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


log in or register to remove this ad


glass

(he, him)
I don't expect to actually see anything, because seemingly they are only releasing them on D&DBeyond and presumably that is not going to change. But as to what I am expecting to hear about secondhand....

I expect to see minimal changes. I hope to see a lot of changes.
I am kinda the opposite. I would rather see minimal changes for real backwards compatibility - genuine revised core books rather than a new edition of the game. Well, either that or a real 6th edition that is not afraid to make significant changes to fix things, but I think it is a bit early for that with the way things are going right now.

I expect we will see lots of little changes similar to the first packet, but spread accross the rest of the game. Enough to break compatibility, but not enough improvement to be worth the overhead. Whoever picked 5.5 for the thread prefix here was prescient, since it would not have fitted what they had announced at the time, but it is looking incredibly apt now...
 

pgmason

Explorer
@glass You know you can sign up for free to D&DBeyond right? You don't need to spend anything to access the playtest materials. There's really no reason not to.
 

glass

(he, him)
@glass You know you can sign up for free to D&DBeyond right? You don't need to spend anything to access the playtest materials. There's really no reason not to.
I know that signing up for D&DBeyond at the most basic level does not have a monetary cost. I do not consider "money" to be the only possible reason not to sign up for yet another online account...I have far too many already.
 

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.

Please not.
Increasing ability scores was a bad idea im hind sight. At least, as long it informs attack bonus, damage and save DCs.

If they were purely related to skills, I would be ok with that.
 


I'd like to see readied actions reworked. Allow classes with Extra Attack to make their extra attacks when using a readied Attack action, and also remove the punitive and overcomplicated rules for readying a spell.

No. I came to the conclusion, that use it or lose it is better for the game flow.

On the other hand, extra attack needs better wording (akin to haste).
 
Last edited:


tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
I had to laugh out loud... for me, giving a fixed bonus IS old style...
I think we can both agree that the odds of attributes going back to the pre-d20 +/-1 at like 15 & 6 or whatever it was is a thing that almost certainly won't be seeing. Since attributes aren't likely to be going back to the pre-d20 way of handling bonuses there's no reason for +attribute gear to go back to that scaling rather than using the old d20 era +N style. The pre-d20 style causes them to make a dramatically larger impact.
 


tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
The d20 "old" way was making thise items mandatory. I don't want them back.
Never.
Even during the pre-d20 era magic items were extremely important in ways that don't apply to 5e because PCs are so comparatively godlike now with the extreme lack of risk/letality/resource attrition. That's further compounded because 5e decided there was One True Way and Only One True Way of stat=19 items for characters wgo don't even need them now. If I as a GM want to give out a lesser +N magic item I need to fight against the player desire to turn it into a stat=9 -> stat=19 item& the 16(18) +4 format doesn't even exist to them. Having magic items required was a good thing.
 


Bill Zebub

“It’s probably Matt Mercer’s fault.”
Expect: relatively minor tweaking of character options.

Hope: get rid of ASIs or at least put them in +1 feats. New Monster manual with more interesting/varied abilities and tactics, especially that get recharged on a nat 20. Inspiration officially re-roll. Every class gets a signature ability that costs inspiration.

And a pony. I want a pony.
 

masshysteria

Explorer
I'm hoping to see the following:
  • A better economy. What do players do with all the gold that is awarded to them? What does the magic item economy look like (the answer to this may differ in based on campaign setting and I'd love it: Eberron v. Dark Sun v. Forgotten Realms)?
  • Uses for all the saving throws or a return to Fortitude, Will, and Reflex. Some saves just never seem targeted by spells or monsters and therefore the presidencies in them seem wasted. If there is a return to the three saves, some sort of 4e like conversion rule of taking the higher of either X or Y legacy save and applying it to Z new save could work.
  • A Charisma caster converted to a Constitution caster. There are too many charisma casters right now with the Bard, Sorcerer, and Warlock. At a table with these you end up with a lot of skill overlap. Changing the Warlock or Sorcerer to Constitution could really set them apart from other casters. They would be better at Concentration checks and have more hit points, open them up for new styles of play.
  • The return of the Warlord class. I know parts of it are found in things like the Battle Master and it had a lot of powers based in grid-based combat. But I'd love to see it be reworked and leveraging 5e's cool additions like advantage and inspiration, in addition to movement, temporary hit points, and saving throws.
 

Even during the pre-d20 era magic items were extremely important in ways that don't apply to 5e because PCs are so comparatively godlike now with the extreme lack of risk/letality/resource attrition. That's further compounded because 5e decided there was One True Way and Only One True Way of stat=19 items for characters wgo don't even need them now. If I as a GM want to give out a lesser +N magic item I need to fight against the player desire to turn it into a stat=9 -> stat=19 item& the 16(18) +4 format doesn't even exist to them. Having magic items required was a good thing.

I am sorry, I can't follow your train of thought. But that is probably on me.
I really don't want to have the +2/4/6 items back, as it makes the rich even richer. I always thought that items which help the poor are better designed. So now the weak character can feel nearly as mighty as the strength guy, but not quite.

I like it, if magic items change the way a character will play. For me it makes the game more interesting. To start with a concept and see how the character develops, due to need of the group, story reasons, or because they find some new magic item.

