D&D 5E Thoughts on 6-7-13 Playtest Packet

[Weather Report]

Yes. The only changes to the classes document in the new packet are related to changes in the spell lists.

Yep, but we can see upcoming changes to classes in the Slavelords Bestiary; it would seem Monks and Rogues now get Expertise (+Xd to Dex and Wis checks, +Xd to Dex and Int checks), monks get Deflect Missiles, augmented movement; Sneak Attack has changed; Fighters get Second Wind and Action Surges.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is not a thing that was ever supposed to be easy.

So then it is a bad thing unless you have to either change the rules or buy some obscure supplement to do it eh? I don't get that, at all...

 

[Weather Report]

So then it is a bad thing unless you have to either change the rules or buy some obscure supplement to do it eh? I don't get that, at all...

What product are you referring to?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What product are you referring to?

I mean why should it be hard to make an anti-hero? That was the, proposed at least, reason for allowing an LN Blackguard. So I took DMZ2112 as meaning "It shouldn't be as easy to make an anti-hero as playing a LN Blackguard." All eliminating the LN option does is mean either players have to ignore the alignment restriction, or they have to wait for some supplement that provides an equivalent option, or whatever. Seems like there's no reason for the core rules to contain such restrictions. IMHO it isn't adding anything to the game.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Weather Report]

I mean why should it be hard to make an anti-hero? That was the, proposed at least, reason for allowing an LN Blackguard. So I took DMZ2112 as meaning "It shouldn't be as easy to make an anti-hero as playing a LN Blackguard." All eliminating the LN option does is mean either players have to ignore the alignment restriction, or they have to wait for some supplement that provides an equivalent option, or whatever

Oh, yeah, the Alignment thing, this should go well; but I do prefer non-good/neutral Paladins to be called Anti-Paladin, and to be CE.

The Cavalietr term is lame.

 

[DMZ2112]

I mean why should it be hard to make an anti-hero? That was the, proposed at least, reason for allowing an LN Blackguard. So I took DMZ2112 as meaning "It shouldn't be as easy to make an anti-hero as playing a LN Blackguard." All eliminating the LN option does is mean either players have to ignore the alignment restriction, or they have to wait for some supplement that provides an equivalent option, or whatever. Seems like there's no reason for the core rules to contain such restrictions. IMHO it isn't adding anything to the game.

Newp.

I was responding quite literally. "Playing an antihero with a generally good aligned group" is not supposed to be easy. An antihero who gets along with the generally good aligned is a hero. Antiheroism is kind of defined by not getting along with the generally good aligned. In fact some might say it's the whole point.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Oh, yeah, the Alignment thing, this should go well; but I do prefer non-good/neutral Paladins to be called Anti-Paladin, and to be CE.

The Cavalietr term is lame.

What about other sorts of 'Paladin'? Not every warrior champion of a cause is LG or CE. Anyway, I don't have a problem with a CE anti-paladin as a concept. I think that's just not the end of the list there. If someone wants to call it something other than Cavalier I really don't care either. Its a term that has history but there's nothing special about it. 'Champion' would be perhaps even better.

Newp.

I was responding quite literally. "Playing an antihero with a generally good aligned group" is not supposed to be easy. An antihero who gets along with the generally good aligned is a hero. Antiheroism is kind of defined by not getting along with the generally good aligned. In fact some might say it's the whole point.

That seems like a narrow concept of 'anti-heroism' IMHO. I mean, sure, anti-heroes ARE anti-heroes because they are burdened with characteristics that are antithetical to their hero role. That doesn't in my mind have to dictate anything specific. Not every anti-hero doesn't get along with good people, not all of them are partly evil, etc. Some are just cursed, messed up, have grave character flaws, or possibly even were simply faced with insurmountable moral dilemmas which they had to solve by less than savory means. Does this mean your LN 'champion' may not get along with some good characters? Perhaps, but he could also be quite charming and articulate (as an example) and get along fine with everyone. When his anti-heroic traits are manifested it may well be in a context where they are an actual asset or at least practically necessary.

My point is only that it seems like a poor choice for RULES to dictate how you can explore the concept of anti-heroism. It would be vastly better to have some designer discussion of the various possibilities, with story hooks and examples, etc, and then the players can draw their own conclusions and make up what they think will work for them. Some options may not find favor with some players and tables, that's fine.

Anyway, this entire debate is old and hoary and all that the current handling of it in DDN illustrates is that it will go on endlessly and no one solution is everyone's favorite choice. No doubt DDN will fail to satisfy everyone in this area. We can just leave it at that

 

[Dausuul]

That seems like a narrow concept of 'anti-heroism' IMHO. I mean, sure, anti-heroes ARE anti-heroes because they are burdened with characteristics that are antithetical to their hero role. That doesn't in my mind have to dictate anything specific. Not every anti-hero doesn't get along with good people, not all of them are partly evil, etc. Some are just cursed, messed up, have grave character flaws, or possibly even were simply faced with insurmountable moral dilemmas which they had to solve by less than savory means. Does this mean your LN 'champion' may not get along with some good characters? Perhaps, but he could also be quite charming and articulate (as an example) and get along fine with everyone. When his anti-heroic traits are manifested it may well be in a context where they are an actual asset or at least practically necessary.

In a good party, I like to play the Lawful Evil guy. That doesn't mean I'm fighting with the good PCs or that I don't work with them. Instead, what it means is that when the party is discussing what to do with the prisoner, I'm the one saying "Let's just slit his throat." When there's a bunch of peasants in danger, I'm the one asking why we're bothering to help them. Most of the time the party overrules me, and I shrug and go along; I am, after all, Lawful. Once in a while I convince them of the merits of the Dark Side.

I think it makes moral choices a lot more interesting when the party has a devil's advocate along.

 

[Weather Report]

What about other sorts of 'Paladin'?

There is only one, to make Paladins of every alignment just waters them down and turns them into glorified Fighters.