Playtest Update

[gweinel]

I am a bit underwhelmed from the article. I will present some thoughts about the issues that Mike writes about.

Great part of my concerns has to do with the arcane casters. Sorcerer (as the Warlock) was a big hit imho. Actually was the best part of the new playtest. Seeing him more detached from the flavor that the designers gave him would be a disappointment.

Wizard traditions is s subject that was overanalyzed in previous threads and really concerns me. Although i don't have any objections to see at-will, or encounter spells, it is important to see how this rule is going to be implemented. I would prefer to see a distinct, "clear" vancian wizard and any module with the alternatives magic systems. However i am wondering how practical will be to see scalable or augmented spells...
Also it would be a mistake to see the traditions only as a way to implement the new magic system. What will happen to the old school feeling enchanters, necromancers, etc. Should they evoke the desired feeling to the people who love 1-3rd editions?

If they want a simple core (4 simple classes) the wizard with the two or three different magic systems won't help. As a matter of fact neither the fighter (as it is now) and the rogue as they want to make him. I don't have any problem with the number of choices but i think this was an aim they had back in spring.

The rogue.

"A smooth-talking con artist might distract enemies, evade danger, and confuse foes rather than stab them to death from behind."

I support the rogue to have more options than sneak attack, however i am very sceptical about having the social (role playing - like smooth talking) skills to implemented in combat in a believable way.

Healing. I agree there is a problem here. The mechanism of healing has to do with the rhythm in the game. As a DM and as a player the thing that i want is to have the ability to play the game in my own pace. I want not only to set the pace of my games but i also demand my gaming style to be fully supported. For example if i like the dirty gritty kind of play, i want to have the rules to play such game and i want the future products to support it. Otherwise why should i change edition if my style is not supported?

In a general sense the article left me more sceptical than before.

 

[Scribble]

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?

I think those two things were separate. The healing focus relates to hit points- but monster attacks were also mentioned as being too low.

 

[Leatherhead]

I still think they should shove healing out of combat and ritualize it.

Healing surges never really did what they they supposed to do well (pace out the day). Mostly because the rate at which they were expended was so wildly variable: Some roles used more by their very nature, some classes used more by virtue of being in the fray, some forms of healing were far more efficient than others, then some powers and items used them for non-healing purposes, and to top it off there are monsters who just ate them directly. Surge value did all the uniform scaling so that a cure was a cure, but that was just a percentage of your HP to begin with, so you could easily transfer just that kind of mechanic over without the rest of the surge.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Healing surges did one thing that made sense on paper: no matter how many maximum hitpoints you had, spending a surge made you feel 25% better. Sadly though, damage wasn't evenly distributed across the party, so some classes burned through far more than others (they didn't quite get the healing surges per class quite right). Healing that doesn't rely on spending a surge would be spent on the classes that took all the damage. Before healing surges, that's exactly what happened, all the healing would go to the party Fighter, unless everyone got fireballed or something.

To get the correct pacing, the amount of healing available should be proportional to the amount of damage taken across the entire party. I think the hybrid system of self-healing that costs hit dice and magical healing that doesn't cost hit dice will do best at achieving this. If possible, make magical healing more like old-fashioned lay on hands - there is a certain amount available every day, use as much or as little as you like per shot.

 

[Blackwarder]

Before this thread takes healing surges further I think it must be said:

Healing Surges Must Die!!!!!1!!1!!

Warder

 

[Raith5]

Healing that doesn't rely on spending a surge would be spent on the classes that took all the damage. Before healing surges, that's exactly what happened, all the healing would go to the party Fighter, unless everyone got fireballed or something.

There are two issues to address this - 1) a game system bias that gives certain classes like the fighter more surges and 2) sensible PC tactics that rotates PCs through the frontline. I wonder if other options are possible?

I quite like the idea the healing magic should not use the target creatures surges. It is magic after all - except for cases like lay on hands where surges are transferred.

I quite like the idea of PCs having reserves (or healing surges as the case may be) but there are questions about how these reserves are narrated and mechanically used.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

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.

So, if the majority of respondents prefer 4E, it must be bias, and there is this phantom fanbase that is apparently too good to participate in the playtest and tell WotC their opinion, but should be pursued ahead of the 4E crowd? They can only cater to the people that tell them what they want. Everyone else either doesn't understand the purpose of a playtest, or doesn't care enough to participate in it.

If they just give the finger to 90% of otheir respondents in hopes of capturing this phantom fanbase that may or may not be accessible, they would be making one hell of a gamble. If it pays off, good for them, but if it doesn't, they probably should freshen up their resumes.

 

[Obryn]

I'll just say, if the game looks too much like 1e, 2e, 3.*e, or 4e, I will likely not be buying it. Because I have those games, I have played those games, and I don't need to buy them again.

The feedback... eh. My enthusiasm for the playtest has been dwindling. I am still hoping it turns out awesome for me, but mostly right now I'm hoping it's good enough to be awesome for a bunch of other people.

-O

 

[keterys]

Other than the Healer theme being too good, especially at 3+, I'm not sure I saw any real problems with healing in our playtests.

Then again, I also thought that hit points were too high for survivors and anyone over about 3rd level. Maybe what they actually mean is that PCs didn't need to rest often, or needed to rest too often, because of healing available? Or the cleric was too required, or not required enough? Unclear.

My last test at 4th level included a medusa, 8 hobgoblins, and a troll, and I'm pretty sure the PCs didn't need to heal during the combat. I'm not sure I consider that a bad thing, though. I did an earlier test (2nd or 3rd) in which they fought a wight, 2 zombies, 2 skeletons, 2 orogs, and a drow and that one ended with 1 PC up getting the final blow after the drow beat a strategic retreat when the combat turned (matching her tactics, but could have stayed for a TPK turns out). Ie, PCs are pretty buff.

 

[am181d]

I'll just say, if the game looks too much like 1e, 2e, 3.*e, or 4e, I will likely not be buying it. Because I have those games, I have played those games, and I don't need to buy them again.

This sort of calls into question why you bought 2e, since it wasn't that different than 1e.

That said, I don't see any evidence that 5e will be a clone of any previous edition.

I will say I agreed with almost everything in the latest update, particularly the need to make monsters more accurate and then general fail of the Sorcerer and the Warlock in their first outing.