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

[Nemesis Destiny]

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.

No, I think it actually *is* a bad idea, regardless of what edition it first appeared in, I still don't like it.

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?

That's fine, assuming I liked what was presented in the first place. I don't, so ...

 

[Jester David]

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.

Well, if as a DM you limit feats to specialities then maneuvers are distinct and "feats" cannot be taken outside of specialities.

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.

They might still be there. Maybe requiring an attack roll first or penalty. So you can try anything but with a feat it's more reliable.

 

[Jester David]

No, I think it actually *is* a bad idea, regardless of what edition it first appeared in, I still don't like it.

The game is filled with concepts that failed the first time they were attempted but were then fixed and now work fine.
If at first you don't succeed...

 

[Bow_Seat]

If at first you don't succeed...

give up and whine on the internet

 

[Zardnaar]

Not to worried about things like Paladin alignments etc but the overwhelming blandness is meh. There is not a lot to recommend this over AD&D/3rd/PF/4th.

 

[Bow_Seat]

so when it comes to class features you have three levels of exclusivity:

1) unique class features that only a class can get and no one else can attempt to perform no matter what. Things like wilde shape fall into this category. No matter what the fighter does he cannot wild shape.

2) features that multiple classes can do so long as they choose to specialize in it. In the last packet these were maneuvers that could be picked up by the martial classes. Now it's all been put in one big pool called feats--though these feats have been subdivided into several categories. Some classes get to pick more things out of this pool than others. For example, the fighter has bonus feats that can be chosen from the martial category, which represent their advanced training.

3) Features that everyone gets to do no matter what. Running, jumping, climbing, etc. These are usually the actions that are described in the how to play section. Naturally, some characters will be better than others at different actions, but the actions are available to everyone nonetheless.

When we make classes feel distinct, by putting most of our ideas into category (1) features, there is a lot of complaining about "why can't I do X? why do I have to have Y class in order to X!"

When we make classes choose from a pool of abilities--category (2)--such that everyone can't do everything put we can still pick and choose what we can/can't do we get "why is this unnecessarily complex? bonus feats aren't a class features."

When we make actions into category (3) where everyone can perform the actions we get responses akin to "why do I have so many dead levels? what makes this class distinct and meaningful?"

I don't know what the right combination of the three is, and I think that WotC is trying their best to figure out what kind of combination we would like to see.

 

[the Jester]

Has anyone looked closely enough at the monster packet to see if anything other than xp values have changed?

 

[GX.Sigma]

Has anyone looked closely enough at the monster packet to see if anything other than xp values have changed?

I checked the problematic monsters from last packet (orc, hobgoblin, rakshasa, air elemental, wraith) and they haven't been fixed. Signs point to no.

Edit: Actually, wait. The dragons lost their optional traits, and the amphisbaena snake is nowhere to be found. I'm assuming those are errors?

 

[Animal]

Well, if as a DM you limit feats to specialities then maneuvers are distinct and "feats" cannot be taken outside of specialities.


They might still be there. Maybe requiring an attack roll first or penalty. So you can try anything but with a feat it's more reliable.

The important issue here is that hardcoding feats into the character creation (important mechanics available only through feats, bonus feats as class features) defeats the promised modularity and overcomplicates the core that should be kept as simple as possible.

 

[heptat]

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

The lone island of positivity in a sea of miserable whinging

I too am looking forward to playing this packet. Did you get through the rest? Did you find anything you didn't like?