Candlekeep Forum
Candlekeep Forum
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Active Polls | Members | Private Messages | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Forgotten Realms Products
 D&D Core Products
 A 'leaked' D&D next rules report
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore

United Kingdom
1073 Posts

Posted - 16 Mar 2012 :  13:36:11  Show Profile  Visit crazedventurers's Homepage Send crazedventurers a Private Message  Reply with Quote  Delete Topic
Take it as you wish, true/not true/someone thinking they are clever by starting the rumour mill etc

Its here to read

http://pastebin.com/zRWmNeZd

MODS: feel free to delete the post/thread if it steps over the bounds of the code of conduct, or it becomes a moaning/bashing thread

I am ambivalent to what I saw as it is still early days and I am sure that some of what is there (if true) will never make the final game.

Anyway have a read and take everything there as possibly false

Cheers

Damian

So saith Ed. I've never said he was sane, have I?
Gods, all this writing and he's running a constant fantasy version of Coronation Street in his head, too. .
shudder,
love to all,
THO
Candlekeep Forum 7 May 2005

Lord Karsus
Great Reader

USA
3736 Posts

Posted - 16 Mar 2012 :  15:25:31  Show Profile Send Lord Karsus a Private Message  Reply with Quote
-Doesn't seem like anything to differentiate it much from previous editions of the rules.

-One thing I noticed that I like is that Fighters got a 'Fighting Style'. I hope more is done to put the Fighter on par with other classes. It doesn't seem, by the tone the writer takes, that that's the case right now.

-I like how there seem to be Paragon Paths. Since multiclassing seems to still be around, I wonder how multiclassing + Paragon Paths will work out.

-Don't like if skills are determined by class/theme. NO reason my Fighter can't have his Knowledge: Philosophy skill maxed out.

-Alignment is back. This is something I like, not that it really should mechanically matter all that much, outside of some spells/items. And, Healing Surges have been removed. I like this.

-All those status conditions, might work in a video game where the computer does all the calculating for you, but having to keep track of 20 different statuses? No thank you. I mean, what the hell is 'Dazzled' and how does it differ greatly from 'Blinded' or 'Dazed'. Seems like no reason to get nit-picky like that.

-Seems like saving throws are still out of whack.

(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)

Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
4425 Posts

Posted - 16 Mar 2012 :  15:59:10  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well I'm glad this is just the very beginning of the process and it only improves from here. There are things that I like such as Fighting Styles. This is something that came into 3E and continued with 4E but I feel, wasn't implemented very properly. They should have these things as class features or options instead of class features, not just in feat-form.

~Seems spell levels are going back to the 1-9 levels over a 20 (or 30?) level career. Really, this is one of those things that doesn't really matter to me. The understanding has always been high-level spells, regardless if it's 9th or 29th, have been strong and encounter changing when compared to lower level spells. The number really doesn't matter.

~I'm on the fence about Critical hits though. I like the Max-damage on a nat. 20 roll. The whole confirm critical stuff, while I hated it and threw it out with 3E, makes sense if it's additional to the Max-damage roll. And Fighters by-pass it, which is awesome.

~I had a problem with the wording of class 'rarity'. If people though (for some misguided reason) 4E had taken cues from Magic: the Gathering, what'll they think now?! Perhaps the whole rarity aspect is just to show new DMs how few people in the world are of a particular class. Fighters, Clerics, Rogues, and Wizards are of course going to be commmon while Rangers, Paladins, and possibly Barbarians will be uncommons and that one rare class might be say...an assassin. How this plays with the rules and/or at Conventions is going to be questionable. Hopefully it's just used for fluff/story reasons and has absolutley nothing to do with the rules.

~I thought status conditions were interesting, as they can really stack up "IF" you knew them. What I did was print up a sheet for quick references. After a while, you start remembering what each effect does and how it differs. Dazzled is the lowest version, with minor penalties where as Daze is much worse.

