D&D 5E October 29th Playtest Class Changes

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I think I can get behind the new Cleric and Wizard, though the Lightbringer deity should probably be renamed. Using the literal meaning of Lucifer doesn't seem like a good idea.

Oh, he's just misunderstood. Man of wealth and taste, and all that.

Maneuvers look like a well implemented system for martial abilities. We'll see how it plays. Still, I think the Fighter's styles each need some unique ability that isn't a maneuver.

Particularly when the rogue has the same mechanics. Otherwise rogues are just nimble, weaker fighters, or else fighters are stronger, tougher rogues.

I'm not happy with Two Weapon Fighting. They really need to drop the idea of getting multiple attacks, and focus on other advantages of wielding two weapons.

Like what? Improved defense? That's no different than carrying a shield. Ability to screw up and cut oneself? Nah, we really don't need fumble rules.

Face it, people want TWF to do two attacks. The disadvantage mechanic seems better than the feat-stack-with-penalties of other editions (pre-playtest).

 

[KidSnide]

i was hoping for domains not deities but w/e cant get everything you want in life.

That was my initial reaction too, but I'm coming around to deities because I think it's more accessible for new players. In 3e, players had to pick a deity and then choose a domain (actually -- choose 2 from a list). As part of D&DN's focus on reducing the number of unimportant choices in character creation (see backgrounds, specialties), the designers simplified this concept into simply picking a deity.

Personally, I miss the opportunity for different clerics of the same deity to pick-and-choose different light-weight aspects of that deity to focused on. But since that's not really compatible with the current pick-one heavy-weight design for deities/dominions, I think "deity" is a better concept for players to select.

-KS

 

[Falling Icicle]

I've only been looking over the new packet for a little while, but I've already noticed several things that really bother me. Here's just a few of them:

Sneak Attack is flat-out inferior to Deadly Strike. It does the same damage but has conditions when deadly strike can be used on any attack. Rogues are just weak fighters now.

0th level spells aren't at-will anymore! I think this is the single biggest blunder of the new playtest packet. Now, you can only get at-will spells from your tradition or cleric domain. And some of the tradition spells don't even make sense. Illustionists, for example, get shocking grasp at-will if they prepare it, which leaves me scratching my head. Why can't they just let all cantrips and orisons be at-will, and let your tradition/domain give you a couple extra? Yeah, you get an encounter spell, but you only ever get one and you don't even get to choose it.

On the same note, the magic user specialty only lets you use a cantrip once per day instead of giving two at-will cantrips. They took one of the coolest feats in Next and totally ruined it. All my aspirations of playing a rogue with mage hand and magic missile, shattered. Why did they do this? You can't tell me having a couple at-will cantrips was overpowered!

Spells no longer add the caster's primary ability score to damage. This infuriates me. Now there is really nothing to distinguish a burning hands cast by one wizard from another (other than save DC). Weapons add Str or Dex, spells should add Int, Wis or Cha. This is just such a common sense thing I don't get why they abandoned it. They even left a flat numerical bonus in some of the spells, like magic missile and radiant lance (now renamed to lance of faith). Why not just let casters add their primary ability modifier and magic implement bonus?

The damage of spells overall is just pitiful, especially considering the reduced number of spells per day. Even 5th level spells like cone of cold do less damage than fighters using deadly strike, and the fighter can do that all day long. Yes, I know that many of these spells hit multiple creatures, but doing mediocre damage to several creatures is not very satisfying. And once you've spent your few daily spells, wizards are then left using puny at-will spells for far less damage than fighters and rogues are doing for the rest of the day. Whatever happened to wizards as the glass cannons? Now they're all glass, no cannon.

They still seem to be using hp thresholds, though I only noticed them in Command and Polymorph (and in an odd way, Sleep). It's notably absent from Charm Person and Hold Person/Monster. Hopefully this means the hp threshold mechanic is on the way out.

Lance of Faith is just plain inferior to magic missile now. So much for the lazer cleric. And on a separate note, what happened to all the necromancy spells?

