DnD Previous: Once more back to 2nd Edition

So this happened: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130902

Mearls said that subclasses are going to be the next big thing. It isn't really clear, however, what the subclasses for paladin, ranger, barbarian, monk or bard will be though because they really should be subclasses of fighter, rogue, cleric, or mage themselves.

My worst fear when they started bring this up was that they'd roll wizard, warlock, and sorcerer into one magic-user class. Why is this a bad idea? The classes have nothing in common other than using magic.

A wizard, by definition in the game, is a scholar-mage. A wizard gains power through studying and forcing his mind to comprehend and manipulate magic via practice and rote memorization. Anyone with enough intelligence and dedication can cast spells like a wizard. A wizard probably is knowledgeable about things like the planes of existence, spellcraft, magical beasts, or lost legends because he is studious.

A sorcerer, conversely, has been designed as someone who innately manipulates magic. No amount of study helps them, they just experience and practice and possibly attune their bloodline further. They are not dependent on intelligence at all. A sorcerer shouldn't have bonus knowledge skills related to magical things necessarily, but instead might be adept at hiding or obviating his powers, knowing folk lore and safe houses and knowing the sorts of things that a noble or peasant would know.

A warlock makes a pact with some entity who grants magical power. The warlock may need to be canny and smart, but dumb warlocks could also make a pact presumably. In which case perhaps being persuasive or magnetic would grant the warlock a patron's notice, but even that might not be required. A warlock might need a high constitution to withstand his patron's mighty touch. Like the sorcerer, a warlock doesn't need to know anything about how magic works to use his granted powers.

The three spellcasters described above, not to mention a runecaster or artificer or whatnot, don't even share a list of skills they might know. So it's not appropriate for the mage class to grant skills. All it would be granting is spellcasting style, which itself might grant more options (school specialties for wizards, bloodlines for sorcerers, pacts for warlocks). This doesn't seem like the right level of granularity. Wizards, warlocks, and sorcerers could still share a spell list (and should) if they are distinct classes.

This design decision seems like we're moving back to the world of second edition kits, and is going to be the new bloat in rules options. The raging nerd and grognard inside me wants to go back to second edition, add in ascending armor class, and change proficiencies a bit along with spell slots for the casters and call it 5th edition.

Perhaps I'll come to terms with this eventually, but I really hate a few of the implications or ramifications here. First, psion will be a type of mage. This feels wrong and not like D&D. Second, I really wish there were a shaman and mystic/shukenja option for clerics. Non-western religions should be included, not just a class drawn from western monotheism and classical paganism. This doesn't seem likely given the current version of the cleric. Third, as mentioned earlier, most of the classes are only classes now by weight of tradition. Barbarians, bards, druids, monks, paladins, and rangers are rather narrow archetypes compared to the big 4. I cannot imagine we would ever see as many bard or druid or paladin subclasses as we will fighter or rogue types.

This saddens me, because I did enjoy the playtest games I did this summer. I like the bounded accuracy/flatter math concept, which lets lower level creatures be used more often. I like advantage as a simple mechanic for bonuses and penalties. I enjoyed the feel of the game, even if a few things needed to be reworked.

I had been thinking that one of my next goals in life might be to publish a D&D article or adventure. But maybe it will be an OSR thing. I didn't like the direction Pathfinder took with classes (though I do like some aspects of that system too). I'm not sure I like how 5e is turning out with this announcement. I guess time will tell, maybe the next packet will give me something to be happier about.

Missed Opportunities in D&D Next

So, apparently at GenCon they announced that they're pretty well happy with the playtest feedback for the game, so most of the design is done now. Presumably lots of development to do still to get the math right, add in some missing options, etc. That strikes me as a little odd, given that we just got this packet recently and haven't given feedback on this version. I don't think this is all one big marketing ploy, but I guess they don't expect to be making many changes to what we've got now.

