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

[am181d]

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

Or indeed 15 + NPC Ability Mod if you want to avoid a person of very low strength (-2 say) pushing around a giant on a lucky roll.

Really this is a problem with the d20. I've long thought the game could benefit from a shift to 3d6. (Which would allow Advantage to become the iconic 4d6, discard the lowest.)

 

[Salamandyr]

IMO, 3d6 has its own problems, because thanks to the bell curve, modifiers (attribute bonuses and such) become very strange, being of little value on very hard or very easy skills, but greatly changing the odds of median range DC's. 3d6 works better the way games like Hero System & GURPS do it, where instead of a "roll+add" your skill rank is the DC you roll above or below and you rarely have adds.

I think a better way is just to scrap doing task resolution like combat resolution and use a different die for your variable, like a d6 or a d10, so that your bonus is the largest part of your roll.

 

[Cybit]

I actually really liked the packet.

The exploration rules are a good start; remember, this is for folks who have NEVER EVER RAN D&D BEFORE. Look at it from the PoV of someone who has never played a tabletop game before. Those of us who have played will probably have our own rules for exploration. I do like the five minute bit for dungeons though.

Reading mearls' tweets, now that the bonus feats will be redone, and that the exploration rules are overly complex currently and will be simplified later, my main complaints are getting taken care of. Mearls has stated that the initial release of something is usually the most complex route they go, so I expect the complexity to start being tamped down a bit.

Still hoping for that goal of kids being able to play it in an hour over lunch.

 

[mlund]

The real problem with bonus / package feats is they are being implemented like functions in code. Instead of "hard coding" the skills into the Rogue or the combat abilities into the Fighter they just put the feature into a Feat and then the Character Class just references the Feat. This works great in computer programming, but probably isn't ideal for DNDNext when it comes out.

Yes, these Feats should exist. If a non-Thief wants to pick up the ability to Sneak or Sense and Disarm Traps or whatever he should be able to specialize that way with Feat selections.

However, if I want to play a Feat-free game with a Thief that can sneak and handle traps I should be able to.

That means you're going to have overlapping or redundant "code" in your rules set when you are finished. That's OK, though. It also means you can adjust the balance of the Class Feature vs. a Feat. A Fighter could have a better Knock Down effect than Trip that just uses his Expertise mechanic.

Ideally I'd like to see a tiered system like this:

Improvised Trip/Knock Down: Kind of weak / context-dependent, anyone can do it as their action as a stunt
Trained Trip / Knock Down : Improved utility, anyone who took the feat can do it as their action
Expert Trip / Knock Down: Can be added as a rider to an attack via Combat Expertise or Skill Trick

Tier 1 is the Improvised Stunt Tier - a rabbit you try to pull out of your hat in a tight spot / moment of opportunity that's cost and context-dependence mean it won't normally be competitive with a basic attack unless you really need to try and get that target off it's feet. I'd attach Disadvantage to things like this, so you'd only use them in circumstances where the stunt context grants you Advantage to balance it out or the risk-reward is just that desperate.

Tier 2 is the Feat Tier - still has a high cost but it's easier to use and has a higher probability of success. you don't have disadvantage but you still need to figure out whether a contested check is worth more than whacking a monster with a sword or blasting it with a spell.

Tier 3 is the Class Feature Tier - the cost has been dropped drastically and your superior skills let you generate this effect as gravy on top of your normal attack.

These could all use the same check mechanic and be very distinct ways of trying to accomplish the same thing that helps distinguish between the "guy trying to pull off a lucky stunt" vs. "guy who practiced this stuff specifically" vs. "guy who is the master of martial combat."

It also allows you to modify the mechanical context a bit. Yes, it is a contested roll. When you are unskilled you have Disadvantage. When you are skilled you don't have Disadvantage and you can use your Dexterity instead of your Strength. When you are the Combat Expert you can use either Ability Score and you don't care if the target is X size-categories bigger than you and​ you can do it while still beating someone to death with a war hammer.

That's what I hope this play test packet can grow up to accomplish some day in terms of Martial techniques vis a vi Generic Stunt / Feat Power / Class Ability lines.

- Marty Lund

 

[fjw70]

Instead of having feats for thing like pick pockets and open locks just include a note that the DM may require certain ability checks to be trained only. That way each group can do it how they want.

 

[Kavon]

Hm, not sure how I stand on this packet.

