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

[Raith5]

Tepid and mixed feelings from me right down the line. I like backgrounds but dislike the fiddly number and scope of skills, I like expertise dice for both fighters and rogues but rogues need to have something more, monsters are uninteresting compared to 4th ed, and while I really like the idea of wizard traditions I find the spells pretty boring.

I feel that they have really succeeded in terms of connecting with D&D themes and nostalgia from across the editions but it falls short in terms of being really engaging.

 

[pemerton]

The next iteration must stretch the system to cover a wider variety of play styles through character and DM options.

At the moment this is one of the biggest issues for me. There is no indication how the system can support multiple playstyles. And after all the talk about 3 pillars, the only pillar to have been tackled yet is combat.

 

[GX.Sigma]

The next iteration must stretch the system to cover a wider variety of play styles through character and DM options.

...I didn't say that.

 

[pemerton]

...I didn't say that.

I didn't mean to imply that you did. But you did quote it as a design goal. And you seemed also to be endorsing it as a goal, though I may have misread that tone in your post.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I tried making a couple of characters yesterday and the thing I disliked the most were the "packaging" of manoeuvres, feats, skills and traits into backgrounds, specialities and so on. It felt constraining and stereotyped compared to just picking the skills, feats, traits and manoeuvres you would like yourself. I know you can make your own backgrounds and such, but for instance the feats that are available are so narrow in scope that they don't really fit together any other way.

I do feel that the Cleric has fallen between two chairs. His weapon attacks are unimpressive (since he doesn't get any manoeuvres) and his spells just looked really boring. He might be ok at higher levels, but the first 3-4 levels look just sad. He has a serious case of MAD (Multiple ability dependency). Comparing to the 4e cleric he just looked boring (for the first few levels).

On the positive side I liked many of the manoeuvres for the Fighter, I thought the Wizard looked interesting with it's at-will 0th level spells, possible signature spell, and so on.

 

[Li Shenron]

Non at will Orisons and Cantrips are a complete waste of time and are forgetable.

Give the Cleric the option to pick between Turn Undead and Channel divinity at first level and Let them choose between at will orisons or a bonus first level spell or two.

Wizards need more features from thier tradition as they level. The same atwill cantrips vs. bonus spell.

For both they need more rituals and cheaper ones.

Rogues need sneak attack fixed and some better manevuers. They also need at least D8 hps. Rogues should get skill expertise, sneak attack, and a manevuer that allows the Rogue to use a skill check and attack at first level automatically. That in addition to the ones it gets from thier scheme and schemes should use backgrounds again.

Fighters should get deadly strike, parry, and mighty exertion (which needs to work with both dexeterity and strength) automatically, plus the ones it gets from its fighting style.

Fighters and Rogues should get more EDs, at least one die for every two levels. And something unique for each class.

Rogues and Fighters should get access to Martial Practices, a 4e idea that was good, but never got enough support.

Nothing personal against you but I take this post of you, in particular your first spontaneous rant against moving back to less-than-at-will cantrips, as a sign that we're all spoiled by editions power creep.

Before 3e there was no such thing as cantrips AFAIK. Some classes gave you ONE spell per day, still most D&D players thought that it was an amazing game. 3e gave us a bunch of cantrips because we complained that one spell per day was too little, we "needed" more. Now we saw a version of 5e that gave us unlimited cantrips, and anything less is "a waste of time"?

Notice that all the rest of your suggestions are about adding more and more to everybody. It's understandable, because we're all living in a world where they try to teach everybody that the more stuff you have on the plate, the happier you are, but let's keep in mind that in a level-based game what really matters is the relative power (aka "balance") between different player characters, and the balance between them and the challenges they're going to face.

Thus it might feel like the game is "better" if you throw more stuff at everyone, but truth is that it isn't, because you then have to balance that with increasing the challenges. It doesn't get better, it gets more complicated, which of course equals better to some players, but it WILL get more complicated anyway as level increases. No real "need" to inflate the starting point.

 

[Goonalan]

My interest in D&D Next (as a playtest) is now at zero, not because it's terrible but because I get so little game time and my players wont interrupt the campaign for something that seems to keep heading off in different directions (not that they shouldn't be able to do that).

Me and my players just don't have the time for it, which is sad I know, but a function of all having families and chaotic RLs, we're too comfortable in our own game.

Probably check it out on release, and we've fed back to WOTC about the stuff we dis/liked from the first and second packet- which we playtested. But no more alas.

Hasve fun with it y'all.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Your sarcasm is duly noted. I understand this is confusing to you but yes, at this point in time, DnD Next should have clear design goals. As a matter of fact, it should have had clear design goals from the moment it was announced. People who create great things usually have (shocker!) a good idea of what they are going for. WotC doesn't.

Actually... the design goals have been made very clear from the outset, by Mike Mearls and everyone within the company. Anyone who's been following all of the interviews and panels and whatnot know exactly what it is they are going for.

Along the way are they trying new things in order to reach a middle ground that as many fans of all editions of the game can be comfortable with as a starting point (from which they supposedly will generate the "modules" off of?) Absolutely.

