The (un)official D&D Next Playtest thread

[sparkletwist]

I finally got a download that worked.

After looking over the materials, I have to say, they certainly didn't kill any sacred cows.
If anything, it seems like they took a minor step back, reverting some of the mechanics from 4e to more 3e/PF style, like bringing back Vancian casting. It seems like they've made it so Arcane casting is prepared and Divine casting is spontaneous, but that could just be the test classes. No idea if the sorcerer is going to be coming back.
Daily powers and such are still there, unfortunately, including the completely nonsensical daily powers for martial characters.

It doesn't seem like it has any sort of actual skill system, though, at least that I can discern. But I'm not sure, because the playtest materials are kind of sparse. It's extremely light on non-combat stuff, which is kind of like 4e, it seems.

The guide for DMs has a section about how if a player delivers a brilliant speech in character and then you roll her charisma check and she fails miserably, you should probably just ignore the dice. To me this is about the worst possible approach. If the speech was really that good, you probably should never have rolled at all, or, if the speech was good but the roll was bad, a "Yes, but..." outcome seems to introduce far more interesting possibilities.

I do kind of like the way "Advantage" works, where it skews your likely outcomes high without actually being a concrete bonus that you have to meticulously track.
... oh, and for some reason, you get DR for being drunk.  :huh:

So, those are my initial thoughts... what do all of you think?  :yumm:

[HippopotamusDundee]

I can't download the damn thing - it keeps coming up with "Bad Request" messages.

[Elemental_Elf]

Looking over the rules, I would say the game looks like a mix of 3.5 and 4E, taking the best parts of both and and making a good system.

I'm going to give it a shot here in the coming days, I'll tell you guys how it goes!

[O Senhor Leetz]

You had me at "DR for being drunk."

[Tangential]

Ran through several encounters with a few players. Have consumed all content so far. Seems like late 2e and late 3.0 more than anything, though minimal showings from 1e and 3.5 inspired content exist. 4e's aesthetic and "elegance" have been largely extricated, though some vestiges and lexicon remain. Am happy to answer questions, and will conclude with the thought that while I'm not revolutionized or even impressed, I'd now before willing to write for WotC over Paizo if the chance arose, than any time since 4es launch.

[sparkletwist]

Armor is really messed up. If you've got any kind of Dex bonus, light armor seems to always be the best. Medium armor is never good for anything as far as I can tell.

Pelor Cleric should wear studded leather instead, as he ends up with the same AC and is half price; or spend 25 gp more and buy a chain shirt and get a higher AC, while weighing 5 lbs less. The Fighter can also save 25 gp and 15 lbs and end up with the same AC by buying a chain shirt.

[Elemental_Elf]

I don't see how you can differentiate between 3.0 and 3.5. The only difference between the two was a tightening of rules and giving classes more stuff.

To me, D&D Next still has a ton of 4E elements in it. Look at magic, it no longer has quadratic progression, it is completely linear. You can be healed out of combat by spending Hit Dice (which are just like Healing Surges except more random). Themes and Backgrounds have been retained and expanded upon.

AEUD is gone but that had largely been excised from D&D once Essentials started.

___

As for armor, well that's the way it has always been to some extent. If you had a good DEX, you would almost always stick to light armor. Still, the half-DEX/no-DEX deal is really putting the kibosh on medium and heavy armor. Only Plate and Adamantine look viable (since they offer more protection than a Chain Shirt coupled with a moderate DEX mod).

I think Medium Armor and (especially) Heavy Armor need to have some kind of balancing mechanic, like Damage Reduction to make up for the potential lack of AC. Personally, I think they also need a bump in how much armor they are providing by at least +1.

[Steerpike]

In general, I think Armour as DR works pretty well, it just adds a little extra math.  Pathfinder has some Armour as DR house rules that convert 3.5 armour into DR-based armour - I haven't tried them out but I'm increasingly impressed with Pathfinder as a heroic fantasy system these days (running a Planescape game right now using Pathfinder).

If the speech was really that good, you probably should never have rolled at all, or, if the speech was good but the roll was bad, a "Yes, but..." outcome seems to introduce far more interesting possibilities.

This is an excellent point, and a great way of handling cludgy social mechanics!  Do you have any examples of "yes but..." social scenarios?

[Weave]

I haven't much been able to look at the 5E playtest, but from what I've read of the various praises and complaints, I have mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I like the sound of returning to older iterations of the game because it appeals to my days of yore where only a worn PHB, DMG, MM, and several torn character sheets were all I carried with me (I know, I know, I'm still a youngster compared to many). On the other, I can't help but sympathize to those who are complaining about this "return to the past." I've never been a huge fan of Vancian spellcasting, so I can't help but wonder why they'd return to that awkward system except to appeal to the "grognards" of the gaming community which, to me, is designing for the wrong reasons. Sure, I get the business behind drawing an older crowd, but I'm not convinced the cludgy system of spellcasting was worth pitching in; make a good system that appeals to the older crowd, don't just rehash the old. Granted, this is a playtest, so I'm by no means ready to spout fire and brimstone at it. I actually have high hopes for this!

