D&D 5E Closed Playtest Reports

[Wulfgar76]

• Wandering Prostitutes tables. Like, 2 pages of them. Down to the wrinkles and traumatic sexual abuse histories and addictions.

LOL I got this reference!
Going deep with that one, or should I say 4.886 inches deep.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'm still hoping for a competitive cooking subsystem - any hints?

It has three levels: Iron Chef, Mithril Chef, and Adamantine Chef. Each uses skill-based mechanics plus a wandering monster table (for the mystery ingredient) and challenges the PCs to whip up a three-course meal that will satisfy an opponent (a hungry goblin tribe at Iron, a ravenous dragon at Mithril, and a demonic horde at Adamantine).

 

[Savage Wombat]

It has three levels: Iron Chef, Mithril Chef, and Adamantine Chef. Each uses skill-based mechanics plus a wandering monster table (for the mystery ingredient) and challenges the PCs to whip up a three-course meal that will satisfy an opponent (a hungry goblin tribe at Iron, a ravenous dragon at Mithril, and a demonic horde at Adamantine).

Excellent. I always wanted to have my party try to kill, butcher, and cook an owlbear while keeping the sauce from curdling. Can your fighter cut filets with his long sword while the monster's still fighting? What temperature is your fireball? And can you do this while fighting off the ninjas? (There's always ninjas.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

And can you do this while fighting off the ninjas? (There's always ninjas.)

You'd be surprised at how often this is true in 5e. Where most AD&D tables would have a "DM'S Choice" option, 5e typically presumes that if you wanted a choice, you wouldn't be rolling on a table in the first place, and so these are replaced with "A bunch of ninjas."

This applies to random encounters, random magic items, weapon type vs. armor type, wandering prostitutes, polearm shape, even (and especially!) potion miscability.

 

[Texicles]

Emphasis mine.

You'd be surprised at how often this is true in 5e. Where most AD&D tables would have a "DM'S Choice" option, 5e typically presumes that if you wanted a choice, you wouldn't be rolling on a table in the first place, and so these are replaced with "A bunch of ninjas."

This applies to random encounters, random magic items, weapon type vs. armor type, wandering prostitutes, polearm shape, even (and especially!) potion miscability.

I hope this result is achieved on at least 50% of possible rolls.

 

[Sadras]

A "romance" subsystem that allows you to specify partners based on race, class, economic level and "comeliness."

It might need a few more specifications at least, a few that come to mind
1) gender of the partner; 2) height; 3) religion followed (always a doozy); 4) willingness or willyness (its the same but different); and 5) alignment (for those of you that have been following the mechanical alignment debate on the forum)

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I can't tell you much, of course. But I can let a few details slip.

• A "romance" subsystem that allows you to specify partners based on race, class, economic level and "comeliness."

But, but ... this is completely useless without a detailled "offspring" system which lets you create children based on the outcome of the "romantic" susbsystem! This could take character optimization to a whole new level!

 

[SkidAce]

Sounds like we need a Record of Agarest War subsystem.

http://www.aksysgames.com/agarest/

 

[DEFCON 1]

5e typically presumes that if you wanted a choice, you wouldn't be rolling on a table in the first place, and so these are replaced with "A bunch of ninjas."

Actually... I believe the proper collective noun for this would be "A seemingly empty room of ninjas."

http://all-sorts.org/nouns/ninjas



And in case anyone needs to know other collective nouns of D&D creatures...

http://wondermark.com/c/2009-10-30-566nouns.gif

 

[Mistwell]

[video=youtube_share;IR68W56DCBU]http://youtu.be/IR68W56DCBU[/video]