The thing it seems many people are missing is that reaching a middle point on every single game system from which they can then branch out with modules to please the BECMI crowd, the AD&D crowd, the 2E crowd, the 3/3.5/PF crowd, AND the 4E crowd ain't exactly easy. Because for every single person who says "What's the big deal? Start at X and build from there!"... chances are very good it happens to match the rule from whatever edition they happen to enjoy the most. And thus THAT rule the person is offering up might very well NOT be any sort of real middle point from which to build... because most likely you'd see a whole heap of people here on these forums complaining that "if this is the direction they're going, THEN I'M OUT!!!"

Look... I have no problem with anybody criticizing particular rules that appear in the playtest packets (cause goodness knows I've done that myself). But what I have a problem with are the people who are criticizing Wizards of the Coast for even trying to do it in the first place. Because with every single packet, that's what we're seeing... some rules have changed AWAY from rules ideas or concepts they liked the last time, and immediately they start ranting about how WotC doesn't know what they are doing... rather than accept the fact that changes will be made in every packet as they work through the process of finding out what does and does not work and what is and is not popular. And for the life of me, I just can't fathom how people are incapable of picking up on that.

Have you ever played the game Clue? If you have... then you know there is a very smart strategy to use. Once you find out that one of your opponents has the Lead Pipe card and you've checked that off your sheet... you stop asking for that weapon anymore and you ask for something else. Because you've already discovered what you needed to know... the Lead Pipe is not the weapon used in Mr. Boddy's murder.

And it's the same way with these playtests. Once WotC discovered that (for instance) Parry worked and was a popular choice for a Fighter maneuver... they don't need to keep Parry exactly the same way throughout the rest of the two years of playtest. There's no need. They know it works. So they are now free to change it / remove it / adapt it as need be in order to use that as a test or comparison to other things they want tested... knowing full well that when they get to finalizing rules another 20 packets down the line, they can GO BACK to what worked.

That's how you figure out what does and doesn't work across the board. And it has nothing to do with them not knowing what their plan is. And to honestly believe that a rule that seemed to work well in packet 3 is now slightly different in packet 4... and to not actually consider the fact that they know this and fully intend to possibly RETURN to what they had in packet 3 when they release packet 5... tells me those people probably shouldn't follow the day-to-day evolution of this game. Because the concept of 'trial and error' seems to be a foreign concept to them.

(And don't even bother trying to make the case that if you have concrete design goals that you shouldn't need to do 'trial and error' testing on anything... because that's perhaps the dumbest idea you might possibly put forth.)

 

[Rhenny]

I don't think we can really vote on "Yeah" or "Nay". Each playtest is just throwing out new ideas to see how we respond. Overwhelming negative response is probably just as important for the playtest process as gushing positive responses. Right now it seems as if the designers have a general sense of where the game is going, but they still want to sort ideas to build the game to suit their own goals and also the desires of the community that buys the product and plays the game. This still seems like a brainstorming session, and that's ok.

I like the direction the rogue is going, but I eventually want players to have more control over the rogue build. Some rogues should be better strikers/damage dealers, some should be more maneuver oriented, some should be more thugish with higher HD and dirty fighting techniques, some should really be acrobats, con artists, or skill monkeys, but ultimately WoTC has to make it so that individual players get what they desire from that class. So far, from a first reading of the materials, I don't think the schemes do enough to push it into the "cool" category. I never realized until now how complicated this class is. People see it in very different ways. I've always loved playing a rogue, but I've always seen it as a, stealthy skill monkey who can sometimes score a big hit on a nasty monster.

I like the direction the Cleric is going with respect to healing and turning undead, but I really liked the way the two different types of clerics in the last playtest used different armor, weapons, etc. I don't like having 1 standard and then just making spells the thing that differentiates them. Turn undead "at will" may be too much, but we'll see.

I like the idea of Wizard Traditions, but I think the rules as of now are cumbersome and messy. I'm not really into the 2 spell cap for each level either, and I feel that some cantrips like Mage Hand, Light, Read Magic, Prestidigitation should be at will for all wizards (and they should be able to prepare them in addition to other cantrips, not instead of others).

The backgrounds and traditions have some good and some bad. I like most of it, but I'm not sure about the Arcane Magic Specialist and the Divine Magic Specialist. They seem to be written for classes other than Wizards and Clerics so that they can dabble in magic. Giving 1/day cantrips does overlaps too much for the Wizard and the Cleric.

The fighter seems to be nearly done in my book.

Overall, I'm just going to enjoy playing with the material and giving my feedback.

 

[Nikosandros]

I'll concede that my tone was somewhat hyperbolic, but my basic point about a rather chaotic playtest still stands. (I also feel that personal attacks are unwarranted, but to each its own).

I don't think tat Mearls or anyone at WotC is an idiot (far from it, I believe that they are very smart people), but I feel that this playtest could be better directed.

I don't want to wait for 2014 and a finished product, because contrary to what DEFCON 1 believes about me, I actually enjoy very much looking at the work-in-progress and contributing my opinion.

I want to share this post by Monte Cook which gives some suggestions about how to lead a playtest. And before people jump onto me, yes I'm aware that being an independent designer is different than shepherding the leading brand in the industry, but I still think that it's interesting.