D&D 5E New D&D Next Packet Is Available

[DEFCON 1]

Also, Mearls tweeted that bonus feats won't survive long.

If what Mearls' tweeted ends up being true... then bonus feats are to this packet when the 11-20th level Martial Damage bonus was to the previous packet-- just a placeholder to keep design balance in place until a better system gets installed. I have no problem with that.

Things like Charge, Bull Rush, Disarm, Pick Pockets, Open Locks, Disarm Traps etc. are all in a weird place. Some people believe that any class should be able to attempt these things, whereas others think they should remain the province of those classes specialized in accomplishing them. At it looks like with this packet they were trying to avoid doing what they had in 3E. In 3E they had these abilities open for everyone, but they were so damn difficult to actually accomplish without taking a feat to specialize in it that they might as well have not been available to anyone. If you wanted to trip someone in 3E... you pretty much had to have the advanced feat to make it at all worthwhile.

Thus this packet just cut out the middleman-- they just said if you want to do these "difficult" maneuvers... you need to be trained in it via a feat. Otherwise don't bother cause it ain't gonna work. And I can certainly understand that. You want the Fighter and Rogue to be special by giving them stuff that no one else can do... but then half the people complain that their "immersion" requires anything non-magical to be available to anyone to try. At some point though... you have to say enough is enough. Sure anyone could try to do maneuver X-- but if its so damn difficult that no one ever will try to do X (without the feat)... then why bother even putting the option out there? It's a lame attempt to placate everyone for no tangible results.

 

[Bow_Seat]

contests are just an extension of the skill system to begin with. if you are performing a skill against someone can perform the same or opposed applicable skill then instead of having the DM set a DC you just use the opposing skill roll total as the DC.

So if I'm in a STR contest against a giant we both roll d20 and add our str modifiers. The variability is a bit of a problem but that's inherent to the d20, not to the contest.

 

[Li Shenron]

In a basic game, bonus feats will become "class features".

(Just thought I'd mention this a third time so that everybody finally understands it. A "class feature" is nothing more than a feat that you get no choice on. So any "Basic" options for the "Basic" game just remove most options a player chooses. Remember this always going forward-- anything that seems "complex" because you have to make a choice... becomes "simple" when the game makes the choice for you.)

Even then, how can Basic remain simple with 3-4 additional abilities, even if you cannot choose them?

Not choosing them makes creating (and levelling up) your PC is simpler, but playing it is just as complicated.

It would have worked in 3e because there were lots of passive feats, but 5e doesn't have many passive feats because of bounded accuracy ("passive" typically means a static bonus to something), thus even if fixed these bonus feats will equate to more options during the game, which means same complexity as before.

But my more general point is, why are these bonus feats really needed?

If they put them to balance the classes, I think this level of fine balance is premature, in a game which still swinging widely in how some core mechanics work.

So I tend to think that they put them there simply as placeholders because there used to be maneuvers at those levels. But this clearly is causing a lot of confusion to us...

 

[Bow_Seat]

If what Mearls' tweeted ends up being true... then bonus feats are to this packet when the 11-20th level Martial Damage bonus was to the previous packet-- just a placeholder to keep design balance in place until a better system gets installed. I have no problem with that.

Things like Charge, Bull Rush, Disarm, Pick Pockets, Open Locks, Disarm Traps etc. are all in a weird place. Some people believe that any class should be able to attempt these things, whereas others think they should remain the province of those classes specialized in accomplishing them. At it looks like with this packet they were trying to avoid doing what they had in 3E. In 3E they had these abilities open for everyone, but they were so damn difficult to actually accomplish without taking a feat to specialize in it that they might as well have not been available to anyone. If you wanted to trip someone in 3E... you pretty much had to have the advanced feat to make it at all worthwhile.

