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

[Patrick Lewis]

I quite like this last public play test. I imagine that in house work will continue and we'll be seeing a few more changes before we get a final version. I like the bard. I like the restrictions on multi classing. Multi class characters seem balanced to me. All in all this may become main game i run.

 

[Talath]

I quite like this last public play test. I imagine that in house work will continue and we'll be seeing a few more changes before we get a final version. I like the bard. I like the restrictions on multi classing. Multi class characters seem balanced to me. All in all this may become main game i run.

I definitely like the multiclass restrictions. And I really like that they changed the fighters second wind ability. And the barbarians thick hide . And what's craziest is ... I like the bard. I liked tool proficiencies before. The skill system isn't that bad, and it's nice that skills, tools, weapons, and saves all run off the same bonus.

Yup; it's shaping up very nicely.

 

[Kobold Stew]

The backgrounds should be: Choose X number of proficiencies from this list.

And then if you get that proficiency from your class, you can choose a different one you didn't have from that background list, rather than from the entire game's list of proficiencies.

That way, you don't have people taking backgrounds just for the intentional redundancy to enable them to pick anything they want.

That would be a great improvement.

But it still only solves one part of the problem, I feel. Having improved the tool proficiencies last test packet very well, now they've decided to give them out like gum. I'm hoping that it's an overcorrection, to see how people take it. But right now everybody gets so many proficiencies, that it's hard to conceive of a character that doesn't have an overlap somewhere.

Rogues and Guild Thief is one; but almost all of the "default" backgrounds offer some overlap.

In addition to the issues that I've raised already, there are proficiencies from race and feats to be considered: so far, I have not seen it suggested that if these overlap you get choice as well. That would allow some free feat choices for dwarven fighters and clerics (who have armour proficiencies from their race, for example); or elves taking feats that give weapon proficiencies that overlap with their racial weapons, to have further choice. Now I'm not suggesting that this is what is intended, but I am suggesting that those whose automatic assumption is that tool proficiencies should be re-assignable between backgrounds and classes need to find a way to make sense of tools across the board.

Your suggestion here is a good first step. So, I believe, is not overloading on the availability of proficiencies. A free-for-all (which is the direction I see this heading) is not going to work.

 

[Greg K]

In addition to the issues that I've raised already, there are proficiencies from race and feats to be considered: so far, I have not seen it suggested that if these overlap you get choice as well. That would allow some free feat choices for dwarven fighters and clerics (who have armour proficiencies from their race, for example); or elves taking feats that give weapon proficiencies that overlap with their racial weapons, to have further choice.

Personally, I would prefer removing armor and weapon proficencies out of the races.

 

[MoonSong]

I personally like the ability requirements, but they are not the only means within the game to add a cost to multiclassing. And for the life of me I do not know why the other part of the equation isn't getting more attention, because as you said the ability requirements are relatively minor, and you get ability score increases that can eventually get you into the class if you want to.

But the other part of the equation is the loss of ability/feat increase roughly every four levels of a class. You do not get these increases based on your character level. You only get them at certain levels of a particular class. So if you constantly multiclass, you never get them. Heck, if you spend three levels in a class and never go back to it, you never get the increase/feat.

People have been talking about this as if it's a "trap" for new players. But I disagree. Folks are approaching it with the mentality of having played 3e and 4e where you get feats and ability increases based on your overall character level. But a new player doesn't come in with that bias from prior editions. This is the game to them, this is where they learn how things work, and a new player will see how it's the classes that come with the ability/feat at certain levels, not the character's overall level. I don't see it as a trap for new players - new players will spot this much easier than older players who are used to prior editions and the customs from those additions that focus on character level rather than class level for those sorts of things. Besides, if it's really a big concern, they just need to add a sidebar on "To Multiclass or Not?" that mentions the delay in the ability/feat increase.

Anyway, I think the benefit of level-dipping is roughly equal to the costs of doing it, with those costs being the minimum ability requirements, delay in ability/feat increase, and delay in primary class abilities. It's not a "punishment", it's the reasonable costs applied to balance out the benefits of all those first level abilities from a new class.

