D&D 5E 02/08/13 New playtest packet to released today. [Udate: PACKAGE OUT!][

[MoonSong]

The one thing I found interesting is that while the Wizard class name was changed to Mage... the Mage's tradition involving a spellbook and spell schools was called Wizardry. But also that other traditions exist (like Sorcery and Witchcraft).

So it appears as though there's like a double layer of subclasses here. You have the arcane Mage with three subclass traditions-- Wizardry, Sorcery, and Witchcraft (Warlockery)... and within each of those subclass traditions will probably be individual sub-subclasses-- the wizardry spell schools, the sorcerous paths, and the witchcraft pacts I'd imagine.

Dunno the reason to put wizards, sorcerers, and witches/warlocks all into a single overclass... but I presume it must just have something to do with wanting to link all the arcane classes together for some reason? Not sure the point of that yet... but there probably is one.

I really hope this isn't the case. The current Mage isn't an aceptable starting point for a sorcerer, a mroe traditional sorcerer would be crippled if it had to use the same numbers as one mage who actually preppares spells and a sorcerer who needs to prepare spells (and from a spellbook none the less) isn't a real sorcerer. There would have to be a lot of pressure on the hypothetic Sorcery class feature and increase the complexity on what traditionally have been a simple class.

Taking that appart I like the overall work they have done here and there, classes are finally starting to look less frontloaded. But I'm still worried about the fiddliness of some feats and their overall rigidness. On the other hand I like the small hidden nod to 4e's implements.

 

[Raith5]

I really hope this isn't the case. The current Mage isn't an aceptable starting point for a sorcerer, a mroe traditional sorcerer would be crippled if it had to use the same numbers as one mage who actually preppares spells and a sorcerer who needs to prepare spells (and from a spellbook none the less) isn't a real sorcerer. There would have to be a lot of pressure on the hypothetic Sorcery class feature and increase the complexity on what traditionally have been a simple class.

Taking that appart I like the overall work they have done here and there, classes are finally starting to look less frontloaded. But I'm still worried about the fiddliness of some feats and their overall rigidness. On the other hand I like the small hidden nod to 4e's implements.

Could the single arcane overclass be something to do with the upcoming multiclassing system - so that you cant have Wizard/Sorcerer?

It is good to see implements back in the game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I really hope this isn't the case. The current Mage isn't an aceptable starting point for a sorcerer, a mroe traditional sorcerer would be crippled if it had to use the same numbers as one mage who actually preppares spells and a sorcerer who needs to prepare spells (and from a spellbook none the less) isn't a real sorcerer. There would have to be a lot of pressure on the hypothetic Sorcery class feature and increase the complexity on what traditionally have been a simple class.

I think that the point was that "Wizardry" would be swappable for "sorcery" which wouldn't have the spellbook, might have a bloodline, and would probably have extra spells and slightly different class features.

Which sounds totes fine to me.

 

[MoonSong]

Could the single arcane overclass be something to do with the upcoming multiclassing system - so that you cant have Wizard/Sorcerer?

It is good to see implements back in the game.

I truly hope this isn't the case. Because

1) Wizard/sorcerer is a common sorcerer multiclass, specially on settings where sorcerers are burned at the stake while the instiguing wizard watches on first row, not really outrageous, or at least no more than sorcerer/druid or sorcerer/cleric or sorcerer/bard, besides they kind of promised a divine sorcerer to bring the favored soul into the edition. Disabling a favored soul of the god of magic from learning to be a wizard beforehand is uneeded.
2) Even if it we acept the previous one was aceptable, crushing the sorcerer inherent simplicity and making Next yet another edition of wizard superiority/sorcerer inferiority isn't worth the cost.

 

[The Choice]

Ooooh marking's back it seems! Awesome.

Ability check DCs (formally skill checks) are still broken to the point of being unusable, though.

 

[Falling Icicle]

So if I understand this correctly, they totally removed skills from the game (an infuriating decision in and of itself), but on top of that, there's nothing to replace them. There's no skill die (that I've seen), just plain ability checks. And yet they're still using the exact same check DCs they were before. A "very hard (DC 25)" action isn't just very hard, it's literally impossible for anyone with less than a 20 ability score to accomplish, and even with a 20 score you will only succeed 5% of the time. "Formidable (DC 30)" and "Nearly Impossible (DC 35)" checks are impossible for any player character to accomplish, period.

 

[MoonSong]

I think that the point was that "Wizardry" would be swappable for "sorcery" which wouldn't have the spellbook, might have a bloodline, and would probably have extra spells and slightly different class features.

Which sounds totes fine to me.

Yes, I know, but my point is that Sorcery/Witchraft would have to be very complex itself. The most elemetnal changes needed to mak a sorcerer would be pretty simple (switch Int for Cha, remove spellbook, remove ritual casting, add all simple weapons), but then we are faced with what other changes would be needed in order to bring up the resulting sorcerer to be a match for the wizard(whose flexibility is only limited by DM fiat), those would extend further into the class table. SO in order for me to play a simple caster I have to distill it from the inherently more complex wizard, which is like having to distill a fighter from a paladin.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Maybe I'm underestimating the impact of being able to add your Strength bonus more than once (once for each attack), but it seems that with the removal of deadly strike, martial character damage just dropped considerably. Only the fighter is getting three attacks, no other class gets more than 2. And even with 3 attacks, it's hard to imagine a fighter doing more damage than he did with 5[W] deadly strikes.

Am I missing something, or did all martial characters, especially barbarians, paladins and rangers, just get critted by the nerf bat?

[Edit] I just did some calculations to see where martial damage is at.
A fighter before, using a +3 greatsword, did 5d12 +8 damage (13-68, avg. 40.5).

Now, a fighter with a +3 greatsword is doing 1d12 +8, three times. That's (27-60, avg. 43.5).

So okay, the fighter is doing alright. The end result is about the same. The same is not true for barbarians, paladins and rangers, however, who went from 5[W] deadly strike to 2 attacks.

 

[Sigdel]

So if I understand this correctly, they totally removed skills from the game (an infuriating decision in and of itself), but on top of that, there's nothing to replace them. There's no skill die (that I've seen), just plain ability checks. And yet they're still using the exact same check DCs they were before. A "very hard (DC 25)" action isn't just very hard, it's literally impossible for anyone with less than a 20 ability score to accomplish, and even with a 20 score you will only succeed 5% of the time. "Formidable (DC 30)" and "Nearly Impossible (DC 35)" checks are impossible for any player character to accomplish, period.

Lets not forget that now everyone gets +10 to 2-3 knowledge skills of choice. Making it so that anybody stands to make those DC20-25's at 1st level

 

[Lord Rasputin]

Hmmm, no familiars. I don't know if that's intentional or just an oversight of the new feats system.