Pierson_Lowgal
First Post
Backgrounds and Lore: I hate this version of skills. I understand it, and I see the value in spurring character development by restricting skills to knowledges and precluding an abundance of 'spot' as a choice, but I hate it. First, I want more customizability when I create my character, especially the choice to train in a skill that lies outside the character's ability scores, like a mage who swims. Second, the realism is terrible: a 10 Intelligence character knows 55% of all hard facts at first level, and never gets any better. A character who grew up raising animals can know lots of facts about domesticated animals, and knows how to use a whip (artisan's tool), but all his/her knowledge has no mechanical impact.
Also, with the DC's remaining unchanged, character's who don't get an expertise die or pretty much going to be bad at things they should be good at. Creating a real imbalance between knowledges and practical usage. A medium DC persuade, first aid etc... is now less than 50% chance of success even with a high ability score.
Bestiary: Needs serious work, but I hope you knew that. Mostly, do you really want monsters with such low bonuses to attack confronting PCs with 18 AC at level 1? And 19 AC with banded mail at few levels higher? Who is playtesting the game at level 8 and up? There are nearly no monsters rated, by experience, as average or tough at those levels: I hope this represents a great length of time between a finished product and now. The Orc seems way too swingy, I want to use them, but I don't.
Character Creation: when 'ability score improvement' allows for a single attribute to be raised by 2 points, you provide every incentive for characters to have all scores at first level, after racial adjustment, to be even. The wizard in my group now has 4 14s (see human/overpowered).
Classes: This is not a thorough review of every class feature, just things in some of the classes I noticed. Dealbreaker: no rolling for hit points: hit point totals are permanent and critically important. Replacing deadly strike with two attacks was a good change, it corrects the two weapon fighting imbalance, except for the rogue problem...
Cleric: all turn undead, why? Moreover, the historical turn undead is a terrible mechanic. Undead running away or be destroyed outright isn't dramatic; running away can lead to lots of strange and even negative consequences. Given the undead disadvantage on attacks and saving throws until damaged, to show how they cower or are weakened by the cleric's divine energy.
Fighter: naming conventions: if you want to divide the subclasses by complexity, than you shouldn't also include role-playing features or names, it confuses your purpose.
Mage: I prefer “wizard” and I think a generation of people adjusted to, “you're a wizard Harry,” do also. Scribe scroll should be adjusted to clarify that scrolls written by others don't count toward this limit? If only 10th level mages can brew potions, then there should be almost zero potions in the world. Having said that, I greatly appreciate an effort to limit the proliferation of PC-created scrolls and potions.
Paladin: the aura of protection, as written, allows the paladin's charisma bonus to stack with his/her or the allies attribute bonus. This seems massively overpowered. This ability needs a much lower cap. The prior edition recognized that mounts are difficult to use in play, why has this been forgotten? Why are divine health and aura of courage so high level? At low levels, I'd rather see an emphasis on paladin abilities than on spells.
Rogue: the balance between in and out of combat usefulness is an issue. By my quick math, the rogue is terrible in combat after 8th level, as the only class besides mage without two attacks. He/she also must dual wield to apply sneak attack more often. I don't think its appropriate to label a subclass assassin, nor do I think it appropriate for good-aligned rogues to use poison. In the introduction of poison also requires lists of poisons and prices, which is more bookkeeping and managing for the GM.
DM Guidelines: Are exploration tasks part of the basic rules in a dungeon and optional in the wilderness, I find this strange. Also, I think the affects and requirements of readiness both for player and non-player groups needs clarification, though I generally like the ideas presented. If the purpose of exploration tasks is to limit the number of people who are 'spotting' dangers, then the game needs more tasks. How does 'sneaking' work when the PC is in a group? While I like permanent magic items being special, and not part of expected combat math, they are really hard to find in this rule. I think most players will want more magic items than they'll find via this system. While I realize it doesn't work well with your treasure approach, the treasure-by-level system in 4th edition removed a huge bookkeeping time sink from the GM.
Equipment: Expenses should be optional, as GM, I don't prioritize keeping track of monetary treasure, which I would have to do to use this system. Given how low the attack bonuses of monsters are, I think the game should be rid of armors between chain mail and plate mail. 500Gp seems a bit low for dragon hide armors? The critical feature imbalances the weapons, at least the longsword, battle axe, warhammer and morningstar, the opposing feature: versatile, is practically valueless.
Feats: Jerry the 3rd level archer is a good shot, Jerry the 4th level archery master is amazing, and will only get marginally better over the next dozen levels: terrible realism. With the goal of maintaining this balance between very simple and complex options, you can divide the mega-feat into pieces, which occupy multiple 'ability score increase' choices.
How-to-Play: we're better off without 'disarm'. If disadvantage applies twice and advantage once, is that disadvantage? Why no advantage against prone targets? The grappling rules describe the affects on the grappler, but then you have to go to the conditions section to find the affects on the grappled. 'Hinder' is rife for abuse when PCs face one big enemy. 'Help' effectively means automatic advantage on all out of combat skill checks. As written, 'ready' does not change the readyer's initiative.
Magic Items: a belt of Giant Strength should give a bonus to strength, and by capped at a certain strength number. It is imbalanced to go from 8 strength to over 20. 3rd editions divine power was errata'd to correct this misjudgement.
