D&D 5e: For real this time?

[Libertad]

I believe that the designers realize how uber-powerful spellcasters were in 3rd Edition.  Many gamers try to achieve some level of balance by powering up the other classes, or powering down the spellcasters.  Or both.

I believe that was one of the goals of 4th Edition.  By limiting most non-combat actions to skill challenges, they pretty much made spellcasters "blasters."

Hopefully they allow the Fighters to be good at skills and out-of-combat stuff.  The inspiring general and educated revolutionary should both be valid concepts.

[Halinn]

Also, #1 on their Cleric Design Goals is that "The Cleric Is a Healer". Sigh.

[Prime32]

Also, #1 on their Cleric Design Goals is that "The Cleric Is a Healer". Sigh.

Is that bad? That was their goal in 3e, they just screwed it up.

[bhu]

I stand by my previous hooker comment 

[Halinn]

Also, #1 on their Cleric Design Goals is that "The Cleric Is a Healer". Sigh.

Is that bad? That was their goal in 3e, they just screwed it up.

It's not a very cool role to stick a person to. Having one person be strictly support shouldn't be a design goal, IMO.
My experience is actually that for mid-op play, pathfinder cleric is actually quite reasonable. It can do normal 3.5 cleric stuff, but it also has healing as a low opportunity cost class feature.

[linklord231]

It did specifically mention that a Cleric should be able to heal AND do something interesting in the same turn.  I took this to mean something like a 4e minor action to heal, and a standard to cast a real spell.  Either that, or Crusader style "beat people to heal my friends".

What concerns me is their stubborn "fighter = mundane" attitude expressed in the Fighter Design Goals.  It's waaaaaay to easy to fall into the trap of "that's not realistic" and end up sucking past level 6.  Unless they go the "nobody gets nice things" route they did in 4e and take away all non-combat related magic, virtually all self buffs on casters, and everything else that wasn't a blast or a crappy battlefield control spell. 

[veekie]

It reads mostly like "Fighters will have biggest numbers" and count on that to carry them through a fight. More attacks, more damage reduction, more AC, more damage, higher to hit. That was never the problem with the Fighter, it could do those things just fine anyway.

Clerics will remain spell-based, but theres mention of god specific mechanics, maybe that'd do something different. Though its still healing oriented.

[InnaBinder]

Clerics will remain spell-based, but theres mention of god specific mechanics, maybe that'd do something different. Though its still healing oriented.

Hopefully those are well thought-out enough so that every minmaxer worth the title doesn't automatically gravitate to the same god for the mechanical benefit.

[Rejakor]

I really doubt it.

Also, of all the fixes, the ones i've liked the most have been the ones where wizards still get to do cool stuff, it's just that they have to be real creative and use terrain and tactics to be as effective as the fighter in melee combat.  I.e. make the fighter good at fighting, and the wizard good at wizarding, instead of the fighter useless at everything and the wizard using wizarding to win fights because the fighter is useless.

Don't restrict the idea space of the game by making the wizard weak and non-versatile as a pile of crap (4e style), make the fighter, y'know, GOOD AT WHAT HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE DOING.

[InnaBinder]

I really doubt it.

Also, of all the fixes, the ones i've liked the most have been the ones where wizards still get to do cool stuff, it's just that they have to be real creative and use terrain and tactics to be as effective as the fighter in melee combat.  I.e. make the fighter good at fighting, and the wizard good at wizarding, instead of the fighter useless at everything and the wizard using wizarding to win fights because the fighter is useless.

Don't restrict the idea space of the game by making the wizard weak and non-versatile as a pile of crap (4e style), make the fighter, y'know, GOOD AT WHAT HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE DOING.

In order to do that, it seems likely that they may choose to eliminate or nerf those spells that allow an arcanist to be good at melee combat; I'm not advocating this as a good idea, but it's the simplest solution at first blush, so a likely one for the designers to gravitate toward.  This, in turn, could lead to much wailing and gnashing of teeth among the gish fans. 

[Nicklance]

I don't think it really matters. Initially there's talk that we would be giving up all our 3.5 stuff when 4E rolls into existence, but now looking back we've pretty much ignored 4E and went ahead with 3.5 as if it is business as usual. Some port over to PF.

When 5E comes out, and if it does not satisfy us again, I think we'll ignore it just as well and carry on.

[Hallack]

I think it would be a design flaw to try to make Fighter=cleric=wizard=rogue=etc....

It is okay to have power discrepancies.  That is not to say mundanes should not have nice things.  I'm all for letting mundanes do and have nice things. 

Trying to create equality between mundanes and magic however I generally destroys a lot of the fantasy of the game, particularly when trying to make higher levels equal. 

 

[oslecamo]

In order to do that, it seems likely that they may choose to eliminate or nerf those spells that allow an arcanist to be good at melee combat; I'm not advocating this as a good idea, but it's the simplest solution at first blush, so a likely one for the designers to gravitate toward.  This, in turn, could lead to much wailing and gnashing of teeth among the gish fans.

