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

[Salamandyr]

I think this is a slip. They've made a big deal of differential armour proficiencies among worshippers of different god-types, and this would undermine all of that ("Oh, you wanted to be able to cast your healing spell...").

Even if it didn't, why would a cleric be wearing armor he wasn't proficient in?

 

[Klaus]

Why ony the Wizard needs this? And if that's true, once again why not just increase the daily slots?

The other core spellcasters (clerics, and now druids) have abilities beyond spellcasting (Channel Divinity, weapon capabilities, wild shape). The Wizard has only spells. So yeah, they need some measure of resource-recovering to push through the adventuring day.

Why not have more slots? It's as you said, to keep them from burning through all their spells in a single encounter (aka "going nova").

Why only levels 1-3? IMHO, that reduces the dramatic change in power that a wizard (moreso than other classes) experience in the early stages of the class. A single spell counts as half of a 1st-level wizard's repertoire, but merely a fraction of, say, a 10th-level wizard's. And several wizard spells retain their usefulness at higher levels, specially with the flatter math. It's not about making the wizard more powerful, but rather about keeping him at least competent as the day goes on.

Why not recharging for everyone? For the melee classes, the only resource that needs recharging are hit points. I'd also like to see Second Wind in the packet (and will house rule it into my playtest). For the cleric, Channel Divinity reduces the need for recharging (although I'd like to see it start at 2/day).

 

[D'karr]

I'm just seeing more and more details that are completely useless to me, all of them intricately tied to each others and making customization more difficult. Feats are another good example.

This is a relevant observation and it would be good for WotC to label the rules based on where they see them in the basic, standard, advanced, extreme, epic continuum.

This way play testers would understand where in the complexity hierarchy the rules they are seeing are sitting.

This might minimize the "flailing of arms, gnashing of teeth, and disaster of Biblical proportions" reactions

 

[Consonant Dude]

The OGL is 3.5.

It isn't. It's a license allowing one to pick elements, build upon or deconstruct any roleplaying system released under it.

The license has been used to release Basic DnD and ADnD clones and as well as 3.x, plus several variants on those. Not to mention several games that have nothing to do with DnD. The OGL thus allows one to mix and match elements of various editions they like and design new stuff on top of it. Kind of like what the Next edition designers have alluded to as a design goal. More and more games are being released doing exactly that, which makes me very happy since I'll have more options.

It's fair to say that your observation does not match mine. That's fine; we can move on. I'd just ask that you be a tad bit less hyperbolic.

Maybe they sound so hyperbolic to you precisely because they don't match yours? I'm sincerely glad some people have found Next to their liking. I don't. I'd rather it be known while things can change rather than when it is finally released.

 

[VinylTap]

And you are by uttering condescending gems like this? They're my thoughts on the playtest. If you don't like them, feel free to disagree.

You misinterpreted my tone. I wasn't trying to be condescending, merely concise and to the point. And yes, I think that trying to discourage clearly biased and ultimately aimless nerd-raging is more beneficial than reading page after page of people lamenting how unhappy they are with how WOTC is mishandling their completely unfinished alpha. No, I don't think there's anything wrong with attempting to steer the thread in a more productive direction. If your post had contained even the faintest glimmer of critical thinking or detail-based analysis I probably wouldn't have commented on it. If its such a doomed product, I don't see why you don't just move on to something else; its really quite easy to filter out 'DND Next' related posts on this web forum.

And just to be clear, I'm not being critical of you as a person, merely your post. I'm sure you're quite pleasant, in person.

 

[darjr]

If players forget to use them... then that's their own fault. They have a character sheet for a reason.

What i don't want to return is the 'txting posture' of many 4e games. Where when it's the players turn they immediately start scanning their character sheet. The designers have said they wan't to steer clear of that.

 

[Salamandyr]

Maybe they sound so hyperbolic to you precisely because they don't match yours? I'm sincerely glad some people have found Next to their liking. I don't. I'd rather it be known while things can change rather than when it is finally released.

Opinion differing from mine doesn't bother me. What bothers me is your imputation of incompetence on the designers for choosing to do things differently from the way you would prefer they be done.

I speak specifically, of this sentence.

The way skills now work, tied to abilities, epitomizes what's wrong with this packet. Needless complexity everywhere, designed by people who don't understand what the game is about and how you can gain flexibility through simplicity.

It is insulting, and needlessly tendentious. And it's unintentionally hilarious because what you want is actually more complex than what they offer.

You could have simply stated you would really like skills to be divorced more from specific attributes. Myself, I like that the skill system is more transparently tied to task resolution. They're both a way to go, and there are good arguments to be made for both sides. Plus, I don't think they've settled on one way or the other and are casting about for the best way to go, so feedback is great on what people prefer.

However, your sentence above implies that an aesthetic choice between on way to design and another is incompetence and a failure to understand the very nature of the game!

 

[Gorgoroth]

I concur, people should post constructive criticism (edit : myself included), this is supposed to help the devs (and clearly they read these forums and make changes based on things we write). But if all you do is write how it is teh suxx0r, that doesn't help the devs, and just annoys those of us who want to play something good next time around. I'm seeing a lot of learning from all editions and it's a very delicate balancing act they are doing. There are some good innovations from 4e in there, without explicitly using the flaws in that system, and it's better for it.

I love stuff like built-in metamagic that's borrowed from Unearthed Arcana by Monte Cook (or was it Arcana Unearthed? I always mix those up). Granted, I hadn't read the spells too closely in the first couple packs.

I just wish they stick to fixing the core weapons then add more in a splat book. Don't add rare stuff like Ugrosh in there! It's a chair/barstool/hacksaw for x-sake! Of all the innovations from 4e in weapons (like divorcing magic item properties and allowing them per weapon group...yes, I'm looking at you, Vorpal swords and Dwarven throwers!) I don't want to be shoehorned into a certain weapon because certain rare artifacts have a desirable property but limited to one exact type of sword or axe or whatever. That's lame. Way too many magic longswords in there, and I love longswords (actually prefer bastard swords IRL). What if I want to use a frosty/fiery scimitar combo?

 

[Li Shenron]

I think this is a slip. They've made a big deal of differential armour proficiencies among worshippers of different god-types, and this would undermine all of that ("Oh, you wanted to be able to cast your healing spell...").

Well... it just means that a Cleric is going to wear only armor she's proficient with, just like the Wizard does. The current penalties for doing so are bad enough that IMHO it wouldn't be worth wearing any other armor even if you could still cast spells anyway.

 

[Consonant Dude]

Opinion differing from mine doesn't bother me. What bothers me is your imputation of incompetence on the designers for choosing to do things differently from the way you would prefer they be done.

It would help if it looked like they knew what they were doing. Changing so many things around seemingly randomly doesn't exactly fill me with confidence. But fair enough.

And it's unintentionally hilarious because what you want is actually more complex than what they offer.

Divorcing skills from abilities is more complex?

Wanna do stuff? Pick appropriate ability and appropriate skill with DM's help. Roll a d20.