Is the fighter still a big dumb meat stick? I never understood why when a player picked a spellcasting class they got to play in Harry Potter world (big flashy spells and cool effects), but if you grab a fighter or any other mundane class, you're stuck in Middle Earth (perhaps with the exception of the monk, which wants to be in a cheap kung fu movie but even fails at that).

In general, I think Armour as DR works pretty well, it just adds a little extra math.  Pathfinder has some Armour as DR house rules that convert 3.5 armour into DR-based armour - I haven't tried them out but I'm increasingly impressed with Pathfinder as a heroic fantasy system these days (running a Planescape game right now using Pathfinder).

PF is a great system. If I may add something, I also think PF is an example of how not to do 5E. PF has a lot of its own issues, many of which are just carried over from 3.5 (PF is still a vast improvement, however), but in my opinion, 5E needs to break the bonds of being bogged down by appealing to older systems and make a good, sleek design, not just 4.5E or 2.5E or whatever.

As an aside, I love that they're pushing to make grid combat optional; I completely agree that the grid breaks immersion more often than not.

[sparkletwist]

Not only are they going back to pre-4e-style Vancian spellcasting, they're going back to the rather stupid AD&D convention of, "you memorize the spell, and once you cast it, it magically disappears from your memory." Why? I have no idea. Maybe it just goes with their whole thing of randomly reintroducing stupid old 2e things so that it "feels more like D&D" or something-- like, seriously, why are we rolling for HP again?

As far as I can tell, the star of the playtest classes is the Cleric. He's pretty good at wading into combat, especially since BAB is gone so his attack rolls aren't going to be that much worse than a Fighter's. Plus, he can heal, turn undead, and whatever. The Fighter has some twice a day (yes, they kept daily powers for martial characters, which also annoys me) ability where he can make an extra attack-- the Cleric, on the other hand, has a spell that lets him summon a magic hammer that goes around automatically making extra attacks for one minute, so, effectively, for that entire fight.

Meanwhile, the Rogue wins the LVP award, with feats that "grant" abilities to do things the rules already say that you can do, like get Advantage when attacking from a hidden position. :?:

[Weave]

Not only are they going back to pre-4e-style Vancian spellcasting, they're going back to the rather stupid AD&D convention of, "you memorize the spell, and once you cast it, it magically disappears from your memory." Why? I have no idea. Maybe it just goes with their whole thing of randomly reintroducing stupid old 2e things so that it "feels more like D&D" or something-- like, seriously, why are we rolling for HP again?

Yeesh, they reintroduced rolling for HP? Yikes...

As far as I can tell, the star of the playtest classes is the Cleric. He's pretty good at wading into combat, especially since BAB is gone so his attack rolls aren't going to be that much worse than a Fighter's. Plus, he can heal, turn undead, and whatever. The Fighter has some twice a day (yes, they kept daily powers for martial characters, which also annoys me) ability where he can make an extra attack-- the Cleric, on the other hand, has a spell that lets him summon a magic hammer that goes around automatically making extra attacks for one minute, so, effectively, for that entire fight.

Meanwhile, the Rogue wins the LVP award, with feats that "grant" abilities to do things the rules already say that you can do, like get Advantage when attacking from a hidden position. :?:

Daily powers on a fighter are a big no-no for me. Maybe in some stylized anime/DBZ D&D mashup, but fighters "forgetting" how to do their moves in the middle of the day just irks me. Also, when you have to shape your setting to the system mechanics so that they make sense, then it's probably time to look at a new system.

[LordVreeg]

Not only are they going back to pre-4e-style Vancian spellcasting, they're going back to the rather stupid AD&D convention of, "you memorize the spell, and once you cast it, it magically disappears from your memory." Why? I have no idea. Maybe it just goes with their whole thing of randomly reintroducing stupid old 2e things so that it "feels more like D&D" or something-- like, seriously, why are we rolling for HP again?

As far as I can tell, the star of the playtest classes is the Cleric. He's pretty good at wading into combat, especially since BAB is gone so his attack rolls aren't going to be that much worse than a Fighter's. Plus, he can heal, turn undead, and whatever. The Fighter has some twice a day (yes, they kept daily powers for martial characters, which also annoys me) ability where he can make an extra attack-- the Cleric, on the other hand, has a spell that lets him summon a magic hammer that goes around automatically making extra attacks for one minute, so, effectively, for that entire fight.

Meanwhile, the Rogue wins the LVP award, with feats that "grant" abilities to do things the rules already say that you can do, like get Advantage when attacking from a hidden position. :?:

vancian magic, which I do not personally use but I understand where it comes from, has been part of D&D since the very, very beginning. 0D&D, AD&D, Hoilmes, Metzer, 2e, etc.   Same as rolling for HP.  Same as rolling for stats.  Does not make these things great, but they were very much part of all the early editions of the game. 
I like some things they are doing, and I think making more rules optional is good.  I agree with you guys about the 'at wil' abilities, and the cleric actually seems to be playing like the clerics of old.

