D&D 5E 02/08/13 New playtest packet to released today. [Udate: PACKAGE OUT!][

[MarkB]

A Paladin with the Archery Mastery and Arcane Archer feats is surprisingly good. As I read it once you get Two Attacks and Divine Strike you should be able to make two attacks with full attack and two with -5

How do you figure? By my reading of the Archery Master feat, you'd make three attacks, all at -5.

 

[bogmad]

With all these requirements that skills must be optional, feats must be optional, lore must be optional, one way out to scrap the genetically superior humans, is to just remove all mechanical benefits to races.

Wanna play an elf? Fine you're an elf, but you get no benefit. You're exactly the same as a human.

Then design a bunch of "racial traits" that give you something to make you feel more elven, but instead of having them automatically at 1st level, you can get a racial trait in place of an ability score increase. Let's not call them "racial feats" so that people who hate feats-whatever-they-are, are not going to protest, because a group can have both feats and racial traits, another can have only the first or the second, another can choose to have none and go with ability boosts... While we're at it, let's put skills into the same fray...

Not sure I'd like race homogenization. I don't think it's something that would fly with a lot of people.
I like the two "ability score" increase idea. Maybe +2 to two scores is still overpowered, but +1 to four abilities is better than +1 to all.

Also, the ability to have an "arcane archer" or other feat available at 1st level to ONLY humans seems a little weird. What about an optional rule so that races could forego their ability score increases to gain a feat as well? Maybe you restrict the initial feat list that a race could select at first level so that an elf could select arcane archer, magic initiate, etc; a dwarf could select charger, toughness and so on. I like the feats well enough that it's a shame you have to level up so much before you finally get to play the archetype you want to play

Also why even call them feats anymore? Seems like specialty is finally the right word to use.

 

[Kobold Stew]

How do you figure? By my reading of the Archery Master feat, you'd make three attacks, all at -5.

This is what I read as well.
* you use your action to make two weapon attacks (Two Attacks)
* when you use your action...you make one additional attack, but all attacks that are part of the action are -5 (Archery Master)
* each successful attack does +1d8 damage (Divine Strike)

With Arcane archer, you additionally might let off a spell (though from the Paladin spell list, only command seems particularly attack-y).

 

[the Jester]

I'm just digging in to the new packet and I got to the ranger.

Holy cow, is the ranger good at exploration. I like it.

 

[Warbringer]

That's what Ability Score Increase aims at: a human would get +2 to one ability (or +1 to two abilities). If you are using feats, a human can trade that in for an feat.

Although I agree that humans need a bit more than that. Advantage on a saving throw or attack roll once per rest, for instance.

I agree, and I think it needs to be a bit more even above that. IMO those racial abilities look a lot like racial feat packages in their power (weapon prof, better vision, some form of advantage check). I like [MENTION=6698836]twi[/MENTION]ggly's idea above, seems the right balance.

 

[DEFCON 1]

You know... I thought the whole issue about the humans getting all six stats at +1 was that it meant they were now equivalent to the demihumans in the demi's primary stats. So all humans were as healthy as dwarves, as smart as high elves, as agile as halflings. That was always the big point that people continually railed against. It wasn't balance, it was just the fiction seemed wrong.

But now you're offering up giving humans a +2 to a stat to start with? Doesn't that now mean the best human is healthier than the healthiest dwarf? Is smarter that the smartest high elf? Is more agile than the most dexterous halfling? Isn't that playing directly into the exact complaints people had about the six +1s?

 

[MarkB]

You know... I thought the whole issue about the humans getting all six stats at +1 was that it meant they were now equivalent to the demihumans in the demi's primary stats. So all humans were as healthy as dwarves, as smart as high elves, as agile as halflings. That was always the big point that people continually railed against. It wasn't balance, it was just the fiction seemed wrong.

But now you're offering up giving humans a +2 to a stat to start with? Doesn't that now mean the best human is healthier than the healthiest dwarf? Is smarter that the smartest high elf? Is more agile than the most dexterous halfling? Isn't that playing directly into the exact complaints people had about the six +1s?

Actually, I don't think it does. This means that the average dwarf or halfling is stronger or more agile than the average human, but that humans have a greater range of variance.

 

[gyor]

It appears you guys were right about the archer mastery feat.

I think Paladin's are better off with tactical warrior and mounted combat anyways, with the other two going to ability boost or divine iniate.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

You know... I thought the whole issue about the humans getting all six stats at +1 was that it meant they were now equivalent to the demihumans in the demi's primary stats. So all humans were as healthy as dwarves, as smart as high elves, as agile as halflings. That was always the big point that people continually railed against. It wasn't balance, it was just the fiction seemed wrong.

But now you're offering up giving humans a +2 to a stat to start with? Doesn't that now mean the best human is healthier than the healthiest dwarf? Is smarter that the smartest high elf? Is more agile than the most dexterous halfling? Isn't that playing directly into the exact complaints people had about the six +1s?

Yes, though there is a subtle difference. The ability to trade it for a feat comes across as deliberate training instead of a natural aptitude. A half-orc is naturally stronger than a human, but humans have a tendency to pick a proficiency and train in it.

I'm not saying that this is exactly what I want. But it is better than what we have.

I would like it better if a human always had a maximum ability score of 18, but the half orc could reach 20.

 

[Warbringer]

I would like it better if a human always had a maximum ability score of 18, but the half orc could reach 20.

This is the way to go (either18/20 or 20/22) but idea that a race is better than others, such as Orcs stronger, Elves more dextrous should be preserved in the max score