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

[Steely_Dan]

I feel at this point they don't know whether to crap, shower, or wind their watch; the classes seem to be in a flummox.

 

[Falling Icicle]

While I've been vocal about things that I disliked in the previous packets (after all, that is the point of the playtest, to provide constructive criticism), my overall attitude toward 5e has been very positive. And then the new playtest packet arrived. Maybe I'm overreacting, but it seems like this packet is just filled with changes that I don't like. The only things I really liked were giving players 4 skills to start and the new cleric deity archetypes. But then there were quite a few things that really irked me.

* The new skill list is terrible. Spot and Listen are separate skills again, they brought back Use Rope, and they even have a Knowledge skill for Wars (why is that not part of History?). It's like they copied the 3.x skill list and then managed to make it even worse. It's like they didn't even really take the time to think it through, either. Spot and Listen are separate skills, but Stealth is still undivided. So what are people supposed to do to notice a hidden character? Do they roll spot? listen? both?

* The rogue feels like nothing more than an inferior fighter that has some extra skills. Sneak attack, for example, is in every way inferior to Deadly Strike. I'm not necessarily against the idea of rogues getting weapon expertise, (though fighters need *something* that other classes don't get), but this implementation is poor.

* The new Two-Weapon Fighting and Critical Hit rules are simply awful. The TWF rules are particularly bad. For one thing, giving disadvantage on both attacks means I'd have to roll four times each time I attack. Yuck. On top of that, rogues who are one of the classes that people often enjoy using TWF with, can *never* sneak attack with two weapons, because the TWF rules prevent them from ever having advantage.

* The removal of at-will cantrips/orisons is extremely aggravating. Yes, you can can still get them from your tradition or domain, but with the exception of the academic wizard, they're chosen for you. Not only did they vastly cut down on the number of spell slots magic users have, they don't even have the at-will cantrips to fall back on anymore.

* The wizard traditions sounded like such a great idea when they were talking about them, but the current implementation of them is uninspiring, to say the least. It's like they took the wizard from the last playtest packet, took away his at-will cantrips and half of his daily spells, and then gave it a small fraction of those things back via traditon. Gee thanks. What's worse, the traditions totally rob wizards of freedom of choice. Your signature spell is chosen for you. Your at-will cantrips are chosen for you. All warmages, for example, are thunderwave specialists. Why? Why can't I choose the spell(s) I specialize in?

* Clerics once again have Turn Undead as a base ability, whether they or their god have any reason to care about undead at all. Ugh. Another big step backward. I think the channel divinity idea had alot of potential.

* Apparently only rogues can pick locks or disable traps now, since only they are proficient with theive's tools. Gee thanks! I'm sure non-rogues with the thief background really appreciate that!

* Specialties just feel... boring. Alot of the feats were ruined too. The Magic user specialty, for example, used to give you 2 at-will cantrips, which opened up alot of really cool character concepts. Now, that feat lets you use one cantrip PER DAY. This playtest packet just seems to be anti-fun.

 

[Cybit]

It feels too much towards 3.5/4, and even though that's the only editions I've ever played, it feels like the last round of playtest feedback came back with "make it more like 3.5/4E", and they did so. Then again, this might be them sending the 3.5/4ish builds into the packet so that everyone can freak out, call them crazy, and then they can justify removing them.

I wish they had fixed monster math, would make it easier to playtest, IMO.

I like the changes to spell slots, and murdering LFQW. If the casters say it isn't "fun" enough, well, welcome to the life non casters have had, and ten spells + at-wills + signature spells are a lot of firepower for a given day. I think domains and traditions need to be a bigger deal, including choosing what kind of weapon / armor profs a cleric has, as well as wizard traditions giving a little more specialization. Not a fan of traditions dictating at-will powers.

Think they need to split maneuvers a little better between rogues & fighters, too much overlap as it is. They need to figure out whether the quick dextrous melee combatant is a rogue or a fighter, and move the archetype firmly into that camp. Sneak attack is alright, in that it does NOT require flanking (just another ally within melee reach of the target), and rogues are intended to be not as good consistent melee damage dealers as fighters.

I hope they go back to more of what they had in the earlier playtest packet, IMO.

As for playtesting, it is very true that we are terrible people to playtest to, as most of us don't have any clue of what we want, or are so emotionally and mentally attached to what we want that we refuse to see any other option as valid.

 

[mlund]

* The new skill list is terrible. Spot and Listen are separate skills again, they brought back Use Rope, and they even have a Knowledge skill for Wars (why is that not part of History?). It's like they copied the 3.x skill list and then managed to make it even worse.

