Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide.
I'm looking forward to this. It reads to me like the new class archetypes are tied pretty heavily to the world of Forgotten Realms - more like the prestige classes of old. Of course, there's not much more than an impression at the moment.
I just hope that they are able to avoid the all too common problem where new options are better than core options. I can imagine a scenario where every player is using the new subclasses/archetypes from SCAG because they are OP compared to the PHB.
That's always the challenge, I guess. No matter where they sit on the power-curve, some will call them "lame" and others will declare them "overpowered".
I'm kind of hopeful that they'll have the same success that they seem to have had with the Player's Handbook. Balance between classes doesn't matter to me, but my group has a couple of keen optimisers - they don't seem to agree about which are the 'broken' options (though neither of them like the beastmaster ranger) so I take that as evidence that all of the core classes are reasonably close in power.
I'm more interested in additional background options and flavor material, to be honest - even though it's been a while since I played in the Forgotten Realms.
I agree that WoTC did a very nice job of making all of the classes in the PHB (almost) equally attractive, but that book benefited from the extensive play test done for 5E. I would imagine that the new options in SCAG will not be as thoroughly play tested and, therefore, subject to greater variability in their relative power.
I am actually happy to see a few more subclasses available, especially for some of the classes which only got two options in the PHB and one of them was often "weaker" than the other and, therefore, rarely used (e.g. Circle of Land Druid vs. Circle of Moon Druid).
Forgotten Realms? New subraces? Here comes 50 Shades of Elf.
Edit: Not to get too far off-topic but since Circle of the Land was mentioned, one cool fix I saw someone else post was to allow them to adapt to whatever terrain they're on after doing a long rest.
So I see the Purple Dragon Knight and Swashbuckler on the cover, anyone want to guess what the other three are? Arcane Archer? Some sort of Elemental sorcerer archetype? No idea what the halfling might be?
I don't have a lot of worry that the new archetypes will be over/under powered - all the archetypes are built off the same class framework. I worry more about all new classes.
Speaking of classes, this and the psionic class playtest from a few weeks ago makes me wonder (hopeful?) if next year's book could be Dark Sun.
There's a note near the bottom of playing things such as an Elf Bladesinger. Not sure what the difference would be between a Bladesinger and a Valor Bard though, maybe it'll be a background/flavor?
I do think we'll see some things from Unearthed Arcanas printed for greater acceptance at tables.
I would expect some Harper scout or Harper agent or something. something about spellfire(sorcerer origin?), assuming that such things still exist. I'm curious about this new age of the setting
'findel
What if it plays out as a wizard tradition? ^_^That's an interesting thought. Trade in the School powers for a little more martial aptitude.
I could see that.
Fighting style and light armor at 2nd, war magic at 6th, extra attack at 10th and so on. Unlike the Blast-focused Eldritch Knight, Bladesinher might be more buff-focused?
I don't have a lot of worry that the new archetypes will be over/under powered - all the archetypes are built off the same class framework. I worry more about all new classes.
I totally agree. Also in 5e balance isn’t as problematic/Important as in Pathfinder. The game isn’t as focused as PF on character creation/builds, leveling up and DPR. It’s more focused on storytelling and having fun.
So I see the Purple Dragon Knight and Swashbuckler on the cover, anyone want to guess what the other three are? Arcane Archer? Some sort of Elemental sorcerer archetype? No idea what the halfling might be?
Could be more subclasses that the five on the cover. At least I hope so.
These are the new class options I hope for: Sorcerer, Bard, Ranger and perhaps the Fighter too. I also wouldn’t mind new options for the Druid, but Sorcerer, Bard and Ranger are the ones that I hope get some more love.
I really want another Sorcerer origin. The Draconic Bloodline is a bit too much of a blaster for my taste and the Wild Magic is a bit to chaotic.
Since Bard is my favorite class I obviously want more options. I would like a mix between College of Lore and College of Valor, more versatile than College of Valor and more of a warrior than College of Lore.
Another Ranger archetype would be cool and much needed since the beastmaster is a bit underwhelming. A spell less Ranger (and a spell less Paladin) would be fun.
The Druid could need some love; perhaps a Druid with a pet or an urban Druid? An Urban Druid that is some sort of shifter class would be awesome.
I’m very excited about the Swashbuckler. I hope it’s a fighter or rogue archetype. I honestly think Battle master is the only fun fighter archetype, so I hope it’s a fighter with some social skills.
As for Subraces I hope for Human, Half-Elf and Half-Orcs subraces.
There is a Stormborn Sorcerer origin in one of the WotC online supplements.
I really hope they expand the options available to the classes with only 2 archetypes. For example, a brawler barbarian, a superstitious barbarian; more bardic colleges (College of Medicine for healing, College of Tactics for even better buffing; more druid circles (Circle of the Beast for a pet, Circle of the Seas for aquatic adventuring, Circle of the Sun for undead stalking, Circle of the Fields for farming, Circle of the Thorn for dark forestry stuff, Circle of the Stars for astrology and elder gods stuff, Circle of the Stone for stonehenges, Circle of the Lake for giving out swords as a means of government, Circle of the Mask for cults and shapeshifting); maybe a mobility-based ranger, similar to the 3.5 scout, maybe a saboteur-focused ranger; and definitely more sorcerer bloodlines: angelic, abyssal, infernal, undead, aberrant.