And as if the imbalance between fighters and other classes wasn't already big enough, they went and gave them a second attack starting at 6th level. Not even a reduced iterative attack like in 3e with -5 to hit and preventing you from moving more than 5 ft that turn, but a complete bonus attack and you can even move inbetween both attacks. Wow. So now your poor rogue is stuck trying to get advantage for sneak attack when the fighter is chopping everything up with two attacks and deadly strike. The poor wizard is throwing sleep spells to hopefully put to sleep 3d8 hp worth of monsters and praying they don't have more hp than that while the fighter is doing more damage than 3d8 and he's putting the monster to "sleep" forever, as in eternal rest, six feet under. Welcome everyone to the new era of linear wizards, quadratic fighters!

All that said, I do like the word of power mechanic for clerics. This is a great alternative to the crappy word of healing spell and makes playing a cleric healer much more enjoyable. I also liked the way they're doing deities and domains for clerics now. By providing generic archetypes, people can assign them to whatever god(s) or belief systems they want to use in their campaign.

We also get 4 skills from our background now instead of 3, so it's not all bad!

 

[Falling Icicle]

Oh, one other thing I just noticed. Combat Expertise dice increases at a gradual rate until level 10, when it skyrockets from 2d8 to 3d10. I wonder if this is a typo and it's supposed to be 2d10?

 

[KidSnide]

Spells no longer add the caster's primary ability score to damage. This infuriates me.

The rules are unclear about this. Page 16 of the How to Play document says:

Damage Rolls
Each weapon and spell indicates the damage it deals, such as 1d8 or 2d8. Roll the dice, add any modifiers (including the ability modifier you used to make the attack), and apply the damage to your target.(emphasis added)

And yet, on pages 4-7 of the same document, Strength and Dexterity state that they are added to attacks and damage for melee and finesse/missile attacks, while the Magic Ability description (for Int, Wis and Cha) say that the modifier is used for attack rolls and DCs, but damage is not mentioned.

-KS

 

[GX.Sigma]

Sneak Attack is flat-out inferior to Deadly Strike. It does the same damage but has conditions when deadly strike can be used on any attack. Rogues are just weak fighters now.

Rogues are worse at fighting than Fighters? Sounds like that's working as intended. (Seriously though, "target must be within an ally's reach" is not much of a restriction.)

Why can't they just let all cantrips and orisons be at-will, and let your tradition/domain give you a couple extra?
...
You can't tell me having a couple at-will cantrips was overpowered!

At-will detect magic, at-will light, etc. were a problem for some people (myself included). It doesn't really help that the generalist wizard gets all cantrips at-will, but it's a start.

I agree with you though; even though I like magic missile as a level 1+ spell, I do miss the at-will magic missile feat.

Lance of Faith is just plain inferior to magic missile now. So much for the lazer cleric.

A level 0 cleric spell is worse than a level 1 wizard spell?

And on a separate note, what happened to all the necromancy spells?

I totally agree on this one. I want summon monster and animate dead, bad. It sounds like they're saving it for the "followers module," which I guess makes sense--some people don't want them, so they shouldn't have to deal with them.

So now your poor rogue is stuck trying to get advantage for sneak attack when the fighter is chopping everything up with two attacks and deadly strike. The poor wizard is throwing sleep spells to hopefully put to sleep 3d8 hp worth of monsters and praying they don't have more hp than that while the fighter is doing more damage than 3d8 and he's putting the monster to "sleep" forever, as in eternal rest, six feet under. Welcome everyone to the new era of linear wizards, quadratic fighters!

You're really exaggerating here. For one thing, level 6 wizards are not going to be casting sleep. They are going to be casting 5d6 fireballs and 6d4+15 magic missiles.

 

[Greg K]

All clerics proficient, once again, in heavy armor and having turn undead as a class ability is a giant step back in my opinion. How disappointing.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Oh, he's just misunderstood. Man of wealth and taste, and all that.