I largely like some of the changes they've made. Fighters now get lores, and they acknowledge that some classes/builds should have skills (i.e. expertise dice) including knight-type fighters. After being disappointed that there was a loss of options from the previous packet (particularly in the cleric and rogue), I saw there were some other quite nice options and a lot of the stuff does look like an improvement. I still wish monks had a maneuver system instead of lame ki powers and that there were a few more races included so we could easily run Planescape or Al-Qadim. That said, I think there are a few changes that really should have been made, and I'm afraid we won't see them in the next edition right away.

Hidden rules in D&D Next

I am largely happy with the current D&D next rules, despite criticizing and critiquing them. They need more spells and races and classes and such, and the math needs to be fixed a bit, and things interact in strange ways. But one other problem I'm seeing is a strange set of "hidden rules" that require some reading between the lines, when things could be explicitly pointed out. Here's the main examples that come to mind right now:

• Rogues sneak attack by giving up advantage, and each rogue scheme has a way to get advantage fairly easily. So the two features are really quite intertwined, but you need to read between the lines a bit to link them. This one is fairly obvious, but could be easily overlooked, especially when playing a pre-generated rogue.

• Monks get a hidden "flurry of blows" power because martial arts lets them "dual wield" their unarmed attacks. This isn't really any different from other characters, but its there. Monks don't necessarily need a multiattacking power, but people playing a monk sort of expect that they'll be making lots of attacks and it takes some reading of the Martial Arts feat and weapon properties and such to put this together.

• All rogues can open locks and disarm traps. This is hidden away in one line that says: Tool proficiency: thieves' tools. I can hardly believe it took me this long to figure out that proficiency in thieves' tools did this, and it made me much more likely to play a rogue since I didn't need to waste two feats to open locks and disarm traps.

• On a similar note, Open Locks and Disarm Traps are secretly skills. To get them, you need to take the feat though, and you can only use them if you're proficient with thieves' tools. This presents one from taking skill focus or mastery for these non-skills. It would be nice to list this in the skills part, essentially saying that they're skills that can only be obtained with proficiency in thieves' tools and that they're not eligible for the skill-boosting feats.

More fixes for the fighter: Backgrounds

I've posted before about giving the fighter fighting stances or styles, but one of the problems with the fighter is that he just fights. And he fights in a vacuum.

We see this in 3.5 and 4e where fighters get fewer skills than other classes. I can accept that rogues get more skills since skills are a rogue thing. Clerics are basically all priests (or monks, mendicants, friars, and very very rarely prophets or mystics or others not associated with the priesthood). Wizards, given how magic works in the game, are all intelligence-based and scholarly spellcasters. Both clerics and wizards end up with class features supporting their role as trained priests or scholars. There are alternate classes (sorcerer and warlock; invoker/favored soul) who are similar to clerics and wizards but their spellcasting and the origins of their powers are different and thus the classes are quite different in terns of ability scores used, skills, and class features. But where does a fighter's weapon training come from?

How much variety is enough?

Now that I've been playing some D&D next, I'm starting to rethink my ideal list of classes a bit. People have always been interested in new classes (and races) in D&D. The very first books and magazines expanded the list of character options beyond the few basics, but the basics have always been somewhat the standard, required classes.

Party roles were long ago based on fighters, thieves, clerics, and mages. The basics of exploring a dungeon seem to require someone that can do what each of these classes can do: taking out enemies, traps and scouting, and healing. Ok, the wizard seems more necessary because he's the kill-switch or emergency button. But one well-placed or well-times magic spell overcomes most obstacles. If the mage has the right one ready.

The problem is that each of those classes are basically the same, so that their roles can always be done. A wizard can cast any spell he finds. A cleric can always heal. A thief gets the same set of skills, and fighters are basically the same heavily-armored tank.

D&D Next: Disappointing Skills and Saving Throws

 One of the things I thought was odd about D&D Next is the ability score-based saving throws. I couldn't quite formulate how I was dissatisfied with it till now though. Ability-based saves feel like they overlap with skills.

Now, this should be a problem in 3.5 and 4e too, right? Somehow it didn't feel like it. And I think it was because things like the 3.5 grease spell called for a balance check rather than a dexterity saving throw. In 4e, someone attacked your reflex defense, so it also didn't seem like much of an overlap.

