Playtest Update

[Wizards of the Coast]

Letâ??s check in with Mike to see where things are and where things are going with the playtest.

Read Playtest Update on D&D Insider here!

 

[Magil]

When he says he wants to address healing, it worries me--it almost sounds like he says that players have too much healing, and that's making combat less dangerous. No, the reason combat isn't dangerous is simply because monsters cannot reliably hit a player. It should take multiple hits to bring a player down, there aren't very many people who want to see their character hit the floor with a single die roll, I think. It's just monsters aren't very likely to get multiple hits because of low accuracy. More importantly, the tension I like to see in combat is often created by HP totals going up and down mid-fight, which is only possible if there is enough healing to go around. There's that tension in the moment where someone drops, but the cleric just barely manages to get them back on their feet before they die. I think both higher HP and higher monster damage/accuracy would help me regain this feel.

There are still a lot of issues with the Hit Die mechanic, cleric healing, and death and dying. I’d like to create a simple, easy, scalable mechanic that tackles these issues.

Remember healing surges?

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

The only point I think I disagree on is the warlock and sorcerer under "what went wrong." These we're by far my favorite additions. I hope the "solution" here involves revealing more sorcerous origins and warlock attack powers so people feel that eldritch blasting isn't your only option as a warlock and gish isn't the only sorcerer build.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

Looks like they are acknowledging their idea that the Wizard MUST be Vancian was a giant mistake. Perhaps through the Tradition system they can make an AEDU Wizard, a Spell Point Wizard, and a full Vancian Wizard.

 

[RangerWickett]

Instead of giving the wizard extra hit points, which makes him feel "tough," maybe give him a free reaction 'shield' cantrip to block 2 points of damage (maybe scales by level), usable once per day.

Maybe have a few options -- "force shield" for standard mages that can block spells and missiles, "burning barrier" for fire mages that burns the attacker if it blocked a melee attack, "wind barrier" the can redirect a ranged attack if the shield blocks all the damage, etc.

I really want to write up my rogue ideas. I wish I had the time.

 

[Raith5]

When he says he wants to address healing, it worries me--it almost sounds like he says that players have too much healing, and that's making combat less dangerous. No, the reason combat isn't dangerous is simply because monsters cannot reliably hit a player. It should take multiple hits to bring a player down, there aren't very many people who want to see their character hit the floor with a single die roll, I think. It's just monsters aren't very likely to get multiple hits because of low accuracy. More importantly, the tension I like to see in combat is often created by HP totals going up and down mid-fight, which is only possible if there is enough healing to go around. There's that tension in the moment where someone drops, but the cleric just barely manages to get them back on their feet before they die. I think both higher HP and higher monster damage/accuracy would help me regain this feel.

Remember healing surges?

Great points, Cant xp etc etc.

I agree that never getting hit or getting knocked down in one shot are not fun. Those hp are there to get used!

I also liked the way that healing surges made hp a strategic resource rather than just a number that went up and down in 4th; where second wind was a real strategic option (except for Dwarves!). But how can healing surges or some alternative be made more acceptable by the broader D&D players?

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

But how can healing surges or some alternative be made more acceptable by the broader D&D players?

I think it's relatively easy to accept healing surges as a strategic resource that represent how far you can push yourself without taking a long rest. Second wind was also a mechanic that fit with this theme. The problem I think for many old-school D&D players is that magical healing doesn't do anything special. Where it used to be truly miraculous, giving you vigour you didn't otherwise have, with healing surges it just makes you more tired. Yes, it prolongs your ability to stay in a fight, but it also pushes you closer to having to rest, and there's not very much magical about that.

 

[tlantl]

I don't much care for surge mechanics. HD healing is as close as I want to get to it. Since Mearls didn't specify what the problem is I think we should wait and see what the real issue is.

As far as I can see in my few sessions with the rules there isn't any problem with healing. Hit points are fine and if I had a couple of near deaths I could speak to the dying rules too, but alas my group is quite capable of avoiding death especially since the monsters can't actually fight their way out of a wet paper bag.

