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

[Iosue]

The thing is, feats are optional, so you have to find a way to compensate humans without using them.

 

[hafrogman]

+1 to every ability score... doesn't really bother me. A bit bland, but 'eh... The other races tend to have a good array of perks. Not completely balanced mind you, but I think we'll get there.
The +1 to 2 or +2 to 1 or a feat idea? I agree they'd need something else. I'd argue you could almost give them +1 to 2 or +2 to 1 and a feat and they'd still be okay balance-wise.

They might be alright balance wise, but it brings us back to the central issue of why we're facing +1 to everything humans in the first place. If feats are to be entirely optional for the people/groups who refuse to use them, then we cannot give one to humans. As an option, alright, but not as an assumption.

So then we'd be giving them two ability increase? A little better than +1/all, but not much.

Perhaps an ability increase (with feat option) and a lore? Or a proficiency (weapon, armor or gear)? Or both?

They're adding a little extra stuff here and there that I think gives us a little more leeway than we used to have.

 

[Warbringer]

The thing is, feats are optional, so you have to find a way to compensate humans without using them.

Equipment? It's about he only other part of the system not optional.

Lore too, but that seems wrong a than human would have "more" lore than an elf

 

[A'koss]

They might be alright balance wise, but it brings us back to the central issue of why we're facing +1 to everything humans in the first place. If feats are to be entirely optional for the people/groups who refuse to use them, then we cannot give one to humans. As an option, alright, but not as an assumption.

So then we'd be giving them two ability increase? A little better than +1/all, but not much.

Perhaps an ability increase (with feat option) and a lore? Or a proficiency (weapon, armor or gear)? Or both?

They're adding a little extra stuff here and there that I think gives us a little more leeway than we used to have.

You raise a good point about Feats being optional, but Skills are also an option so Lore would also have to be off the list. And as Warbringer points out, it is a little odd to see Humans know more lore than other longer-lived races.

So you really are left with little else unless you're willing to come up with a list of traits humans can choose from which might mirror minor feats - weapon of choice, hit point bonus, alertness, swiftness, resistances... stuff like that.

Personally, I'm okay with +1 to all ability scores if it comes down to that. Boring maybe, but it works.

 

[gyor]

How about limiting it to cultural lore to celebrate the diversity of human cultures.

Anyways I took a good look at the Mage and those worried about Sorcerors being forced to use spell books is unfounded as its tied to Wizardary itself so if you choose Socerory or Witchcraft instead then they can have other machanics instead.

The only universal part of Mages is Estroric Knowledge, Brew Potion, Scribe Scroll, and Spell Mastery. Every thing else is tied to Arcane Tradition and what ever catorgory wizardary is. So if you pick Sorcecery and then pick say a dragon bloodline then the only things in common that's have with someone who picks wizardary school of illusion would be the Mage Spell list, Brew Potion, Scribe Scroll, Estroeric knowledge, and Spell Mastery. Everything else could be radically different.

Also note in 4e that witchcraft was actually a wizard subclass that game mechanics wise had nothing to do with the Warlock class.

 

[gyor]

Lore doesn't as a skill in this play test its its own thing.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

What about humans getting four "points" to play around with? They could be assigned as:

+1 to four ability scores
+1 to two ability scores and +2 to one ability score
+1 to two ability scores and a feat
or
+2 to one ability score and a feat

 

[Li Shenron]

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...

 

[Klaus]

The thing is, feats are optional, so you have to find a way to compensate humans without using them.

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.

 

[MoonSong]

How about limiting it to cultural lore to celebrate the diversity of human cultures.

Anyways I took a good look at the Mage and those worried about Sorcerors being forced to use spell books is unfounded as its tied to Wizardary itself so if you choose Socerory or Witchcraft instead then they can have other machanics instead.

The only universal part of Mages is Estroric Knowledge, Brew Potion, Scribe Scroll, and Spell Mastery. Every thing else is tied to Arcane Tradition and what ever catorgory wizardary is. So if you pick Sorcecery and then pick say a dragon bloodline then the only things in common that's have with someone who picks wizardary school of illusion would be the Mage Spell list, Brew Potion, Scribe Scroll, Estroeric knowledge, and Spell Mastery. Everything else could be radically different.

Also note in 4e that witchcraft was actually a wizard subclass that game mechanics wise had nothing to do with the Warlock class.

The point isn't to be forced to use a spellbook, but to be forced to prepare spells (which is the point of being a sorcerer), which is going to be compulsory now, given that wizards have gained tactical versatility over their existing strategical versatility and sorcerers will be forced to use the same number of slots as them and have the exact same attack and score progression. (Unfortunate because sorcerers have traditionally been MAD while wizards remain SAD) Just casting spontaneously wasn't good enough when wizards couldn't and they had less slots, and isn't going to be enough now. (Unless desingers get truly generous when designing the feature)

And the colective of Esoteric Knowledge, Brew Potion, Scribe Scroll and Spell Mastery result limiting and flavour restricting, not every sorcerer player wants to play the role of the guy in robes (heck I bet not even all wizard players do). The sorcerers are way more diverse than Wizards gives them credit for. In fact part of the charm of being a sorcerer was to be able to be a complete ignorant on how magic works and still work wonders.

On the warlock's side, An slot warlock is also like an oximoron, what they showed at the beginning was cool, just needed polishing, maybe I lack enough imagiantion but I cannot fathom a warlock who actually has to keep track of spells used. And they were suppossed to wear armor and actually fight better than wizards. Shoehorning these two into the wizard mold will only cause them to lose their identity, become suboptimal or both. (And general consensus was the Witch subclass was awfully bad losing too many features in exchange for a feat everybody else could just take, which kind of actually confirms my point)