I’m very excited about the Swashbuckler. I hope it’s a fighter or rogue archetype. I honestly think Battle master is the only fun fighter archetype, so I hope it’s a fighter with some social skills.
Most likely its going to be a polished version of the Swashbuckler roguish archetype introduced in Unearthed Arcana (same instalment as the Strom sorcerer origin), so a rogue that can sneak attack in solo combat and with a goading/charm ability.
I don't have a lot of worry that the new archetypes will be over/under powered - all the archetypes are built off the same class framework. I worry more about all new classes.I totally agree. Also in 5e balance isn’t as problematic/Important as in Pathfinder. The game isn’t as focused as PF on character creation/builds, leveling up and DPR. It’s more focused on storytelling
Whilst I agree that the tight archetype structure will likely mitigate the problem of new options being clearly superior to older options, I think the focus on character creation and/or DPR is far more a function of the player, rather than the system. My brother builds characters (in either system) entirely based on maximising their combat-effectiveness. I build characters which are generally poor in combat (in either system).
If you care about balance, 5E could easily suffer from clearly superior options just as PF could. Being simple just makes it easier to keep things on an equal power level - it doesn't mean the 'problem' can't happen. I've certainly heard lots of muttering about sharpshooter and greater weapon master (with their -5/+10 options) being "automatic" feats - the existence of differently powerful feats/options doesn't bother me, but there's nothing to stop it happening in a simple game. It's just easier to spot.
It looks like the new WotC archetypes are generally providing combat abilities and utility abilities at the same level for each class. Also, the use of "ribbons" for flavor is a neat mechanic.
I don't have a lot of worry that the new archetypes will be over/under powered - all the archetypes are built off the same class framework. I worry more about all new classes.I totally agree. Also in 5e balance isn’t as problematic/Important as in Pathfinder. The game isn’t as focused as PF on character creation/builds, leveling up and DPR. It’s more focused on storytellingWhilst I agree that the tight archetype structure will likely mitigate the problem of new options being clearly superior to older options, I think the focus on character creation and/or DPR is far more a function of the player, rather than the system. My brother builds characters (in either system) entirely based on maximising their combat-effectiveness. I build characters which are generally poor in combat (in either system).
If you care about balance, 5E could easily suffer from clearly superior options just as PF could. Being simple just makes it easier to keep things on an equal power level - it doesn't mean the 'problem' can't happen. I've certainly heard lots of muttering about sharpshooter and greater weapon master (with their -5/+10 options) being "automatic" feats - the existence of differently powerful feats/options doesn't bother me, but there's nothing to stop it happening in a simple game. It's just easier to spot.
True, but my point was that 5e and PF are two different games.
PF encourages focus on character development from a mechanical POV and whereas a lot of the leveling up is automatic in 5e. 5e is more about playing the game, not developing the character mechanically.
in 5e lot of choices are made for you. Skills and attack bonus levels up automatically regardless of class. You don’t (need to) pick weapon finesse you just use weapons with the finesse property, etc. 5e even has feats as an optional rule and stats are hard caped. Also magical items are scares, at least if you go by the world the game in set in and built around, so using magic items to improve/mold your character isn’t a given option.
It looks like the new WotC archetypes are generally providing combat abilities and utility abilities at the same level for each class. Also, the use of "ribbons" for flavor is a neat mechanic.
Sorry, but what does "use of "ribbons" for flavor " mean? (my English is a bit limited).
It looks like the new WotC archetypes are generally providing combat abilities and utility abilities at the same level for each class. Also, the use of "ribbons" for flavor is a neat mechanic.Sorry, but what does "use of "ribbons" for flavor " mean? (my English is a bit limited).
It's a piece of jargon that was defined in this UA, at the very end.
The summary is abilities which give flavor power rather than mechanical power, such as Thieves' Cant.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, the use of "ribbons" for flavor is a neat mechanic.Interesting choice of words. To me, "flavor" and "mechanic", in the context of RPGs, are mutually exclusive.
I'm thinking of that Storm sorcerer ability where you can redirect winds within 100 feet of you. In most fights, that's not going to matter. In ship vs. ship combat, that could be vital. Might even be handy in a forest fire, or using a blizzard to fill a moat during a siege.
Also, my urchin rogue (thief) parkour master has an ability that allows him to travel through the city at twice the normal speed. Usually, this would be by using secret shortcuts and the like, but since my guy does parkour, I can imagine him using lots of Acrobatics and Athletics to travel through the city at a quicker rate, running on rooftops, jumping over moats, scaling walls, hopping fences, climbing light poles, bouncing up alley walls, etc. etc.
I wonder if Wizards listens to my rants about what I want to see and then does them (except for the OGL).
I guess I like how the crunch matches the fluff of my rogue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I like how the crunch matches the fluff of my rogue.
The parkour interpretation is neat. I may steal that. :)
Looks interesting. I've already started creating my own subclasses so I'll have to have a look at this before buying. I don't play outside of a local group of friends so I don't have a huge need for official material. Having said that, I won't be surprised if the group chips in to buy a copy or two.