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

[Szatany]

I'm not so sure. From a simulationist point of view, you could suppose that people may end up in the wrong Class and develop into a true calling later on.

Some ppl sure, but all of them?

 

[TrippyHippy]

Some ppl sure, but all of them?

Well no, but might we suppose that most people wanting to play a Fighter won't be wanting to put weak stats into Strength anyway, for example?

You don't need to regulate people's initial choices of Class, just provide the encouragement of the best use of Ability scores to support the choice. Multi-classing, however, does need some control - I think the prerequisites work pretty well in that respect.

I can imagine a character with 6 Strength and 16 Intelligence starting off in the wrong Class as a Fighter, before realising that his true calling lay in the use of magic. I can't really see the reverse being true however.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Mike Mearls is on twitter clarifying a bunch of stuff right now. (second hand, not from the feed)

Thanks for these:

Proficiencies don't stack (you either have it or not).

Right.

In the final rules, if you get the same proficiency from two different sources (like background and class) you'll likely get a new proficiency of your choice.

Ugh. I hope they don't do this. The guild thief rogue (e.g.) has so many proficiency overlaps, that this amounts to giving a free choice of three proficiencies. Makes no sense. Plus, people will start to want free proficiencies for individual weapons. It's much better just to accept that it's not zero-sum.

Humans will probably get tweaked.

We live in hope.

They might still be working on the warlock and sorcerer?
You might be able to multiclass between subclasses?

It'll be interesting to see these in practice.

This might be part of a packet update? Not entirely clear.

There's a lot of small points that look like they should be cleaned up -- I expect at least a minor revision soon.

You use Perception to track

At least that skill will finally have a use in the game. (/sarc)

EDIT: Why isn't it just a wisdom check? why does any skill need to be involved?

 

[Klaus]

On multiclassing: Why does multiclassing require ability scores, but singleclassing doesn't?

Because getting your first level in a class comes after years of early training, whereas a multiclass needs an innate aptitude to be able to switch between professions so quickly (it's actually spelled out in the paragraph before the requirements list).

 

[Li Shenron]

Ugh. I hope they don't do this. The guild thief rogue (e.g.) has so many proficiency overlaps, that this amounts to giving a free choice of three proficiencies. Makes no sense. Plus, people will start to want free proficiencies for individual weapons. It's much better just to accept that it's not zero-sum.

But guild thief is one of the most obvious background for a classic rogue PC. If you let proficiency overlap, you'd end up with a very classic rogue archetype that actually has less skills than other PCs.

 

[Kobold Stew]

But guild thief is one of the most obvious background for a classic rogue PC. If you let proficiency overlap, you'd end up with a very classic rogue archetype that actually has less skills than other PCs.

Fewer proficiencies (not skills) than they would otherwise (though not necessarily fewer than other characters, and certainly not fewer skills): yes.

If players don't want that, they may choose not to be guild thieves but become commoners or priests. The primary benefit of the background should be the trait, tying the character to the background. Proficiencies are an add-on, and (again) not something that needs to be zero-summed.

[edit]We can also add proficiency to saves. When a class grants proficiency to two saves, and they overlap, does that mean that the player should get a choice? Absolutely not. It should be a disincentive to play a Paladin/Fighter, not a means to choose free proficiency in saves in some other ability.

 

[Mistwell]

I understand why it was implemented from a designer's perspective. Unfortunately it makes little sense from a simulationist point of view (which is important to me, but I'm not fanatical about it). You can be a fighter 1 with STR 6, but you must have STR 15 to be cleric 1/fighter 1. Something is wrong with this setup.

It's explained right there above the multiclass chart.

To qualify for a new class, you must meet the ability score prerequisites for the class, as shown in the Multiclassing Prerequisites table. Adopting a new class without the full extent of training that a beginning character has means that you must be a quick study, with natural aptitude reflected in unusually high ability scores.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If players don't want that, they may choose not to be guild thieves but become commoners or priests. The primary benefit of the background should be the trait, tying the character to the background. Proficiencies are an add-on, and (again) not something that needs to be zero-summed.

While I do expect them to tweak those proficiencies, I don't think "if you have a proficiency, and get it again, you get nothing" is a viable approach. Because, yeah, then you're going to see more priest-rogues in play than you would see guild thief rogues, and that isn't a result the design should be encouraging, IMO. You shouldn't gain an advantage for fitting less snugly into the archetype -- in fact, if anything, I'd prefer the opposite (though I realize that's a bit of a slippery slope).

 

[Li Shenron]

If players don't want that, they may choose not to be guild thieves but become commoners or priests.

No sorry, that sucks big time.

The primary benefit of the background should be the trait, tying the character to the background. Proficiencies are an add-on, and (again) not something that needs to be zero-summed.

Well I don't know what it "should" be, but currently those proficiencies are more useful than the trait.

 

[Kobold Stew]

While I do expect them to tweak those proficiencies, I don't think "if you have a proficiency, and get it again, you get nothing" is a viable approach. Because, yeah, then you're going to see more priest-rogues in play than you would see guild thief rogues, and that isn't a result the design should be encouraging, IMO. You shouldn't gain an advantage for fitting less snugly into the archetype -- in fact, if anything, I'd prefer the opposite (though I realize that's a bit of a slippery slope).

I do understand the point, but I don't agree.

As I described, you need to account for overlapping weapon and ability proficiencies.

One solution is to remove tool proficiencies from either background or class. Before they were primarily in backgrounds, and then tied to certain class abilities, rather than a default of every class. I feel they have opened the field too much.

In some ways, the specific example is one that is clearly in flux -- there's a lot of overlap, not only in skills and tool proficiencies, but also in the secret language (they no longer have separate Rogues' cant and Thieves' cant). Even still, Rogue characters will take the Guild thief background because (a) they want the skills (b) they want the background story [and whatever new trait they introduce instead of Thieves' cant]. Tools -- especially if they later introduce rules that allow you to "buy" proficiency in game with gold and training -- will not be something that should drive this conversation.