D&D 5E Playtested dat 5e at Gencon.

[Rhenny]

Mages learn two spells every character level.

Can they choose a cantrips rather than leveled spells? That wasn't clear to me. Still....cantrips need more variety.

 

[mlund]

D&D really had a problem with Off-level monsters until late 3.5 and 4th Edition when things like Mob Tactics, Swarms, and later Minions / Elites / Solos were introduced. 5E bypassed the jury-rigging of a scale by flattening the math on Attacks and Defenses, so monsters that are 4-5 levels behind the party can come en-masse without needing special mechanics or fishing for critical hits.

13th Age definitely takes the cake putting D&D Mob/Swarm rules together with Feng Shui's handling of Mooks, though. The next generation of d20 games is a big improvement in these regards.

- Marty Lund

 

[MortalPlague]

I'm still on the fence about DDN. If the playtest is anything to go by, I'm going to be interested in it, but I don't know if it's going to be worth the money--especially if we're coming up on the last playtest packet in September. The move to internal development without external feedback is worrisome to me.

Thanks for the write-up! I'm glad you had fun; my group has been playing 5th Edition over a couple of short campaigns, and it's been a great deal of fun for us.

About the internal development, I agree with you there. I was hoping to see the playtest continue so that there isn't a need for errata a month after the books come out. I'm hoping they'll do a beta test before they send the books to print.

Not true. Minions usually had a better AC than, say, Brutes, and dealt a decent ammount of damage. Pile on enough minions, and the party gets the feeling of being slowly overwhelmed, with the added benefit of knowing they're fighting a true horde.

I'm with Enchanter Tom on this one. I played a lot of 4th Edition, and I really liked a lot of what it brought to the table. But minions were the hardest type of monster for me to work with. They always felt like a waste of an attack even if they were actually threatening. The most success I had was with minions who set up attack conditions for bigger monsters (like zombie minions who grab or pull prone, allowing a bigger zombie to use a special attack), or with minions who had challenges associated with killing them (explode on death, for instance). But the usual minions always felt a little hollow.

I've been thinking that shields should be +2 AC for a while.

If you look at the playtest packet, shields are +2 AC right now. They have been for a couple of packets. And considering that monster attack bonuses scale slowly, I think they're in a good spot where they make it a tough choice between sword and board or two weapon / two-hander.

 

[Li Shenron]

It's supposed to! That's a feature, not a bug - the wizard gets to stay a wizard rather than turn into a (crappy) fighter.

But clearly it's not a feature that everybody likes. It sets the tone of the fantasy setting to "destructive magic is easy", which is good for some settings/group but not all.

There is also a weird side effect: combat cantrips are very useful to low level casters (almost as good as other PC's weapons, but you can't lose them or run out of ammo) but much less useful to high level casters. "Laser wizard" IMHO fits better at high level than low level, although it probably doesn't matter much, since now with scaling spells you'll easily have a "fireball-machinegun wizard".

I wish at least the combat cantrips weren't long range, or that maybe you could "discharge" them full range but then you lose the cantrip until resting. Melee range or 10ft range would bring back the feeling that as an apprentice wizard, you tend to stay away from combat, or if they are not at-will you need to be conservative with your spells, but apparently nobody likes that feeling anymore.

Mages learn two spells every character level.

I also, like [MENTION=18333]Neechen[/MENTION], still don't know for sure if you cantrips count as spells for that.

 

[Falling Icicle]

But clearly it's not a feature that everybody likes. It sets the tone of the fantasy setting to "destructive magic is easy", which is good for some settings/group but not all.

It doesn't do that at all. It sets the tone to "destructive magic that is weaker than a light crossbow is easy." It should be!

There is also a weird side effect: combat cantrips are very useful to low level casters (almost as good as other PC's weapons, but you can't lose them or run out of ammo) but much less useful to high level casters. "Laser wizard" IMHO fits better at high level than low level, although it probably doesn't matter much, since now with scaling spells you'll easily have a "fireball-machinegun wizard".

