And It’s Still Yet Another Set Of Replies To A 5e article!

Here’s the 5e article.

Here’s the reply:

On one hand, I want a steady stream of releases. OTOH, I think releasing something you know you’re going to change is counterproductive. I don’t have a good answer, sorry.

I like what you’re describing as rogue abilities, but I’m a little confused by the description. Are these things anyone can try (taunting, tricking an enemy into attack), but rogues can spend their expertise dice on, so they’re better at it? Or are these things only rogues can attempt?

I dislike that a simple proficiency is all you need to cast spells in full armor; I’d prefer an additional cost, and consideration of the type of armor — the heavier the armor, the harder to cast in it. At the least, make that an optional module.

I like the idea of having at-will versions of spells. How about going one further: You can cast a prepared spell as a weaker, at-will version, so long as you haven’t cast it at full strength. Once you cast it at full strength, you lose it and the at-will version. This adds a dimension of resource management and allows casters to “run out” of even at-will spells. It also encourages them not to alpha strike in the first encounter, as they don’t want to lost their at-wills if they don’t have to.

Non-rogues should be able to be good at out of combat skills, too. You should split off in-combat and OOC performance into two resource pools. A fighter may be a mercenary commander (diplomacy, intimidate, tactical knowledge), a landed noble (diplomacy, sense motive, Noble Lore), etc. The “rogue as skill monkey” is a 3e-ism which, while not bad, and often true to the archetype (Grey Mouser, Locke Lamora) shouldn’t be a straitjacket in design. (4e promised that combat and non-combat skills would not be in competition, then released feats that included combat feats and non-combat/skill feats, forcing players to choose after all. You have a chance w/5e to create separate resource pools for C/NC abilities. Take that chance!)