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

[Mistwell]

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.

There are more ways than that.

 

[Remathilis]

Further Impressions

So I've noticed some major flaws with the multiclass system. The first one is that due to the proficiency system, there is no reason not to multiclass, especially one level into the Fighter. The Fighter gives you proficiency in armor, shields, martial weapons, a skill, and Strength and Constitution saving throws. A continually rising bonus on the weapons, skill and saving throws, plus other benefits the fighter gets at 1st level is well worth that single level.

Another flaw is that the multiclassing system allows a Mage with one level in Fighter with an 8 Strength by taking the Fighter class first. If you take the Mage level first, you wouldn't be able to do that due to the multiclassing requirements.

Another major flaw of the proficiency system is that a high level character newly obtaining a proficiency has a higher bonus than a low level character who has been training in the proficiency for much longer. Between this issue and the issue that crops up with multiclassing, I think proficiency needs to provide a static low bonus to check roles similar to the old skill system from earlier packets which was +3. Multiclassing should also only ever provide a single proficiency obtained for taking a single level in another class.

Yeah, that is a problem.

A hypothetical Fighter1/MageXX with the Solider background has proficiency in all simple and martial weapons, all armor and shields, Althletics, Intimidation, Survival, Gaming Set, Mounts, Vehicles, Acrobatics*, Strength, Constitution, Intelligence, and Wisdom saves, and Arcana*. All for a -1 to caster ability level and a 15 int.

So yeah, Proficiency and multi-classing is borked right now.

* Possible choice.

 

[Mistwell]

This is a problem.

Why, for the wizard?

Or you could just be a dwarf wizard and get most of that at first level anyway.

The wizard isn't going to be using those weapon proficiencies very often, and it's not hard to get armor casting in this game. The shield proficiency isn't useful (they will need both hands for wizardy things). So really, we're talking about some saves and a skill, in exchange for having to meet the ability requirements and delaying your feat/ability increase and delaying a level of spells. Seems OK to me.

 

[RevTurkey]

Hmm

I didn't like this new packet at first. I am warming to some of the ideas now.

i do find it weird that fighter's attack bonus to hit doesn't scale faster than other classes. Or have I missed something?

 

[Mistwell]

Yeah, that is a problem.

A hypothetical Fighter1/MageXX with the Solider background has proficiency in all simple and martial weapons, all armor and shields, Althletics, Intimidation, Survival, Gaming Set, Mounts, Vehicles, Acrobatics*, Strength, Constitution, Intelligence, and Wisdom saves, and Arcana*. All for a -1 to caster ability level and a 15 int.

So yeah, Proficiency and multi-classing is borked right now.

* Possible choice.

Naw, you're grouping things in ways they're not really grouped to exaggerate the effect. First, you mixed backgrounds into this, but backgrounds have nothing at all to do with this issue. Anyone can take any background, and roughly half of the benefits you mentioned are from background. There is the same opportunity cost of the soldier background as any other.

So lets start by backing out all of: Atletics, Intimidation, Surivival, Gaming Sets, Mounts, Vehicles.

We're left with:

1) All Armor, which is good, though you could have easily gotten up to medium armor with a race (and the heavy armor feat is pretty swell to round that out, if you have a good con);
2) Weapons and Shields, which are mostly or entirely useless (you're a wizard, you'll be casting spells, needing one or both hands);
3) Acrobatics, which is useful, but you have a bad strength so still meh;
4) Strength checks, which is useful, but you have a bad strength so still meh;
5) Con checks, but you may have a bad con so still meh, though you may have a high con so could be good.

All for:

1) -1 to caster ability level, which is huge at early levels
2) A delay in getting your first feat/ability score increase, which is pretty important for your first one

Seems like a fair trade. Makes you a more well-rounded character, but at the cost of significant magical powers early on.

I do think it would be wise to introduce a penalty to the damage, DC, or attack from any spell you cast, while wearing armor that imposes disadvantage for stealth checks. So just add an asterisk, and indicate that in a note at the bottom that it costs -1 to cast in medium armor with that asterisk, or -2 for heavy armor with it.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Or you could just be a dwarf wizard and get most of that at first level anyway.

The wizard isn't going to be using those weapon proficiencies very often, and it's not hard to get armor casting in this game. The shield proficiency isn't useful (they will need both hands for wizardy things). So really, we're talking about some saves and a skill, in exchange for having to meet the ability requirements and delaying your feat/ability increase and delaying a level of spells. Seems OK to me.

We weigh these things differently.

1. Shield. Are two hands needed in the current rules? I don't see that after a quick scan, and I assumed that a caster could hold a shield for many combat spells (and an implement in the other hand).

2. Races. I agree that the dwarf is a very powerful race for a mage. If the mage is a human and gnome and high elf -- all powerful choices in other ways with resistances or more relevant ability bonuses -- a one-level dip in fighter gives them a number of things that (as you note) overlap with dwarf benefits. So there's that. But you get more:

3. "Some saves": going from proficiency in two of six abilities to four of six abilities is significant.

