D&D 5E October 29th Playtest Class Changes

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I agree with Jeff that each class should get some kind of goodie at 6th level, like the fighter does.

The fighter's extra attack has an obvious mechanical purpose: it ensures that weapon damage isn't swamped by Deadly Strike damage. I'd think the same worry would apply to wizard cantrips and cleric orisons as well; maybe the damage-dealing ones should increase their power at 6th level. And hey, maybe the rogue can have back his Knack skill rerolls at 6th level. (Twice per day he can reroll a trained skill check?)

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I think TWF can work as it is in this playtest by default, with a specialty to improve it (most likely by getting rid of the disadvantage).

EDIT: And since I'm not trying to spam the thread, I'll tack on this unrelated point: It's very silly that the fighter styles all save the coolest maneuvers, like Volley and Whirlwind Attack, until 10th level when there's nothing at all to prevent you taking them at first level. No matter what type of fighter I wanted to play, I think I'd be hard-pressed NOT to take Parry and Whirlwind Attack or Volley as my first two maneuvers. Overall, though, I think fighters should automatically get Parry at first level and rogues should automatically get Sneak Attack.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Some quick maths on TWF:

SEE BELOW!

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Chris, what weapons are you using there? It might make a slight difference.

For example, a halfling can TWF with two d8 shortswords, while an elf can use a d10 longsword and a d6 shortsword (for the same average damage).

Also, the ability modifier is important for the guy with the big weapon. Does he have +5 Str or less than that?

It's also worth noting that in this new iteration you can add your full Deadly Strike or Sneak Attack damage to either blow - I'd be interested in seeing the same table with that damage included. It rapidly starts to get tricky, of course.

Very helpful information though!

 

[Salamandyr]

OK, here's the problem with advantage making two weapon fighting situationally useful. You cannot ever have advantage. Remember that advantage and disadvantage overlap, they do not negate each other. So, since a two weapon fighter can never have advantage, he can never mitigate the disadvantage.

 

[tuxgeo]

Well there are some things I like on the current iteration of the playtest (yay for the return of the fun skills). However:
< listing snipped >
They haven't really revised the weapons table (and they should) Heavy and Finesse ought to be properties, not categories.

So far, I like what I am seeing. My only complaints:
< snip >
2) Clerics cannot use quarerstaffs. But the Staff of Striking still lists cleric as one of the only classes that can attune to it. Similarly, Warbringer clerics cannot use short swords. Both of these items are listed solely as finesse weapons even though they don't have to be used that way according to the rules. Finesse should be a property, not a category.

Agreement is a good thing. [Emphasis added.]

 

[bbjore]

I'm a big fan of the proposed goals for D&D next, but I right now the whole thing just feels so cludgy. I can't tell if it is just a byproduct of the playtest process itself, and they actually have a really elegant core that takes advantage of all the advances in game design, or if they're flailing about making classes and class abilities willy nilly, and then seeing which ones people like the most. I fear it's a lot of the latter, because it seems like they're really missing the boat on a number of ways to not only make the classes feel and play differently, but also in ways to set up the system for further expansion.

Like the rogue. Expertise dice & maneuvers were a great addtion to the fighter. I'm not opposed to expertise dice for rogue, I think maneuvers as a spell list for martial characters are awesome. But to make it as a fighter light with access to better skill maneuvers is a poor way to do it. It doesn't make the rogue really feel different from the fighter.

Imagine something simple as a different expertise dice progression. For instance the fighter tops out at say 6d12 and the rogue tops out at 10d6. This is a simple mechanical difference that would help the classes play differently at the table, even with the same maneuvers. If they tweak the maneuvers a bit, then the fighter (traditionally the strength class), becomes about big swings, big gambles, and big rewards. It's is more about raw physical power. The rogue on the other hand, is then able to juggling multiple abilities or actions, create complex set ups, and has more reliability. The rogue can afford to roll multiple dice and pick the highest and still have some left over for other maneuvers. In this way, the rogue (the dex class) becomes a class that exemplifies physical skilll & finesse.

Especially for the four main classes, they need to take a step back and think about how these classes can exemplify a specific playstyle, and build on that through simple elegant choices.

The base Cleric can wear armor and the wizard can't, this is a useful distinction, as is the Cleric's spontaneous casting. But imagine how neat it would be if instead of having the Cleric's spell list be a kind of junky divine version of the arcane list, they moved to a spell list that was almost entirely words of power or even a rechargeable encounter system. Then divine casting is unique and different from arcane casting, with it's own mechanical elements that make it more suitable to buffing and healing.

Arcane spells, on the other hand, would usually take an action and would take better planning, but in return, other than just damage, give them useful riders or control effects so they're always useful to some extent, or allow them to last longer than one turn. That way, even if a wizard only casts one spell during an encounter, he uses it for three rounds. This reinforces the idea of the arcane studious classes being about careful preparation and hoarding of resources, and rewards them for their lack of armor and the cost of an action.

I know power sources seems like a dirty word, but they are a really useful way to tie certain classes and abilities together, and create nifty feats that can alter play styles. Divine magic comes from deities, Arcane magic comes from study, does the current system really make that distinction unique or relevant, or are they just trying out multiple cludgy iterations of a class until they find the one that seems most popular. If so, are they going to do the same for every class? Wouldn't it be better if they took the time to make each of the four base classes a unique and flavorful example of how to do a power source so later classes could be based on some unique twists on that idea. I'm love tradition, and I'm not saying toss out half a century of it, but I find it hard to believe that they can't really tighten up and advance class design, and include a nice build for each class that hearkens back and exemplifies what was best about the class from previous editions.

