D&D 5E New D&D Next Playtest package is up (19/9/2013) [merged threads]

[Klaus]

Am I correct that casting in armor requires only proficiency with the armor? So a 1-level dip in Paladin gives casting in all armor and weapons to a mage with the sacrifice of 1/2 level of casting ability?

Or you could just play a Mountain Dwarf Wizard, wearing medium armor (heavy with a feat) and swinging a battleaxe in between spells.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Min-maxers don't ruin games. Differences in play styles do. A group of min-maxers can have a perfectly good game, as can a group more focused on roleplaying. The strength of the system is that it allows for both.

Here's the issue. I'm a Min-Maxer. So is most of my group. I agree that being a min-maxer doesn't ruin a group in and of itself(I like to think I don't ruin every group I join). However, systems that are ripe for min-maxing encourage me to do it more.

Despite the fact that I'm a min-maxer, I actually hate min-maxing. I feel I have to do it to keep up and I feel like if there is an obvious option that is better than the other ones, NOT taking it seems like the stupidest thing in the world to me. On the other hand, I'd really like to have a system that didn't have so many obviously powerful options so that I can spend less time thinking about it.

If a system says "Pick a class, you only get the abilities listed therein" I'm perfectly happy to play that. There's no way for me to min-max except by maybe choosing the most powerful class...and even then the classes should be easier for the writers of the game to balance.

On the other hand, give me a system that says "Pick from these 200 options each time you go up a level" and it takes me a week of research just to go up a level. After all, I don't want to find out I made a poor decision later.

I find a system that minimizes my ability to min-max allows me to sit at a table with non min-maxers without them getting frustrated and angry at me all the time for "trying to break the game". And I'm certainly not the worst of the min-maxers I know. I spend most of my time getting annoyed at the rest of my players for attempting to break the game much worse than I ever would have.

The only thing that lets us sit at the same table is a system that doesn't let them min-max.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Min-maxers don't ruin games. Differences in play styles do. A group of min-maxers can have a perfectly good game, as can a group more focused on roleplaying. The strength of the system is that it allows for both.

Maybe. The idea of taking a level in a class without wanting to pursue that class bothers me. I feel that a class is supposed to be part of a character's identity. Class abilities exist to support that identity. To go for one without the other...

I don't know. It feels like cheating.

 

[dd.stevenson]

Maybe. The idea of taking a level in a class without wanting to pursue that class bothers me. I feel that a class is supposed to be part of a character's identity. Class abilities exist to support that identity. To go for one without the other...

I don't know. It feels like cheating.

I can't relate. Why do you think that a single level of a class doesn't support a character's identity?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Or you could just play a Mountain Dwarf Wizard, wearing medium armor (heavy with a feat) and swinging a battleaxe in between spells.

Nah, after considering I think I'd rather take Hill Dwarf Fighter at level 1 for the additional hp, and subsequent hp boost, plus either the defense or protection fighting style. Mage after that -- build a warrior-mage who is tough enough to spend a little time in melee without sacrificing too much spell progression.

Edit: Then again, the heavy armor master feat is pretty handy with its damage reduction, so perhaps you're right ...

Edit 2: Or just skip the fighter level and take a level of war domain cleric instead. Get the benefits of fighter (minus fighting style) and retain full spells-per-day progression, plus get an extra attack sooner than the fighter. One level of cleric is enough to cast all the cure wounds spells you'd need, since higher level spell slots would come from multiclassing with mage. Odd that a cleric multiclass is potentially a better fighter than the fighter ...

 

[Kobold Stew]

Trying to port over characters from the previous test pack, and the following questions have come up so far:

1. Are attack rolls "strength checks"? I think no, given the change in the wording of Barbarian Rage (refs: Classes p. 2; How to play p. 4). If so, this makes non-STR-based barbarians a more realistic option -- a raging DEX-based elf with a finesse weapon, for example. Cool.

2. If a spell requires a save to avoid damage (rather than a roll to-hit), does that count "when you attack a creature and hit"? My sense is no, which means that a High Elf rogue would be able to use sneak attack with ray of frost and chill touch (which have attack rolls), but not shocking grasp (refs: Classes p. 47, Spells p. 10, 39, 42). [This was an issue in the last testpack too; it doesn't feel right to me, but the right solution shouldn't, I feel, be to exclude magic attacks.].

3. (an associated issue) What is the "caster level" of a level 10 High Elf rogue? 1? 10? What if at level 4 she bought Arcane Initiate? 1? 7? 10? How much damage does Ray of Frost do for a High Elf at that level? My best guess: 3d8, but that means 3d8+3d6 with sneak attack, which seems high. What if (with the new rules for initiate and a first-level spell as well) she casts magic missile? Then I think no.

4. (another associated issue, this time for a cleric) Does the extra attack granted by the War Priest ability allow you to cast Sacred Flame a second time? I think it must.

 

[Mage of Spellford]

I am disappointed in the whole multiclass idea as written. The requirements are a start but don't go far enough.

I always liked the simplest way of preventing cherry picking --the monk in 3E - once you choose to switch to another class -- you can never again advance in the class(s) that you have left.

Neat.

It allows people to create whatever class combo they want but not to switch back and forth--which is where any sense of verisimilitude breaks down for me.

It always made sense to me that once a character switched their focus they would no longer continue to grow in their old profession -- they still have their existing skills but their life choice has take them down a different path.

A person only has so much time and ability and every profession requires vastly different research, training or experience to advance.

M

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I
I always liked the simplest way of preventing cherry picking --the monk in 3E - once you choose to switch to another class -- you can never again advance in the class(s) that you have left.

I was OK with that for paladin or monk -- the idea that some professions require absolute commitment.

However, for most classes I want the ability to go back and forth. Not only does it simulate someone who is really splitting their time between two classes to balance experience, it also hearkens back to the original 1E-style multi-classing where you advanced in all classes simultaneously.

 

[am181d]

I am disappointed in the whole multiclass idea as written. The requirements are a start but don't go far enough.

For what it's worth, I feel the exact opposite way: Multiclassing should be easier and simpler. I have no idea which of us has the most representative POV, but it appears that Wizards has chosen the correct going-in-position from which to find out...

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I can't relate. Why do you think that a single level of a class doesn't support a character's identity?

I don't want to speak for him, but I feel the same way and I can explain why I feel that way.

A class, to me, encapsulates someone's entire life and personality. When I think Wizard, I think of someone who spent their entire youth pouring over tomes, reading magical theory for years, likely apprenticed to some old wizened man who forced the youth to do house chores before he'd teach him any more this week. I think of a nerdy, bookish type who is too weak to wear armor and therefore walks around in robes. He commands the power to change the universe but is wise enough to know when and how to use that power.

That entire image is smashed when Wizard is a class that can be dipped into for one level in the middle of adventuring. It instead creates the image of the big strong fighter who spent his life learning to use a sword, training as part of the city watch, defending the city against Orc hordes, spending his nights with his fellow guards in the tavern drinking ale to celebrate their victories, who studies a spellbook in his spare time for months and months and says "Well, I learned 2 spells but I never really wanted to be a Wizard so I'm done with that now, back to guarding the city using my sword."

It just seems like the equivalent of someone in real life saying "I know I've been a firefighter all my life. But I've decided to go to law school during my spare time. Once I become a lawyer, however, I'm just going to keep my job as a firefighter and use my law knowledge only whenever I get a parking ticket."

It seems like anyone who studies something does so because they either want to switch their profession permanently away from their old one or are interested enough in their new area of study that it continues equally along side their original profession.