Or they could simply make it so that there's good melee spells, but if you pick them, then you will have a lot less spells known for other stuff.

Which is one of the few things 4e got right. No more "Some casters automatically get  a trillion options every day that keep growing with each splat book".

I think it would be a design flaw to try to make Fighter=cleric=wizard=rogue=etc....

It is okay to have power discrepancies.  That is not to say mundanes should not have nice things.  I'm all for letting mundanes do and have nice things. 

Trying to create equality between mundanes and magic however I generally destroys a lot of the fantasy of the game, particularly when trying to make higher levels equal.   

And this I believe it's what 4e got worst. If everybody has the same "powers" crunch-wise and the only thing that changes is the name and coloring, well, the players will not be happy. If both the fighter's ultimate slash and the wizard's touch of doom are both 10d10+Main stat damage+status effect, save for half and reduced status effect, then it indeed just doesn't feel right, even if it's tecnically balanced.

I don't think it really matters. Initially there's talk that we would be giving up all our 3.5 stuff when 4E rolls into existence, but now looking back we've pretty much ignored 4E and went ahead with 3.5 as if it is business as usual. Some port over to PF.

When 5E comes out, and if it does not satisfy us again, I think we'll ignore it just as well and carry on.

We may ignore it when it comes out... But what matters is that we're not ignoring it now. For better or worst, people are talking about 5e, so there's some degree of interest. I predict that when we actually get our hands in that first 5e bits, plenty of people will hungrily jump at it, if nothing else to have a new taste.

This is, if 3.5 has managed to endure until now whitout a company's suport, then it means Wotc did something right with it.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

I think it would be a design flaw to try to make Fighter=cleric=wizard=rogue=etc....

It is okay to have power discrepancies.  That is not to say mundanes should not have nice things.  I'm all for letting mundanes do and have nice things. 

Trying to create equality between mundanes and magic however I generally destroys a lot of the fantasy of the game, particularly when trying to make higher levels equal.

But they'll still have to keep some 4E -isms around to keep that part of the fan base happy.
Personally, I'd like to see bigger differences between those types of roles.

The lower powered gritty heroic game, has more than enough material
from all editions of the game.  The higher end game that goes from
super heroes to demigods ... yeah the mundanes look quite soft.
Heck, the beefing about "fighters" being too weak, is well known.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Also, #1 on their Cleric Design Goals is that "The Cleric Is a Healer". Sigh.

Uggh ... 

[Halinn]

Also, #1 on their Cleric Design Goals is that "The Cleric Is a Healer". Sigh.

Uggh ... 

I think that what annoys me the most of that is that it is the first thing on their list. I mean, they could have worded it as "clerics are support characters" or mentioned it after telling how cool their role in combat would be, but their number one thing is that clerics are walking band-aid dispensers.

[oslecamo]

Remember me, since when being known as the one who can heal all wounds, remove all maladies and perhaps even bring the dead back to life, a bad thing? Wotc has even been working to make healing a fluid part of combat  for quite some time now.

And heck, considering that 5e's main purpose is to make a D&D version that is recongizeable by all, then yes, clerics have always been known as the party healers.

[LordBlades]

Or they could simply make it so that there's good melee spells, but if you pick them, then you will have a lot less spells known for other stuff.

Alternatively, they could make spells that make you good enough at melee so you can hold your own vs. monsters, but not as good as a purely melee class like a fighter. A Gish should be a compromise between fighter and caster, not 'almost as good as a fighter, 90% as good as a caster' like it stands in 3.5.

[oslecamo]

And do tell, what do you mean by "good enough"? Because if nothing else, what qualifies as "good enough" is one of the most hotly debated topics in D&D discussions since the dawns of time.

Plus again, if those melee spells don't actually cost you anything from the rest of your casting potential, you're back to the starting problem. The wizard now doesn't need the fighter because he's "good enough" in melee, so what's the fighter suposed to do?

[LordBlades]

And do tell, what do you mean by "good enough"? Because if nothing else, what qualifies as "good enough" is one of the most hotly debated topics in D&D discussions since the dawns of time.

Of course, in the end, good enough is subjective. What I had in mind was 'be able to engage most melee monsters in the book with a reasonable chance of succeeding'

Plus again, if those melee spells don't actually cost you anything from the rest of your casting potential, you're back to the starting problem. The wizard now doesn't need the fighter because he's "good enough" in melee, so what's the fighter suposed to do?

Choosing to be better at fighting as a wizard should mean that you're worse at wizard-ing. For example, if something like Polymorph, instead of being 'screw your physical stats, you're a dragon now' would base it's effect on your base physical stats, you'd probably see gishes care for their physical stats more, at the expense of their casting stat, this being worse wizards.