D&D 5e: For real this time?

[Libertad]

Looking at the latest (June 7th) Playtest Packet.

The Druid can cast Wish as a 9th-level spell.  Miracle doesn't exist.

Wish functions almost the same as it does in 3.X

[Raineh Daze]

Looking at the latest (June 7th) Playtest Packet.

The Druid can cast Wish as a 9th-level spell.  Miracle doesn't exist.

Wish functions almost the same as it does in 3.X

I... it...

Why have they brought that thing back?

[Libertad]

Because they're trying to go for a 3rd Edition-esque game.  Except stripped down and simplified for the Old School crowd.

Oh, and they weren't nice enough to throw 4th Edition fans a bone.  Hell, 4E had plenty of neat ideas.  The Warlock and the Warden are both thematically awesome.

[Raineh Daze]

Because they're trying to go for a 3rd Edition-esque game.  Except stripped down and simplified for the Old School crowd.

Oh, and they weren't nice enough to throw 4th Edition fans a bone.

Oh, I realise that (I've been hanging around on the GitP thread for some reason), I just want to know what the hell possessed them to add Wish again. I want to know in what conceivable way Wish was ever a good idea to add in that form in the first place.

[zioth]

Wish is an iconic spell, so I understand wanting to keep it, but they did it very poorly. They have to fix it before it goes out. Wizards were very hesitant to cast the spell in 3E, because of the high XP cost. In 5E, the cost is that your strength drops to 3 and you can't cast any more spells that day. So it's no longer a combat spell except in the most dire of go-for-broke emergencies, but it can still create magic items. This means that, in a caster's down-time, he's going to be casting Wish every night before going to bed, to make 25,000gp in extraordinarily rare magic items every day (at least, items are supposed to be rare in 5E). Or he can just wish himself a 25,000gp block of gold every day. High level casters are supposed to be powerful, but unlimited wealth without even having to be clever, or risking flooding the market (Wall of Iron) is a little ridiculous.

[Libertad]

Gonna be posting some 5th Edition stuff in a minute.

Neutral is the alignment of those that prefer to steer clear of moral questions and don’t take sides, doing what seems best at the time. Lizardfolk, most druids, and many humans are  neutral

Neutrals just don't give a shit.  Expect everybody tired of alignment dilemmas to take this.


Feats are optional, but skills aren't.

The copypasta doesn't work well.  It makes A SEPARATE LINE FOR EVERY WORD!  I'm not putting up with that shit, I'm paraphrasing from now on.

No hard and fast mechanics, but it looks like we're saying goodbye to Magic Item Wal-Mart.  Under "selling magic items" in the Magic Items document, it mentions that there is no real established market.  Most people trade for other magic items or services instead of gold and coins, and demand is partially based upon usefulness and rarity.  Also, finding someone who can give its true value is usually an isolated and powerful person, such as a dwarven lord in a mountain stronghold or reclusive wizard in a remote tower.

Dwarves, Elves, Halflings, and Humans are the "core" races.  Half-elves, Gnomes, and Half-Orcs are separate, under "additional races."  With the exception of Humans and the half-races, each race has two sub-races with alternate traits (Rock Gnome and Forest Gnome, Lightfoot and Stout Halflings, etc).

Classes include Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, and Wizard.

Paladins must be of any Lawful alignment, and represent champions of order as opposed to Goodliness.

[Raineh Daze]

Paladins must be of any Lawful alignment, and represent champions of order as opposed to Goodliness.

Gaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh.

[linklord231]

Didn't I read a Legends and Lore article that said they were doing away with alignment almost entirely?
Oh yeah, here it is.

They put out a Q&A that said

In the Legends & Lore, Mike mentions decoupling alignment from the rules. In the current packet, paladins are still required to be lawful. Is that something that you guys will change to decouple the alignment from the rules?

Yes. It simply has not been changed yet in the public playtest packets, because we are working hard to present some major changes across all classes in an upcoming packet, and we want to make sure that everything is interacting properly.

That Q&A was dated June 27, so maybe they intend to change it in the next packet.

[bhu]

Has anyone explained to Mearls that his name is mentioned with the same amount of disdain frequently used when discussing MLP erotic fan fiction?

[Libertad]

Has anyone explained to Mearls that his name is mentioned with the same amount of disdain frequently used when discussing MLP erotic fan fiction?

I think that he's aware of the hostility he generates, but he keeps on truckin'.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

EDIT --- double biff, deleted part of this post.

"4e did stick Wish and Polymorph back in just at the end.
I'm forgetting off hand which book they're in,
but they act like a kind of Super-Rare scrolls/boon thingy."


