D&D 5E Thoughts on 6-7-13 Playtest Packet

[Kobold Stew]

Still no errata on shields:
* wooden shields (for druids) not defined
* spiked shields give all the defensive advantage and serve as a weapon (and can be dual-wielded, and so objectively better than any other dual-wielding combination).

 

[Zustiur]

I'm glad that they have the animate dead spell, but I don't like the implementation. The minions you can create are pathetically weak and only last a day. On the other hand, There's no limit to how many minions one can animate, so players can literally have like 20 zombies following them, each with their own actions and rolls. Yikes. There goes the action economy! And the spell still goes out of its way to tell you how "evil" and "badwrongfun" it is. *sigh* So animating a minion from a dead monster's corpse is evil and taboo and terrible,

Actually, that's pretty much how it is in my games. Necromancy is illegal/evil by default.

but casting irresistible dance on someone and making them dance for 10 days straight, torturing them until they die from exhaustion, there's nothing wrong with that! Seriously?

Maybe it depends on what dance you choose. Making someone do the macareena for 10 days is definitely evil. Making someone do, say, Lindy Hop, is less evil because:
a) they'd enjoy it
b) it's so energetic that they'd die of exhaustion much faster

*ahem*
I can't stand this +1 to every stat concept either. It reeks of 'people cannot handle penalties' to me. Humans [in my opinion] should return to the +0 baseline and all other races should be balanced around that. The pluses and minuses that other races get should be a comparison of how they match up to humans (our obvious real world baseline). Otherwise you're effectively saying stats now run from 4-19, and these other races have a -1 in practically everything. Look at elves, they are 'slender and graceful' with their +1 to dex... which puts them exactly on par with humans' for being graceful.
This could have been written the opposite way around:
Elf ability score adjustments: -1 to str, con, int, wis and cha.
If humans are based on 3-18 instead of 4-19, it's the same thing.
Ick! The same thing applies to all the races (except half orcs now?). Dwarves have excellent constitution... so excellent that they... are as healthy as humans. Hmmm. That's not really a standout fact about the race which is worth commenting on is it?

For critical hits, I'd like to see the idea that additional 'dice' are maxed.
e.g. roll to hit and roll damage dice together. Longsword is 1d8. On a crit (19-20), longsword becomes 1d8+8.
Greataxe is 1d12. On a crit (20), greataxe becomes 1d12+24.
It's simple, and it makes crits impressive. One thing I disliked about 3E was that you spent all this time to confirm a crit, and then rolled a 1 for the extra damage. How is that a critical hit? It should have either been, no confirmation required, or a different damage rule.
With the max damage on extra dice rule that I just outlined, I have no problem with rolling the extra d20 to confirm the critical - doing so is always worth the extra time.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Actually, that's pretty much how it is in my games. Necromancy is illegal/evil by default.

That's fine. My problem is with these morality clauses being put in the core rules. People should just be left to decide that kind of thing at their own table.

I can't stand this +1 to every stat concept either. It reeks of 'people cannot handle penalties' to me. Humans [in my opinion] should return to the +0 baseline and all other races should be balanced around that. The pluses and minuses that other races get should be a comparison of how they match up to humans (our obvious real world baseline). Otherwise you're effectively saying stats now run from 4-19, and these other races have a -1 in practically everything. Look at elves, they are 'slender and graceful' with their +1 to dex... which puts them exactly on par with humans' for being graceful.

I totally agree. Whether one race gets a +1 and the other gets +0 to an ability, or its +0 compared to -1, its the exact same difference. I don't see what's wrong with penalties.

 

[GX.Sigma]

There's no limit to how many minions one can animate, so players can literally have like 20 zombies following them, each with their own actions and rolls. Yikes. There goes the action economy!

In my experience, it's actually really easy to run 20 monsters, as long as you have 20d20 lying around (perhaps quicker than running one spellcaster).

And the spell still goes out of its way to tell you how "evil" and "badwrongfun" it is. *sigh*

The part that gets me is that it says you might "offend the forces of good and law." They never heard of Wee Jas?

 

[babomb]

My favorite part of this packet is that half-elves are strictly worse than elves, except, in some cases, for the ability modifiers.

I think the gnomes are okay. Tinkering seems more flavorful than useful, though. If it somehow improved with your level, it would be pretty cool.

The new dying rules seem to go through a some contortions to avoid negative hit points. I thought the previous version was pretty good. The new one isn't terrible, but I don't understand the reason for it. Are there people who really hate negative HP?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I suspect that this release is intended for only two purposes. First, to introduce the new races. Second, to bring the public playtest in line with what went to print with Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle.

I disagree. I believe there will be a lot more info in the Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle book. I believe that they've been working internally on a build that reworks all the classes in the book currently and likely adds 2-3 more.

The playtest packet specifically says in the Read Me file something to the effect of "Although the class document says it's been updated, we have made only the minimum changes to bring it inline with the new spell changes. What you are seeing is not all the changes. This playtest is designed to focus feedback on specific things." with the implication that they purposefully left out a bunch of changes so that they would get more discussion on the new spells, new healing and dying rules, and the new/changes to actions in combat.

My guess is that they have a fairly large overhaul to come in the Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle(and likely a playtest that will come out either slightly before or after GenCon) but are waiting until GenCon so they can have something exciting to show off.

Another clue that they have something planned is that the RPGA is running an event at GenCon where DMs run Ghosts of Dragonspear Castle for you for the WHOLE weekend. They recently updated the FAQ about the event to say that the book is required to play. So they are giving a free copy to everyone who signed up for the event. Since the book is merely the D&D Next rules and the adventure...well, one would figure the only reason the book is required for all the players is because it contains rules that aren't available elsewhere.

 

[Weather Report]

I would like if Forest Gnomes got +1 to Cha, instead of Dex.

 

[Gargoyle]

The spell animate dead makes me concerned for warlocks. If animating dead cannot be a good act, then what sort of alignment restrictions will be on most of the warlock spell list, or perhaps the class itself?

Good necromancers and warlocks should be viable and not have their spell lists truncated. Just because some societies, even most, might frown on a necromancer walking around town with a retinue of zombies doesn't mean it will be taboo in every campaign setting. I could even see the argument that animating the dead to defend the town against invaders is a good act and the dead would be proud to serve in such a grim army.

Personally, I want fewer morality restrictions and more possibilities for interesting characters.

 

[Szatany]

I find it stupid that animate dead must be an evil act? Is it in the books so catholic church has less ammo to fire at D&D?
I can easily imagine a fantasy culture where volunteers pledge their souls as guardians in afterlife to be later raised and used in battle.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I'm more concerned about giving a player a trail of action- (and time-) devouring monsters.

Because of the limited duration, NPC necromancers pretty much have to use different rules. Not that I'd mind that, but the bestiary disagrees. (Causing one to wonder who or what is making all those low-level "permanent" zombies.)