The (un)official D&D Next Playtest thread

[sparkletwist]

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);

In other words, it works fine, but only if you assume that you're using rules different from the ones that are actually provided. :P

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).

The Rogue is definitely quite powerful now. Considering the previous iteration was next to useless, they probably felt the need to do something-- did they take it too far? Perhaps. I'm not wild about the fighter, though. He gets more abilities but I also think his life is rougher; his HP is down while monster damage is up. For the guy who's supposed to be on the front lines, that's a bad thing. For example, a lucky orc can one-shot him, now.

I'd rather the human get some comparable abilities, instead of just a bump to everything.

That would require giving humans some specific niche rather than making them the "versatile" and "adaptable" race. I like that idea but D&D never has.

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.

I wasn't concerned about abuse, really, so much as being a trap option. As you've pointed out, Con is very useful-- so taking a class that can get Con and then taking Rogue seems to be superior to taking Rogue and then that other class.

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?).

I don't like rolling for HP, so I'm fine with it, but I don't see why they even keep the option around except as a sacred cow.

[Elemental_Elf]

I know people that absolutely love rolling everything. HP, ability scores, etc. They *hate* being told to use Arrays/point buy and taking a static number of HP.

[Elemental_Elf]

What are your guy's feelings about how the Cleric's mechanics are very much tied to his Domain? Like how the Sun Cleric doesn't have the same weapon or armor  proficiencies as the War Cleric? From a fluff stand point, it makes sense but from a game stand point, I'm unsure.

[sparkletwist]

So, hey, look at the dates on the last posts before mine. The D&D Next guys have been at this for over a year now and they're still at the "hey, these mechanics would be kind of cool, let's try this" stage. That's like a homebrew pace of development... and doesn't inspire much confidence at all.

Anyway, here's the latest "innovation."

So now D&D Next characters will have aspects ideals and flaws that can be compelled used in some vague way* for fate points inspiration, which lets you get various mechanical bonuses on rolling dice.

* Maybe the actual rules go into more detail than just "the DM arbitrarily chooses when to give it to you," like an actual system like invoking or compelling or something. Or maybe they don't. I have no idea what they're even doing anymore and I don't think they do either. I actually like the mechanic, but, due to precedent so far, I'm not at all convinced at this point they'll be able to implement it competently.

[Elemental_Elf]

I love the direction Next is going in, it really seems to be encapsulating the best essences of previous editions and distilling them down into a better all around game.

I've often used carrots like this "inspiration" to get players to think more like their characters would. In previous editions, it would be bonus XP, actions points, lower DC's, etc. I like the idea of a more codified system as it will push players who are perhaps not the best roleplayers into doing more roleplaying, which can only lead to a better all around game. It could be seen as a cudgel but, some times, cudgels are necessary.

[sparkletwist]

I like the idea of a more codified system as it will push players who are perhaps not the best roleplayers into doing more roleplaying, which can only lead to a better all around game.

I like the idea of a more codified system, too. However, what they presented (at least in that article) just isn't anything that seems like a codified system. The sense I got was them basically saying "the DM awards these whenever." That sounds more like someone's hastily constructed house rule. You'd think that for a published rule set they'd have some actual and defined triggers and mechanics-- and if they did have these things, you'd think they'd want to tease them a bit in their article, instead of seeming vague and annoying people like me.

I just don't see how they're going to accomplish anything good with this pace and style of development.

[Elemental_Elf]

I like the idea of a more codified system as it will push players who are perhaps not the best roleplayers into doing more roleplaying, which can only lead to a better all around game.

I like the idea of a more codified system, too. However, what they presented (at least in that article) just isn't anything that seems like a codified system. The sense I got was them basically saying "the DM awards these whenever." That sounds more like someone's hastily constructed house rule. You'd think that for a published rule set they'd have some actual and defined triggers and mechanics-- and if they did have these things, you'd think they'd want to tease them a bit in their article, instead of seeming vague and annoying people like me.

I just don't see how they're going to accomplish anything good with this pace and style of development.

Next has to walk a fine line between staying traditional and changing things. D&D is not known as a system that rewards roleplaying, so the designers need to tread carefully.

Mike Mearls' job is focused on setting up the big picture and the tone of the whole line, rather then getting into the fiddly bits of the system.

I don't know if you listen to the Podcasts or the (nearly weekly) gaming sessions but Mike has teased this concept a few times. My guess is that he didn't want to reveal any mechanics until they had been tested thoroughly internally and in the closed Beta. My guess is that these RP mechanics will be revealed in the next Playtest Packet.

Personally, I think the biggest issue is going to be balance. You don't want a system that is too easy to metagame but you also don't want a system that is all DM fiat.

What I'd be interested in how they create the system.

So let's say a Thief likes to rob from the rich. So if he sees a near-do-well noble walking down the street, would the Thief be given advantage on his Thievery check to cut the noble's coin purse?