~As for the alignment, I hated that it was ingraned into the rules of 3E and prior editions. Detect Evil was just really uncalled for as were the multitude of "protection from X" spells and all that stuff. 4E did right by eliminating them from the rules but failed on keeping the interesting factor of 9-points. When it came down to it, most people just went Unaligned or Good. I do like the Unaligned idea, however, and would like to see it incorporated. So LG, NG, CG, LN, Unaligned, CN, LE, NE, and CE. That'd be nice!

~Skills, well I'm going to wait and see how that works out later on before I comment.

Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
36779 Posts

Posted - 16 Mar 2012 :  17:28:20  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Can't really say too much, being that we don't know how truthful all of this is, or what's subject to change.

That said, I liked most of what I was reading, there.

I think it should be kept in mind that the reviewer seems to feel that 5E is based more on 3.x, and that 4E was an improvement over 3.x. I'm not making any commentary on editions, here, I'm just saying that this reviewer has his own opinions, and those opinions could influence how he describes or relates to aspects of the rules.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

Lord Karsus
Great Reader

USA
3736 Posts

Posted - 16 Mar 2012 :  17:49:06  Show Profile Send Lord Karsus a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

I had a problem with the wording of class 'rarity'. If people though (for some misguided reason) 4E had taken cues from Magic: the Gathering, what'll they think now?! Perhaps the whole rarity aspect is just to show new DMs how few people in the world are of a particular class. Fighters, Clerics, Rogues, and Wizards are of course going to be commmon while Rangers, Paladins, and possibly Barbarians will be uncommons and that one rare class might be say...an assassin. How this plays with the rules and/or at Conventions is going to be questionable. Hopefully it's just used for fluff/story reasons and has absolutley nothing to do with the rules.

-I didn't fully understand what the author meant by that. Rarity in terms of what?

(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)

Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium
Go to Top of Page

crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore

United Kingdom
1073 Posts

Posted - 16 Mar 2012 :  18:04:27  Show Profile  Visit crazedventurers's Homepage Send crazedventurers a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
[I do like the Unaligned idea, however, and would like to see it incorporated. So LG, NG, CG, LN, Unaligned, CN, LE, NE, and CE. That'd be nice!


Err surely that should be UG, LU, CU and UE if unaligned replaces neutral other the neutral aspect of lawful neutral et al makes no sense if there is unaligned?

Just wondering

Cheers

Damian

So saith Ed. I've never said he was sane, have I?
Gods, all this writing and he's running a constant fantasy version of Coronation Street in his head, too. .
shudder,
love to all,
THO
Candlekeep Forum 7 May 2005
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
4425 Posts

Posted - 16 Mar 2012 :  18:41:56  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus

quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

I had a problem with the wording of class 'rarity'. If people though (for some misguided reason) 4E had taken cues from Magic: the Gathering, what'll they think now?! Perhaps the whole rarity aspect is just to show new DMs how few people in the world are of a particular class. Fighters, Clerics, Rogues, and Wizards are of course going to be commmon while Rangers, Paladins, and possibly Barbarians will be uncommons and that one rare class might be say...an assassin. How this plays with the rules and/or at Conventions is going to be questionable. Hopefully it's just used for fluff/story reasons and has absolutley nothing to do with the rules.

-I didn't fully understand what the author meant by that. Rarity in terms of what?



What I took from it, as I saw this was discussed a few months ago from some article is that classes rarity illustrates it's relationship with any given game-world or setting. For example, most generic/iconic D&D settings are going to have 4 (or more?) possible common classes. These are generic enough to really fill any sort of theme. The Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard are normally the most iconic and/or generic so they're common.

Uncommon classes are likely to be specialized version of the common, a Ranger is a fighter who takes to the woodlands. A paladin is a holy-warrior that casts some divine magic. A sorcerer is a elemental/draconis/infernal fused spellcaster that isn't stuck in a study, learning from dusty old tomes. In other words, they're more the exception to the rule and not as likely to be found in every small town or hamlet.

