|
treeboy posted:Doesn't Eldritch Knight also get evocation? Part of it is that I just find it funny that the EK gets two schools, but one of those has barely any Wizard spells to start, and very few that an EK can even cast, and even fewer that they benefit from casting. LFK fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Jul 30, 2014 |
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:37 |
|
|
I wrote up that EK as level 10, but at 11 it gets triple attacks. That pretty much blows away its low-level casting abilities. The best course of action really is to buff your melee and focus on that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
If I were to homebrew the EK for my players so that it had full wizard spellcasting but with less spell slots overall and limited to two schools of their choice would that be terribly broken?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Necroskowitz posted:If I were to homebrew the EK for my players so that it had full wizard spellcasting but with less spell slots overall and limited to two schools of their choice would that be terribly broken? Yes, it would totally undermine 5E's delicate balance. Not really. I say give all schools, and don't nerf the spell slots.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 03:25
|
|
|
treeboy posted:what kind of archetypes are not present that people would want to see? alternatively classes/archetypes. Archery + anything meaning spells, duh Paladins can buff the poo poo out of their melee attacks with spells, but archers seem to always get the shaft, comparatively.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 15:56
|
|
|
The Barbarian Preview is out. I like that they used art that doesn't look like the stereotypical Conan type barbarian. It makes me want to play one for the fist time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
None of these previews actually say anything about the mechanics of these classes. Or is the fluff supposed to make me rush to the store on release day?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Pretty much no one will give a poo poo about mechanics
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Wait, are 5e sympathetic websites getting exclusive previews?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:00
|
|
|
moths posted:Wait, are 5e sympathetic websites getting exclusive previews? yeah but why should this be a surprise?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
have it your weigh posted:The Barbarian Preview is out. I like that they used art that doesn't look like the stereotypical Conan type barbarian. It makes me want to play one for the fist time. Looks very similar to the artwork for the 4e Berserker from Heroes of the Feywild, actually, which is good, that was some nice art. Indeed, it's similar enough that I wonder if it's left over from that book... And yeah, basically all the previews of classes thus far have been other websites, not direct from Wizards.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
have it your weigh posted:I like that they used art that doesn't look like the stereotypical Conan type barbarian. It makes me want to play one for the fist time. This is actually the reason to play a Barbarian.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
I suppose I should have expected that, it's a pretty neat PR trick.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
I mean Wizards does the same thing with 3rd party sites and new Magic previews. It's a smart strategy, really.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
Does it bother anyone else that the wizard gets like eight different specializations while the other classes only get three each?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
QuantumNinja posted:Does it bother anyone else that the wizard gets like eight different specializations while the other classes only get three each? Yep. E: it also bothers me that the fighter gets like, 5 pages and the spellcasters get more than a quarter of the book. But then, this edition really isn't FOR me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
QuantumNinja posted:Does it bother anyone else that the wizard gets like eight different specializations while the other classes only get three each? Yes it's terrible how they had to water down the wizard by splitting their skills eight ways.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
QuantumNinja posted:Does it bother anyone else that the wizard gets like eight different specializations while the other classes only get three each? Even worse is that some don't even seem to be getting three any more. According to the article recently that described classes, barbarians only get 2, along with bards, druids, rangers and sorcerors. But at least the cleric gets 7, hey?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
I guess it makes sense in a world where the designers really, really don't want you to have a party without two full spellcasters, and might even want everyone to multiclass into those classes eventually anyway. They have to be the "something for everyone, we promise" classes. Druids, bards and warlocks are pretty much wizard and cleric special snowflake builds too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
In 5e, like 8 out of 12 classes are spell casters. But at least they finally made Diviners useful.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 22:31
|
|
|
ritorix posted:Yes it's terrible how they had to water down the wizard by splitting their skills eight ways. The ones I've seen don't look watered down. If the specializations for wizards were all comparatively weaker, it would be cool, but they're all competitively powerful with the other classes' specializations, which seems utterly unreasonable to me. Wizards and clerics feel like complete classes, whereas the other ones are basically screaming "wait for the splatbook thanks".
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
huh, barbarians are d12 hit dice vs fighter d10. interesting
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 22:36
|
|
|
treeboy posted:huh, barbarians are d12 hit dice vs fighter d10. interesting I've never seen anything like it!
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
treeboy posted:huh, barbarians are d12 hit dice vs fighter d10. interesting I'm getting the feeling from the previews that the Fighter is all about being middle-ground-y. Tough, but not as tough as the Barbarian, good at crits, but not as much as the Barbarian. Good at self-healing, but not as much as the Paladin. Damaging, but not as much as the Rogue. OK at out of combat stuff but not as much as the Ranger. It feels like a class other classes dip into to improve their features, rather than really being a class in and of itself. Much like the edition, really.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
have it your weigh posted:The Barbarian Preview is out. I like that they used art that doesn't look like the stereotypical Conan type barbarian. It makes me want to play one for the fist time. Meh. In "related topics" — for all the talk about 5e's "progressive art", the ranger (according to the website illustration) is a scantily clad conventionally pretty young woman. One would think the barbarian might be used to balance things and offer players a hot scantily clad dude but no, they had to go with a fugly midde-aged man.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
No one gets to choose any path class features until level 2 or 3. Primary casters still get to choose spells right away, though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 22:49
|
|
|
Caphi posted:No one gets to choose any path class features until level 2 or 3. Primary casters still get to choose spells right away, though. Well, how boring would the game be if you didn't have any spells?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Yep. Now if they actually LIMITED spellcasters rather than just giving them the whole drat spell list...