I agree. It is almost like they went flailing around for a way to pad it with more non-knowledge skills because the list of physical skills was anemic compared to how many knowledge topics there are.

I did like them do-coupling the skills from the ability scores, though. I'm very excited to see that back.

The rogue feels like nothing more than an inferior fighter that has some extra skills.

Well, that sort of is the Rogue from most editions. The game, at its core, has two primary archetypes: Fighting Man and Magician. I suppose you could could argue that the Cleric is nothing more than an inferior Wizard that has some healing spells too.

The Rogue isn't a Magician, he's a Fighting Man. He doesn't use heavy armor or heavy weapons. He uses dirty tricks in combat and he's got the best maneuverability, skills, and he's usually better at damage avoidance than a Magician.

Sneak attack, for example, is in every way inferior to Deadly Strike.

As it should be, as far as the Maneuver goes.

I'm not necessarily against the idea of rogues getting weapon expertise, (though fighters need *something* that other classes don't get), but this implementation is poor.

Expertise is basically the quantifying mechanic for Fighting Man powers the way that Spell levels are for Magician powers. Different classes of Fighting Man get different lists of Maneuvers, just as different classes of Magician get different lists of Spells. It is actually pretty elegant in principle - it is just that those lists need a lot more refinement.

The Fighter really should have Iron Will on his list. The Rogue should really have some maneuvers that create negative effects on enemies and some better movement-based maneuvers. I think I'd like to see Tumbling Dodge be Rogue-exclusive.

The new Two-Weapon Fighting and Critical Hit rules are simply awful. The TWF rules are particularly bad. For one thing, giving disadvantage on both attacks means I'd have to roll four times each time I attack. Yuck.

Just wait until you use Composed Attack to help offset the Disadvantage! Roll 2d20 and 1d8 for each attack.

On top of that, rogues who are one of the classes that people often enjoy using TWF with, can *never* sneak attack with two weapons, because the TWF rules prevent them from ever having advantage.

Re-read sneak attack. It doesn't require Advantage.

The removal of at-will cantrips/orisons is extremely aggravating. Yes, you can can still get them from your tradition or domain, but with the exception of the academic wizard, they're chosen for you.

Some people didn't want to see at-will magic baked into every implementation of the Wizard and the Cleric. I'm not one of those people, but I see why they would want to give them in-roads here.

Not only did they vastly cut down on the number of spell slots magic users have, they don't even have the at-will cantrips to fall back on anymore.

The slot cut-backs was definitely needed - maybe not that severe, but necessary. As to not having an at-will fallback, that's now a player decision rather than predetermined by the class.

The wizard traditions sounded like such a great idea when they were talking about them, but the current implementation of them is uninspiring,

They shelves are a little too bare right now, but I like the cupboard itself. The tradition unlocks At-Will magic if you want it, and a signature spell mechanic. The Signature Spell part needs to be refined more, but it has a lot of potential. Personally, I'm holding out for the ability to scale the Signature Spell by level and maybe even customize it.

It's like they took the wizard from the last playtest packet, took away his at-will cantrips and half of his daily spells, and then gave it a small fraction of those things back via traditon. Gee thanks.

I dunno, the "don't NERF me, bro," argument base has never been compelling for me given the Wizard's track record as being a Quadratic monster of a class.

What's worse, the traditions totally rob wizards of freedom of choice. Your signature spell is chosen for you. Your at-will cantrips are chosen for you. All warmages, for example, are thunderwave specialists. Why? Why can't I choose the spell(s) I specialize in?

While I'm in no rush to give Wizards a bunch of extra flexibility AND power, I do think the Signature Spell is ripe design territory for letting players create something unique for their character. I don't think you should just -choose- your signature spell, I think you should make it.

Thunder wave? No way! I'm a pyromancer. Cast it in a 3rd level slot? Now I can create a lingering fire aura in that area. Cast it in a 9th level slot? It manifests as a Balrog that I can puppet to rip your face off. Oh, that guy? He's a 17th level war-mage too. No, he doesn't use my spell at all. He's like, all into Ice and stuff. His Smash-Ball 9th level version drops a giant glacier on your head. Yeah, his brother's into that stuff too, only he summons a herd of artificial ice bison to stampede you.

* Clerics once again have Turn Undead as a base ability, whether they or their god have any reason to care about undead at all. Ugh. Another big step backward. I think the channel divinity idea had alot of potential.

Yeah, this one feels like wasted potential.

