-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E What was better about the earlier playtest packets?
- Thread starter fjw70
- Start date
Li Shenron
Legend
It's almost hard to remember now...
- I liked having lots of Cleric Deities and Rogue Schemes to choose from, compared to the insufficient amount of the last packet, but that doesn't mean we won't get a decent amount at launch
- I liked previous iterations of many ideas, some of which have become better (e.g. I liked skill dice, but I like the current proficiency rules even more) while others at least haven't got worse (e.g. I liked round-based superiority dice, but I am probably fine with an encounter-based version)
There is only two things that IMHO just got worse, and that's feats and the loss of vancian casters.
I can live with mega-feats, but smaller feats would have definitely worked better in many ways.
I can also live without true vancian casters (they are easy to put back into the game with a simple house rule), but I wonder how many old-schoolers might look at 5e, see spellcasters are not vancian anymore, and walk away.
Then there's stuff I really dislike (e.g. Humans) but never got fixed.
- I liked having lots of Cleric Deities and Rogue Schemes to choose from, compared to the insufficient amount of the last packet, but that doesn't mean we won't get a decent amount at launch
- I liked previous iterations of many ideas, some of which have become better (e.g. I liked skill dice, but I like the current proficiency rules even more) while others at least haven't got worse (e.g. I liked round-based superiority dice, but I am probably fine with an encounter-based version)
There is only two things that IMHO just got worse, and that's feats and the loss of vancian casters.
I can live with mega-feats, but smaller feats would have definitely worked better in many ways.
I can also live without true vancian casters (they are easy to put back into the game with a simple house rule), but I wonder how many old-schoolers might look at 5e, see spellcasters are not vancian anymore, and walk away.
Then there's stuff I really dislike (e.g. Humans) but never got fixed.
TarionzCousin
Second Most Angelic Devil Ever
Our feelings of optimism.... 
Kinak
First Post
I agree with [MENTION=1465]Li Shenron[/MENTION] that it's gotten hard to remember, but I actually ended up with a pretty sizable list... so hopefully your question jogged my memory.
Sorcerer:
For specific things, I thought the playtest sorcerer was a thing of beauty. It still needed to be developed, but it was probably the thing in the whole playtest process I was most excited about.
Simplicity:
In general, complexity increased slowly as we moved forward. Most of those changes were individually fine, but after a few packets, the simplicity that drew me to the early playtest was replaced by a bunch of structured subsystems.
I cringed whenever a new conditional modifier is added because it either means fiddling around with numbers (like 3e/4e) or putting more stress on the advantage/disadvantage mechanic.
Forcing subclasses into every class is probably the best example, though. You basically need it for the cleric and I appreciate what they did with the paladin and druid, but past there I lose interest pretty quickly. I don't think the a la carte fighter and rogue were perfect, for example, but they're far closer to my vision for those classes.
Deity Weapons and Armor:
On the topic of subclasses, cleric deities determining weapon and armor proficiencies was great.
Deadly Strike:
Keeping everyone to one attack a round was apparently a hard sell, but I find advantage and disadvantage mix with multiple attacks like oil and fire.
I like advantage/disadvantage and I don't strongly dislike multiple attacks, but I don't want them in the same game. It's just a mess.
Flat Math:
Underneath the hood of "flat math" there have always been a bunch of bonuses moving around: stats increasing, class abilities, magical items, and so forth.
So it was always kind of a shell game. That's fine. I'm a gamer; I get suspension of disbelief.
But when the developers are singing the praises of flat math, a scaling proficiency bonus is an off note. It also makes proficiency and expertise not even worth tracking (+1 on a d20) at low-levels, which doesn't sit well with me.
Perception:
The biggest thing is probably that the early packets shouted "this could become a great game!" Even if they hadn't changed anything for the worst, the clock running down makes the material look worse under every revision.
So, I could accept the early monsters being a poor fit for my needs, but the later it got, the less forgiving I could be. Subraces could be pulled out at any time, but the longer it went on, the more we appeared stuck with them.
I guess you could say the feature that got lost here is "could easily become a game I want to GM in the remaining time allotted."
Cheers!
Kinak
Sorcerer:
For specific things, I thought the playtest sorcerer was a thing of beauty. It still needed to be developed, but it was probably the thing in the whole playtest process I was most excited about.
Simplicity:
In general, complexity increased slowly as we moved forward. Most of those changes were individually fine, but after a few packets, the simplicity that drew me to the early playtest was replaced by a bunch of structured subsystems.
I cringed whenever a new conditional modifier is added because it either means fiddling around with numbers (like 3e/4e) or putting more stress on the advantage/disadvantage mechanic.
Forcing subclasses into every class is probably the best example, though. You basically need it for the cleric and I appreciate what they did with the paladin and druid, but past there I lose interest pretty quickly. I don't think the a la carte fighter and rogue were perfect, for example, but they're far closer to my vision for those classes.
Deity Weapons and Armor:
On the topic of subclasses, cleric deities determining weapon and armor proficiencies was great.
Deadly Strike:
Keeping everyone to one attack a round was apparently a hard sell, but I find advantage and disadvantage mix with multiple attacks like oil and fire.
I like advantage/disadvantage and I don't strongly dislike multiple attacks, but I don't want them in the same game. It's just a mess.
