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

[Dausuul]

Overall, positive opinion of this packet, with some caveats.

• Caster power has been somewhat curtailed. This is a good thing. Casters were too strong IMO (and I say that as a mage player).
• Really like this take on arcane traditions, and the scroll and potion features are nice.
• Rogues have gotten some needed polishing. I'm really liking how 5E has moved away from the "striker" rogue of 4E and instead is embracing a "bag of tricks" vision for the class. If my mage dies, I'm playing a rogue next.
• HOLY CRAP LOOK AT THE FIGHTER! No more deadly strike. No more confusing grab bag of damage-stacking mechanics. Instead we have a lean, mean death machine, with multiple attacks and extra actions out the wazoo. I love it.
• ...though it could use a bit of editing in spots. For instance, the gladiator's tricks inflict a status effect or tactical move if the target fails its save. If it succeeds, it takes 1d6 damage instead. But what if you'd rather just deal the damage? Likewise, people have already observed that they forgot to make two-weapon fighting stack with fighter multiattack.
• Not as happy about the ranger. The Favored Enemy system in the last packet was really cool. Now it's just another name for "Dual wielding or archery?" Haven't had much of a look at the ranger spells yet, but I've never felt rangers were really meant to be casters. If you want nature magic, pick up a level or two of druid (yes, I know we don't have multiclassing yet).
• Barbarian seems a bit weak compared to the fighter. Fewer ability score boosts, no Action Surge, multiattack comes later and tops out at two, no heavy armor. Do rage, d12 hit dice, and superior mobility compensate? Maybe. Haven't seen one in play, so it's hard to say for sure. All that said, that's a balance issue which can be addressed later. Viewed on its own, the barbarian class is awesome.
• Haven't looked much at the other classes yet. Though I really like the way druids can "bond" to a specific terrain type.
• Uh, if a spell is granted by a class feature, can we please have it in the playtest? Druids and illusionists, I'm looking at you.
• Many of the new feats are very good, and choosing between them and +2 stats is appropriately hard. On the other hand, some are worthless--Loremaster? Really? Quick, raise your hand if you think four bonus fields of lore is worth giving up +2 to your stats. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
• Unless they come out with some really beefy mage feats, most mages will never see a single feat. As long as your save DCs key off your ability scores, it's very hard to say no to boosting your Int. And since it takes two stat boosts to bring your Int to maximum, by the time you're ready to consider feats, you're 14th level. I guess that's okay. What with traditions and all, mages have plenty going on already.
• And having said that... wha... wait... my familiar! Give me back my familiar! Noooooo!
• Please, please, pretty please with +3 sugar on top, can we get a peek at the current version of the warlock and sorceror? They teased us with them and then they took them away...

 

[the Jester]

[MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION], thanks.

It would be useful if WoTC actually maintained an FAQ rather than releasing titbits through various channels

Oh man, can you just imagine the level of confusion that would cause with the rules constantly in flux?

To actually keep it up to date would be an insane amount of work that I think is better spent working on the game.

 

[Warbringer]

Oh man, can you just imagine the level of confusion that would cause with the rules constantly in flux?

To actually keep it up to date would be an insane amount of work that I think is better spent working on the game.

it would be close to no work as it would simply to a repository of everything they release to playtesters today, just not through multiple media.

But, yes, I'd rather they spent the time finishing the game

 

[variant]

• Not as happy about the ranger. The Favored Enemy system in the last packet was really cool. Now it's just another name for "Dual wielding or archery?" Haven't had much of a look at the ranger spells yet, but I've never felt rangers were really meant to be casters. If you want nature magic, pick up a level or two of druid (yes, I know we don't have multiclassing yet).

I understand they are trying to cover the various archetypes of the Ranger, but I agree. They could easily do without those weapon abilities. I just hope they would give us an Aragorn archetype.

 

[Li Shenron]

Have I missed some announcement/article saying that the Mage class has been renamed and rearranged, to allow later to replace the "Wizardry" feature with "Sorcery" or "Witchcraft", or are you guys just speculating about it?

I just assumed that the "Wizardry" lump of abilities was there only to be more concise on the class progression table...

 

[variant]

Have I missed some announcement/article saying that the Mage class has been renamed and rearranged, to allow later to replace the "Wizardry" feature with "Sorcery" or "Witchcraft", or are you guys just speculating about it?

I just assumed that the "Wizardry" lump of abilities was there only to be more concise on the class progression table...

It's being assumed based on the fact they changed the name to Mage and that it says, Although other traditions exist—including sorcery and witchcraft—most mages study wizardry.

 

[MoonSong]

Have I missed some announcement/article saying that the Mage class has been renamed and rearranged, to allow later to replace the "Wizardry" feature with "Sorcery" or "Witchcraft", or are you guys just speculating about it?

I just assumed that the "Wizardry" lump of abilities was there only to be more concise on the class progression table...

It's being assumed based on the fact they changed the name to Mage and that it says, Although other traditions exist—including sorcery and witchcraft—most mages study wizardry.

Like Variant just said, normally I wouldn't assume it is the case, but given that this is the first reference we get to the sorcerer and warlock on almost a year, the summary states "bard next package" and then LL states "almost done with classes" it is hard not to put two and two together. One still can hope, but still it sounds likely. (the only ray hope we can have is that it would bring out a severe case of complexity creep by having subclasses with sub-subclasses and that's before even choosing a single spell)

 

[Li Shenron]

It's being assumed based on the fact they changed the name to Mage and that it says, Although other traditions exist—including sorcery and witchcraft—most mages study wizardry.

Ok, it was in the only place I didn't look... It sounds strange, as if "Wizardry" is an Arcane Tradition but then the traditions presented are for individual schools, and "Wizardry" is instead the core spellcasting mechanic (plus a couple of additions).

I think a Sorcerer or Warlock, if wanting to reuse the same Mage class (which may not be the best), would probably have different core spellcasting mechanic so they would not be an "Arcane Tradition" in the current sense.

I guess there might have been some text problem when transitioning between packets.

 

[variant]

Ok, it was in the only place I didn't look... It sounds strange, as if "Wizardry" is an Arcane Tradition but then the traditions presented are for individual schools, and "Wizardry" is instead the core spellcasting mechanic (plus a couple of additions).

I think a Sorcerer or Warlock, if wanting to reuse the same Mage class (which may not be the best), would probably have different core spellcasting mechanic so they would not be an "Arcane Tradition" in the current sense.

I guess there might have been some text problem when transitioning between packets.

I just wish they would come out and tell us their plans. That or if they planned to shove everything under the Mage, release all of it so there isn't any guessing. I honestly just don't see how it can work when you consider that the Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock will all have their own specializations. Adding all of it together would make a single class quite bloated, complicated and not mesh well together.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I just wish they would come out and tell us their plans. That or if they planned to shove everything under the Mage, release all of it so there isn't any guessing. I honestly just don't see how it can work when you consider that the Wizard, Sorcerer, and Warlock will all have their own specializations. Adding all of it together would make a single class quite bloated, complicated and not mesh well together.

It's not your job to wonder how it's going to work... it's your job to playtest it when its released to make sure it does work.