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

[Vyvyan Basterd]

What you want creates an ugly problem, All fighters would have to be soldiers or they would be completely useless as fighters, because a scholarly fighter wouldn't be proficient with even his own fists and wouldn't be able to wear any kind of armor. A mage soldier on the other hand would be broken, casting iin heay armor and using all weapons with proficiency, esentially one shoting the so called fighter who wouldn't be able to evne use armor to protect himself

There is a warrior class (Barbarian) in the packet right now that can fight naked. And simple weapons lose the wielder an average of 1 point of damage. It would be assumed the Scholar would provide other compensating bonuses that enticed you to take it over Soldier in the first place.

The Mage Soldier would lose capabilities that are expected out of the Mage to get those weapon and armor proficiencies.

Its a trade-off, nevermind that there should be way more numerous choices between Scholar and Soldier once the final game is released.

 

[Warbringer]

A mage soldier on the other hand would be broken, casting iin heay armor and using all weapons with proficiency, esentially one shoting the so called fighter who wouldn't be able to evne use armor to protect himself

Isn't this exactly what we get by the mage taking a single level of fighter?

The interesting thing is that on of the points of Apprentice level was to handle the whole dipping into 1 level for a bunch of benefits.

Perhaps the solution is that they need to change the benefits into "Features" and a bonus feat at 1st level that is a "class" benefit (ie you get it only once, not every dip).

So, (saving throws + heavy armor proficiency) are the feat, (medium armor + weapon proficiency) is the 1st level class feature... basically, make it so only half the benefits for dipping apply, and the other benefits are locked out ...(may take some work to balance)

 

[pemerton]

Perhaps the solution is that they need to change the benefits into "Features" and a bonus feat at 1st level that is a "class" benefit (ie you get it only once, not every dip).

So, (saving throws + heavy armor proficiency) are the feat, (medium armor + weapon proficiency) is the 1st level class feature... basically, make it so only half the benefits for dipping apply, and the other benefits are locked out ...(may take some work to balance)

This could work in principle, but faces the problem that (I think) it won't work for those groups using only ability boosts rather than feats.

 

[bogmad]

How bout instead of getting all the same set proficiencies with a class, a class only gives you options from a list of proficiencies that you can choose. I think I saw something like that mentioned before.
Then, if you multiclass into a class with more proficiencies than your base class, you then pick new proficiencies from a list to fill out your new multiclass options, up to the total number of proficiencies granted by whichever class grants the most.
I haven't looked close enough, but each class doesn't get the same amount of proficiencies does it? I guess the problem is what if you multiclass into a class that offers less proficiencies but requires certain ones to be viable at all.
Maybe multiclassing gives you one or more extra proficiencies to add to your total allotment, but it takes feats or other trade offs to get everything a 1st level character gets?

 

[Li Shenron]

As I described then, tools were serving no purpose that was separate from skills. That's now come back here, and the problem is amplified because there are so many more tool proficiencies. Instead of proficiencies (mounts), re-introduce the riding skill; instead of thieves' tools, re-introduce disable device. Just because a skill requires the use of certain equipment (a horse, a lockpick, climbing gear), does not mean that there should be a bonus from that equipment.

In brief: Replace most tool proficiencies with a skill, and use the skill system.

Tool profs and skills are in fact so similar that they could be the same.

IMO the reason why they changed Riding to a tool proficiency, is because they want to expand it to cover unusual mounts, without making them automatic. Classes granting this skill actually grant "Mounts (land)", suggesting there can be also proficiency in water mounts, flying mounts and maybe something else. I think it sounds very good that unusual mounts aren't automatic but require specific proficiency.

In brief: all classes should give 1 skill only, and rogues should have a second background.

Uhm... but then if you dip into 1 level of Rogue, you get the bonus background. To prevent that, we would need an ad-hoc rule in the multiclassing rules specifically mentioning this case. It's easier to just have a general rule that e.g. "you only gain one skill" (or "you gain no skills") when taking a level in a new class.

Also, it doesn't feel very appropriate to me narratively to have two backgrounds.

There's a general problem here with skills, that characters like Ranger and Rogue are skillful, and that's a defining feature. They are expected to be so, which makes it odd to start levelling up in one of these as your 2nd class, and don't get all their skills. OTOH, if we just stack skills from different classes, we can get heavy multiclasses to have too many skills compared to anybody else. This was a non-existing problem in 3e because of how skill points worked, but now we're settled with level-based bonuses, so they have to find a different solution for multiclassed characters.

