D&D 5E [D&D Next] Second Packet - initial impressions

[ForeverSlayer]

Let's discuss the newest playtest packet.

In this thread, we will discuss the newest playtest packet.

I was looking at the Cleric and Wizard and I noticed that they have 10th level spell slots.

Also, why does the Wizard class give you a choice of a +1 to constitution?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I also want to talk about the Two-Weapon fighting specialty and why the damage is halved for both weapons.

I'm not really sure this is worth taking.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It looks good! Massively better than the old one. Can't say I like it all - but good. Change the XP rules up and

The fighter is a vast improvement. I no longer wonder why play a fighter when there's the warpriest. (Combat Superiority may be a little strong from looking at it - but that's a fault on the right side). On the other hand it does look fairly spamtastic - but at least it's fast.

The rogue's improved. In fact it's turned into two classes by means of the backgrounds - the thug (especially with the spiked chain) does obscene damage, and the thief is the trapsmith we all know and love.

OAs are in - movement only. Good all round.

If chargen is as quick as I think this is looking like a good way to play pre-3E D&D. Probably 2e but it's easy enough to hack back into something more like 1e or even B/X (possibly eventually BECMI) - but with a ruleset I find simpler. The main thing that worries me are what the long term strategy for this game is - I think that supplements will make it worse rather than better.

(And no, it won't replace my 4e - but it appears to do magnificently the parts of pre-4e D&D 4e is bad at).

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Better, yes. Not all there, though -- I'll hit individual quirks in other threads so we can keep discussion focused.

I like Combat Superiority, but it feels like a bunch of feats that you can't choose freely among, and have to spend a die to use even though rolling the die has nothing to do with them -- why have the die, when you can just say "With maneuver X, Y occurs". Interesting, but a bit awkward. If this ends up with a mechanism for better choice, I can get behind it.

Rogue and cleric, both better.

 

[Stormonu]

Hmmm....nothing beyond combat stats for the monsters. That's disappointing. Also, some of their choices are a little weird - especially in what's been left out (no dragons?!?)

Also, I don't like the sound of displacer beast armor and dragon scale. Could we have gotten something a little less fantastical - would it have been so bad to have studded leather and reinforced scale instead?

 

[Ahnehnois]

The alignments look right at least.

Combat superiority looks good. The rogue has per/days and a BS-flavored sneak attack. Not so good.

Apparently they didn't listen to the complaints over dwarven poison immunity.

I continue to think that their basic approach to number scaling, skills, and feats is solid, but that the implementation is really lacking; the classes and races are not up to snuff.

 

[Raith5]

While I still prefer 4th ed, all in all this looks interesting. Fighters and clerics look really interesting with expertise dice and Domains respectively. Monsters still look a bit boring though.

Specializations also look interesting. The Necromancer one looks cool. But why would you take the Dual wielder specialization? Two-Weapon Fighting enables you to attack with each weapon but only do half damage.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I'm finding it dull. Painfully dull in fact.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I've only had a chance to glance over it so far, but here's a few observations:

The skills are now tied to certain abilities. It says the DM can use other abilities instead, but it's generally assumed that you will usually use the specified ability for that skill.

The pregen Fighter is an archer this time, which was unexpected but cool. I'm not sure I like how Precise Shot works with the fighter's combat superiority, though. We'll see how it works in play.

I'm glad that they put the spells on the character sheets this time.

It seems that the + ability modifier damage bonus has been removed from all spells except for cantrips and orisons. Not at all happy about that change.

Strangely, alot of the spells just have a flat +3 or +4 bonus instead of +magic ability modifier. At first I thought that this was just a convenience on the character sheets, but it's written the exact same way in the general spell rules. I'm hoping that this is a typo, as it would be silly, IMO, for all casters to cast spells with the same strength regardless of their ability scores.

The spells are still written in the same format as before, though the spell descriptions seem a bit more clear. Detect magic in particular is much more clear on what exactly it does and does not do.

Magic Missile no longer scales. It still has crappy damage (1d4+1) and auto-hits. Bleh. I'd much rather roll to hit and be able to crit, and have it deal decent damage, than have it auto-hit, personally.

