D&D 5E October Playtest Packet - Magic Items, Updated XP, Monster Traits

Warbringer · Oct 9, 2012

Belt of giant strength

Interesting ... these go to str29 ...

FireLance · Oct 9, 2012

I had a quick read through the section on magic items and it gets quite a few thumbs up from me.

I like the idea of attunement. It's not novel - certain magic items in older editions already required something similar to this before they could be used - but making it a generic mechanic is. I also like the "experimental" rule that a character could only attune a number of magic items equal to his Charisma modifier (minimum one).

I also love the reference to Jabberwocky in the Vorpal Sword entry.

FireLance · Oct 9, 2012

Just noticed this:

The entry for the Rod of Absorption implies that spell levels go to 10. That's 11 minus 1!

(Technically, if you include 0-level spells, which the Rod of Absorption entry does, there are eleven levels of spells).

Manbearcat · Oct 9, 2012

This may not be a change in this one but I don't recall Drow Crossbow attack being like this in the prior playtest materials. Take a look at Drow Hand-Crossbow attack. Holy fiddly, gratuitously granular mechanics Batman. That is not what I want to see. I would much rather see something simple, elegant yet intuitive in its place (I would prefer Att vs Fort and effect and save ends but obviously that isn't the route 5e is going). If we have to go this route, how about a unified mechanic for Conditions (Diseases, Environmental Exposure, Poisons, Injuries, etc). I don't know. We could call it a "Condition Track" and just use the extremely elegant, user-friendly mechanic from 4e for it. From the looks of this, it appears likely that each condition (even intra-conditions such as varying poisons) is going to have its own fiddly mechanical interface. Very disappointing. This will certainly be something I'll be giving feedback on.

mattcolville · Oct 9, 2012

GX.Sigma said:
I can't help but be disappointed that there's no change to the Classes file.

On the other hand: The return of the potion miscibility table! :O

Yay! My all-time favorite table!

GX.Sigma · Oct 9, 2012

Hopefully sometime soon we get the spells that the new item packet refers to--read magic, hold monster, and probably more are mentioned in the magic item doc but don't appear in the spells doc.

Manbearcat · Oct 9, 2012

I was waiting for Boots of Elvenkind to see exactly what they did in 5e as Mearls et al advised they wanted to move back to the "wondrousness" of magic items. Given that, plus the fact that there are no explicit auditory rules embedded in the current 5e Stealth system, plus the fact that this famous item notoriously interacts with the Stealth/Skill system (and given its iteration in past editions), I was curious what we would see and what we might extrapolate from that...especially considering the hard-coding of stealth rules and skill systems in the last few editions.

I give you opaque/non-hard-coded mechanic resolution/GM fiat embedded in the mechanics exhibit A:

- The Stealth rules outline prerequisites for Stealth based on Line-of-Sight (Lightly/Heavily Obscured). They are, however, silent on the auditory requirements for Stealth (eg they do not say that you suffer disadvantage on Stealth checks on terrain or in rooms whereby the acoustics - leaves, open space with 4 sound-reflective walls - do not lend themselves toward being quiet).

- Cloak of Elvenkind specifically interfaces with the hard-coded Line-of-Sight requirements for stealth (it bypasses the requirement for being obscured).

- Boots of Elvenkind interfaces with the lack of rules for auditory requirements for Stealth (nothing about removing disadvantage on terrain or in rooms whereby the acoustics do not lend themselves toward being quiet). You simply don't make a sound in these types of environments.

Now, either they are missing a section in the Stealth Rules (about having disadvantage on stealth checks when navigating dry leaves, loose gravel, creaky floors, "operating-theatre-like" rooms with sound-reflective surfaces, etc) and the Boots of Elvenkind are missing a section whereby they outline that this disadvantage is cancelled...orrrrrrrrrrrr...this is a case of heavy GM fiat embedded in two important mechanical resolution system in the game (the Stealth Rules and the Magical Item rules)...and thus, given the weight of those two systems on gameplay, we should expect this opacity/lack of hard-coding/GM fiat embedded throughout.

TrippyHippy · Oct 9, 2012

I've just had a flick through and, aside from the magic items and monster XP, I cannot see how the document has changed substantially since the last one. Even issues that were highlighted in Wizards articles (like the Warlock's edritch blast being too high, etc) are exactly the same as before.

I can't really see the point of playtesting this document - although admittedly, I didn't really get an opportunity to play the last one. I did playtest the first one, but they at least seemed to act on that one.

Anyway, Wizard's reps, get back to me when you've actually got something new for me to look at....

Jeff Carlsen · Oct 9, 2012

It was said last month that this packet would have levels 1 through 10, but the recent Legends & Lore about wizard casting modules stated that we wouldn't be seeing these rules. I think they're waiting to finish this design before updating the class portion of the playtest.

That's fine. If nothing else, leaving the classes the same but modifying the monsters is better for testing monster design.

Dice4Hire · Oct 9, 2012

n00bdragon said:
Potion Miscibility? Really?

You had a whole list of things that need to be fixed with 5e and somewhere in the top X of them was the ability to mix potions together? Is this something they need to make sure they get absolutely right before moving on to other things?

I don't really think the design team has its priorities straight.

Maybe the next packet will have a random harlot table as well.

It is the same table with a bit of clarifying language added.

Not exactly a big important part of the playtest process.

I think if you think of it as an add-on to make the game for playable, you would be about right.