| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Gyor |
Posted - 03 Sep 2012 : 05:06:26
This is the info I' ve gleaned about 5e from Pax which I got off the internet and how I see it impacting the realms.
1. The Big one for me is that the Monster Manuel monsters will have will have side bars for monsters which have been playable. These will have stats and what ever else they need to be playable, including what settings thier playable in. Example given was Minatours in Dragonlance. Hope I got that right.
Don't know what this means for the realms given that almost every playable race has been playable in the realms in some edition, at least fourth. Don't know how they handle races that are playable in multiple settings.
I also don't know beyond Drow what races will be focused on the realms. I mean Aasmir, Tieflings, and Genasi for example were in the 3x setting books as playable races, but they were key playable races in 2e Planescape.
2. Rangers are designed around Organization/s. Really don't know what this means yet, except its meant to help make Rangers more distint from fighters. Until we know more I don't if Rangers will be supported with unique Realmsian organizations or what mechanical benifits it'll have.
3. The four core classes will focus on customization while other classes will be more scripted and focused on a niche. Honestly the Warlock and Sorceror seem pretty customizable so I think this is just a question of weather fluff or mechanics comes first when designing a class. Maybe I'm wrong. Some none 4 classes may have to be refluff or even have thier mechanics adjusted for the realms.
4. Multiclassing a class will have special tables for advancement, same with prestiage classes with a different rate of gaining features then the first class you picked, to aviod dipping. I think Prestiege classes returning is interesting. Spellscarred as a Prestiege class? So unique realmsian things can be expressed as Specialties, backgrounds, the build parts of classes like domains for clerics, or Prestiage classes now. Who knows what else.
5. Epic will be different from levels 1-10, don't know if that means epic starts at 11, but I doubt it.
|
| 4 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Gyor |
Posted - 03 Sep 2012 : 19:21:29
The PHB will have more then four classes. What I meant by core four is the basic 4 from 1st edition are more customizable, not that they were the only classes. Warlock, Sorceror, Paladin, Druid, Ranger, Psion, Monk, Barbarian, Warlord Bard all still classes, thier just more focused on story first, mechanics second, which is the reverse of the core four. So while the Cleric will be the generic divine caster, which can be customized by domain choice amoung other things, the Paladin is alway heavily armoured and smiting and such. That doesn't mean thier won't be customization, the warlock and sorceror certainly do, its just that thiers more of a focus on core class themes then the basic four. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 03 Sep 2012 : 18:30:55
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I love that they are going back to just four core classes. Using feats (and perhaps skills and PrCs) they can build any other class of of them. With psionics their should be a 5th core class (The Mystic).
But that's not really what they're doing. We already have seen 6 classes in the playtest with all their own mechanics (Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock). They mention the Ranger and definitly the Paladin being their own classes too. What a more modular approach is opening up more multiclassing abilities for the "Core" classes (the big 4) because they're the most simplistic of the bunch. So sure, you can make a Fighter/Cleric with Backgrounds and Specialties that play like a Paladin OR you could just play a paladin. What my main concern is the modular approach will be the catch-all for styles if certain classes aren't very good or what people like. FOr example, they make the Paladin only Lawful Good with all sorts of Smite-Evil abilities and crap like that and point to the modular Multiclass options for the Fighter to "build" my own paladin if I don't like what they've presented. Personally, I'd just rather have them do the other classes right so I won't have to.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Not sure how they are going to differentiate the three ways of casting magic with only one core Mage class, though. I would think that would be something that had to be 'locked-in' from level 1.
As above, we already have 3 distinct magic classes (Wizard, Sorcerer, Warlock) with varying degrees of how magic works. Wizards are Vancian ( ) and Sorcerer's are more "spell point-ish" where as Warlocks are just plain ol' different by using a sembalance of Encounter-based design (kinda-sorta but not really like 4E). What I ultimately hope is that they have the ability to swap out systems as I desire, so that I could play a Wizard with spell-points, a vancian Warlock, or a Encounter-based Sorcerer. I doubt that it'll happen but we got something similiar in v3.5 and I can hope and pray right??
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
As for playable monster races - the racial leveling system I've already discussed would help with that a lot. Its the best way to balance the 'monster' races without using ECL. Another way may be with racial feats (which could actually replace racial levels, but that just makes the CR and encounters more complicated).
4E's races were pretty darn well balanced and they didn't have to resort to level adjustments or with "Monster" levels (as I call them). Basically, you don't give one race too many goodies. Drow, for an example would have abilities comparable to High Elves in that they gain some sort of magic resistance (instead of Charm), a +1 to either Dex, Int, or Charisma (based on perhaps Gender or House), weapon proficiency with rapiers, shortswords, and hand crossbows, the ability to cast Darkness or Dark Fire (faerie fire) 1/day. They just have to be cautious not to make one race ridiculous and keep things simple.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Ranger Organizations sounds like an odd concept - I'd need to hear more. Sounds like a PrC to build a Ranger from a fighter.
I'm completely lost on this concept to be honest. I'd like to hear more on how they do some of their mechanics.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Multiclassing is finally getting some much-needed attention. I remember a lot of discussion on how to handle that when Paizo was designing Pathfinder (I don't know what the end result was, since I still only have the Beta rules). Perhaps thats how they plan to build all the non-core classes.
