D&D 5E New D&D Next Packet Is Available

[Kavon]

Probably you are thinking T.Rex here, Allosauruses had large strong muscular arms.

They're not as small as the arms of a t.rex, but to call them large and strong is a bit of an overstatement, I believe.

 

[Li Shenron]

And no... it's not "useless" complexity... it's complexity for those who want to have complexity.

...

What's so complex about that? It's an option. An option that no one is required to take.

Well I can only hope so, it's hard to tell from the playtest package if it's optional, but it doesn't really sound like an optional rule to me. "Ignore" doesn't really make it optional when it's not part of a trade-off.

Anyway, I very much would like both a simple and a complex game, depending on the group. But this idea for my tastes adds really nothing to the game. A recharge system for spells would be interesting. But limited to 1-3 slots doesn't feel interesting enough. Even worse with ED, 1 die recharge, and only when you've used all the previous, basically it's the same as having 1 more die than written but you need a short rest before using the last one. It's just my 2cp of course, but it really doesn't add enough to the game to justify even the extra text.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'd just like the wildshape to have more options (and not just "oh, you can be a coyote, a jackal, a wolf, whatever" which all comes down to the same thing).

Not sure if I'm reading it right, but the way I understand it is that each Druid can turn into one only of those forms. They are all mechanically equivalent, so the choice is a matter of flavor. Forest-dwelling Druids may normally turn into wolves, while a desert-themed Druid might know the jackal form.

I'm actually starting to rethink my position on bonus feats.

Really, the problem isn't that maneuvers are represented with feats (after all, you could have a separate "maneuvers" packet, and just have a feat that says "you get one of those maneuvers," and people would be happier, even though it would be basically the same).

The real problem is that you have to choose something from the giant list every few levels--which is what the "fighting style" system was there to prevent! Now we don't have fighting styles, and the specialties are basically useless for this purpose (they've been broken for a long time), so everyone has to pick from the giant list constantly.

Good observations.

 

[VinylTap]

Well I can only hope so, it's hard to tell from the playtest package if it's optional, but it doesn't really sound like an optional rule to me. "Ignore" doesn't really make it optional when it's not part of a trade-off.

The whole team has done nothing but reenforced and repeat the idea that they want you to play "your" game and all things are optional and modifiable, much like how things have ultimately been since the RPG was created. In fact the system is, from a very basic level, being built to make this a reality. I have no idea why these commentskeep coming up. Its all optional folks! Its your game! there is no "RPG police".

 

[D'karr]

They're not as small as the arms of a t.rex, but to call them large and strong is a bit of an overstatement, I believe.

They could have a strong beefy arm coming out of their neck - like Trogdor.

 

[Li Shenron]

The whole team has done nothing but reenforced and repeat the idea that they want you to play "your" game and all things are optional and modifiable, much like how things have ultimately been since the RPG was created. In fact the system is, from a very basic level, being built to make this a reality. I have no idea why these commentskeep coming up. Its all optional folks! Its your game! there is no "RPG police".

You're misunderstanding.

It is clear that the game is customizable. Don't like feats? Play without feats.

However there is a caveat: if different classes get a different number of feats, choosing not to use feats changes the balance between classes.

The same happens with every class-exclusive feature. Don't like Arcane Recovery? Ignore it! Play without it! Ok, but now you have taken away one feature of one class, so assuming all classes were equal, now you have a class with something less.

Maybe it doesn't matter, maybe the difference is negligible. But at least the feeling you are left with is unpleasant.

This is why I said that "ignore" is not always a good suggestion.

At least if it was part of a trade-off, you'd be reducing the number of choices but not the amount of features (as is the case if for example you don't like a specific arcane tradition and you remove it from the game, but the wizard still gets to pick one, only from a shorter list).

 

[Salamandyr]

Got to agree with Li Shenron's post above on this. This is the playtest; if there is an element we don't like, or would like done differently, then we should make that known, even if it seems petty to others (that Urgrosh damage is really bugging me!) in the hopes that it gets "fixed". We may be in the minority, and we may not get our way, but at least we have a chance of effecting change.

Once 5e is published, it'll be time to let the little things slide and just have fun with the game.

 

[Kinak]

Maybe it's just me, but after reading the druid section, I feel like the forms are just begging to be folded into spells. So instead of "Form of the Hound" being called out as a class ability, it's just a 1st level druid spell.

That way, the pure healer, the pure blaster, and the pure shapeshifter can exist in harmony along with all their mixed options. And the circles can work in a consistent manner, which isn't a huge deal, but would make me feel better.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[VinylTap]

Firstly, you're right Li. I misunderstood. I thought you were commenting on the exploration rules. i think you're right in keeping feats balanced, and you're going to 'unbalance' combat if there's not give with the take.

Sal: Yes, but it the "way" these arguments are presented... I'm not going after Li with this, but it seems like sometimes these threads turn into a race to skim through the the rules and pick the first thing out of context you don't 100% agree with. These rules are more like balls of clay the community can help shape, with the game designers. They're polarized and drastic for a reason, because they're unrefined directions that the game could take-- and you get better feedback when you go long, and pull back. You can disagree with the specifics, but the conversation isn't all that productive if people aren't talking about things in context, or what the designers have in mind for the play-test. Arguing about whether you like this or that place-holder spell/feat isn't much help when the play-test isn't even near that stage of refinement. I feel like some people don't realize that the realities of real-world play-testing; it doesn't happen in theory on a web forum-- if you don't put a rule out there, its tough to know what direction you should take it.

Constructively criticizing these play-tests is a great idea, but the hyperbolic nature of some of the discussion on this forum is not.
.

 

[Salamandyr]

VynilTap, I'm in complete agreement with you too (darn I'm agreeable today). I was thinking a lot of the same things you're saying here yesterday evening, which is why my first post in the thread was a largely content-free "hey! this is great!" just because what I was reading in the forum was so at odds with what I was feeling as I read through the packet.

I just wanted to make the point that while a lot of the complaints aren't valid, there are valid challenges to be made. I'm not even saying I endorse Li Shenron's complaints, just that I think this is the proper time to be making them.