D&D (2024) D&D playtest feed back report, UA8

[Yaarel]

Eh?

The point of issuing a new edition after frikkin ten years should be more than polish, and we should question "change around all the details so our compatibility promise doesn't really tempt people to stick with the old stuff".

Tell your "half edition" to the 3.5 folks instead - that edition came just a couple of years after 3.0, and quickly and conveniently obsoleted a deluge of 3.0 splatbooks.

We shouldn't have to wait until 2034 until fundamental things like how your level 20 character still sports a +0 Int save are patched, or how there still isn't a functional gold economy in 5E.

Maybe the Nonproficiency bonus = Proficiency − 2?

So at the Apprentice Tier (1−4) the Nonproficiency is +0. But at the Master Tier (9−12), it is +2.

This simple fix keeps the d20 Tests proportional at any Tier, even Epic.

 

[mamba]

We shouldn't have to wait until 2034 until fundamental things

given how well 5e is selling, you either get tweaks to it that remain compatible, or nothing. You will certainly not get a new edition. So far we always got new editions when the previous one was no longer selling well.

 

[Clint_L]

Int save of +0 is a feature, not a bug.

Quoting this to emphasize that I think this is one of the best features of 5e. I still want high level characters to have significant vulnerabilities; I think it makes the game more fun. Other folks obviously have different tastes, but that doesn't mean the game is flawed, or "bugged." No game is going to be perfect for everyone (don't get me started on how 5e distributes skills). A bug is when something is unintentionally broken, not when it is working as intended but not to your taste.

 

[mellored]

Quoting this to emphasize that I think this is one of the best features of 5e. I still want high level characters to have significant vulnerabilities; I think it makes the game more fun. Other folks obviously have different tastes, but that doesn't mean the game is flawed, or "bugged." No game is going to be perfect for everyone (don't get me started on how 5e distributes skills). A bug is when something is unintentionally broken, not when it is working as intended but not to your taste.

IMO, the gap between +11 and -1 is a little bit too big. Especially for something that happens to you.
Wizards with a -1 with greataxe doesn't matter as it won't come up. But a Barbarian being targeted by Maze is not something they chose.

So I would add +1/2 proficiency on evey save.

A Barbarian needing a nat 20 to escape a Maze is too harsh. Needing a 17 is still a clear weakness, just not an auto-win.

 

[Parmandur]

IMO, the gap between +11 and -1 is a little bit too big. Especially for something that happens to you.
Wizards with a -1 with greataxe doesn't matter as it won't come up. But a Barbarian being targeted by Maze is not something they chose.

So I would add +1/2 proficiency on evey save.

A Barbarian needing a nat 20 to escape a Maze is too harsh. Needing a 17 is still a clear weakness, just not an auto-win.

The full range is -4 to +11...which is only a 15, seems a good spread for the other numbers in the game.

Challenging every player with weaknesses without being a jerk us a matter of the DM managing a balance, not really the rules.

 

[mellored]

The full range is -4 to +11...which is only a 15, seems a good spread for the other numbers in the game.

For skills, 15 seems good. I'm not worried if a paladin in plates will 100% fail their steal check, or a bard will always succeed in being charming.

Same with attacks. Not worried about a Barbarian's hypnotic pattern DC being too low.

But for saving throws, I think a slightly tighter bounds of 10 (5-15) is better. You can't simply come up with another solution when hit with a spell. Nor should you be immune.

So something like...

Untrained: +1 to +3
Proficient: +2 to +6
Expertise: +3 to +9

 

[Clint_L]

I understand your argument, I just disagree. I think that the wizard who used strength as a dump stat really should be severely screwed when something targets it, and the same for a barbarian who dumped intelligence. Generally, this is when you need your teammates to help you out. I think that adds to the story.

 

[Parmandur]

I understand your argument, I just disagree. I think that the wizard who used strength as a dump stat really should be severely screwed when something targets it, and the same for a barbarian who dumped intelligence. Generally, this is when you need your teammates to help you out. I think that adds to the story.

Honestly, I think this can be fun: putting a Monster in that can target a weakness is good spice to add here and there.

 

[mellored]

I understand your argument, I just disagree. I think that the wizard who used strength as a dump stat really should be severely screwed when something targets it, and the same for a barbarian who dumped intelligence. Generally, this is when you need your teammates to help you out. I think that adds to the story.

If you are Stunned and need to roll a 16 or higher to break out, it will take an average of 3 rounds to escape.

That's still pretty screwed. And you still want allies to come save you.

Note, this is for PCs. Monster weakness are fine.

 

[Hussar]

I understand your argument, I just disagree. I think that the wizard who used strength as a dump stat really should be severely screwed when something targets it, and the same for a barbarian who dumped intelligence. Generally, this is when you need your teammates to help you out. I think that adds to the story.

But, by the same token, an Int 10 Barbarian didn't "dump stat" his Int. That's an average character. But, it's not that hard to get a 17 Save DC for a caster, even in fairly low levels levels. Certainly a 16 is very easy to carry off. A 20th level character shouldn't be subject to effects 80% of the time. A single Feeblemind spell and Mr. Barbarian has a serious, serious problem.