Pathfinder did it just like v3.5, level-by-level and with loads of "dipping". While it appears to work for that edition/game, I don't think that's the way it should work for D&D:Next. For one thing, I'v heard countless times it creates a sort of disillusion with the progression of a character (taking a level of wizard with no in-game reasons) as well as breaking the system with restrictions (like wizards not being proficient with armor). Multiclassing should be restricted a bit more so that your not getting ALL the goodies as you take a level or two (the main problem with front-loading classes). Instead, I'd like to see something akin to 4E (heh, go figure) that allows you to grab core, essential elements of your second class but not the main benefits wholesale. There's something wrong, IMO, with someone who can Rage, Cast self-heal spells, gain 2 free fighter feats, and use channel divinity to get stronger/tougher/faster by 6th level. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 03 Sep 2012 : 17:38:52
I love that they are going back to just four core classes. Using feats (and perhaps skills and PrCs) they can build any other class of of them. With psionics their should be a 5th core class (The Mystic).
Not sure how they are going to differentiate the three ways of casting magic with only one core Mage class, though. I would think that would be something that had to be 'locked-in' from level 1.
As for playable monster races - the racial leveling system I've already discussed would help with that a lot. Its the best way to balance the 'monster' races without using ECL. Another way may be with racial feats (which could actually replace racial levels, but that just makes the CR and encounters more complicated).
Ranger Organizations sounds like an odd concept - I'd need to hear more. Sounds like a PrC to build a Ranger from a fighter.
Multiclassing is finally getting some much-needed attention. I remember a lot of discussion on how to handle that when Paizo was designing Pathfinder (I don't know what the end result was, since I still only have the Beta rules). Perhaps thats how they plan to build all the non-core classes. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 03 Sep 2012 : 16:33:33
quote:
Originally posted by Gyor
This is the info I' ve gleaned about 5e from Pax which I got off the internet and how I see it impacting the realms.
1. The Big one for me is that the Monster Manuel monsters will have will have side bars for monsters which have been playable. These will have stats and what ever else they need to be playable, including what settings thier playable in. Example given was Minatours in Dragonlance. Hope I got that right.
Don't know what this means for the realms given that almost every playable race has been playable in the realms in some edition, at least fourth. Don't know how they handle races that are playable in multiple settings.
I also don't know beyond Drow what races will be focused on the realms. I mean Aasmir, Tieflings, and Genasi for example were in the 3x setting books as playable races, but they were key playable races in 2e Planescape.
What's good is that they're making them playable, period. Lets hope they steer far and wide from level adjustments and just make them balanced across the board. I don't want to take huge penalties just because I want to play a Drow or a Warforged or Aasimar/Deva. As for their side-notes on what settings there in, I'm going to assume that while all the races can be played in any setting, it'll give props to the "actual" setting they're featured in. For example, Warforged are exclusively a Eberron race in terms of lore and where you'll read about them in novels. You can use Warforged in your Realms games, but you won't get any lore from it nor will they appear in any FR novels. Same goes with Draconians or Minotaurs in Dragonlance or Muls and Thri-kreen in Dark Sun.
I think it's a good idea, allowing DMs to decide what'll be important for their games and adjust accordingly yet still maintain viable rules for these races no matter what the setting.
quote:
2. Rangers are designed around Organization/s. Really don't know what this means yet, except its meant to help make Rangers more distint from fighters. Until we know more I don't if Rangers will be supported with unique Realmsian organizations or what mechanical benifits it'll have.
I can't see this being very good class design, but I'll reserve judgement until the playtest material comes out. One of the posters on the WotC boards had a really awesome idea for Rangers. They would receive something akin to a Favored Enemy, but the benefits of that mechanic would be more versatile in application to the game instead of being just good vs. that one specific group. An example was Favored Enemy: Kobolds, because kobolds are really great at making traps, a Ranger with this favored enemy would be good at discovering/disarming/re-setting traps because he's faced all sorts by fighting Kobolds. Another one might be Dragons, getting bonues to saving throws against area effect spells (fireball, web, dragon breath) and getting bonuses to attack against creatures larger than you. I hope they give some of these ideas some thought because I think it's a cool way to incorporate a flavorful element of the class while making it more broad in effect.
It might be cool, however, to create and re-use organizations that are already in effect in the Realms such as the Fangshields or Harpers. Those two make some pretty cool concepts for Rangers. I wonder which one (organization, mind you) Drizzt would be apart of?
quote:
3. The four core classes will focus on customization while other classes will be more scripted and focused on a niche. Honestly the Warlock and Sorceror seem pretty customizable so I think this is just a question of weather fluff or mechanics comes first when designing a class. Maybe I'm wrong. Some none 4 classes may have to be refluff or even have thier mechanics adjusted for the realms.
I'm not suprised, but I do find it weird that their whole schtick with this edition was to make a game that was modular and this seems to go against the main ideal. I understand that a lot of classes are just different archtypes from the core (Paladin = cleric/fighter, Ranger = druid/rogue, Assassin = specialized rogue, Bard = Sorcerer/Rogue, etc..) but I hope that they see variances in the class enougth to warrent some flexability. For example, I'm hoping against hope that I can build a Blackguard Paladin or a urban Ranger and not have to jump through 100 different hoops to make it a viable class.
quote:
4. Multiclassing a class will have special tables for advancement, same with prestiage classes with a different rate of gaining features then the first class you picked, to aviod dipping. I think Prestiege classes returning is interesting. Spellscarred as a Prestiege class? So unique realmsian things can be expressed as Specialties, backgrounds, the build parts of classes like domains for clerics, or Prestiage classes now. Who knows what else.
I can only hope they take out of 4E's book and allow Prestige Classes/class advancement to remain within the same class and just have those abilities be "add-on". For example, in 3E one had to have a pretty extreme amount of system mastery not to make a crappy character. 4E's main problem was that Prestige classes (or Paragon Paths as they were known) were "forced" and a lot of people didn't like that.
quote:
5. Epic will be different from levels 1-10, don't know if that means epic starts at 11, but I doubt it.
This is confusing to me as well, but lets hope it's interesting and fun! |
|
|
