Meh, I'm not seeing the part where wizards are under-powered. Sure, their starting DC is 8 + Intelligence modifier + proficiency but that's pretty decent. If, for example, the Wizard has an Intelligence 18 (+4) and uses a wand, his DC 13, which is rather difficult when most monsters at that level only have a Wisdom modifier of -1 to +2 and puts their chances for saving against the spell, at best, 45%. To me, that's pretty decent.
I think the "Warrior" sub-class of Fighter is pretty straight forward. There's little complexity for that class besides the choice of Weapon Style. The Weaponmaster (something I feel is mis-named) does offer a bit more of a choice in complexity in the terms of round-to-round combat.
Call me optimistic but I can only hope that with a new team and many years later they might have learned from their mistakes.
I read though most of the packet and while it's not 4E, I think it's an alright system. I like how they included things like Drow, Warforged, Dragonborn, and Tieflings. I like that they gave both the Paladin and Ranger specific spells (smite spells FTW!!). I like how the monster layouts are as well. I also like the flat proficiency bonus to things like skills, attacks, saving throws, etc. Very elegant.
I still don't like the TWF rules, forcing both weapons to be light and only increasing one of them to a one-handed weapon with a feat is bogus and certainly doesn't help in allowing someone to dual-attack with sword and shield. I'm also not a fan that the Fighter is severly lacking in both the Exploration and Interactive Pillars. They have really nothing to contribute outside of combat besides maybe intimidate. Sorta bland in those areas. Paladins also need to be able to apply their Smites to ranged attacks for those who go Elven Paladin (a common theme IMO).
I don't get where people think that just because they're not producing new content for D&D that the old content will, for some reason, go *poof* OR that I can't access my DDI tools like the Compendium, Monster Builder, or Character Builder. It says Dungeon and Dragon magazines, of which only compromise a portion of one's DDI account.
While I don't think you could technically consider what we've been doing a side-by-side, our expereinces from playing both 3E/PF, 4E, and playtesting Next might still paint you a decent picture.
FWIW I think Next is an okay system so far. It's still has a LONG way to go in terms of adjustments, monster math, and sub-class options to come close for my group to become interested in it for more than a session or two. There are things that D&D:Next promotes (such as Improv) that have such a gray area that it's hard to say how good the system really is. On it's face it doesn't allow for all that much when compared to 4E where a monk can do all sorts of cool stuff like attack a group of enemies and move out of the way. The game almosts insists that the DM take a lead role in allowing "coolness" to be had instead of the system. Some people enjoy that, others don't.
I saw my friend play a monk in our Minds of Madness game and he seemed to have fun punching and kicking skeletons (who have vulnerable to bludgeoning) but still, it was like kick-kick-punch....next. When I rolled up my Monk for Dark Sun 4E, I could do a LOT more than just those few basics on per-battle basis with At-Wills. I just don't know if D&D:NExt provides the tactical depth that we've been really enjoying with 4E.
Another example was the Paladin. At 1st level he's rather bland, boring, and almost completely indifferent from say....the Fighter. The Fighter get's second wind and the paladin can lay on hands 5 HP. Really, there's little mechanical difference until 3rd level when sub-classes start to show and even then....the differences aren't major.
Stefan Hill wrote:
I dunno, every edition had micro-management but it was always the spellcaster that had it and everyone else just did the same thing (albiet reflavored and described 1,000,000 different ways). One thing I hope for is different styles (the gladiator is coming along but too far behind the Warrior from the lastest packet to be a good choice) so that people who want complexity can have it and people who want simplicity can have that too. Same goes with spellcasters. I'd like a mage that was simple and easy (sub-clas Warlock) that just threw around a few magical bolts that augmented at certain levels and maybe some utility here and there. Not 30, 40, or 50 spells to pick from every level. If we're going to throw in complexity at the classs level then it needs to be inclusive.
Stefan Hill wrote:
I guess so but I've found myself adjudicating lots of things in v3.5 that the rules either didn't cover well or weren't very good for our group so we changed them. I'm not a fan of "Mother may I" because I really want a sense of continunity and you just don't get that with continual on-the-spot rulings most of the time unless your write down every single decision you made based on the situation at hand. For example, Player A wants to bull rush an Ogre. The first time it happens you made it an action and it was a Strength vs. Strength contest. The second time it happens (say, 2 months later) you make it a move + action and require a Strength vs. a static DC (Ogre's Modifier + 10). The third time it comes up (3 sessions later) you say "Um, I dont remember how we did it so lets go with you must move in a straight line, use your standard action and make an attack with your weapon. If you hit the creature takes damage and is pushed back 5ft." Well now what are the players going to think the next time it happens?
I know this is a simple and probably silly example but I have seen it when playing 2E and it was something I loathed. I'd like to know what typical things I can do and rely on a consistant basis for which the rules apply to make those decisions. Clear and concise rules don't necessarily need to be convoluted and lengthy require a minutia of rolling die and math, but there DOES need to be some base line understanding of typical actions that remain fairly consistant.
For martials without AEDU, I'd prefer a host of maneuvers that can be done over and over that have effects but the damage remains mostly in the weapon + ability modifier area. So a Knight might know 3 or 4 maneuvers he can use all the time but damage comes from his Sword + Strength. Sort of like how Essentials did with the Slayer and Knight classes, of which I'm a big fan of.
I think the catch is in it's simplicity. The numbers are lower. The options fewer. The "builds" not as dramatic. The magic not as broken. The mundanes remaining mundane. The EPIC being....well not EPIC as far as the bonuses/numbers go. If someone wants to run a D&D:Next game then the rules are easier to learn, the play is quick, and roll-resolution simple, and the classes easy to identify with.
But all of this, to me, doesn't make for long lasting campaigns. It makes for a quick game on a night that a few people don't show up for the "real" campaign. It's something I could see people playing at lunch time or casually but not something that spans months or years.
I see some elements of this game that I enjoy and this could replace my desire of running 3E/E6 (the few often times I run it) but as it stands it's not going to replace my 4E games any time soon. There just isn't enough awesome-ness that I've grown accustomed to with playing 4E to warrent a complete reversal within our group.
Actually, the less I have to calculate and take account for the better. A Blind and Drunk character who's attacking a foe who that is paralyized still has to choose the correct area to attack, so I'd just say the advantage of a paralyized character is nullified by being blind and drunk so long as (s)he attacks the right space.
And this also applies to Monsters too. I just don't enjoy that level of micro-management to factor in bonuses, penalties, the number of times advantage applies - the number of times disadvantage applies.
The half-elf looks fine, I like that you can exchange things on your sub-race depending on how you've been raised (no Elven Weapon training if your raised by humans).
