D&D 5E New D&D Next Playtest Packet Is Here!

r0gershrubber

First Post
Don't be so sure, from today's L&L ...

"Rogue: To be honest, I’ve never been crazy about sneak attack as the rogue’s defining combat ability. I can see how it is a logical outgrowth of AD&D’s backstab ability, but in my mind it casts rogues as being too tightly linked to an assassin or similar archetype. I can think of plenty of rogues I’ve played over the years for whom sneak attack would be a poor match for their combat abilities or personality. I’d like to explore ways of making sneak attack an option, with things that push a rogue to be more cunning and tricky in combat standing alongside it."

I agree. I would prefer that the Rogue excel at something closer to Pathfinder's combat maneuvers, especially the Dirty Trick introduced in the Advanced Player Guide. Sneak attack should be an option but not a defining feature of all Rogues.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Dark Mistress

First Post
I posted this in another thread talking about 5E but this one seems to be getting a lot more discussion so I will just repost it here.

After reading the playtest doc and now some threads here. This is kinda my take(granted my memory is fuzzy on early editions of DnD i was young)

5E to me feels like they took the skeleton of OD&D, put the nerves, muscles, tendons etc of 2E, put in several 3E organs, with a couple of 4E organs.

Or is not so metaphoric speak. It seems like the simple framework of OD&D, with a lot of the fiddly bits, skills, kits etc of 2E, with some 3E aspects added a few 4E aspects thrown in.

Just like last time there is a couple of things I like, a couple of things I really don't like and most of the rest I am indifferent to. As it stands now 5E is shaping up to be my second favorite version of DnD.
 

Consonant Dude

First Post
Wow, really? Seems a bit extreme. You could always just, you know, houserule that out rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The condescending tone is not helpful.

Of course, it might be extreme depending on the context. If there wasn't an abundance of fantasy roleplaying games out there, I might readily customize. But I think extreme in this case would be for me to customize yet another version of the game to my liking when I have already done that in the past and when there are so many fantasy RPGs to choose from. The game has to be a better fit for me than the ones I play or others I can buy for me to be interested. That seems reasonable to me and not extreme at all.
 

Dice4Hire

First Post
I really dislike the fact that they married skills back to abilities, I would like e skills descriptions to have some example of hoe you can use some skills with different abilities, for example strength or dexterity for intimidate or inteligent and wisdom for animal handling.

Warder

I am absolutely not a fan of this, except in a few circumstances like Intimidate working with Charisma and Strength.

Otherwise, you will get people dogpiling one ability score too much, and that is not good for the game.
 

Dice4Hire

First Post
The condescending tone is not helpful.

Of course, it might be extreme depending on the context. If there wasn't an abundance of fantasy roleplaying games out there, I might readily customize. But I think extreme in this case would be for me to customize yet another version of the game to my liking when I have already done that in the past and when there are so many fantasy RPGs to choose from. The game has to be a better fit for me than the ones I play or others I can buy for me to be interested. That seems reasonable to me and not extreme at all.

You are talking about one tiny bit of the rules, so quitting 5E over that seems a bit extreme.

And it is a part of the rules that many people have houseruled in one way or the other since 3E came out.
 


Look at it as a flavor thing - scholars in that fantasy world got it wrong.

I fail to see why the game system needs to force this sort of thing as fluff on my game world.

Does it have any measurable in-game effect?

Some, yes. The Necromancer specialty gives goodies to necromantic spells. It's not hard to imagine a Conjurer specialty doing likewise, and inadvertantly giving benefits to Cure spells.

Of course, the inexplicably good Healer specialty is already benefiting those spells more than enough...

------------

Another mystifying thing to me: Would it have killed them to round XP values for gaining levels to the nearest 100? Do we *really* need that level (pardon the pun) of granularity, such that an experience table of:

0
600
1800
3500
8000

would have been utterly broken?
 

Stacie GmrGrl

Adventurer
Note to Wizards: An opportunity-attack-free module is required.

Agreed, Thirded, Fourthed, and so on.

In a way I am seeing skills as fairly optional in this version...they are more or less tied to Backgrounds, which IS Optional. Same for Specialties. I can see Feats being Optional as well...

So if you just want to play it with Race, Class and Gear and Spells this game will work just fine.

If you want that extra stuff, you can have it too. To really test this, some players should go with everything, others should leave out Backgrounds and Specialties, and see how it interacts. If both players are happy, then I'd say Wizards is doing something right with Next.

And if I recall they have Abilities next to skills but it doesn't say they are directly linked, but it is also confusing. One example clearly says use Skill modifier OR Ability score... then Training says add +3 to that roll and you can train to as high as +7. This is confusing. But, I see it as Optional... I don't need skills, but if a person takes a Background then the skills listed show a overall Training and when the player does something related to it, he will get a Basic +3 bonus to his roll.
So far Next is looking pretty good.
 


