D&D 3E/3.5 The New Playtest: Why return the failed 3e mechanics?

[ZombieRoboNinja]

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?

 

[Ahnehnois]

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.

Perhaps they noticed that THEY were the only ones who saw these problems, perhaps deliberately in an attempt to distance themselves from the previous edition and the OGL.

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?

No.

How will this work for multiclassing?

Good question.

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?

Could be.

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.

That, and a variety of other bad mechanics.

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.

Don't see the problem. All clerics get some healing. Some can choose to get more. Expectations are not WotC's business; that's for the players.

(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.)

Agreed.

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.

Thankfully. In what kind of game do you swing an axe and somebody and not have "killing them" as one of the possible outcomes?

 

[Remathilis]

Possibly because the "cure" was worse than the "ailment"?

 

[billd91]

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.)

Notice that you don't just get hit points. You get a hit die. That will benefit the character for healing purposes too.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Here's the thing - power is like salt. It is easy to add to a concoction, but generally difficult to take it away.

"First level characters are too weak!" has a simple solution - start at a higher level, no rules changes required.

"First Level characters are too tough!" has no simple solution.

Thus, if they want to cater to folks that like a breadth of character power, having starting characters be weak is a better choice.

 

[Shroomy]

It's not really 3e BAB - it's a combination of a BAB-like mechanic and weapon proficiency bonus (at least for the weapon version). The D&D Next Toughness feat, while kind of bland IMO as feats go, is more effective than both the 3e and 4e version since it also grants you an additional hit dice (plus is stacks). And clerics do have a non-spell version of healing - channel divinity -as you point out; whether or not players expect you to only use it for healing is really a decision made by the player and his group, not the system. Personally, I don't see that much difference between it and 4e's healing word.

 

[chriton227]

Thus, if they want to cater to folks that like a breadth of character power, having starting characters be weak is a better choice.

My problem with it isn't that they are weak, it is that they are powerful but fragile. Starting 5e characters are glass cannons. 5e primarily uses the "survivability" dial to lower the power level of a starting character; I would have rather seen a more even combination of the "survivability" and "offensive capability" dials. I don't think they are quite as bad as the 3e starting characters that could be slaughtered by housecats, but two of the pregens can be dropped by a single lucky hit from a kobold's sling which counts as pretty fragile in my book.

 

[billd91]

My problem with it isn't that they are weak, it is that they are powerful but fragile. Starting 5e characters are glass cannons. 5e primarily uses the "survivability" dial to lower the power level of a starting character; I would have rather seen a more even combination of the "survivability" and "offensive capability" dials. I don't think they are quite as bad as the 3e starting characters that could be slaughtered by housecats, but two of the pregens can be dropped by a single lucky hit from a kobold's sling which counts as pretty fragile in my book.

Like Umbran points out, issues like this are easy to adjust above the baseline. Give every character 5 extra hit points, or 10.

 

[Magil]

Speaking of failed mechanics from 3E returning, is there something I am missing, or is there not much reason to play a fighter over a war domain cleric?

I mean, the expertise thing is kind of nice, but generally it looks too weak and limited to me (Cleave is the only one I like very much, but that's only a single, inflexible build). Now, divine favor, a 1st-level cleric spell, can give the cleric +2 to attacks and checks for a whole encounter pretty much! Incidentally, the one thing that might swing it the other way, casting it on the fighter, doesn't work, because it's self-only. Oh, and you get to make an attack as part of casting it.

The war domain cleric also gets all of the same 1-handed weapons as the fighter, and all of the same armor proficiencies and a shield. It's slightly more fragile HP-wise, but you have healing to compensate. Did I mention the cleric actually has as many spells prepared per day as the wizard? It's deceptive, but the way the domain entry is worded, you get those spells on top of your others. So you don't get to choose one of them, but you still have pretty good flexibility due to how cleric casting works (prepare spells and then cast any combination of them, no need to learn spells ever).

The fighter may have slightly more raw damage than a cleric without its spells, but that's it. I can't imagine why I'd want to play a fighter over a war domain cleric. I'm dreading the return of the CoDzilla, and it's starting to look like it may happen again.

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

What baffles me a bit is that pcs have very high damage and low hp, and that they've therefore lowered monster damage to make up for it (like the comparison everyone ha made between the pf and 5e troll). Wouldn't it make more sense to increase monster damage and keep the hp levels higher, so if the wizard gets pissed off (or charmed) he can't murder the entire party with one Burning Hands?