D&D 5E Did you like one Playtest version better than the final 5e PHB?

[teitan]

I common sense that coup de grace stuff because... sometimes the combat rules no longer apply.

 

[Charlaquin]

I common sense that coup de grace stuff because... sometimes the combat rules no longer apply.

Yeah, I feel like the “slit the unconscious guard’s throat” scenario is better resolved by the basic pattern of play than the combat rules.

 

[GlassJaw]

Been browsing through the Next files again because of this thread...

I really like that the base Fighter class had Battlemaster maneuvers. That would have opened up so much customization for any number of archetypes.

That said, the Next Fighter probably underwent the most changes of any class throughout the playtest.

 

[GlassJaw]

Other things I like:

• Faster feat gain: levels 1, 3, 6, 9, etc
• Skill improvement
• No "kitchen sink" feats - the feats were more like a revamped 3.5 than the monstrosity of a feat system we ended up with. Much easier to balance. I certainly don't like them all but the foundation was much more accessible.
• Expanded Channel Divinity options with more universal features. Channel Divinity became very specific in the final release.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Had some time today and things I like

• Bards as half-casters
• Many of the class features
• Proficiency bonus starting at +1
• Some of the feats that were lost
• And the skill die or add a new skill option
• And probably a lot more...

There is a ton of material at different stages to look through so it will take a while.

 

[squibbles]

I found on an old usb drive the playtest documents for D&D Next (that would become 5e). Strangely, while re-reading them, I found that one version of the playtest had rules that pleases me more than the ones we have in the PHB.

For me, the Playtest Packet 7 has the best rules:

• Focused on level 1-11, beyond that classes dont gain much beyond more uses of their features. All important and fun features are gained within 10 levels.
• Each class has its own weapon attack bonus and/or spell DC progression
• Longer skill list: each background give 4 skills. Classes do not give skills unless you are a Rogue, but Wizard, druids and cleric have advantage to recall lore in their domain.
• No proficiency bonus. Instead trained skills add +1d6 to their ability check. At level X,Y,Z you either gain another skill or increase the size of the die by one.
• Saving throws receives no bonus unless very special cases.
• Fighters have built-in offensive and defensive maneuvers depending on their favored fighting styles, including warlord-y ones.
• Two-weapon figthing does not require a bonus action.
• In fact, Bonus Actions no longer exist. Some spells are Swift, meaning you can cast them as part of another non-spell Action.
• No, bards, sorcerers or warlock, but they can be replicated with Specialty and Background.
• Smite is a Channel Divinity option instead of a spell-consuming feature. The Paladin can add its CHA mod to the save of an ally as a reaction, no longer an always ON aura. The paladin, can replace any of its saves attempt with a CHA save instead, but do not add their CHA to all other saves.
• Druids use templates instead of statblocks for their shapeshift.
• No multi-attacks, but classes gain more damage die at X levels.
• In addition to backgrounds and classes, the players can choose a Specialty, which are built-in feat progression as you level. Wanna be a druid with a thief guild background and a two-handed weapon warrior specialty? Go for it. It add another layer of customization.
• Feats are small, but no longer cost an ASI.
• Monks have different archetypes based on elemental bending ala Avatar.
• Disengage moves you 10 ft.

I'd never seen any of the playtest materials before and looked up playtest packet 7 because everything you mention in the OP seems awesome. Emphasis on levels 1-11, more damage dice instead of extra attack, no bonus actions, most skill proficiency moved to backgrounds, more complex fighters, druids with shapeshift templates: that all sounds great.

It's funny though, after actually looking at packet 7 it seems like a mess.

Class progression is ad hoc. Things like clerics getting a significantly diminished spell progression compared to the other classes are not explained. Some classes stop getting new features at 11, but the barbarian and monk get very strong capstones at level 20. Power spikes aren't standardized to 5th, 11th, and 17th like 5e does.

Feats are required instead of optional. I thought the improved customization would be appealing, but boy do I not want to read through 14 pages of mechanically minor and thematically bland feats (personal preference, I admit). Moreover, fighters, monks, and rogues lean HEAVILY on feats to fill out their class features.

The divergent attack and spell progressions that each class gets seem like a reasonable choice initially, but they make other mechanics fiddly. Druids, for example, get a poor attack bonus (+1 at level 6). They can cast shillelagh to use their spellcasting bonus instead, but not if they're using a wildshape template--which is the class's main feature in packet 7. Multiclassing would be SO much harder with this system.

Finally, the class features that ultimately became subclasses are pretty bland. Most are some combination of feats, proficiencies, apells, and pre-set selections from a list of options, i.e. you are a light cleric--you gain cantrip A and channel divinity options X, Y, and Z from the channel divinity list. There is lots of overlap between the proto-subclasses.

