From yesterday's WotC post:
At this stage, we’ve begun considering what the first, major mechanical expansion to the game might look like.
What does everyone hope this means?
It means either a major expansion of rules coming with an Ebberon campaign setting or a PHB 2.
I'd be surprised if they introduce another campaign setting (Ravenloft can kinda be folded into the Forgotten Realms). That may split the fan base.
But they might give us all the mechanics for running an Eberron game without explicitly mentioning Eberron.
I assume it means they're about to announce the release of 6th edition.
Kidding?
I actually think no one will be surprised at a lot of the content of this upcoming rule book. They've been using Unearthed Arcana to playtest a lot of material. I bet most of it ends up--revised--in this mechanics expansion book.
Probably all the Unearthed Arcana stuff,as you said. There is a lot of goodies in there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like they are gearing up for another Players Handbook type of material. In the quiz I made it certain that I would not buy new classes and that most classes do not need additions other than domains for clerics. I also stated I won't buy books that spread several topics throughout like they did in 3.5. I will buy books encompassing all spells, all monsters, etc. And I supported by favorite game world but have no hope that anything will happen there.
Almost certainly I will not buy any Player Material other than spells. I am interested in DM resources and setting neutral modules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's about the opposite of my response. Spells and feats are both low on my list of priorities (because they have such high opportunity costs, like Concentration or trading out ability score stuff) and spells give more power to casters (especially rituals).
On the other hand, I'm always excited to see subclasses in UA, as well as some full classes like the Mystic. The Sentinel feat brings back some of the 4e Fighter's defender power, but I also liked the Warden and Swordmage approaches.
In the quiz I made it certain that I would not buy new classes.
On this much I agree. I'd be happy to see more class archetypes, but twelve base classes feels just right. (I wonder if the mystic could've been a sorcerer archetype instead.)
I'm not a fan of more classes. If they are going to KISS, then they need to stick with the classes they already have.
I wouldn't mind them expanding Proficiency ability with weapons for martials, but I'm pretty much thinking Wizards and Clerics have enough options already compared to martials in regards to things they get (each spell is in effect, another ability they can gain, even if just when casting it).
However, and probably hypocritical of me, I said I would prefer more spells...though feats are at the bottom of the list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From yesterday's WotC post:
At this stage, we’ve begun considering what the first, major mechanical expansion to the game might look like.What does everyone hope this means?
I hope it means:
Extra archetypes. No new classes. Extra feats. Extra downtime activities. Additional tactical options for martial characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I wrote in the survey, is that if new material (classes, races, archetypes, etc.) comes out it should be tied to a setting, in a setting book. So if a DM wants to allow some of the new stuff, it will be easier, that to try to ban new material from a PHB2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see subclasses and the new alternate ranger they've been working on. Probably in an Unearthed Arcana for the alternate ranger though.
I'd be surprised if they introduce another campaign setting (Ravenloft can kinda be folded into the Forgotten Realms). That may split the fan base.
But they might give us all the mechanics for running an Eberron game without explicitly mentioning Eberron.
Really, they already split the fan base by only doing Forgotten Realms (but included Ravenloft this time). The fan base is FR and everyone else.
For me? Major mechanical expansion sounds like Psionics. So I would say the Mystic class they have spent 2 UAs on, plus psionic subclasses for a few of the other classes (fighter and rogue spring to mind first), etc. Not exactly something I want to see. Plus, bringing out psionics could mean they may be working on the 2 settings where it plays a big part (Eberron and Dark Sun).
As for what I would hope it means? Another player option book (those seem to be the best sellers on the DMs Guild), with a few DM things. I would absolutely LOVE another Monster Manual (I love the monsters, even if the majority never see the light of day in games), and one with a more coherent monster creation system.
I would love for them to release Eberron or Planescape. While I would love Dragonlance as well, the world only really holds up well during the War of the Lance story arc.
From yesterday's WotC post:
At this stage, we’ve begun considering what the first, major mechanical expansion to the game might look like.What does everyone hope this means?
Above all else, I hope it means new races. I'm tired of the constant litany of "Elf, Dwarf, Human, Halfling" that gets repeated over and over again (really, all of the seven so-called core races. The Tiefling and Dragonborn, as well as the races in the Elemental Evil booklet tie me over, but I'd love to see an expansion of playable races.
And of course, I'm hoping for the Artificer and the Mystic.
Above all else, I hope it means new races.