Stacie GmrGrl

Adventurer
I don't like the Rogue's Skill Mastery ability.

I wish Skills were totally Optional but them tying in Skill Mastery like this and the Wizard getting a bonus Trained skill makes them not as completely optional as I thought.

Clerics Channel Divinity is not often enough. At least add the Wis modifier to the number of times per day.
 

howandwhy99

Adventurer
Further impressions...

Checks & Skills[sblock]Re: Checks are actions, Saving Throws reactions.
Not a bad distinction, but Saving Throws were further distinguished as actions to avoid one's environment, so the roll is still in the characters/players hands. Saving throws used to be categorized by environmental effects and magic spells. The caster succeeded in affecting the environment no matter what, if the spell succeeded. Those in the area might have received Saves to avoid the effect, but the spell occurred regardless. Attacks, whether they used a tool of the environment or not, were actions by the territory one commanded - like one's body. The attack was always made, the roll was about determining whether or not it struck.

Ultimately none of this was about the rolls so much as the probabilities the dice (probability generators) expressed. Changing the probabilities was the game and avoiding rolling altogether was likely the best option. Learning the defined relationships made up the majority of the game.

Skills / Ability Score Checks
Trivial (7) was dropped and Easy (10) was renamed Trivial and listed as 10 or less.
Nor are ranges listed, but instead solid numbers like 10, 13, 16, etc. And those 3 are understood as the only ones one really needs to remember. It's an easy to remember change, but one that leads to greater uniformity and still lacks any mention of the relationships the numbers measure.

DCs / target numbers are vastly more important when it comes to cost. In combat they are 1/round, so are quite valuable. If you can spend 6 seconds out of combat to pick a lock however, then the DC is more about re-rolling and how long is spent doing so. Taking 10 or 20 becomes the decision in the Exploration Phase and time spent with wandering monster consequences the balancing factor. Drop those consequences and the game becomes "Can Unlock" and "Can't Unlock" with no room for interaction / game play.

DM Guide p.3 shaded box includes, "You don't actually have to set the DC before the player rolls the check." I vehemently disagree unless the players are okay with this playstyle and know it is in effect. Claiming further "your players will never know" isn't cool at all.[/sblock]Exploration Phase rules[sblock]Adventure/Dungeon Design Components - From Illumination - actually determines 3 possible Conditions for every Location. Temperature, Smell, Sound, Magical Auras, Alignment Auras, and any other special conditions would be nice to see in an Adventure Design pdf. Or at least a list of conversion guidelines for creating such.

Racial Qualities - from Holding your breath & drowning - Races could use a solid subset of Common Racial abilities and Breathing, and the abilities it confers. This would would work well in that section rather than Misc. Rules. Sight and Illumination should be included as well (as should scent and taste, sound, facial, sight, etc. recognition rules). Also, Size works for creatures as well as anything else, like rooms, castles, mobile transports, spell areas, etc.

Also, a lot of the incidentals could be created in such a way as to simply always be in effect unless environmental conditions change. This is like the Suffocation rules (holding your breath and drowning) where "Air" is always assumed to be available unless otherwise noted. This helps for Speaking, Freedom of Movement (vs squeezing, compressed or Restrained conditions), STR lifts below the PC minimum of 3, Ditto other Abilities like DEX for walking and chewing bubblegum, and so on.[/sblock]Misc.[sblock]Spell Prep - Still using 1 minute / spell level for daily spell prep time. What is gained by this fussiness?

Religion / Arcane Knowledge - "You must choose a skill in which you lack training." This wasn't clear to me. It appears the ability graints proficiency in 1 skill chosen by the player from a list of 4. Why the the last sentence?

Number of languages known is still too few. Literacy (or lack thereof) could be spelled out as an option too, perhaps a benefit of class.

Reach has been removed. It was under Creature Size DMG p.9. So has the Colossal size apparently.

Bestiary - p.8 Kobolds are 70 XP, Human Commoners are 50. They look near identical.

Spells
- Minor -
  • Bless Water at will 6 seconds would change Crafting considerably
  • Light at will means torches are obsolete for everyone
  • Ray of Frost & Shocking Grasp are too condition tracking fiddly for these to be frequently cast spells.
  • Ghost Sound (which is out of order) & Mage Hand could greatly use longer durations. Try 10 minutes or more or just make the Concentration-based durations.
  • Detect Magic needs a duration, I'd say 1 round or the 1 to 3 thing again and then concentration. This is to help relay info during exploration as magic auras are sensory dependent, like sight, sound, etc.
Character Sheet - very clean, very nice. I like how customizable it is and nonrestrictive. I can't help but feel it is missing something like Player Name or Saving Throws, but I like NL and Senses added on there. A place for a character portrait would be cool too. And even just coupling this with an entry with advice for making one's own - to personalize and simplify a character log.[/sblock]Equipment[sblock]Great change to bring back bartering to the game. This always leaves an optional minigame to quickly sell or buy for the asking price or engage in learning what the actual going rates are and what's cheating by merchants for a better price. A nice thing for those who like to play money making via trade on the side.

