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

[RangerWickett]

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.

Look at how 'Wizardry' is framed in the Mage class. It states that you get a spellbook, use your Int for saves, do ritual casting, and have arcane recovery.

Now, I'm kinda with you in that if they want a 'simple caster' then the default mage needs to not get so much stuff, and it needs to instead be bundled with 'Wizardry.' But theoretically they just have to list a new Mage option called 'Sorcery' that gives the proper abilities.

Personally, I hope they ditch sorcerers as detailed in 3e. They're really just a mild tweak to wizards, with all the 30 years of baggage those come with. Do something new. Make a class that works like a superhero with his own unique suite of powers, or like Magic: the Gathering where you tap energy to cast spells, or allow pure at-will magic, or make something like Air-Benders from Avatar where you can do tons of things within one specific field.

Simply saying, "You're a wizard, but you can cast more spells from a narrower list" is honestly kind of boring, and is lazy design.

 

[Falling Icicle]

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

True, but that's only for knowledge checks.

 

[MoonSong]

Look at how 'Wizardry' is framed in the Mage class. It states that you get a spellbook, use your Int for saves, do ritual casting, and have arcane recovery.

Now, I'm kinda with you in that if they want a 'simple caster' then the default mage needs to not get so much stuff, and it needs to instead be bundled with 'Wizardry.' But theoretically they just have to list a new Mage option called 'Sorcery' that gives the proper abilities.

Personally, I hope they ditch sorcerers as detailed in 3e. They're really just a mild tweak to wizards, with all the 30 years of baggage those come with. Do something new. Make a class that works like a superhero with his own unique suite of powers, or like Magic: the Gathering where you tap energy to cast spells, or allow pure at-will magic, or make something like Air-Benders from Avatar where you can do tons of things within one specific field.

Simply saying, "You're a wizard, but you can cast more spells from a narrower list" is honestly kind of boring, and is lazy design.

I know the spellbook and stuff are encased into wizardry, it was a bout the very first thing I saw, but my point is if Sorcery will have such a deep effect that basically implies rewriting the class table for soemthing that is supossed to be simple, then it should be it's own class instead. Next has the chance to get sorcerers right, they are a continuum form the very learned but still inherently talented sorcerer to the wild and escandalous blaster-force of nature that distills and spreads chaos, but also including the artesan who musters his inhate magic to be extraordinary on his trade or craft or the one who borders on transforming onto a monstrosity. The designers have to do something that truly apeals to us players who liked the sorcerer on two editions so far despite acknowledging they have been second-stringers to wizards, and it would be nice they acknowledged they are their own beast and not a subset of the wizards which comes as demeaning from their part.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I really like the new feats. They feel like they represent full skill sets. I like that they generally grant proficiency in whatever it is they augment. The spellcasting feats are a little awkward, though.

Expertise dice and Areas of Knowlege are okay. Not my preferred, but okay. I look forward to seeing the new system they've working on now.

The classes all look pretty good from a cursory glance. Each is a little more complex in some ways, but they each also have a clear simple path. Also, the each class contains almost the entirety of a character's advancement, which makes things simpler. I think this packet will be fairly easy to teach new players with.

I'm a bit uncomfortable with the Wizard being renamed, though it isn't a big deal.

I still hate the +1 to all stats for humans, and I'd also still like to see a fatigued condition.

 

[RangerWickett]

Monks and paladins, blech. You have to spend ki to get magic fists. No divine grace, and a crippled aura of courage?

They used to be flavorful classes. Now they're kinda blah.

 

[Falling Icicle]

After Skimming through the Packet, I thought I'd make a few observations:

Skills are totally gone. This is infuriating. I know some people don't like them, but I and alot of other people consider them to be an essential part of a roleplaying game. They're not just optional, they're totally gone. A few classes, like rangers, get the skill die on all rolls with a certain ability score. But this is no substitute for skills, especially when most classes don't get "expertise dice." The recommended DCs for things are still outrageously high, especially now that most classes don't get skill dice. It was bad enoguh before even with skills. Now it's beyond insane.

