[5e] Various Updates

[Dragonhelm]

Seminar Transcript - Class Design: From Assassins to Wizards

Okay, so there is a LOT of information from this seminar. The above link will give you all the details, but there's a few things I wanted to cover.

Vancian Magic - It's back! Or at least it is for the wizard and cleric. Classes like the fighter won't have spell-like powers, but they will have their own cool abilities to choose from. I have no idea on other spellcasting classes.

Rituals - Rituals will remain, but will be there for those uber-powerful spells that take time to prepare. I imagine that Timereaver would make the perfect ritual.

At-will Spells - It looks like they will return in the form of spells gained through feats, or something like that. So a great way of combining Vancian magic with the 4e at-wills.

Power Sources - They are no longer going to be referring to a class as primal, arcane, etc. However, they will say (for example) that a wizard casts arcane spells.

Feel of Magic - It sounds like they're going to get back to the feel of wonder magic had back in AD&D.

Classes - The class list, thus far, is made up of every class that's been in a PH1. So it might look something like this:

• Assassin
• Barbarian
• Bard
• Cleric
• Druid
• Fighter
• Illusionist
• Monk
• Paladin
• Ranger
• Rogue
• Sorcerer
• Warlock
• Warlord
• Wizard

This is not a finalized list yet. I would guess that the Illusionist would be folded into the wizard (perhaps as some sort of modular abilities?).

There's a comment in the transcript about finding the right niche for the sorcerer since the other arcane classes are such strong archetypes.

And, it looks like some work has been done on the psion, but it's on a backburner for now. I honestly don't anticipate it ever being in a core PHB1.

Multiclassing - Will be more like 3e's. I think this is fantastic, as 3e had the best multiclass rules of any edition.


Overall, I like everything I'm hearing. I truly think this will be the best edition yet.

[Sallis the Silver Blaze]

I am hoping for a titanic PHB. I hope the same metric they are applying to classes is the same they apply to races, though the eladrin can be glommed back into the elf.

[Kenwolf]

Multiclassing - Will be more like 3e's. I think this is fantastic, as 3e had the best multiclass rules of any edition.

i have heard that multiclassing in 3E made you weaker tho ? like if you went fighter/wizard you would be an ok fighter and on ok wizard but not great at ether one ? and if they are having that kind of multiclassing then they are going with same exp. for every class to go up a level. i don't know if i like that cause that was something i didn't like in 3E but i will say it is better then 4E multiclassing.

[Kendermage]

i have heard that multiclassing in 3E made you weaker tho ? like if you went fighter/wizard you would be an ok fighter and on ok wizard but not great at ether one ? and if they are having that kind of multiclassing then they are going with same exp. for every class to go up a level. i don't know if i like that cause that was something i didn't like in 3E but i will say it is better then 4E multiclassing.

3e Multi-Classing led to Frankenstein characters. They were mediocre at both classes, but great in neither. Even one extra class was usually enough to kill your effectiveness. Add in PrCs and the situation got even worse. I hope they aren't resorting to this again.

4e was weak in multi-classing too though but for a different reason. You have to purchase feats to use the abilities of another class. Feats are a precious commodity and characters get damned few of them as it is. Again, multi-classing killed your overall effectiveness.

What needs to happen is a medium between the two.

[Kenwolf]

3e Multi-Classing led to Frankenstein characters. They were mediocre at both classes, but great in neither. Even one extra class was usually enough to kill your effectiveness. Add in PrCs and the situation got even worse. I hope they aren't resorting to this again.

4e was weak in multi-classing too though but for a different reason. You have to purchase feats to use the abilities of another class. Feats are a precious commodity and characters get damned few of them as it is. Again, multi-classing killed your overall effectiveness.

What needs to happen is a medium between the two.

why don't they do it like in 2E then ? you would be very good in both classes then. no draw backs at all.

[Turambar]

why don't they do it like in 2E then ? you would be very good in both classes then. no draw backs at all.

I think there is a misconception of why 3e multiclassing was not good. The point is that for a given XP amount, corresponding to a given level, you would get the abilities of two classes but (obviously) you would not be effective as a single-class character of a level equal to the sum of the levels.
THIS is what happens in 1e/2e too: you lag far behind single classed characters in terms of abilities due to allocation of XPs.
In short, you sacrifice focus for flexibility. Personally, I think the 1e/2e/3e system works well, and I don't mind the trade off. Actually, if you were as effective at multiclass like at single class, there would be NO REASON to single class at all. It would be a munchkin's wet dream.

If there is a criticism of 3e, it might be that the multiclassing system is prone to abuse. It's nice to add classes as the need arises (the XP price is steep however), but the suggestions in the DMG should be should be carefully evaluated. As in many other 3e things, the DM should have a strict control of what happens: the game system is too flexible a tool to leave it in the hands of the players only.

This said, I like the 4e system too, since it allows multiclassing but it lends towards strong archetypes, which is a good thing in a class-based system like D&D.

[Kenwolf]

their was a big problem of people taking just one level of a class just to get abilities that they wanted and then go to another class. i wonder how they will deal with that ?

[Turambar]

their was a big problem of people taking just one level of a class just to get abilities that they wanted and then go to another class. i wonder how they will deal with that ?

Unless you had a favoured class, each additional class incurred a 20% XP penalty, which is quite hefty. I haven't known many players who would pay such XP tax to get some abilities.

[Jester]

3e Multi-Classing led to Frankenstein characters. They were mediocre at both classes, but great in neither. Even one extra class was usually enough to kill your effectiveness. Add in PrCs and the situation got even worse. I hope they aren't resorting to this again.

4e was weak in multi-classing too though but for a different reason. You have to purchase feats to use the abilities of another class. Feats are a precious commodity and characters get damned few of them as it is. Again, multi-classing killed your overall effectiveness.

What needs to happen is a medium between the two.

I think that, if classes were built differently, it should be possible to multiclass more freely akin to 3e. The problem with 3e multiclassing was that abilities did not stack and were always tied to class levels and not character level. There's a multitude of ways to "fix" multiclassing.

Just saying "it didn't work then, let's try something else" is, frankly lame. It's akin to "we failed once, let's never try again." Instead, we should be asking "we know what went wrong and have years of feedback, now let's do it right!".
Especially since, at the end of 3e, with the new class-combo multiclass feats, they'd fixed many of the problem areas. If they start class design remembering the goal of flexible multiclassing it should be easily be doable.

[Keefe the Thief]

Remember that 3e was just used as an example for multiclassing easily into other classes. The pitfalls of that (pick-and-choose monster builds, destroying your char through suboptimal levelling, the "need" to optimize etc.) are well-known today. There are dozens of ways they can use to avoid them.