Flat Math:
Underneath the hood of "flat math" there have always been a bunch of bonuses moving around: stats increasing, class abilities, magical items, and so forth.
So it was always kind of a shell game. That's fine. I'm a gamer; I get suspension of disbelief.
But when the developers are singing the praises of flat math, a scaling proficiency bonus is an off note. It also makes proficiency and expertise not even worth tracking (+1 on a d20) at low-levels, which doesn't sit well with me.
Perception:
The biggest thing is probably that the early packets shouted "this could become a great game!" Even if they hadn't changed anything for the worst, the clock running down makes the material look worse under every revision.
So, I could accept the early monsters being a poor fit for my needs, but the later it got, the less forgiving I could be. Subraces could be pulled out at any time, but the longer it went on, the more we appeared stuck with them.
I guess you could say the feature that got lost here is "could easily become a game I want to GM in the remaining time allotted."
Cheers!
Kinak
Jeff Carlsen
Adventurer
There are a few things I miss from the earlier packets, though I'm not certain that they're better than what we have now.
Maneuver List: I really like the idea of a martial equivalent of a spell list with generic maneuvers. But, it was complex, and some of them didn't work very well.
Superiority Dice as a Round by Round Resource: This was the single coolest innovation of the entire playtest. Balanced or not, it was very evocative, and I'm sad to see it go. I still would like to see it become the basis for the Psion.
Auto-success Threshold: In the earliest packets, if your ability score was higher than the DC, you succeeded without rolling. It wasn't perfect, and it's probably best that it was removed, but I still liked it.
Maneuver List: I really like the idea of a martial equivalent of a spell list with generic maneuvers. But, it was complex, and some of them didn't work very well.
Superiority Dice as a Round by Round Resource: This was the single coolest innovation of the entire playtest. Balanced or not, it was very evocative, and I'm sad to see it go. I still would like to see it become the basis for the Psion.
Auto-success Threshold: In the earliest packets, if your ability score was higher than the DC, you succeeded without rolling. It wasn't perfect, and it's probably best that it was removed, but I still liked it.
For me there are both big things a littler ones.
Big Thing #1. Cleric and Rogue build options.
Yes. Earlier packs had much more immediately flexible clerics and rogues, with a greater range of designs possibilities. Viable rogues could be built with Dexterity almost as a dump stat if you wanted. That's no longer the case. The very first pack had rouges with the ability to select two backgrounds (the second had to be thief or Thug; I still think that was brilliant, and should be brought back.
Big thing #2 Skills not tied to a specific ability. The skill system has become less robust as we've progressed, and it's taken us away from ability checks being the primary thing.
Some little things (in which I recognize my views may be idiosyncratic):
1. Laser clerics gone. The wording of burning hands (the cleric combat cantrip) was changed so that it's a save-to-avoid rather than an attack-to-hit. This, for me, removes a longstanding build possibility.
2. Necromancer. Back when feats and backgrounds were combined, there was an attempted presentation of Necromancers. It was evocative, with some terrible flavour text, but it was something that could be part of the design of a cleric or a wizard equally, and was a cool implementation.
3. Tools. Tools and proficiencies have become clunky and inefficient, I feel.
4. Ability boosts. I'm not wild about the +2 to an ability score as the default advance, and would be fine if that weren't even available.
5. Half-races. I don't like half elves and half orcs being cast among the optional races. They suffer so much growing up anyways, isn't this the final indignity?
Big Thing #1. Cleric and Rogue build options.
Yes. Earlier packs had much more immediately flexible clerics and rogues, with a greater range of designs possibilities. Viable rogues could be built with Dexterity almost as a dump stat if you wanted. That's no longer the case. The very first pack had rouges with the ability to select two backgrounds (the second had to be thief or Thug; I still think that was brilliant, and should be brought back.
Big thing #2 Skills not tied to a specific ability. The skill system has become less robust as we've progressed, and it's taken us away from ability checks being the primary thing.
Some little things (in which I recognize my views may be idiosyncratic):
1. Laser clerics gone. The wording of burning hands (the cleric combat cantrip) was changed so that it's a save-to-avoid rather than an attack-to-hit. This, for me, removes a longstanding build possibility.
2. Necromancer. Back when feats and backgrounds were combined, there was an attempted presentation of Necromancers. It was evocative, with some terrible flavour text, but it was something that could be part of the design of a cleric or a wizard equally, and was a cool implementation.
3. Tools. Tools and proficiencies have become clunky and inefficient, I feel.
4. Ability boosts. I'm not wild about the +2 to an ability score as the default advance, and would be fine if that weren't even available.
5. Half-races. I don't like half elves and half orcs being cast among the optional races. They suffer so much growing up anyways, isn't this the final indignity?
Last edited:
GMforPowergamers
Legend
a rogue quick talking ability that was based on cha and mimicked a low level charm spell
Rangers with fav enemies that gave bonuses useable against other creatures...
Rangers with fav enemies that gave bonuses useable against other creatures...
The Crimson Binome
Hero
Eh, the game always breaks down at high levels, so the inclusion of high levels in the later packets make those versions less balanced over-all.
Similar Threads
D&D (2024)
Wow, 5.5e characters are STRONG!