Rare classes are the ones few people become apart of due to how specific they are. A druid, for example, MIGHT be a rare class in that 1.) you don't see them too often even in the woods and you practically never see them in cities. 2.) They're very specific in theme and mechanics. Or perhaps it's the assassin class, a rogue that isn't a Jack of All Trades, that focuses on doing one thing well, killing a single target. They're niché in scope of the greater world.

How this relates to the rules? Perhaps uncommon and rare classes are mechanically more challenging? Perhaps they're excempt from Cons or Living Campaigns? Pehaps it's a rules-specific (meaning, set in stone) way for DMs to exclude classes they don't like. For example, a DM might say "No Rare classes in my game." and this would elimiate any classes he/she might not want to deal with by learning all they're ins/outs, OR it might just let players and DM know that this sort of class isn't as world-wide as others.

quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers


Err surely that should be UG, LU, CU and UE if unaligned replaces neutral other the neutral aspect of lawful neutral et al makes no sense if there is unaligned?

Just wondering


Nope, I just hate "True Neutral" as it's so vague and silly......I just hate the whole concept. Better off thinking that it's more of a "meh, I don't care as long as it doesn't affect me" attitude than "I must maintain ALL balance of the alignment axis" attitude. Or, if they don't like the term Unaligned, then just Neutral (and leave out the 'True') would do fine. An understanding that you want to be no part of moral struggles and a care-free attitude towards right/wrong, good/evil, lawful/chaotic. That's what Neutral means to me. It's the guy that turns a blind eye to someone getting the crapped kicked out of him at the Bus Stop. But then would step in if he saw someone hit a kid or their wife. A Live in the Moment sort of feeling.
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
36779 Posts

Posted - 16 Mar 2012 :  18:59:55  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan


quote:
Originally posted by crazedventurers


Err surely that should be UG, LU, CU and UE if unaligned replaces neutral other the neutral aspect of lawful neutral et al makes no sense if there is unaligned?

Just wondering


Nope, I just hate "True Neutral" as it's so vague and silly......I just hate the whole concept. Better off thinking that it's more of a "meh, I don't care as long as it doesn't affect me" attitude than "I must maintain ALL balance of the alignment axis" attitude. Or, if they don't like the term Unaligned, then just Neutral (and leave out the 'True') would do fine. An understanding that you want to be no part of moral struggles and a care-free attitude towards right/wrong, good/evil, lawful/chaotic. That's what Neutral means to me. It's the guy that turns a blind eye to someone getting the crapped kicked out of him at the Bus Stop. But then would step in if he saw someone hit a kid or their wife. A Live in the Moment sort of feeling.



True neutral has never been about maintaining the Balance... That's another lingering misconcepting about alignment that bugs the crap out of me. True neutral is simply the middle ground -- either the carefree attitude that you describe, or a recognition that sometimes you need law, sometimes you don't, or that sometimes you should put yourself before others, and other times out others first.

All that said, I do see value in the Unaligned alignment, with regards to animals with only animal intelligence, plants, or mindless constructs/undead. Neutral works for them, since they don't take sides, but it's not a good fit, considering that the 9 alignment axis is a guideline for how intelligent beings act.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
4425 Posts

Posted - 16 Mar 2012 :  19:22:56  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert


True neutral has never been about maintaining the Balance... That's another lingering misconcepting about alignment that bugs the crap out of me. True neutral is simply the middle ground -- either the carefree attitude that you describe, or a recognition that sometimes you need law, sometimes you don't, or that sometimes you should put yourself before others, and other times out others first.

All that said, I do see value in the Unaligned alignment, with regards to animals with only animal intelligence, plants, or mindless constructs/undead. Neutral works for them, since they don't take sides, but it's not a good fit, considering that the 9 alignment axis is a guideline for how intelligent beings act.



Ok, but then they need to make some sort of difference between True Neutral and Chaotic Neutral. CN can easily be a care-free attitude with little thought to laws or social norms. True Neutral can be this as well, which to me doesn't make much sense. I just don't see a difference between True Neutral and Chaotic Neutral. Perhaps its just the terminology that bugs me, but Unaligned seems a more comfortable term for people who don't care either way than just Neutral.

