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

[Pickles JG]

Only if you want to build a system that's puposefully broken (I'm not convinced it's not their intention, though). It's the old quadratic wizard again, just slightly worse. Gain more spells, new spells are more powerful, old spells are even more powerful.

Having a system that actively encourages metagaming is one of the closest things to terrible you can have in game design.

I had to check what made metagaming so bad! I agree that the ability to memorise the MM to play a wizard properly.

It is however hard to separate this sort of player & character knowledge, hmm. What do you do if you know all of the vulnerabilities of a monster your level 1 pc has never even heard of? In the olden days when players played as players that would be just another part of player skill, though I guess its why there were so many dumb trap monsters in ADD.

 

[cynicaloptimist]

I haven't read through this whole thread, but here are my first-impression gripes about this iteration.

Skills
I liked the earlier playtest rule where all skills were a floating bonus that were applied to an appropriate attribute on-the-fly. The rules say the DM can still do it that way, but I thought that was a better default rule.
The reading of the +7 limit bonus is ambiguous to me. Is that +7 limit before or after ability modifier is factored in?
There are too damn many lore skills. I think they should be made a bit more general. Heraldic Lore and Societal Lore should be the same thing, and Forbidden/Planar/Magical lore might not need to be three different skills.

Spells
Why did we lose int/wis bonus to damage? That's kind of lame.
Spells like Cure, Inflict, and damage-dealing evocations should scale when cast at a higher-level spell slot. They'd mentioned this in a legends and lore article, I think, and I was looking forward to this.
Counterspell is weird. I like it, but I think it would fit better at a 'reaction' option of Dispel Magic.
Aid sucks.
A few save-or-suck spells had their current hit point thresholds changed to maximum hit point thresholds. I think this is a step backward. What's the point of using my save-or-suck spell on some mook? I think it's more interesting to have to beat down a boss character until they are vulnerable to something like Ray of Enfeeblement, especially if they're dealing a lot of damage while they are alive. Sleep works in a way that I think makes sense.
Vampiric Touch is cool. If I have the third level necromancer feat, can I use this every round to heal my undead buddy for ~18 HP? Maybe a little overpowered.

Misc
Prone is really weak. 5ft to stand up? I think it should be at least 10ft to stand up, with character options to 'kip-up' faster.
Healing looks a bit better, I'm looking forward to actually testing out the new system.
I like the level of granularity that the race+class+background+specialty gives. Although it's not different than choosing feats and skills in other editions, the increased benefits of 5e feats and background perks make things more interesting.

 

[Someone]

It does little to make a system that's intentionally (or unintentionally) broken. Rather, it keeps low level spells (the ones that haven't grown quadratically in power) viable. Plus, it works against the 15 minute day some players reported in 3e because there's no need for a spellcaster to demand a sleeping break simply because his highest level spells (the ones with the highest DCs) are expended.
Plus, having a save DC that's static across the spell levels is in alignment with 1e, 2e, and 4e (effectively). 3e/PF are the only odd editions out.

I won't argue this issue, since it's been repeteadly proven that this approach breaks casters at high level, and badly. Also, if casters are supposed to be balanced by the careful rationing of resources, the worst thing you can do is giving them so meny resources that rationing them is a non-issue!

Depends on if it's really metagaming. Basing on hit points, yes, that is. But assuming a purple worm doesn't have as well developed a mind or personality than a mind flayer isn't metagaming. Targeting the purple worm with your Int or Cha save spells should be fair. Same with hitting a giant with a spell he needs to dodge rather than endure with brute force (which he clearly has in spades).

So, you have two spells prepared, one that targets Wisdom and other Dexterity. Your party is attacked by an owlbear. Without looking at the monster stats, which one do you use? Preferibly without asking the DM is he looks particulary cunning or perceptive, and how graceful does it look like, or if he does carry the god of composite monster's symbol (wisdom is tied to faith, after all). Would you use an effect that targets Charisma (provided they existed) against a Zombie? They don't look very charming to me.

 

[hamstertamer]

I want straight 3d6 for each ability score to be not only first but with bold bigger font in the upper left corner of it's page. All other techniques for generating ability scores should be put in the back appendix with small plain font. This way straight 3d6 will demonstrate it's prominence over all other ways. I also believe there should be a sidebar that says "Real men use straight 3d6 to roll their characters. If you are a wimpy gay-mer, then look in the back for alternative gay ways."

Mod Note: Please see Lwaxy's post below. ~Umbran

 

[Lwaxy]

I want straight 3d6 for each ability score to be not only first but with bold bigger font in the upper left corner of it's page. All other techniques for generating ability scores should be put in the back appendix with small plain font. This way straight 3d6 will demonstrate it's prominence over all other ways. I also believe there should be a sidebar that says "Real men use straight 3d6 to roll their characters. If you are a wimpy gay-mer, then look in the back for alternative gay ways."

If this is supposed to be sarcasm, it fails big time. Don't belittle people who happen to differ from your play- or lifestyle.

 

[billd91]

I won't argue this issue, since it's been repeteadly proven that this approach breaks casters at high level, and badly. Also, if casters are supposed to be balanced by the careful rationing of resources, the worst thing you can do is giving them so meny resources that rationing them is a non-issue!