Thus this packet just cut out the middleman-- they just said if you want to do these "difficult" maneuvers... you need to be trained in it via a feat. Otherwise don't bother cause it ain't gonna work. And I can certainly understand that. You want the Fighter and Rogue to be special by giving them stuff that no one else can do... but then half the people complain that their "immersion" requires anything non-magical to be available to anyone to try. At some point though... you have to say enough is enough. Sure anyone could try to do maneuver X-- but if its so damn difficult that no one ever will try to do X (without the feat)... then why bother even putting the option out there? It's a lame attempt to placate everyone for no tangible results.

I really agree with this interpretation of events, and I don't know what to do about it. I understand that some people think that all mundane tasks should be attemptable by untrained people, but at some point the task is just too complex to actually do untrained. For example, I have no idea how to pick a lock. I understand how locks work, but given an infinite number of hours I doubt I could ever pick one. On the flip side you have something like bull rush, which really should just be a strength contest to move somebody.

 

[DEFCON 1]

But in the current implementation, the only thing ED recharge and Arcane Recovery add to the game, is the frustration of players when they forget about it. One more layer of useless complexity IMHO.

If players forget to use them... then that's their own fault. They have a character sheet for a reason. They have options to do each turn, and if they do or do not want to do them, that's their choice and their responsibility to remember them. And no... it's not "useless" complexity... it's complexity for those who want to have complexity. If you don't want to remember to recharge your spent ED... then you don't have to do it. You get your two per day and that's it. But those who want the possibility to get more can do so. So perhaps they make the strategic decision during combat that since they were only intending to take a move to get to a new enemy anyway, they can spend their action to replenish an ED too.

All it is, is a new Action to add to the Actions In Combat table. Replenish. Regain an ED. What's so complex about that? It's an option. An option that no one is required to take.

 

[gyor]

Blackguards are awesome. At level 20 you can swift cast inflict wounds in a 5th level slot to deal 8d8 damage, make a melee attack using both deadly strike and divine smith for crazy more damage. Plus they can cast dominate person and they get a nightmare mount. Just brutal.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Even then, how can Basic remain simple with 3-4 additional abilities, even if you cannot choose them?

Hey look... that Rogue gets to "Open Locks" at 1st level. Later on they get to "Find And Remove Traps".

Oh yeah... 5E's made those Rogues so much more complex than the 1st edition Thief.

 

[Salamandyr]

contests are just an extension of the skill system to begin with. if you are performing a skill against someone can perform the same or opposed applicable skill then instead of having the DM set a DC you just use the opposing skill roll total as the DC.

So if I'm in a STR contest against a giant we both roll d20 and add our str modifiers. The variability is a bit of a problem but that's inherent to the d20, not to the contest.

The problem is that they make the result more swingy than it should be. I, as a Strength 10 person, should not have a decent, non-negligible chance of outdoing someone with Strength 20. They reduce a players ability to predict success with his skills even further than the skill die and his own d20 roll. It's basically like telling the PC that he has Disadvantage against every roll made against an NPC.

Task resolution is binary, unlike combat, which is attritional, and thus a lower chance of success on any individual roll is less important[edit: this statement wasn't clear. I meant it's okay for any individual roll in combat to have less chance of success, because any individual roll is less important. in skill resolution, being binary, the odds hanging on an individual roll are much more important than on any single roll in combat] The more random dice involved in any check, the more the odds tilt away from the player, and the less able the player is to be able to predictably rely on his skills.

NPC's don't need a roll. Give players a static DC to overcome.

I've got some more to say on the subject, but I think it deserves its own thread, which I hope to compose and put up tonight.

 

[Bow_Seat]

I suppose you could just set DC = 10 + NPCabilitymod

I get the math and I don't disagree with you. Maybe for contests you should add your ability score instead of its modifier. Probably the best thing to do is substitute a d6 for the d20 when doing a contest

 

[Salamandyr]

Bow_Seat, all good suggestions.

That's definitely the way I'll run it when I run next, regardless of what the rules eventually say.

I'll probably translate the skill die into a static bonus as well, unless the players really like rolling the skill die.