Also, I like the idea of animals being Unaligned as well. That'll probably go into any playtest ideas I get when I use it.
Go to Top of Page

Seravin
Master of Realmslore

Canada
1265 Posts

Posted - 16 Mar 2012 :  19:43:56  Show Profile Send Seravin a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hmm sorry Wooly, but I think True Neutral has to have something to do with maintaining balance or it moves into Chaotic Neutral or Neutral good/evil territory as Diffan wisely says.

I always thought of True Neutral as someone who wanted balance between evil/good and order/chaos. They would work towards making sure no path ruled over all the others...while chaotic neutral would just do whatever struck the person as interesting or fun at the moment in time (also lunatics); and neutral evil would do whatever benefited them the most in the long run, while neutral good would be whatever is best for others/general populace in the long run--something much more selfless. My 2 cents anyway.

Unaligned for unintelligent creatures works.

Edited by - Seravin on 16 Mar 2012 19:44:17
Go to Top of Page

Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
Moderator

USA
36779 Posts

Posted - 16 Mar 2012 :  20:41:30  Show Profile Send Wooly Rupert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Chaotics are more about the individual than the group. So chaotic neutral wouldn't really care about good or evil too much, but would care about the individual.

True neutral would sometimes side with the group, and sometimes with the individual. And their choice wouldn't be dictated by balance, it'd be because for some things, they think the group should be more important, and for others, they think the individual should be more important.

So a CN person might say that it didn't matter if something was good or evil, so long as the only concern was the individual. A true neutral person would agree about 50% of the time, but not the other 50%.

Candlekeep Forums Moderator

Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com
-- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct

I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!
Go to Top of Page

crazedventurers
Master of Realmslore

United Kingdom
1073 Posts

Posted - 16 Mar 2012 :  20:59:48  Show Profile  Visit crazedventurers's Homepage Send crazedventurers a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Neutral and unaligned are the same yes? the one in the middle of the other eight as regards the alignment graph, with no preference for law, chaos, good or evil.

glad we got that resolved

Cheers

Damian

So saith Ed. I've never said he was sane, have I?
Gods, all this writing and he's running a constant fantasy version of Coronation Street in his head, too. .
shudder,
love to all,
THO
Candlekeep Forum 7 May 2005
Go to Top of Page

Lord Karsus
Great Reader

USA
3736 Posts

Posted - 17 Mar 2012 :  00:52:54  Show Profile Send Lord Karsus a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

What I took from it, as I saw this was discussed a few months ago from some article is that classes rarity illustrates it's relationship with any given game-world or setting. For example, most generic/iconic D&D settings are going to have 4 (or more?) possible common classes. These are generic enough to really fill any sort of theme. The Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard are normally the most iconic and/or generic so they're common.

Uncommon classes are likely to be specialized version of the common, a Ranger is a fighter who takes to the woodlands. A paladin is a holy-warrior that casts some divine magic. A sorcerer is a elemental/draconis/infernal fused spellcaster that isn't stuck in a study, learning from dusty old tomes. In other words, they're more the exception to the rule and not as likely to be found in every small town or hamlet.

Rare classes are the ones few people become apart of due to how specific they are. A druid, for example, MIGHT be a rare class in that 1.) you don't see them too often even in the woods and you practically never see them in cities. 2.) They're very specific in theme and mechanics. Or perhaps it's the assassin class, a rogue that isn't a Jack of All Trades, that focuses on doing one thing well, killing a single target. They're niché in scope of the greater world.

How this relates to the rules? Perhaps uncommon and rare classes are mechanically more challenging? Perhaps they're excempt from Cons or Living Campaigns? Pehaps it's a rules-specific (meaning, set in stone) way for DMs to exclude classes they don't like. For example, a DM might say "No Rare classes in my game." and this would elimiate any classes he/she might not want to deal with by learning all they're ins/outs, OR it might just let players and DM know that this sort of class isn't as world-wide as others.