The Shade......pretty ridiculous power-wise. You've given him a LOT to do with realatively little drawbacks outside of being in specific lightning conditions. Advantage on attacks is an extreamly potent ability, probably prone to abuse by players. Advantage on Stealth checks isn't too bad though but then the Charisma and Constitution contests AND saves....wow. Throw in higher level spells for free, espically Dimension Door AND the ability to walk to the Shadowfell and I'd need a good reason NOT to play one.
For suggestions on toning it down a bit:
• Drop the Adv. to Charisma and Constitution checks and saves ability.
• Drop Advantage to attacks while within less than bright light.
• Reword the spellcasting to say: "can use the following spells once per day: Darkness OR Dimension Door.
• Drop Plane Shift but add in Shadow Walk, however limit it to be useable once only after a short rest.
• allow them to add +1 to Dexterity and, based on if their transformatino was natural (+1 Charisma) or spell-infused (think Shades of Netheril) (+1 Intelligence).
As to your other question, I've added a few changes to the playtest so far. For starters, I gave starting 1st level characters more HP. They now start with Constitutin SCORE + rolled or fixed HD. A 1st level Fighter with a Con 15 can expect to start with 21 HP if he goes with fixed.
Second change I'm implementing is going to the Wound/Vitality system of v3.5 UA. To me, this better expresses the abstract nature that is HP plus it makes Critical hits FAR more dangerous and potent. I had to add in the Fatigued status effect, but that really wasn't hard and it works well with the system as it.
Third change was allowing the plethora of homebrew classes that people have come up with over on the Wiz-Bro boards such as a homebrew Warblade (which is pretty awesome), a Warmage (simple wizard that blasts stuff) and a re-worked Fighter. There was also a homebrew Warlord but it only goes to 5th level.
I'm with kmal2t in that D&D:Next needs to bring something to the table for me to even look at it in the stores. Being a pretty rehashed retro-clone is not going to pull in everyone under the tent as was their initial design statment.
I also "switched" to Pathfinder because it's free. Were I required to buy any of their books besides the Adventure Paths, no I'd be sticking with v3.5 but because of the OGL I can have my cake and eat it too.
I too think the Advantage/Disadvantage system is pretty easy and elegant in it's simplicity. After 3.X/PF and 4E, tracking a minutia of small bonuses and penalties plus a dozen or more conditions and other effects that happen 1-turn, it's simple to just say "roll with Advantage" and volia.
Hm, lets see:
• Combat is quick, but also dangerous. 4 Kobolds can be a challenge even for a 4 person party.
• The math doesn't run away with itself. You can expect to stay within the 'teens (numbers wise) when you hit high levels.
• The game really does emphasize teamwork and strategy, but not necessarily on what's written down on your character sheet. Althought I've never had a problem thinking outside the box or looking at the terrain or other ways to do interesteing stuff, it seems to be a staple-point in 4E-dislike that everyone looks to their sheets first to do stuff instead of critical thinking. Since there isn't much on your character sheet and things are done primarily with Ability Challenges, it sort of forces you to think about how you can manipulate the area around you.
• Ease of DM'ing is still sort of there since the monsters are broken down into XP pools and it gives advice on what's an easy, moderate, and difficult encounter. Also, there's not a whole lot of tracking that has to be doen (ie. Marking, End-of-next-turn effects, ongoing damage, poison tracks, minor bonuses/penalties, tons of conditions, etc).
• Portability. This game is pretty easy to convert or 'port over elements from v3.5 (and some 4E) like the Wound/Vitality healing system, Second Wind, and even whole classes. Currently, I'm in the middle of crafting the Tome of Battle classes to D&D:next to give it a more 4E-Feel. Also, when homebrewing it's far easier to spot brokeness in design (meaning it's WAY overpowered or not powerful enough) than we've seen in other editions.
• It's iconic enough to be still recognizable as "D&D", which is another complaint I've heard (yet still don't fully understand?) of 4E. Your back to Vancian-only wizards, healing via Spellcasting only, Attack progressions/Spell DC progressions, and thingsl like Martial Feats :rolleyes: .
• It's free to play and download
Other than that, I think the biggest problem facing D&D:Next is that they're not clear who their target audience is. It shouts and screams "MODULAR" but we still haven't seen it yet. They shout that if you like D&D in any incarnation then you'll like D&D:Next. THey say that they're making up rules for people who enjoy tactical combat akin to 4E (like facing rules.....hahahahahah seriously) but it also emphasizes Theater of the Mind style by reverting it back to feet and units of real time (yay for 5MWD problems).
I can't say that I'll buy this, but I'm at least giving them my 2-cents where I think they need to take the editions in terms of mechanics and gameplay.
Meh, not really. Reskinning was a way to take something interesting (mechanics wise) and apply it to a different flavor while maintaining the mechanics. With about zero difference between the weapons, reskinning is pointless. Sure, it's easier but the ease of reskinning was already present.
As for the changes, I'm looking to see how they fix the Monk and Rogue. The way amount of stuff the Monk lost completely makes the class moot and one could just as easily reflavor a Rogue or even Barbarian to do the same things with Feats. The rogue schemes need to be better and they need to rethink the whole Sneak Attack thing.
Stefan Hill wrote:
Their Pod Casts do shed some light on their reasonsings but I've found many of those reasonings....unfounded to say the least. And I'm pretty sure TotM style play is being promoted more than using a grid and miniatures due to pretty much all the wording and removal of fiddly-bits (Flanking being one of them). I dunno, I can't seem to enjoy D&D without miniatures but that's me.
Yea, it's pretty much a restriction without any teeth. A person could just grab the Paladin, take the Cavalier theme, then put CN on his Alignment spot. It might be wierd since he's given Protection from Evil spell, but that could be swapped out for something else entirely. I'm going to assume that we'll probably get different varients as more options present themselves.
I hear alignment based Paladins are back...../ducks for cover
Ya know, even though I hate alignment restrictions this one really hasn't bothered me too much. I think it's the part where there's nothing in there about "Do such and such and your god revokes your character". Like others have stated on WotC boards, Roleplay decisions require Roleplay consequences.
Also, it's extreamly easy to remove alignment from this class (and the agme) and it works perfectly fine.
Well I read it.
• Ranger Favored Enemy is pretty cool. It's useful for a lot of situations and not just against 1 specific enemy. Rangers get spells from 1st level. And Rangers aren't tied into a specific fighting style (ie. Bow or TwF, sorry Drizzt fans).
• Paladin smite isn't Alignment (or even creature) specific. They get spells from 1st level and it's based off of Charisma.
• Nothing really changed for the Barbarian (my favorite class so far during the playtest).
• Two-Weapon Fighting is written better and far less clunky. It doesn't take a feat to use, there are no -2 penalty to attacks and yet it remains balanced.