Conceptually it might not seem like much of an overlap. If you were trying to balance on a wall, you'd roll a dexterity check plus your balance skill. If an evil wizard cast a fireball spell, you'd make a dexterity save. But your tumble skill, useful for things like rolling down a steep incline or running between the giant's legs doesn't help you dodge that fireball.

Roles for exploration and interaction

Last night's game got me really thinking about exploration and interaction roles. I'm running Against the Cult of the Reptile God as my summer D&D fling game, and the party began infiltrating the church.

Now, I'm sure the player of the fighter was just tired, but the party didn't get to much fighting in general last night. So the fighter seemed bored as well as tired. The party's good planning reduced the need for combat dramatically, so people probably only took a swing or two each at enemies before they went down.

But the problem is that with the skill system, the fighter really doesn't have much that he can do outside of combat.

Jakandor: A Forgotten Setting

I have to admit that I really have a raging nerd boner for an old little setting called Jakandor. Well, half of it at least. This was a second edition setting (weren't they all?) that focuses on the class of two cultures: the magical Charonti and the stupidly named generic Vikings/Indians called the Knorr. It wouldn't be so bad if that weren't a soup product.

Anyway, the Knorr stuff is just ok. Warrior culture, animal totems. Meh. The magical Charonti is where its at.

Ability Scores Matter?

One of the things touted by the D&D Next crew was that ability scores would matter in the new edition. Now, math-wise, I think they matter just a little too much and would prefer an 18 to just be a +3 bonus, but whatever. What I'm talking about here is how many classes are still just based on one stat and others are practically useless.

Let's take the fighter. He needs strength to attack, or maybe dexterity for a finesse weapon. Constitution does give the might HP bonus, so putting points into constitution is still pretty good. But intelligence only helps search and lore skills, wisdom is just spot and listen basically, and charisma is also just a skill or two that the fighter might take. What happened to the ideas from 4e where a fighter gets a Wisdom bonus to opportunity attacks? Or, given that the warlord seems to be being folded into the fighter, how about giving us a sweet sweet intelligence, wisdom, or charisma bonus with those expertise dice?

This isn't just the fighter's problem. The Wizard is almost solely intelligence-based (with a little con for HP and dexterity for AC). The Rogue is just dexterity plus maybe charisma or intelligence for skills, though he could attack with strength. The Cleric is wisdom plus maybe dexterity or strength for a weapon attack and constitution for HP.

I get not wanting classes to be overly reliant on multiple ability scores, but it feels like the game basically runs off of dexterity (AC, attacking with bows and finesse weapons) and constitution (Hit points). Strength gets a nod since it can be used for weapon attacks, intelligence gets a couple bonus languages which are just fluff, wisdom powers the pretty useful perception and anti-surprise skills, and only one party member needs charisma for the face-skills.

4e tried to make ability scores more useful with the non-AC defenses, but that ended up oddly pairing the stats so you could basically focus on only three instead of six. Third edition, oddly, made a lot of use for different ability scores. Charisma affected your leadership (if you took that feat), intelligence affected your skill points, and wisdom alone affected your will saves. Maybe not ideal, but it didn't feel like you were squandering points if you built a fighter with a high intelligence.

Now, I like the idea of the bounded-accuracy flatter math of D&D next, so I'm loathe to just start having characters throw a second ability modifier on rolls willy nilly. But there might be some class features that could be constructed, if not general everyone-features, which help make abilities more useful.

I'm not sure what, exactly, will help out here. But I suspect a few class features could be made more variable. Paladins, for example, could let wisdom fuel their divine grace as well as charisma, or some clerics might be charisma-based casters instead of wisdom. Some feats could go back to taking advantage of ability scores somehow (move 5' faster for a feat if you have a Dex of 14). Those sorts of feat requirements did impact 4e some, but they were often set at 12 or 13 and I think a 14 might be the thing to really restrict them (or reward a fighter for having intelligence). Finally, giving a bonus skill or two might from class might actually help encourage some other abilities. I liked how classes in previous packets got skills instead of advantage on skill checks that they might not have (i.e. wizard, cleric, druid).