The (un)official D&D Next Playtest thread

[Seraph]

That's weird.  So, what you never improve at fighting?  Are warrior classes permanently at "STR mod+3" while everyone else is at "STR mod"?  That seems to really screw over anyone who a) isn't one of the warrior classes, and b) has a penalty as their STR or DEX mods.

Unless I am either misunderstanding, or Wizards isn't providing enough information.

If it never improves, how would they compensate for the insane ACs of things like Dragons, or the almighty Tarrasque? 

[Superfluous Crow]

By DD do you mean damage-dealing? Because I read it as "D&D spells" which seemed to be very much of an oxymoron :D

Huh, I don't think I've ever had a wizard in my party who didn't prep fireball, but oh well. Although we all know transmutation is the awesomest school.

I can't imagine them diverging from D20 resolution. That's a sacred cow if there ever was one.

Hm, so will the monster AC be scaled down to match with the lower attack bonus or will players have to rely on skills/maneuvers and a plethora of magic items? (EDIT: simultaneous post with S_H)
I think a lot of the progession will hinge on acquiring new awesome maneuvers. So while wizards and fighters have the same "base", fighters can use a maneuver to massively boost their melee attack. This actually makes a fair amount of sense, mechanic-wise.

[Steerpike]

Huh, I don't think I've ever had a wizard in my party who didn't prep fireball, but oh well.

Tarim didn't :P.

[Superfluous Crow]

well, okay heart-ripping > fire, but then again, calling Cadaverous Earth D&D is a stretch even if they both use D20. :P
My point was of course that there are some staple spells (or at least spell categories) which every wizard who wants to hold his own in the progressively tougher battles will have to pick up. At least, the game does little to encourage obscure spell choices.

[Cheomesh]

Cadaverous Earth is, if I remember from when I was last real active, one of the best settings I've read here.

When I DM'd and our spellcasters lasted long enough to get up in spells, Glitterdust was the usual go-to.  I think he only ever prepped Fireball for kicks - it was usually better just to Glitterdust everyone and hew through them.

M.

[sparkletwist]

I think fireball is kind of overrated, personally.
That's the same level you get fly, haste, major image, stinking cloud, summon monster III... need I go on? :D

Anyway, about the hit rolls. I think everyone gets some sort of bonus, because the Wizard has a Str of 8 (-1 penalty) but a +1 to hit. So, maybe warriors get a +3, non-warriors get a +2, or something. I honestly don't know, and the playtest doesn't provide the information, really. It seems like the goal was to prevent the attack rolls from growing quickly and ridiculously, and instead providing more boosts damage. As long as a sense of meaningful growth is still provided, I think this is probably not a bad way to go.

[Cheomesh]

I still don't understand why the elf has only one less hitpoint than the dwarven cleric.

M.

[Superfluous Crow]

Finally got around to downloading the playtest. While I only really skimmed it, I couldn't help but notice that WotC seemed to be more open to qualitative rather than quantitative descriptions of skills and abilities. E.g. stonecunning now gives the dwarf the ability to always gauge his depth and find his way, while the moradin knight theme gives the character free room and board in any place where his knighthood is known and respected.
While social skills like the latter can have repercussions, I still think these two examples hint at a step in the right direction.

[LordVreeg]

The farther they get from 'encounter-centric', the happier I will be.

[Xeviat]

Vreeg, what's the concern with 'encounter-centric' design over 'daily-centric' or 'adventure-centric'. I have always felt that encounter-centric design, especially when concerning combats, allowed for the game to be more balanced. Even in 3E, with the Psionics system and my MP system, I was already looking into cutting the points down to 1/4th and giving those out for each fight. It ensures that no one out-shines the rest. It ensures that no one novas and then calls it a day, thus dictating the pacing of the adventure. It also makes it easier for the DM to design a challenging encounter; I'm one of the furthest things from an antagonistic DM, but I am still disappointed when a fight I had meant to be challenging ends up being an anti-climactic cake-walk.

Extending the encounter-centric design to out of combat scenes was simply a next step in design as far as I was concerned. It's how scenes in action and adventure movies are played out, which inspire many gaming-isms. Scenes out of Indiana Jones, especially.

Now, this doesn't mean that my ideal system would have everything involved in the encounters. I love little incidental abilities. But I really don't like vancian/daily spells; the only strength I can see for them is the ability to design a fight that is meant to tax the players to their fullest capabilities. The flavor of daily vs. encounter for magic refreshing is entirely mutable (it all depends on how long it takes to prepare your spells/gather your mana/pray to your god in your story).

I'm curious about your thoughts, because I'm always looking to improve things.

[sparkletwist]

So, there's a new playtest packet out.
Anyone got it yet? What are your thoughts?

