5e announced!

[alhoon]

That way, a 6th lvl fighter will still have a way easier fight against 10 ogres, just because he has 10 warriors at his back fighting orcs. I believe the one time adjustment of "instead of 65 hp you have 13" is faster, easier and more realistic than just doubling the damage.

But each to each one. Whatever house-rule, it's clear the rules are written require house-ruling.

Else, the one ogre the wizard charmed and fights as solo, has the same stats as 10 ogres...

[alhoon]

Sorcerers and warlocks: Is it me or these two classes "themes" come quite close often?
When I try to make a "cursed bloodline" with magical powers, I end up making warlocks even if I initially have decided on sorcerers.
Of course, part of this is that the only two choices for sorcerers so far are wild mages (I don't like them, I don't use them) and draconic sorcerers. With dragons having no (or little) innate spellcasting ability to boot.

The Favored Soul (unearthed arcana 6th April 2015) is a better choice for cursed bloodlines finally. A bit too martial for my taste though, but I can deal with that.

But... between tiefling warlock and favored soul sorcerer it's a hard choice. I'm about of half a mind to take out sorcerers from my campaign entirely.

[Jester of the FoS]

Sorcerers and warlocks: Is it me or these two classes "themes" come quite close often?
When I try to make a "cursed bloodline" with magical powers, I end up making warlocks even if I initially have decided on sorcerers.
Of course, part of this is that the only two choices for sorcerers so far are wild mages (I don't like them, I don't use them) and draconic sorcerers. With dragons having no (or little) innate spellcasting ability to boot.

The Favored Soul (unearthed arcana 6th April 2015) is a better choice for cursed bloodlines finally. A bit too martial for my taste though, but I can deal with that.

But... between tiefling warlock and favored soul sorcerer it's a hard choice. I'm about of half a mind to take out sorcerers from my campaign entirely.

I was a big fan of the "mage" idea in the late playtest, where there was the one class that would be used for the sorcerer, wizard, and warlock. The problem being WotC never released the sorcerer and warlock, so no one saw what the class would look like. And the filler powers of the class were very wizard-specific.
I'm not keen on the idea of three different classes based on how someone learned magic. The difference between a sorcerer is really backstory.

I did a couple new sorcerer bloodlines over on my blog: elemental and fey. I can also see a celestial/fiendish bloodline, and maybe shadow or aberrant.
Because sorcerer bloodlines tend to be related to ancestry, creature types are a handy source of inspiration.

A spellcaster that was cursed with magic sounds like an origin that could lead into the sorcerer or warlock. I'm not sure it's a full bloodline though. You could be just as easily cursed with wild magic or draconic blood. What is a cursed bloodline?

[alhoon]

I did a couple new sorcerer bloodlines over on my blog: elemental and fey. I can also see a celestial/fiendish bloodline, and maybe shadow or aberrant.

Well, the divine soul in the Unearthed Arcana combines both Celestial and fiendish but it's too melee combat oriented.

I would love to see yours though.

You could be just as easily cursed with wild magic or draconic blood. What is a cursed bloodline?

Generally? The Reniers is a fine example... Half of Mordent's noble bloodlines would fit the bill too.

What I mean? A family where one made a pact with something-bad long ago, or did forbidden rituals to gain power and all of his blood carry part of the taint and part of his magic. In essence... tieflings without horns, tails and with normal skin.

I don't want wild magic in my campaign and being cursed with draconic ancestry is a bit... anti-thematic.

[Jester of the FoS]

You could be just as easily cursed with wild magic or draconic blood. What is a cursed bloodline?

Generally? The Reniers is a fine example... Half of Mordent's noble bloodlines would fit the bill too.

What I mean? A family where one made a pact with something-bad long ago, or did forbidden rituals to gain power and all of his blood carry part of the taint and part of his magic. In essence... tieflings without horns, tails and with normal skin.

I don't want wild magic in my campaign and being cursed with draconic ancestry is a bit... anti-thematic.

A reflavoured tiefling would work. The mechanics but not the appearance. And I can totally see a warlock pact being passed down a family line.

