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

[Mistwell]

I really, really dislike the universal proficiency for weapons. A 5th level fighter, 5th level bard, and 5th level Mage all wield a dagger with the exact same skill? Silly. Nonsensical.

Simply put, fighters should be better at fighting. The fact that they're not, in this revision, makes me disappointed.

Fighters wield it significantly better, and quicker, than the others. You're acting like the weapon proficiency bonus is the only thing that impacts their fighting ability, even though that's obviously not the case from even a cursory glance at the class.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I really, really dislike the universal proficiency for weapons. A 5th level fighter, 5th level bard, and 5th level Mage all wield a dagger with the exact same skill? Silly. Nonsensical.

Simply put, fighters should be better at fighting. The fact that they're not, in this revision, makes me disappointed.

Fighters are better at fighting. They get more attacks and other abilities that let them use weapons better than mages or bards can. Equalizing the to-hit bonuses simplifies and balances things, especially where multiclassing is concerned. Plus, it allows non-fighter characters to remain relevant and still have fun in combat, since they don't hit things far less often. It's bad enough to pick up a weapon and get 1/4 the number of attacks as the fighter. Not being able to hit anything just adds insult to injury.

 

[Remathilis]

I am not sure about the proficiency bonus thing. It seems weird to call my fighter's attack and save bonuses proficiency bonuses. Maybe class bonus or training bonus. I can see the benefit of having a universal bonus to things like in 4E, but it does seem a bit clunky. I think that multiclassing spellcasters with non-spellcaster seems to harsh like in 3.0/3.5 days. Why not give them half level or quarter level bonus. I also dislike the multiclassing prerequisites. It seems like an uneccesary throwback to some of the more lackluster parts of 1E/2E.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is where the "multiclass subtypes" such as a fighter Eldrich Knight subclass that trades in a few fighter abilities for 1/2 caster progression when multi-classing.

 

[The Shadow]

It occurs to me that since lack of extensive training is the rationale for the ability score prereqs, that one could bypass them using the downtime mechanic to get training.

Now, I have no idea how the downtime system is going to work, but I assume it has to be something like, 'Devote X time and Y gold to get Z." One possibility for Z - whether it's in the rules or not - could certainly be, 'qualify for a new class'. The values of X and Y might even depend on how far short of the prereqs you are.

EDIT: For all we know, the downtime system might even be an alternate way to increase ability scores straight up. Though I assume that would require very high values for X and Y.

 

[Cadence]

Why can't my nimble fighter take upon the oath of a paladin? why the gods decided they didn't want to protect him when he has sworn to uphold their cause? is it because they don't find him handsome enough?. Why can't my nearsighted and nearly deaf but tree-hugging bard become a druid? does nature reject him just because?

I completely agree you should be able to take the oath and start learning paladiny things or get some bark-burn and learn druidy things. And I think that arbitrary ability score requirements don't particularly make sense.

On the other hand it also doesn't make sense to me that Joe Barbarian with no experience in magic can suddenly announce he's learning to be a Wizard and pick up all kinds of magic theory and general knowledge that take actual Wizards a decade to learn (the decade before they become a Wizard). Or similarly that the Wizard can suddenly learn to fight with every weapon in the universe in his choice of armor when it took the fighter quite a while to learn how to do that before he started adventuring.

I don't know what the best middle path is that would cut down on the min-maxy story-ambivalent dippers, but not get in the way of those trying to make their character follow something that makes sense in game from both a story and a mechanics point of view. But it seems to me there should be something. Maybe @The Shadow 's downtime option in #214 above.

 

[Nellisir]

now this reasonable player with a reasonable character ... it makes sense for their thief to become a paladin, for their paladin to turn into a barbarian, for their monk to become an assassin,

Well, if it's reasonable then it's certainly something to discuss with the DM. Rule 0, people. If that doesn't work for you...I dunno. I guess your reasonable player with a reasonable character doesn't get everything they want every time they want it.

This is improvisational role-playing, so improvise. Your thief doesn't HAVE to turn into a paladin who turns into a barbarian - there's no script, no director, no mandated course of action. It's a decision that you are making, so make a different one. Find a different way. Play a thief who wants to be a paladin - that's conflict, that's story, that's drama, that's interesting.

 

[silverblade56]

Okay. Do you know what isn't interesting or fun? Not being able to make your character concept mechanically viable or relevant. That, in my opinion, was one of the major flaws of D&D prior to 3E. I didn't roll well enough to be a ranger. My elf can't be a paladin. My dwarf can't be a wizard. My human fighter can't take thief levels unless he wants to be severely gimped for half of the campaign. Those days are thankfully over. People expect to be able to play what they want to play (as long as it isn't horrible unbalanced, although some probably want their PC to be horrbile unbalanced.) Why stop them?

 

[Mistwell]

People expect to be able to play what they want to play

You're making an argument from entitlement?

 

[Remathilis]

I wonder how many people here had bachelor degrees in medicine, art, theology, and played pro-sports all before they were 30...

 

[Bow_Seat]

Fighters are better at fighting. They get more attacks and other abilities that let them use weapons better than mages or bards can. Equalizing the to-hit bonuses simplifies and balances things, especially where multiclassing is concerned. Plus, it allows non-fighter characters to remain relevant and still have fun in combat, since they don't hit things far less often. It's bad enough to pick up a weapon and get 1/4 the number of attacks as the fighter. Not being able to hit anything just adds insult to injury.

I agree. There are three ways to improve on a character's melee combat:
1) increase "to hit"
2) increase damage/hit
3) increase number of attacks

The fighter scales better than most in two of the three, and is the absolute best at one of the three.