4. "a skill": both acrobatics and athletics will be called on a lot, I expect. [The ranger gives three skills, but we'll stay with the fighter.]

5. Proficiency with mounts (land). You learn to ride horses, if you don't know how already.

6. Stamina. An extra 1d6+1 hp per combat per short rest.

7. Fighting Style. Either (defense) +1 AC (again cf. dwarf), or (protection) you can always use your reaction to impose disadvantage on attack from any opponent you can see. I'll choose the latter.

I see these as substantial -- 1, 2, 6, and 7 especially.

That's not to say, as you note, it's not "ok" -- but it's a trade I'd want to make, for sure.

 

[Remathilis]

Naw, you're grouping things in ways they're not really grouped to exaggerate the effect. First, you mixed backgrounds into this, but backgrounds have nothing at all to do with this issue. Anyone can take any background, and roughly half of the benefits you mentioned are from background. There is the same opportunity cost of the soldier background as any other.

So lets start by backing out all of: Atletics, Intimidation, Surivival, Gaming Sets, Mounts, Vehicles.

We're left with:

1) All Armor, which is good, though you could have easily gotten up to medium armor with a race (and the heavy armor feat is pretty swell to round that out, if you have a good con);
2) Weapons and Shields, which are mostly or entirely useless (you're a wizard, you'll be casting spells, needing one or both hands);
3) Acrobatics, which is useful, but you have a bad strength so still meh;
4) Strength checks, which is useful, but you have a bad strength so still meh;
5) Con checks, but you may have a bad con so still meh, though you may have a high con so could be good.

All for:

1) -1 to caster ability level, which is huge at early levels
2) A delay in getting your first feat/ability score increase, which is pretty important for your first one

Seems like a fair trade. Makes you a more well-rounded character, but at the cost of significant magical powers early on.

I think you are undervaluing the benefit of those proficiencies. First off, its not to str & con CHECKS, its to str & con SAVES, which is damn huge against poison, paralysis, and other former-fort saves. In fact, you are getting four out of your six saves with a bonus, which is very nice.

And don't underestimate the ability to wield martial weapon when a foe gets past a fighter and is up in your grill! I know wizards aren't supposed to be using weapons (thanks to infinite cantrips) but having a longbow, longsword, and st. leather armor goes a long way to fixing the 'squishy wizard" problem.

And one level delay puts you roughly where a sorcerer was in 3e; getting 3rd level magic at 6th level isn't a giant loss. Ditto with feats/bumps; getting one at fifth isn't even that huge a disadvantage for having gotten two save bonuses shoring up weak spots, a bonus skill (acrobatics is DEX btw, and still useful), and the ability to strap on plate and wield a greatsword if you bloody-well feel like it. Oh, and a bonus 10 HP to boot.

I'm sorry, That is still a huge benefit for one level of spellcasting.

 

[Tovec]

You're making an argument from entitlement?

Yes? When one version/game has something you want and another one doesn't then, all other things being equal, you are going to pick the one that has what you want. Entitlement is another reason why someone may pick things. Is it not one of yours Mistwell? That is cool but I think everyone is allowed to pick whatever requirements they want. Let's say we're getting ice cream. One option comes with chocolate and the other with chocolate and nuts. I'm picking the one with chocolate (no nuts) because I don't like nuts on my ice cream. You may love the one with cashew pieces, but if I'm the ice cream guy and I see this I might sell both instead of being "One True Way" about it and only selling the one with nuts.

And as for "entitlement" for "not having to jump through hoops" aka 3e play - imagine having seat-belts in cars.
There was once a time when you didn't have seat-belts. And today there are still schoolbuses which don't have them either. But cars now do and going forward it would be nice if they came standard-equipped, or at least the option. No having to install them myself (houserule) or anything. Now, using them is something else entirely but entitlement does have something to do with it when talking about safety. Even if it was no longer illegal to make cars without them, the manufacturers would be wise to keep them as at least an option or else the people who like safety won't even look at their cars.
(I don't know why I had a seat-belt example in me, I almost didn't include it - but for some reason it needed out!)

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

How many here? On these boards? That's probably a pretty small number (either 0 or nearly there) considering almost everyone on these forums is probably an NPC/NPC class. Err I mean that PCs aren't everybody else, PCs go out and do things - they're adventurers and get XP far faster than the rest of us. How many of us have doctorates in anything, let alone multiple things? Skip that. Few on these boards would have thought up a RPG system back in the 70s. Some, maybe, but few could have done it. That said, someone did and now we have DnD. Being a very tiny minority or being very unlikely to do something doesn't mean it should not be allowed. If a setting has practically zero spellcasters able to cast the strongest spells in the game - doesn't mean those spells shouldn't be included NOR that the PCs should not get there.
(Also, strawman argument, as already pointed out.)

