Tweet gleanings

[ferratus]

This sounds like a game played back in the day.

That's because back in the day, roleplaying skills weren't shackled to a charisma score.

Charisma based social skills replacing the natural gifts of players was definately a place where the game took a wrong turn, IMO.

 

[Gryph]

That's because back in the day, roleplaying skills weren't shackled to a charisma score.

Charisma based social skills replacing the natural gifts of players was definately a place where the game took a wrong turn, IMO.

Not entirely true. Charisma based adjustments to reaction rolls, and the expectation that an NPC reaction to a players efforts to interact with them would be affected by the reaction roll, were added very early in the Gygax rules. We used them in 1977, but they weren't new then.

 

[Agamon]

rolling20s
Q; What's your favorite class, and why?
[MENTION=7283]brucecordell[/MENTION] Warlock, because the flavor is evocative. Deals for power, etc. Likes Star Pact
[MENTION=6671448]Monte[/MENTION]JCook Wizard. Because historically, the WIzard was the kind of class that took forethought and planning
.[MENTION=16164]rjs[/MENTION]chwalb COMMONER!. No, really, the Assassin. Allows you spellcast, melee fight, and... evil

geeksdreamgirl
Q: Should different classes be easier or harder to play? A (Bruce): Sure, there should be classes that suit all types of players
(Monte): Game needs to support players who want the simple kill-stuff class, but also the player who wants a more complex fighter.
(Monte) If you have a fighter who wants to attack multiple monsters, move things around the battlefield, etc, they can do that.
A (Rob): Traditionally, simple character = fighter, complex = wiz. For #dndnext we want a baseline/default complexity for each class.

 

[Agamon]

rolling20s
.[MENTION=7283]brucecordell[/MENTION] Each class has its time in the spotlight, and not all classes are built expressly for combat.

geeksdreamgirl
(Bruce) Ex, if the fighter is 100% damage, this other class might be 80% damage, but better at exploration.
(Rob) So the bard may not fight as well, he'll have other powers/spells that would give him a place in the spotlight. Ex: Charm Person

 

[Agamon]

Looks like clerics and wizards are vancian, others, not so much...

rolling20s
[MENTION=6671448]Monte[/MENTION]JCook There are other options for other classes, but for Wizard, Cleric (core), Vancian is the way to go

 

[Sammael]

That's because back in the day, roleplaying skills weren't shackled to a charisma score.

Charisma based social skills replacing the natural gifts of players was definately a place where the game took a wrong turn, IMO.

Because a player who is not charismatic in real life should not be allowed to play a charismatic character, right?

 

[Agamon]

geeksdreamgirl
(Bruce): The big guns are the spells, but they'll (wizards) always have magical feats to use. (Rob) At-wills from 4e may come back as feats.
(Bruce) A fighter might still choose to take powers and swap-outs, but it won't be approached like the 4e fighter.

 

[Wormwood]

Monte: I know it's a bit contreversial, but I think Vancian magic is a core element of D&D. Maybe it's not the only option for magic, but it's definitely an iconic and flavorful one that I would like to retain. It's also an interesting way to handle game balance. For example wizards have magical feats that are basically at will abilities. Balancing them with vancian magic which are essentially daily abilities is an interesting way to go, especially when comparing to the fighter and rogue who have more of an at-will style play. It offers a very different playstyle than those other classes, but those different playstyles are something we want to embrace.

Greg: Those at-will type of attacks are things that have come to D&D with 4th. How are you guys integrating that in the next iteration.

Bruce: As monte mentioned, you have those feats that give you at-will style attacks, and some spell or class options will give you at will kind of attacks.

So it seems if you like old-school Wizards, you just play the class out of the box. If you want something more like 4e, pick those feats/options.

I honestly can't see how anyone could argue against that. Prove me wrong, Internet!

 

[fba827]

CriticalHits
Jeremy: The playtests will hint at some of the options. For example, the fighter is also a noble which grants some social skills.

- the latter makes me wonder whether the 'warlord' bits we have seen refer to a class, or perhaps a background (like 'noble' in the tweet), enabling us to have different classes as warlords. That would be cool IMO.

Yeah, when that other image came out that said "Background: as a warlord you [...]" several people mentioned that "the warlord is back [...as a class]." But I couldn't help but notice that it was under the "background" heading. So it is possible that it is simply a type of background/background benefit for that character rather confirmation of a class itself. Which would be cool since the flavor behind a warlord really could be applicable to most classes, simply a matter of, well, background. So as the noble provided some social skill bonus the warlord (if it really is just a background) probably provides some form of leadership-type bonus since that is what the text in the image strongly implied.

 

[Wormwood]

Rob: They're all awesome, but I think I would have to pick the Ranger. There's so much stuff going on that I'm excited for each version. You could make up a beast ranger, or an aragorn stye ranger or a drizzt style ranger and they all feel awesome and iconic.

Well, thus endeth another debate (I hope).