D&D 5E What needs to be fixed in 5E?

[keterys]

The Slayer and Barbarian are miles apart mechanically.

What is the "optimal" number of classes? Roles? I mean, they could all be big toolboxes - maybe we have 4 roles and you just pick from among the powers based on your own particular restrictions, or we could have a new class for every new concept, or somewhere in between.

 

[KarinsDad]

The Slayer and Barbarian are miles apart mechanically.

Miles apart?

How?

They look practically identical mechanically. Roll to hit. Add a bunch of damage.

Can you explain where the major mechanical gulf is that you are describing?

They might be a bit different fluff-wise and the Barbarian does get some Dailies, but it's not that different.

 

[keterys]

They look practically identical mechanically. Roll to hit. Add a bunch of damage.

Ah... so we're back to the theory that all classes are the same, then?

 

[KarinsDad]

Ah... so we're back to the theory that all classes are the same, then?

You avoided the question. And yes, that's my point. Many classes are very similar. You said these two were very mechanically different.

I don't see much difference between choosing one of a few At Wills and choosing one of a few Stances.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Miles apart?

How?

They look practically identical mechanically. Roll to hit. Add a bunch of damage.

Can you explain where the major mechanical gulf is that you are describing?

They might be a bit different fluff-wise and the Barbarian does get some Dailies, but it's not that different.

OK, sure, if you take the 10,000 foot view of things then ALL characters are 'the same', but this is meaningless. Barbarian and Slayer are as different as any two average classes in 4e mechanically. The barbarian has rage mechanics and class features that punish enemies extra on good hits and/or give extra attacks when you fell an opponent, etc. The Slayer gets a choice of basic attack modes plus an extra bonus damage enhancement on a hit one or more times per encounter.

They CAN be quite similar thematically, if you wish. They can also be pretty different. There certainly is a good bit of conceptual overlap there and it isn't unreasonable to argue that having both (plus FWT GW Weaponmaster) is overkill. I think it is pretty clear though that the people designing the game feel that revisiting concepts iteratively allows them to perfect them. Its kind of hard to argue with that either.

 

[Argyle King]

I'd like a more robust ability to grab/grapple.

 

[keterys]

You avoided the question.

No. I realized we weren't speaking the same language.

I consider the Slayer useful for very new players, or those who don't want to consider mechanics. The barbarian's damage triggers are entirely different, they have resources to manage, builds to consider, tactics are different... I'd play a barbarian happily, and I wouldn't play a Slayer at all.

So, yeah... no. Not unless I concede that the warpriest, weaponmaster, and monk are also the same.

 

[KarinsDad]

The barbarian has rage mechanics and class features that punish enemies extra on good hits and/or give extra attacks when you fell an opponent, etc. The Slayer gets a choice of basic attack modes plus an extra bonus damage enhancement on a hit one or more times per encounter.

Again, even these aren't that dissimilar, especially considering how often extra damage boosts happen. The Barbarian decides to add extra damage with a Daily for most of an encounter and the Slayer decides to add extra damage for multiple rounds using Encounter powers. Fluff-wise, it's easy to swap one with the other. Even raging doesn't have to be raging. The player could fluff it as precision striking in vulnerable areas. Both classes mostly do a lot of damage. Both classes are often charge monkeys.

To me, a significant mechanical difference is like a Swordmage who teleports across the board and gets in an extra attack to do extra damage. It's not the same foe. It changes the tactics of the encounter when the PC is physically moved across the board. Even an Avenger with two attack rolls vs. one is more dissimilar mechanically because he hits more often for less damage.

Barbarian vs. Slayer extra damage and extra abilities? Potatoes, potatoes. They are dissimilar enough to be called different classes, but similar enough that the Slayer can almost be considered a Barbarian replacement class. The Scale armor vs. Hide armor issue is one example. The Slayer doesn't have to dedicate an ability score to AC, so he has an edge in ability score design (and is hence, more desirable to some players).

 

[KarinsDad]

No. I realized we weren't speaking the same language.

I consider the Slayer useful for very new players, or those who don't want to consider mechanics. The barbarian's damage triggers are entirely different, they have resources to manage, builds to consider, tactics are different... I'd play a barbarian happily, and I wouldn't play a Slayer at all.

Ok. Now I understand where you are coming from. To me, the tactics are very similar between the two. Charge up and smack. Resource management is Encounter/Turn level for the Barbarian and Turn level for the Slayer, but again, it's merely a decision on whether the situation is challenging enough to warrant the extra damage now instead of later.

To me, both of these classes are designed for those who don't want to consider mechanics too much. The Barbarian is more complex because he has more powers, but not to the level where I consider him a complex PC to play. Tactically, he's not really a team player per se, just like the Slayer isn't. The tactics tend to be target the non-minion foe most likely to go down with a single shot, rinse and repeat. Try to stay out of ally offensive area effect powers. Many other classes, even other strikers, are a lot more tactically capable and team oriented.

 

[kelius]

5th edition suggestions

My best suggestion for a 5th edition D&D is to abandon the philosophy and style of 4th edition altogether and return to a style that is similar to 3.5.

Like most fans of the game, I rushed out and bought 4th edition when it came out, was horrified at how they changed it, but still tried running a campaign.

IT'S NOT D&D!

It's barely a RPG! It feels more like a tactical board game like battletech or warhammer miniatures.

I know Wizards thought they were clever, and were salivating about all the money they could make by selling accessories to their players (miniatures, maps, all the extra junk, etc. etc.). Well, congrats! You shot yourselves in the foot. Last I read, Pathfinder is more popular than 4E.

Wizards betrayed it's fans. Everyone I know now plays Pathfinder. It makes me sad to turn my back on a game that I have loved since I was 12, but that is the reality.

I am hoping Wizards will pull their head out from their own behind, and do it right with 5E!