-Ah, okay, makes sense. I don't necessarily see why this needs to be included in a blank ruleset, given you can have a theoretical setting everybody is born a magician, and non-magicians are the rare ones. And the fact that the DM is perfectly within his/her bounds to just outright state that "X, Y, Z, classes are not found in this world/are PC classes/whatever". The way I interpreted it, I envisioned something similar to trading cards, with common, uncommon, rare, and whatever other cards randomly found inside. I thought the author was saying something along the lines of every DMG/PHB/whatever relevant book would have all of the common PC classes, plus random uncommon ones, and a rare one.

(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)

Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium
Go to Top of Page

Diffan
Great Reader

USA
4425 Posts

Posted - 18 Mar 2012 :  15:19:14  Show Profile Send Diffan a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus


-Ah, okay, makes sense. I don't necessarily see why this needs to be included in a blank ruleset, given you can have a theoretical setting everybody is born a magician, and non-magicians are the rare ones. And the fact that the DM is perfectly within his/her bounds to just outright state that "X, Y, Z, classes are not found in this world/are PC classes/whatever". The way I interpreted it, I envisioned something similar to trading cards, with common, uncommon, rare, and whatever other cards randomly found inside. I thought the author was saying something along the lines of every DMG/PHB/whatever relevant book would have all of the common PC classes, plus random uncommon ones, and a rare one.



I'm not sure what the scope of the idea is, really. I don't see why a specific classes rarity isn't mentioned in it's description, instead of a tag thrown onto it. But from what the leaked info says, something along the lines of all Player's Handbooks having 3-4 common classes, 1-3 uncommon classes, and 1 rare class. Don't really see the point with this either *shruggs*.

As for DMs saying 'No' to certain classes, I believe it's well within their right to do so, even if I hate the concept. By grouping them under common, uncommon, and rare tags, it makes saying 'No' easier for a DM to justify than showing bias towards one or two specific classes.
Go to Top of Page

Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author

USA
4598 Posts

Posted - 18 Mar 2012 :  16:52:26  Show Profile  Visit Erik Scott de Bie's Homepage Send Erik Scott de Bie a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I rather think class "groupings" is most valuable for new players, who can use them to determine what kind of play experience they might have. Common, uncommon, and rare is fine (intuitive + hopefully easily ignored for a specific campaign, i.e., assassins are much more common in XX world than wizards), but I'd like to see groupings along the lines of complexity. When I first get to the table, I want to be able to pick the fighter because it's easier to learn over the more complex wizard. See what I mean?

Also, I imagine some of the more interesting 4e-esque innovations (like healing surges, skill challenges, etc) will show up as modules you can add. What this would be is the baseline, core game, which you add things to make it the play experience you want. That is, after all, the idea.

As for the actual "report," it gets a big "meh" from me. Not sure what the author was trying to accomplish, seeing as this is a playtest, and whatever rules he was looking at (if they really are the genuine article or not) are no doubt in the dust bin by now. And when the playtest goes public, we'll all be able to respond to actual mechanics rather than secondhand opinions. It's an interesting preview, though.

I guess ultimately I'd say this sounds promising to me. WotC is at least exploring different editions to figure out what works and what doesn't, and we all have the chance to be part of it.

Cheers

Erik Scott de Bie

'Tis easier to destroy than to create.

Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars"

Edited by - Erik Scott de Bie on 18 Mar 2012 18:16:14
Go to Top of Page

Lord Karsus
Great Reader

USA
3736 Posts

Posted - 18 Mar 2012 :  23:08:22  Show Profile Send Lord Karsus a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan

I'm not sure what the scope of the idea is, really. I don't see why a specific classes rarity isn't mentioned in it's description, instead of a tag thrown onto it. But from what the leaked info says, something along the lines of all Player's Handbooks having 3-4 common classes, 1-3 uncommon classes, and 1 rare class. Don't really see the point with this either *shruggs*.

