This One Goes to . . . Ten [Merged four Oct 29 Playtest Package announcement threads]

Very true. In my mind, pulling aside the veil and returning a soul to its body from the Great Beyond ought to be a feat on the same level as a rare magical item. But not every campaign holds resurrection to be so rare.

Which is one of the reasons I like to have an understanding of the relative value of wealth in game. 500 gp seems cheap compared to 3.X's 5000 gp until you connect what 500 gp is worth in 5e: It is the low end of prices for rare magic items.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

dd.stevenson

Super KY
I haven't playtested the new rogue yet, but just from reading it I feel like WotC missed the boat here. I think the class needs an "all in" class feature that allows them to raise the stakes and try again if they fail the first time. Instead they got a dexterity-based expertise dice pool.
 


Hmmm...first thing I wanted to look for in this playtest pack is if indeed the last playtest release (with magic items) was working off of a different iteration of the stealth rules; eg perhaps the next iteration decouples Listen and Spot from Perception and makes them separate skills. Sure enough, this playtest does so. So then, it would appear that, at first glance, the Boots of Elvenkind were working off of this current playtest's Perception rules and, as such, were not completely incoherent.

However...one problem...

While the current iteration breaks out Listen and Spot from Perception, it does not break out Hide and Move Silently from Stealth (now Sneak). So I still don't know what The Boots of Elvenkind do. Do they give disadvantage on Listen checks to detect a Stealth (Sneak)er in a contest? Do they give advantage on Stealth (Sneak) Rolls? Is Stealth (Sneak) supposed to be broken out into Hide and Move Silently and you get advantage on Move Silently Rolls (or you automatically succeed at a contest versus Listen)? I don't know.

So I look to the Stealth Rules for a clear, transparent clarification on Stealth Rules and how Listen, Spot, and Sneak all interface with each other in a contest to determine detection or successful detection avoidance. Reading them, I have no idea. There is lots of fluffy text ruminating upon Stealth Requirements and Perception protocol. One section under Perception even speaks (albeit somewhat implicitly) to Stealth contests - "Noticing a Hidden Creature". Within that collage of words it says that [paraphrased] normally your Stealth check is a mix of looking and listening, so you don't need to be too specific in your description. Ok. But what does any of this tell me about the actual mechanical resolution of the contest...specifically when we now have Listen and Spot broken out of Perception but still have Hide and Move Silently abstracted into "Sneak". How about something concrete like: "If you have the Listen or Spot Skill, you use that Skill Bonus in Stealth Contests to detect someone using Sneak to avoid detection." Perhaps they have Hide and Move Silently broken out of Stealth (Sneak) in the next iteration and this one is, as the last Stealth rules were with the magic item release (Boots of Elvenkind), are incoherent with Listen/Spot:Sneak contests. I guess this is Rulings not Rules?
 


Best bet: report it as a wording issue.

Well, I'll definitely give my feedback on this iteration as I have on iterations past. I just find it a bit difficult to divine whether some things are:

- oversight
- iteration incoherence (one team working with one iteration while another is working with a different iterations...and disparate iterations, mistakenly, being represented simultaneously in a playtest packet)
- intentional or design aim

I was certain we would see Listen and Spot broken out of Perception and Hide and Move Silently broken out of Stealth. Further, along with that, I was expecting clear, concise Stealth contest rules and Boots of Elvenkind clarification. Now, I'm more confused than ever which of the above 3 is going on here.
 

A few other quick tidbits from a very brief reading:

- Love the approach of Combat Expertise as a unified mechanic to express martial schemes/styles. While I am less than moved toward excitement for the potency of several of the maneuvers, I'm quite happy with the current iteration of the Rogue.

- Beyond the Stealth vs Listen/Spot incoherence issue that I have above, I do not like the new Skill list. Several marginal, narrow corner case skills that I would have hoped would have been rolled together for broad application. This has implications beyond the Skill system. However, I am very happy that Persuade is in.

- Wizards higher level spells (a la Cone of Cold) have paltry damage (Wizard damage was never a problem) while having zero rider control effects attached (a la no slow, no immobilize, knocked prone, etc).

- Very much like Arcane Traditions as the Specialist Wizard scheme. This has lots and lots of legs as both a splatbook moneymaker and to diversify the class.

- Ugh, open-ended Divination that does not interface with any resolution mechanics. Not happy. At all. Haste is likely far too powerful for a level 3 spell (Action Economy + 2 AC bonus in a bounded accuracy system and double speed? Yikes). Plenty more annoyances. All in all, not happy with the format or mechanics of spells. Shield is good. Mage Armor is good. Magic Missile is good.

- Concentration mechanics far, far, far too fiddly for the payoff.

- Elves still don't get Finesse with Longswords (a slight, dextrous race builds its cultural martial arts off of a Strength based weapon? No. If they just let them Finesse Longswords they would accomplish the "one die larger" bonus - d6 Rapier to d8 Longsword - and allow them to use Dex. As is, all elves should just eschew Longswords for Rapiers.). Training in Listen and Spot instead of advantage. Better.

- Dwarves now have advantage on poison saves rather than immunity. Good deal.

- Humans are still awful. Uninteresting and overpowered.

- The "Toughness" line of Feats are absurdly powerful (especially the 9th level - DR 1 versus melee...in mass combat this would be ridiculous) at first glance.
 

JamesonCourage

Adventurer
Well, I'll definitely give my feedback on this iteration as I have on iterations past.
Sorry to snip the rest of your post, but I read it and understand your trouble with it. It's not clear, and like Mr. Mearls has already had to do once in this thread, a correction in wording is probably necessary. Thus my suggestion to report it as a wording issue.

Though, don't take that to mean that I'm trying to stop you from discussing it further in this thread (to make sense of it); go for it. I was just voicing agreement that it seems no matter which course they've taken, there's a problem with the wording, and so reporting it is wise (and I'm glad to hear you'll do so). As always, play what you like :)
 


Howndawg

Explorer
Some thoughts:

Like the division of perception into search, spot, and listen.

Like the new backgrounds.

Unsure about specializations; seem a little wimpified to me.

Like the new Veteran fighter style.

Noticed tridents on the weapon list. I'd rather they do 1d8 and be military.

Some spells, like cone of cold, really need to be reworked.

Still no rules for falling.

Dinosaurs are Back!

Carnivorous monkeys.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top