Seminar Transcript - Class Design: From Assassins to Wizards

[Henry]

I understand the switch out, admittedly, it's just I worry when people mention the fighter as straight damage.

Counterbalanced by the people who get worried when the fighter is mentioned as anything OTHER than straight damage. It's a given by what we know now that a relatively simple fighter is the baseline, but varied maneuver options will be there in the core.

I'm also arguing that Dominate Person is in itself a gigantic source of DPR when it works and a much more powerful ability than fireball just on a conceptual level. Also, any Vancian system where the Wizard can't learn both spells and prep certain ones based on the day is kinda weird conceptually.

Sorry, I'm just used to playing PF where the standard means of playing a lowball optimization Wizard is to play an Evoker. And if they're just talking about nerfing damage from Fireball, that makes me worry they've just nearned to nerf Evocation.

I can easily visualize a charm/dominate that is balanced with the fighter in terms of usefulness, and just like the fireball gets meaner by using higher level spell resources. I wouldn't give up hope yet. Also don't forget there's only so much ground they can cover in a seminar. There's still plenty to suggest they haven't abandoned canny fighters with combat options.

 

[BryonD]

Not if you're the DM and say "Yeah. Those don't exist in this world. Sorry." Same thing I did with halflings and gnomes in mine (I don't care for either race...)

As long as you presume from the word go that you won't be using any setting or module support from WotC....

Which is ok by me, but still an important point.

 

[Glade Riven]

*sigh* ...nabberdaggit...

I'm actually starting to get excited about 5e. I didn't want that, at least so soon.

 

[BryonD]

The mention of encounter powers is the first red flag I've seen.

 

[grimslade]

Didn't Monte say that They figured Charm Person was equivalent to 105 damage? I would assume Dominate Person would be worth a bit more or relegated to a ritual.

 

[Mercurius]

Damn, what's not to like about D&D Next (so far)? I'm feeling very encouraged.

 

[avin]

The mention of encounter powers is the first red flag I've seen.

For Fighters and non magic users, yeah, agreed.

For some Pact Warlock, why not? That made as much sense as having to memorize spells and cast them daily. I can back up Mana, Fatigue or (Mage's) Paradigm... Vancian was always alien to me... "Hey dude, when you sleep you forget how to cast fireball" what what?

By the way, they claimed jargon won't be on the book, so don't expect to see an "encounter power" in it without a good fluff excuse.

 

[Roland55]

I am really seeing a lot of respect for EVERY edition here. It looks like there is something to appeal to just about everyone here.

The class section itself is going to be a thing of beauty.

And this is what I like about the discussion most of all.

Respect for every edition.

 

[Herobizkit]

Monte.... no! Vancian magic?! REALLY?! You were my HERO!

What happened to the 3e psionic mechanic... THAT should be the core spellcasting mechanic...

 

[Nivenus]

Monte.... no! Vancian magic?! REALLY?! You were my HERO!

What happened to the 3e psionic mechanic... THAT should be the core spellcasting mechanic...

The 10% rule they've mentioned earlier means they had to include Vancian in some way. There's just no way they could get away with throwing Vancian out again without fans of it throwing a fit.

However, it sounds like different classes are going to have different spellcasting mechanics and that with feats and other options you can mix and match a bit (making your wizards a bit more like 4e spellcasters, for example).

Actually, I have to say, despite having some problems with Vancian spellcasting, I'm quite happy with this news.