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
Playtest Update
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="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 5956719" data-attributes="member: 1465"><p>I am not that happy with this playtest update... <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite5" alt=":confused:" title="Confused :confused:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":confused:" /></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>These look just fine to me. The tactical module has been a no-brainer since the beginning, but good that now it's clarified that you can either take it as a whole or cherrypick from it. Narrative module is unexpected to me but sounds like another good option.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Totally agree that there is a difficult issue here: many players want the Fighter to have unique abilities, but if you define some martial abilities to be fighter-only you always get other players complaining "it's just a matter of training, why can't my ranger/barbarian/rogue/whatever learn that too?". I think WotC needs to take a brave step and really brainstorm a few unique mechanics for the Fighter, and call for multiclassing if other characters want to get them.</p><p></p><p>OTOH, the article doesn't mention any concrete proposal for this problem.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Dang... I though the surprise rules were simple and effective. Now they'll just go back to the usual "extra round" which is a bit too strong so they'll have to add some restriction and everything will be more difficult.</p><p></p><p>Or they could do worse and just use the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. I hope WotC designers have realized that while this is a good tool for DMs, it should <strong>not</strong> be a shortcut for designers because due to the fact that adv and disadv don't stack and cancel each other, overusing this can be very bad.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Critical hits are always either simple and boring or complicated and interesting. We need both options. Actually, the simplest option could even be just not using criticals at all in the game.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This sounds terrible... the change hinted to will open up many more cans of worms. If they want to solve a specific problem, they should seek a specific solution (perhaps using Int rather than Wis for finding traps) rather than changing the foundations of the whole skill system.</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><br /> <br /> "For clerics, we're looking at moving healing out of the spell list and making it easy to cast a healing spell and do something such as attack during your turn. We hope that this move lets clerics feel like they have more options than just patching up the rest of the party, while they can also prepare spells such as bless or cause fear with the chance to actually use them, rather than cash them out for healing."<br /> <br /> Another signature problem of D&D... But are players <em>really</em> having this problem, or is it just in their mind? Clerics have already had plenty of options other than healing in all editions, why should they be allowed to do two things at once? If you don't want to heal then just don't play a Cleric, and if nobody wants then ask the DM to give everyone healing potions or just more HP, if you're so afraid that the campaign will be "unplayable" (sic). <br /> <br /> There's this trend that apparently every player only wants to do one thing: attack and damage... So a Wizard has to be given at-will magic missile and a Cleric background automatic healing? So long for D&D being a tactical game <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" /> There is already a character concept for attacking and damaging, and that's the Fighter, if you don't like the mundane look & feel of it, you can always re-skin it so that his sword looks like a flame and his arrows look like lightning bolts.<br /> <br /> Then moving healing out of the spell list (separate spells per day?) or even use a different mechanic doesn't bother me, as long as the concept remains that a Cleric's signature role is to protect and heal.</li> </ul></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 5956719, member: 1465"] I am not that happy with this playtest update... :confused: These look just fine to me. The tactical module has been a no-brainer since the beginning, but good that now it's clarified that you can either take it as a whole or cherrypick from it. Narrative module is unexpected to me but sounds like another good option. Totally agree that there is a difficult issue here: many players want the Fighter to have unique abilities, but if you define some martial abilities to be fighter-only you always get other players complaining "it's just a matter of training, why can't my ranger/barbarian/rogue/whatever learn that too?". I think WotC needs to take a brave step and really brainstorm a few unique mechanics for the Fighter, and call for multiclassing if other characters want to get them. OTOH, the article doesn't mention any concrete proposal for this problem. Dang... I though the surprise rules were simple and effective. Now they'll just go back to the usual "extra round" which is a bit too strong so they'll have to add some restriction and everything will be more difficult. Or they could do worse and just use the advantage/disadvantage mechanic. I hope WotC designers have realized that while this is a good tool for DMs, it should [B]not[/B] be a shortcut for designers because due to the fact that adv and disadv don't stack and cancel each other, overusing this can be very bad. Critical hits are always either simple and boring or complicated and interesting. We need both options. Actually, the simplest option could even be just not using criticals at all in the game. This sounds terrible... the change hinted to will open up many more cans of worms. If they want to solve a specific problem, they should seek a specific solution (perhaps using Int rather than Wis for finding traps) rather than changing the foundations of the whole skill system. [LIST] "For clerics, we're looking at moving healing out of the spell list and making it easy to cast a healing spell and do something such as attack during your turn. We hope that this move lets clerics feel like they have more options than just patching up the rest of the party, while they can also prepare spells such as bless or cause fear with the chance to actually use them, rather than cash them out for healing." Another signature problem of D&D... But are players [I]really[/I] having this problem, or is it just in their mind? Clerics have already had plenty of options other than healing in all editions, why should they be allowed to do two things at once? If you don't want to heal then just don't play a Cleric, and if nobody wants then ask the DM to give everyone healing potions or just more HP, if you're so afraid that the campaign will be "unplayable" (sic). There's this trend that apparently every player only wants to do one thing: attack and damage... So a Wizard has to be given at-will magic missile and a Cleric background automatic healing? So long for D&D being a tactical game :erm: There is already a character concept for attacking and damaging, and that's the Fighter, if you don't like the mundane look & feel of it, you can always re-skin it so that his sword looks like a flame and his arrows look like lightning bolts. Then moving healing out of the spell list (separate spells per day?) or even use a different mechanic doesn't bother me, as long as the concept remains that a Cleric's signature role is to protect and heal.[/list] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Playtest Update
Top