Last, a general complaint about further cludginess, comes in some of the other scattered changes. They were brought about in response to problems with the previous iterations, but they don't really fix things. Two-weapon fighting, historically stacking damage modifiers combined with increased accuracy from multiple attacks allowed it to outdistance the brawny guy with a greatsword damage wise. The current fix doesn't solve that problem, it makes it useless, and any feat or class support that fixes its uselessness will end up with the same problems as previous editions. The experimental healing rules are also needlessly complex and messy. Healing surges were a great, elegant option that ensured everyone was refreshed and ready for every encounter, but were still limited on a daily basis. They'd be a great for an experimental module, so why are we stuck with really cludgy experimental rules that are an exercise in timekeeping? The caster at-will business? That drives me nuts. A useful suite of at-wills for casters is a great way to help make up for them being based primarily on daily resources. It's also a great way to help them out in the exploration and RP pillars, and create useful space for them to improvise at the table. Does making a cantrip or orison 1/day solve anything? Wouldn't it be better to take a close look a those spells, and make sure each of them is really well developed, balanced, and useful throughout an adventuring career? Last, they need a big, sign in WoTC's office that says, "If we ever make a feat or class ability that is 1/day. It needs to be an ability worth writing on a character sheet." A PC gets 7 feats throughout their career, any feat choice better be something that comes up and is useful at every session throughout that PC's career. That goes double for any 1/day class abilities.

TLDR; I love the idea for next, and I love a lot of the game, but it constantly feels like their solutions to problems is more a process of throwing ideas out there until they find one that people will accept, and less a process of looking at historical problems or issues, and then trying to come up with elegant solutions that address them. That's where a lot of game design went wrong over the years. I.e. Combat expertise? Great idea! Give the rogue combat expertise, but no unique take on it that makes the rogue different from from the fighter? Terrible idea.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Chris, what weapons are you using there? It might make a slight difference.

For example, a halfling can TWF with two d8 shortswords, while an elf can use a d10 longsword and a d6 shortsword (for the same average damage).

Also, the ability modifier is important for the guy with the big weapon. Does he have +5 Str or less than that?

It's also worth noting that in this new iteration you can add your full Deadly Strike or Sneak Attack damage to either blow - I'd be interested in seeing the same table with that damage included. It rapidly starts to get tricky, of course.

Very helpful information though!

Ah yes, I didn't make that clear. I went for non-modified best choices, so 1d8/1d6 for TWF, 1d8 for S&B and 1d12 for 2HW. Halflings and Elves are better at TWF. No ability modifier included either.. that makes TWF pretty damned weak when I recalculate with a +2 ability modifier:

tohit	twf	s&b	2hw
1	8	6.5	8.5
2	7.22	6.175	8.075
3	6.48	5.85	7.65
4	5.78	5.525	7.225
5	5.12	5.2	6.8
6	4.5	4.875	6.375
7	3.92	4.55	5.95
8	3.38	4.225	5.525
9	2.88	3.9	5.1
10	2.42	3.575	4.675
11	2	3.25	4.25
12	1.62	2.925	3.825
13	1.28	2.6	3.4
14	0.98	2.275	2.975
15	0.72	1.95	2.55
16	0.5	1.625	2.125
17	0.32	1.3	1.7
18	0.18	0.975	1.275
19	0.08	0.65	0.85
20	0.02	0.325	0.425
			
With advantage (or negating it for twf)			
			
tohit	twf	s&b	2hw
1	8	6.5	8.5
2	7.6	6.48375	8.47875
3	7.2	6.435	8.415
4	6.8	6.35375	8.30875
5	6.4	6.24	8.16
6	6	6.09375	7.96875
7	5.6	5.915	7.735
8	5.2	5.70375	7.45875
9	4.8	5.46	7.14
10	4.4	5.18375	6.77875
11	4	4.875	6.375
12	3.6	4.53375	5.92875
13	3.2	4.16	5.44
14	2.8	3.75375	4.90875
15	2.4	3.315	4.335
16	2	2.84375	3.71875
17	1.6	2.34	3.06
18	1.2	1.80375	2.35875
19	0.8	1.235	1.615
20	0.4	0.63375	0.82875

As noted below though, you can 'never have advantage' so the second table is just for pretend.
If you removed the disadvantage, as you suggest, then the twf column from table 2 compares pretty damned well to the 2hw column from table 1, but quickly loses out as the ability modifier increases.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

OK, here's the problem with advantage making two weapon fighting situationally useful. You cannot ever have advantage. Remember that advantage and disadvantage overlap, they do not negate each other. So, since a two weapon fighter can never have advantage, he can never mitigate the disadvantage.

I wondered how to parse that - I thought they might be able to negate disadvantage, but never have outright advantage, but then that's true anyway when you start with disadvantage, so I guess it's a really awful choice then.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I wonder about allowing two straight up attacks, without disatvantage or penalties, and just downgrading the damage dice. So for example, if a fighter is using a longsword and shortsword combo, his attacks deal 1d6 and 1d4. If a monk uses a quarterstaff as a double weapon, each end does 1d6.

That's a decent compromise. You hit more often, in theory, though for slightly less damage, and occasionally hit twice for more damage.

Though one could also simply restrict TWF to light weapons (so they max at 1d6). So no longsword + dagger, but otherwise weapons function as statted. Two daggers, or two shortswords, or double weapons are still viable.