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

[Zaphling]

Disclaimer: I haven't played the packet yet. This is all first impressions.

First and foremost, I like the idea of having paths for each class. But I'm not sure if having to play through 2 levels before reaching your path is too long or not.

I understand that the devs think of the first 2 character levels as a mean of introduction to the gaming world. Since most of the time, during levels 1 and 2, the adventuring party is still trying to make a name and has to prove themselves first before people will respect/know them. But I will reserve judgement until I try this out for myself.

About Ability Score Improvement vs Feats. It's actually nice since it takes away bookkeeping. Plus, really nice they put a score cap on it, since +2 to one ability is actually big.

About taking away the Skill System and integrating it under Ability Checks, I really like it. It takes away more book-keeping from my players (both old and new) and the DM as well. But if there is one thing I really like: Skill Dice
They should try something that will put the Skill DIce back in the game.

Barbarians: Simple. Hack and Slash. Defines this class. They got it right. For those players looking for complexity, the sample Totem Warrior satisfies that longingness.

Clerics: It's really good to see that they went back to the old style of Domains, i really like this one better.
I also like Divine Intervention. Very brilliant idea and fun at the same time.
Liking the bonus features of every Domain. Really improves and portrays them as champions of their particular domain.

Druids: I'm liking the new Circle of the Land compared to the old Circle of the Oak. The Land Circle really lets the player specialize/roleplay their origin.

Fighter: I'm very sure they spent more time building the Fighter than the other classes, because this new version is good. With Martial path, any player can choose their complexity. I like the level of complexity between the Gladiator and the Warrior is
at the end of each opposite poles. Second WInd and Action Surge is also a new good
feature for this class.
The knight also is properly made.
The warrior is so simple that all of its features are passives.
The gladiator is the most complex of the three, since you have to manage your resource points to execute different fighting tricks.
So far so good.

Mages: I still like it to be called Wizard. In fact, I hate the new name.
But I like how they managed to give nice features to each school practicioner. making them more potent in ttheir fields of mastery.
Like how the Evoker can now Overchannel all evocation spells to make it more deadly at the cost of his own health.

Monks: I hope they increase the starting Ki Points. 2 is just too low. and a Monk without Ki will be bored in a long fight because even Flurr of Blows need Ki now. not sure if this is good, but i think it's bad. But I like the sample traditions, except Fire. I find it lackluster.
VORTEX PUNCH!!!!

Paladins: My baby. My pet class. They have done good to you. No more detect evil. Divine Sense is even better.

Rangers: Same same from last packet, but different.
Rogues: I just hope the Dashing Swordsman, Treasure Hunter, Scout, and all those from the last packet returns in Rogue Styles.

Lastly about Classes, yes! No more dead levels!!!

Exploration rules is excellent! must try them out!

Excited!

That's all at my first read.

 

[MarkB]

Okay so fighter will eat Warlord and sorceror, Rogue eats assassin, Cleric eats priest, and mage eats Sorceror, Wizards, and possibly warlock (personally I don't like that idea as I really liked the warlock class from a previous packet).

They already have Mage, Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, Druid.

I think this leaves just the Bard and the Psion phb classes to add or am I forgetting anything?

Given the current approach, does the Bard even need to be a full class? It seems like it could quite easily be "eaten" by either Mage or Rogue as a subclass.

<snip>

Any chance you could format that into actual paragraphs for us, please?

 

[Atomo]

I think this leaves just the Bard and the Psion phb classes to add or am I forgetting anything?

Races we have the Elves, Humans, Halflings, Dwarves, Half Elves, Half Orcs, and Gnomes.

For races that leaves Tiefling and Dragonborn for phb races.

Traditionally, psionic classes appear later, in one psionic book and not in the phb. And, I must be wrong, but I do not think they will put tieflings on phb (it was not there traditionally until 4e) and much less the dragonborn (a creation from 4e).

 

[Zaphling]

Given the current approach, does the Bard even need to be a full class? It seems like it could quite easily be "eaten" by either Mage or Rogue as a subclass.



Any chance you could format that into actual paragraphs for us, please?

Done.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

First, I think specialties is the best, most descriptive name for these new feats. They represent areas of intense training and specialization outside your class.