You are mixing up things. Of course that by multiclassing you get less feats/ability score ups. That is fine up to a point, I don't really consider them traps or anything and they make a fine trade-up. But now, ability score requirements for multiclassing, they are too high for roleplayers and too low for optimizers. A reasonable fighter shouldn't ever need a Str 15, the same as a cleric or druid, then why should I need it to be a weaker fighter or druid?. Needing such high scores put a heavy strain on the ability scores of multiclassed characters and put them beyond the reach of any player who doesn't plan their build from first level. A reasonable character is well rounded up, without having such peaks and lows, if anything, maybe, one score could eventually reach a 16 or 17 in the end, but that is more of an exception than a rule, now this reasonable player with a reasonable character finds out that he trapped himself into not being able to ever leave the origin class and charge course when the plot calls for it, when it makes sense for their thief to become a paladin, for their paladin to turn into a barbarian, for their monk to become an assassin, that they can't because they didn't had the foresight to pick a 15 or 13 in the right stat back at first level when they had no idea were their character would end up seven or even ten levels ahead, while the optimizer in the same table has already grabbed the best stuff out of five or six classes. While should a low-level min-maxed warbringer cleric have an easier time becoming a druid than a high-level neutral bard that has dedicated feats to be knowledgeable about nature, animals plants and stuff? Just because the first one placed all posible points into Wisdom and took the first increase at fourt level and is now at wis 18 while the other one went for a more balanced score and took loremaster and healer and needs eight more levels before he can become a druid despite the fact that in game it makes more sense for the later to become a druid than the former? This is why I mean when I say they punish players.

Moreover the requeriments don't make too much sense, druid should also be about constitution, not all fighters are strong fighters, I've made nimble paladins, there are also smart rogues, and brutish rogues, but the most eggregious case is with mage: Are you telling me that in order for me to become a sorcerer/warlock I need a high score on an ability that is a natural dump stat for them instead of charisma?

 

[Mistwell]

You are mixing up things.

What did I mix up? I explained they are two different things which apply to multiclassing. How is that mixing anything up?

Of course that by multiclassing you get less feats/ability score ups.

You say of course, and yet many others of called it a trap and hidden. Because it's not called out directly in the rules.

That is fine up to a point, I don't really consider them traps or anything and they make a fine trade-up. But now, ability score requirements for multiclassing, they are too high for roleplayers and too low for optimizers.

I disagree with this premise. They're both using the identical rules. Why would a role player generate their ability scores inherently differently than an optimizer? if for role playing reasons they want to multiclass, they're going to need that ability score or they need to wait until their score increases to that. That's still a role playing reason.

A reasonable fighter shouldn't ever need a Str 15, the same as a cleric or druid, then why should I need it to be a weaker fighter or druid?

This is explained, repeatedly, throughout this thread, and directly in the rules. It's right there, on the first page of the multiclassing rules, they explain the reason for it...and it's not a mechanics reason, it's a direct role playing explanation. Now if you don't like that reason, OK fine. But why are you asking "why", yet again, when you already have the answer (like three times now in this thread)?

Needing such high scores put a heavy strain on the ability scores of multiclassed characters and put them beyond the reach of any player who doesn't plan their build from first level.

If only there were a way to increase ability scores in the game. Oh wait!

A reasonable character is well rounded up, without having such peaks and lows, if anything, maybe, one score could eventually reach a 16 or 17 in the end, but that is more of an exception than a rule, now this reasonable player with a reasonable character finds out that he trapped himself into not being able to ever leave the origin class and charge course when the plot calls for it, when it makes sense for their thief to become a paladin, for their paladin to turn into a barbarian, for their monk to become an assassin, that they can't because they didn't had the foresight to pick a 15 or 13 in the right stat back at first level when they had no idea were their character would end up seven or even ten levels ahead,

Ever? What are you spending your ability score increases on?

This is why I mean when I say they punish players.

We'll, we disagree. It's not a punishment. It's a cost of getting into that class as a multiclass. And I think it's a reasonable one, with a fair explanation, and with a lot of tradition behind it as well for this game.

 

[MoonSong]

What did I mix up? I explained they are two different things which apply to multiclassing. How is that mixing anything up?

Yoou started your argument by bringing up the feat/trap thing and then ended it with my saying there is an optimal array for maximum multiclassing

You say of course, and yet many others of called it a trap and hidden. Because it's not called out directly in the rules.

Well, that is completely orthogonal to my argument and a distraction to what I want to say, this is why I said you were mixing things up

I disagree with this premise. They're both using the identical rules. Why would a role player generate their ability scores inherently differently than an optimizer? if for role playing reasons they want to multiclass, they're going to need that ability score or they need to wait until their score increases to that. That's still a role playing reason.

Roleplayer, I want my elven cleric to be a little more mundane, yes I'm going to invest some points into dex and str, but it makes sense to me this is a High elf not a wood elf, so I'm goign to invest some point into Int too, and charisma.

Optimizer, my elven cleric needs a very high Wis, so Wood elf, but wait,Hill Dwarves get Wis and Con, that is better so 17 wis, screw Int and Cha not saving throws ever come to them, so dump them, Str 15, con 15 dex 14...

