D&D 5E New D&D Next Playtest package is up (19/9/2013) [merged threads]

[Greg K]

I downloaded it and, promptly, went to look over backgrounds and skills, races, classes, and multiclassing. The positives, of this packet, in my opinion.

1. Clerics don't get two attacks (unfortunately, they still, automatically get divine strike, gain it earlier, and more uses)
2. Fighter gets a fighting style at first level. It looks like Gladiator was renamed (along with both Brutal display,and Gladiator's Resolve removed, Gladiator's Cunning renamed, and Improved Combat Superiority changed), .
3. Mage: Scribe scroll and Brew Potion appear to no longer be forced upon the mage
4. Paladin: gets a fighting style choice at 2nd level, gets extra attack earlier, and cleansing circle replaced by cleansing touch.
5. Ranger: gets a fighting style choice at 2nd level, an extra attack earlier, and fighting style is separated from favored enemy.
6. Multiclassing: we get multiclassing (However, I do not like the implementation)
7. Skills: skills are back (however, lack of the additional lores, no apparent ability to add new ones, and switching to the level based proficiency both ruined this piece of news for me).

As with every other packet, I found this one extremely disappointing. After looking through races, classes, and background & skills, I went to Wizards's site and opted out. I have no interest in filling out their last survey.

Edit: The only class I like is the Circle of the Land Druid and, by removing Brew Potion and Scribe Scroll, the Mage we see is almost there for me (I just want an alternate casting method).

 

[ferratus]

DM Guidelines Still love the exploration rules from the last packet. The treasure generation rules are great too. Very old school, but a little simpler since I don't have to remember what treasure type F meant. Exhaustion should probably just be a condition track like 4e's diseases, (as should poison and intoxication) without using the term "levels" there is already too many things in D&D that use the term levels.

Equipment Love the new tool proficiencies, and I'd probably expand it further in my own home games. For example, if player's had a tome that told the history of the Imaskari empire, I'd probably give the player "tool proficiency" on lore checks about the Imaskari. The only thing missing is that I can't buy the tools and practice with it enough to get that tool proficiency. Why can't I use thief tools if I buy the thief tools to pick locks? Why can't I learn basic alchemy because I fooled around in a alchemist's lab for a few months? It seems though if it isn't in my background I can't become an alchemist, or a a sage, or a herbalist. Maybe I can spend a feat on it, though that's a harsh price to pay for a minor ability.

 

[Trickster Spirit]

DM Guidelines Still love the exploration rules from the last packet. The treasure generation rules are great too. Very old school, but a little simpler since I don't have to remember what treasure type F meant. Exhaustion should probably just be a condition track like 4e's diseases, (as should poison and intoxication) without using the term "levels" there is already too many things in D&D that use the term levels.

Equipment Love the new tool proficiencies, and I'd probably expand it further in my own home games. For example, if player's had a tome that told the history of the Imaskari empire, I'd probably give the player "tool proficiency" on lore checks about the Imaskari. The only thing missing is that I can't buy the tools and practice with it enough to get that tool proficiency. Why can't I use thief tools if I buy the thief tools to pick locks? Why can't I learn basic alchemy because I fooled around in a alchemist's lab for a few months? It seems though if it isn't in my background I can't become an alchemist, or a a sage, or a herbalist. Maybe I can spend a feat on it, though that's a harsh price to pay for a minor ability.

For what it's worth, the latest Rule of 3 said that they were planning for players to be able to pick up additional proficiencies between adventures through their downtime system, which we haven't seen yet.

 

[Kinak]

Seems like a good packet overall. I'm still not really sure how much I like the game, but there are some definite improvements in how things like skills are handled.

Tool proficiencies are pretty cool. I like that they're treated as about equal to a language slot, although I was a little weirded out by backgrounds picking up thieves' tools proficiency. Rogues starting with expertise (if they want) makes that a nice compromise, though.

The class changes are largely for the better. Barbarians get to run around naked again. Fighter looks good, although I wish superiority dice had a better recharge mechanic. Bard gets some less finnicky mechanics for bardic performance, which is nice. Ranger favored enemy seems to be at a sweet spot.

Shifting ranger and paladin to be more spellbased is... interesting. I don't necessarily think it's a bad design, but my players would hate it.

I like the new fighting style mechanic, but wish it could be expanded over time.

The biggest sticking point for me is monsters, like it has been for many packets. I guess we'll see how they turn out at release.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Falling Icicle]

Classes: Overall, I have the same issue with the classes that I had in the last packet, as they're mostly the same. That is, players get to make far too few choices for their characters, and most don't get to make a single significant choice until level 3. Everything is laid out for you, level by level, resulting in cookie-cutter characters. I do like the proficiency bonus being the same for all classes, though they should just put this in a universal character level table rather than repeating it in every single class. I'd also prefer for ability score increases/feats to be based on character level rather than class level, especially with 3.x style multi-classing. The Bard seems pretty good at first glance, though I was surprised that they put it on the same spellcasting level as paladins and rangers, who traditionally had spellcasting just as a side thing.