"Entitlement?" I prefer "choice". Or was I the only one that got frustrated by having to roll well to play what you wanted in 2E, or liked playing a stealthy roguish character but hated that he was terrible in combat? I am still not satisfied that it's impossible to make something like a monk/sorcerer that isn't so mechanically gimped as to be near useless in 3.5/Pathfinder that it is pointless to even try. I am not talking about gaming the system to make an uber character like pun-pun. I am talking about something like making a thematic character like monk of the dark moon (monk/sorcerers dedicated to Shar in FR) and not having it be as bad as an NPC class.

On monk/sorcerers (assuming both at the same time): Had several in my games. And they were strong because they usually ended up taking Enlightened Fist (3.5) and kicked so much butt. Same goes for other combinations (monk&cleric/wizard, sorcerer&fighter) but that's not the point here.
On sorcerers (just single class, as I think you probably meant): Had several of these too. Many even. People don't always like huge lists of spells prepared. One guy loved it but that's a topic for another time. I guess my point for sorcerers was that sorcerers in 3.5/PF are tier 2. In fact I just rolled one up in PF's kingmaker and it was the strongest party member in 80% of situations.
Monks (again, assuming you meant just the single class): Monks are harder. That doesn't mean they're truly gimped. Even excluding combinations of monks and other classes which make truly unkillable, I've had a lot of really tricky monks. Monks may not be the best killers but they can live through most everything - which means they're very hard to kill. And yes, on the matter of "best killers" I had one (again PF..) in my most recent campaign that was so powerful that he was breaking the game, making it not fun for others. I had to use a lizardfolk with class levels and a total ECL about 5 (maybe more I forget now, it wasn't less than 5) higher than the monk just to challenge him - and ended up killing him after the fight (during RP moments as the party wanted him dead and didn't help or stop the lizardfolk chief from chewing out his throat).
But it has nothing to do with entitlement, even if that is somehow a bad word.

My point I guess being is that monk/sorcerer, sorcerers, or monks are not "mechanically gimped." Tier 2 for the one, and strongest melee combatant I've had thus far in PF for the other. And a really strong contender when you mix them, as often happened in 3.5 days.

 

[tuxgeo]

On the issue of the Human race's getting a +1 racial boost to each stat, Mearls tweeted about that on Friday the 20th of Sept., 2013. If anyone already posted this, apologies for repeating it:

JestaKilla &#8207 [MENTION=6685196]Je[/MENTION]staKilla 20 Sep
[MENTION=32417]MikeM[/MENTION]earls Still no fix for human stats, any plans to revise them so it's not +1 to everything?
Expand
8:15 AM - 20 Sep 13 · Details

Mike Mearls &#8207 [MENTION=32417]MikeM[/MENTION]earls 20 Sep
[MENTION=6685196]Je[/MENTION]staKilla Yes, they'll be revised once we have feedback on the proficiency system.
Hide conversation
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
8:51 AM - 20 Sep 13 · Details

ThorOdinson ‏@Thor_Odinson 20 Sep
[MENTION=32417]MikeM[/MENTION]earls [MENTION=6685196]Je[/MENTION]staKilla Any chance there'll be an option for Humans to gain a bonus feat?
Expand
8:53 AM - 20 Sep 13 · Details

JestaKilla &#8207 [MENTION=6685196]Je[/MENTION]staKilla 20 Sep
[MENTION=32417]MikeM[/MENTION]earls Aha, seems like a good way to balance them vs. other races. Thanks!
Expand
9:15 AM - 20 Sep 13 · Details

 

[Remathilis]

On the issue of the Human race's getting a +1 racial boost to each stat, Mearls tweeted about that on Friday the 20th of Sept., 2013. If anyone already posted this, apologies for repeating it:

JestaKilla &#8207 @JestaKilla 20 Sep
@MikeMearls Still no fix for human stats, any plans to revise them so it's not +1 to everything?
Expand
8:15 AM - 20 Sep 13 · Details

Mike Mearls &#8207 @MikeMearls 20 Sep
@JestaKilla Yes, they'll be revised once we have feedback on the proficiency system.
Hide conversation
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
8:51 AM - 20 Sep 13 · Details

ThorOdinson ‏@Thor_Odinson 20 Sep
@MikeMearls @JestaKilla Any chance there'll be an option for Humans to gain a bonus feat?
Expand
8:53 AM - 20 Sep 13 · Details

JestaKilla &#8207 @JestaKilla 20 Sep
@MikeMearls Aha, seems like a good way to balance them vs. other races. Thanks!
Expand
9:15 AM - 20 Sep 13 · Details

So the human +1 to every stat might get replaced with a bonus skill and a bonus feat...

In other news, Mike Mearls just discovered 1999...