I think we have just found a new ambassador of D&D.

 

[Falling Icicle]

The rules are unclear about this. Page 16 of the How to Play document says:

And yet, on pages 4-7 of the same document, Strength and Dexterity state that they are added to attacks and damage for melee and finesse/missile attacks, while the Magic Ability description (for Int, Wis and Cha) say that the modifier is used for attack rolls and DCs, but damage is not mentioned.

I suspect that the former is a copy and paste artifact, since they deliberately removed the mention of the ability modifier adding to spell damage in several other places.

Rogues are worse at fighting than Fighters? Sounds like that's working as intended. (Seriously though, "target must be within an ally's reach" is not much of a restriction.)

Fighters and Rogues were always both good in combat, but in different ways. Fighters tended to hit more reliably, have more attacks, and more feats (in 3e), while rogues had backstab/sneak attack that enabled them to do more damage than fighters when fighting dirty. Now, they have no advantage over fighters at all, not even when they are ambushing their foes.

Besides, I think it's important that the various options for combat expertise be balanced with each other. One should not be simply superior to another. You'll notice that rogues and fighters share several maneuvers. Why should those be balanced with each other but not deadly strike and sneak attack?

A level 0 cleric spell is worse than a level 1 wizard spell?

Ah, I didn't notice that Magic missile isn't a 0th level spell anymore. Thanks for pointing that out.

You're really exaggerating here. For one thing, level 6 wizards are not going to be casting sleep. They are going to be casting 5d6 fireballs and 6d4+15 magic missiles.

Only twice per day. The rest of the time, he'll be using weaker spells or cantrips. 1d6 + 3 damage rays of frost are pretty sad compared to a fighter's [W] + Str bonus + 2d6 (at level 6). With a two-handed weapon and an 18 Str, that damage is d12 + 4 + 2d6, or (7-28, avg. 17.5) damage. A fireball does 5d6 (5-30, avg. 17.5) damage. The average damage is the same, but that's the wizard's highest level spell (3rd level) at level 6, and he can only cast two per day! The rest of the time, whether using lower level spells or cantrips, the fighter is far out-damaging him. I don't think that's right.

I agree the fighter should have some advantage since he doesn't have daily resources, but his at-will attacks shouldn't be as or more powerful than a wizard's daily spells, and they certainly shouldn't be so much more powerful than a wizard's at-will spells that they leave him in the dust, IMHO.

 

[MoonSong]

Well there are some things I like on the current iteration of the playtest (yay for the return of the fun skills). However:

• I'm not very keen on the Cleric/Wizard implementation, it feels way too symmetrical, and I was liking that Clerics had different proficiencies acording to their Domain. I'm fine with they making it simpler for beginners (it makes more sense to abegginer to pick a deity). But they didn't had to make them that plain. (And they are leaving behind the "Cleric of a cause" one type of cleric I liked too much)
• Wizard traditions, I'm not a fan of the recharge spell. However I do like the spell reduction, there is still hope that sorcerers will be way simpler, but more potent on return (I think that a sorcerer that tops at 4 spells per level, and access to finesseable weapons with no at wills, recharge or ritual casting could balance with the wizard). Just hope they aren't thinking of using traditions to give us the sorcerer and warlock, because that is a big no.
• They haven't really revised the weapons table (and they should) Heavy and Finesse ought to be properties, not categories.
• I feel more and more that we won't get to see any way to get additional proficiencies (and that is disheartening). The silence on what proficiency means still continues.
• The aforementioned check on monster math
• Specialties look very balanced. But now have a very cold and clinical feel to them. So much for them meaning something other than a group of feats I guess
• I like that they have finally caught on that a skill is not worth a full feat, while I still feel the price isn't right (to me it ought to be 3 skills by feat) they are getitng better. Now if there was just a way to turn that skill increase into a new skill trainning (Even if it is just a +2 or +1, getting new skills as you advance is important), because otherwise all chances of learning new skills are gone if the DM choses to forgo Specialties altogether.