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

[Nebulous]

Hmm. It's not BAD by any means, but it's not grabbing me either. It all feels sort of like "been there/done that." The only really new mechanic is Advantage/Disadvantage", but i'm already bored with that. I can't stand seeing an ability that "grants" that as its bonus. It can get so mundane so quickly.

 

[Jupp]

Had my first read through and I am pleasantly surprised by how it looks and feels. It somehow has the vibe of 2e with the nicer and more concrete elements of 3e attached to it. Me likey much. As someone already said it does not look like the spiritual successor of 4e but like a mix of the previous versions (which in my book counts as a big plus).

Proficiencies, pardon me, Specialities could allow for some funky PC builds with some unusual twists on them. Is Next the first edition that would allow non-casters to use magic spells (Arcane Dabbler) or has something like this been done before in D&D (official rules)?

Character creation looks like a cool thing at first glance. And it is so nice that finally sub-races can affect your character in a meaningful way. Fluff meets Crunch and have a tea together. Fighter Combat Superiority/Fighting Style look very nice. Some might say it might be too confining but I think they are an easy way to define how your fighter is meant to be played without too much hassle.

Can't say much about the monsters so far until we've played but they look more straight-forward than 3e/4e without all those crazy abilities they sometimes had. Though I am sure this can be changed according to taste. Though I do hope they will change the stat block design. Having to search for the damage roll in the middle of text is not nice.




Oh, and it's good not to have dragons in this level 1-5 playtest

 

[The Shadow]

Just noticed something else that's rather alarming:

The hit point limits on spells now refer to *maximum* hit points. So there's no longer an option to whittle down a creature and then finish it off with a low-level spell.

This disappoints me greatly. Basically, they're stepping back from a bunch of innovations that had excited me about 5e in the first place! Though, modules, I suppose.

Also, another couple questions:

When the Background document says that the maximum bonus is +7, does that mean that mean:

1) Ability + X <= 7, or

2) X <= 7.

I strongly suspect 2, but I'm not positive.

The same document mentions that you can also train new skills, but doesn't say how this works. At a guess, you can forego a +1 to an existing skill to get +3 for a new skill?

EDIT: The Jack of all Trades specialty strongly suggests that my guess is correct.

 

[Shieldhaven]

I've posted my commentary as I've read through the documents (more or less liveblogging) here.

Now to go back and catch up on what the rest of the (EN)world thinks about it. =)

Haven

 

[The Shadow]

Forgot to add in the Meh column:

As is all too traditional, spells often have utterly nonsensical school assignments.

I don't think cleric spells need to be put in magic schools at all! But if they do, why on earth conjuration for healing?! Examples could be multiplied. Basically, Gygax's magic schools just don't make much sense, and the elaborate attempt to shoehorn things into them is destructive. They are either too narrow (Necromancy) or too broad (Transmutation). Please, just stop.

I don't know what wizard traditions are going to be, but hopefully something more flavorful.

 

[Revinor]

Forgot to add in the Meh column:

As is all too traditional, spells often have utterly nonsensical school assignments.

Look at it as a flavor thing - scholars in that fantasy world got it wrong. Same way as categorization of animals and plants was often done extremly wrong in real world (just because they looked remotely similar they were assigned to same species, where it turned out that they are completely different animals). Ridicule it in your campaign, make a quest where PCs are carrying a petition to Great University of Arcane and Divine Arts for re-categorization of healing to Necromancy school (so it can be later banned in certain area on that ground, because one of the guys there has an idea to...)

Does it have any measurable in-game effect?

 

[TerraDave]

Its moving in the right direction, with more right details...

Agree that the skills seemed like a step back, but not a big one.

My main reaction is that specialities just seem really unbalanced, both mechanically and flavor wise. The benefits for the shooter and dual-wielder are just too subtle, whereas every party will (think) they have to have a healer, and many will end up with a necromancer.

 

[Consonant Dude]

I see that opportunity attacks are in, which means I am out, unfortunately.

 

[ferratus]

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."

Well, if that actually happens, I'll be one happy camper. I've always thought that rogues can be sneaky in combat, but what really matters is that they cheat and fight dirty.

 

[VinylTap]

Well, if that actually happens, I'll be one happy camper. I've always thought that rogues can be sneaky in combat, but what really matters is that they cheat and fight dirty.

As much as I like the idea of CS dice mechanic being Fighter only... this just SCREAMS for a similar mechanic. It would be cool if the Rogue could be set up to deal out a ton of debuffs... Maybe like the opposite of a bard in some sense.

Something like

Blind
Bleed
Choke (no-magic)
Impair (maybe disadvantage, but this seems powerful)
Ham-string