D&D 5E October Playtest: Yay or Nay?

[kerleth]

A 1st level wizard with an 8 constitution is not killed by a single magic missile. They are knocked out. Getting knocked out of a fight, with the possibility of healing bringing you back in, is far different from getting killed and having to make a new character. Both 3rd and 4th edition had plenty of half damage effects, and I don't recall ever hearing complaints about their existence then. Of course, just cause I didn't hear them doesn't mean they weren't around. Personally, I don't like the idea of average joe beating the save DC of fireball by 1 and taking no damage. There are 2 main issues with that.
1) It doesn't make sense to me in my mind's eye. If joe adventurer has cover then I could see it. But in the middle of a room with no special abilities, he should really take some damage.
2) All or nothing mechanics promote feel bad moments. There was a reason so many of 4th's daily abilities dealt half damage on a miss. You spent your "point of awesome" and it stunk when it did nothing.

A flat bonus to attacks could work. Perhaps +1 to all attacks at 1st level and +1 more every five. Fighters get +2 more to weapon attacks at 1st level and it increase one more at 7th. Wizards get the same for magic attacks. Clerics get a +1 to each at 1st level to reflect a more traditional pinch hitter and support roll.

 

[Nikosandros]

I'm extremely disappointed by this packet, even dismayed. I was originally very optimistic about Next, but I've lost a lot of confidence. It's not only this packet (which to me seems like an overall regression), but the way the whole process is being handled. I don't see a clear design a focus, but rather a constant flip-flopping... the team seems uncertain about everything: spell system, encounter balance, skills, monster math, etc.

 

[DEFCON 1]

...but the way the whole process is being handled. I don't see a clear design a focus, but rather a constant flip-flopping... the team seems uncertain about everything: spell system, encounter balance, skills, monster math, etc.

And this is why most game companies never do open playtests. Because THIS IS HOW DESIGN WORK IS SUPPOSED TO GO. And the general public can't seem to understand or appreciate that.

They aren't just "editing" a complete game as though they were just adding some errata to 4E. They are making all kinds of new things up. And these have to be tested. A lot. In many different formats. Some of these formats you might like... some of these formats you may not like. But until they GIVE them to you to test... they won't KNOW which way will be more popular.

So you should be thankful that you get to test all kinds of interesting iterations of different rules... because it means you get to have some input into what works and what doesn't. But if all you're waiting for is a complete and flawless new game to play without witnessing how the sausage gets made... STOP READING THE PLAYTEST PACKETS AND WAIT UNTIL 2014. You'll be thankful that you did.

 

[Nikosandros]

And this is why most game companies never do open playtests. Because THIS IS HOW DESIGN WORK IS SUPPOSED TO GO. And the general public can't seem to understand or appreciate that.

I disagree strongly. I'm not complaining about the rough state of the rules, but about the fact that the team doesn't seem to know what kind of game to write. I think that trying every possible idea and doing a general popularity poll through the surveys is a very poor way of designing a new game. Floundering at random isn't the way design work is supposed to go.

 

[mlund]

I'm happy to see an extended maneuvers system and separated wheel-houses for the fighter and the thief. There needs to be some tweaking, obviously, but it is a good path.

The spell-casting designs on the cleric and the wizard are much improved. I think channel divinity / turn undead needs to get a bit tweaked, though. An encounter-based treatment like the signature spell for the wizard would be better in this slot, IMO.

For the most part, the classes have shaped up well. I think it's the skills and random actions that need work. Use rope shouldn't have made a comeback, for starters. Breaking out perception and using Pursuade instead of Diplomacy were nice removes, though. I'm not a huge fan of adding back two-weapon fighting junk without making it part of a speciality, combat style, or scheme. The core rules that are always on without taking a class or feat option should be nice and simple.

The bestiary still needs the same help it needed last week. Also, don't bolt class levels on to monsters explicitly. If you want an up-gunned monster that can have high criticals and use some of those features move them into an elite or solo category and add to their stat blocks. Skip using PC spells with monsters and npcs too. Just detail enough to play and throw-away for he encounter.

Some specialties still need work. I'm glad to see the extra Hit Dice feat gone - it was much too powerful. Healing not maximizing hit dice etc. was very good. The DR1 vs. physical attacks is actually terrible. It's way too good against a swarm of trivial foes and worthless against level-appropriate monsters by level 9. Get back to the drawing board.

Hit dice and healing will continue to get people in a snit. Personally, I want the slower Hit Point recovery option to be the default assumption - extended rests just restore your hit dice. It would make losing hit dice temporarily (by disease, poison, wounding options, or energy drain) a big hazard too.