Magic Items can be handled differently than the sort of off-limits way listed. Unless something Actually Appears magical, then it isn't worth anything but its mundane form. It's hard to show why one sword hits more often than another. This is one of the big reasons Detect Magic is so valuable, it can help you appraise dull items as actually highly expensive magic items. Barter here with other wealthy adventurers, old or new, is probably the most likely way to buy or sell magic items. Casting Detect Magic in a store means one might find the magic sword the trading post is unknowingly selling (which is one reason why the spell shouldn't be at will). Magic items aren't a black market or so much a high rollers market, but can be more of an invisible one for those with the rare power to see and remember to check for such.

Studded Leather as Medium Armor is interesting. And Chainmail as Heavy is even moreso. Unusual changes.
I think it has to do with price. Studded leather is +1 better, but not much more costly. The issue would still exist for Ringmail however. Banded and Splint also appear to be only cosmetically different.

No armor or just clothes / cloth armor should probably be singled out for ease.

I think armor nonproficiency creates Disadvantage on Saves for Dex & Str only, not all saves at the phrasing appears to suggest.

Displacer Beast Hide really should be a Cloak of Displacement. That means appearing to be in an adjacent square or similar effect. It's not a tougher hide, which could be any thick hided beast.

No "Light" property weapons makes me wonder how they'll do two+ weapon fighting. Maybe a Specialty.

A container breakdown would be nice - vial, flask, sack, pouch, pack, quarrel, etc.

Also, the game has long been neglecting the old substance breakdowns from early one. I don't mean the big 5 energy types that have taken hold, but a more diverse environmental breakdown that corresponds to items (and monsters, and PCs) as well. For example:
  • Cloth (tent, backpack, bedroll, blanket,
  • Iron (caltrops, pot, spike, manacles, lantern, chain,
  • Steel (bolts, pitons, mirror, crowbar, ball bearings, lock,
  • Wooden (ram, tinderbox, bucket, block & tackle, pole,
  • Clay (flask, jug, lamp,
  • Glass (hourglass, vial,
  • Paper (parchment,
  • wax (candle, sealing wax,
  • Stone (whetstone,
  • soap
  • chalk

Further breakdowns are possible too...
Cloth type by rarity / value = silk, wool, cotton, etc.
Metal = iron, steel, copper (bell), gold (rings), silver whistle, etc.
Earth = stone, clay, gems, dirt, etc.[/sblock]
 

Dordledum

First Post
Read the how to play. I'm pleased with the changes. they fixed surprise and introduced a nifty way of AoO. No free extra attacks, but a way you can respond to actions from otherplayers. Basing is in again!
 

Revinor

First Post
No "Light" property weapons makes me wonder how they'll do two+ weapon fighting. Maybe a Specialty.

Check speciality Dual-wielder. You need 2 finesse weapons to handle them this way.

This means that:
- two whips are possible
- two rapiers are possible
- two longswords not
- longsword + shortsword also not
- katana + shortsword(wakizashi?) not, as katana is 2handed only
 

Iosue

Legend
Reading through the character generation, I started getting a grim feeling, as it felt a lot like 3e/4e. Lots of fiddly bits, lots of extra-options that didn't have an old-school-quick-generation feel, even though I'm fine with what they do mechanically. I began to doubt that my wish for quick-n-easy, non-system-mastery character generation had been designed out of the game.

But then I went ahead and created a fighter, just to see what it was like. In the end it all fit easily on a single page of a spiral notebook, bonuses were quickly and easily tallied, and it took me 20 minutes. And that was with juggling a bunch of separate pdfs on a mouseless laptop, so I figure with an easy to handle book to flip through, it'd be even faster. I forewent Backgrounds and Specialties and even Fighting Styles, just to see what the barest bones fighter looked like. And I was happy.

I went ahead and threw on a Background, Specialty, and Fighting Manuever, and it was still easy and painless, and the extra-time would probably have been made up by using the equipment packages included in the fighting styles.

As far as chargen goes, I'm a happy camper.

I don't like the Rogue's Skill Mastery ability.

I wish Skills were totally Optional but them tying in Skill Mastery like this and the Wizard getting a bonus Trained skill makes them not as completely optional as I thought.