Huh, that's interesting. With the EE options, I feel like we have enough races already.
Really, they already split the fan base by only doing Forgotten Realms (but included Ravenloft this time). The fan base is FR and everyone else.
But if they did Eberron wouldn't it be 3 camps: FR, Eberron, and everyone else?
For me? Major mechanical expansion sounds like Psionics. ... Not exactly something I want to see.
Yeah, not thrilled about psionics either.
Really, they already split the fan base by only doing Forgotten Realms (but included Ravenloft this time). The fan base is FR and everyone else.But if they did Eberron wouldn't it be 3 camps: FR, Eberron, and everyone else?
For me? Major mechanical expansion sounds like Psionics. ... Not exactly something I want to see.Yeah, not thrilled about psionics either.
Seeing as how I highly doubt anything else will be done with Ravenloft, I am sure just one adventure will be done for any other setting (if they even do the all the others), it will still just be FR and everyone else. Ravenloft fans got thrown a bone, but this is all they will get I am sure. I don't know, maybe I am weird, but I never got the whole "I only like Ravenloft so I won't buy anything Greyhawk/Planescape/Birthright/etc" mentality. I honestly don't care about any published settings (though Eberron is the closest, as a lot of the things in there reminds me of stuff I did for my own setting, like not all red dragons are evil, orcs aren't pure CE and only there to be slaughtered by the "good guys"), as I can find many things from the other settings to place in my own (which I prefer my homebrew, or someone else's homebrew, over something a company puts out), such as races, monsters, classes, spells, etc. So the whole "Dark Sun or nothing!" is foreign to me.
You know what I'd really like to see? An entirely new setting instead of a rehash of all the old stuff.
As far as setting material goes, Greyhawk would be the easiest one to do, as they could do the same as with SCAG and do 80% fluff (to give setting material for those new to GH) and 20% crunch related to setting GH organization. Unfortunately, this kind of setting book is the kind that has the least chance to have good sells. A Eberron and/or Darksun setting book, will requires new classes, races and archetype (artificer, psychic, Warforged, etc. for Eberron, Thri-kreen, Half-Giant, Preserver and Defiler, psionic, Elemental domains, etc. for Darksun).
While a brand new setting could be interesting, but might need as much as works as Eberron and Darksun, plus any creative work related to this new setting.
I wish they scrubbed the idea of making campaign settings entirely. Instead, fully detail a site, city, or maybe even region that could be dropped in any fantasy world. Sort of like give us ingredients, but DMs determine what actually goes into the soup and in what quantities. Yes, this spooky village, no to this infernal kingdom. Yes, this Arctic region but with some adaptation. Give me building blocks, not a finished structure.
Either that or just make Planescape again, which gives the connective tissue to link to any number of fantasy worlds.
Buy to answer my own original question. I hope we get archetypes, backgrounds, monsters, feats, and spells (in that order).
I think we have plenty of races and base classes. (And please no prestige classes; they worked well in 3e but archetypes made them obsolete.)
I wish they scrubbed the idea of making campaign settings entirely. Instead, fully detail a site, city, or maybe even region that could be dropped in any fantasy world. Sort of like give us ingredients, but DMs determine what actually goes into the soup and in what quantities. Yes, this spooky village, no to this infernal kingdom. Yes, this Arctic region but with some adaptation. Give me building blocks, not a finished structure.
Either that or just make Planescape again, which gives the connective tissue to link to any number of fantasy worlds.
While I wouldn't mind something like this (I have always used homebrew settings), but I could hear the cries of those too lazy/time restrained/lacking motivation/etc. to make their own settings.
And a new setting would just be shoved into the trash like Eberron was (and Nentir Vale from 4th edition I think it was). I still believe it is WotC's fault that FR is their most popular setting. When the majority of video games (most people's exposure to RPGs) are set in the Forgotten Realms (and even narrower, the Sword Coast region), of course it will be their most popular setting. That, and the horrible Drizzt.
I wish they scrubbed the idea of making campaign settings entirely. Instead, fully detail a site, city, or maybe even region that could be dropped in any fantasy world. Sort of like give us ingredients, but DMs determine what actually goes into the soup and in what quantities. Yes, this spooky village, no to this infernal kingdom. Yes, this Arctic region but with some adaptation. Give me building blocks, not a finished structure.
Either that or just make Planescape again, which gives the connective tissue to link to any number of fantasy worlds.
