D&D 5E New D&D Next Playtest Packet Is Here!

On first reading...

I really like it. I am sure there will be some issues that need ironing out through play but in general it looks excellent.

Some great ideas taken from around the OGL world and implemented in one form or another. Doing this and making use of the Open Licence developments made by other companies was a very good move.

I see Opportunity attacks return. I can live with a bit of that as long as it is kept simple. Same with Conditions...please keep this sort of thing simple.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE .... Let's not have this become a miniatures game!
If it goes that way, I will not buy it. If it stays along the lines in this playtest then I will definately go and buy a copy to try playing.

I would like to see Background Choices a little more tied to Class but it is something I can Houserule so no big deal. I may have missed something but it looks like you could have a Magic User Class with the Knight Background. This seems at odds to me. I will have a deeper read to see if I got that right later.

Overall. Very good.

I wouldn't like he backgrounds to be connected to class I like it that you can have a sage fighter or a noble wizard.

P.s the playtest need more dragons!

Warder

Blackwarder said:

Am I the inly one disapointed that there is no dragon in the play test?

Click to expand...

I'm guessing the reason is: when 5th level characters meet a dragon, the only viable options are to talk to it, run away, or get TPKed. You don't need stats for any of the above.

Blackwarder said:

P.s the playtest need more dragons!

Warder

Click to expand...

Guess what? I've got a fever and the only prescription is more cowbell Dragons!

This just in! Dragons have been taken out of Dungeons and Dragons!

I'm just curious though... if this is what the base set looks like, what will the "2nd edition-flavor module' look like?

Also, damage is really going to have to be pulled back, but that's just more play-testing. I'm glad the rogue is shaping up well. Thugs sounds pretty harsh.

At least this time I didn't have to search for a torrent.

Download works like a charm!

The Shadow said:

I much prefer the term 'theme' to 'specialty'.

I'm disappointed that we're moving back to fixed skill lists and fixed ability score use.

Turn Undead got nerfed almost to the point of oblivion. ... Also, all clerics have this auto-prepared?! Really?! ALL of them? Even the evil ones? Even the Storm Domain priest whose faith doesn't care in the slightest about undead?

Click to expand...

Agreed with all of this. I'm especially disappointed about the move away from dynamic skill rules, which was one of the things I'd been most excited about in 5e. Having a fixed skill list and set ability scores for use with those skills is going to quickly get us back into the problem of huge bonus disparities, especially now that you can increase your skill bonus up to a +7. That means that the difference between a character with a huge focus on a skill and one without could be +11 or more. In addition, with a limited number of general skills we get the 4e problem of maxing out a certain small set of "the best skills" (Perception, for example) as opposed to picking up more specific skills that are situationally useful and fit your character (a Mariner skill, for example). It feels like we're losing sight of the whole bounded accuracy thing.

The Shadow said:

The wording on skills is just weird, and then the Skill Mastery rogue ability compounds the confusion. I figured it out, but man, that's awkward.

Click to expand...

Agreed. At first I actually thought (like many others) that your skill bonus replaced your ability score, which I thought was a really clever innovation. It's great to have high ability scores, but training is what matters. (You could include a rule that if the ability score is higher, you use that instead so you don't have +4 Dex rogues with a +3 to Stealth, but that would really depend on whether the system assumes PCs will have an 18 or higher in their primary stat.) It also eliminates the whole "low Wisdom rogue can't spy" issue without having to make a special rule just for rogues (so a low Wisdom fighter or assassin still can't spy?). But no, it's just a totally baffling way of saying "being trained in a skill gives you a +3."

The Shadow said:

Bane and Bless give +/-1 on attack rolls. Really?! Likewise for Prayer, Divine Favor, etc. - why not some form of advantage or disadvantage, rather than moving back to bonuses and penalties?

Click to expand...

Probably because continuous advantage/disadvantage is too powerful. Somewhere (I think in a Rule-of-Three?) it was stated that it should generally cost an action to gain advantage for one roll. So getting multiple rounds of it for one action would be too strong.