I think you can still make them pretty optional. Just ignore the wizard's bonus trained skill, and give the rogue the thiefly skills he had in the older editions. With nobody else having skills, just having them accomplish the same thing as Skill Mastery does in a game that does have skills for everyone: it gives the thief a Skills class feature. Of course, a +3 right off the bat does give you little room to go for the thief to level up, so I do think they should give some thought to a rogue skill module for games that doesn't use skills.

If I wanted to run an old-style game without non-thief skills using these mechanics, I'd split Find and Remove Traps, add a separate climbing skill, and give the Rogue these skills at +1.
Climbing (Str)
Find Traps (Int)
Open Locks (Dex)
Remove Traps (Dex)
Sleight of Hand (Dex)
Stealth (Dex)

I'd bump up the DC on opening normal locks to Very Hard, elaborate locks to Formidable, and dwarven locks to Nearly Impossible. Then with each level the Rogue would get another +1 they could put into any one of their skills. This basically recreates 2e style Thieves' Skills without making Rogues virtually guaranteed to succeed.

None of the above is a defense of D&DN, btw. Just an off-the-cuff houserule after your post inspired me to think about how I might tweak the game to provide a mechanically unified TSR-D&D experience...
 

r0gershrubber

First Post
In a way I am seeing skills as fairly optional in this version...they are more or less tied to Backgrounds, which IS Optional. Same for Specialties. I can see Feats being Optional as well...

So if you just want to play it with Race, Class and Gear and Spells this game will work just fine.

If you want that extra stuff, you can have it too. To really test this, some players should go with everything, others should leave out Backgrounds and Specialties, and see how it interacts. If both players are happy, then I'd say Wizards is doing something right with Next.

The difference between having/not-having a Specialty and Background is pretty significant, even at level 1, and it only gets more significant with higher levels. I would expect a mixed party to play something like a D&D party with power-gamers and casual-gamers, with the former tending to steal the spotlight.

My understanding was that Backgrounds and Specialties are optional in the sense that a player can either take a Background and Specialty or choose skills and feats manually. B&S are basically fast-play packages.

If I'm correct in my understanding, I think WotC has struck a good balance here.
 

Truename

First Post
My understanding was that Backgrounds and Specialties are optional in the sense that a player can either take a Background and Specialty or choose skills and feats manually. B&S are basically fast-play packages.

If I'm correct in my understanding, I think WotC has struck a good balance here.

My understanding is a bit different. As I see it, WotC has two customization dials:

1- "Style of game," which the DM decides.
2- "Complexity of character," which the players decide.

So the choice to remove backgrounds and specialties is a DM decision. If you want an "old-school" feel, you remove backgrounds and specialties and no player gets them.

The choice between choosing a specialty or deciding feat-by-feat is a player decision. If your DM allows feats/specialties, one player might choose a specialty and another might choose all their own feats. Both characters will be reasonably balanced in effectiveness.
 

R

RevTurkey

Guest
I don't think opportunity attack should be taken out with an added module.

I think it should be added with an 'add on' module. That makes more sense.

I don't generally like opportunity attacks. I don't like 4e's many interrupts either.

I like it simple. Initiative. You get a go. Other people get a go. Then back to you.

A more intricate system might suit other players and that is what a module would be ideal for. To give them a more involved, intricate version of the game.

Introducing new players needs a game that is easily absorbed and plays quickly.

If the more detailed systems of 3e/4e or to some degree 1e were available as an optional module then I might even be tempted to use elements of that when it suited the game I was running but I think the default version should be very clean and fast.

I haven't yet played through this new playtest material and it may turn out okay.

Overall it looks great and if people think it is like 2nd edition that is not so bad...it was a good game that just perhaps lacked flavour and a better way to do skills if you wanted them. The splat books were many but at the end of the day you didn't have to buy them to play the game, just like with 3e and 4e with their multiple Player's Handbooks etc.

Anyway, I like what I see so far.
 

Balesir

Adventurer
I really don't understand the cries to remove opportunity attacks, when every edition of D&D bar none have had them. Granted, in the early editions they weren't called "opportunity attacks" - they were just a "free hack" that you got if the enemy broke melee contact - but they were functionally exactly the same thing. They were just ruled in with loose and sometimes confusing wording, rather than a clean, simple and well defined rule under a specific name ("opportunity attack" in 4e, or "attack of opportunity" in 3.X).

Why remove something that has worked in a necessary function since 1974?
 

Walking Dad

First Post
Check speciality Dual-wielder. You need 2 finesse weapons to handle them this way.

This means that:
- two whips are possible
- two rapiers are possible
- two longswords not
- longsword + shortsword also not
- katana + shortsword(wakizashi?) not, as katana is 2handed only
I don't like this. I forbids some classic D&D fighting styles (two scimitars) and a lot of real world ones. But it adds the stupid two whips and two rapiers :(
 

Epic Threats

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top