* Specialties just feel... boring. Alot of the feats were ruined too. The Magic user specialty, for example, used to give you 2 at-will cantrips, which opened up alot of really cool character concepts. Now, that feat lets you use one cantrip PER DAY. This playtest packet just seems to be anti-fun.

It seems like "MOAR POWAH" == More Fun for some people. I think that's true some of the time. At other times it isn't. There's some sort of parabolic arc involving diminishing returns to the game overall that needs to be observed. Quadratic Casters and Linear Fighters from the prior editions certainly showed both bad extremes of these bell curves.

- Marty Lund

 

[gyor]

Would you please stop saying MOAR POWAR, its annoying and misrepersents those who don't like the new packet as Munchanists. Its not about more power or the trying to create over powered Characters, its about classes that aren't designed well.

I know of people who don't like over power casters that say WOTC went too far.

Also its unbalanced, the Trickster Cleric is better then any two archtypes combined, that's not balance.

This packet is mostly a waste of time.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Well, that sort of is the Rogue from most editions. The game, at its core, has two primary archetypes: Fighting Man and Magician. I suppose you could could argue that the Cleric is nothing more than an inferior Wizard that has some healing spells too.

Are you suggesting that fighters and wizards are supposed to be superior to other classes?

The Rogue isn't a Magician, he's a Fighting Man. He doesn't use heavy armor or heavy weapons. He uses dirty tricks in combat and he's got the best maneuverability, skills, and he's usually better at damage avoidance than a Magician.

The rogue has always had certain advantages over a fighter. Whether it's called backstab or sneak attack, a rogue fighting dirty, attacking from ambush, etc. is supposed to out-damage a fighter under those circumstances. If the rogue can never do anything better than a fighter, there's no point in having a rogue class.

As it should be, as far as the Maneuver goes.

Why should one maneuver be strictly inferior to another? Fighters and Rogues share alot of maneuvers. One character shouldn't be weaker than another because he picked the "wrong" maneuver.

The slot cut-backs was definitely needed - maybe not that severe, but necessary. As to not having an at-will fallback, that's now a player decision rather than predetermined by the class.

It's not always the player's decision. If I am an illusionist, my only at-will attack is shocking grasp (and WTH is up with that, shocking grasp has nothing to do with illusions). Yeah, it was my choice to be an illusionist, but still, the rest of the choices are made for me, and I am not at all happy about that.

It seems like "MOAR POWAH" == More Fun for some people. I think that's true some of the time. At other times it isn't. There's some sort of parabolic arc involving diminishing returns to the game overall that needs to be observed. Quadratic Casters and Linear Fighters from the prior editions certainly showed both bad extremes of these bell curves.

That's a very unfair characterization. For me, it has nothing to do with power. Cantrips, after all, aren't very powerful. I enjoy having them at-will because of the versatility they offer. I most likely would have taken that feat so I could have a rogue with mage hand or a fighter with light. That's not powerful at all, but it is fun (to me).

 

[bogmad]

I most likely would have taken that feat so I could have a rogue with mage hand or a fighter with light. That's not powerful at all, but it is fun (to me).

I agree with this. The weakened arcane magic specialty really cuts back on the interesting character concepts you can get from pairing it with a non-magic class. Maybe the multi-class rules will bring that versatility back... but at the moment it's just disappointing.

 

[mlund]

Are you suggesting that fighters and wizards are supposed to be superior to other classes?

No. You're missing the reference.

As the war-game origins of the Fighting Man and Magician archetypes go, they were the guys that existed to do one thing - kill other units with swords or sorcery respectively.

The Priest and Rogue archetypes are arguably mutations of those original, one-dimensional job roles. They do more than just make the guys on the other side stop living. They get a special niche the Fighter and Wizard don't get, but the trade-off is they aren't as "Dead Killee."

They aren't supposed to be inferior overall. It's merely a mechanism of trade-offs.

is supposed to out-damage a fighter under those circumstances.

If the rogue can never do anything better than a fighter, there's no point in having a rogue class.

"I can't out-damage the Fighter" != "I can never do anything better than the fighter." Conflating the two is a Straw Man Argument.

Again, prior to 3.0 the Thief had one shot at backstabbing - if he was lucky - and was terrible in the fight otherwise compared to where he is today. It was never the primary function that made the Thief special or useful to the party. Frankly, as a much as I love 4E & Essentials, the Rogue really lost a lot of his character becoming the ideal striker, and that poor Thief has been reduced to little more than but a flanking-based damage bucket, and that's a crying shame.