Second, I'm very much okay with effect that target intelligence being effective against animals. It makes the most sense. And I agree that Intelligence is the best save to make against illusions.

 

[DMZ2112]

Traditionally, psionic classes appear later, in one psionic book and not in the phb. And, I must be wrong, but I do not think they will put tieflings on phb (it was not there traditionally until 4e) and much less the dragonborn (a creation from 4e).

I am extremely disappointed to see the class roster of D&D5 expanding. I thought the implementation of hybrid classes through a combination of class, background, and specialty was elegant, and I have played a very successful "bard" who is a minstrel/wizard(illusionist)/custom loremaster for much of the playtest. I regret that the game is moving away from that model.

Agreed that psionics ought to be a rules module if there ever was one, but I will be pretty disappointed if the dragonborn doesn't make a comeback in the core racial roster of D&D. I thought they were one of D&D4's winning additions, even if I thought their execution was shoddy. All bronze? Really? Eight gajillion colors of D&D dragons, and they're /all bronze/?

Tieflings as a populous PC race never sat well with me. They were never intended to be common, even in Planescape, and their inclusion asks too many questions. If tieflings, why not aasimar. If aasimar why not genasi. If tieflings, aasimar, and genasi, why bother with dwarves and elves anymore; you're not playing a game I recognize.

The only thing worse than race glut in D&D is class glut.

First, I think specialties is the best, most descriptive name for these new feats. They represent areas of intense training and specialization outside your class.

This I can agree with, even if I don't like the /execution/ of these "specialties."

 

[The Choice]

Traditionally, psionic classes appear later, in one psionic book and not in the phb. And, I must be wrong, but I do not think they will put tieflings on phb (it was not there traditionally until 4e) and much less the dragonborn (a creation from 4e).

Actually, psionics rules were included in the 1st Edition AD&D player's handbook, and dragonborn are a 3rd (3.5) edition creation.

And I really hope they put both of those races in the core PHB (even the muddled and kinda all over the place tieflings from the pre-4E era).

 

[1of3]

Given the current approach, does the Bard even need to be a full class? It seems like it could quite easily be "eaten" by either Mage or Rogue as a subclass.

No class needs to be a class. Games don't even have to have classes. Classes are classes because the designer wants them to be.

 

[Wulfgar76]

Indomitable (Level 13 Fighter Ability) - advantage on all saving throws.

Are you kidding me? The Fighter becomes nearly impervious to magic (and everything else) roughly midway through his career?
Anyone care to explain how this is anything but boring and broken?

 

[Li Shenron]

Going back to the lack of Intelligence-based saves in the established spells and effects, I suspect that one difficult issue here is that there is a whole range of opponents - animals, and animal-like monsters - which pretty much have to have very low Intelligence scores by default.

So, if you introduce an effect which requires an INT save, you need to either exclude such creatures from being affected, or accept that a large percentage of the monster manual automatically has very little defence against it.

I'd be fine with that. I'd rather think that the mistake is designing monsters who always have near human-like Con and Wis. There is almost never a Con 3 monster or a Wis 3 monster.

Or maybe the problem is indeed with Int 1-2 animals. Just because they can't speak, read, write or build things doesn't mean they are automatically dumb. If they can recognize illusions, navigate a maze (note: they can't in D&D but they can IRL), resist suggestions, figure out bluffs, sense your motivations, fight with tactics... maybe they deserve to have average Int for most game purposes.

Illusions are the prime candidate for intelligence saves. Animals will initially accept visual and audible information, but if given time or the right situation will realise they can't smell anything. So at low-levels you can use a Ghost Sound to distract or scare them, or the silent image of a fire or predator, but if you want to trick them in a way that involves a long exposure time to your illusion, you'll need it to smell and feel right. In mechanical terms, they would fail their saving throw, but be allowed another if they interacted with the illusion and that's where their natural senses would come into play.

Interesting concept.

I noticed most people complaining about the human, but what about half-elves? Did someone already notice they are just a worsened elf and nothing more, so no motivation to play with one but fluff?

That's because half-elves can't possibly be more than half-finished, and half-orcs too. I wrote it in the previous packet feedback, although I am a bit surprised they are still the same now.