Some of those things, I'm sure, are limitations of rules execution rather than the design. I'm sure WotC would have cleared up some of the kludge if they made an edition more like the one in playtest packet 7. But... man I appreciate 5e's standardized proficiency, spell slot, and power spike progression a lot more now.

Other things I like:

• Faster feat gain: levels 1, 3, 6, 9, etc
• Skill improvement
• No "kitchen sink" feats - the feats were more like a revamped 3.5 than the monstrosity of a feat system we ended up with. Much easier to balance. I certainly don't like them all but the foundation was much more accessible.
• Expanded Channel Divinity options with more universal features. Channel Divinity became very specific in the final release.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.

I was surprised how much I disliked the idea of being REQUIRED to pick feats. Having options is good but, absent a bland baseline option, the tyranny of choice is real.

 

[MoonSong]

No, bards, sorcerers or warlock, but they can be replicated with Specialty and Background.

I would love to see you trying. (Hint, if it has a spellbook, it has failed as a sorcerer. Ok, you can have a spellbook as a sorcerer, but that is a very specific sorcerer variant and far from standard)

I am among those who would have liked it if the playtest sorcerer had advanced to the final version. It was far more interesting than the poor man's wizard that the sorcerer always ends up being.

The problem with sorcerer is it tends to be dragged down by poorly tested experimental mechanics. Designers don't feel comfortable messing with the wizard, but they don't bat an eye at doing it with sorcerer. Then they panic because the thing is always undertested and they overreact an put a lot of unnescesary restrictions that bog down the class. However here I think that the stupid obsession with going back to "One caster to rule them all" was too big of a temptation and it meant wasting a lot of time that could have been used to improve and refine a better sorcerer. In fact sorcerers weren't removed from the playtest because they weren't well received. Instead they were removed because wizard players wanted spell points too and the designers couldn't/wouldn't pay attention to sorcerer until they got "wizards right".

 

[Li Shenron]

There is no specific playtest packet which as a whole I prefer over the released version of the game.

But also most of the playtesting ideas are for me just as good as the released ones. It really doesn't matter.

In retrospective, one thing that might have been better is having combat superiority a base Fighter ability, to give the base class even more identity, but it would have also risked making it more dippable if CS started too early.

I actually wouldn't have like the playtest Sorcerer to be default, the transformation mechanic was cool but too specific for a whole class.

 

[GlassJaw]

Feats are required instead of optional. I thought the improved customization would be appealing, but boy do I not want to read through 14 pages of mechanically minor and thematically bland feats (personal preference, I admit). Moreover, fighters, monks, and rogues lean HEAVILY on feats to fill out their class features.

I was surprised how much I disliked the idea of being REQUIRED to pick feats. Having options is good but, absent a bland baseline option, the tyranny of choice is real.

I agree that some degree of "system mastery" is required for feats, but that certainly isn't unique to the playtest, nor is it unique to D&D. That said, the final 5E feat system has its own host of problems, which are more egregious than an evolution of the 3ed/Next framework.

With all games, a balance must be struck between intuitive rules and requiring the player to do "homework". As games go, D&D is rather complex, but its advantage is that you don't need to know everything up front. That said, at some point, a player is going to have to open the book and read it. Certainly the debate is where the balance lies.

I also didn't like that the playtest turned a lot of melee class abilities into feats, or at least a weird hybrid of (maneuvers). I'm fine with feats being "required", but I absolutely agree that there needs to be choices within the system that are easily understood so a player won't be "punished" for not having the same level of mastery as another player has (which absolutely does happen now in 5E).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well technically the playtest said "this is what people not playing something else wanted". Given the sales numbers at the time with pathfinder outselling 4e It's more than reasonable to say that the online posters disallusioned with 5e are probably not nearly as much of a bad example as your making it out to be. That goes double when you toss on how bad wotc is with near push polling, questionable sampling that rarely bothered to even ask critical things like if someone is answering as a gm or a player, & poll questions phrased in such a way that the result can mean anything someone wants it to say regardless of if it's a landslide either way or somewhere in between.

So if you define "average playr/DM [of the time]" to be "from the subset of players & GMs not playing/DMing the best selling or second most best selling ttrpg of the time for whatever reason" sure... But it's not like everyone went from playing 3.5 to playing WoW when 4e came out. Plenty tried 4e, some even liked 4e & kept with it... sales numbers show where most everyone else went. Once you start defining "average player/DM" like that your pretty much putting a spotlight on how tiny that minority slice is.

This doesn't track. The playtest had way too many participants for it to just be people who weren't playing other games, for one thing.