The Shadow said:

Question: When the classes say under Hit Points, 1d10 (or 6) plus Con mod, does that mean:

1) Either roll 1d10 or take 6, depending on what the GM's rule for the campaign is;

2) Either roll 1d10 or take 6, your choice when you level; or

3) Roll 1d10. If the result is less than 6, take 6 instead.

Click to expand...

My reading was #3 , but I could see #2 being true as well.

First impression is that it feels like a cleaned up 2e, but also a cleaned up 3e. The feeling of 1e and 4e feels weakest in this particular playtest packet.

Races: I really like the balance on these. At first blush the humans seem to have too much of a boost, but with all general skills being linked to ability scores and high ability scores conversely being less important than in other editions, it seems more like a skill boost. It does ensure that the most powerful of "pure builds" any class will be a human, but all the races seem to get enough toys to make you not mind that much.

Classes: The Fighter seems to be a cross between Rules Cyclopedia BASIC and 3e, which is a very good thing. The Cleric seems to be 3e, the wizard is 2e, while the rogue is 3e with a little bit of 4e. So that is very nice, though I wish the rogue was more of a thief and less of an assassin, but I know that's not going to happen.

Equipment: Still no silver standard. Sonofa.... 1...2...3... okay. I hate the alpha playtesters who nixed it though. But the lance is back, yay! I like the exotic armours mixed in with the regular armour, but I quibble a bit at the implementation. For example, why is displacer beast hide more durable? Shouldn't it instead grant a miss chance or something? Now if you had an armour made out of Norker hide, then I'd agree. I'm also glad that equipment is back to being a little expensive for the best stuff, so that you have a few levels to work towards better equipment before unleashing the magic items.

Bestiary: First impression is that it needs more 4e, but then after consideration decided that they are slightly more robust 2e monsters. Since the 2e monsters are my 2nd favourite monsters (and my favourite monster compendium) it works for me. It does have a couple modular "power" entries, so I can "spice it up" with some 4e-style special abilities and maneuvers without too much difficulty.

Backgrounds: A good way to customize characters with little effect on game balance. I don't mind at all that a magic user can become a knight (a previous poster's complaint) because I often want to play an aristocratic or knightly wizard, so it fits. I imagine this will probably be an after-thought to creating each character, but will end up enriching the character in actual play. If I'm a commoner, I'll probably care about commoners. If I'm a sage, I'll probably care about collecting lore and building a library etc.

Specialities: I see this primarily as putting a leash that is the hydra-beast of 3e feats. In other words, this is a good way to allow novice players to pick their feats to promote a character archetype without being lost in the options, and makes leveling up much quicker. It could also be a restraint against those who are good at Char-Op, as a DM could ask that person to hew more closely to a speciality for everyone's sanity.

Skills: Proficiencies are back, but you can do general adventuring skills through your ability scores, so it is the best of both worlds. I would probably use backgrounds and specialities as a DM to grant bonuses and penalties to ability checks though. For example, a high wisdom cleric might be penalized by me in his ability to find traps if he has the acolyte specialty and the priest background. If he keeps trying over multiple levels, I'll eventually get rid of the penalty.

All in all, 5e is shaping up pretty nicely for me. Even if 5e moves on in the next playtest, this could be a good basis for a 2e retroclone that I'd be willing to play.

ferratus said:

So that is very nice, though I wish the rogue was more of a thief and less of an assassin, but I know that's not going to happen.

Click to expand...

Don't be so sure, from today's L&L ...

"Rogue: To be honest, I’ve never been crazy about sneak attack as the rogue’s defining combat ability. I can see how it is a logical outgrowth of AD&D’s backstab ability, but in my mind it casts rogues as being too tightly linked to an assassin or similar archetype. I can think of plenty of rogues I’ve played over the years for whom sneak attack would be a poor match for their combat abilities or personality. I’d like to explore ways of making sneak attack an option, with things that push a rogue to be more cunning and tricky in combat standing alongside it."

I really dislike the fact that they married skills back to abilities, I would like e skills descriptions to have some example of hoe you can use some skills with different abilities, for example strength or dexterity for intimidate or inteligent and wisdom for animal handling.

Warder