First Impressions?

[Kinak]

On this topic, I'm not sure how I feel about not just having a "move action" anymore. It seems like it can work just fine, but I have my reservations.

It's worth noting that you don't move as a single action in the playtest rules. You have your 30' (or whatever) of movement that you can spread throughout the round.

So you can run up to your enemy, attack them, and then use the rest of your movement to back away. Calling that a "move action" just seems a bit weird.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Sunseeker]

"Disadvantage" is a clear, simple counterpart to "advantage." "Hustle," on the other hand, is indeed pretty silly... They could have called it "sprint," "storm," "rush," etc.

On this topic, I'm not sure how I feel about not just having a "move action" anymore. It seems like it can work just fine, but I have my reservations.

I understand that it is clear and simple, unlike hustle, which is a dance move.

However, the word itsself, even "advantage" feels clunky. Like I have to chew on it a bit before I can spit it out. It's a long, multi-syllable word.

It's a good word, I just don't like the way it feels.

I REALLY like that everyone just has X amount of movement that they can use as they want during their turn.

 

[jadrax]

[*]No spell disruption rules in evidence.

More as I read it (haven't gotten to the bestiary yet, and only skimmed the characters).

The spell disruption rules are on the character sheets. ;o)

 

[B.T.]

You have to "walk" ten feet to get a bonus on jumps. I kid you not.

However, the word itsself, even "advantage" feels clunky. Like I have to chew on it a bit before I can spit it out. It's a long, multi-syllable word.

It's a good word, I just don't like the way it feels.

I feel the same way--I can see myself stumbling over saying "you have (dis)advantage" quite a bit.

 

[Sunseeker]

You have to "walk" ten feet to get a bonus on jumps. I kid you not.

"walk" is likely a misnomer, but getting a moving start on a jump is really the only way to get a bonus to jumping. Being able to leap forward a large distance is practically impossible thanks to the laws of inertia.

 

[Kinak]

The spell disruption rules are on the character sheets. ;o)

Wow! Thanks for pointing that out, I totally missed that.

Just for wizards, interesting.

Also, damn, that's pretty harsh. Keep your wizard in the back. I really like not having to hold actions for it, though.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[YRUSirius]

However, the word itsself, even "advantage" feels clunky. Like I have to chew on it a bit before I can spit it out. It's a long, multi-syllable word.

It's a good word, I just don't like the way it feels.

After many sessions of play these might become ads or disads. Something like that always happens.

Other topic: Just noticed that the elf wizard has only 1 hit point less than the 'sturdy' dwarven battle cleric. This feels off to me, I like my stereotypical elven wizard a little bit more squishy.

-YRUSirius

 

[Novem5er]

It's been a long while since I've posted on EnWorld... probably since my group stopped playing 4e about 18 months ago. We actually liked 4e a lot, but got burned out with it due to the general complaints (combat taking forever, power bloat, etc).

I'm eager to see what 5e has to offer, so I've downloaded and spent the last few hours picking through it. I've got a couple of comments that I hadn't quite seen yet.

1. Monster HP - Gone are the uber-Kobolds of 4e. It looks like low level monsters can again be killed with a single hit by most classes. I'm happy about that because it should speed up combat as they promised.

2. Monsters also seem to have fewer "powers", which will also speed up the game... but I'm also a little concerned that some of the monsters are a little boring. It's a hard balance to strike, and only after playing will I know which side to come down on. I like that they gave most of the monsters at least something interesting (kobolds getting advantage if outnumbering, goblins get a basic sneak attack). But will it be enough?

3. The whole system seems a little "rules lite"... which I thought I was going to be positive about. After reading, and re-reading the How to Play manual... I can't help feeling "this is it?" I was expecting to be pooring over the crunch for a few hours... not learning the system in 20 minutes and then searching for more complexity.

On that last note, I think that what IS there is quality. I like the advantage/disadvantage. I like the background/theme mix and believe that it will open up a lot of great character ideas. I think the characters have some interesting actions available to them without suffering under power-bloat or the idea that everyone is equal at everything mechanically.

However, I still have to hold my tongue and believe that there IS more to the game design than what we are seeing in this limited play test manual. The "math" of the system might be a great change (see Monster HP above) and handing the DM more creative power can be a great thing for experienced DM's.

I can't help feeling that this more akin to 2.5 edition.... which is a bare-bones combat and RP system with some newer, forward thinking included to make it more modern. That not bad... I think?

 

[rkwoodard]

First impression:


So overall, I'm rather "MEH". Making a paladin out of a cleric though....PISSES ME OFF!

I love it. This give me a way to really play a Templar style cleric without being a full fledged Paladin.

I bet you will have your distinct LG Paladin as a Class in the final run.

RK

 

[The Little Raven]

I wonder who thought that allowing spells to have nearly-unrestricted bonus stacking was a good idea after two editions where type-restricted bonus stacking caused problems.