They've added character creation rules to this one. I rather dislike them. Humans are still the "generic" and "versatile" race; it's enough of a D&D trope I guess I should probably be used to it, no matter how stupid it is. Of course, humans get +2 to one stat and +1 to all the others, while all the other races just get +1 to some stat, so humans are both generic and awesome, I guess.

You also get a +1 for picking certain classes as your "first class", which, if it's using 3e style multiclassing, is probably going to lead to weird and dumb situations where it's better to take one class before the other. They should probably either use something closer to 4e style multiclassing or drop the idea. Since the attack bonuses come off a weird table and don't look much like BAB I have no idea how that's supposed to work with multiclassing either.

Medium armor has gone from inferior in all cases to mostly superior, unless your Dex is 18 or something. And since their recommended character creation has gone back to rolling stats (which I also hate, of course) or using a crappy array, with no rules given for point-buy, that means almost nobody using those rules is going to have a Dex of 18.

I'll rant about more once I've read more, I'm sure. :grin:

[Xeviat]

The weapon/armor table is more balanced (if you assume a more forgiving point buy situation than the standard array, in which only a human rogue could get an 18 Dex); the only imbalance in the armor table is that a light armored character will have higher AC than the heavy armor character once they've gotten a few Dex bumps from leveling.

The Fighter looks fun to play now. The Rogue's sneak attack damage is way to high now that there is a way to get sneak attack without giving up an action (Thug rogue and his fighter and cleric friend can swarm someone).

Spell HP thresholds were changed to targeting max HP instead of current HP. This turns them into openers for taking out the trash, instead of finishers. Dislike that change.

Skills were recoupled with specific ability scores; I liked the idea of separating this permanent attachment.

And I still hate the Human. The toughest human is tougher than the toughest dwarf; I don't like it. Maybe if the human got +1 to all stats, and the demi-humans got +2 to 1 stat, I'd be more fine with it. I'd rather the human get some comparable abilities, instead of just a bump to everything.

Oh, and a halfling or elf rogue could have a Dex of 18 at 4th level; just to point that out, using the point buy.

As for the class bonus to a stat; it's not really abusable. Classes get their attack stats, Con, and a thematic stat as favored stats for the most part (rogue doesn't get Con). I'm worried about everyone going for the Con bonus, since Con mod adds to each level's HP again.

Oh, and the fixed HP is better than random HP; I don't see anyone rolling for HP with the option to take 1/2+1 (especially the Wizard; want to roll 1d4 or take 3?).

And the healing/damage from Channel Divinity seems woefully weak.

[Elemental_Elf]

I think this is a sizable upgrade from the previous iteration.

Still hate the monster stat blocks but Mearls said that was going to change in a different packet released down the road. So oh well.

I like the Troll's regeneration. I think their HP is on the low side, most especially when you consider rogues can deal 1 [w] + 6d6 a turn and Fighters 1 [w] + 2d8. Assuming the Rogue is using a Short Sword and the Fighter a Bastard Sword, then on average, the two will be dealing 39 damage(14.5 for the Fighter and 24.5 for the rogue) before you even factor in ability modifiers. That's 60% of the Troll's HP gone in one turn!

But then I realized how dealing damage to it is kind of pointless unless it is Acid or Fire. The Wizard has 2 good spells for this - Fireball and Melf's Acid arrow. Together they deal 44.5 damage. So it would take 2 Melf's Acid Arrows and the Fireball to bring the troll's max HP below his suggested HP of 66. That takes at least 3 turns and assumes the Wizard successfully hits the troll (and/or the Troll fails his saves).

In that time, the Troll gets 2 Claw Attacks (5.5 Damage each) and 1 Bite Attack (8.5 damage) for a total of 18.5 Damage. Assuming he hits with every attack, then he will deal 55.5 damage over the course of the 3 turns it takes the Wizard to down the Troll. A Fighter is only going to have a minimum of 34 HP.

How are the PC's supposed to beat this thing without seeing a character die? In 4E a troll's regeneration simply stopped when he was hit with Acid or Fire damage. This "Next" version will just get right back up even if the PC's knock it to 0 with non-Acid, non-Fire attacks.

Then I saw the bit about the troll dieing if he takes fire or acid damage and he is at 0 HP.

But then I was left with the idea of the "cheap shot" that PC's could do - knock the troll to 0 HP, then smack it with a torch.

That seems very anti-climactic to me.

I like the idea behind the mechanics of the Troll but they need refinement.  

[Xeviat]

The knock it to 0 HP and drop an alchemist fire on it was the tactic used in Baldur's Gate 2 and the Icewind Dale games. Seems like they took it. On it's surface, I liked the way it worked. Now you have me thinking about it.

[Elemental_Elf]

The knock it to 0 HP and drop an alchemist fire on it was the tactic used in Baldur's Gate 2 and the Icewind Dale games. Seems like they took it. On it's surface, I liked the way it worked. Now you have me thinking about it.

Magical fire sounds great. Getting Torch Slapped, does not. :)