Other than this I agree pretty much with the summary of the playtest so far. There's a problem when your players are yawning during a fight. Adjusting attack bonuses helped a lot. I went with adding one to the monsters and subtracting one point from the players. It helped, but if I could have gotten rid of the arbitrary +2 entirely I would have been much happier.

I'm also happy to hear that damage from attacks is getting the knife so to speak. I am also happy to learn that the sneak attack is being rethought as well as skill mastery.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

My overall reaction is *sigh*.

I honestly think that the designers need to spend periods of contemplation in which they don't read any feedback. So many of the comments aren't constructive, but rather 'change this to how it is in this edition, I like that more'. We'll never find any compromises, any novel solutions, if we just flip back and forth between 3E and 4E.

On Wizard hitpoints he suggests they might get some more, when the real problem is the balance of HP/damage across the whole system right now. So many people don't want strict daily spellcasting, so they're throwing out the tradition to encompass every possible casting method into one class - what a mess that is going to be. On the flip side, there's the blind acceptance of expertise dice as *the* solution for the Fighter - no sign of a unified mechanic for physical combat, no caution that maybe people would have been excited by *any* system that wasn't just hit and repeat.

And that last section? Good god that's terrible analysis. Is there a correlation between those that think there are too few HP and those who think monsters are too weak? They seem like consistent desires to me, getting hit a bit more often but not going down in one hit. That sort of tension sucks. Losing half your HP in one hit, that seems about right to me.

I'd love to have the survey numbers to play with. WotC have shown consistently poor mathematical ability, and they should really be accounting for the types of players answering the surveys. For instance, if 90% of respondents prefer 4E over any other edition, and 60% of respondents want healing surges, you've got to be wary of bias - that is, if you truly want to recapture some of the old player base.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

My overall reaction is *sigh*.

I honestly think that the designers need to spend periods of contemplation in which they don't read any feedback. So many of the comments aren't constructive, but rather 'change this to how it is in this edition, I like that more'. We'll never find any compromises, any novel solutions, if we just flip back and forth between 3E and 4E.

On Wizard hitpoints he suggests they might get some more, when the real problem is the balance of HP/damage across the whole system right now. So many people don't want strict daily spellcasting, so they're throwing out the tradition to encompass every possible casting method into one class - what a mess that is going to be. On the flip side, there's the blind acceptance of expertise dice as *the* solution for the Fighter - no sign of a unified mechanic for physical combat, no caution that maybe people would have been excited by *any* system that wasn't just hit and repeat.

And that last section? Good god that's terrible analysis. Is there a correlation between those that think there are too few HP and those who think monsters are too weak? They seem like consistent desires to me, getting hit a bit more often but not going down in one hit. That sort of tension sucks. Losing half your HP in one hit, that seems about right to me.

I'd love to have the survey numbers to play with. WotC have shown consistently poor mathematical ability, and they should really be accounting for the types of players answering the surveys. For instance, if 90% of respondents prefer 4E over any other edition, and 60% of respondents want healing surges, you've got to be wary of bias - that is, if you truly want to recapture some of the old player base.

Hmm, I don´t know, if your analysis is any better.

Where I agree is, that they should do their thing... but all in all, they are doing it. The flipping between 3e and 4e and 2e or whatever seems to be more or less intentional to see, where the preferences lie.

For me, the current hp system is not so bad. I however agree, that damage is generally a bit to high. Mostly, because everyone has a high static modifier to damage, because of the way to-hit and damage are linked (finesse weapons do a lot of damage if they are wielded by tiny dextrous but weak creatures)

So, whatever they do with healing and hp. Neither 3e nor 4e system, nor the current 5e system is perfect, but all of them work more or less for me. I however felt the hp in the first playtest not threatening enough for a first level experience.

But IF we get the first level divided into sublevels for multiclass, I could accept a higher starting hp for those "1st" level characters, as there would be an option to start lower, if you really want...