• Races got a pick-me up and Humans got toned down a bit. For example a Dwarf automatically gets +1 to Con and, depending on sub-race, a +1 to either Wisdom or Strength. Humans get +1 to all stats.
• Wizards can now, 1/day, relearn a spell they cast earlier in that day.
Well, where to start?
• The Fighter -
- Marital Damage Die AND Damage bonus are gone. Replaced with a 2/encounter feature that allows you to do something "extra". Many of the maneuvers have been subsumed into this OR as Martial Feats.
- Fighters are now going back to 3E-style thinking with bonus feats, as if that was a good idea in the first place?!
- Weapon selection still has about ZERO impact on your character. Weapon have no narrative element and are just a means to an end for specific die.
- Warlord-ish powers are being subsumed into the Figher, furthering the designers attempt to sweep 4E under the rug as if it never happened. And they're not even really that good as it takes your Reaction to do anything with them.
• The Rogue -
- ALL rogues get sneak attack again, no other option there for people who want something else.
- Cut down the additional skills they get by 2.
- There is very little of customization outside your Rogue scheme.
- Their attack progression is lower, great for a possible melee-oriented class :rolleyes:
• The Paladin -
- Alignment requirements are back (sheesh) and you MUST be Lawful. Other choices change either your Good, Neutral, or Evil axis.
- ALL of their utility and combat features are based off of their Channel Divinty feature, which they can only do 1/day at 1st level. This extends to a total of 4/day total at 15th level. So your Lay on Hands, your Smite, your Turn Undead, is all pooled into 1 thing of which you get an extreamly limited resource on.
- Smite, while no longer alignment specific AND dealing a pretty decent damage output (3d10 with a successful attack) it a 1-shot pony. It doesn't have any staying power like Pathfinders and it's pretty much *Bam* it's over, moving on. I really hate that.
- WHile spellcasting is good at 1st level, they just took the generic spells from the cleric. There's nothing "Paladin-ish" about their spells. It feels tacked on as an after thought rather than a strong emphasis on design.
- Their summon mount has no other option AND it takes a ridiculous time to summon, like 12 hours (from dawn to dusk or dusk til dawn). You get it for a period of 24-hours (I'm assuming?) and then have to call it again. Pretty stupid IMO.
• The Monk -
- Because Martial Damage Die and maneuvers have fallen to the wayside, the Monk loses out pretty harsh in this area. They still have their simplistic yet limited and drab Ki powers but that's about it. They get some bonus feats (because, hey, who doesn't want stuff?)
- No more Flurry of Blows. You pretty much use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules if that's the style you want.
• The Ranger -
- Spellcasting is just limited version of Druid spells. Like the paladin, it feels tacked on as if the designers didn't actually want to create interesting and unique Ranger spells. As if they didn't have the material for it (*cough* SPELL COMPENDIUM *cough*).
• Specialties and Feats -
- You still only ever get feats at 1st, 3rd, 6th, and 9th level.
- Feats are now how they use combat stuff like Bull Rush and Trip. This puts players who want to employ such tactics in a difficult position. It makes it feel like if you didn't have X-feat then you cannot perform it.
• Skills -
- Skills are now tied back into specific Ability scores again. Don't know why beause I think Intimidating someon COULD be a use for Strength instead of Charisma, but that's me.
Well that's all I really got out of this packet. There have been some minor changes like the Monster XP changing up a bit, them getting a bit better AC and attacks. Plus things like Shields now grant +2 bonus to AC instead of 1. I'm just not as impressed as I expected to be when I downloaded it today. I was expecting some new stuff or at least some progress in that they're learning how to adapt classes to be more dynamic. But they're not. They're reverting to older playstyles that, IMO, haven't worked. Even Pathfinder made significant improvements that made me say "Yea, that works much better (*cough* Smite *cough*).
What it says above. There is a new playtest packet due out Wednesday 3-20. It includes the Paladin and a number of changes. Should be interesting. That's the public information. You pretty much need to go and see what's going on with it.
I'm holding out optimism, but it's fading fast. The Druid sound very "meh" to me right now. I liked being able to wildshape into monsters at will in 4E, so going back to 1/day stuff is just more resource management that I really hate dealing with.
The Paladin, probably my favorite class, isn't sounding too good right now. Count me in the "No alignment mechanics" Camp but it sounds like that's exactly what we're getting. It almost seems as if they took the v3.5 Paladin, convereted the Math to D&D:Next and and using that. This, to me, would be a mistake since the 3E paladin had a lot of (to be frank) Garbage mechanics that were too clunky and not powerful enough. Pathfinder's Paladin made him better (Spellcasting based of Charisma, Smite lasting much longer, lay on hands being far more useful, etc.)
So we'll see. I hope the do a good job but my interest is slowly falling to the wayside.
Diffan what level is your warlord? That seems like an awful lot of options! I can see a 3E character coming close to what you describe but they would have to be high level.
Garen-kai is 8th level. Keep in mind that most of my gimmicks are only 1/encounter. As such, it's not more (or less) options than most standard 4E characters at that level.
From my Warlord class:
From my Race:
From my Multiclass Wizard Feat:
From my Theme: Wizard's Apprentice:
So, as you can see other choices outside my class give me more options but most of them are 1-trick ponies that can only be used once a battle. Things like Beguiling Strands and Color Orb are more for flavor that really offensive firepower. I like dazing big hulking targets and Beguiling Strands can be fun when used to push enemies into brazers of fire or into area effects or off cliffs.
I'm currently playing an Air Genasi Warlord in our Realms campaign and I have to say, it's a lot of fun.
One of the most important things I can do is make sure that people are in the best position to utilize their potential. Our Shadar-Kai Berserker needs to be around as many enemies as possible because she's a great warrior and can hold off the more battle worthy enemies. So in this regard, if I can give her a boost to her Initiative OR (when the opportunity presents itself) swap my Initiative score for hers, it's always better.
I have the advantage of mobility (becaus I can fly, albiet limitedly) and I'm not bad in a 1-on-1 fighter myself. I have a maneuver that, if successfully hit, forces my target to say put and if he tries to move (perhaps to a more defensless ally) I can create an opening for an adjacent ally to make a free attack on him.
And of course there is Commander's Strike, which allows me to sacrifice my attack and allow our much strong and greatly feared Berserker make an additional attack this turn against a close foe. This attack even gets some additional damage on it. Were I to have a Rogue or Ranger in the group, I'd be instructing them as well to make attack because they can dish out the pain much better.