Dwarves getting advantage vs. poison saves is good. I think they should also only take half damage from poison, and elves should have Advantage to saves vs sleep and charm instead of immunity (or maybe immune to sleep, advantage against charms).

- Marty Lund

 

[DEFCON 1]

I disagree strongly. I'm not complaining about the rough state of the rules, but about the fact that the team doesn't seem to know what kind of game to write. I think that trying every possible idea and doing a general popularity poll through the surveys is a very poor way of designing a new game. Floundering at random isn't the way design work is supposed to go.

And you know this... how?

If they really had no idea of the game they wanted to write or trying every possible idea... then we'd see playtest packets that had NO hit points, removed or changed ability scores, made spells work completely differently than they've ever worked before, have attack and damage rolls use all manner of die types, dice pools, etc. etc. etc. Basically... be in a form completely different from any version of D&D we've ever seen. But because they already have a very firm handle on the stuff they are KEEPING in the tradition of the various editions of D&D... they're free to now play around with other ideas.

How else do you think any of the OTHER editions of the game came up with new stuff? Do you think the switch from THAC0 to upwards AC in 3.0 just happened automatically with no issues whatsoever? Uh... no. Even something like that... something that WE NOW look back at and say "well duh! Of course it should work like that!"... had to get tested first.

Why not just be honest here? It's not that WotC doesn't know what they want... it's just that you don't like what they are currently doing. Stop treating WotC like they're idiots who can't design games and just admit that truth be told, you just want to see completely finished product and don't really like to see the process of how games get made.

 

[Blackbrrd]

...I'm not complaining about the rough state of the rules, but about the fact that the team doesn't seem to know what kind of game to write. ... Floundering at random isn't the way design work is supposed to go.

To me there is a clear direction to 5e: They want combat to be faster and for the game to have a more bounded math than the previous editions. What you see as "Floundering at random" has been within those parameters in my opinion.

For instance: I have noticed with 5e combat is that there are very few actions that put conditions on the opponent. They have also reduced the reliance on precise movement control (push 2, slide 3, pull 4).

I think it's awesome that they are doing something similar to a open pre-alpha test of the game system. Pre-alpha does in software development terms mean that they haven't finalized anything yet. I think the reason you are seeing "floundering" is because they are looking at which of their ideas they should: develop, trash or use.
[MENTION=98938]DeF[/MENTION]con1 I would have xp-ed you if I could, you wrote more or less what I would have written on the developement process.

 

[Nikosandros]

Never mind.

 

[nightwalker450]

And you know this... how?

If they really had no idea of the game they wanted to write or trying every possible idea... then we'd see playtest packets that had NO hit points, removed or changed ability scores, made spells work completely differently than they've ever worked before, have attack and damage rolls use all manner of die types, dice pools, etc. etc. etc. Basically... be in a form completely different from any version of D&D we've ever seen. But because they already have a very firm handle on the stuff they are KEEPING in the tradition of the various editions of D&D... they're free to now play around with other ideas.

How else do you think any of the OTHER editions of the game came up with new stuff? Do you think the switch from THAC0 to upwards AC in 3.0 just happened automatically with no issues whatsoever? Uh... no. Even something like that... something that WE NOW look back at and say "well duh! Of course it should work like that!"... had to get tested first.

Why not just be honest here? It's not that WotC doesn't know what they want... it's just that you don't like what they are currently doing. Stop treating WotC like they're idiots who can't design games and just admit that truth be told, you just want to see completely finished product and don't really like to see the process of how games get made.

Can't exp you right now. But pretty much sums it up. Constructive feedback, as to why something is or isn't working for you is what they want. If you want to help in the designing of a new edition than play test. Otherwise if you're just looking for edition X, they are already re-releasing most of those.

Personally I just wish I had a regular group to play test with, otherwise I just have theory craft to play with.

 

[gyor]

The changes to the cleric and wizard are aweful, after first level you basically get next to nothing more from your class then an extra slot. At level 2 you get 1 spell slot and that's it. Level three an extra spell slot. Level 4 1 extra spell slot. Ect... All the way to level 10. Boring.

Wizards a little better then it was, but it trades slots for pathetic traditions that add nothing after first level. Do you realize what you get by level 10 in pathfinder or even 4e?

Manuevers need to be fixed and expertise dice are too few to matter.

Its like all the fun of earning a level has been

Why is it you seem to get more out of 5 levels in the previous packet then you do in 10 in this packet?