Tweet gleanings

[Ainamacar]

Most of the changes sounded good to me. Especially 3e style multiclassing and no assumption of magic items (finally!).

I'm a little ho-hum about static spells and trading spells, however. I much prefer spells to have a basic version with a small tree of upgrades. Maybe a caster that knows fireball can cast it as a 3rd level spell, but there are separate upgrades for more damage, or delayed-blast casting, etc. Basically, some built-in metamagic that can be researched rather than treating delayed-blast fireball as a totally different spell. (It bothers me that someone could know delayed-blast fireball but not know fireball.)

It would also bring in lots of opportunities to differentiate casters. A wizard might choose to memorize a few basic 3rd level fireballs, and one 7th level extra-damage delayed blast fireball even though its the same spell. The sorcerer could do it on the fly, and even occasionally access upgrades he hasn't learned yet, since the potential lies within. Some upgrades might be restricted to divine casters with a particular domain, etc. Really, how many different base version of fireball does there need to be?

I do think we should clarify two different ways a spell can remain static, however. Namely, the effect it has when successful can be static, but the chance to succeed could also remain static. In 3e spell damage generally increased with caster level, but the chance of obtaining that effect decreased against the sorts of creatures one most likely faced because the saving throw DC did not change, or changed very slowly. I think 4e did this better, keeping the effect static but made sure the chance it succeeded on par with the character's other abilities. I would like the effects to scale, but only if the character is willing to spend more resources to get them.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I for one am actually nervous about the idea of trading in lower-level spells or powers for higher-level ones. Having to trade in low level powers in 4E was one of my bigger complaints about the system. It means that it is much more difficult to maintain continuity of a character's themes and specialties. What was once a signature move of your character gets replaced by completely unrelated new moves.

I'm a little ho-hum about static spells and trading spells, however. I much prefer spells to have a basic version with a small tree of upgrades. Maybe a caster that knows fireball can cast it as a 3rd level spell, but there are separate upgrades for more damage, or delayed-blast casting, etc.

I agree with both of you guys.

I remember that in Arcana Unearthed, Monte had a wizard class with spells, and one characteristic was that spells known could be cast as a 'lowered' version (less effective, 1 level lower as a spell) or a 'heightened' version (ore effective, 1 level higher as a spell) - the class could unravel one of his spell slots to gain two slots of a lower level, or converge three slots of a lower level to gain one of a higher level - or something like that.

With classic casters I like the increasing variety of options as I go up in level, and the swapping out lower level spells for higher level powers never felt right - I often still wanted those lower level spells!

I could completely see it for powers for other classes though - fighters losing their 'beserk' stance and 'acrobatic' stance and replacing them with 'whirling dervish' stance which gives all the benefits of both. Not bad on that kind of level IMO.

 

[CM]

The good stuff:

Overall, 5E sounds like a natural progression of 3E rather than 4E. Which is a good thing in my book.

I was more under the impression that 3e and 4e fought each other to near-death, and then AD&D stepped out of the bushes, killed them, and took their stuff.

 

[mkill]

Monte: the play session that I envision with the fighter and wizard fighting together is that the figher is always better than the wizard. The fighter hits someone for 12 damage and then the wizard hits someone for 4, and the wizard wishes he was a fighter. Then that happens again on the second round, and the wizard feels the same way again. But then on the third round the wizard whips out his fireball and does 16 or 20 damage total and the fighter goes ahh, I wish I was a wizard. I want each class to shine and to have reasons to want to play that class.

No no no no no. Bad Monte. This is NOT how Wizard vs. Fighter should work.

... The fighter hits someone for 12 damage and then the wizard hits someone for 4, and the wizard wishes he had rolled better. Then fighter hits someone for 4 damage and then the wizard hits someone for 12, and the wizard is happy. But then on the third round the wizard whips out his fireball and does 16 damage total and the fighter goes ahh, watch this, grabs the dragon by the horns, swings on its back and drives his sword in its neck, doing 20 damage.

Now that's D&D!

 

[JamesonCourage]

I mean they openly said "fireball: 5d6, want more damage, get a different spell." So this paves the way for a high level fireball that does more damage.

KInda upset that spell power is set as opposed to scaling. Would kinda make sense (for a fantasy universe) that as you got more powerful, certain effects would as well.

You can still have "hidden" / pseudo scaling within the context of having set power levels. They did this in 4e (for some classes/powers) where you could (for example) swap out a Level 1 encounter power for a Level 13 encounter power that would do the -exact- same thing with just higher damage or strong er effects (a daze upgraded to a stun, or a push 2 ugraded to a slide 4, etc). So it is scaling if you chose the equivalent/upgraded power.

Actually, my understanding is that spells do scale with your power:

[MENTION=6671448]Monte[/MENTION] JCook Fireball is a static 5d6. If you want more damage, you use a higher-level spell slot. Much more balancing.

See, it's not "get a different spell" if you want more damage. It's that, normally Fireball does 5d6. Normally Fireball is a level 3 spell. Cast it as a level 5 spell (when you're more powerful), and maybe now it's doing 7d6 or 9d6, for example.

This way, it's not 10d6 as a level 3 just because, but you can still have your spell become more powerful as you become more powerful. Potentially, you can even scale it all the way to 9th level, if you're willing to spend your big slots on it.

Anyways, that was juts my interpretation (which is also how I handled spells in my RPG). As always, play what you like

 

[TarionzCousin]

ps. I hope nobody minded me spamming. I tried to post only parts most relevant to recent discussions on these boards.

No, I appreciate your and Agamon's posts. Morrus is on GMT and probably asleep right now. Some of us don't want to wait until he updates the news page.

So: thanks!

 

[trancejeremy]

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

Or you mean, someone who is not charismatic in real life shouldn't even try to role play and just sit quietly and roll dice?

It's not asking them to go from Ralph Wiggum to Robert de Niro (though again, on the Simpsons, he actually did), it's simply asking them to put their best effort at being charismatic. And shockingly enough, a lot of time people do come out of their shell (like Ralph Wiggum). Or sometimes they just quote a lot of Bruce Campbell. But either way it's a lot more fun than just rolling dice.

 

[Jack99]

I'm pretty sure the live feed listed Cleric, Fighter, and Wizard as Common classes; Warlock as an Uncommon class; and Assassin as a Rare class. In case the info was not passed on or some such (or I may be mistaken on what was said)

Nope, that's how I understood it.

 

[Nivenus]

Count me among those who likes "social skills" along with "exploration skills" and "combat skills." I think that every aspect of the game should have a mechanical base.

However, the game should be flexible enough that characters can play the sociable character regardless of whatever class it is they belong to. Fortunately, this seems to be where they're headed, what with the aforementioned "noble" kit for fighters and class modularity in general.

 

[Roland55]

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!

Ah, but I do not WANT to prove you wrong.

I want you to be right.