Talath
Explorer
That's because I totally messed up. It's in the Character Creation document, last page. Sorry about that.
D&D 5E New D&D Next Playtest package is up (19/9/2013) [merged threads]
That's because I totally messed up. It's in the Character Creation document, last page. Sorry about that.
A few thoughts on classes:
1) Barbarian: Barb got a major nerf, as the temp hitpoints are not even close to half damage from all attacks. But maybe it needed it.
2) Fighter: I like the fighting styles, overall its looking solid.
3) Monk: Got more offense, but frankly I think it needed more defense than offense.
4) Paladin is looking pretty good overall.
Proficiencies I don't like as is. One, its odd that you add the bonus to everything except armor. Also with weapons you not only get the prof bonus, but you have disadvantage if you don't have prof which seems excessive. Also the bonus to saves is leading to the same issues in 3e with save imbalance (literally a 20th level character has the exact same save discrepancy as in 3rd edition).
1) Barbarian: Barb got a major nerf, as the temp hitpoints are not even close to half damage from all attacks. But maybe it needed it.
2) Fighter: I like the fighting styles, overall its looking solid.
3) Monk: Got more offense, but frankly I think it needed more defense than offense.
4) Paladin is looking pretty good overall.
Proficiencies I don't like as is. One, its odd that you add the bonus to everything except armor. Also with weapons you not only get the prof bonus, but you have disadvantage if you don't have prof which seems excessive. Also the bonus to saves is leading to the same issues in 3e with save imbalance (literally a 20th level character has the exact same save discrepancy as in 3rd edition).
variant
Adventurer
The +6 proficiency bonus is just too high.
Last edited:
Plaguescarred
D&D Playtester for WoTC since 2012
In the email notifying us about the last playtest packet received today, there is a new D&D Next adventure announced In Dungeon magazine 430;
D&D Next Playtest Compatible Offerings
These adventures use D&D Next or have D&D Next conversions available for download.
D&D Next Playtest Compatible Offerings
These adventures use D&D Next or have D&D Next conversions available for download.
- Battle of Emridy Meadows (Dungeon magazine December 2013)
Chris_Nightwing
First Post
If this is the final evolution of the system then.. I'm unimpressed. In a word, it's clunky.
Take for instance the use of proficiencies. You can be proficient in a saving throw, thus creating such a large gap between the haves and have-nots that spellcasters will once again be laughing all the way to the treasure vault. This sort of difference might be tolerable in skills, since they are of lesser impact, but just to ruin them too we have expertise, creating such a large gap between the haves and have-nots that party-wide challenges will be dull for some yet impossible for others.
Then there's some of the class features - Fighters, Paladins and Rangers all get to choose a Fighting Style. Why is that? Why can't the fact that they are trained with weapons be represented with some unified mechanic? It's surprising, but this makes me genuinely miss the old 2E weapon proficiency slot for a fighting style rules.
Spellcasting is still hilariously good. Why didn't they extend proficiency to schools or domains of magic? Then we could at least have the spirit of 2E Cleric domains and opposing schools for specialists. You can still create the world's stupidest Mage or dippiest Cleric too and they are pretty damned good, so long as they don't cast direct spells with saving throws, but frankly why do you need to do that with the breadth and power of buffs available?
I see one nice thing in Multiclassing, which is the pre-requisite, because it fixes the above problem slightly and you know what, if you want to train as a Mage you should be intelligent, though I would give Fighters some option as to which ability is 15+. The rest though is terrible. Extra attacks can't be derived from base attack bonus any more because that's been united into the proficiency bonus (which works well for multiclassing I'll admit), but can we not have an easier rule, something like the spellcasting rule where you add class levels up and sometimes half levels and you get extra attacks at a fixed point?
If this was presented as the next edition in fully published form, I would avoid it like the plague. It's 3E-cum-Pathfinder with no efforts to redeem those systems in a way that doesn't shift to a 4E playstyle. Obligatory SWSE did better comment.
Take for instance the use of proficiencies. You can be proficient in a saving throw, thus creating such a large gap between the haves and have-nots that spellcasters will once again be laughing all the way to the treasure vault. This sort of difference might be tolerable in skills, since they are of lesser impact, but just to ruin them too we have expertise, creating such a large gap between the haves and have-nots that party-wide challenges will be dull for some yet impossible for others.
Then there's some of the class features - Fighters, Paladins and Rangers all get to choose a Fighting Style. Why is that? Why can't the fact that they are trained with weapons be represented with some unified mechanic? It's surprising, but this makes me genuinely miss the old 2E weapon proficiency slot for a fighting style rules.
Spellcasting is still hilariously good. Why didn't they extend proficiency to schools or domains of magic? Then we could at least have the spirit of 2E Cleric domains and opposing schools for specialists. You can still create the world's stupidest Mage or dippiest Cleric too and they are pretty damned good, so long as they don't cast direct spells with saving throws, but frankly why do you need to do that with the breadth and power of buffs available?
I see one nice thing in Multiclassing, which is the pre-requisite, because it fixes the above problem slightly and you know what, if you want to train as a Mage you should be intelligent, though I would give Fighters some option as to which ability is 15+. The rest though is terrible. Extra attacks can't be derived from base attack bonus any more because that's been united into the proficiency bonus (which works well for multiclassing I'll admit), but can we not have an easier rule, something like the spellcasting rule where you add class levels up and sometimes half levels and you get extra attacks at a fixed point?
If this was presented as the next edition in fully published form, I would avoid it like the plague. It's 3E-cum-Pathfinder with no efforts to redeem those systems in a way that doesn't shift to a 4E playstyle. Obligatory SWSE did better comment.
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
So, am I reading this correctly? Do all classes now have the exact same bonus to hit as long as they are proficient in whatever weapon they are using?
variant
Adventurer
If they have the same Strength or Dexterity, yes.
Last edited:
I don't like that there are spells called Smite and a Smite class feature for Paladin. I think that leads to confusion.
There was much complaint last time that non caster have too little choice. Apparently they chose to do something about it.
There is such a rule. First extra attack at Fighter 5 or 8 levels in Fighter, Ranger, Paladin. Second extra attack at Figher 11.
There was much complaint last time that non caster have too little choice. Apparently they chose to do something about it.
There is such a rule. First extra attack at Fighter 5 or 8 levels in Fighter, Ranger, Paladin. Second extra attack at Figher 11.
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
Just wanted to make sure. Not sure how I feel about that exactly. I was kind of glad that not everyone had the exact same bonus to hit with weapons as they did with spells and not everyone was as good with weapons as Fighters.
I understand keeping things balanced. However, this might be a step back into all the classes feeling the same a large amount of the time. After all, if everyone maxes their primary stat, that means all classes that would even bother making attack rolls with weapons have the exact same bonus. Which means that playing a Cleric with a 20 Strength is likely better than playing a Fighter with 20 Strength. You lose out on so little and gain a bunch of spellcasting.