I like most of the new feats (except for Tough, which is just a boring +2hp/level; yuck). I'm not happy that you don't get a feat at 1st level, though. Most characters also only get about 4 feats in total. I think 5-6 would be a better number.

Each class gets ability score increases/feats at different levels. I don't get why they don't just have a universal table for this. If they want a certain class to have one or two more feats, they could just give them bonus feats.

Backgrounds now give you Lores, which are like knowledge skills. You only get two, and they add +10 to Int checks regarding that subject.

Deadly Strike is gone. Characters get multiple attacks instead (most classes get 2, only fighters get 3). This is a huge nerf for barbarians, paladins and rangers.

Clerics now have domains instead of deities. Not sure yet whether I like this method better.

Paladins and Rangers no longer get spells at 1st level.

The warden and blackguard are gone, you can now only be a cavalier, but they indicate they may add them back later. Thankfully, the alignment restrictions are completely gone.

Wizards are now "Mages." I'm still going to call them wizards, though. You're not going to break me out of a 13+ year habit. The text implies that sorcerers and warlocks are going to be sub-classes of mage, rather than their own classes. I don't mind the sorcerer being included as a sub-class of mage, since it was never anything more than a wizard with a slightly different casting mechanic anyway. On the other hand, I would be very upset if the warlock is just a mage sub-class.

The Wizard traditions are MUCH better than they were before. I dare say a couple of the abilities they get are ovepowered (like evokers ignoring resistance). All Wizards also get an at-will 1st and 2nd level spell at level 18, and these spells can be changed daily. I'm not a fan of this, as it makes cantrips obsolete. Also, wizards get scribe scroll and brew potion as class abilities (whatever happened to clerics and druids that could make scrolls and potions?).

I'll post more observations later, as I come across things of interest.

 

[Sunseeker]

Will be interesting to see the overall reaction to "mage" over "wizard". I don't particularly care either way, though Mage certainly smells more like WoW than D&D. Not that the two are opposing forces, just that I feel like "mage" is calling toward the video-gaming angle over the traditionalist.

Still waiting for DDN to give me what 4e gave me with the Paladin and Ranger...NO SPELLS. The Paladin is as lackluster as ever, boring abilities with false choice of boring spells. The Cleric still does everything the Paladin does, and better. Same with the Ranger, what exactly does it give me that the Fighter doesn't? A pet? Wilderness skills? Spells a cleric or wizard can do a thousand times better? I would rather these classes be removed than reverted to their pathetic prior state.

On the positive side, I really feel like the Fighter feels more thought out and well-rounded. I like that it seems to have integrated the Essentials Slayer/Knight concepts into the design. It's a lot more palatable to look at than "take a bunch of bonus feats!".

 

[Falling Icicle]

Will be interesting to see the overall reaction to "mage" over "wizard". I don't particularly care either way, though Mage certainly smells more like WoW than D&D. Not that the two are opposing forces, just that I feel like "mage" is calling toward the video-gaming angle over the traditionalist.

Wizards were called Mages back in 2e, and maybe before that.

 

[Falling Icicle]

It seems that classes have to roll their hp now. Instead of saying "1d12 (or 7) + your Constitution modifier per barbarian level gained" it now just says "1d12 + your Constitution modifier per barbarian level gained."

This clearly seems to be a deliberate edit, and IMO is a huge step backwards. They know that a huge portion of the player base loathes rolling for hit points. So what gives?

 

[Sunseeker]

It seems that classes have to roll their hp now. Instead of saying "1d12 (or 7) + your Constitution modifier per barbarian level gained" it now just says "1d12 + your Constitution modifier per barbarian level gained."

This clearly seems to be a deliberate edit, and IMO is a huge step backwards. They know that a huge portion of the player base loathes rolling for hit points. So what gives?

I don't believe that D&D can force you do play according to the rules.