Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New D&D Next Playtest Packet Is Here!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ferratus" data-source="post: 5990832" data-attributes="member: 55966"><p>First impression is that it feels like a cleaned up 2e, but also a cleaned up 3e. The feeling of 1e and 4e feels weakest in this particular playtest packet.</p><p></p><p>Races: I really like the balance on these. At first blush the humans seem to have too much of a boost, but with all general skills being linked to ability scores and high ability scores conversely being less important than in other editions, it seems more like a skill boost. It does ensure that the most powerful of "pure builds" any class will be a human, but all the races seem to get enough toys to make you not mind that much. </p><p></p><p>Classes: The Fighter seems to be a cross between Rules Cyclopedia BASIC and 3e, which is a very good thing. The Cleric seems to be 3e, the wizard is 2e, while the rogue is 3e with a little bit of 4e. So that is very nice, though I wish the rogue was more of a thief and less of an assassin, but I know that's not going to happen.</p><p></p><p>Equipment: Still no silver standard. Sonofa.... 1...2...3... okay. I hate the alpha playtesters who nixed it though. But the lance is back, yay! I like the exotic armours mixed in with the regular armour, but I quibble a bit at the implementation. For example, why is displacer beast hide more durable? Shouldn't it instead grant a miss chance or something? Now if you had an armour made out of Norker hide, then I'd agree. I'm also glad that equipment is back to being a little expensive for the best stuff, so that you have a few levels to work towards better equipment before unleashing the magic items.</p><p></p><p>Bestiary: First impression is that it needs more 4e, but then after consideration decided that they are slightly more robust 2e monsters. Since the 2e monsters are my 2nd favourite monsters (and my favourite monster compendium) it works for me. It does have a couple modular "power" entries, so I can "spice it up" with some 4e-style special abilities and maneuvers without too much difficulty.</p><p></p><p>Backgrounds: A good way to customize characters with little effect on game balance. I don't mind at all that a magic user can become a knight (a previous poster's complaint) because I often want to play an aristocratic or knightly wizard, so it fits. I imagine this will probably be an after-thought to creating each character, but will end up enriching the character in actual play. If I'm a commoner, I'll probably care about commoners. If I'm a sage, I'll probably care about collecting lore and building a library etc.</p><p></p><p>Specialities: I see this primarily as putting a leash that is the hydra-beast of 3e feats. In other words, this is a good way to allow novice players to pick their feats to promote a character archetype without being lost in the options, and makes leveling up much quicker. It could also be a restraint against those who are good at Char-Op, as a DM could ask that person to hew more closely to a speciality for everyone's sanity.</p><p></p><p>Skills: Proficiencies are back, but you can do general adventuring skills through your ability scores, so it is the best of both worlds. I would probably use backgrounds and specialities as a DM to grant bonuses and penalties to ability checks though. For example, a high wisdom cleric might be penalized by me in his ability to find traps if he has the acolyte specialty and the priest background. If he keeps trying over multiple levels, I'll eventually get rid of the penalty.</p><p></p><p>All in all, 5e is shaping up pretty nicely for me. Even if 5e moves on in the next playtest, this could be a good basis for a 2e retroclone that I'd be willing to play.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ferratus, post: 5990832, member: 55966"] First impression is that it feels like a cleaned up 2e, but also a cleaned up 3e. The feeling of 1e and 4e feels weakest in this particular playtest packet. Races: I really like the balance on these. At first blush the humans seem to have too much of a boost, but with all general skills being linked to ability scores and high ability scores conversely being less important than in other editions, it seems more like a skill boost. It does ensure that the most powerful of "pure builds" any class will be a human, but all the races seem to get enough toys to make you not mind that much. Classes: The Fighter seems to be a cross between Rules Cyclopedia BASIC and 3e, which is a very good thing. The Cleric seems to be 3e, the wizard is 2e, while the rogue is 3e with a little bit of 4e. So that is very nice, though I wish the rogue was more of a thief and less of an assassin, but I know that's not going to happen. Equipment: Still no silver standard. Sonofa.... 1...2...3... okay. I hate the alpha playtesters who nixed it though. But the lance is back, yay! I like the exotic armours mixed in with the regular armour, but I quibble a bit at the implementation. For example, why is displacer beast hide more durable? Shouldn't it instead grant a miss chance or something? Now if you had an armour made out of Norker hide, then I'd agree. I'm also glad that equipment is back to being a little expensive for the best stuff, so that you have a few levels to work towards better equipment before unleashing the magic items. Bestiary: First impression is that it needs more 4e, but then after consideration decided that they are slightly more robust 2e monsters. Since the 2e monsters are my 2nd favourite monsters (and my favourite monster compendium) it works for me. It does have a couple modular "power" entries, so I can "spice it up" with some 4e-style special abilities and maneuvers without too much difficulty. Backgrounds: A good way to customize characters with little effect on game balance. I don't mind at all that a magic user can become a knight (a previous poster's complaint) because I often want to play an aristocratic or knightly wizard, so it fits. I imagine this will probably be an after-thought to creating each character, but will end up enriching the character in actual play. If I'm a commoner, I'll probably care about commoners. If I'm a sage, I'll probably care about collecting lore and building a library etc. Specialities: I see this primarily as putting a leash that is the hydra-beast of 3e feats. In other words, this is a good way to allow novice players to pick their feats to promote a character archetype without being lost in the options, and makes leveling up much quicker. It could also be a restraint against those who are good at Char-Op, as a DM could ask that person to hew more closely to a speciality for everyone's sanity. Skills: Proficiencies are back, but you can do general adventuring skills through your ability scores, so it is the best of both worlds. I would probably use backgrounds and specialities as a DM to grant bonuses and penalties to ability checks though. For example, a high wisdom cleric might be penalized by me in his ability to find traps if he has the acolyte specialty and the priest background. If he keeps trying over multiple levels, I'll eventually get rid of the penalty. All in all, 5e is shaping up pretty nicely for me. Even if 5e moves on in the next playtest, this could be a good basis for a 2e retroclone that I'd be willing to play. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
New D&D Next Playtest Packet Is Here!
Top