This is explained, repeatedly, throughout this thread, and directly in the rules. It's right there, on the first page of the multiclassing rules, they explain the reason for it...and it's not a mechanics reason, it's a direct role playing explanation. Now if you don't like that reason, OK fine. But why are you asking "why", yet again, when you already have the answer (like three times now in this thread)?

I also read it the first time,I didn't bought it. Because if it ti that you need some inherent talent for it because you are taking a quick training, why can't I take more time if I'm aren't that talented?

If only there were a way to increase ability scores in the game. Oh wait!

Yes you can increase them, but wait my fourth level assassin that is about to level up has seen the light and decided she doesn't want to kill people anymore and wants to change career to become a cleric, too bad she just has Wis 11, and needs to keep slaughtering people and tainting her soul for other six levels before the good gods will accept her for clerical training, yes at that point maybe she will be so corrupted she will sell her soul for power instead, but Oh she isn't smart enough because everybody knows that in order to join the ranks of the though and imposing demon worshipers you have to be a supergenius to pass the exam, heck four more levels of using poison then, but don't worry not all hope is lost, perhaps someone out there will put her out of her misery soon... yeah my fault for daring to play this game without being able to predict the future.

Ever? What are you spending your ability score increases on?

I dunno, on small nice things like langauges and proficiencies? , on patching low saves? I didn't know playing a low con paladin was a crime

We'll, we disagree. It's not a punishment. It's a cost of getting into that class as a multiclass. And I think it's a reasonable one, with a fair explanation, and with a lot of tradition behind it as well for this game.

It is a punishment, it is too high a cost for something that in principle looks balanced enough to need such additional failsafes on top. the explanation is just a lazy justification. Why can't my nimble fighter take upon the oath of a paladin? why the gods decided they didn't want to protect him when he has sworn to uphold their cause? is it because they don't find him handsome enough?. Why can't my nearsighted and nearly deaf but tree-hugging bard become a druid? does nature reject him just because?.
It comes too One-tru-way specially because speed of level up training is something too group dependent some groups take lots of downtime between adventures for it, some others weave it during the normal downtime of the campaign, some others handwave it away and have it happen right away. As for the tradition point, I recently noticed I don't know how NWP slots work with dualclassing, because the two of them never ever came up together!! in fact dualclassing practically never happened!! was it just the tradition? or were the by the book spartan requirements a factor? were the groups were a good amount of dualclassing happened very lucky with the dice or more than one DM houseruled them away? And speaking of tradition then you are fine with bringing back racial level/class limits and score prerrequisites for classes? Because they have been away for the same time. And yes 4e had score prerrequisies for the multiclass feats, but usually there were many alternatives for a same class and there wee none for hybrids, so that hardly counts.(and it was rigid as hxxll on top).

 

[silverblade56]

I am not sure about the proficiency bonus thing. It seems weird to call my fighter's attack and save bonuses proficiency bonuses. Maybe class bonus or training bonus. I can see the benefit of having a universal bonus to things like in 4E, but it does seem a bit clunky. I think that multiclassing spellcasters with non-spellcaster seems to harsh like in 3.0/3.5 days. Why not give them half level or quarter level bonus. I also dislike the multiclassing prerequisites. It seems like an uneccesary throwback to some of the more lackluster parts of 1E/2E.

 

[Zaruthustran]

I really, really dislike the universal proficiency for weapons. A 5th level fighter, 5th level bard, and 5th level Mage all wield a dagger with the exact same skill? Silly. Nonsensical.

Simply put, fighters should be better at fighting. The fact that they're not, in this revision, makes me disappointed.

 

[tuxgeo]

A couple of points:

1. Handaxe and Light hammer are now Simple weapons instead of being Martial. I like that. More characters will now be able to use those alternate ranged weapons.

2. Still no double-Jump? You can long jump your Strength score in feet (so, for example, a PC with STR 12 can jump 12 feet); but hustling or devoting your Action to movement doesn't extend that? If you have STR 12 plus Athletics proficiency, your attempt to jump 15 feet becomes a Strength check: 1d20 + 1 (STR bonus) + 1 (proficiency bonus at 1st level), giving a result range of 3 - 22. If it's Easy (DC 10), you'll fail on a roll of 1 - 7 (35% of the time). If it's Moderate (DC 15), you'll fail on a roll of 1 - 12 (60% of the time). That "Athletics" proficiency sure isn't helping a whole heck of a lot.

I don't know whether the designers' intent was for "Hustle" to double other modes of movement besides Walking, but it currently doesn't seem to: currently, "Hustle" is one mode of movement, while "Jump" is another mode of movement. It doesn't say you can do both at once. (Maybe the rules just need to be reworded more clearly?)