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

R

RevTurkey

Guest
Opportunity Attacks. It's rules creep and the quantification and codification of the game that I don't like so much. So many conditions attatched to them

Call them what you like but I prefer the simpler mechanics of say B/X or RC.

I think that you should definately have a module to play such things in more depth like in 3rd Edition or more tactically as in 4th Edition but I think the game out of the blocks would be better to be more streamlined.

If WOTC don't do that then they will lose the chance to regain players lost to older editions and retro clones and also make a higher barrier to entry for new players

To be clear... I have played and enjoyed EVERY edition of D&D and AD&D but as this is a playtest I am just expressing my preferences.

As I said, I haven't put this through it's paces yet, so we shall see :D
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Balesir

Adventurer
Opportunity Attacks. It's rules creep and the quantification and codification of the game that I don't like so much. So many conditions attatched to them

Call them what you like but I prefer the simpler mechanics of say B/X or RC.
OK, so you are really asking that the rules around opportunity attacks be kept/made simple and clean. That makes perfect sense, to me, and I can even agree with it*, whereas calling to remove OAs completely seems like an invitation to disaster.

*: partly because I think 4e actually got OAs pretty well right; they are triggered by free moving or ranged attacking when next to an enemy, and that's it. That particular bit of 4e really is very simple; the "Immediate" actions less so...
 

synthapse

Explorer
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 :(

Scimitars are finesse weapons, so they can be used for dual-wielding.

I wouldn't consider using two rapiers "stupid"; fighting with a brace of rapiers is a classic real-world style of fighting.

I expect some sort of feat (or the like) allowing use of the katana in one hand, just as I expect there to be a way to use the bastard sword one-handed as well. That would open up samurai dual-wielding.
 

Walking Dad

First Post
Scimitars are finesse weapons, so they can be used for dual-wielding.

I wouldn't consider using two rapiers "stupid"; fighting with a brace of rapiers is a classic real-world style of fighting.

I expect some sort of feat (or the like) allowing use of the katana in one hand, just as I expect there to be a way to use the bastard sword one-handed as well. That would open up samurai dual-wielding.
Didn't read the material as I got annoyed to register a 2nd time :mad:

Ok, scimitars are suddenly a light/finesse weapon (I only knew or 3.x using this distinction and scimitars weren't it).
What kind of rapier? The primary piercing weapon? Which style uses two at once? I'm honestly curious. Using a rapier and some kind of parrying weapon is different kind of beast altogether.
 

Consonant Dude

First Post
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.

It appears to be a tiny bit of the rules but it comes attached with the whole spatial positioning playstyle. I'm a 3rd edition veteran and it's far from being easy to houserule. It is of no interest to me or my groups to go down that path again and the appearance of such rules in the basic game are enough to turn me off.

That's just a matter of taste, mind you. I'm sure plenty of people welcome such rules, others might be indifferent. But I don't want such rules.
 

synthapse

Explorer
Didn't read the material as I got annoyed to register a 2nd time :mad:

Ok, scimitars are suddenly a light/finesse weapon (I only knew or 3.x using this distinction and scimitars weren't it).
What kind of rapier? The primary piercing weapon? Which style uses two at once? I'm honestly curious. Using a rapier and some kind of parrying weapon is different kind of beast altogether.


I'm not entirely sure which style first used the brace of rapiers, but I'd guess it was from Italian dueling styles.

Here's a link talking about the style: The Arte of Defense


And here's a video of some practice:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AseqZulqrEA]Case of rapiers/florentine demonstration - YouTube[/ame]
 

Nikosandros

Golden Procrastinator
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?
I don't get it either. I've had this exact same discussion with a few of my players that hate opportunity attacks in 3.x/4e, but have no problems with free attacks on fleeing opponents in AD&D.
 

Walking Dad

First Post
I'm not entirely sure which style first used the brace of rapiers, but I'd guess it was from Italian dueling styles.

Here's a link talking about the style: The Arte of Defense


And here's a video of some practice:

Case of rapiers/florentine demonstration - YouTube
Alright, there is one... but the text description made it sound almost as obscure and hard to learn than dual-wielding katanas. I still don't like this as the default rule, epically that wielding two rapiers is easier than a longsword and a dagger.
 

VinylTap

First Post
Alright, there is one... but the text description made it sound almost as obscure and hard to learn than dual-wielding katanas. I still don't like this as the default rule, epically that wielding two rapiers is easier than a longsword and a dagger.

People in the middle ages had less distractions, so more time to practice esoteric fighting styles.
 

fba827

Adventurer
i'm sure everyone has noticed by now but i didn't see it mentioned in this thread so i thought i'd say it in case random people didn't notice and were just watching this thread rather than other announcements from gencon that it was happening...

If you redownload the playtest packet today (when you go tot he login page it is the 'signup page' but on the sign up page there is a link if you already have an account to actually login), they added something to the classes section (sorcerer and warlorck) and also added an adventure.
 

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 :(

And the awesome whip-rapier.

I'm sure there will eventually be rules for fighting with bigger weapons, just with a mathematically-balanced appropriate mechanical penalty.
 

Revinor

First Post
also added an adventure.

I'm utterly disappointed with combat encounters quality in sample adventure. It is coming back to worst of 2e/3e days.