Save proficiencies are a problem, because they are going to be so useful, especially at higher levels. Perhaps should be limited to one-extra save proficiency if you multiclass, not (usually) two.

Yes, this is what I suggested also. Max 1, or even none.

What you want creates an ugly problem, All fighters would have to be soldiers or they would be completely useless as fighters, because a scholarly fighter wouldn't be proficient with even his own fists and wouldn't be able to wear any kind of armor. A mage soldier on the other hand would be broken, casting iin heay armor and using all weapons with proficiency, esentially one shoting the so called fighter who wouldn't be able to evne use armor to protect himself

I agree with you, weapon/armor are used primarily in adventures (Soldier can be an exception) not in civilian life which is what backgrounds represent, so it makes a lot more sense for weapon/armor proficiencies to come from classes.

Furthermore, let's keep in mind that backgrounds are a tool to create interesting character concepts/variations, but at the same time it is quite expected that the majority of players will choose a background that matches with the class, at least for their first PCs. Fighter+Soldier, Cleric+Priest, Rogue+GuildThief and Mage+Sage (and also Bard+Minstrel and Ranger+Guide) will be the most commonly seen, so we can't afford these to be inferior.

Save proficiencies seem such an issue for me - as [MENTION=69074]Cyberen[/MENTION] has noted - that I feel they need to be revisited altogether.

I was convinced months ago that we could just have no scaling spells DC and no scaling ST at all, but most gamers want them both to scale, so I gave up.

I don't think the problem is the magnitude, I think we can use the same rules of +1 to +6 as all other proficiencies.

Instead, I think the problem is that spellcasters (but not monsters) have freedom in choosing spells appropriate to the target, i.e. casting a Dex-ST spell against a target that presumably is weak in Dex-ST.

But overall I think the rules for proficiencies, spells DC and ST are pretty solid as long as single-class PCs are involved, and start to fall apart with heavy multiclassing (e.g. 3 or more classes). Rather than throwing away all the design job and good results so far, I'd focus on multiclassing rules and restrictions to prevent abusive combos.

 

[RevTurkey]

It occurs to me that changing the word proficiency to skill would maybe help it all feel more intuitive.

so ...weapon skills, tool skills, armour skills...in additions to stuff like Climbing, Swimming, sneaking skills etc Save skill sounds a bit clunky but I think overall is better than the word proficiency which is a mouthful and introduces another layer of naming which is unhelpful.

just a thought

 

[Cyberen]

I am beginning to miss 4e take on multiclassing... Good hybrid subclasses, and a overt feat tax to multiclass, with a dabbler feat per class (but no ability prereq).
If they stick to this (flawed) saving throws mechanism, I would also enforce a strict policy of : 2 proficient saves per character, chosen among your class(es) list(s). But we already have a very potent system representing dwindling luck, scaling by class and level : it's called "hit points"...

 

[pemerton]

I was convinced months ago that we could just have no scaling spells DC and no scaling ST at all, but most gamers want them both to scale, so I gave up.

I don't think the problem is the magnitude, I think we can use the same rules of +1 to +6 as all other proficiencies.

Instead, I think the problem is that spellcasters (but not monsters) have freedom in choosing spells appropriate to the target, i.e. casting a Dex-ST spell against a target that presumably is weak in Dex-ST.

But overall I think the rules for proficiencies, spells DC and ST are pretty solid as long as single-class PCs are involved

I'm looking at the wizard, who sets a save DC of 8 + INT + prof with (say) staff. At 11th level, let's be conservative and say the wizard has 18 INT, so the DC is 8 + 4 + 4, or 16.

Dominate Person or Feeblemind (using one of 2 5th level slots or a 6th level slot) forces a DC 16 WIS save. Disintegrate (using a 6th level slot) does around 60 hp of damage on a failed DC 16 DEX save. Polymorph (using one of 3 th level slots, 2 5th level slots or a 6th level slot) forces a DC 16 WIS save. Blight cast using a 4th level slot does 45 damage on a failed DC 16 CON save, and half that on a successful save.

At 11th level, a barbarian has no proficiency bonus on WIS or DEX saves. S/he has the hp to withstand the Disintegrate (77 hp + 11* CON, so probably 100+, plus the raging temps), but even with a 16 DEX still has only a 40% chance of making the save. With a 16 CON, the chance of making the save vs Blight is 60%, so expected damage from that spell is only 31.5. But the likelihood of saving vs the Polymorph, Dominate or Feeblemind attack is pretty slim. (25% with WIS 10 or 11, 30% with WIS 12 or 13.) A fighter comes out much the same as a barbarian, though with 12 fewer hp.