Then there's the healing aspect. I ran into some trouble with running out of healing early in our adventures so I took more healing inspiration where I sought it was needed. And because I'm a tactical mastermind I also studied some Wizardry from Waterdeep. This lend me some magical aid in times when a single target proved to be a more difficult foe (Color Orb) or if the mob of monsters seemed too great I thrust them all back with a psychic attack (Beguiling Strands) which I just reflavor as a sort of Wind attack due to my heritage.
Basically I can help position my allies to attack better, give them buffs when they do attack, give them static bonuses to things like Initiative and provide a buff to damage rolls when they spend an Action Point. And when allies start to fall, lose their senses I can pull them back with a word of inspiration (or a string of threats :-D ) .
If you want actual play-by-play, I'm not sure I can provide that but I will say that when Combat starts I assist the situation and help direct allies where they can be their best. The rogue and Fighter will flank and I'll have a maneuver that shoves or pushes a target into flanking position. I can
But you didn't elaborate further....
ROP: -4 to hit, distance adds another penalty, and due to his size and slow movement, he probably only has a Dexterity score of 14 or a modifier of +2. With a roll of (looks at the DMs die-roll) 9 it's actually IMPOSSIBLE to hit my AC of 22 unless youer either A) cheating and making it up as you go by throwing out the actual RAW OR B) the CR of the monster is 5 levels higher than what we can actually handle. How's that fair again?
The thing is, if people play that way then they're 99% of the time going to act like that regardless of the mechanics presented to them. Further, ALL of these situations requires the players to know exactly the stats for the foes you throw at them. Something that I highly doubt is common knowledge by all players.
And I really really hope people don't think that situations occur on a regular basis in 4E as Gorbacz describes. If I had a player act like that at my table while DM'ing 4E, I'd squarely punch them in the face. Then kindly ask them to leave.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
True I myself really didn't get involved with other RPG lables outside of D&D namely because they didn't interest me all that much. But we'll never know and hindsight is always 20/20. I know I'll always enjoy 4E and use the mechanics to make my and my groups RPG experience more enjoyable.
Well, a similar topic was brought up some place else and I figured I might as well repost here what I said there,
"To be honest, in my opinion 4E "failed" (if only by the merit that it didn't last longer than the previous edition) because:
The system was just too great to be called Dungeons and Dragons. Based on my readings of people who've hated on 4E since '08 I can only summarize that when people imagine D&D, a LOT of iconic elements come into play that older players expect. It's not just the class, level, and 6 stats that are paramount, but the ton of expectations that have been formed since D&D's earliest existance. Some of these expectations are:
• low-level = gritty and always near death.
This list scratches the surface on what a LOT of people (many old-school players I talk to, anyways) find appealing about playing D&D (well, pre-3E). Yet most of them, if not all, have been scrapped or molded or broken with 4E's mechanics. It gave players non-standard options that broke Tolkien-esque molds. It gave them fantastic character abilities. It gave them a chance to survive past the first 2 rounds of combat and actually contribute to the encounter. It gave them a window to create new and interesting roleplaying elements without any problems regarding balance. It allowed them to excell in more than just one pillar of the game. It broke alignment molds that have held certain classes hostage to one narrow roleplaying aspect.
To me, these are all great changes that give me, a player of over 15 years, a fresh breath of relief. Yet others believe that the listed things above are what make D&D...well D&D. They're features of the game people like, for reasons I cannot comprehend, and their removal angerd a lot of the fan-base. Espically because it [4E] was called Dungeons and Dragons. I really beleive that had your called 4th Edition Dungons and Dragons another name, say Mythic Heroes and Monsters or Ultimate Fantasy RPG then it would've been received far better by the majority of gamers out there."
Um, why do you believe this? While as a fan of RPGs I like getting and using free stuff.........from a company standpoint I can't see WotC going this direction again. I think the adage "Fool me once shame on me, fool me twice shame on you." could be applied. What works for Paizo isn't guaranteed to work for WotC. For example, I play Pathfinder every once in a while but I've never bought the books. I don't plan on buying the books either because they're all free to look at via the SRD. And the same thing goes for WotC as I'd rather just have a program to use (ie. Compendium, CB, Monster creator) than buy $250.00 worth of books. The difference is WotC still gets some money as my DDI subscription costs about $70 a year where as Paizo receives $0.
How good and popular D&D:Next will be depend greatly on their system design, production value, production usage, and scope of game. So far I feel System Design has been.......wishy-washy right now. They take a few good steps forward (wizard traditions, HD as healing, Expertise Die for the Fighter) then huge leaps backwards (emphasis on Vancian casting and limited spells, Alignment requirements, class-based attack progression, the Rogue). Production value remains to be seen, as it hasn't come out but I think the end of 4E's products were fairly well received for their value about book/page/writing/ink quality. The scope of the game has been.......well, not good. I for one don't like ANY of the advanced system elements they've discussed so far.
Ya know, I don't think I ever responded to the original post:
David Witanowski wrote:
It's been (literally) years since I checked on this thread- is there a 4th edition moratorium thread in existence? Is it safe to say that 4th edition did not capture the "younger audience" or "new players" or whatever you care to call them? Seriously, I've been out of the loop for awhile, is 4th edition D&D even still something that people play?
I think that it's safe to say that perhaps the "younger audience" might not have been enough to maintain a longer edition than WotC initially thought. I've played D&D for the last 15 or so years, spanning 3 and 1/2 editions and 1 spin-off and I can say that I enjoy 4E the most out of all of them. My group seemed to enjoy 4E a great deal as well (except my wife, though I think that's more of a 'hate learning new editions' than specific issues with 4E) and while we switch it up every now and then, we generally go back to 4E. I should also note that the few local areas that I know of also play 4E as well, but whether this is because it's "current" or because people prefer it over other editions I'm not sure.
What gets me frustrated the most is that we all know D&D:Next is a LONG way off (I'm thinking spring '14) and yet we see relatively little as far as publishing goes for 4E material. I remember the switch from 3E to 4E and that was when we got a LOT of really interesting products which were fun (if perhaps a bit "broken"). I'd like to see a lot of support for 4E in these twilight days, perhaps a sourcebook on Returned Abeir (since it'll be leaving us apparently :rollseyes: ) and some additional support for the lesser liked classes such as the Runepriest, Seeker, Original Assassin, Vampire to try and shore up some things that aren't designed well and need perhaps a facelift. They have to produce stuff to get people to buy it, not just DDI articles.
Good point, I don't buy the Pathfinder books either. Never have and I probably never will since it's all on the PFd20SRD site. But from what I've heard (can't tell you 1st hand) is that some of the information and what-not isn't all accessable on their SRD page. So if I buy it, I get ALL the content rather than what's chosen or picked from out of sourcebooks. Again, I don't know how vaild this is as I'm going off hear say.