As for DMs saying 'No' to certain classes, I believe it's well within their right to do so, even if I hate the concept. By grouping them under common, uncommon, and rare tags, it makes saying 'No' easier for a DM to justify than showing bias towards one or two specific classes.


-Because that's mixing up the peanut butter and the nutella. A class is a class, and in a rulebook, they're simply a bunch of rules. It is the setting that it's in that determines if something is a common class, an uncommon class, a rare class, and any other delineations. In the Forgotten Realms, a Psion might be 'Rare'; in Dark Sun, a Psion might be 'Uncommon'. In the Hordelands, a Wizard might be 'Rare'; In High Netheril, a Wizard might be 'Common'.

-I like the concept, though. In setting campaign overview books, classes can be assigned 'rarities'. These classes are common in this region, these classes aren't common in this region, maybe some explanations as to why.

quote:
Originally posted by Erik Scott de Bie

I rather think class "groupings" is most valuable for new players, who can use them to determine what kind of play experience they might have. Common, uncommon, and rare is fine (intuitive + hopefully easily ignored for a specific campaign, i.e., assassins are much more common in XX world than wizards), but I'd like to see groupings along the lines of complexity. When I first get to the table, I want to be able to pick the fighter because it's easier to learn over the more complex wizard. See what I mean?

-Would be handy. When I first started playing D&D, my first character was a Fighter. I regularly messed up playing a Fighter because I forgot/didn't understand/didn't know about Base Attack Bonuses, pluses to saving scores, didn't track skill points properly (class skills; cross-class skills; skill synergy; items). Even something that is 'Beginner' can still hard to the beginner.

(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)

Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium

Edited by - Lord Karsus on 18 Mar 2012 23:13:11
Go to Top of Page

Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author

USA
4598 Posts

Posted - 19 Mar 2012 :  04:54:09  Show Profile  Visit Erik Scott de Bie's Homepage Send Erik Scott de Bie a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Well, at least we've awakened from the Thac0 nightmare.

Cheers

Erik Scott de Bie

'Tis easier to destroy than to create.

Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars"
Go to Top of Page

Ayrik
Great Reader

Canada
7966 Posts

Posted - 19 Mar 2012 :  05:10:10  Show Profile Send Ayrik a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Playing fighters ain't so hard. Just keep waving your weapon at anybody who's bigger, kick him in the kobolds, have some fun wrecking furniture, roll dice when you're told. Let the rest of the party deal with strategy and sneaky brain-hurting magical problems. Unless you're a total jerk your allies will (reluctantly) stick around and be useful during the fight, they'll probably even heal you up a bit afterwards.

[/Ayrik]
Go to Top of Page

Rils
Learned Scribe

USA
108 Posts

Posted - 19 Mar 2012 :  19:41:09  Show Profile Send Rils a Private Message  Reply with Quote
In one of the DDXP seminar transcriptions they talked about this "rarity" idea, basically it was tied to the complexity of the class (as noted above). But that's all they said about it. As mentioned, the idea was to use it as a shorthand for "'Common' = new players look here first." Not sure why they feel the need to do that.

Knowing my group, we'll all pick the rare ones, just because we can. A whole party of rares. so there. thbbt.

:)

OT, though, I'm skeptical of the playtest report, since the first thing he says is "I'm not under NDA", yet we know that ALL playtesting is done under NDA. He's curiously detailed on some things and not at all on others. I'm pretty much taking every "spoiler report" with a grain of salt and reserving judgement till we see the playtest.

For what it's worth, my buddy who works at WotC says the general scuttlebutt around the office is the D&DN "feels" mostly like 2e, with some improvements per 3e/4e. He hasn't played it himself though, nor could he tell me details if he had. :)

Dugmaren Brightmantle is my homey.

