First Impressions?

[Drakhar]

I noticed it. I see that the damage is based on strength modifiers but I can't figure out where the attack rolls are getting an extra +2 or more. From where? I can't really put anything out for a play-test until I explain the math.

I believe that it has to do with weapon training, I.E if you have training in the weapon, you get a +2 bonus. My main notice is that all the weapon damages themselves seem to be upped a die from the rule book, and it looks like they've brought back double strength with two handed weapons, atleast that's how it appears with the fighter, I don't see the rule anywhere

 

[ren1999]

I believe that it has to do with weapon training, I.E if you have training in the weapon, you get a +2 bonus. My main notice is that all the weapon damages themselves seem to be upped a die from the rule book, and it looks like they've brought back double strength with two handed weapons, atleast that's how it appears with the fighter, I don't see the rule anywhere

O.k. Yeah. I'm seeing the increased damage by 1dice. Perhaps it is to decrease the rounds of the encounter to a nice number so that the game goes faster.

Who was it on EN world that had such a nice "contest" ability chart chart?

melee attack = str vs ac
thrown weapon = str vs ac?
ranged touch = dex vs dex
spell attack = int vs con/dex/int or wis
save dc vs spell = 10+caster int vs con/dex/int or wis
prayer attack = wis vs con/dex/int or wis?

 

[Arytiss]

there seems to be some little discrepancies between the information in the articles on the web site and the information in the packets.

I was under the impression that hit dice and extended rests meant that injuries could last for a few days, but the extended rest rules contradict that. Hit dice for the classes are off too.

It looks like your average first level character is going to walk all over the monsters in the module too the hit point totals and damage output is very high especially compared with the monsters of the same level.

The low magic bunch is going to hate the herbalism feat, and the cantrips. I was a bit shocked by the numbers.

I suspect that the information for this playtest packet was compiled a couple of weeks ago. The articles we've been seeing have in all probability been discussing more recent ideas the design team have had and thus are yet to be properly incorporated in to the test packet. Give it a couple more weeks and we might see them added.

 

[Stormonu]

Having now read over the docs for all of two hours, my impressions are as follows:

1) Kudos, Mearls & Co., this looks like a romping good time to come. I like the informal tone of the document.

2) Like Advantage/Disadvantage and how "aid another" now works

3) Am I missing something on heavy armor? It really seems like medium armor had a great advantage (AC + 1/2 Dex mod) vs. heavy armor (flat AC, speed penalty)

4) Yay! A fairly comprehensive equipment list!

5) I thought spells weren't supposed to scale in this version. Why does magic missile get more missiles at higher level?

6) I'm leery of the dwarf and elf immunities; would have preferred "advantage" and a +3 bonus. Also seems to be a lot of immunities among creatures. Will have to see how this works in play.

7) Yay! While we get advanced monsters, we're not seeing verb/adj + noun names for subtypes.

8) Not liking the format of spells. Feels like a word hunt, like reading through the 2E Monsterous Manual entries.

9) Legend and Lore entries in the monster sections make me giddy. Well done!

10) No feats, no powers...very interesting

11) Monster blocks are very straitfoward and don't waste words. Abilities are neatly blocked off. Odd that spell abilities aren't written out, like they would have been in 4E (but I generally like it better with just listing the spell) Not fond of the orc information in Combat/Society, don't get a sense of them other than "there're a horde of butchers who pour out of caves to do bad things to others". A little disappointed monsters don't have hit point range listed instead of an absolute value.

Overall, the playtest looks very rule-adverse and informal. I get the impression they are seeing how much they can scale back on the rules-speak and still make the game playable. It sounds very OD&Dish. I'd like to see a hair more formality as I indicated above (mainly in the spell blocks).

This feels like a very nice blending of B/X, 2E and 3E, with a taste of 4E thrown in for flavor.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Having played 4E for several years now, there's a lot of formatting in the document that just feels annoying, but which I probably have to just get used to again. The prose spell descriptions for one. Here are some other red flags that I noticed upon a single read-thru that turn my nose up a little, but which might not be as bad as they seem on initial sniff:

The weapon table. And having "duplicate weapon effects" with such disparate costs.

The fact that you have a Club, Hammer, and Mace all do 1d6 bludgeoning damage except the Mace costs 6 gp and weighs 8 lbs and the club costs 5 sp and weights 3 lbs makes me wonder why anyone would use a Mace? Had there been a special property to make the Mace worth more than the Club, then fine (like the Hammer is Light and can be thrown). But right now, there's no point of having the Mace. Same thing with the Pick and Trident-- same damage, except one costs 8 gp and the other 15 gp. Which makes one of the two pointless.

Perhaps there are more advanced rules that will actually give something to these 'less than' weapons... but at the basic level, it just rubs me the wrong way.

I'm also not crazy about the insane jumps in price on the armor table either. The fact that fighters were supposed to be the most heavily armored, and yet a rogue with a +3 dex mod can get a 17 AC for 75 gp while a fighter with no dex mod has to spend 1,500 gp for the same AC? That's insane. Or the fact that Studded Leather gives you 13 + dex for 25 gp, but Ringmail gives you 13 + half dex for 35 gp? So basically you're spending 10 extra gold for armor that only half as much dex bonus.

It's these kind of illogical things that I was so glad they eliminated (for the most part) in 4E, that I will really hate to go back to. Because they make absolutely no sense and basically remove certain armors and weapons from ever being taken because there are better options available at every turn.

 

[Nebulous]

not liking the 8 hour rest = full HP recovery.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

So am I the only one to notice that almost every single weapon attack roll is off from what the rules document says the damage dice are?

Different drafts of the characters vs. the rules I guess?

I noticed it. I see that the damage is based on strength modifiers but I can't figure out where the attack rolls are getting an extra +2 or more. From where? I can't really put anything out for a play-test until I explain the math.

The Fighter's class ability gives him +2 on all weapon attack rolls.

Who was it on EN world that had such a nice "contest" ability chart chart?

melee attack = str vs ac
thrown weapon = str vs ac?
ranged touch = dex vs dex
spell attack = int vs con/dex/int or wis
save dc vs spell = 10+caster int vs con/dex/int or wis
prayer attack = wis vs con/dex/int or wis?

I made an ability vs. ability success chart I could dig up if you want. The rest of your post makes no sense - have you read the rules? There's no ranged touch attack and spell attacks target AC, same as weapons.

 

[Herschel]

Apparently their deifinition of "Now" is quite different from everyone else's. It keeps sending me to the sign-up page, even from the link in my e-mail or the home page. This is irritating, to say the least.

 

[Roland55]

I absolutely love the 'Intoxicated' condition, if you haven't read it..

I seem to have lost the ability to grant XP ... but I certainly agree with you. Fun.

 

[Dragoslav]

No scythes? Wtf? Heads will roll.