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

[Salamandyr]

About halfway through the packet, and so far I'm liking pretty much everything I've seen.

 

[Jester David]

I like the overlapping of maneuvers and feats.

I hated, hated, hated it at first. But then I realized, with MDD / expertise removed there really was no difference between feats and maneuvers. Especially with Martial Training allowing you to pick up a maneuver for a feat.

It's really just a naming change. They could have kept the name and pull them into a separate document but that's strictly a name change. I wonder how much less upset people would be if they had just called them "maneuver feats"?

Oh well. A rose by any other name...

 

[Iosue]

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.

I still need some time to get closer acquainted with the new packet, but on the whole this was my reaction as well. Even if they still need some work, I see the Exploration rules as being one of the first examples of concrete modularity addressing play agendas. I can lay those rules over the core to get a B/X style dungeoncrawl/hex-mapping game, without compromising the game's (at this point potential) ability to create the more scene-framing oriented structure we were discussing earlier.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I like the overlapping of maneuvers and feats.

I hated, hated, hated it at first. But then I realized, with MDD / expertise removed there really was no difference between feats and maneuvers. Especially with Martial Training allowing you to pick up a maneuver for a feat.

It's really just a naming change. They could have kept the name and pull them into a separate document but that's strictly a name change. I wonder how much less upset people would be if they had just called them "maneuver feats"?

Oh well. A rose by any other name...

No. For me it isn't about the name. I dislike the idea of making them feats at all. It sucked in 3.x, and it sucks now, IMO.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I still need some time to get closer acquainted with the new packet, but on the whole this was my reaction as well. Even if they still need some work, I see the Exploration rules as being one of the first examples of concrete modularity addressing play agendas. I can lay those rules over the core to get a B/X style dungeoncrawl/hex-mapping game, without compromising the game's (at this point potential) ability to create the more scene-framing oriented structure we were discussing earlier.

Yes, this part (which I just read) I actually liked. Easy enough to import into any game, really.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I like the overlapping of maneuvers and feats.

I hated, hated, hated it at first. But then I realized, with MDD / expertise removed there really was no difference between feats and maneuvers. Especially with Martial Training allowing you to pick up a maneuver for a feat.

It's really just a naming change. They could have kept the name and pull them into a separate document but that's strictly a name change. I wonder how much less upset people would be if they had just called them "maneuver feats"?

Oh well. A rose by any other name...

For me it's a matter of not wanting feats to be accessible outside of specialties. I don't even like that they're listed alphabetically as opposed to under the specialties. It changes their design space.

I also really dislike that common combat options like bull rush and sunder now require a feat. I would much rather see them separated into an advanced combat options module.

 

[Jester David]

No. For me it isn't about the name. I dislike the idea of making them feats at all. It sucked in 3.x, and it sucks now, IMO.

Putting them in a separate document won't suddenly make them different.

And just because a mechanic was less than impressive in a past edition does not make it an inherently bad idea. I'm sure you could make weapon speed or THAC0 work if you tried.

They likely didn't do this spontaneously. Once they removed the MDD from maneuvers, it likely became very obvious that there wasn't that much difference between the two.
Why have two mechanics when you can have one?

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I like the new presentation of skills, though it has an unfortunate side effect of once again directly associating a skill with an ability score. Still, I think this way does a good job of reinforcing the idea of the ability score as central to the game.

I'm still not entirely sold on the skill die as opposed to a skill bonus.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I see the Exploration rules as being one of the first examples of concrete modularity addressing play agendas. I can lay those rules over the core to get a B/X style dungeoncrawl/hex-mapping game

Yeah, about that... have you read those rules yet? Because I have, and hoo boy. It's exactly like the rest of the packet: stunningly, jaw-droppingly overcomplicated, and massively disappointing as a result. It's like old-school D&D exploration rules as imagined by someone who never played old-school D&D (or, more likely, as interpreted by someone who worked on 3e and 4e and thought "This is boring. You know what it needs? More complex rules!").

Let's take a look:

First, you decide how fast you're moving: rushed, fast, moderate, cautious. Fine.

Then everyone chooses which task they're doing on this turn: keeping watch, navigating, mapping, searching, sneaking. Oh, actually, wait. First, they have to roll dice to see how many tasks they can do. If they succeed, they can do two tasks, and get to roll again to see if they can do three tasks. (Die rolls: 1-2 per player)

Then, based on everyone's task(s), the round plays out. Nearly every task requires a die roll, and some of them are contested against creatures who they don't know are there. Okay, first of all, how am I supposed to roll if they don't know a monster's there? Secondly, if there's 20 orcs in the next room, am I supposed to roll 20 listen checks at once? Did the author even consider how people were supposed to be able to use these rules? (by the way, now we're at 2-5 die rolls per player per turn).

Then the DM checks for wandering monsters. Yes, you're supposed to check for wandering monsters after the part where the PCs make a million spot checks. How does that even what is that even.

Also note: you check for wandering monsters every turn, no matter what kind of turn you're using. If you're using 1-hour turns, you check every hour, but if you're using 1-day turns, you only check once per day. I can't even explain why that's stupid. It's obvious why that's stupid, right?

So anyway, if you roll an encounter, you figure out who notices who, and who has surprise. I'm not even going to try to figure out what the rules are trying to say--just see for yourselves.

Then it explains getting lost, and even though it assumes you're using a hex map, it gives directions in increments of 45 degrees. Perfect.

(Not to mention it uses the objectively inferior 5-mile hex and the debatably inferior half-mile subhex.)

 

[Libramarian]

Even if they still need some work, I see the Exploration rules as being one of the first examples of concrete modularity addressing play agendas. I can lay those rules over the core to get a B/X style dungeoncrawl/hex-mapping game, without compromising the game's (at this point potential) ability to create the more scene-framing oriented structure we were discussing earlier.

I think the exploration rules are a good first try, but I want to know how they expect DMs to actually measure out 200-1800ft of movement per turn.

Also, I dunno about anyone else, but I would find it much easier to remember 1/10, 2/10, 3/10...as chances for wandering monsters vs. 19-20/20, 17-20/20, 15-20/20...In general, I am suspicious of the supposed cognitive/mnemonic benefits of unified roll-high D20.

And now they need rules for creating dungeon and wilderness maps--these rules go hand-in-hand with the exploration rules.