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

[Kobold Stew]

It's worse than a Great Sword that does 2d6+2d6 on a crit but 2d6 vs 1d12 all the rest of the time. That is unless you crit more than 1 hit in 4 & the extra damage matters.

Actually, doesn't a greatsword just do 3d6 on a crit? (How to Play, p. 16)

It's actually a problem in the rules:

Longsword (one-handed) crits at 2d8 (avg. 9)
Longsword (two-handed) crits at 2d10 (avg. 11)
Greatsword (two-handed) crits at 3d6 (avg. 10.5)

and, for good measure:
Battleaxe and morningstar and war pick (one-handed) crits at 1d8+1d12 (avg. 11)
Glaive (two-handed) crits at 1d10+2d6 (avg. 12.5)
Great axe (two-handed) crits at 1d12+2d8 (avg. 15.5)
Warhammer (as longsword)

 

[Atomo]

It's worse than a Great Sword that does 2d6+2d6 on a crit but 2d6 vs 1d12 all the rest of the time. That is unless you crit more than 1 hit in 4 & the extra damage matters.

Just 3d6. You roll ONE extra die on a crit, even if a weapon have more than one damage die.

 

[Sunseeker]

Actually, doesn't a greatsword just do 3d6 on a crit? (How to Play, p. 16)

It's actually a problem in the rules:

Longsword (one-handed) crits at 2d8 (avg. 9)
Longsword (two-handed) crits at 2d10 (avg. 11)
Greatsword (two-handed) crits at 3d6 (avg. 10.5)

and, for good measure:
Battleaxe and morningstar and war pick (one-handed) crits at 1d8+1d12 (avg. 11)
Glaive (two-handed) crits at 1d10+2d6 (avg. 12.5)
Great axe (two-handed) crits at 1d12+2d8 (avg. 15.5)
Warhammer (as longsword)

My guess would be they're tying something different with the bonus dice, but it's not adding up so well.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I assume you're only looking at the Spell descriptions. The How To Play document has saving throw examples for all scores, and all of them can also be called upon during contests.

Well yes, because in How to Play we get this:

Strength
The DM commonly asks you to use Strength when you make a saving throw to resist being pushed against your will, knock aside a boulder that is rolling toward you, catch a collapsing ceiling, or grab onto a ledge to keep from falling.

Those all sound sensible, and yet a canonical pushing spell like Thunderwave uses a Con saving throw. Earthquake uses Dexterity saving throws to avoid being knocked over or falling.

Intelligence
The DM commonly asks you to use Intelligence when you make a saving throw to resist a spell that attempts to overcome your intellect.

What does this even mean? Clearly they have no idea themselves. There are no known instances to date of an intelligence saving throw in DDN.

Charisma
The DM commonly asks you to use Charisma when you make a saving throw to resist certain magical compulsions, especially those that would overcome your sense of yourself.

No again that sounds reasonable, but all charm and compulsions use Wisdom for their saving throws, so I guess you only use this if someone insults you and you don't want to have your ego hurt.

They need to seriously take a look at what their ability scores mean, because as it stands there is very little point in investing in Intelligence (especially when you can just get the relevant Lore for +10 to the right checks). Strength has that physical aspect to it, but as a Wizard or Rogue I'd be looking for ways around having to use it. Charisma, if you don't intend to be the social character, then there's very little point in that either. This was one of the flaws of previous editions - dump stats, and there's really no need for it if they just put the work in.

 

[Kobold Stew]

...one of the reasons I am very fond of the optional "test" rule for attuned items, using the Charisma bonus as the max number of attuned items one can have, is that it helps avoid Charisma as a dump stat.

You are right about Str and Int for most characters.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

Looks like they ripped half the paladin out and transplanted it into the Fighter under Knight. War Cleric gets all the Paladin list combat spells so more identity crisis there.

Only 4 ability boosts with a yawning huge gulf between bumps 2 & 3.

The class mustn't mention 'Lawful Good only', but the flavour text is all about it.

Fairly disappointed.

 

[DEFCON 1]

They had the option to not roll for hp, and for some reason, deliberately decided to remove it. I want to know why.

It's the same reason why each packet changes a rule from the previous packet. If they received little to no feedback on it the last time... by making the change they inspire people to comment and actually give their opinion on whether the change is welcomes or hated.

So they had both the HP rolling and average in previous packets but perhaps never got a feel from folks one way or another whether they wanted both or didn't need one or the other. So by deliberately changing it this packet, folks like you notice the change and will now comment on what you want.

It's the same reason why they threw it alignment requires on the Paladin and Monk last packet. Until they they didn't know one way or the other whether that sort of fluff restriction was desired or hated by the gaming populace. So they added it and as expected, forums like this one blew up with opinions on the subject (and I'd imagine their surveys as well.) Now they have their information and can make the proper decision when it comes time to write the actual book.

That's the thing that everyone has to remember about all these packets... just because something was changed does not mean the original option has now been eliminated entirely from the game never to come back. Many cases the first method was expected to be the one they go with but they change it to make sure the general populace feels the same way... many cases they make a change so that this new method gets commented and playtested (so that it can be added as an option in the final book)... many cases they don't know what they want to go with so they see if the gaming populace cares one way or the other.

If you find yourself commenting on some ridiculous change... odds are you're doing exactly what WotC wanted you to do.

 

[Klaus]

Well yes, because in How to Play we get this:



Those all sound sensible, and yet a canonical pushing spell like Thunderwave uses a Con saving throw. Earthquake uses Dexterity saving throws to avoid being knocked over or falling.



What does this even mean? Clearly they have no idea themselves. There are no known instances to date of an intelligence saving throw in DDN.



No again that sounds reasonable, but all charm and compulsions use Wisdom for their saving throws, so I guess you only use this if someone insults you and you don't want to have your ego hurt.

They need to seriously take a look at what their ability scores mean, because as it stands there is very little point in investing in Intelligence (especially when you can just get the relevant Lore for +10 to the right checks). Strength has that physical aspect to it, but as a Wizard or Rogue I'd be looking for ways around having to use it. Charisma, if you don't intend to be the social character, then there's very little point in that either. This was one of the flaws of previous editions - dump stats, and there's really no need for it if they just put the work in.

True. The Spells document needs to be combed through and adjusted to match the How To Play document.

 

[Klaus]

I've mention an alternative take on Humans to Mearls, and he said it was floated about the office the other day. What do you guys think?

Instead of getting +1 to every score, Humans would get an Ability Score Increase at 1st level (+2 to a single score or +1 to two scores), with the option of trading it for a Feat.

 

[Kinak]

Instead of getting +1 to every score, Humans would get an Ability Score Increase at 1st level (+2 to a single score or +1 to two scores), with the option of trading it for a Feat.

Can't speak to balance, but that makes humans far cooler and more interesting.

And, if nothing else, is more balanced than the current one.

Cheers!
Kinak