I do admit that when I play Pathfinder, on those odd occasions, I do reference their online materials as well as my v3.5 collection to make astounding characters. I just find that I use 3E books more often and those sources aren't on the SRD. As for this comparions to D&D Insider, having a search engine like the Compendium is something I find just easier to use as well as the Monster designer programm. That is something I'd like to see Pathfinder come out with, something that I can tweak the monsters with and add cool elements to without having to do all the heavy math.
Brian E. Harris wrote:
Fair enougth, but a lot of people equate more sales = better product or stronger market, which isn't necessarily the case. And that's the point I'm making.
Brian E. Harris wrote:
No, not really.
The analogy is more like saying that because Ford dealerships sell more cars than Chevy = Ford is more popular or sells more without taking into account that Chevy are selling their cars from one giant store by online purchases.
I know I bought a LOT of 4E stuff, but I also didn't buy a lot of stuff either because I was able to gain access to it via DDI. Why would I want to buy a MM3 when I can just go to the Monster Vault, copy/paste the monster to MSWord and print out the monsters I need that session? Or why would I need to buy the PHB 3 when I have an Applicaton on my phone that links straight to DDI Compendium AND a character builder? Essentially I could make 1,000 characters from my work without even touching a physical book.
Backgrounds now allow for 4 Skills (if your building your own) and Specialties will be more......heh "special".
They also announced that the Cleric is getting back Turn Undead as a class feature :facepalm: and losing Channel Divinity :double-facepalm:. I don't know what they think they're doing with this because Channel Divinity was the ONLY way to grant healing outside of a limited resource mechanic (ie. spells).
So the cleric is fully back to default-healbot where he BETTER not use his spells for anything else least it be extreamly bad for the rest of the party.
Also, Magic-User is going to be a catch all for Arcane classes in which they'll be more modular. Hopefully this ties into how the spellcasting system works. Like for making Spellpoint Wizards and Vancian Warlocks. They did mention that Spellcasting will be System based instead of Class-based. That's good at least, I didn't like being shoehored into a very narrow playstyle JUST because I'm playing a specific class. The opportunity to use a myrid of spellcasting system is really a great start for the whole modularity thing.
@ Thraxus: Wands recharge 1d6+1, so the minimum you can have is two. And thats if you don't count the one you saved the from the rest before. If that were the case, you could have the 1 you started with then roll 1d6+1 for a minimum of 3 per day.
The problem I have with unlimited wand/staffs (because leaving 1 charge left keeps the item going forever) is that the more you collect, the less you rely on your classes limited magic. This was one of the major issues I had with wands of Cure Light wounds in 3X. That, as a cleric (or someone who took 1 level of cleric or paladin), I could almost NEVER worry about healing magic outside of combat becaus I had 50 charges of CLW at my disposal. And they were SO cheap that I could have two or three of them at probably never run out in any given campaign.
But now, I don't need multiple wands (although I can, and there apparently is no problem with that) as I can use up X-charges/day and as long as I leave one left, I'm automatically granted 1+1d6+1 at the beginning of each day. And if I spend that last charge, I have a 5% chance of the item failing......which to me doens't signify all that much of a balance element or create any sort of questioning of using this wand to it's max potential.
I didn't say anything about 1st or 2nd edition. I mentioned the Forgotten Realms and Eberron settings, both of which have thriving magical item economies. For example the Cormyrian Goblinthrasher (+1 goblinoid bane longswords), War Wizards were commissioned to create many of these weapons for distribution among Purple Dragon knights and general sale, in order to create revenue for the country and improve morale. Scimitar of the Fool, (+1 scimitar) carried with it a -3 penalty to Will saves, favored by tyrants to give to their guard so they can be easily controlled. The way D&D:next has it, I'll be lucky to find a magical sword and probably required to carry it with me for all time because I can't find a "buyer". That isn't a sound philosophy for creating any sort of magical economy.
Regardless, the play test rules clearly state that they removed the assumption of gear from the power level equation. As it currently stands, magic items are not needed. This sounds like they intend to scale back the commonality of magic items to 1e/2e levels. This would mean more potions, scrolls, and one use items as magical treasure. The downside to this is that they need to give more options for what to spend non-magical treasure on.
I'm fine with the idea that magical items aren't included with Bounded Accuracy, but when you then throw them into the game it creates a huge 'un-balance' that it single handedly defeats the purpose of Bounded Accuracy. So a DM has to carefully weight each and every magical item to see how much this will break the game, because some most definitly will. The alternative is "don't use magical items", which makes for a really really lame Fantasy RPG. Instead, why not make the magical items a bit more balanced so that I don't have to worry overmuch about how broken they'll make my game?
And I agree that we're going to need more Common and Uncommon magical items to throw into our games (lets hope they're not broken though, eh?) plus some ways or things to do with our GP outside of Magical Gear. Paying taxes, tithes, and giving to charities are not ideal uses for hard-earned GP and make it too much like what I already do in Real Life.
Probably because most 4E fans enjoy balance and these magical items throw balance out the window. With the whole intent of Bounded Accuracy, magical items "making PCs just plain better" probably isn't the best thing. Personally, I wish they would just throw out the "+" altogether, but it's too much of a D&D trope to toss aside.
limit abuse how? Lets see, keep 1 charge in the item and I can use it for infinity. Spend that last charge and suffer the 5% chance of the magic device dying. Yea, how about make it 50% and we'll call that an attempt for a limit of abuse. But even if that was the case, I don't think a PC would ever use that one charge left....like ever.
The thing that makes me mad the most is the assumed part about not being able to sell/buy magical items. And when/if you do or have a buyer, your NOT getting full price. Well gee, there goes practically any reason to adventure in the Forgotten Realms or Eberron where magical items is practically in every town in some form or another. :rollseyes:.
As for the monsters, most of the changes are OK so far. I like the Zombie resistance, gives them a more cinematic feel, though I don't remember if they increased their XP a tad to adjust for their ability to raise again and again.
I havent downloaded any of the material but I did read quite a bit of the posts already made. I realize that the new D&D can be played in any world (homemade or boughten, such as Greyhawk, Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms. Id like to know what world others feel has the best feel for the new D&D rules and which worlds just wouldn't have the same feel by using the new rules. Id really appreciate opinions on this issue.
I think I'm biased because I don't associate any rules system with separate campaign settings. 4E works wonders for just about any sort of D&D campaign setting there is. It does get more tricky with the less magic you have, but because of the inheriant bonuses described in the DMG 2, that's not really a problem either.
I know the Forgotten Realms will be supported. I HOPE they support Greyhawk as well as Eberron too. I'd really like to see strong support for Ravenloft and even more Nenthir Vale (with different Gods. Stop pilfering GW!). But as it stands, the Rules are so shifty and incomplete at this time it's hard to get a good reading.