I wish at least the combat cantrips weren't long range, or that maybe you could "discharge" them full range but then you lose the cantrip until resting. Melee range or 10ft range would bring back the feeling that as an apprentice wizard, you tend to stay away from combat, or if they are not at-will you need to be conservative with your spells, but apparently nobody likes that feeling anymore.

They do have short range. Ray of frost only goes out to 50 ft., which is far shorter range than bows and crossbows. Again, you're spending one of your precious three cantrip slots for an at-will attack that is weaker than a crossbow (since you don't add your ability modifier). I really don't see the problem.

 

[Rhenny]

I also, like [MENTION=18333]Neechen[/MENTION], still don't know for sure if you cantrips count as spells for that.

I asked the question on the WotC boards and Plaguescarred responded that cantrips do not count as spells in that respect. Then I asked if mages could find scrolls with cantrips on them and then scribe them into their own spell books, and he said that would work. Certainly, WotC has to clarify this much more in the rules. Actually, I can see why they'd rule it like this. I suppose they want to allow DMs to control how many cantrips spellcasters will have in their own campaigns. I'm ok with that..now.

 

[Salamandyr]

If you look at the playtest packet, shields are +2 AC right now. They have been for a couple of packets. And considering that monster attack bonuses scale slowly, I think they're in a good spot where they make it a tough choice between sword and board or two weapon / two-hander.

I must have completely missed this. Good to know. Thanks.
.

 

[Li Shenron]

It doesn't do that at all. It sets the tone to "destructive magic that is weaker than a light crossbow is easy." It should be!

They do have short range. Ray of frost only goes out to 50 ft., which is far shorter range than bows and crossbows. Again, you're spending one of your precious three cantrip slots for an at-will attack that is weaker than a crossbow (since you don't add your ability modifier). I really don't see the problem.

I do not have a balance problem at all.

I have a problem with the image of spellcaster apprentices shooting lasers freely.

 

[Li Shenron]

I asked the question on the WotC boards and Plaguescarred responded that cantrips do not count as spells in that respect. Then I asked if mages could find scrolls with cantrips on them and then scribe them into their own spell books, and he said that would work. Certainly, WotC has to clarify this much more in the rules. Actually, I can see why they'd rule it like this. I suppose they want to allow DMs to control how many cantrips spellcasters will have in their own campaigns. I'm ok with that..now.

I would expect cantrips to be kept in limited number, but the second response instead is unexpected. It actually breaks the limitation set by the previous.

 

[Rune]

At-will spells are not so great. My friend (who played a wizard) really disliked having an at-will spell (I believe it was ray of frost). He said that it resulted in him defaulting to the at-will spells rather than using his crossbow or another weapon.

I think that it would be better if those offensive cantrips modified actual weapon attacks in some minor way (and not necessarily just the caster's, either), instead of providing actual at-will magical attacks. I think this would go a long way toward keeping the actual non-at-will spells prioritized, while also keeping the cantrips as a relevant choice, while also helping magic feel like an expendable resource, again.

I dislike that the playtest occurred at first level because first level is easy to get right. It's every other level that's the problem.

This seems like a very strange choice for a convention play-test to me, as well. If they are assuming that most games will start at third or fourth level, why would they present an game to a bunch of non-casual gamers at the lowest apprentice-level? Seems like a missed opportunity to show off how some of the adventuring-level options will play out.

I'm still on the fence about DDN. If the playtest is anything to go by, I'm going to be interested in it, but I don't know if it's going to be worth the money--especially if we're coming up on the last playtest packet in September. The move to internal development without external feedback is worrisome to me.

Well, it had to happen sometime. They couldn't realistically fine-tune the details with such a huge base of play-testers. Sifting through the communications, alone, would be a full-time job! That, and no two groups agree on everything! If you have strong opinions about things that need to change for the game to fit your style better, it's probably best not to be involved in the part of the play-test where such opinions won't change anything.