Ray of frost does damage now and drops the target's speed by 10 ft. Much better than the last version.

Charm Person has been changed a bit. It now goes by the target's maximum hp rather than current hp, so you can no longer beat up someone until you can charm them. If you have less than 25 max hp, you don't get a saving throw at all though. Considering the reduction in hp across the board, that raises a red flag.

Shocking Grasp no longer gives advantage against metal-wearing targets, but prevents the target from taking reactions until its next turn. Cool.

 

[triqui]

I've only read half the package, but I needed to stop and came here to say just one thing.

The fighter is EXCELLENT. Combat superiority is just plainly awesomesauce

 

[I'm A Banana]

As I leaf through it...

[sblock=general rules]
I LOVE the consolidation of skills into ability scores (as examples of what ability scores can do). Yes!

I still find space/"surround"/"fills" to be way too much accounting, too much detail, way too fiddly.

Ditto the illumination. Though illumination, I feel, should be more relevant than it seems to me. Dunno exactly why I never feel inclined to use it...hmm...

YAY, random art/gems!

Recovering from prone only costs 5 feet of movement, eh? Prone got hit with the nerf bat!

Not exactly pleased to see OA's back in the mix. Booo, the fight-move-fight-move yo-yo of melee sludgedom. Though with the faster rounds, it might not be so bad.

It's weird that Coup de Grace requires an attack roll. It's not like it's exactly hard to miss something that's sitting there...immobile...friggin' askin' for it. By RAW, it seems like a sleeping goblin is almost as hard to hit as one that is awake and fighting!

Crits: still boring. Max damage YAWN.

Spellcasting in melee seems kind of easy / weirdly non-modular. Okay, now every spellcaster will have at least a 10 Dex (and probably higher). MAD!

The slower recovery variants don't excite me half as much as a simple time-shift does, probably because the time shift brings in other possibilities (such as encounter-focused games and week-long adventures).

Phrases That Make Me Fall Asleep Real Fast: "The cloud’s size is expressed as a radius in feet that extends from the point."...."A cone’s width at a given point is equal to its distance from the point of origin. A cone’s area of effect specifies its maximum length."..."cylinder’s point of origin is at the center of a circle of a particular radius given in the spell"..."The line’s width is its diameter"... Honestly, I'm pretty fine with 4e's bursts and blasts and could sod all that bloody geometry.

Still not a fan of auto-cantrips. This should be something I can opt out of, man.
[/sblock]

[sblock=Races]
Dwarves
There has frickin' gotta be a better way to measure character speed than a precise and fiddly number of feet. For real. "Fast" or "Slow," guys.

What, no Darkvision? Kinda lame.

Weapon training is cool. But d12 steps up to 2d6? Seems like kind of a wash.

I like that dwarves' friendships are earned a little generationally -- your dwarf adventuring companion maybe knew your grandparents! That's a cool bit of fluff!

Elves
I like that elves are children until they declare themselves to be adult. Very Chaotic and individualistic!

A free cantrip is pretty interesting (though I imagine a lot of adventuring elves being weighted toward Magic Missile. ), and the Wood Elf Grace ain't bad, neither, though it's butting up against the fact that I only occasionally remember concealment at all, let alone variations between heavy and light...hmm..

Halflings
I love love love love LOVE that the pastoral bumpkin halfling is making a triumphant return! I like that they don't totally invalidate the street-rat/tricksy urchin character type, but that there is ample support for a more down-home kind of halfling. Fearless works as an ability. And the subtle LotR reference (that halflings are dedicated friends) is very nice.

Humans
I've always loved the adaptable and friendly archetype of humanity in a fantasy setting. I do like how the fiction makes them explicitly young and vibrant and fond of eccentricities in comparison to other races. Cool.
[/sblock]
...I'll get to the rest later.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Is it just me, or is the Rogue's Sneak Attack damage absolutely ridiculous? It's 2d6 + 1d6 per level! That is more than double the sneak attack damage granted to rogues in 3.x, and this edition has done alot to flatten the math and reduce overall hp and such. Fireball does a flat 5d6 now, for example. I have no idea what they're thinking with this.