The true test for me is how they design and implement the Paladin. That has been, by far, my favorite class since late 2nd Edition and it's only gotten better as the editions have changed. If we go BACK to having the paladin be SUB-PAR and requiring 14's and 15's in 4 different stats to make it playable.....I'm done.
That's not entirely accurate. There is only one massive list of spells, all detailed "Wizard Spell". The Sorcerer classes draws from that specific list, illustrating that they cannot gain access to specific spells. Wizards, OTOH, have no restriction.
Also, there are going to be multiple bloodlines that will, I'm betting, allow other styles other than Gish. Probably one that is more area effects and "caster" than spell/sword attacker and another that might be more defensive in nature.
The thing is, it isn't 'half an hour'. In 1e, it could be six or seven hours, easily. Add that on to the time you had to rest, which went up as your spell levels increased, and it put some real limits on what Magic-Users could do day-to-day.
Right, which I feel is stupid to have to keep track of that stuff. It's minimalistic micro-management in the game (from trail rations, hustle/over-land travel rules, and encumbrance) that is attempting to do something it's better left off not trying (ie. simulationism). They should employ the K.I.S.S method of this stuff for the most part in the PHB/DMG and then, if they really want to add this stuff in, could do so at a later date. I don't think I've ever used the Encumbrance rules outside of "This statue, worth 500 gp, is 350 lbs. Your not carrying it on your back."
As for limits, this shouldn't be where it's implemented on magic-users. Again, this is where I just disagree with the whole intent of the designed system. Placing arbitrary limits on magic-users that still penalize the whole party is just as bad as them using up their spells and then wanting to rest, thus furthering the 15-min. workday element of daily resource management.
So 5E certainly looks interesting so far. The playtest packets so far show a suitably rules light system for the Grognards, I'm not sure how the 4E fans feel about it though. It has the foundation of 3E but it's not 3E, so I don't think it will appeal to that crowd either. I hope the Grogs turn out for WoTC and 5E because the designers are really catering to them about as much as they can. I think they will be disappointed though the Grognards are small in number, large in words, and light on spending money. The 3E crowd is the one that puts its money where its mouth is and Paizo locked them up.
I certainly can't speak for all the 4E fans, but for me and my group, we probably won't be playing much of D&D:Next. There are a lot of fundamental aspects build into the system that just aren't to our liking. This is, in no way, saying they're bad rules. They just don't cater to the style we normally enjoy. Though I do think a lot of 4E influence (from the fans) has made a significant impact on the system so far. Just looking at the Playtest #1 packet's Fighter to the Playtest #2 packets Fighter shows a huge change in style and options (whether or not those options would've been put in at a later date is unknown).
As for catering to fans of 2E and before, yes I definitly get that vibe from the way the rules are written to how the mechanics play out. Bringing back Save-or-Suck/Die spells, rules "lite" on many areas, huge DM-fiat encouragement, penalties on "cool" (looking at you TWF/Dual Wielder speciality), and super low HP at first level (wizard back to 4-5 HP) are just things that I really really really don't like.
There is actually a lot of stuff in D&D:Next that has very strong ties to 4E, espically now after the second packet and the Combat Superiority rules for Fighters. Additionally, using HD as a healing method is just like Healing Surges of 4E, except it's not used as your main daily resources for resting (spells do that again :facepalm:). But, sadly, these aren't elements that I feel best represent the style and flavor of 4E, which was a unified system but diversity within roles and classes.
I'd probably never use the actual memorization peroid. It's far easier for me to just say "Ok guy, take a half-hour to regain your spells." and be done with it. I really don't see why that sort of micro-management is needed for mechanical application. Also, I can imagine the "in-character" griping that'll follow when the cleric and wizard never bother to help clean up camp and leave those duties to the rogue and fighter (or other non-spellcasting characters).
Fighter: (yawn) "We weren't attacked last night, thank the Gods! I needed that full nights sleep. Who's cookin' breakfast?"
Rogue: (looking annoyed) "Who do ya think?! Us, your moron. That overbearing cleric and esteemed high wizard are too busy prepping for the day to actually do any real work around here. Salty biscuts and some hard tack for breakfast again."
That, to me, just doesn't make sense. It's not like your attacking, resolving, letting the guy know your there, turning him around, saying Hi, and then attacking him with the second blade/weapon/etc. It all happes within a few seconds which should allow you to add your SA damage to one of the two attacks (but not both, that'd actually be very OP).
It's not that their armor is tied into their domain that I have a real issue with. It's the fact that they receive "none" in the Armor proficiency line, meaning that probably (speculation) at some point they're going to have a domain(s) that don't provide any armor at all, which I think is bad.
If they don't say "None" and instead just put "See Domain description" then I'll more likely be fine with it as it sorta cements that domains provide some sort of armor proficiency.
They're very much like Themes from 4E which I found to be quite fun. Glad to see they made the transisition somehow into the new Edition.
I'm just going to cut-&-paste from what I said in another place...
Downloaded and reviewed bits and pieces of the new Playtest. Mostly the races and classes with a bit of the How-To rules. Some thoughts:
• Races: I enjoyed that they dismissed the idea of adding back in racial penalties. Races now get a +1 bonus to one stat based on sub-race (*sigh*). And I'm enamored of bring back in sub-races either, which is kinda lame to tie them into mechanical differences.
• Classes: To be fair, I only gave it a quick look through but there are some significant improvements from the 1st playtest packet. One thing that sticks out that I am NOT a fan of is the semi-style BAB/THAC0 system they've got going. It's not as elegant as 4E's +1/2 level to attacks (which is preferrable over a hodge-podge of bonuses across the classes) but it's not as moronic as the scaling of BAB/THAC0. Still, the Rogue could use a bump a little bit more after 3rd level or so. As it stands, the Fighter gets +3/+3/+3/+4/+4 to weapon attacks (I believe) while the Rogue gets strait +2's for the first 5 levels. I think a +2/+2/+2/+3/+3 would be a better fit IMO.
- Fighter: Combat Superiority is a decent mechanic that I enjoy recharges every turn. They also get interesting combat specialization which I'll get into later when I have the packet in front of me. They added in maneuvers and I'm pretty pleased with them. They won't ever hold up to 4e's powers, but I'm willing to compromise.
- Rogue: Sneak attack isn't as limited IMO with this version and seeing it scale the way it does puts a smile on my face. I haven't read through all the Rogue stuff yet but they get some interesting class features that allow automatic Advantage every so often.