Though I'm not in favor of scrubbing game worlds entirely, I think the building blocks idea you suggested is fantastic. I know my purchases would finally go past the core three rulebooks....because I won't buy anything that is tied to other game worlds other than the one of my choice which I already know is not on WOTC drawing board. I think this offers an excellent compromise and would get me to spend money again.
While I wouldn't mind something like this (I have always used homebrew settings), but I could hear the cries of those too lazy/time restrained/lacking motivation/etc. to make their own settings.
But all the work would be done; DMs would merely have to decide which of the modular pieces they want to include.
No one ever actually uses every piece of a fleshed-out campaign setting anyway, just the parts that concern their groups' specific interests. Everything else is just reading material. This way, there'd actually be less to buy, read, and prep. Just get what you want.
But Wizards would still make a profit because collectors would buy it all. Others who vow not to touch setting product because they hate FR/Eberron/Ravenloft would have none of those qualms. And those who make their own settings would start buying again for the story seeds.
I really hope it's not Eberron or psionics. I also hope it's not poorly balanced player option bloat.
I'd like to see more DM tools to allow for easier creation of content.
Additional backgrounds would be very nice. I'm finding that I'm already having to create that type of material myself and I've only played 5th edition for a couple of months.
I wish they scrubbed the idea of making campaign settings entirely. Instead, fully detail a site, city, or maybe even region that could be dropped in any fantasy world. Sort of like give us ingredients, but DMs determine what actually goes into the soup and in what quantities. Yes, this spooky village, no to this infernal kingdom. Yes, this Arctic region but with some adaptation. Give me building blocks, not a finished structure.
That is indeed a very good idea. They did this back in the day a couple times with some adventures which were relatively setting-neutral, and gave some details how to integrate the adventure into it (I´m thinking of the Rod of Seven Parts box from the Tomes "series".) It works only for relatively "normal" fantasy settings, I´d guess, and not the more exotic ones (like Dark Sun or Planescape), but still, publishing setting-neutral material has its appeal.
(I have to admit that I´d love to see Greyhawk and Planescape and Spelljammer and Al-Qadim stuff, though - I just love these settings. Heck, give me Mystara stuff, and I´d be happy for nostalgia´s sake.)
|
Honestly, I'd be ok with a book in the style of Paizo's "Advanced Player's Guide" that expanded classes and options. Even the people tired of Pathfinder's complex nature seem to be ok with that book and the core. Of course, that's just me. It would sully things up if they added in a bunch of classes, but maybe 1-2 new classes and a bunch more archetypes would be nice, and I think that Mystic and Artificer may be good choices for that.
I think the mystic is almost certainly going to appear in an upcoming release. But in UA, they made the artificer a wizard school. I wonder if they'll stick with that format.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd personally love to see an arcane counterpart to the ranger and paladin. That is, somebody who gets martial weapons and at least medium armor, gets a Fighting Style at 2nd and Extra Attack at 5th, and gets arcane spells at the same rate as the paladin/ranger. Seems like a gaping hole in the existing class roster.
While we're at it, divine counterparts to the EK/AT and maybe even the warlock would be cool as well.
The Eldritch Knight seems to come close to that. Not the same spell progression as the paladin and ranger though.
But I feel like that's something that would be super easy to homebrew.
That's the opposite way I think about classes. I start with a character idea first and then look for viability among the existing options. When I don't see it, then I might feel the need to create a new class.
As for this arcane paladin, I can't really picture that. What so you imagine a character such as that would look like or act like? Just a more spell-oriented eldritch knight?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
As for this arcane paladin, I can't really picture that. What so you imagine a character such as that would look like or act like? Just a more spell-oriented eldritch knight?
I didn't mean something conceptually like a paladin, just somebody with about that same martial/magic ratio.
I generally build my characters "concept first", and I kinda have a thing for playing magical swordsmen. It was one of the first things I looked for when I picked up 5E, and I was a little disappointed.
You can go EK, but then you're mostly just a weapon user, with just a couple of spells per day that I'm not sure actually have all that much impact. I'm picturing more magic than that, and also don't need that much martial prowess.
Then there's the Valor bard. He gets medium armor and Extra Attack, but he's got more magic than is needed (since 5E upgraded him to a full-caster). Plus, you're forced to get various other abilities like proficiency with a musical instrument, bardic inspiration, and song of rest; which really only fit a small handful of concepts. For any concept that's not interested in music and inspiration, the valor bard can be kind of concept-breaking. There are similar issues with the bard spell list.
