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

[Falling Icicle]

I'm trying to be as optimistic as I can be, but I just keep finding things in this packet that really bug me.

* You have to have a feat to pick pockets, open locks, or track. Likewise, disarm and push, which used to be actions anyone could attempt, now require feats.

* The new two-weapon fighting rules force you to use two light weapons. Even taking a feat only lets you use one non-light weapon. So, my character can never, ever use two longswords. This is just ludicrous. Can we have the attack roll penalties from 3.x back instead, please? I'd far rather have a penalty than just be told NO.

* While they did change a few spells, most of those with the most glaring errors and need for clarification remain unchanged. For example, Meteor Swarm still doesn't say that you can't stack the damage from the four meteors, so technically, it can do 48d6 damage as written. Come on guys, you've known about these issues for months.

And spellcasters still don't add their magic ability modifier to spell damage, which is particularly important for cantrips. Why use Shillelagh when you could just hit them with the staff as a normal attack and do even more damage (at least at level 1)? And I was so excited to see fire seeds as a druid cantrip, only to look it up and see it that it does 2, that's right, TWO damage! I can't imagine a weaker or more pointless spell.

* I was so happy to hear that MDD were being removed, but they've just been replaced by something just as bad, +[W] damage. And they say damage is going down this packet? Maybe the loss of the martial damage bonus may seem that way, but when a character with a 2h weapon is adding +4d12 damage to his attacks, it's still insane.

* Cantrips still end up out-damaging 1st and 2nd level spells. So while spells like charm person remain just as powerful at 20th level as at 1st, still using a 1st level spell slot, things like magic missile and burning hands suck unless you cast them as higher level spells.

* Stout halflings are resistant to poison. Where did that idea come from?

* Wizards still can't cast rituals out of their spellbook, unless they're academic wizards. It's like all of the feedback I gave was just ignored.

 

[gyor]

Levels 11 to 20 are still a complete wasteland. Deadly strike is NOT a replacement for actual class features.

Why do Cleric domain spell lists stop at level 5 instead of 9?

Barbarians still have no builds.

Wizard's Illusionist tradition still gets an ability suited more to divination.

They misled us on the Paladin, they made it sound like Blackguard/Cavalier/Warden are something seperate from Oaths instead of being the Oaths.

While the Oath's own alignment restrictions are less restrictive then I expected, requiring the Class its self to be lawful is unexceptable. On the brightside no restriction that a Paladin has to share thier dieties alignment means that a God, say Sharess could have Cavaliers, Blackguards, and Wardens devoted to her.

I find it funny that a lawful neutral blackguard's smite deals radiant and not necrotic damage.

Mounts are cooler then expected. Summer Stag has the best defence, Celestial Charger best Defence, and Bound Nightmare is best against creatures vulnerable to fire. Over all Summer Stag is probably the best. The Paladin's Aura can help project his mount, making it tougher.

The ideal form so far for Druids is Dire Cat or Dire Bird if flight is required. Best combat form for Oak Druids is Steed oddly.

Some cool seeds, but still needs work.

 

[Nagol]

* Stout halflings are resistant to poison. Where did that idea come from?

1e "As halflings also have a similar resistance to poisons of all sorts, they gain a constitution bonus identical to that for saving throws versus magical attacks when they make saving throws versus poison, i.e. +1 to +5 depending on constitution score."

 

[Sunseeker]

* I was so happy to hear that MDD were being removed, but they've just been replaced by something just as bad, +[W] damage. And they say damage is going down this packet? Maybe the loss of the martial damage bonus may seem that way, but when a character with a 2h weapon is adding +4d12 damage to his attacks, it's still insane.

Isn't that only at like, 20th level?

 

[Manbearcat]

Well I guess I'm an extreme minority, and admittedly I haven't digested everything, but I'm pleased with the direction of almost everything in this new packet. We appear to be getting a look at a few module proposals that we haven't seen yet.

I like the direction of skills, the new classes, the new Fighter, the new Rogue setup (by the by, I'm pretty sure the way the various "striker" features, Backstab & Isolated Strike, are setup, you're tactically removing disadvantage from your sneak attack based on your scheme's approach), the fact that you can make a mundane Ranger with a Rogue/Scout scheme or a more mystical Ranger with the Ranger class, many of the new feat approaches, the direction of races (not pleased yet, but the direction is good).

Haven't checked out magic items, new spells and spell changes, or if any of the various rule issues that I have are clarified but overall, I'm relatively pleased by this packet. I'd like to see certain things expanded and its still missing a considerable number of things that I would need to actually play the game as anything more than a one-off, but not bad.

 

[Animal]

The most disappointing packet so far. If that's the direction the team is moving in, they must change it very soon.

Things that need to go immediately:
Deadly strike is useless. How is rolling an extra dice for damage an option? Or how it is fun? Looks more like patch to fix some issues with damage vs. monster hp situation.
Shifting a lot of important mechanic elements to feats, making them mandatory again. Bonus feats as a class feature... Eurgh!
Overcomplicating the character building process. For me D&DN's selling point was simplicity and module system. First iterations of playtest were really simple. What we see now is more complicated than some previous editions (fighters anyone?) AND reintroduction of bad mechanics (like relying on feats) give me doubts regarding meaningfulness of module system!

New Classes.
Druid: Thoroughly underwhelming! Being so limited in the fluff department is really lame. I can only shift into a canine at level 1? What if I play a feline flavored druid?
Circles I didn't liked either. Artificial division inside a class that could and should be avoided.
Class features are nothing exciting too.

Paladin: I actually liked the paladin! The new take on paladin's iconic abilities looks fun, simple and elegant. Only thing, I would give them mounts way sooner.

Ranger: A bit underwhelming. But at least they're on the right track here. Abilities look good and FE is a huge improvement from 3e. Needs more fun stuff though.

But the champion in disappointment department is Fighter!
Getting bonus feats like in 3e again? Isn't that what D&DN was against initially?
And all those mind-boggling class features are in fact limited to "roll a die and add the result to another roll". Really? They managed to turn the class that was supposed to be the most newbie friendly into one of the most complicated ones AND still with no really exciting class abilities!

 

[gyor]

I agree that the Paladin's mount should come sooner. Fix that, dump alignment restrictions, and replace deadly strike with real class features and the Paladin would rock.

 

[Libramarian]

On the Paladin's alignment restriction--would it be cool if that were essentially tautologous? Like if we redefined Lawful to mean "being like a Paladin"? I would be happy if that were what Lawful meant.

There are two sides of the traditional meaning of Law in D&D--Lawful in the sense of holding some sort of philosophical commitment to order, and the legal/social sense of blindly and unquestioningly respecting the law of the land. I think the latter sense of Lawful is what causes problems in-game and leads to the Lawful Good = Lawful Stupid phenomenon, and is just not very interesting besides. I would be happy if we downplayed that sense of Lawful and defined Lawful to mean basically what the Paladin's class description says.

So the Paladin would be the primary definition of Lawful in the game. Paladins are Lawful characters who are also blessed by the Gods. Other Lawful characters are similar to Paladins in terms of having some sort of commitment to order of some kind (an "oath", perhaps not as explicit as the Paladin oaths but the same idea), but don't get the powers because they're not blessed by the Gods.

 

[hbarsquared]

I'm okay, but not thrilled, with Lawful paladins and the alignment restrictions of the sub-classes. Easily hand-waveable.

Why can't Deadly Strike and Multiattack be the same feature?

 

[Greg K]

I am severely unimpressed with the Ranger and the Paladin.

I am still severely unimpressed with the classes we have received before this packet and I still have no desire to play or run any of the playtest packets.