge" Feather Fall?)

This seems like it could be moderately cool or it could be somewhat confusing, and either way it seems very likely to make some traditionalists angry.

Angry? Dunno. Steadily more and more resigned to 5e becoming *even more strongly* biased towards Casters than 3e? Yeah.