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
QuantumNinja posted:The ones I've seen don't look watered down. If the specializations for wizards were all comparatively weaker, it would be cool, but I was being sarcastic but I'm pretty sure I saw the same post for reals on enworld.
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
I wonder what the design rationale behind putting Basic's Weapon Mastery and 4th's Warlord into the same subclass was? I'm sure no one will ever tell us.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:I wonder what the design rationale behind putting Basic's Weapon Mastery and 4th's Warlord into the same subclass was? I'm sure no one will ever tell us. Fuckwittery, and a desperate desire to backtrack on their early 'pledge' that everything that was ever in a PHB(1) would be in the PHB for 5e. As with so many other things, the Warlord is an example of them desperately trying to please everyone, and actually succeeding in pissing off most of the people, because the people who like the Warlord, don't like the pale and pathetic imitation of it that is 'well, you might be able to spend a maneuver doing warlordy stuff up to 3/enc', and the people who hate it with a disturbing passion hate that it's even included at all. As with so many things, 5e tries to compromise, and compromise pleases no-one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
DalaranJ posted:design rationale Heh. Honestly most of 5E doesn't bother me too much. It has a very few nifty things, mostly things I don't care for or about, and some really terrible things, but oh well. But taken with Mearls' tweets there's this strong sensation of "trolololol" that just weirds me out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Daetrin posted:Heh. It's kind of like this for me too. Most of it doesn't bother me (in much the same way that PF and 3e don't bother me), but speaking as a player who got on board at 4e, and loved it, and generally likes games which are balanced and in which everyone contributes equally... 5e just doesn't seem like it's built with me in mind. I don't want to get to high levels and have the sorts of character I enjoy playing (various variations on 'dude who hits things with other things' usually) to be more or less invalidated by 'I cast Wish/Teleport/Meteor Swarm'. I LIKED the grid, and the relatively simple rules with a lot of emergent complexity that were written (when they were written well) in a comprehensible, systematic shorthand etc etc etc... Basically, there are some things which look fine, and it's mostly inoffensive and I'd probably play it if it was the only game in town, but... ah, what could have been. There's just nothing that grabs me and says 'hey, you want to play this game! I definitely won't be running it though, given what they did to spellcasting monsters, gently caress that. And such is the opinion of everyone else who DMs in my current group, so it looks like I won't be playing anyway. Bring on the retclones of 4e.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 00:37
|
|
|
moths posted:Wait, are 5e sympathetic websites getting exclusive previews?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 00:42
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:I definitely won't be running it though, given what they did to spellcasting monsters, gently caress that. And such is the opinion of everyone else who DMs in my current group, so it looks like I won't be playing anyway. Let's all play 5e without spellcasters, be they monsters or PCs. There's really not much of a game left, let's be honest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:I definitely won't be running it though, given what they did to spellcasting monsters Whats that?
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:I keep asking "whats that" because these threads go fast and I really dont want to go through hundreds of posts like DnD was D+D so... Spellcasting monsters cast spells. Like PCs. Which means each spellcaster makes you dig through the PHB to find what each spell does - in a spell list that is verbose and organized relatively poorly for such lookups. Given that this can be half a dozen spells or maybe more it's a huge pain. That's ignoring save-or-die effects. Contrast to 4E which had what the monster abilities did in very precise language on the card the rest of the monster stats were on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 02:00
|
|
|
Daetrin posted:Spellcasting monsters cast spells. Like PCs. Which means each spellcaster makes you dig through the PHB to find what each spell does - in a spell list that is verbose and organized relatively poorly for such lookups. Did 4e not have monsters "cast", like could they not be interrupted? (As opposed to innate abilities/ spell-like abilities)
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
FRINGE posted:Ah. I guess I was used to that in the older editions. 3e was a terrible mess to look through though. Please play some 4e,  But yeah, everything is instant-cast, although zones and stuff you can usually "sustain"
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:37 |
|
|
FRINGE posted:Ah. I guess I was used to that in the older editions. 3e was a terrible mess to look through though. The other big difference in 4e is that every spell was listed in the monster's statblock, and was statted to be appropriate to a monster using it. You'd never have to know how a player-available spell worked, look anything up or have to worry that really powerful spells in the PHB would randomly end encounters because players didn't have a specific defense against it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 02:21
|
|