That's easy enough to adjudicate.

What if the Ranger is sworn to slaying Undead. Does he always get advantage on attacks against Undead, or only against Big Bad Undead? Perhaps that is too general? Yeah, probably. We need to delve into the world a bit, so he despises Death Lord Blueberry Waffle and would only get "inspired" when he confronts the Death Lord. I'd wager the Ranger would even be inspired when trying to convince the King of the threat that Death Lord Blueberry Waffle posses.

[beejazz]

I'm with sparkletwist on the pace bit. If there's any real risk that I'll finish my homebrew before they finish Next, I take that as a bad sign.

[Elemental_Elf]

My guess is that they already have the bulk of the game fairly well codified, all that's left is tightening up the math of the system and deciding which rules will be apart of the core game and which rules will be apart of the modular/extra rules.  We, the public, are never given a truly good idea of where that line will fall because we are being used as guinea pigs to test out variant rules as well as math and expectation tweaks.

My guess is that D&D Next will be released next summer, a few months before GenCon, with the first official supplement being sold at that con. If that is the case, then WotC needs to be completely done with the system some time around January (which includes formatting and editing).

With that in mind, my guess will be that we will see 1 or 2 more packets, probably focusing more heavily on the variant rules than anything else.

[sparkletwist]

My guess is that they already have the bulk of the game fairly well codified, all that's left is tightening up the math of the system and deciding which rules will be apart of the core game and which rules will be apart of the modular/extra rules.

This just came out today.  :ill:
This is beyond just "tightening up" the basic math. They're still trying to figure out the core concepts like "what bonus should I end up with at 20th level" and "what should my DCs be." They're also positing a total growth of bonuses of +5 over 20 levels, which seems absurdly small relative to the kind of growth in capabilities that D&D players have kind of gotten accustomed to, and more than likely leads to all sorts of mathematically untenable situations. If HP is the only thing that grows, then everything either turns into a boring slugfest or save-or-lose becomes king depending solely on how good save DCs are... and it seems like the saving throws don't grow very fast.

If they still haven't figured basic math stuff like this out, I have no idea what is in the book that they are selling for $30 of actual money at Gen Con next month.

[Llum]

As someone who likes fiddling with systems and has used a decent amount of math in my life, it really worries me that they seem to be taking the math as almost an afterthought. To me that's the main thing to decide, it's VERY easy to add on flavour and characters after the math is solid. The way they went about means they have to keep revising the same stuff over and over. Just comes across as inefficient.

[beejazz]

As someone who likes fiddling with systems and has used a decent amount of math in my life, it really worries me that they seem to be taking the math as almost an afterthought. To me that's the main thing to decide, it's VERY easy to add on flavour and characters after the math is solid. The way they went about means they have to keep revising the same stuff over and over. Just comes across as inefficient.

Personally, I figured out procedural stuff somewhat separately from the core math (for example I decided that I wanted active defense and wound mechanics before deciding precisely what my damage vs DR would be, and decided roughly how skills would work before deciding the precise bonus from training). But the math also ought to be goal oriented. I waffled back and forth for a bit on my ability mod and skill training values, but I always knew I wanted the worst and best possible totals within a ten point range of each other.

It's been a long time since I felt Next had a clear set of goals for the numeric bits to really serve. And without that the best they can do is luck into something that works well enough.

EDIT: As usual, I'm peeved that low level spells get low DCs and high level spells get high DCs. I prefer flat saves/attacks on most spells, and the reverse arrangement on enchantments and fight-enders.

[Steerpike]

Interesting article there, sparkletwist.  I'd be more troubled, but I don't really care much about "official" D&D these days, so seeing this stuff doesn't worry me, really.

Some thoughts on specific things...

We want to focus on growing hit points, rather than attack or saving throw bonuses (or DCs), as the way we reflect growing character power.

This seems like a strange way to go, to me.  Scaling hit points are probably the least plausible thing in D&D, and lots and lots of variant rules/hacks (E6, Wounds and Vigor, lowering the Massive Damage Threshold, etc) specifically address the "TOO MANY HP!" issue.  It seems to me that attack rolls (i.e. your accuracy with a weapon) would be the most obvious candidate to have scale, since it represents training and experience with a weapon.  Likewise one would assume that things like skill and saving throw DCs should scale a lot to represent the diverse array of challenges characters could face.

Keeping numerical bonuses under control means that the gaps between characters don't grow too large.  Since the gap doesn't grow too large, you don't have to rely on system mastery—your mastery of how to manipulate the game system—to make an effective character. You can make a better character (character optimization is fun for many gamers) but it isn't an "I win!" card.
Since AC, attack, and saving throw numbers don't grow too much, low-level monsters can still hit and damage you (though for a smaller portion of your hit points) as you reach higher levels.