Repeatedly proven? By whom and under what assumptions? That's a pretty serious statement that probably requires citation. Frankly, I'm skeptical.

If you think that the issue has to do with rationing, then the debate should be over how many spells a caster gets, not whether or not low level ones retain usefulness against higher level opponents. Low level spells becoming relatively weaker seems to me to be the worst of both issues - too many spells but many of them being useless.

So, you have two spells prepared, one that targets Wisdom and other Dexterity. Your party is attacked by an owlbear. Without looking at the monster stats, which one do you use? Preferibly without asking the DM is he looks particulary cunning or perceptive, and how graceful does it look like, or if he does carry the god of composite monster's symbol (wisdom is tied to faith, after all). Would you use an effect that targets Charisma (provided they existed) against a Zombie? They don't look very charming to me.

What's wrong with asking the DM if the creature seems particularly graceful? Isn't that an attempt to find out what the character is perceiving so he can make that decision without resorting to metagaming? Or how about rolling an appropriate lore check? That's a non-metagame way to find out a creature's weaknesses and relative strengths.

As far as the owlbear goes, I'd certainly avoid strength or constitution-based attacks - he's build like a bear, after all. I don't have any particular reason to believe it's not very perceptive. So I'd probably target its dexterity given a choice of the two.

As far as the zombie goes, so I may have something that target's charisma. Do I have anything else? If that's all I've got, of course I'd use it. But I might not if I had something else. Undead lore is probably enough to tell me they're slow and ponderous. I'd go for that first. They may not be personable, but that doesn't mean a zombie doesn't have a forceful personality. Is he of the "Brains!" variety? They're memorable. How about the zombies from "Dead Alive?" They had a lot of personality even if they weren't likeable (certainly don't go over to their house for the custard).

 

[Someone]

Repeatedly proven? By whom and under what assumptions? That's a pretty serious statement that probably requires citation. Frankly, I'm skeptical.

I assume you've not around these boards for a decade. Just google "quadratic wizards". It yields 11 thousand results, I'm sure that's enough to keep you entertained for a while.

What's wrong with asking the DM if the creature seems particularly graceful? Isn't that an attempt to find out what the character is perceiving so he can make that decision without resorting to metagaming? Or how about rolling an appropriate lore check? That's a non-metagame way to find out a creature's weaknesses and relative strengths.

You were asserting that you could guess ability scores on your own; otherwise, I suppose that avoiding a long string of question and rolls might be beneficial. I wouldn't like to have, in the middle of what's supposed to be a frantic combat, the wizard's player asking and rolling to see if the critter comes from Plant's Vs zombies or a Romero movie.

Anyway, can't you see this is exactly the same issue that came up in 3e so frequently? That the best way to get the most from your spells was with metagame knowledge - like knowing what creatures had the best (Ex) abilities to Polymorph into, or to avoid damage spells in favor of save or be out? It's the opposite of a game you can jump into, it's a game you have to pour hours before you start playing. This may appeal to a certain segament of the gamer population, the ones that came with pun-pun and the like, but I think it's a terrible decision if they want to reach to new players who are forced to play the n00b class while the "good players" push the I win buttons.

 

[VinylTap]

It's the opposite of a game you can jump into, it's a game you have to pour hours before you start playing. This may appeal to a certain segament of the gamer population, the ones that came with pun-pun and the like, but I think it's a terrible decision if they want to reach to new players who are forced to play the n00b class while the "good players" push the I win buttons.

Are you against all 'mechanics' depth? I always thought the different levels you could approach a game like, say pathfinder, was an asset rather than a liability. There's no NEED to min/max, but the option is there if thats you're thing. I could see it being a problem with a mixed group. I agree that there are good and bad ways of approaching the system, but it, and I'm just curious--not attacking, it sounds like you would prefer no 'tactical depth' associated with combat at all? Is that your opinion?

 

[Someone]

it sounds like you would prefer no 'tactical depth' associated with combat at all? Is that your opinion?

I don't know how you read that. The kind of metagaming I was referring doesn't have anything to do with tactical depth - it's all done before the actual game begins.

 

[Cadfan]

Wow.

If you find it so terrible to roll for stats, use an array or point buy. Bam, problem solved. But let's not make it sound like rolling for stats is harming today's youth. A lot of us turned out fine rolling for stats for decades.

For that matter, some of us still roll for stats today, even when running 4e.

I don't think all kids share the same playstyle- the one you're advocating- any more than all other gamers do. It's fine to have your preference, but painting other playstyle choices as bad for the kids is... just wrong.

Nah, I'm objectively right here. There's no conceivable way that "playstyle" can justify this. That word is not a magical aegis that makes bad game design not count.

Game mechanics have to support each other. If they work at cross purposes, nothing about "playstyle" will make the problem vanish.

D&D is presently designed for characters to be played over a long period of time. I think that's a objectively true statement that really can't be argued against.

Randomly cursing some characters with comparative incompetence to others works at cross purposes with this goal. The same is true of randomly blessing some characters with hyper-competence.

So, yeah. Rolling for stats is objectively bad even if people had fun in the past in spite of it, or if they had fun in the past in a game that had a different context (e.g., rolling for stats is perfectly appropriate if you play with disposable characters). It works at cross purposes with other aspects of the system.