Feats: The whole point of feats were originally introduced in 3e was to give people power to customize their characters, to make my fighter different from your fighter. The small number of large feats characters get really takes that away, IMO. I'd prefer to get more feats, but smaller feats. Instead of just having one feat to make you good at archery, I want to be able to make an archer that has different archery abilities than another character has. I'm also still very disappointed that you don't get to choose a feat at 1st level. I'm also dismayed by these new feats that give an ability score on top of other benefits. I thought the whole point of feats was to choose between them and an ability score? There's little point in taking the ability increase if you can take a feat and still improve your class's primary ability anyway. Finally, there's still a complete lack of feats for spellcasters. And no, the "gain one spell once per day" feats don't count. Anyone can take those.

How to Play: I thought they were going to adjust the action DCs, since they admitted that they were far too high before? Instead, we have the same exact DCs as the previous packets. This is a huge problem. This was supposed to be the "math fix" packet, but nothing has been fixed.

Multi-classing: They did pretty much exactly what I expected with multiclassing. The only things that really bother me are the ridiculous ability score requirements and the stacking spells per day, which unfairly favor those who take two spellcasting classes over spellcaster/non-spellcaster mixes (or in the future, spellcasting classes that use something other than the spells per day mechanic).

Proficiencies: I really don't like proficiencies. They seem clunky, awkward and just completely backwards to me. Instead of giving proficiency with thieves tools, just give the disable device skill. Instead of giving proficiency with artisan's tools, just give a profession/craft skill. Instead of proficiency with mounts, just give the ride skill. Etc.

Races: Humans still have the overpowered and boring +1 to all ability scores and nothing else. The way skills and feats work now, there's no reason not to give them a bonus skill and feat instead. Half-Orcs and Half-Elves still need a lot of work, too. Drow look pretty good, though the sunlight penalties are far too harsh. Tieflings are pretty cool, though they seem a bit light on traits. Warforged too. I'm not even going to comment on Kender, as I despise them.

Skills: I'm glad to see skills come back. I'm also glad to see each class grant a free skill.

 

[Salamandyr]

I love everything but reintroducing specialization to the fighter. I prefer to keep him the guy who kills you with anything. Currently they aren't too bad--picking "Great Weapon fighter" doesn't mean you're completely hosed if you use a bow occasionally, for instance. If it stays that way I can live with it, but it's going to be the thing I rank "extremely dissatisfied" on the survey.

But I love the proficiencies system, and the interaction rules.

Yep, I love everything but fighter specialization.

 

[variant]

First Impressions

Proficiency and Expertise: I like the general proficiency concept of having a set bonus that ranges across skills, tools, and weapons. Kinda disappointed the proficiency bonus wasn't folded into Armor Class in some way.

However, proficiency combined with expertise is just too much. Then you add abilities like the Bard's Inspire Competence and the Rogue's Supreme Sneak and it gets in all kinds of realm of ridiculousness.

If someone is trying to make a Perception check isn't proficient in it, doesn't have a high Wisdom, or doesn't Expertise for that skill, his chance of ever spotting a Rogue with a 20 Dexterity, proficiency in Stealth, and Expertise in Stealth is way too low. If the Rogue has Supreme Sneak...

I as a DM would like to have an actual challenge for players that isn't combat. if they can stealth, deceive, intimidate, persuade unhindered, detect every NPC lie, and have an infinite knowledge base, that severely hampers that prospect.

Multiclassing: Probably one of the best multiclassing systems I've seen.

Bard: Well, it's a Bard. Nothing really stands out or seems overly special. A bit disappointed that it doesn't use a unique magic system that would fit the Bard concept better.

Fighter: Disappointed in some changes, happy about other changes.

Fighting Styles: What? Why? What could possibly be the point of these when any one of these could be reflected in a feat? The auto-damage has reared its ugly ahead again from old packets. Why is this back when it was almost universally disliked?

Second Wind: I approve of these changes overall. Temporary hit points are a good way to represent overexertion.

Path of the Weaponmaster: Yeah, I really do not think the name of this path reflects the abilities it has. Gladiator was at least a good descriptive name for abilities the subclass had.

Mage: Disappointed to see that they still seem to be pushing forward with merging the Warlock, Sorcerer, and Psion under the same class as the Wizard.

Ranger: Disappointed overall.

Fighting Styles: Why has an ability been basically copied and pasted from the Fighter?

Favored Enemy as their subclasses again is extremely bland. The two Favored Enemy paths feel incredibly watered down and monotone in the differences that separates them. The thematics of them are overshadowed by the subclasses of every other class. I mean the fundamental difference between the Colossus Slayer and Horde Breaker is that one is better at single opponents and the other multiple opponents...

Spellcasting... again. Only they cemented it with even more spellcasting. Does anyone really picture a Ranger meditating for spells?

 

[Sammael]

Can someone tell me which document lists the actual proficiency bonus? I can't seem to find it.

 

[Talath]

Can someone tell me which document lists the actual proficiency bonus? I can't seem to find it.

The bonus is listed on the last page in How to Play, and each class also lists the bonus by level on the class features table.

 

[Sammael]

It would have never occurred to me to look for the bonus in the Classes document, thanks! Still can't find it in How to Play and I've checked five times, but no matter.