D&D 5E L&L: Mike Lays It All Out

[GX.Sigma]

My favorite part of skills being optional: It means DMs can choose not to use things like perception checks without too much fuss. I hope the Rogue doesn't mess that up (hopefully the Rogue's skill-like abilities can be cordoned off).

 

[Kobold Stew]

Give the Rogue two backgrounds, and every other class one.
Done.

 

[Li Shenron]

I am not sure is you agree or disagree with me here. I think having disadvantage on skills you don't have sound like a nice mechanic.

I wrote an explanation but the server decided nobody should read it...

...so to cut it short, yes I agree with that.

 

[Li Shenron]

Give the Rogue two backgrounds, and every other class one.
Done.

Well this could have been done with the old backgrounds, but now that we know background won't grant skills but rather lore + proficiencies + trait, I have a hard time seeing how 2 backgrounds fit with the Rogue more than other classes.

 

[Kobold Stew]

...in a game without skills? I don't have that problem.

 

[Argyle King]

Why do you find it so difficult to believe that the new feats will be powerful enough to be worth taking?

Because it's often more important to connect (hit) than to deal raw damage. That's only considering combat. Since ability checks are also used (supposedly) for many more things in 5th Edition, that makes them even more important.

Let's say I'm a fighter and I boost my STR. That boost to STR applies all of the time. If my alternative option is to have a bonus which applies only in certain situations, that alternative option is (IMO) not as good. I feel that way because I can look back across both 3rd and 4th Edition and see how that train of thought lead to so many feats in those editions being choices which were virtually never taken.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Because it's often more important to connect (hit) than to deal raw damage. That's only considering combat. Since ability checks are also used (supposedly) for many more things in 5th Edition, that makes them even more important.

Let's say I'm a fighter and I boost my STR. That boost to STR applies all of the time. If my alternative option is to have a bonus which applies only in certain situations, that alternative option is (IMO) not as good. I feel that way because I can look back across both 3rd and 4th Edition and see how that train of thought lead to so many feats in those editions being choices which were virtually never taken.

Well yeah, if it's a choice between +1 STR and something like Cleave, then it won't work.

What if that's not the choice, though? What if it's a choice between having +1 STR and having three level 1 spells per day? What if it's a choice between having +1 STR and having an army of zombie minions? What if it's a choice between having +1 STR and being able to fly?

 

[Warbringer]

Any news on when the new playtest is expected?

 

[GX.Sigma]

Any news on when the new playtest is expected?

Nope.

 

[Argyle King]

Well yeah, if it's a choice between +1 STR and something like Cleave, then it won't work.

What if that's not the choice, though? What if it's a choice between having +1 STR and having three level 1 spells per day? What if it's a choice between having +1 STR and having an army of zombie minions? What if it's a choice between having +1 STR and being able to fly?

I think all of those are potentially cool choices. However, it's going to highly depend upon how the math of the game works as a whole. Thus far, I'm not seeing a whole lot of the "flatter math" ideal in actual play. The math does tend to be more flat than some other editions; however, there are some aspects of the design which seem to imply that the current direction of the game will have an end result in which bonuses are still very important. With that in mind, it seems better to take as many +1s as you can get and find other ways to achieve the other things.

I also find the comments about feats strange because in the same article it is said that all of the feats need to be balanced against gaining a +1. On the other hand, it is also mentioned that higher level feats will be better than lower level feats. How can two feats of differing power level be equally balanced against the same +1? I'm aware that this is a still playtest, and the road to a finished product is still a long way off, but there's still a lot of conflicting info which doesn't seem to quite gel together. Taken at face value, it sounds to me like there will be a point at which taking the feats might be worth it, but that point may be later in the game's progression. If that does turn out to be the case, then it seems to me that the feats available before that point will often be ignored.

Personally, I probably would dump one feat for flight. Flight is simply too good to pass up. Zombie Minions? That's going to highly depend upon how the math of the game works; the two editions I'm most familiar with (3rd and 4th) don't handle ancillary characters very well. Gaining spells might be worth it seeing as how spells tend to be rather powerful in D&D.