Some weird things I recall noticing while going through it:
The Allosaurus has a claw attack - Which claws is it using? The ones on its feeble arms? Are these stats meant for a different dinosaur? Is it using its feet?
The katana is a two-handed sword, noted to weigh 3 lbs. The bastard sword, noted at 10 lbs., is also a two-handed sword, but can also be wielded in one hand for less damage.. The heavier two-handed sword can be wielded in one hand, but the lighter one can not?
Missing descriptions of several different things (spells being mentioned in this thread already). Unfortunately I don't recall any specific missing thing.

Something that can't be stated too many times, if you ask me: Humans still have that nonsensical +1 to every ability score, giving the message that all other races are sub-par. Please, please, please. Think of something else - anything else.
Also, dead levels. :<

I like the direction of the druid, I'd just like the wildshape to have more options (and not just "oh, you can be a coyote, a jackal, a wolf, whatever" which all comes down to the same thing). I like that you have fixed forms. It would just be nice to be able to choose one of several fixed forms per.. err form slot? Hopefully something for the future.

Like others have suggested, I'd prefer "Cavalier" to be "Paladin". Not sure how to call the overall class. Champion seems to be a popular one. Not sure I like the alignment restriction.. Or if it even matters at all, since you can just ignore it. Also, wasn't the mount supposed to be pretty insignificant in battle, so that it didn't impact the combat capability of the Paladin (much) if the mount couldn't follow?

Pretty positive on the Ranger.. I'd like to see more favored enemy abilities (you know, beyond level 8.. Though I guess this is an issue with every class at the moment).

There's probably more I could say, but this is all I can think of at the moment :B

 

[teitan]

This is the first time I could see the ability to drift Next to a more scene based paradigm. I enjoyed seeing the cinematic hit point option (recover all if < bloodied,recover to bloodied < bloodied) coupled with swift cure spells. In general I applaud the swift spell and concentration mechanic. I really like the concentration mechanic - a lot. It's a nice limiter on spell casters dramatically shaping each individual encounter. I'm also a big fan of the fact that Paladins are supernatural from day one. Not so sure about rangers - digging favored enemy though.

<eats socks>

That being said there's still a lot that I want to see.

• I'd really like to see stronger attention paid to theme in monsters.
• In general I want more interesting monsters and advice on which monsters fit together.
• I want strong encounter building advice. I want inspirational healing.
• I kind of think the paladin is occupying too much conceptual space and it shows particularly in the blackguard who receives some fairly non-thematic abilities.
• I want to see some adventures that embrace a more mythic approach.
• I want some narrative rules options - placed on the same level as the exploration rules. It's really important to me that the mode of play I enjoy not be treated as 2nd class.
• I do not like every round trip. Still it's placed in an optional rules element.
• I am not a fan of the generic gods that don't really stand for anything.
• I want to see support given to the 4e implied setting.
• I need to see an indication that they have a commitment to strong graphic design.

I know. I want a lot. WotC is competing with 13th Age, Fate Core and Exalted 3e. Sorry for the long rambly post.

So you want a completed game as opposed to the play test version? Give it a year and then complain.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I'm actually starting to rethink my position on bonus feats.

Really, the problem isn't that maneuvers are represented with feats (after all, you could have a separate "maneuvers" packet, and just have a feat that says "you get one of those maneuvers," and people would be happier, even though it would be basically the same).

The real problem is that you have to choose something from the giant list every few levels--which is what the "fighting style" system was there to prevent! Now we don't have fighting styles, and the specialties are basically useless for this purpose (they've been broken for a long time), so everyone has to pick from the giant list constantly.

 

[MoonSong]

Hm, not sure how I stand on this packet.

Some weird things I recall noticing while going through it:
The Allosaurus has a claw attack - Which claws is it using? The ones on its feeble arms? Are these stats meant for a different dinosaur? Is it using its feet?

Probably you are thinking T.Rex here, Allosauruses had large strong muscular arms.

 

[mlund]

The real point is that a martial stunt should not be defined by a Feat - the Feat should just make it more viable.

Stunt X (exists independently of Feats and Classes)

Tier 1 - Improvised Stunt: Do Stunt X as your action, but you have Disadvantage. Best to use with high reward for the high risk (like pushing the big bad off a cliff into the volcano), or context that gives Advantage (the bugbear is standing on a rug and you are pulling the rug out from under him).

Tier 2 - Trained Stunt: You took a Feat to remove Disadvantage when performing this kind of stunt. The Feat might apply to multiple types of stunts (including Stunt X) or have some sort of other riders - whatever it takes to make an intuitive, fun, and balanced feat.

Tier 3 - Expert Stunt: Your Class has a Feature related to Stunt X. You don't take Disadvantage doing it and you can do it as a Swift action or a rider to a successful attack or whatever. You might have a way of getting Advantage or a Bonus Die on the check to boot!

- Marty Lund