You could just play a ranger or paladin, but they also carry some heavy "flavor baggage", as they've got some very particular themes to them.
If your concept is some kind of mage-knight or arcane swordsman or whatever, then 5E doesn't really offer you much. For non-divine characters, you're generally either a caster or a warrior, with only the slightest dabbling into the other discipline.
If you want to play a character who splits the difference between weapons and spells without being a musician, hippy, zealot or pact-maker then you're basically out of luck in 5E.
Does that make more sense?
Have you considered approaching it from the wizard side? Depending on how robust you want your combat abilities to be, you could do quite a lot with racial traits and feats.
Anyhow, I'm hoping to see finished psionics, what can I say, psionics is an important part of D&D to me, and I like the 5e implementation so far. I do wonder how much of the first major[i] rules expansion will come from previously published [i]minor rules expansions like the various adventure guides so far, rather than UA material. Lord knows I'd prefer all new stuff (UA counts for that) regardless of specific contents.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Couldn't multi-classing make a sword and spells character?
There are issues with that, as well.
Any class that's supposed to have any significant reliance on using weapons (even including the Valor bard and the Blade-pact warlock) eventually gets an extra attack at about 5th level (except the rogue, whose combat ability scales via Sneak Attack instead). But if you multiclass, then you get that significantly later (how much later depends on how evenly you want to split your classes up to that point). In the meantime, your cantrip damage scales up at 5th (when the martials are getting Extra Attack), which leaves your cantrips being better than your weapons, at which point combat for you becomes all about casting spells, losing the original hybrid flavor and instead feeling like an ordinary caster with weaker spells.
Now, maybe if you were starting the campaign at 10th level, then you could be (for instance) a fighter 5/wizard 5, you'd have your Extra Attack, and you'd have 3rd-level spells. Assuming your fighter levels were EK, you'd be 1 level away from getting 4th-level spell slots, and 2 wizard levels away from actually getting to use 4th-level spells. You could probably go wizard from here on out and feel pretty alright.
But prior to that level? You either start with fighter 5 to get your Extra Attack on time but have to play catch-up on your magic; or you try to keep enough caster levels mixed in to keep magic as a meaningful aspect of your character but wait until quite possibly almost the end of the campaign before you start getting a second attack or even an ability score increase (in an already MAD build, too).
So... Not as easy as it sounds.
Don't forget, wizards of the coast paved it, bulldozed it, paved it again, bulldoze, pave, well you get the idea.
I would like to see a Planescape or Planescape-like setting, and then it can have new races, sub-races, sub-classes, backgrounds, feats, spells, magic items, downtime activities, and equipment branch off of it, as well as "modular" adventuring places (planes, continents, countries, regions, cities, dungeons, etc.) and monsters.
Maybe even a few new classes, like the magus (using magic to fight, as opposed to fighting using magic), artificer/alchemist, mystic.
Maybe even new class features, like new Combat Maneuvers and Invocations and Metamagic options, Quingong spell options, etc.
I thought 5E and BA was designed to take some of the sting out of multi-classing? Are you that less capable or is the issue your spells or weapons will be better at various levels so they are not advancing together that hurts the concept?
I think the concern is that cantrips scale with character level, but the Extra Attack ability is tied to class level.
So a multiclassed wizard/fighter will have the same power to their cantrips, regardless of how they split their levels between fighter and wizard, but until the character has 5 levels in fighter, it's only going to have 1 weapon attack.
So you could make a wizard 1/fighter 11 and have a 3d10 cantrip damage and 3 weapon attacks and 1st level spells
or
you could make a wizard 11/fighter 1 and have 3d10 cantrip damage and 1 weapon attack and 6th level spells
or
you could make a wizard 6/fighter 6 and have 3d10 cantrip damage and 2 weapon attacks and 3rd level spells.
Wasn't favoured soul sword and spells?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd be surprised if they introduce another campaign setting (Ravenloft can kinda be folded into the Forgotten Realms). That may split the fan base.
This is only really an issue if you are pumping out multiple product lines simultaneously, causing internal competition as a byproduct, which was their business model in 2E, but the polar opposite of their business model for 5E. Releasing 2-3 books a year means they can explore the other settings in a manner where they are focused solely on each one at the time of their release, usually in the form of an adventure, and since each one will be the only 5E product being released at a given time, it therefore maximizes potential profitability.