I can get behind this sentiment.  It addresses one of 3.X's bigger problems, and suggests a return to the vulnerability and lethality that marked D&D in days of yore, although bloating HP could just make this weird.  Who knows whether the execution will work at all in practice.

Saving throws against effects that take you out of the fight, like a ghoul's paralysis, mess up monster scaling. A ghoul is equally deadly to a 3rd- or 17th-level fighter. If either one blows a saving throw, the fighter is out of the battle.

This sets off warning lights in my head.  It smacks heavily of the scaling obsession that bugs me in 4E, in which large amounts of time and energy and spent fretting about whyat constitutes an appropriate challenge and what kind of standardized treasure such a challenge should reward and blah blah blah this is not how I have ever decided on which monsters to use.  If they start taking out abilities like this to make the scale prettier it's going to suck.  In previous editions, a ghoul is not equally deadly to a 3rd and 17th level fighter because the 17th level fighter not only has higher saving throws, they should have the resources (gold, hirelings, access to wizards) to get a few potions of Remove Paralysis (and someone to force it down their mouth).  Plus the 17th level fighter probably has sufficient AC/initiative to one-shot the ghoul before it touches them.  So if their changes to the way abilities scale results in the culling of such iconic abilities as a ghoul's paralysis... that sucks.

We're pushing the DCs used by player character casters down a bit and factoring effective spell level into the equation. Thus, a high-level wizard has lower saving throw DCs for weaker spells and higher ones for stronger ones

This is exactly how spell DCs worked in 3.X... I approve, basically, but it's hardly an innovation.

[Elemental_Elf]

My guess is that they already have the bulk of the game fairly well codified, all that's left is tightening up the math of the system and deciding which rules will be apart of the core game and which rules will be apart of the modular/extra rules.

This just came out today.  :ill:
This is beyond just "tightening up" the basic math. They're still trying to figure out the core concepts like "what bonus should I end up with at 20th level" and "what should my DCs be." They're also positing a total growth of bonuses of +5 over 20 levels, which seems absurdly small relative to the kind of growth in capabilities that D&D players have kind of gotten accustomed to, and more than likely leads to all sorts of mathematically untenable situations. If HP is the only thing that grows, then everything either turns into a boring slugfest or save-or-lose becomes king depending solely on how good save DCs are... and it seems like the saving throws don't grow very fast.

If they still haven't figured basic math stuff like this out, I have no idea what is in the book that they are selling for $30 of actual money at Gen Con next month.

I read that very differently. What I see is the designers trying to gauge our reaction and seeing where we expect to be at 20th level.

One of the stated goals with Next is to simplify the game to the point where you do not need complex class builds or a Christmas tree magic items to be effective. One of the ways the designers are doing this is by sticking to bounded accuracy. Players cannot go above an 18 (or is it 20 now?) in an ability score. They do not need magic items to be successful. They do not gain bonuses to attacks as consistently as they had in previous editions. They've gone on record as saying a +1 Sword is just as meangingful and useful to a player at level 1 as it is at level 20 (compared with older editions where a +1 Sword becomes vender trash quite quickly).

What this means is that monsters are always going to be a threat to player characters but they will not be as deadly of a threat. So at Level 1 if you fight an Orc, he is a SERIOUS challenge. At 20th level, that single Orc can still hit and wound you but that wound isn't very serious. However, if you get a whole horde of Orcs attacking you, suddenly you really do have a big threat on your hands.

What this does it allow the DM to keep using all of the monsters in the monster manual, just altering their numbers to give a challenge.

To be honest, I'm happy that Higher Level's mechanics are not set in stone considering how badly 2E, 3E and 4E all failed to deliver a quality game at those levels.

Having actually run adventures with Next, I will freely admit it is a much deadlier system than 3.5 and especially 4E. However, encounter design - once you wrap your head around it - is pretty gosh darn fun. My Level 2 PC's defeated a Troll (who could have easily one shotted even the Fighter) in combat by using sound tactics (do not engage, run away and shoot it with fire!).The system is also very easy to adjust monster abilities up or down, or even give them class levels.

Also, due to the fact that the system does not use complex board game tactics in the way 3.5 and 4E did, combats just zip by at blinding speeds, even when you have really complex encounters.

[beejazz]

Setting scaling on the damage/hp side as opposed to the bonus/DC side can work, theoretically. I have less of an issue with vanilla hp than I do with the way they often double between levels 1 and 2 (instead of, say, between 1 and 10). But if I'm reading this right, they want check modifiers to scale only about 6 points between the minimum and maximum levels. That's pretty low. I can see reducing it to around 10 or 15, but 6 is taking it a little far.

I'm not surprised to see that save-based fight-enders aren't scaling in the same way that hp do. This can be a feature or a bug if you know it's there and know how to use it (for example, by deliberately making some monsters into a "flatter" challenge that's tough no matter what level you are) but what bothers me here is that anyone was surprised at this outcome.