All my 5e content is found here:
http://www.5mwd.com/gaming-blog/5e-content

[alhoon]

A reflavoured tiefling would work. The mechanics but not the appearance. And I can totally see a warlock pact being passed down a family line.

Me too. Hence I've not, to the date, made a single sorcerer NPC but I only make wizards and warlocks. Even when I say "sorcerer" to my PCs, I actually drop the effort within minutes and make the NPC a warlock with a couple more spells known, or a freebie "fluff" invocation.

The weird witch that lives in the edge of the forest? Warlock with fey pact that can speak with animals at will, see in the dark and use divination 1/day.
Crazed psychotic mage? Warlock with fiend pact, invocation to make his eldrich blast to have a 5' radius and he knows fire spells.
That kind of thing.
Scion of a family damned for pursuing forbidden knowledge, rabbling nonsense in a creepy crumbling manor? Tiefling warlock, bad. Any patron would do and he has an invocation to summon vile servants of his patron.

Yes sorcerers would work with these... but I prefer (slightly modified according to the occasion) warlocks. The more weird stuff the warlock did, the more extras he got from his patron.

All my 5e content is found here:
http://www.5mwd.com/gaming-blog/5e-content

Thanks.

[alhoon]

http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads ... iendly.pdf

Revenants, shadows, wereboars and lich in the new supplement!
Along with Shadow fiend, cultist fanatic and with a nice list of other interesting monsters.
I believe this companion set is a must download even if you have the monster manual, since that one is in PDF.

Now, if they could just combine the PDFs for Dragon queen and Elemental evil along with the free PDFs so that we don't have to have 3 separate ones...

[Jester of the FoS]

Now, if they could just combine the PDFs for Dragon queen and Elemental evil along with the free PDFs so that we don't have to have 3 separate ones...

That would be neat for a "Revised DM Basic Rules" but having the separate Elemental Evil one makes sense for people with that adventure, so they have all the monsters they need but none of the ones they don't.

[alhoon]

Oooor, they could just release the main books in PDF so we don't have to hassle through pages.

[alhoon]

Meh, still no accessories coming for D&D next. After Elemental Evil, we'll get Drizzt, demons and underdark.

I expect yet another not-in-a-single PDF book with spells, monsters and player options.

[Jester of the FoS]

We know the next storyline, and nothing else. We don't know if they have a big GenCon plan or not. They wouldn't announce that with the same press release as the event description. "Hey, we're doing this story which ties into these products. Oh, and this completely unrelated thing."

Even if we don't get a new book/accessory, there'll likely be a free player's guide with some content.

[alhoon]

Yes, as I said, we will get a new book with options, that would be again be separate from the others.
My D&D folder is getting slowly full with PDFs with character options (I also keep some unearthed arcana files), but a lot of the spells are repeated from product to product. So, if I want to check pyrotechnics, I'll have to remember which PDF they are at.

[alhoon]

PSIONICS!

https://dnd.wizards.com/sites/default/f ... ionics.pdf

In my opinion, the generic mechanics are solid but the disciplines themselves are not.

[alhoon]

I can see now, why multi-classing is seen as optional in D&D Next.

I just had a player multiclass to rogue after 12 lvls of ranger. I.e his 13th lvl is rogue.
Now the party has someone that has +10 from thief tools, for a total+15 (with dex) to open locks, that could not use thief tools at all before the previous adventure.
And no, the adventure had nothing to do with him getting legendary thief prowess.

[Jester of the FoS]

I can see now, why multi-classing is seen as optional in D&D Next.

I just had a player multiclass to rogue after 12 lvls of ranger. I.e his 13th lvl is rogue.
Now the party has someone that has +10 from thief tools, for a total+15 (with dex) to open locks, that could not use thief tools at all before the previous adventure.
And no, the adventure had nothing to do with him getting legendary thief prowess.

There's also optional training rules (I believe in the DMG) for that kind of thing.
It's part of the oddity of getting all the proficiency again for multiclassing. I might rule you don't automatically get that stuff for my game, or have to train into that.