D&D 5E New D&D Next Packet Is Available

[pming]

Hiya.

I took a quick look-see.

I like it. Wasn't keen on the previous playtest or two. I still don't think it's going to pull me and my group away from our 1e/Hackmaster4e preference, but still.

The only thing I'm not keen on is the whole naming of the Paladin class(es).. I think they should take the BECMI way (which seems to be their inspiration); make the core 'class' "Knight", then have Paladin (Good) and Avenger (Evil) be the two off-shoots, with the character being able to choose to remain a Knight regardless of alignment.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Zardnaar]

Its not April 1st.

 

[Plaguescarred]

Many likes and dlsikes with this packets.

+ Explorations rules. Could be simplified, but like overall first draft
Favored Enemy is well done
Races now get +1 to two stats and Human +1 to all stats

- Skills tied to ability scores again offer less freedom of use than when untied.
Special property removing the need of special training to use means Dual wielding spiked shield +4 AC
Druidcraft and Spare the Dead missing from Druid spells

 

[Blackwarder]

+ for having one cure wounds spell that scale with the using higher slots!

and I must admit that I think that the exploration rules goes in the right direction, I'll playtest them farther.

Warder

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Finally had the chance to read through the majority of the packet. As ever, I like some things, I dislike other things. Some problems remain, some have changed, some have gone.

Immediate impression is *still* unnecessary complexity when it's obvious how certain things can be streamlined (such as attack bonus/deadly strike/multiattack). I also think they should try to design the next packet *without* any feats whatsoever, because they are becoming heavily reliant on them and there must be a better way to implement customisation without including half of the combat system. I like that you have some decisions to make in your skills, but the skill dice is still not a good idea. I like the Fighter mechanic, except that it uses dice again, damn those dice. I don't like alignment restrictions, but I'm not really a Paladin guy. I like the direction of druids, but they need to think more carefully about them. I like the direction of Rangers too. They are closing up gaping chasms in the system though, so I think we're getting somewhere, albeit via a random walk.

 

[tecnowraith]

Ok what ever happen to the idea of not every spellcasting class will be the same mechanics-wise? So far what we have is that all the spellcasting classes released so far must prepare spells. I was hoping for something different and unique between them on how they cast their spells yet it feel like they are same.

 

[Li Shenron]

Those levels seem to be the bulk of the dead levels, and they make them seem boring.

I think you shouldn't worry too much about dead levels at the moment, especially when other levels grant more than 1 special feature. It's very easy to rearrange them or add new small abilities in order to fill all levels with something, and with at least 1 year to go before the release, filling levels right now can get in the way of making sure all the class mechanics work.

OTOH, it's certainly possible that the designers just don't care about dead levels and will leave them... so make you keep mentioning this problem in your feedback!!

I noticed that druids get some of the best wizard spells now, like charm person, hold person, web, dimension door, dominate person, feeblemind, dominate monster (at 8th level!!) and wish. They never had any of these spells before, and they're some of the most potent ones in the wizard's arsenal.

This surprised me too, but in general I would see with favour a shift of the Druid class concept farther away from the Cleric and closer to the Wizard. In many ways, even tho Druids are religious figures, they have also always carried some anti-religious elements. In some way, a Druid could be more like a nature-themed Wizard than a nature-themed Cleric.

Also one of my minor nitpicks about Forgotten Realms (and not only that) is this trite concept that every deity XYZ must not just have Clerics of XYZ but also Druids of XYZ, Paladins of XYZ and Rangers of XYZ... Why not Rogues of XYZ, Wizards of XYZ and Fighters of XYZ then? I think making Druids equally distant from Clerics and Wizards would also free them from this weirdness of having both Clerics of Silvanus and Druids of Silvanus, Clerics of Chauntea and Druids of Chauntea... I would rather see Druids as just plain Druids, no deity attached, at least not more than how a Wizard could still worship a deity but doesn't have to be its servant or get powers from it.

That said, Wish does feel pretty weird on a Druids' list!

 

[gyor]

I suspect its just filler till they flesh out more Druid spells.

 

[Li Shenron]

The game is filled with concepts that failed the first time they were attempted but were then fixed and now work fine.
If at first you don't succeed...

