Tweet gleanings

[harlokin]

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.

I would like the new edition to like this too.

 

[Zaukrie]

First, WoTC moves into the 21st century, and streams the chat....nice.

Second, I liked most of what I heard, I think.

Third, you all talk in absolutes like things are done...how done do you really think they are?

 

[mach1.9pants]

So far I like almost everything I have heard, and those that I don't instantly go 'yay' are not negatives but 'wait and see in plays' for me

Well done if they deliver on these promises.

 

[Number48]

Unless they're playing their cards close to the vest, much of this seems pretty clunky. I was hoping on a 2-class system, not a system where I have choose between being good at fighting and being good outside of fighting. That works for the 50% games, but makes some characters very suboptimal as you move further from the middle.

So far, this doesn't sound like the game for hack-n-slashers, nor for talk-n-sneakers.

 

[grimslade]

I like this approach to classes, but I worry about having so many right out of the gate. Focus on a smaller palette of classes and have them tight and smooth. Add in more base classes in subsequent option splats.
What is the niche of the assassin as a base class? The only distinguishing talent from a rogue/ thief is the Deathstrike. Sounds more like an option swap than a base class.
So cleric is to priest as swordmage is to wizard? Neat idea. Are we getting the full priest option bandwagon of 2E?
It does sound like AD&D got to kill the other editions and take their stuff. You can get their stuff back with options.

 

[Gundark]

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!

Internet nerd rage in 4,3,2...

 

[Rechan]

So cleric is to priest as swordmage is to wizard? Neat idea. Are we getting the full priest option bandwagon of 2E?

Look at the 4e cleric. You had Str based clerics who hit with weapons, and you had Wisdom based "laser" clerics who stood back and attacked at range. They just decided to split these into two separate classes.

Which is fantastic to me. I've always preferred the "Priest" style. Feels very "Exorcist".

What I don't understand is this: they describe the 1e Clerics as "guys in armor fighting with a shield and a mace, who sometimes heal people". How is that not a paladin?

 

[Number48]

Because a 1E paladin required a 17 Charisma. If you could't make a 17 Charisma (vanishingly unlikely with the standard stat generation method), then you played a cleric as much like a paladin as you could.

 

[Rechan]

Because a 1E paladin required a 17 Charisma. If you could't make a 17 Charisma (vanishingly unlikely with the standard stat generation method), then you played a cleric as much like a paladin as you could.

So... doesn't that make the paladin and warrior cleric sort of redundant once the 17 Charisma req is removed? Especially now that the god emphasis is being lessened with a cleric?

 

[Number48]

So... doesn't that make the paladin and warrior cleric sort of redundant once the 17 Charisma req is removed? Especially now that the god emphasis is being lessened with a cleric?

I'm just telling you how it was in 1E. Remember, 1E didn't make a lot of sense a lot of the time. There was a random table of prostitutes, after all.