Not happy with playtest goes through it piece by piece

[Jester David]

I agree with most of what ferratus says (but can't xp yet).

The response to many of the complaints is the same: it's an incomplete playtest focusing on the PCs at the moment.
Some things, like xp and hp, are likely deliberately lower than they should be to test the extremes. That's how playtesting works.

 

[billd91]

As they said on the Wizards forums, Combat Superiority dice need to refresh at the end of the Fighter's turn, not the beginning.

Depends on what of resource management you want to promote. If a fighter has an interrupting maneuver in his style, do you want him to hold back a die in reserve to use it? Or do you want him to use it and then be partly (or fully) expended on his next turn? I can see an argument either way, though, I concede that refreshing at the end so that the interrupting maneuvers are generally more available might be a good idea.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Responding to a few bits:

1. Rolling stats--I'm vehemently opposed to rolling stats being the standard option or the one listed first. It's had enough history that it should be in the game, but not the norm.

2. Clerics--healing/buffing historically has limited appeal. 4E, by making healing and buffing something you did in addition to your regular turn as opposed to instead of your regular turn broadened the appeal of playing this sort of character. There are some options to attack and heal/buff, but these are unappealing in comparison or in the case of Healing Word not worth it in comparison to CLW post combat.

3. Fight, Run, Improvise--3E had more than this, though it's been a while and I'm a bit fuzzy on the specifics. 4E had things like damage+, control, and setting thing up and these things were on a sliding scale with shades of grey. During the first playtest, most of the time things devolved into sacks of HP trading blows until somebody fell, with the occasional Wizard nuke. Looking at this playtest, things have changed only slightly.

Speeding up healing--this actually has a long tradition at my tables. During 2E, we handed out enough potions to heal back to full every fight, and got torn to shreds every fight. During 3E, we used Wands of CLW and used them hard, though HP we found somewhat irrelevant in the midst of 3E's rocket tag. In 4E, surges enabled starting at full every fight until the surges ran out. Its a cinematic style of play, where combat is super violent and high impact, but doesn't wear you down.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Depends on what of resource management you want to promote. If a fighter has an interrupting maneuver in his style, do you want him to hold back a die in reserve to use it? Or do you want him to use it and then be partly (or fully) expended on his next turn? I can see an argument either way, though, I concede that refreshing at the end so that the interrupting maneuvers are generally more available might be a good idea.

I also think refreshing at the end of the turn is preferable.

At top of turn refresh... I think fighters will tend to blow their die during the attack, one, because it is there and they see all these great uses for it during his attack... and two, for fear of not using it. If the Fighter does not have an interrupt ability AND the Fighter doesn't get attacked and hit (thus not using Parry), then he has wasted his die for the round.

End of turn refresh means the Fighter has an entire round of other people's actions to see if he needs to interrupt them and/or if he gets hit so bad he wants to Parry a bit of the damage... and if not, the die is then available for his turn to (at the very least) add on an extra die of damage via Deadly Strike.

That makes much more sense to me... and I'll probably playtest it both ways to see if what I suspect actually turns out to be true

 

[Umbran]

So you hate it because its D&D and not fourth edition. Got it.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

What we have here is a classic form of unfortunate rhetoric - lump the poster into a bucket, then dismiss everything in the bucket on some general principle, adding nothing constructive to the conversation in the process.

Here's a hint: Don't do this. If all you want to do is dismiss another person's point, don't bother posting yourself. Continue on with life as if that post didn't exist. Go post in another thread in where you can build something awesome, rather than spend time tearing things down. You and the rest of the boards will be happier for it.

Any questions? Take them to e-mail or PM with the mod of your choice. Thanks for your time, all!

 

[Mengu]

Let me start by saying I agree with most everything in the OP, except two:

2. Fighter--Combat Superiority thouroughly underwhelming. Very little of it seems better than just taking the damage from Deadly Strike. Passing on damage to do things off turn is too much of a gamble, and only Knock Down and and Shift really seem worth the trouble. Unhappy on being limited to affecting monsters of a certain size or less. Boring and spammy overall.

Keep in mind you will sometimes miss, and not get a chance to use your dice pool during your turn.

I feel Parry is very powerful in a game with little healing. Mitigating 1d6/1d8 damage a round might be too valuable to give up for damage, since stuff seems to die pretty fast anyway, you don't need an extra die of damage to kill goblins and kobolds. If you have access to it Cleave can also be better than Deadly Strike. However if you're fighting something with a lot of HP's like a gelatinous cube, troll, or minotaur, it's knock down time if you have it, your allies can hold until you go, and all attack with advantage including your rogue. So choices may vary between builds too. For instance a Protector fighting a troll at level 5, might use one die to knock prone, and save the other for parry or protect (for the rogue), unless he misses, in which case it's parry/protect time. A Slayer might use both dice on Deadly Strike on a Hit, Glancing Blow on a miss. There are definitely some different and valid choices there.

2. HP way too low. 1st level PCs shouldn't be in danger of going down in one hit. Not looking forward to having to start at higher levels to avoid a situation I despise.

I actually didn't mind this. After a first read, I thought I'd just start PC's at level 5. I don't really care for the pedestrian off the farm style. It still gives the farm boy lovers an option to play low levels, while superhero lovers can completely ignore the existence of those levels.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

What I can compare is the direction they are taking the game in, and whether the playtest as it stands now is something that could possibly evolve into something I'd play.

Oddly enough, my sentiments are the same, though I see it as way too close to 4e for my tastes. The mere fact that both of us, with completely opposite tastes in what we want from a game system, end up feeling the same about the game can't be good.

 

[billd91]

Oddly enough, my sentiments are the same, though I see it as way too close to 4e for my tastes. The mere fact that both of us, with completely opposite tastes in what we want from a game system, end up feeling the same about the game can't be good.

Unless most gamers feel both of your tastes and preferences in D&D are too extreme. In which case, D&D Next could do fairly well.

 

[Mercule]

Unless most gamers feel both of your tastes and preferences in D&D are too extreme. In which case, D&D Next could do fairly well.

That would be my hope. I liked most of the second packet. What I didn't care for are things that I definitely see as fiddly bits that could evolve (just how much damage should dual wielding do?) as the playtest goes on. I would consider myself more grounded in AD&D and felt that 4e, whatever its merits as a stand-alone game, didn't really seem like D&D. That said, I stopped playing AD&D for a reason and don't want to go back to a pure AD&D game. Ditto for d20. I want to have something that has the creative spirit and ease of play of AD&D, while bringing along the more standardize mechanics and improved choices (feats, skills -- at least in spirit) of 3e. There are a few perks from 4e that I'd carry on, but those are largely window dressing.

As for the "mother may I" line, I prefer to think of it as letting the DM do his job. And the number one thing I want from 5e is for the system to get out of the way of the DM while still providing enough framework to equip the players to craft and play interesting PCs.