- Cleric: I don't mind that Turn Undead is a spell nor do I mind that, while it's always prepared, it takes up a spell slot to use becuase it's very situational and you can do it more times per day. What I don't like is that they get NO armor proficiencies except what's based on their Domain. They should have.....something, anything, there besides none. OR at least in that part of the description, put "See Domains" and no "None" because this, to me, implies that there might be some clerics that actually receive none and that's a horrid idea. Additionally, the Domains are so screwy with their benefits that I couldn't see anyone play a "Sun" cleric with their domain support. Sun clerics get prof. with light/medium armor and they have an ability to glow with light for 20 ft. In that radius, they can deal X-damage to creatures within that radius. I read that as to mean "ANY CREATURE" in that radius, including the cleric and his allies. That's stupid. If they put in there "Enemies" then it'll be a bit better. The War domain cleric is by far more versatile and plain better mechanically as they get proficiency with all martial weapons, all armor and shields and when they use their Channel Divinity power, they can attack in the same round as well.
- Wizard: I didn't read up as much on this as I would've like but for the most part, it seems unchanged from the Playtest. They get spells and cantrips and spellbooks. They get NO benefits after 1st level except additional spells and they have the same spell attack progression as a Fighter. Very bland IMO.
• Rules: I haven't gone into much of the rules, but there are a few things of note in the overall design of the game that are concerns for me.
- HP: Hit points in the 1st playtest were based on a HD + Con score, with a minimal mark-up as you level. Now, it's back to the abysmal HD + Con modifier, which means your lucky to have a Wizard over 4 hp at 1st level . Additionally, with all the talk about the Bounded Accuracy article, it appears that monsters (and supposedly players) are supposed to deal more damage as they level instead of bonus to hit/AC increase a lot. So with minimal HP, this means 1-shot kills could be very very frequent. I don't like this from a DM point of view.
- Two Weapon Fighting: As it stands, it's plain old bad. The feat stats that you can attack with two (finessable) weapons in 1 turn. All damage deal is halved. So, to me, your requiring a finite resource (feats) for the ability to attack with crappy damage that someone who doesn't spend a feat on can do the same thing with a two-handed weapon. Basically your putting penalties on flavor and that's just bad game design. And it's not like the Rogue can add his full Sneak Attack die (1/round) as icing on the cake as that's halved two as is the same with Fighter's Combat Superority die.
My solution, require that one weapon be finessable (meaing "light") and don't add the ability score onto the attack. So you can take the feat Two-Weapon Fighting and make two attacks with one action, dealing 1d8 (longsword) plus 1d6 (shortsword) and possibly some additional damage die via Sneak Attack and Combat Superiority. The damage will probably be a bit higher than someone with a two-handed sword but that's the point of Feats, gaining something for a resource.
- Opportuinity Attacks/Disengagement: The first part is pretty solid, allowing a creature a Reaction attack against anyone who moves into or through a threatened square. But the Disengagement rules are silly, allowing you to spend your action to not provoke an OA (opportuinity attack). What this does is allow the infamous Shift + Move of 4e. Basically you spend your action moving away from the Fighter and then move into the wizard's (or someone a Fighter might be trying to protect) threatened area, thus negating any reason for having OA's. Instead, removing the disengaging rules would pretty much solve the problem all together. OR, require the Disengagment rules to effectively reduce your speed to 10' and the monster still gets his action (which could be used to make a ranged attack for example).
I like owning actual books too but I can't fiscally support two separate gaming companies, thus I get what I can for free from Paizo and spend money on 4E products (even 3PP stuff). But the moment Paizo puts out a book that's in close proximity to WotC's Tome of Battle: Book of 9 Swords, I'll buy that in a heartbeat no questions asked. I did hear they may be coming out with one in the future, so I can hope for the best.
I too enjoyed the article, espically the Fortune's Wheel part, very nice. While I'm not a huge fan of Sigil or the whole Planescape: Tormet elements the article gave me several ideas to fit it into a campaign (mid-paragon in level) I've been running. So thanks for some awesome inspiration with this.
I have no illusions that Pathfinder rules are better written, more developed, and probably playtested far more for "brokeness" than that of any lay-person. But the thing is, Pathfinder doesn't remove much of the "brokenness" or disparity or crazy combos unlesss you strictly play Pathfinder with no v3.5 creeping it's way in (and even then, it's still there). Yet wasn't that the whole beauty of their compatability? That I could convert or use almost "as-is" from 3E/v3.5 to Pathfinder? And isn't most (well, at least over 60%) of their product for free on their SRD? In addition to people's own 3PP stuff?
The way I look at it is that Paizo provides a pretty decent product that keeps alive most of my older edition material. It's SRD allows me to pretty much play the game I'm already familiar with for free with free content and free 3PP content. So funds that might have gone to them for their main RPG book or the Beastaries or supplemental stuff is then used for 4E, which is great because I can have my cake and eat it too.
Pffft, that's not a reason to blush because I'm sure hundreds of people don't pay for it. I never did nor do I intend to. I get along just fine with the Pathfinder SRD and my 40+ v3.5 books. They do hook us with the adventure paths, which are pretty amazing, but I can't think of a reason to buy "official" homebrew-v3.5
Diffan, did you ever actually use the hybrid rules? Because I did, and they more than slightly sucked, in most of our experiences. Any semblance of balance was thrown right out the window (unless you really, really knew what you were doing, or the rules were bent into submission) - it was substantially worse than 3.X multi classing.
Oh yea, I really loved the Hybrid rules. Allowed me to build all sorts of interesting characters and fun shenannigans. To name a few...
• Elf Ranger|Seeker with emphasis on bow attacks. Because the elf gets both +2 to Dex/Wis, it worked out quite nicely. I could control the battlefield with mystical primal effects or straight out strike at enemies far away. Was really shifty too.
• Human Paladin|Warlock that was from Damara and a Warlock Knight of Vaasa (Forgotten Realms). Used platemail and a flail to knock people prone at-will, attacked with ranged blasts and smited foes in the name of Bane. Had a catch 22 which allowed me to damage a foe if he attacked me OR didn't attack me.
• Human Paladin|Warlord that emphasiszed team leadership and healing.
• Tiefling Assassin|Rogue that was all about teleporting in, killing a foe, then teleporting out. Sorta on the "Meh" side DPR-wise, but plays pretty much like Azazel from the X-Men movie. And lots of fun too.
• Eladrin Wizard|Swordmage that supposed to defend people while controlling enemies on the battfield. Never got to play him though.
With the emphasis on ability scores leading class attacks, I can see why a Rogue/Wizard might be hard to pull off unless your playing the right race or not using point-buy for Abilities. Since both stats (Dex and Int) are used in their primary attacks, it doesn't leave much room for bettering your Fortitude (using Str/Con) or Willpower (Wis/Cha). Still, Elven Rogues that multiclass Wizard can do some pretty interesting stuff if they go with Dex and Intelligence for their two +2 stats. Add in some roguish spells that allow you to set up attacks or just fun Utility spells plus perhaps Ritual Caster feat to use rituals and it seems like it could work well.
