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

Olgar Shiverstone · Aug 5, 2013

I personally like to roll for HPs, but offer my players the choice of rolling or taking the average of their hit die if they prefer fixed hit points. I see no reason that both options can't coexist in the same game. Even with rolling a "reroll 1s" option is probably fair.

CM · Aug 5, 2013

Olgar Shiverstone said:
I personally like to roll for HPs, but offer my players the choice of rolling or taking the average of their hit die if they prefer fixed hit points. I see no reason that both options can't coexist in the same game. Even with rolling a "reroll 1s" option is probably fair.

the Jester said:
I far prefer to roll for hps, and I suspect that some players in organized play mode would prefer to roll if they had their druthers, they just don't get to because of the format.

A'koss said:
Heh, I think we switched to average die rolls maybe... a couple years before 2nd ed came out. Before that I seem to recall allowing re-rolls for anything that was a 1 or a 2.

I seem to remember seeing this conversation circa 1994 in rec.games.frp.dnd. The more things change, the more they stay the same...

MarkB · Aug 5, 2013

Chris_Nightwing said:
There are 0 Intelligence saving throws, 4 Charisma saving throws (one of which only matter to outsiders/summons) and 2 Strength saving throws, so there is really no need that I can see.

Going back to the lack of Intelligence-based saves in the established spells and effects, I suspect that one difficult issue here is that there is a whole range of opponents - animals, and animal-like monsters - which pretty much have to have very low Intelligence scores by default.

So, if you introduce an effect which requires an INT save, you need to either exclude such creatures from being affected, or accept that a large percentage of the monster manual automatically has very little defence against it.

Chris_Nightwing · Aug 5, 2013

MarkB said:
Going back to the lack of Intelligence-based saves in the established spells and effects, I suspect that one difficult issue here is that there is a whole range of opponents - animals, and animal-like monsters - which pretty much have to have very low Intelligence scores by default.

So, if you introduce an effect which requires an INT save, you need to either exclude such creatures from being affected, or accept that a large percentage of the monster manual automatically has very little defence against it.

Illusions are the prime candidate for intelligence saves. Animals will initially accept visual and audible information, but if given time or the right situation will realise they can't smell anything. So at low-levels you can use a Ghost Sound to distract or scare them, or the silent image of a fire or predator, but if you want to trick them in a way that involves a long exposure time to your illusion, you'll need it to smell and feel right. In mechanical terms, they would fail their saving throw, but be allowed another if they interacted with the illusion and that's where their natural senses would come into play.

Strangely this is almost the opposite to the way abilities are currently set up for perception. Generally we have wisdom to hear or spot something, but intelligence for interactive perception like searching. If we switched those, we'd have Clerics being good at figuring out what's up after thinking it over, Wizards having sharp immediate senses and Rogues might invest in both.

MarkB · Aug 5, 2013

CM said:
I seem to remember seeing this conversation circa 1994 in rec.games.frp.dnd.

Ah, Usenet. That takes me back.

The more things change, the more they stay the same...

Isn't that pretty much DDN's unofficial slogan?

A'koss · Aug 5, 2013

CM said:
I seem to remember seeing this conversation circa 1994 in rec.games.frp.dnd. The more things change, the more they stay the same...

Whaa... RGFD alumni! I haven't thought of the old newsgroup in ages. Ah, the refined debate... the innovative house rules... it's all coming back to me now. I have a sudden urge to mull some wine.
Yeah, it's likely we've likely had this conversation... a couple of times I'm sure.

Atomo · Aug 5, 2013

I noticed most people complaining about the human, but what about half-elves? Did someone already notice they are just a worsened elf and nothing more, so no motivation to play with one but fluff?

Klaus · Aug 5, 2013

Atomo said:
I noticed most people complaining about the human, but what about half-elves? Did someone already notice they are just a worsened elf and nothing more, so no motivation to play with one but fluff?

I'm not too keen on the half-elf, half-orc (+2 Str isn't enough) and the rock Gnome (compare his limited tinkering with the many applications of a Prestidigitation cantrip, which a high elf could take).

DMZ2112 · Aug 5, 2013

MarkB said:
Isn't that pretty much DDN's unofficial slogan?

No, no, it's "D&D Next: Harming One Style of Play at the Expense of Another."

Fifth paragraph.

Speaking of which, regrettably, I really wish I could get excited about this new packet. The treatment of skills and feats is pretty much exactly counter to the direction I was hoping this game would go. Both are now hyper-streamlined, and while I see some potential in the idea of "feat as specialty" rather than "specialty as feats," I feel like fewer, broader skills and feats ultimately defeats the purpose of having them in the first place.

The objective, in character design, is to create a unique entity, or as close as one can realistically achieve, and these design decisions strip away an important tool in that arsenal. This strategy feels like it won't please the players who hate feats OR the players who love them.

Adventuring gear proficiencies are cute and thematic, and I'm sure they will enable some elegant feat design down the road, but for now it just feels like unnecessary complexity (rogues don't have a lockpicking abiliity; they have proficiency with thieves' tools, which allows them to use a Dex check to pick locks). It took scanning three packet documents for me to figure out how lockpicking worked, and I got my answer in the Equipment guide. That seems... counterintuitive.

All in all, I'm glad I didn't make arrangements to preorder Dragonspear Castle; this new version of the game holds very little interest for me.

gyor · Aug 5, 2013

Yeah, I noticed half elves are kind of sad. As if a floating +1 would make up for being a second rate elf.

One thing that annoys me is I was expecting the Bard and the other races like tiefling to be in this one, but thier not.

Okay so fighter will eat Warlord and sorceror, Rogue eats assassin, Cleric eats priest, and mage eats Sorceror, Wizards, and possibly warlock (personally I don't like that idea as I really liked the warlock class from a previous packet).

They already have Mage, Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, Druid.

I think this leaves just the Bard and the Psion phb classes to add or am I forgetting anything?

Races we have the Elves, Humans, Halflings, Dwarves, Half Elves, Half Orcs, and Gnomes.

For races that leaves Tiefling and Dragonborn for phb races.

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

Olgar Shiverstone

Legend

CM

Adventurer

MarkB

Legend

Chris_Nightwing

First Post

MarkB

Legend

A'koss

Explorer

Atomo

First Post

Klaus

First Post

DMZ2112

Chaotic Looseleaf

gyor

Legend

Similar Threads