Races: continue to be phenomenally badly designed. The human +1 to all creates the bizarre situation of all human PCs having the same bonus to dexterity as elf PCs, and thus effectively as dextrous as elves, as tough as dwarves etc... The human +1 to all then requires orcs to get +2 strength, which is very powerful. The human +1 seems? To be overpowered? I'd get rid of gnomes altogether, where's the audience for a second small race with little popular culture cache?
Also, with the DC's remaining unchanged, character's who don't get an expertise die or pretty much going to be bad at things they should be good at. Creating a real imbalance between knowledges and practical usage. A medium DC persuade, first aid etc... is now less than 50% chance of success even with a high ability score.
Bestiary: Needs serious work, but I hope you knew that. Mostly, do you really want monsters with such low bonuses to attack confronting PCs with 18 AC at level 1? And 19 AC with banded mail at few levels higher? Who is playtesting the game at level 8 and up? There are nearly no monsters rated, by experience, as average or tough at those levels: I hope this represents a great length of time between a finished product and now. The Orc seems way too swingy, I want to use them, but I don't.
Character Creation: when 'ability score improvement' allows for a single attribute to be raised by 2 points, you provide every incentive for characters to have all scores at first level, after racial adjustment, to be even. The wizard in my group now has 4 14s (see human/overpowered).
Classes: This is not a thorough review of every class feature, just things in some of the classes I noticed. Dealbreaker: no rolling for hit points: hit point totals are permanent and critically important. Replacing deadly strike with two attacks was a good change, it corrects the two weapon fighting imbalance, except for the rogue problem...
Cleric: all turn undead, why? Moreover, the historical turn undead is a terrible mechanic. Undead running away or be destroyed outright isn't dramatic; running away can lead to lots of strange and even negative consequences. Given the undead disadvantage on attacks and saving throws until damaged, to show how they cower or are weakened by the cleric's divine energy.
Fighter: naming conventions: if you want to divide the subclasses by complexity, than you shouldn't also include role-playing features or names, it confuses your purpose.
Mage: I prefer “wizard” and I think a generation of people adjusted to, “you're a wizard Harry,” do also. Scribe scroll should be adjusted to clarify that scrolls written by others don't count toward this limit? If only 10th level mages can brew potions, then there should be almost zero potions in the world. Having said that, I greatly appreciate an effort to limit the proliferation of PC-created scrolls and potions.
Paladin: the aura of protection, as written, allows the paladin's charisma bonus to stack with his/her or the allies attribute bonus. This seems massively overpowered. This ability needs a much lower cap. The prior edition recognized that mounts are difficult to use in play, why has this been forgotten? Why are divine health and aura of courage so high level? At low levels, I'd rather see an emphasis on paladin abilities than on spells.
Rogue: the balance between in and out of combat usefulness is an issue. By my quick math, the rogue is terrible in combat after 8th level, as the only class besides mage without two attacks. He/she also must dual wield to apply sneak attack more often. I don't think its appropriate to label a subclass assassin, nor do I think it appropriate for good-aligned rogues to use poison. In the introduction of poison also requires lists of poisons and prices, which is more bookkeeping and managing for the GM.
DM Guidelines: Are exploration tasks part of the basic rules in a dungeon and optional in the wilderness, I find this strange. Also, I think the affects and requirements of readiness both for player and non-player groups needs clarification, though I generally like the ideas presented. If the purpose of exploration tasks is to limit the number of people who are 'spotting' dangers, then the game needs more tasks. How does 'sneaking' work when the PC is in a group? While I like permanent magic items being special, and not part of expected combat math, they are really hard to find in this rule. I think most players will want more magic items than they'll find via this system. While I realize it doesn't work well with your treasure approach, the treasure-by-level system in 4th edition removed a huge bookkeeping time sink from the GM.
Equipment: Expenses should be optional, as GM, I don't prioritize keeping track of monetary treasure, which I would have to do to use this system. Given how low the attack bonuses of monsters are, I think the game should be rid of armors between chain mail and plate mail. 500Gp seems a bit low for dragon hide armors? The critical feature imbalances the weapons, at least the longsword, battle axe, warhammer and morningstar, the opposing feature: versatile, is practically valueless.
Feats: Jerry the 3rd level archer is a good shot, Jerry the 4th level archery master is amazing, and will only get marginally better over the next dozen levels: terrible realism. With the goal of maintaining this balance between very simple and complex options, you can divide the mega-feat into pieces, which occupy multiple 'ability score increase' choices.
How-to-Play: we're better off without 'disarm'. If disadvantage applies twice and advantage once, is that disadvantage? Why no advantage against prone targets? The grappling rules describe the affects on the grappler, but then you have to go to the conditions section to find the affects on the grappled. 'Hinder' is rife for abuse when PCs face one big enemy. 'Help' effectively means automatic advantage on all out of combat skill checks. As written, 'ready' does not change the readyer's initiative.
Magic Items: a belt of Giant Strength should give a bonus to strength, and by capped at a certain strength number. It is imbalanced to go from 8 strength to over 20. 3rd editions divine power was errata'd to correct this misjudgement.
Races: continue to be phenomenally badly designed. The human +1 to all creates the bizarre situation of all human PCs having the same bonus to dexterity as elf PCs, and thus effectively as dextrous as elves, as tough as dwarves etc... The human +1 to all then requires orcs to get +2 strength, which is very powerful. The human +1 seems? To be overpowered? I'd get rid of gnomes altogether, where's the audience for a second small race with little popular culture cache?