Huh, the board wouldn't let me do a self-referencial quote.
Serves my kitty avatar's ego right.  Anyways ... found it.


4e Dungeon Survival Guide has a "rewards" section
with those 2 and Mass Heal and 1 other convert.
And they have a tier-level so technically they are
accessible via Boons ... (technically).

[Demelain]

I would much rather have Paladins function like Crusaders - any non-TrueNeutral.

[Raineh Daze]

I would much rather have Paladins function like Crusaders - any non-TrueNeutral.

Now that doesn't even sound like it should be called a paladin, honestly. :/

[linklord231]

I would much rather have Paladins function like Crusaders - any non-TrueNeutral.

Now that doesn't even sound like it should be called a paladin, honestly. :/

Shrug.  Only in the context of roleplaying games does a paladin generally mean "Defender of Goodness".  The general definition is just "champion of a cause".  As long as you have a cause to fight for, you should be able to be a paladin.  I'd even go so far as to say that Neutrality can be a cause.

[Raineh Daze]

I would much rather have Paladins function like Crusaders - any non-TrueNeutral.

Now that doesn't even sound like it should be called a paladin, honestly. :/

Shrug.  Only in the context of roleplaying games does a paladin generally mean "Defender of Goodness".  The general definition is just "champion of a cause".  As long as you have a cause to fight for, you should be able to be a paladin.  I'd even go so far as to say that Neutrality can be a cause.

The word comes from a single guy's fictional knights, so a chaotic paladin is something that's a bit hard to picture. You may as well not bother having it as a class by that point.

I have never heard of the definition as champion of a cause, to be honest. Knights? Yup. Knights in Shining Armour? Yup. 'Champion of a cause'? No.

[linklord231]

All I did was google "define paladin" and it was the second definition in like 3 different sources.  The first one varied between "paragon of chivalry" (which supports the 'knight in shining armor' style it has in d&d - though not precisely, as you can be both chivalrous and a bad person) and "one of the 12 members of Charlemagne's court" which doesn't really help. 

[Raineh Daze]

All I did was google "define paladin" and it was the second definition in like 3 different sources.  The first one varied between "paragon of chivalry" (which supports the 'knight in shining armor' style it has in d&d - though not precisely, as you can be both chivalrous and a bad person) and "one of the 12 members of Charlemagne's court" which doesn't really help. 

'Paragon of Chivalry' and 'bad person' sound mutually exclusive. Since... uh... one of the pillars of chivalry is protecting the weak. Seriously. Also not lying, perseverance... about the only thing that could creep into evil is 'obey your lord', but breaking half the rules to obey one other isn't going to get you labelled a paragon of it. @_@

And Charlemagne's, in legend, seem to tend towards being a bunch of knights errant doing random quests (look up Astolfo at some point).

The first definition seems better, honestly. 'Champion of a cause' makes me think 'zealot' before anything else.

[Demelain]

LN - The law, not too far from standard ideas so I don't feel a need to expound.
NG - Goodness, frankly closer to my idea of a Paladin anyway (because the law does sometimes conflict with what is morally right in the LG case)
CN - personal freedom, which should not be limited by man and his laws/subjective morality (CE and CG follow, emphasizing/excising different parts)
NE - perhaps the hardest to imagine. Really, I picture it as evil for the sake of evil. More insanity, but black knight/blackguard style.

LE follows into might makes right, and the law is the law.
LG is typical.

[brujon]

LN - The law, not too far from standard ideas so I don't feel a need to expound.
NG - Goodness, frankly closer to my idea of a Paladin anyway (because the law does sometimes conflict with what is morally right in the LG case)
CN - personal freedom, which should not be limited by man and his laws/subjective morality (CE and CG follow, emphasizing/excising different parts)
NE - perhaps the hardest to imagine. Really, I picture it as evil for the sake of evil. More insanity, but black knight/blackguard style.

LE follows into might makes right, and the law is the law.
LG is typical.

I think to end all that debate, they should just can the term Paladin and start using the term Paragon, because it actually fits much better.

Take the variant paladins, but substitute the name "Paladin" with the name "Paragon"

Paladin of Honor (Standard)
Paragon of Freedom
Paragon of Slaughter
Paragon of Tyranny

Much better. They're Paragons of a cause, they take an idea, and express it to the ultimate level. Be it Virtue, Good, Freedom, or even Slaughter or Tyranny. The idea remains exactly the same, but ends the confusion and permits more variety. What creates the problem is really the term they chose...

[Demelain]

Yeah, I suppose. Much like 5e's first iteration of sorcerer - the name of the class was the problem, the mechanics were actually really interesting.