For me, I found that I love it's implementation. I don't have to worry about keeping up certain BAB or Spellcasting levels nor do I have to worry about silly stuff like Spellcasting Failure with armor. Some of my MultiClassed characters are:
• Human Knight (essentials Fighter) multiclassed Cleric. Pretty much a conversion from v3.5 Knight/Cleric character that is at 13th level and can be extreamly defensive AND heal too. He follows Torm and uses a Radiant Fullblade to smite his enemies. Couple that with the party's cleric of Amaunator who dishes out Radiant vulnerability and it's a fearsome combo.
• Eladrin Bladesinger multiclassed Swordmage. Did it primarily for Eladrin Swordmage Advance but the combo was pretty interesting and gave me a wealth of options outside of Melee-Basic Attack. Plus I like the inclusion of both classes.
• Air Genasi Warlord multiclassed Wizard (current character) is just plain fun. I reflavor most of my wizard powers as "Air Blasts" or some such wind effect and all sorts of fun repositioning my allies and enemies for favorable attacks. I like to use spells to push people off ledges, into fires, into eachother all the while urging on my wife's Shadar-Kai Berserker character to kill more things when she's in a Frenzy OR the Drow Hexblade to flay the enemies skin.
Disagreement doesn't mean "don't discuss". In fact, I find that disagreement leads to better discussions than both agreeing and preaching to the choir.
I think 3E/v3.5 is the abberant edition when it comes to character customization, being probably the first level-by-level progressive system in D&D's history with an almost endless modular aspect. Sure, it's a edition defining aspect and some might say it's 3Es best feature, but Aubrey clearly shows that with this system comes a swath of complications and a HUGE disparity between broken/ultimate builds and ineffective builds (and by ineffective, I am strictly speaking from a combative POV).
I think 4E's multiclass system, coupled with the Hybrid rules makes for a great compromise in crafting the style of character you want to see. Putting Themes and Backgrounds into the mix just further enhances this process. However, there are a lot of people who didn't make it that far into the edition and don't know about these options and thus, make the assumption that 4E's customization is extreamly low.
with D&D:Next, I'm ok with the return of level-by-level multiclassing AS LONG AS there are some restrictions baked into the core system. I don't want to see Wizard 5/ Fighter 2/ Rogue 3/ Cleric 1 anymore. Yet there should also be guidelines to amend the core rules for more customization at the DM's discretion. Just because I don't like tons of classes all clumped into one character doesn't mean my preference should be the only one used. Put in guidelines on accepting a more loose multiclass system where there is no restriction and you can mix/match any class-level your heart desires. Just don't make that the default.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
No offense to the 4E fans, but really the only ways I will be interesed in 5E is if (well fist off frop that Next crap and just call it 5E), devorce it as much as possible from 4E, go back much closer to 3E's mechanics style, and also start branching out away from FR and Eberron.
What, exactly, would you like to see in 5E that is close to 3E's mechanics style? I ask because I think it's pretty vague request and can incorporate A LOT of styles and mechanics.
From what I gather from the Playtest AND the latest articles, there's really nothing in this new edition that has much in the way of 3E mechanics. Meaning.....
• No BAB progression for anyone. The Bounded Accuracy pretty much guarentees that most attacks are going to be slow to grow and that AC's aren't going to high extreamly high levels.
• Saves are based on Ability scors, all 6 of them. Meaning no more Fortitude, Reflex, or Will (also called derived stats). Instead we're going to see spells and Abilities that call for Constitution Saves, Dexterity Saves, Wisdom Saves, Strength Saves, etc... And spells will also reflect this as well.
• At-Will spellcasting (wizard cantrips and cleric orisons) are the "bread-and-butter" of spellcasting classes.
• Healing is back down to it's abysmal levels, mostly healing in the 1d8 range for a full-turn (ie, no more class-baked abilities for healing on the fly).
• Progression is on a level-by-level basis for multiclassing. So returns the Fighter 3/ Bard 2/ Rogue 3/ Wizard 1/ Warlock 7 shenannigans (or utterly unplayable classes). I'm holding out hope they keep the reigns on this so we don't get the gambit of broken combos and crappy characters.
• So far in the playtest the Fighter has been restricted to Attack, Attack, Attack, Move, Attack, possibly Improv Action, attack instead of actually fun stuff to do. YMMV on this but I'm drastically disappointed with this thus far.
• Skill points are forever exiled from D&D. Instead of 20, 30, 50 ranks to place in 20+ Skills, we got 3 or 4 choices of skills based on Background that add a small modifier to your Ability scores. However, skills aren't iron-clad to one specific Ability score. So you use Wilderness Lore with Wisdom to find your way through foilage or with Charisma to influence a wild animal OR Intelligence to identify specific plants.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
I'd like to see more settings get some love too but they've already mentioned they'll be supporting the Forgotten Realms from the get-go. Hopefully we'll get slight changes as the edition go on in addition to some other stuff (namely Ravenloft) too.
Sorry I haven't checked this thread in a while, but this---->Rage Variant: Whirling Frenzy
A barbarian with this variant form of rage doesn't gain the normal bonuses when he enters a rage. Instead, when a barbarian with whirling frenzy enters a rage, he temporarily gains a +4 bonus to Strength and a +2 dodge bonus to Armor Class and on Reflex saves. While in a whirling frenzy, the barbarian may make one extra attack in a round at his highest base attack bonus, but this attack takes a -2 penalty, as does each other attack made that round. This penalty applies for 1 round, so it also affects attacks of opportunity the barbarian might make before his next action.
Whirling frenzy is otherwise identical to the standard barbarian rage in all other ways. At 11th level (when a standard barbarian gains greater rage), the Strength bonus increases to +6, and the dodge bonus to Armor Class and on Reflex saves increases to +3. At 20th level (when a standard barbarian gains mighty rage), the Strength bonus increases to +8, and the dodge bonus to Armor Class and on Reflex saves increases to +4.
A barbarian using this variant doesn't gain indomitable will at 14th level. Instead, he gains evasion, but only while in a whirling frenzy.
A character can't use whirling frenzy at the same time that he uses any other form of rage (or similar ability).
....is always awesome to have. The extra attacks can be used on a Charge if you go Spiritual Totem Barbarian (Complete Champion, p.46) you get the Lion Totem: Regal and intimidating, the powerful lion is a symbol of nobility among the races of the wild. By selecting him as your spiritual totem, you gain the pounce ability (MM 313). It replaces fast movement, haha which is glorious. So on a Charge while Whirling Raging, you can make an extra attack at your highest BAB (with all the attacks gaining a -2 penalty). But that penalty is negated by the Shock Trooper feat......