What do you expect/hope to see in future playtest packets? (+)

JEB

Legend
Historically, they have never tested Mosnters in UA, and I doubt that will change here.
That's been true for UA, which was about additions to an established core game, but it absolutely wasn't the case for D&D Next, which I think is a closer parallel (despite the UA label for this latest packet).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Parmandur

Book-Friend
That's been true for UA, which was about additions to an established core game, but it absolutely wasn't the case for D&D Next, which I think is a closer parallel (despite the UA label for this latest packet).
This playtest is more like the Unearthed Arcana for Xanathar's or Tasha's thanit is Next. The 21 pages we just got is the big document: Crawford said the rest of the packets will be smaller and more focused. Not much like Next at all.
 

JEB

Legend
This playtest is more like the Unearthed Arcana for Xanathar's or Tasha's thanit is Next. The 21 pages we just got is the big document: Crawford said the rest of the packets will be smaller and more focused. Not much like Next at all.
The playtests for Xanathar's were about new, additional content. The playtests for Tasha's went further, with alternate features and such, but were still designed as optional rules. This playtest is presenting new core rules, not add-ons.

Also, this playtest packet is being presented as a new entity, "One D&D" - none of the previous UAs operated under that premise. But the Next playtest did.
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
The playtests for Xanathar's were about new, additional content. The playtests for Tasha's went further, with alternate features and such, but were still designed as optional rules. This playtest is presenting new core rules, not add-ons.

Also, this playtest packet is being presented as a new entity, "One D&D" - none of the previous UAs operated under that premise. But the Next playtest did.
Yes, it's for Core books. But format wise, we are looking st a dozen or so packets of somewhat less than twenty pages each (possibly much less, we'll see).
 


TheSword

Legend
Ability scores shouldn’t be capped. I takes away from customization and the point of leveling up if you can never go past 20.

It’s bot like the Ability Scores can even go that high now that they got rid of Epic Levels. What’s the point in capping them?
If they can’t go that high, what’s the harm in capping them?

The reality is that the cap is to stop people hyper specializing… to push ability scores to break bounded accuracy. You can start with 17 in a stat (18 at a push) and by level 12 could be on 23/24. That smacks of 3e and that isn’t the game they wanted to design.
 
Last edited:


tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
I don't think it will happen but, if Feats will no longer be optional, drop ASIs. For half Feats just allow +1 to any score. Simply increasing numbers doesn't feel like it adds much to a character, just makes monsters fall out of scale faster. I would allow fighters and rogues the option only from their extra Feats.
I agree, going back to the old style where you got a feat at these points & an attribute bonus at those points would be a big improvement over5e's "maybe my PCs have a 5+prof+mods or maybe it's 3+prof+more feats" would simplify things a lot for GMs trying to balance encounters & magic items across the party.
 

d24454_modern

Explorer
If they can’t go that high, what’s the harm in capping them?

The reality is that the cap is to stop people hyper specializing… to push ability scores to break bounded accuracy. You can start with 17 in a stat (18 at a push) and by level 12 could be on 23/24. That smacks of 3e and that isn’t the game they wanted to design.
If you aren’t specialized, then what’s the point in having classes to begin with?
 


TheSword

Legend
If you aren’t specialized, then what’s the point in having classes to begin with?
Well there is specialization and hyper specialization. One is good for the game… one Imho is bad for the game. An opinion I developed after 12 years of playing Pathfinder and 3e.

Hyper specialization trivializes challenges and often leaves the character vulnerable in other ways. It can also imbalance the party and cause friction with the DM when they either don’t allow each encounter to be trivialized or have the temerity to capitalize on a PCs weaknesses.

Wizards are cool. Wizards with spell DCs of 20+ are not fun for anyone other than the wizard. Ergo, cap Stats to 20
 
Last edited:



d24454_modern

Explorer
Well there is specialization and hyper specialization. One is good for the game… one Imho is bad for the game. An opinion I developed after 12 years of playing Pathfinder and 3e.

Hyper specialization trivializes challenges and often leaves the character vulnerable in other ways. It can also imbalance the party and cause friction with the DM when they either don’t allow each encounter to be trivialized or have the temerity to capitalize on a PCs weaknesses.

Wizards are cool. Wizards with spell DCs of 20+ are not fun for anyone other than the wizard. Ergo, cap Stats to 20
Isn’t the point that other party members are supposed to cover each other’s weaknesses? I don’t see anything wrong with having a wide variety of challenges that can’t be overcome just by the Wizard having a high INT score.
 



TheSword

Legend
Isn’t the point that other party members are supposed to cover each other’s weaknesses? I don’t see anything wrong with having a wide variety of challenges that can’t be overcome just by the Wizard having a high INT score.
Because there aren’t many things that aren’t overcome with a DC 21 save. Few creatures can last against that and those that can seem
blaggy after unless used sparingly.

I’m all for DMs dropping the restrictions if they want. Though I usually see the call come from players. 🤷🏻‍♂️
 

aco175

Legend
Fix trinkets and components.
1661718331830.png
 

d24454_modern

Explorer
Because there aren’t many things that aren’t overcome with a DC 21 save. Few creatures can last against that and those that can seem
blaggy after unless used sparingly.

I’m all for DMs dropping the restrictions if they want. Though I usually see the call come from players. 🤷🏻‍♂️
It seems like DMs don’t like to increase creature difficulty. There are lots of ways to add countermeasures without it feeling like BS.
 

Branduil

Adventurer
With the new integration of Feats as a core part of the game, with levels and so on, I'm curious about how they'll work with ASIs. They also seem lower-powered in general (although them being Level 1 might be part of that).

I'm thinking they might do something like the ASI is +1 to ONE stat, and you also get a feat. This will allow players to not fall behind on their primary stat, while still benefiting from feats.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top