ZombieRoboNinja
First Post
Let me preface this by saying that overall I really like the new playtest. But weirdly, they seem to be backsliding into some of the same mistakes that THEY have pointed out as problems in 3e.
First, it looks like BAB is back, but now it's more arbitrary and confusing. Wasn't this one of the cool innovations of 4e, that you didn't have to consult a class-specific chart to figure out your attack bonus? How will this work for multiclassing? A level 4 fighter already has a BAB points higher than a level 4 rogue, which is which is, IIRC, exactly the same as in 3e. (Yes, I know the rogue closes the gap a bit again at 5th, but still.) And magic BAB is a separate scale, so a multiclass fighter/wizard will suck more at both aspects. Isn't this a Bad Thing for bounded accuracy?
Second, I find it hilarious that they take the 3e feat that WOTC people have used as the paradigmatic example of a bad feat, 3e Toughness, and brought it back unchanged. First off, the feat doesn't scale (so it doubles a first-level wizard's HP but is barely noticeable by higher levels). Second, if you want more HP, you should be adding more Con. Third, "Having a lot of HP" is not a Specialty. (I get that this and Jack of All Trades are stand-in specialties, but still.) This is exactly the sort of boring, straight-mechanical-bonus feat that I thought they were getting rid of. (Ditto for Two-Weapon Defense.)
Third, they made a point of saying that clerics would get non-spell heals for the express purposes of cordoning off their healing from other abilities, so that they wouldn't feel restrained to being healbots. But instead, they've STILL got Cure X Wounds (which must be prepared), but now they'll be expected to use all their Channel Divinities to heal as well. (Oh, and clerics now have the weirdest Vancian system I think I've seen. It's like wizards plus sorcerers, but more complex than either.)
And while I'm venting, every PC can now one-shot every other PC at first level, unless the target is a Hill Dwarf fighter and/or has Toughness.
Again, overall I like the playtest, but what's the deal with these weird changes?
First, it looks like BAB is back, but now it's more arbitrary and confusing. Wasn't this one of the cool innovations of 4e, that you didn't have to consult a class-specific chart to figure out your attack bonus? How will this work for multiclassing? A level 4 fighter already has a BAB points higher than a level 4 rogue, which is which is, IIRC, exactly the same as in 3e. (Yes, I know the rogue closes the gap a bit again at 5th, but still.) And magic BAB is a separate scale, so a multiclass fighter/wizard will suck more at both aspects. Isn't this a Bad Thing for bounded accuracy?
Second, I find it hilarious that they take the 3e feat that WOTC people have used as the paradigmatic example of a bad feat, 3e Toughness, and brought it back unchanged. First off, the feat doesn't scale (so it doubles a first-level wizard's HP but is barely noticeable by higher levels). Second, if you want more HP, you should be adding more Con. Third, "Having a lot of HP" is not a Specialty. (I get that this and Jack of All Trades are stand-in specialties, but still.) This is exactly the sort of boring, straight-mechanical-bonus feat that I thought they were getting rid of. (Ditto for Two-Weapon Defense.)
Third, they made a point of saying that clerics would get non-spell heals for the express purposes of cordoning off their healing from other abilities, so that they wouldn't feel restrained to being healbots. But instead, they've STILL got Cure X Wounds (which must be prepared), but now they'll be expected to use all their Channel Divinities to heal as well. (Oh, and clerics now have the weirdest Vancian system I think I've seen. It's like wizards plus sorcerers, but more complex than either.)
And while I'm venting, every PC can now one-shot every other PC at first level, unless the target is a Hill Dwarf fighter and/or has Toughness.
Again, overall I like the playtest, but what's the deal with these weird changes?