 

[the Jester]

I notice that a group of stirges is no longer instant death.

 

[Kunimatyu]

Is it just me, or is the Rogue's Sneak Attack damage absolutely ridiculous? It's 2d6 + 1d6 per level! That is more than double the sneak attack damage granted to rogues in 3.x, and this edition has done alot to flatten the math and reduce overall hp and such. Fireball does a flat 5d6 now, for example. I have no idea what they're thinking with this.

No no. HP and damage still scale quite a bit by level in 5e. It's the other aspects of the math that are much flatter.

 

[Ellington]

My main concern is just how lethal everything looks at level 1. Your typical fighter will have around 12-13 HP, while the other classes will be around 8-10 HP.

Searing light, a level 1 spell, deals 3d8 damage (13 on average).
A dwarf fighter with a greataxe and deadly strike will deal 3d6 + strength on a hit (11-12ish).
A rogue deals 3d6 + dex damage on a sneak attack with a short sword/short bow (again, 11-12ish).

I know the game isn't balanced for player vs player, but even against bestiary monsters it looks to me like a lot of battles are going to end in one or two hits. A critical hit is certain death. The HP drop was a bit too drastic.

Other than that, I'm very pleased with most of the backgrounds (excellent for characterization), specialities (except TWF and Archery) and the classes (I can't wait to try out the fighter).

 

[WarlockLord]

Damage went up and HP went down. I think this is to get rid of padded sumo 4e wars.

Anyway, mortals, look upon your GOD the wizard and despair, for the terrible and mighty wizard shall use his spells to end combat whilst the fighter...pushes people around. He shall avoid the attacks of the infidels with his mighty mirror image and throwing skeletons in the way, and he shall command the infidels to commit suicide by using his mighty powers of suggestion whilst the fighter pretends to be useful. He shall launch his no-save sleep spells and attack multiple ability scores, forcing the monsters to confront their weaknesses whilst the fighter attacks their AC.

In the fighter's defense, he does look pretty tanky. I'm not sure if that's enough. Yes, the wizard has limited spell slots...but web and cause fear are effective all the time against any level of foe and when you add all the spell slots on the wizard table you get a lot of spells. I suspect that if you've a wizard who can reliably strike first a sharpshooter would be better.

Also, if the fireball damages objects - how does that work, and if I blow up the evil priest's gear with a fireball how does that affect his spellcasting?

 

[Dausuul]

...There is a Necromancer specialty. You get to eat souls. At 3rd level, you can start animating skeletons.

SOLD.

 

[BobTheNob]

Is it just me, or is the Rogue's Sneak Attack damage absolutely ridiculous? It's 2d6 + 1d6 per level! That is more than double the sneak attack damage granted to rogues in 3.x, and this edition has done alot to flatten the math and reduce overall hp and such. Fireball does a flat 5d6 now, for example. I have no idea what they're thinking with this.

No, its not just you. I found the damage on the rogue ridiculous in 3e, and this is just worse.

Especially the thug. Gets sneak attack if two friendlies within reach? The concept of single tough enemy is out the window (unless you specifically engineer the enemy to counter this effect).

Bit much for me at first glance.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

This playtest is too busy being a boring retroclone that I can't hate it for not being 4E. I've been pre-empted.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I also want to talk about the Two-Weapon fighting specialty and why the damage is halved for both weapons.

I'm not really sure this is worth taking.

It looks as though its meant not for increased damage in fights against one large creature, but rather to speed up the elimination of many smaller creatures. So you do the same total damage as a person with a single weapon... you just get to split it up over two opponents.

Which is good in many ways, as I had several sessions where the Dwarf Slayer was pumping out 12-20ish point of damage against kobolds who only needed 2 damage to kill. So all that excess damage was wasted. Someone who wields two weapons can take out twice as many of these smaller creatures and help speed up the process, without overpowering the single-weapon wielders in terms of total damage dealt.