[Elemental_Elf]

Daily powers on a fighter are a big no-no for me. Maybe in some stylized anime/DBZ D&D mashup, but fighters "forgetting" how to do their moves in the middle of the day just irks me. Also, when you have to shape your setting to the system mechanics so that they make sense, then it's probably time to look at a new system.

Daily powers for Martial classes are fine. The designers just need to reiterate that a Daily power is actually a really complex set of maneuvers that requires the enemy to be in just the right position to pull off. Getting both of those factors in place happens rarely in combat, you'd be lucky to get it once or twice a day, if you were lucky.

Sure I'd prefer it if Martial classes  only had encounter and at will powers but it isn't like Daily powers are that unrealistic.

_____

As for rolling HP... Yuck. Hate it. But it is easy to House Rule away. I never once rolled for HP in 3.5, my group always took Max HP. This will be no different.

______

In general, I wish they would make the 5E Wizard a blend of the 3.5 Wizard and Sorcerer with the 4E Wizard tossed in. What I mean is, a Wizard should be allowed to prepare x number of spells per day BUT have the versatility to cast Y spells per day. Meaning he can prepare (using 3.5 as a reference) Fireball, Blink and Phantom Steed as his 3rd level spells. Throughout the day, he can cast a total of two 3rd level spells in any combination he prefers (2 fireballs, a fireball and a blink, a blink and a phantom steed, etc.). Finally, add in minor magic spells that can be cast at will.

To me, that system would be best. It gives you breadth (the number of spells prepared), depth (the ability to cast your prepared spells as you see fit) and length (your minor magic helps you to stay relevant for the duration of the day).

However, if this were implemented, then Fighters need a serious over haul.  Encounter powers would be the logical solution.

____

The Cleric is too powerful. He's basically a Fighter with Spells. If you want to be a fighty type,  there's really no reason NOT to go Cleric. It is simply the better option.

_____

Also, what is the point in playing a Human?

_____

[sparkletwist]

Daily powers for Martial classes are fine. The designers just need to reiterate that a Daily power is actually a really complex set of maneuvers that requires the enemy to be in just the right position to pull off.

Eh, a contrived explanation for a dissociated mechanic doesn't really help. At least, it doesn't help me much. Even if they did reiterate that, I personally would still be complaining.  :grin:

As for rolling HP... Yuck. Hate it. But it is easy to House Rule away. I never once rolled for HP in 3.5, my group always took Max HP. This will be no different.

I fully support not rolling HP. However, I think you really should take average, not maximum (e.g., for a d6 hit die, you'd get 3 HP on odd levels and 4 HP on even levels) otherwise it starts doing bad things to the CR system and the amount of HP that the system "expects" you to have vs. what you're really going to be going into the fight with.

I wish they would make the 5E Wizard a blend of the 3.5 Wizard and Sorcerer with the 4E Wizard tossed in. What I mean is, a Wizard should be allowed to prepare x number of spells per day BUT have the versatility to cast Y spells per day. Meaning he can prepare (using 3.5 as a reference) Fireball, Blink and Phantom Steed as his 3rd level spells. Throughout the day, he can cast a total of two 3rd level spells in any combination he prefers (2 fireballs, a fireball and a blink, a blink and a phantom steed, etc.). Finally, add in minor magic spells that can be cast at will.

That would be a really powerful, versatile Wizard. It'd make the Sorcerer pretty much obsolete, but, then again, there was no such thing as a Sorcerer in the old days so depending on how oldschool they want to be, maybe that isn't an issue. I kind of like the idea, but I have a feeling that it would throw game balance out the window-- not just with Fighters, as you have observed, but with every other class, too.

[Elemental_Elf]

Eh, a contrived explanation for a dissociated mechanic doesn't really help. At least, it doesn't help me much. Even if they did reiterate that, I personally would still be complaining.  :grin:

it isn't a perfect explanation but at least is reasonable. Like I said, I would prefer it if Fighters just had Encounter Powers and At Wills.

I fully support not rolling HP. However, I think you really should take average, not maximum (e.g., for a d6 hit die, you'd get 3 HP on odd levels and 4 HP on even levels) otherwise it starts doing bad things to the CR system and the amount of HP that the system "expects" you to have vs. what you're really going to be going into the fight with.

I've never had a problem with it but, then again, my group has always gone for more of a cinematic approach than a gritty reality approach. :)

That would be a really powerful, versatile Wizard. It'd make the Sorcerer pretty much obsolete, but, then again, there was no such thing as a Sorcerer in the old days so depending on how oldschool they want to be, maybe that isn't an issue. I kind of like the idea, but I have a feeling that it would throw game balance out the window-- not just with Fighters, as you have observed, but with every other class, too.

Baring the at wills, they did this in 3rd edition with the Spirit Shaman. The class was fun to play (but a bit gimped for other reasons).

The balancing mechanic would be that the Wizard could not prepare as many spells as he could if he was a 3.x style wizard. The versatility to cast any spell you prepared is balanced by having fewer spells prepared.

Well if they did this for the Wizard, left the cleric alone and boosted the power of the Fighter and Rogue, I think the system would work out.