This is also the reason why I endorse multiclassing as it works in 5e. It allows me to develop my character in very different ways. Feats help too. And subclasses, and some class abilities that allow for a choice.

I don't like builds that are planned from the beginning and need certain items to function.
In 3e and 4e, in my opinion, magic items lost the magic and became tools to increase numbers, just to keep up with expected target numbers.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
I am sorry, I can't follow your train of thought. But that is probably on me.
Harry ford once famously said something like ""any customer can have it in painted any color you want as long as that's black" 5e makes a lot of design choices that are of a similar restricted logic while claiming that 5e is designed to enable you to do what you want.
I really don't want to have the +2/4/6 items back, as it makes the rich even richer. I always thought that items which help the poor are better designed. So now the weak character can feel nearly as mighty as the strength guy, but not quite.

I like it, if magic items change the way a character will play. For me it makes the game more interesting. To start with a concept and see how the character develops, due to need of the group, story reasons, or because they find some new magic item.

This is also the reason why I endorse multiclassing as it works in 5e. It allows me to develop my character in very different ways. Feats help too. And subclasses, and some class abilities that allow for a choice.

I don't like builds that are planned from the beginning and need certain items to function.
In 3e and 4e, in my opinion, magic items lost the magic and became tools to increase numbers, just to keep up with expected target numbers.
If you don't want to have +2/+4/+6 items in your game there's a simple solution for that. Specifically you should not give them out in your game. 5e makes the design choice of "some people don't want +2/+4/+6 items in their game so nobody needs them to exist". I could gave said bring back rather than change x to y, but maybe that word choice is frustration over fighting 5e's enforced one true way for so many years. With 5e being tuned so players almost always succeed the difference between +4 &from an item +5 from a base stat is that the character with the +4 from an item almost always succeeds at the thing associated with the item and has a +5 elsewhere to almost always succeed on some other area as well.
 
Last edited:

Harry ford once famously said something like ""any customer can have it in painted any color you want as long as that's black" 5e makes a lot of design choices that are of a similar restricted logic while claiming that 5e is designed to enable you to do what you want.

If you don't want to have +2/+4/+6 items in your game there's a simple solution for that. Specifically you should not give them out in your game. 5e makes the design choice of "some people don't want +2/+4/+6 items in their game so nobody needs them to exist".

Maybe you misunderstood me. I took your word as: replace my 19 stat item with your +2/+4/+6 stat item.
I don't want your stat items back if they replace mine.
If both are in the game, I can live with that.
Maybe I misunderstood you, then I am sorry. Otherwise, you would do exactly what you try to read into my statement.

And no. I would prefer if they don't come back, because it takes up space that could be used for things I like more.
But I won't come here crying if they end up along with the items I like, and maybe even use them once in a while.

Btw, there are already +2 items in the game: ioun stones, and my character uses one of them.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
Maybe you misunderstood me. I took your word as: replace my 19 stat item with your +2/+4/+6 stat item.
I don't want your stat items back if they replace mine.
If both are in the game, I can live with that.
Maybe I misunderstood you, then I am sorry. Otherwise, you would do exactly what you try to read into my statement.

And no. I would prefer if they don't come back, because it takes up space that could be used for things I like more.
But I won't come here crying if they end up along with the items I like and, as you say, just don't use them.
I could have worded the original better & didn't consider people maybe liking what the stat=19 type brings to their game. I don't really care if they both exist or if body slots and attunement slots both exist but as a GM trying to force one back in. If I try it tends to result in one of two things:
  • "It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it." - Bob feels like body slots are more restrictive than attunement slots because he can't do something like use bracers of archery ogre power & defense all together(yes that's the point they serve & why I want them). so bob drags his feet & fights it tooth & nail with any petty oops or petty time wasting can I x explain Y hoping to get the thing he doesn't want dropped
  • I tell the group there is no way they are getting an attribute=19 item but attribute +2/+4/+6 items exist - Bob really wants an attribute=19 so pushes for it over & over again while invoking the depends on not understanding it part of the last one & refusing to track base(modified) scores or expressing confusion over things like "complex houserules" at any point he can.
If both existed in the core system it would simply be a matter of saying "we are using x" or "nope you don't find it & I can tell you that you never will"
 

I could have worded the original better & didn't consider people maybe liking what the stat=19 type brings to their game. I don't really care if they both exist or if body slots and attunement slots both exist but as a GM trying to force one back in. If I try it tends to result in one of two things:
  • "It's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it." - Bob feels like body slots are more restrictive than attunement slots because he can't do something like use bracers of archery ogre power & defense all together(yes that's the point they serve & why I want them). so bob drags his feet & fights it tooth & nail with any petty oops or petty time wasting can I x explain Y hoping to get the thing he doesn't want dropped
  • I tell the group there is no way they are getting an attribute=19 item but attribute +2/+4/+6 items exist - Bob really wants an attribute=19 so pushes for it over & over again while invoking the depends on not understanding it part of the last one & refusing to track base(modified) scores or expressing confusion over things like "complex houserules" at any point he can.
If both existed in the core system it would simply be a matter of saying "we are using x" or "nope you don't find it & I can tell you that you never will"

They both exist already. At least the +2 versions for certain stats.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top