I went in looking for four things beforehand to get my initial impression of the game and clarity and whether I'd want to run it. (I posted this as a thread on RPG.net).
- Are low level rogues deadweight (D&D has a historical problem with this)
- Are high level martial characters deadweight?
- How much faffing do I have to do?
- How much guidance on expected DCs is there?
On the first point I was impressed. I
like the D&D Next thief at low levels. It's a good class. It's capable of the brush pass - something previously only 4E rogues had been able to do in practice. They seem pretty competent at thievery at low levels, and able to swashbuckle a bit. There's also a weird synergy going on that makes them very tough unless outnumbered once they get Uncanny Dodge, and rogues in Studded Leather have a decent AC, decent hit points, and can force Disadvantage. They also get to make use of the combat god-stat, Dex. (Rogue Two-weapon fighting is going to be a
thing even if it gets in the way of their free Dash, Disengage, or Hide; they can't use shields and it gives them an extra chance to Sneak Attack, making it far more useful than to most people. If the left don't get you, the right one will - while even adding stat modifier to damage won't help the fighter because TWF doesn't get multiple attacks). At low levels this is the second best version of the rogue there's ever been IMO - behind the 4E Thief, but ahead of the 4E PHB Rogue.
On a tangent AC in 5E is
weird. It's not 4E's "Heavy armour gives you a little extra protection, but what matters is who you are". And it's not AD&D's "Heavy armour was historically awesome". Non-magic PCs start with around +5 to hit at first level. Which means they need 5 to hit a naked average joe, and 15 to hit someone wearing full plate with a large shield. It's a meaningful difference, but not a big enough one to represent how effective armour really was. And most PCs other than wizards are going to be somewhere round AC 15 when starting out.
High level martial characters? A level 1 fighter is very good with a sword, and has a few skills. A level 20 fighter ... is very good with a sword and has a few skills and numbers that are slightly higher. Not even a whole lot higher - they get 4 attacks to the 11th level fighter's 3. They get +2 Proficiency, an extra use of Action Surge, and a couple of extra uses of Indomitable. And the archetype features aren't that great. There's almost nothing that a 20th level fighter can do that two 11th level fighters won't do better. And it's hard to see what an 11th level fighter can do that two 5th level fighters can't. Especially when in both cases the multiple fighters can use shields to guard each others' sides. The rogue doesn't quite have the same problem (the ability to not roll below a 10 is
huge and comes at level 11 and User Magic Device, and Thief's Reflexes are both pretty huge). But if you zoom out even slightly the fighter is simply better at doing exactly what they were doing at level 1. The rogue is, granted, a lot better (Expertise and Reliable combine for a minimum roll of about 25 at really high levels; +6*2 +Dex + Roll of 10).
How much faffing is something I can't answer without monsters. But from the spell blocks it is ... not good. I need to look deep inside them to find the
saving throw. Never mind the damage.
When working out DCs, you need to avoid both the Scylla of no guidelines and the Chyribdis of too much detail grinding the thing to a halt. And here Next appears to not just be steering towards Scylla, but to have marinaded half the crew and have someone on the deck jumping up and down shouting "Scylla, here we are! Come and eat us!" - and not because there's a trap. DCs range from "Very easy" (DC 5) to "Nearly Impossible" (DC 30) with no discussion about what this means for any skill. How easy is walking a tightrope? I'd fail. Circus performers do it every day. The swing on the skill check is just too big. And the entire lack of difficulties when dealing with something like a fantasy setting is just half-assed. Bring back NWPs - even they were an improvement on this because they meant that at the very least PCs would have a good idea of their chance of success.
So my overall thoughts? D&D Next played as E6 with an experienced DM that's been DMing with the same group for years looks like a perfectly acceptable game. I was hoping for something a little bit better than that.
