D&D 5E October Playtest: Yay or Nay?

[gyor]

Yeah, it isn't like the Wizard adds spells known to his spell book, or the Cleric has access to every Divine magic spells in that level to shove into that slot day-to-day or anything ...

Seriously, spell slots are the single most powerful and flexible commodities in Dungeons and Dragons over the last three decades.



Yeah, I mean all those non-caster players killed themselves decades ago out of boredom.

The Wizard gets new options every level, and more slots to fill. The Rogue and the Fighter get a new "spell" every 3 levels.



In the former, you get a broken Quadratic Caster who makes non-casters his wand-caddies wondering if they haven't stumbled into a cleverly disguised game of Ars Magica.

In the latter you get three daily attacks, three encounter / daily utility spells, and 3 encounter spells - of which only maybe the last 2 dailies and 1 encounter do appreciable damage for your level.

- Marty Lund

In 4e all classes also got class features and pps and eds.

All of a clerics spells are eaten up healing, they won't have enough slots for anything else.

The Orisons as they currently are are useless and miss the point of at wills.

Wizards don't get new stuff every level except a new spell slot (stuff like hit dice doesn't count, all classes get that stuff).

There is a middle ground between broken and boring, this is solidly in boring.

Also its not just Wizards and Clerics that don't get enough stuff, Fighters and Rogues don't either.

Its like all the flavour got sucked out of this packet. Wizards get a tiny bit more for a high,price. No Sorceror or Warlock either.

I could live with fewer slots if there was something as cool in exchange, but there isn't.

There is literally nothing to get excited about in the packet.

Do you really think this packet is going to cut it? Only 40 percent like the packet, that's the worst numbers for any of the packets yet, by far.

They actually have verious verisons of the playtest packet, they should admit this one was a mistake and release one of the other versions.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Um, he knows that monster math is an extremely important change both because it's obvious, and because Mearls has said so about a dozen times.

The reason it's so important is that if the monsters are pushovers and/or one-shotting the PCs, it's hard to effectively playtest combat. How can I test whether Parry is overpowered when monsters never hit me to begin with? How should I evaluate the power of Mage Armor when it seems fairly likely that all the monsters are going to need a decent boost in their attack bonus in the near future?

And what makes you think WotC is currently worried about whether Parry is balanced or the power of the Mage Armor spell? They had a complete previous playtest with every Fighter using Parry to get a sense whether it was an effective tool, so at this point for all we know... they are happy with how it can work and can now futz with all the things around it because they know they can dial it back when they get back to worrying about balance. And Mage Armor is no different than the regular armors, so what kind of power balance are they worried about right now? Perhaps none. But in either event... we do not know and are not privy to that information. So its nothing we need to be worried about.

Here's another example: I want more specialties. Not JUST because I'm greedy (although I am), but because it's hard to evaluate the balance and effectiveness of the rogue and fighter maneuvers when there's not a single specialty relevant to martial offense. I'm GUESSING that a duelist fighter with a suitable specialty would be fun to play, but I apparently won't know for sure for a few more months.

And what if WotC doesn't care at this moment in time about the balance between maneuvers and feats? What if they just want to know if maneuvers as they currently stand are fun to play and/or useful in of themselves? What if that's ALL they currently are concerned with? Does the fact that you can't "balance" the fighter or rogue on top of that really matter to them? Sure, it might matter to you... but this playtest isn't about you. Or me. Or any of us on an individual basis. It about every playtester on the whole. And it won't matter one lick of difference if you've somehow worked out the "balance" to the last point of DPS between the fighter and rogue in every style, scheme and specialty combination possible... when your survey will be one of a thousand different ones, and on top of things, your "balance" results go right out the window when we come to find out that things have already changed two or three iterations down the line.

I'm not as concerned about the direction of the playtest as others in this thread (even when I'm not a huge fan of specific changes), but I also don't believe WOTC has a secret master plan and therefore we can't criticize what they choose to have us test.