Chamber 10: 1d3+1 orcs attack you

Chamber 14: Gray ooze attacks you

Chamber 77: 1d4+1 orcs attack you

etc, etc

No terrain-based tactics. No multi-role monster parties which can use some brain. Each monster is just AC+tohit+damage stats and single special ability, which is often not interesting at all.

I understand that some people don't like 4e mechanics (encounter powers, healing surges, same 'shape' of development for all classes), but I think that 4e encounter design is state of art. Coming back from that level into worst random-roll generated room after room dungeons is not a good thing.
 

Blackwarder

Adventurer
I'm utterly disappointed with combat encounters quality in sample adventure. It is coming back to worst of 2e/3e days.

Chamber 10: 1d3+1 orcs attack you

Chamber 14: Gray ooze attacks you

Chamber 77: 1d4+1 orcs attack you

etc, etc

No terrain-based tactics. No multi-role monster parties which can use some brain. Each monster is just AC+tohit+damage stats and single special ability, which is often not interesting at all.

I understand that some people don't like 4e mechanics (encounter powers, healing surges, same 'shape' of development for all classes), but I think that 4e encounter design is state of art. Coming back from that level into worst random-roll generated room after room dungeons is not a good thing.

If you must have 4e style encounters than you should wait for tactical rules module... I for one don't think that not having the advanture spell to me how to run an encounter is such a bad thing...

Warder
 

PinkRose

Explorer
Or maybe, they haven't put much effort into the encounters because that's not where their focus is yet since they are willing to take 2 years to get this edition done right.
 

Revinor

First Post
If you must have 4e style encounters than you should wait for tactical rules module... I for one don't think that not having the advanture spell to me how to run an encounter is such a bad thing...

It is not about telling how to run it, it is about having interesting monster interactions. Something like 2 orc warriors, 2 goblin slave minions, 1 orc shaman, 1 archer and sharp swinging pendulum in same room, instead of 5 orc warriors.

It is not about movement on squares (which I think tactical module will be about), it is about adventure designer spending 2 hours preparing interesting and challenging combat encounter instead of 10 seconds of writing "1d3+2 orcs".

BTW, why dice notation for amount of monsters?? If they expect it to scale for number of PCs, they should write 3-5. I can understand it in 'wandering monsters' table, but in adventure itself?

Or maybe, they haven't put much effort into the encounters because that's not where their focus is yet since they are willing to take 2 years to get this edition done right.

Well, they had enough time to put pages and pages of very verbose prose in that adventure, which is completely unneeded for rules playtest. So they are putting effort in having us 'playtesting' their literacy skills, but not in encounter design?
 

Blackwarder

Adventurer
They don't expect it to scale to the number of PC, they tell you what will generally happen. It might be two orcs looking for mushrooms or six orcs heading toward one of the city barricade.

The advanture is not written about the players, it's written about what is happening in Blingdenstone and how the characters can interact with it.

There are some set combat encounters in the advanture but it isn't all of them or even most of them, it's your job as the DM to make it as interesting or as boring as you would like.

Warder
 

Revinor

First Post
There are some set combat encounters in the advanture but it isn't all of them or even most of them, it's your job as the DM to make it as interesting or as boring as you would like.

Why then not coming with ny own adventure itself in first place? Or actually game mechanics as well?

I was under impression that playtest package was to test the system as they see it, not my ability to turn bland into gold... Forge motto comes into mind - "System matters". And we are discussing here what is presented, not that can be made out of it with enough changes.

And what is given is 1d3+2 orcs, without variety, terrain, interesting tactics or mechanics.
 


Anselyn

Explorer
I'm not entirely sure which style first used the brace of rapiers, but I'd guess it was from Italian dueling styles.

Here's a link talking about the style: The Arte of Defense


And here's a video of some practice:

Case of rapiers/florentine demonstration - YouTube

Very good.

The thought I have watching this and my son fencing with sabre is the following.

Do you/we really think that if either of these fighters moved their focus to have a quick poke (nay - a full attack) at a third person moving past them that they wouldn't be immediately hit by their opponent because of the opening they gave on themselves.

It seems to me that having a final flourish at someone who turns to flee, leaving you unthreatened, is very different from having free full un-penaltied attacks while still under threat.
 

Revinor

First Post
Do you lack the imagination to provide those yourself so much that you rely on someone else to do that work for you?

No. I can also come up with adventure flow and even with my own rules. But what does it have to do with playtest material?

If I look at painting and say 'I would put this into my bedroom, but artist really draws ugly faces' is your reaction 'what, cannot you repaint face on top of his painting?' ?

I'm saying that things presented in playtest adventure, are, in my opinion, huge step back from quality of combat encounters from 4th edition, which is a kind of disappointing giving promising developments in other areas.

Examples of proper answers:
-I don't like grid-based combat
-Too many monster types are too complicated to handle, so it is easier to manage combat and flavor descriptions of combat with single monster type
-Rules are too poor to make interesting monsters
-In podcast XYZ they said they are sorry about that and will update it with a lot more interesting encounters
etc
Answer like "fix it by yourself and if you don't want to it means you lack imagination" is not what I expected. Maybe I should, it is internet after all..
 

Epic Threats

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top