A bard, with proficiency only to INT and CHA saves, and average hp at 11th level of 41+11*CON, is even worse of. S/he has a very real chance of being disintegrated (fewer than 60 hp and only a 50/50 chance of saving even with 20 DEX). Expected damage from Blight, assuming a 12 CON giving a 30% chance of saving, is 39 damage, which isn't fatal but is pretty brutal. The prospects against the WIS attacks are probably better than a barbarian because a bard is more likely to have WIS, but even with 20 WIS that is only 50/50. And Inspire Competence doesn't help saves.

Clerics, druids and rangers have WIS save proficiency, which boosts their chances against the WIS attacking spells - 20 WIS +4 prof means success 60% of the time (thought that's still a 40% chance of hors-de-combat). Rangers also have DEX save proficiency, which boosts their chances against Disintegrate, and in any event they have the hit points to take it. A rogue has DEX save proficiency to help against Disintegrate, but has the same hp as the bard and so is equally vulnerable to Blight, and even against Disintegrate has a 40% chance of being zapped and probably disintegrated. Monks have the same saves as rangers, but worse hp (at 11th level, 53+11*CON) - still, they can withstand Blight or Disintegrate and have only a 40% chance of being dominated, polymorphed or feebleminded.

Besides monks and rangers, the heroes of saving throws are paladins, adding CHA to the saves of themselves and their allies. On the current numbers this strikes me as a pretty potent ability.

Anyway, I don't think the saving throw problems are multi-class related. Saves are hard even when its proficiency vs proficiency; when its proficiency vs base stat they become near-impossible, and once again we see the issue of casters getting to bring their level to bear (boosted DCs for proficiency) while those making the save cannot do so.

 

[MerricB]

I am beginning to miss 4e take on multiclassing... Good hybrid subclasses, and a overt feat tax to multiclass, with a dabbler feat per class (but no ability prereq).
If they stick to this (flawed) saving throws mechanism, I would also enforce a strict policy of : 2 proficient saves per character, chosen among your class(es) list(s). But we already have a very potent system representing dwindling luck, scaling by class and level : it's called "hit points"...

Honestly, at this point I miss AD&D's take on multiclassing. 4E - eventually - got to an interesting state. 3E's could be horribly broken that I really don't enjoy seeing Next using a similar system.

Cheers!

 

[Li Shenron]

At 11th level, a barbarian has no proficiency bonus on WIS or DEX saves. S/he has the hp to withstand the Disintegrate (77 hp + 11* CON, so probably 100+, plus the raging temps), but even with a 16 DEX still has only a 40% chance of making the save. With a 16 CON, the chance of making the save vs Blight is 60%, so expected damage from that spell is only 31.5. But the likelihood of saving vs the Polymorph, Dominate or Feeblemind attack is pretty slim. (25% with WIS 10 or 11, 30% with WIS 12 or 13.) A fighter comes out much the same as a barbarian, though with 12 fewer hp.

...

Anyway, I don't think the saving throw problems are multi-class related. Saves are hard even when its proficiency vs proficiency; when its proficiency vs base stat they become near-impossible, and once again we see the issue of casters getting to bring their level to bear (boosted DCs for proficiency) while those making the save cannot do so.

Yes you are right, I should have written more carefully my last sentence, and not include ST... exactly because of what I mentioned, that spellcasters can choose spells appropriately to target the weakest ST.

I think your numbers show well what I've been thinking also. When spells DC and ST didn't scale, the only difference was in stat bonuses: the Wizard could still target the Barbarian with a Feeblemind, but the difference was determined only by the Barbarian's Wisdom score, which is limited to a certain amount (and occasionally, she might run into a wise barbarian).

But now in addition to that there is the fact that the proficiency bonus applies to all spells cast (because it would be insane not to use an implement) while the "weak" ST are further penalized.

If I were in the design team, I would consider eliminating implements completely. That would increase all those save chances by 20%. It would also turn the Barbarian's 60% vs Blight into an 80%, some people may frown but I still believe that the Wizard has the edge because of possibly just casting another spell. It's not that every spell must always work. We also have to see it both from PC's and NPC's point of view, i.e. in this case it is both the Wizard PC not able to blight the Barbarian NPC, and the Barbarian PC being able not to be blighted by the Wizard NPC.

If wanting to keep implements in the game, maybe they could grant proficiency bonus only to a certain school of spells, or only to DC which target one specific ST.