No, they don't have a "secret master plan" in the Evil Overlord sense. But does Mike have an idea of what he thinks people are going to comment on with this packet, and have things been rolled out in such a way that many comments will naturally move towards certain aspects of the packet they want information on? I think we'd be fools to believe otherwise. But should criticize them because you haven't gotten the Druid to test yet? Or because you were given a potion miscability chart when there are so many "more important things to worry about!" Or because monsters OBVIOUSLY should have gained a +2 to hit across the board, and you'd have to be an idiot not to recognize that! No. I don't think you should. Because that presumes YOU KNOW better than they do what they should be working on. And I'm sorry... but that's the most ridiculous thing and the highest form of hubris you could ever actually believe.

 

[Consonant Dude]

The playtest packets have gotten progressively worse, IMO. Unlike the previous ones, I don't even think I will bother testing this one as a DM. I might jump in as a player since I know of another friend who has playtested Next but last I heard from him, his impressions were similar to mine.

I do agree it doesn't look like WotC have a clear idea of what they want to design other than "it should please fans of all editions". That in itself is not a design goal but rather a marketer's wish.

I may not have liked the direction 4e was taking but at least, it had clear goals. It just wasn't a game I could get behind. But this one? All fiddly bits and a lot of complexity without any tangible payoff.

I'm disappointed and I really think Mike Mearls should have nothing to do with designing any future iterations of DnD.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I am a huge fan of this packet. The changes to the classes will need some time to shake out (Sneak Attack sucks, why does the Illusionist not have disguise self, etc.), but I'm a big fan of the direction they're going.

The change to 0-level spells (some characters can use some of them at will, but they're not all automatically at-will spells) feels like a step in the right direction. It looks like they're aiming for a game where one character can have purely daily magic that you have to prepare ahead of time, and another can have lots of at-will spells and spontaneous spell point casting. They're not quite there yet, but they're getting pretty close.

Also: how can you not love 6-mile hexes?

 

[Thac0 the Barbarian]

The playtest packets have gotten progressively worse, IMO. Unlike the previous ones, I don't even think I will bother testing this one as a DM. I might jump in as a player since I know of another friend who has playtested Next but last I heard from him, his impressions were similar to mine.

I do agree it doesn't look like WotC have a clear idea of what they want to design other than "it should please fans of all editions". That in itself is not a design goal but rather a marketer's wish.

I may not have liked the direction 4e was taking but at least, it had clear goals. It just wasn't a game I could get behind. But this one? All fiddly bits and a lot of complexity without any tangible payoff.

I'm disappointed and I really think Mike Mearls should have nothing to do with designing any future iterations of DnD.

The problem with coming with a specific vision of what you want Dungeons & Dragons to be, is that while it might be a moral victory, by and large the player population has indicated that they don't appreciate that. The common complaint about 4e was that well it might be a great game, it wasn't a game that the majority, or at least a large percentage of the players wanted. Now what they are in the slow iterative process, soliciting information on want the players want, requesting feedback, and they are being castigated for not having an overarching vision. Despite the fact that the release of the game is more than 18 months away. I like making disparaging comments on the Internet as much as the next man, but it seems that we are constructing a scenario that W OTC just can't win.

 

[Thalain]

I'm generally disappointed. The fighter gets significant options as does the Rogue, but the magical classes got severely nerfed. The current fighter and rogue would go well with the first spell progression for the casters or the original ones without all these bonuses would have gone along with the new, weak casters (although this would have been truly weak heroes in terms of what D&D is used to).

A signature spell (of 2nd level or lower unless it's a scalable combat spell) and a few weak 0-level or 1st level at will ones don't compensate for a versatile caster with many strategic options. "I'm going to cast Thunderwave for the 9th time today and then you guys can do what you want for the next 10 minutes because I'm going to do a laughable 1d6+2 at best whereas our fighters do 4d10+6".