Edited by - Rils on 19 Mar 2012 19:41:57
Go to Top of Page

Seravin
Master of Realmslore

Canada
1265 Posts

Posted - 19 Mar 2012 :  19:43:48  Show Profile Send Seravin a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I don't agree with using terms like "common" and "rare" to describe beginner character classes versus advanced ones. Surely they can come up with a better naming convention.
Go to Top of Page

Tyranthraxus
Senior Scribe

Netherlands
423 Posts

Posted - 19 Mar 2012 :  20:38:51  Show Profile  Visit Tyranthraxus's Homepage Send Tyranthraxus a Private Message  Reply with Quote
There were thinks I liked and disliked, but this...

quote:


Every PHB will contain a random selection of 7 common classes, 3 uncommons, and 1 rare.



I really hope that's not going to be the case!
Go to Top of Page

Lord Karsus
Great Reader

USA
3736 Posts

Posted - 19 Mar 2012 :  22:55:53  Show Profile Send Lord Karsus a Private Message  Reply with Quote
-Well, we more or less agree that it's a generally fine idea, but they need better terms.

quote:
Originally posted by Tyranthraxus

I really hope that's not going to be the case!


-Why? Too many classes?

(A Tri-Partite Arcanist Who Has Forgotten More Than Most Will Ever Know)

Elves of Faerūn
Vol I- The Elves of Faerūn
Vol. III- Spells of the Elves
Vol. VI- Mechanical Compendium
Go to Top of Page

Tyranthraxus
Senior Scribe

Netherlands
423 Posts

Posted - 20 Mar 2012 :  00:16:18  Show Profile  Visit Tyranthraxus's Homepage Send Tyranthraxus a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Karsus

-Well, we more or less agree that it's a generally fine idea, but they need better terms.

quote:
Originally posted by Tyranthraxus

I really hope that's not going to be the case!


-Why? Too many classes?



Maybe I misunderstood, but random classes in a Player's Handbook? That just seems weird.
Go to Top of Page

Fellfire
Master of Realmslore

1965 Posts

Posted - 20 Mar 2012 :  00:18:33  Show Profile Send Fellfire a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Too many PHB's.

Misanthorpe

Love is a lie. Only hate endures. Light is blinding. Only in darkness do we see clearly.

"Oh, you think darkness is your ally? You merely adopted the dark. I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see the light until I was already a man, by then it was nothing to me but.. blinding. The shadows betray you because they belong to me." - Bane The Dark Knight Rises

Green Dragonscale Dice Bag by Crystalsidyll - check it out

Go to Top of Page

Rils
Learned Scribe

USA
108 Posts

Posted - 20 Mar 2012 :  14:43:02  Show Profile Send Rils a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Yeah, that can't be right at all. Why in the world would you put random sections in a book? Besides the printing and logistical nightmare that would be, it makes absolutely no sense that your core books would not be the same for everybody playing the game. I don't want to have to browse through dozens of "different" PHBs looking for the one with the combination of classes that I'm interested in. I'm going to assume that was a misunderstanding on the author's part and ignore that he said that.

Dugmaren Brightmantle is my homey.
Go to Top of Page

varyar
Seeker

95 Posts

Posted - 20 Mar 2012 :  15:40:01  Show Profile Send varyar a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I'm fairly sure it's a joking comparison to collectible card game packs, just like the line before it is a dig at "freemium" MMORPGs.
Go to Top of Page

Icelander
Master of Realmslore

1864 Posts

Posted - 20 Mar 2012 :  15:47:05  Show Profile  Visit Icelander's Homepage Send Icelander a Private Message  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by varyar

I'm fairly sure it's a joking comparison to collectible card game packs, just like the line before it is a dig at "freemium" MMORPGs.


Yep. It's clearly a joke.

While selling additional content apart from the basic game rules is something that pen-and-paper RPG publishers are usually every bit as eager to do as their computerised counterparts, the method proposed there is inefficient from a manufacturing and distribution standpoint. No company interested in its bottom line would adopt it.

Za uspiekh nashevo beznadiozhnovo diela!

Forgotten Realms fans, please sign a petition to re-release the FR Interactive Atlas
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  New Poll New Poll
 Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Candlekeep Forum © 1999-2024 Candlekeep.com Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000