I know I am after all a non-average gamer of D&D with odd preferences, but I have to say that the last few packages have given me the opposite feeling of yours: the feeling that most of the new ideas of 5e are best the first time they introduce them, and then they think too much about corner cases or exceptions, or they are just too sensitive to criticism in feedback, and change them for the worse.

The first time we got Expertise Dice, we all loved it. It was new, it made the Fighter an attractive class with something unique, and it looked like it would open up the design of lots of cool special abilities that didn't offend those who didn't get them because not having them didn't prevent other classes from having an entire tactical option at their disposal, and were not too gamist in mechanics, not breaking SoD. Then, they started to spread ED to other classes, removing uniqueness from the Fighter, until in this packet they are turned into feats, while ED becomes more gamist and less flexible, and adds an extra layer of unneeded complexity.

My feeling is that the more they think and work on something, the worse it becomes (not always of course, just on average). If this thread continues, it will be worth going back and pick the first version of everything, put all them together, and see what kind of game we get.

I dread at the day when they will start revising the Magic Item chapter, one of the best chapter of D&D rules I've ever read...

 

[babomb]

I understand that they are trying to let the fighter do cool things without giving up damage, because just doing more damage is usually optimal, but I really don't like this fighter on reading it. The "cool options" aren't really. (E.g., "Pick one of these five slightly different ways to add 1d6 damage.") It seems like the worst-of-both-worlds fighter to me: complicated but not interesting. I expect getting 1 Expertise die back is so seldom a worthwhile use of an action that I'd forget it was an option; these are effectively per-encounter dice. I greatly preferred the fighter in the first packet, personally. Also, the description for Death Dealer, "Every attack you make brings your enemy closer to death." made me audibly guffaw.

Aren't feats optional? How do bonus feats from classes work if you're playing the basic version? Do you get the bonus feats but not the normal ones?

I like the direction of the druid, especially the way wildshape is handled, but I would hope for some opportunity for the druid player to customize the list of wildshape forms available to him. I really like the Evergreen ability largely because it has very little direct gameplay impact, and I wish there were more abilities like that.

The ranger seems okay. I've never been a big fan of rangers (or paladins) as casters, but without them, the ranger would be too weak, and I don't know what I'd replace them with. If they're going to have spells, I prefer that they start at first level as they do here. I like the approach to favored enemy if not necessarily the specifics. I'd maybe like a Favored Terrain feature or something that represents an ability to endure harsh environmental conditions. Maybe there are spells for that; I didn't look over the list carefully.

I think "Lawful Good Paladin" should be redundant. Name the umbrella class "Champion" or something. Blackguards can be LN and smite with radiant damage? I got the impression from L&L that Oaths were a different thing to the Paladin/Warden/Blackguard choice, so I'm a bit disappointed there. (That's probably my fault for misreading.) I kind of like the mount. Not sure I like Lay on Hands and Smite drawing from the same pool, but it's probably fine. I'm very disappointed about the lack of any specifics about Paladin behavior (tithing, limit on magic items, losing paladin-hood, any mention of religion whatsoever except under Channel Divinity that was copied from the Cleric's, etc.), but I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I never really thought Detect Evil was that big of a problem, but I think it's handled pretty well here.

Wait, Open Lock is a feat now? Break an Object is a skill? Really? I like that they've standardized on verbs as skill names, but I miss Profession. The Artisan background doesn't even make sense without it. A blacksmith has no skill or anything related to blacksmithing. Maybe Profession(blacksmith) could be called Ply Trade(blacksmith). Are we back to tying skills to specific abilities again? I don't like that.

The exploration rules are a decent first pass, but, for example, getting lost rotates your direction a multiple of 45 degrees...on a hex map. Wandering monster check is on a d20, but it would be clearer on a d10 or d100.

Humans get +1 to all ability scores... At least they don't get a +2 to one of them, but they're still on average as hardy as a dwarf and as dextrous as an elf and that doesn't sit right with me. I think other races should have positive and negative modifiers and humans no modifiers, but if we're going all positives, give humans +1 to any one physical and any one mental score and an extra skill or something.