I've already had my reservations against the flat system before it was even fleshed out in numbers, but I was willing to give it a try. As it stands now, I'd rather integrate some of the better feats (skill mastery, anyone?) and rules (advantage/disadvantage) into a good 3.5 or PF setting than actually play a "real" Next game.

 

[mlund]

I don't kow ... I'm seeing a whole lot of the same old "My caster isn't better than everyone else! I'm going to play XYZ because your D&D sucks," axes going to the grinder here.

At this point, the core classes need some tweaks - the martial ones in the maneuvers system and the casters in the spell lists. MOAR POWAH isn't really the dial that needs adjusting for anyone so much as "How am I contributing in each round of combat?"

Settling that issue for everyone isn't going to be easy. Even if you sensibly write off the closeted Ars Magical crowd as folks you can't afford to waste time on you've still got to figure some way of bringing the Magic==Hydrogen folks and the Cult of Vance together into the same exact class without either side feeling like they've been screwed to make the other side happy. That's going to take a lot of passes.

- Marty Lund

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

And what makes you think WotC is currently worried about whether Parry is balanced or the power of the Mage Armor spell? They had a complete previous playtest with every Fighter using Parry to get a sense whether it was an effective tool, so at this point for all we know... they are happy with how it can work and can now futz with all the things around it because they know they can dial it back when they get back to worrying about balance. And Mage Armor is no different than the regular armors, so what kind of power balance are they worried about right now? Perhaps none. But in either event... we do not know and are not privy to that information. So its nothing we need to be worried about.

If they aren't worried about combat being balanced... That's pretty weird.

And what if WotC doesn't care at this moment in time about the balance between maneuvers and feats? What if they just want to know if maneuvers as they currently stand are fun to play and/or useful in of themselves? What if that's ALL they currently are concerned with? Does the fact that you can't "balance" the fighter or rogue on top of that really matter to them? Sure, it might matter to you... but this playtest isn't about you. Or me. Or any of us on an individual basis. It about every playtester on the whole. And it won't matter one lick of difference if you've somehow worked out the "balance" to the last point of DPS between the fighter and rogue in every style, scheme and specialty combination possible... when your survey will be one of a thousand different ones, and on top of things, your "balance" results go right out the window when we come to find out that things have already changed two or three iterations down the line.

Well, they might not find out if duelists are fun to play, because lacking their own specialty fighters with rapiers are significantly mechanically inferior to fighters with greatswords and thus a decent chunk of players might forgo playing duelists. WOTC doesn't owe us anything, but they might get more useful feedback if they modified what they provide us a bit.

No, they don't have a "secret master plan" in the Evil Overlord sense. But does Mike have an idea of what he thinks people are going to comment on with this packet, and have things been rolled out in such a way that many comments will naturally move towards certain aspects of the packet they want information on? I think we'd be fools to believe otherwise. But should criticize them because you haven't gotten the Druid to test yet? Or because you were given a potion miscability chart when there are so many "more important things to worry about!" Or because monsters OBVIOUSLY should have gained a +2 to hit across the board, and you'd have to be an idiot not to recognize that! No. I don't think you should. Because that presumes YOU KNOW better than they do what they should be working on. And I'm sorry... but that's the most ridiculous thing and the highest form of hubris you could ever actually believe.

Okay, hubris is pride against THE GODS, which would make this a bit of an exaggeration. I don't know what WOTC wants, but I'm betting they weren't hoping to read "fix glancing blow" 45,318 times in the responses to the last playtest. The more obvious annoyances they keep out of the playtest packets the more useful out feedback will be.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The more obvious annoyances they keep out of the playtest packets the more useful our feedback will be.

And once again... you are presuming you know better than they do what feedback is more useful to them.

There's your issue right there.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I may not have liked the direction 4e was taking but at least, it had clear goals. It just wasn't a game I could get behind. But this one? All fiddly bits and a lot of complexity without any tangible payoff.

A complete and finished game has clearer and more defined goals than one that is still being designed and is not even half way completed?

SHOCKER!!!