And I don't mean to say that the Rogue's bonus for hitting someone with advantage should just be near-fighter damage vs deadly strike. Personally, I'd like to see the Rogue get his Expertise dice refunded if he uses Sneak Attack with Advantage - that way he can do something else with them like spring attack, tumbling dodge, or maybe some sort of hamstring / blinding / poisoning maneuver.

Why should one maneuver be strictly inferior to another?

Why are 3rd level Cleric spells that deal damage strictly inferior to 3rd level Wizard spells that deal damage? Because the Wizard is balanced with higher weight towards casting damaging spells that the Cleric, while Wizard can't use armor, most weapons, or cast healing spell.

This isn't 4E. The Rogue is not a Striker class with the Fighter being a Defender. The Fighter is the Best At Fighting. The Rogue is an also-ran in that category, not walking wood-chipper of 4E. In exchange he has an extra background, unique abilities, and his own exclusive maneuvers.

Not inferior on the whole, just differently weighted. Different is about trade offs. If you don't get worse at something to get better at something else there's a problem.

Fighters and Rogues share alot of maneuvers. One character shouldn't be weaker than another because he picked the "wrong" maneuver.

That's a non-sequitor, but I'll address the second part anyway. Within a giving classes maneuvers list it would be ideal if there were no obvious red herrings and trap choices. Even with perfect parity, though, there are going to be better or worse choices depending on what you want to do. In that sense you could pick the "wrong" maneuver, certainly - and that's a good thing.

- Marty Lund

 

[Blackbrrd]

... Frankly, as a much as I love 4E & Essentials, the Rogue really lost a lot of his character becoming the ideal striker, and that poor Thief has been reduced to little more than but a flanking-based damage bucket, and that's a crying shame. ...

Personally I do like the high-circumstancial-damage-squishy-rogue. I made my own in 3e by mixing fighter/rogue and had a lot of fun with it.

I think that the Rogue shouldn't loose out on offensive capabilities to become a skill monkey, but his survivability and consistency when it comes to damage. It fits right in the high-risk-high-reward mentality that I usually am in when playing a Rogue.

Here is my take on what I think the different classes should be good - and bad at:

Fighter
I don't think the Fighter should be the best at fighting on all areas. I think he should be very well rounded, with the best defenses, high hp and good, consistent damage. I don't think he should be lousy at skills either, like in 3e where he got two skills from an incredibly boring skill list.

Rogue
The Rogue on the other hand should have middeling defenses and hp, his attacks should be ok and when the circumstances are right should be very good with high damage. He should be a skill monkey and be able to take on many roles out of combat that a fighter couldn't take. Where the Fighter has an ability like Parry to reduce damage quite consistently, I think the Rogues equivalent power would be a "roll higher on the expertise dice than the damage and make it a miss or take full damage".

Wizard
I think the Wizard should be the character with the strongest attacks in the game. To make up for it, his defenses and hp should be terrible. His skills should be targeted at filling the knowledge gap. While I think both the Rogue and the Fighter should have a chance to mitigate incoming damage, I think the Wizard should have to stay out of harms way to begin with. Using Fly, Invisibility, Teleport, Mirror Image and such to just not be attacked.

Cleric
I think the cleric should have good defences, slightly better hp than the rogue and consistent average damage. His spells should be able to let him take a close second best when it comes to the roles of the Rogue, Fighter or Wizard in combat, but not in the same fight - or maybe the same day. He should also be able to use his spells for buffing and healing. Skill wise, I think skills like Diplomacy and Sense motive makes sense.

Looking at the play test now, I feel they are closest to my taste with the Fighter. The wizard isn't too far from it's mark, but some fine tuning when it comes to signature spells and such is missing. When it comes to the Rogue I feel they have the skill monkey part ok, but his defenses are way too high (same as the fighter in heavy armor at higher levels) and his combat abilities just weaker ones compared to the fighter - not different enough. I think the current Cleric looks abyssemal. The Clerics hp and ac are ok, but his combat abilities and spells are plain boooorrrriiinnnng.

When it comes to what I prefer to play, I can say that I really like all four classes. I haven't played a straight up fighter or rogue, but a multiclass fighter/rogue and I have played up a 99% straight up cleric and a 100% straight up wizard. All in long campaigns.

 

[Grimmjow]

i like how most of the game is going. I just dont care for removing domains and adding the different gods (id rather have the domains more options and it makes different clerics of one god feel different) and i dont like the casting feats. They should let us pick the spells not just give them to us...