D&D 5E D&D Podcast: A1 Playtest

[Uller]

I hadn't noticed the "add your magic attack bonus" to the DC until just now. So we've been playing it wrong but it seems to work fine...our spell casters DCs (fourth level) are between 13 and 15...and yeah...ghouls getting three attacks and all paralyze seems a bit over the top for a 3rd level monster. Probably just add a Paralyze attack that the ghoul can use once per turn on any target it hit that turn.

Personally, I think the paralyzing effect of a ghoul should be more like the 5e "restrained" condition...you can't move, your attacks are at disadvantage and attacks on you are at advantage.

 

[Li Shenron]

I hadn't noticed the "add your magic attack bonus" to the DC until just now. So we've been playing it wrong but it seems to work fine...

Indeed it works fine.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

They could just use the expertise die on certain ability score checks for all character classes, not just Rogue and Monks like they seem to be using. This approach would bring back the good and bad saving throw progression. But the discrepancy between a good and bad save could be really big, since the ability scores that a class would have expertise bonus on would be really high, and the ones they don't would typically be the lower ability scores.

But they could also have a progression similar to the magic or attack bonus for each class as well.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I still think they should divorce spellcasting stat from save DC. That practice coupled with "target the low save" contributes a ton to "wizards > fighter" syndrome, and the current 5e saves are even worse than normal (6 saves, etc.). Just my opinion, though. As always, play what you like

 

[Klaus]

I still think they should divorce spellcasting stat from save DC. That practice coupled with "target the low save" contributes a ton to "wizards > fighter" syndrome, and the current 5e saves are even worse than normal (6 saves, etc.). Just my opinion, though. As always, play what you like

I'd go the other way around: give martial types attack options that don't target AC: push opponents (vs. Strength), trip opponents (vs. Dexterity), feint to induce movement (vs. Wisdom), hamstring to slow opponent (vs. Con)...

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'd go the other way around: give martial types attack options that don't target AC: push opponents (vs. Strength), trip opponents (vs. Dexterity), feint to induce movement (vs. Wisdom), hamstring to slow opponent (vs. Con)...

I don't think that'd bug me for the most part (the "feint to induce movement" might, depending upon implementation; though, I do have some movement mechanics in my RPG where you can move people within / near your threatened area). However, I still think this would favor spellcasters, since they generally have both range and a lot more options.

I don't really see why you can't do both, honestly. Give warriors more options, and divorce spellcasting stat from save DC. Warriors will rock at their abilities (since it's mostly based on one stat for them), but mages will have more versatility. Seems fine to me; I mean, if you're going to specialize (which is what a warrior basically is when compared to the options mages have), you should be good at it. As always, play what you like